Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 661)
Video

[brid video=”24184″ player=”2077″ title=”Hillary Clinton Unable Refuses to Explain Difference Between Democrats and Socialists”]

Chris Matthews stumped Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton on Tuesday during MSNBC’s Hardball when he asked her to explain the difference between Democrats and socialists.

“Well, I can tell you what I am. I am a progressive Democrat,” Clinton said in response to Matthews’ repeated requests for an explanation. “I’m a progressive Democrat who likes to get things done and who believes that we are better off in this country when we’re trying to solve problems together.”

If this sounds familiar, it should. Matthews also asked Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz the same question in August (2015). She, too, refused to answer the question. In fact, even Matthews conceded that she refused to answer the question, not that she couldn’t. She just didn’t know what to say without damaging the party among general election voters.

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn’t answer the question either, I asked her,” Matthews said. “Because I know politically you have to keep together the center left and the left have to still work together.”

TRANSCRIPT (H/T MSNBC)

CHRIS MATTHEWS: OK, last question, we’re running out of time. I want to try to help you for this audience tonight, our audience, locate yourself politically in this country. Now we have Trump out there, and we have Bernie out here. Now Bernie calls himself a Socialist. Nobody uses a derogatory term any more. It’s his — he loves to have that label. He’s never run as a Democrat, he runs against Democrats up there in Vermont. You’re a Democrat. I’d say you’re a pretty typical Democrat, in the tradition of the Democratic Party. And Humphrey and the rest of them. (Scoop) — not even (Scoop), I’d say Mondale. You’re somewhere in there. What’s the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well…

MATTHEWS: Is that a question you want to answer, or would you rather not?

CLINTON: Well, you know, I — you’d have to ask…

MATTHEWS: Well, see, I’m asking you. You’re a Democrat, he’s a Socialist. You — would you like someone to call you a Socialist? I wouldn’t like someone calling me a Socialist.

CLINTON: But I’m not one.

MATTHEWS: OK.

CLINTON: I’m not one.

MATTHEWS: What’s the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat.

CLINTON: Well, I can tell you what I am. I am a progressive Democrat.

MATTHEWS: How’s that different than a Socialist?

CLINTON: I’m a progressive Democrat who likes to get things done and who believes…

MATTHEWS: OK.

CLINTON: …that we are better off in this country when we’re trying to solve problems together.

MATTHEWS: Right.

CLINTON: Getting people to work together. There will always be strong feelings, and I respect that, from, you know, the far right, the far left, Libertarians. But whoever it might be, we need to get people working together. We got to get the ecoomy fixed…

MATTHEWS: OK.

CLINTON: …we got to get all of our problems, you know, really…

MATTHEWS: I know.

CLINTON: …tackled. And that’s what I want to do.

MATTHEWS: I think the difference is, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn’t answer the question either, I asked her. Because I know politically you have to keep together the center left and the left have to still work together. I know all that. Let me ask you about working together. You gave a nice speech here today in Osage about the need to — I wrote a book about Tip and Reagan. When it comes to an urgent issue, they can find a solution.

CLINTON: Right.

MATTHEWS: Obama, and I’ve always supported the President on his philosophy and his general approach to a lot of things, but he doesn’t seem to like the company of fellow politicians. He just doesn’t. He doesn’t want to hang out with them, play cards with them. Mabybe he did it in Springfield. For some reason he doesn’t want to do it in [Washington]. You seem to like the company of people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and you can find a way, and go on and (co deals) with them, and getting along with them. And it seems to me that is an important part of life.

Hillary Clinton refused to explain the difference

Economy

service-sector-employee

A service sector employee sits at his desk. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Non-Manufacturing ISM Report On Business showed service sector growth fell to 55.3 in December from 55.9, far below expectations for a 56 gain. Institute for Supply Management’s gauge of service sector growth is based on data compiled from monthly surveys sent to more than 375 purchasing executives working in the non-manufacturing industries across the country.

Readings above 50 indicate expansion, while those below point to contraction.

“According to the NMI, 11 non-manufacturing industries reported growth in December. Faster deliveries in December contributed to the overall slight slowing in the rate of growth according to the NMI composite index,” said Anthony Nieves, chair of the Institute for Supply Management Non-Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. “All of the other component indexes increased in the month of December. The majority of respondents’ comments remain positive about business conditions and the overall economy.”

The 11 non-manufacturing industries reporting growth in December — listed in order — are: Accommodation & Food Services; Management of Companies & Support Services; Health Care & Social Assistance; Information; Retail Trade; Real Estate, Rental & Leasing; Arts, Entertainment & Recreation; Finance & Insurance; Construction; Professional, Scientific & Technical Services; and Utilities. The five industries reporting contraction in December are: Other Services; Educational Services; Wholesale Trade; Public Administration; and Transportation & Warehousing.

ISM® NON-MANUFACTURING SURVEY RESULTS AT A GLANCE
COMPARISON OF ISM® NON-MANUFACTURING AND ISM® MANUFACTURING SURVEYS*
DECEMBER 2015
Non-Manufacturing Manufacturing
Index Series
Index
Dec		 Series
Index
Nov		 Percent
Point
Change		 Direction Rate
of
Change		 Trend**
(Months)		 Series
Index
Dec		 Series
Index
Nov		 Percent
Point
Change
NMI®/PMI® 55.3 55.9 -0.6 Growing Slower 71 48.2 48.6 -0.4
Business Activity/Production 58.7 58.2 +0.5 Growing Faster 77 49.8 49.2 +0.6
New Orders 58.2 57.5 +0.7 Growing Faster 77 49.2 48.9 +0.3
Employment 55.7 55.0 +0.7 Growing Faster 22 48.1 51.3 -3.2
Supplier Deliveries 48.5 53.0 -4.5 Faster From Slower 1 50.3 50.6 -0.3
Inventories 53.0 54.5 -1.5 Growing Slower 9 43.5 43.0 +0.5
Prices 49.7 50.3 -0.6 Decreasing From Increasing 1 33.5 35.5 -2.0
Backlog of Orders 50.0 51.5 -1.5 Unchanged From Growing 1 41.0 43.0 -2.0
New Export Orders 53.5 49.5 +4.0 Growing From Contracting 1 51.0 47.5 +3.5
Imports 49.0 51.0 -2.0 Contracting From Growing 1 45.5 49.0 -3.5
Inventory Sentiment 64.5 63.5 +1.0 Too High Faster 223 N/A N/A N/A
Customers’ Inventories N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 51.5 50.5 +1.0
Overall Economy Growing Slower 77
Non-Manufacturing Sector Growing Slower 71

* Non-Manufacturing ISM® Report On Business® data is seasonally adjusted for Business Activity, New Orders, Prices and Employment Indexes. Manufacturing ISM® Report On Business® data is seasonally adjusted for New Orders, Production, Employment and Supplier Deliveries.

** Number of months moving in current direction.

The Non-Manufacturing ISM Report On Business showed

Economy

trade-cargo-reuters

A Ferrari cargo crane moves shipping containing on a U.S. trade port. (Photo: Reuters)

The Commerce Department said Wednesday the U.S. trade deficit narrowed 5.0% to $42.4 billion in November, but inventory and export data signal weak 4Q (gross domestic product) GDP. While it is widely believed that inventories fueled much of the drop in imports, the weak data also suggest a slowdown in domestic demand (consumer spending), which was further underscored this month by weaker-than-expected automobile sales in December.

Efforts by businesses to clear inventories pushed imports to their lowest level in nearly five years, outpacing the decline in exports. Trade sliced off 0.26 percentage point from the abysmal 2% GDP growth in the 3Q, and economists this week slashed their fourth-quarter GDP growth estimates by as much as 1% to as low as a 0.5% annual pace.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the U.S. trade deficit widening to $44.0 billion and, when adjusted for inflation, the trade deficit fell to $59.60 billion from $61.03 billion in October. Further, October’s trade deficit was revised up to $44.6 billion from the previously reported $43.9 billion.

The Commerce Department said Wednesday the U.S.

Economy

jobs-search-station-reuters

Job Search Station (Photo: Reuters)

Private sector employment increased by 257,000 jobs from November to December according to the December ADP National Employment Report. The report conducted by the payroll processing firm beat out estimates for 192,000 and was the biggest gain posted since December 2014.

“2015 had a strong close with December showing the largest job gains of the year,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, VP and head of the ADP Research Institute. “Overall, the average monthly employment growth was just under 200,000 for the year in contrast to almost 240,000 jobs per month in 2014. Weakness in the energy and manufacturing sectors was mostly responsible for the drop off.”

However, the gains made last month were nearly entirely attributable to the lower-paying services sector, and November’s payrolls were revised lower by 6,000 to 211,000. Meanwhile, ADP touted that manufacturing stayed in positive territory for the second straight month, adding 2,000 jobs. Unfortunately, the reality of the sector is grim.

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Report On Business activity fell deeper into contraction to 48.2 in December from 48.6 the month prior, missing forecasts. Of the 18 manufacturing industries, only six reported growth and all regional and nationwide indexes are in contraction.

“Strong job growth shows no signs of abating. The only industry shedding jobs is energy,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “If this pace of job growth is sustained, which seems likely, the economy will be back to full employment by mid-year. This is a significant achievement, given that the last time the economy was at full employment was nearly a decade ago.”

The report comes ahead of the more comprehensive, closely-watched survey by the Labor Department. Total non-farm employment is expected to be 200,000. The unemployment rate is forecast to stay steady at 5.0 percent from the 5.0 percent recorded a month earlier.

Private sector employment increased by 257,000 jobs

World

North-Korea-Nuclear-Test

South Koreans watch a TV news program showing North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s New Year speech at the Seoul Railway Station. (Photo: Associated Press)

North Korea claimed early Wednesday it successfully conducted a test of a “miniaturized” hydrogen bomb, calling it a “perfect success” that brought the nation’s “nuclear might to the next level.” The surprise announcement came just hours after seismic activity indicative of an earthquake was detected in North Korea by multiple international organizations.

“The first H-bomb test was successfully conducted in the DPRK at 10:00 on Wednesday, Juche 105 (2016), pursuant to the strategic determination of” the regime’s ruling communist party, the official Korea Central News Agency boasted. The test was “conducted with indigenous wisdom, technology and efforts” and showed “that the technological specifications of the newly developed H-bomb for the purpose of test were accurate and scientifically verified the power of smaller H-bomb.”

However, Pentagon and intelligence officials who spoke to PPD on a condition of anonymity say that they are skeptical about Pyongyang’s claim. An intel official noted that an estimated explosive yield of six kilotons and a magnitude-4.8 earthquake were detected Wednesday, which is a slightly smaller blast than the estimated explosive yield of 7.9 kilotons and magnitude-5.1 quake that were reported after a February 2013 nuclear test by North Korea.

“We condemn any violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions and again call on North Korea to abide by its international obligations and commitments,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. “We have consistently made clear that we will not accept [North Korea] as a nuclear state.”

A Pentagon official also noted that the amount is only a fraction of a typical successful hydrogen bomb test’s explosive yield, which is usually hundreds of kilotons. Still, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed “strong action” against North Korea on Wednesday, calling the test a threat to Japan’s security.

“We absolutely cannot allow this, and condemn it strongly,” he told reporters in Tokyo.

According to Yonhap, South Korea’s National Intelligence Service said North Korea did not inform China of the test. The KCNA’s propaganda-riddled statement began:

“There took place a world startling event to be specially recorded in the national history spanning 5 000 years in the exciting period when all service personnel and people of the DPRK are making a giant stride, performing eye-catching miracles and exploits day by day after turning out as one in the all-out charge to bring earlier the final victory of the revolutionary cause of Juche, true to the militant appeal of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK).”

North Korea claimed early Wednesday it successfully

Opinion

obama guns executive order gun control

President Barack Obama, joined by gun violence vuctims, speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2016, about steps his administration is taking to reduce gun violence. Also on stage are stakeholders, and individuals whose lives have been impacted by the gun violence. (Photo: AP/Carolyn Kaster)

Those who have been marveling at Donald Trump’s political showmanship were given a reminder of who is the top showman of them all, when President Barack Obama went on television to make a pitch for his unilateral actions to restrict gun sales and make a more general case for tighter gun control laws.

It was beautifully choreographed, like a great ballet, and performed with consummate skill and understated eloquence. First of all, the scene was set with a room full of people who had lost loved ones to gun violence. A father whose son had been gunned down made a long introduction before the president showed up, walked down the aisle and up on to the stage to growing applause.

As political theater, it put Donald Trump’s rantings in the shade.

As for the substance of what Obama said, there was very little substance, and much of it false, but one of the signs of great artistry was that the presentation overshadowed the substance.

None of the things proposed by the president is likely to reduce gun violence. Like other restrictions on people’s ability to defend themselves, or to deter attacks by showing that they are armed, these new restrictions can cost more lives on net balance. The most we can hope for is that the effects of the new Obama-created rules will be nil, rather than harmful.

Like most other gun control advocates, President Obama invoked scenes of mass shootings, as if what he is proposing would have prevented those tragedies. But, almost invariably, mass shootings occur in gun-free settings. Yet gun control zealots seem determined to create more gun-free settings.

How often have supposedly mentally unbalanced shooters opened fire at a meeting of the National Rifle Association? They are apparently not that mentally unbalanced. They pick places where people are not likely to shoot back.

A mass shooting at a movie theater a few years ago took place at a theater farther away from where the shooter lived than other theaters in the area that were showing the very same movie. The difference was that this theater had advertised that it was a gun-free zone.

Who is more mentally unbalanced, those who are doing the shooting or those who refuse to examine the facts about what kinds of places attract such shooters? Schools and religious institutions are sitting ducks, and the shootings there have gone on until someone else with a gun showed up on the scene. That is what puts an end to the carnage, not gun control laws.

People who are prepared to defy the laws against murder are not very likely to be stopped by laws against guns. Only law-abiding citizens are likely to be stopped by gun control laws, and to become sitting ducks.

As for facts and statistics, the only ones likely to be mentioned by gun control zealots, including the media, are those on how many people were killed by guns. How many lives were saved by guns will never make it through the ideological filters of the media, the political establishment or our educational institutions.

Yet factual data on how many threats or attacks were deterred in a given year by displaying a firearm have long been available. Seldom is it necessary to actually pull the trigger to get some thug or criminal to back off and go elsewhere, often in some haste.

Are the only lives that matter those that are lost, usually because there is no gun immediately available to protect them, but not the lives saved because they did have a gun at hand to protect them?

Gun control zealots seem especially opposed to people being allowed to carry their guns concealed. But concealed weapons protect not only those who carry them, but also to some extent those who do not, because criminals have no way of knowing in advance who does and does not have a gun.

Muggings and rapes become much more dangerous activities for criminals where many law-abiding people are allowed to carry concealed guns. It can take a lot of the fun out of being a thug.

President Obama said that we are the only “advanced” nation with so much gun violence. But there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than ours and stronger gun control laws. But that leaves the definition of “advanced” to Obama — and makes for clever political theater.
[mybooktable book=”wealth-poverty-and-politics-an-international-perspective” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Forget Donald Trump's political showmanship, Snowman-in-Chief Barack

World

Tehran-Iran-burn-flags

Iranians burn the American and Israeli flags following the announcement of the negotiated nuclear agreement in Tehran. (Photo: Hamed Malekpour)

In a public move designed to humiliate the U.S., Iran on Tuesday unveiled an underground missile depot stocked so full of Emad ballistic missiles that they have no more room for missiles recently produced. The Emad precision-guided missile can deliver a nuclear warhead and is a clear violation of United Nations (UN) resolutions.

The underground facility is located in the mountains and run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. According to a Reuters report, it was unveiled in a video by Tasnim news agency, state television and radio.

“Iran’s depots and underground facilities are so full that they do not know how to store their new missiles,” said Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the Revolutionary Guards’ second-in-command.

The Obama administration says it is “considering” sanctions on individuals and businesses involved in producing the missiles due to recent missile tests, including a “highly provocative” test next to the USS Harry S. Truman. But the international community will continue dismantling sanctions on the Iranian regime as it implements certain aspects of the nuclear deal agreed to by six world powers late last year.

Iran will gain access to upwards of $100 to $150 billion dollars to further its weapons programs and terrorist support globally. With the public display of thumbing its nose at America, the United Nations, and the Obama administration, Iran is stating through its actions that it will threaten the world once it gains nuclear weapons in the time period allowed by the nuclear agreement. This incident is one in a long string of aggressive, illegal actions by Iran since the deal was signed in July 2015.

As the Obama administration moves full steam ahead with the deal in spite of Iran’s actions, the only realistic conclusion is that the White House is complicit in allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them which will threaten the sovereignty and national security of the United States.

Looking for aggregated news you need to know RIGHT NOW about Russia, the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? Try Tsarizm.com now!

[mybooktable book=”currency” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

In a public move designed to humiliate

Politics

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Democratic National Committee

Democratic National Committee chair Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaks at a press conference promoting the endorsement of David Wecht, Kevin Dougherty, and Christine Donohue for Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Heather Arnet for State Senate, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2015, in Pittsburgh. (Photo: AP/Keith Srakocic)

A movement to replace Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is gaining traction among progressives who want her removed from her post immediately. The Washington Times first reported that the progressive advocacy group RootsAction on Tuesday was touting a 4-day-old petition to dump Ms. Wasserman Schultz has already received 23,000 signatures.

The group, among others in the media and opposing party, claim Wasserman Schultz is hurting the Democratic party’s credibility by rigging the presidential primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton.

“The head of one of the two big political parties in the United States is trying to manipulate the presidential election process by limiting direct debate and tilting the national party apparatus in favor of one candidate. This is unacceptable,” RootsAction.org cofounder Norman Solomon told The Times in a statement.

Without a doubt, socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley have criticized the DNC chair for scheduling limited debates during weekends and time slots when fewer viewers and voters will be watching. The latter actually called her out for doing so during the first debate.

As a result, the DNC is holding just six official debates this primary season, with several of those have been held over weekends. In fact, the next debate will take place on Sunday, Jan. 17. Further, the DNC recently revoked Sanders’ access to the party’s master voter list after his operative hacked into voter data for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“The results, thus far, have been bad from the perspective of Wasserman Schultz’s own party, including domination of the media’s extensive election coverage by the other big party. Another result has been reduced exposure for the Democratic candidate polling strongest against Republican rivals, Bernie Sanders,” RootsAction cofounder Jeff Cohen said.

But Wasserman Schultz also recently came under fire last month when her mismanagement of the DNC was revealed in the form of a proposal to redirect funding for children’s disease research in order to pay for the party’s national convention. The CBO revealed the plan “to defray expenses” incurred during the four-day, elaborate charade when they published their scoring in mid-December. The CBO explained that the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act ended the authority to spend resources in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF) for such purposes.

Republicans said they didn’t need to take from the children’s disease fund because, unlike Wasserman Schultz, Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Reince Priebus has been widely praised for his management of the national party’s finances.

In the year since the ban, the DNC has raised $51.2 million through Oct. 31, but spent $53.4 million. Their balance and burn rate is abysmal in the year before major elections, while the RNC raised $89.3 million in the same period and spent only $74 million, stockpiling $20.4 million in cash.

A movement to replace Democratic National Committee

Policy

Trump-Carson-Fox-Business-debate

Ben Carson, right, speaks as Donald Trump listens during Republican presidential debate at Milwaukee Theatre, Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2015, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

When I compared the tax reform proposals of various 2016 presidential candidates last month, Ben Carson got the best grade by a slight margin. But I’ve now decided to boost his overall grade from a B+ to A-, or perhaps even A, because he’s finally released details and that means his grade for “specificity” jumps from a C to A-.

Here’s some of what’s been reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on Monday called for imposing a 14.9% flat tax rate on income, ending taxes on capital gains and dividends and abolishing the charitable deduction and all tax credits.

By the way, the reporter goofed. Carson is proposing to end double taxation of dividends and capital gains, but all income would be taxed. What the reporter should have explained is that capital and business income would be taxed only one time.

But I’m digressing. Let’s review some additional details.

Mr. Carson’s flat tax would apply only to income above 150% of the poverty level… In some respects, Mr. Carson’s plan is similar to those of the other candidates, all of whom want to lower tax rates… But he goes farther, particularly with his willingness to rip up parts of the tax system that have been in place for a century. …In addition to eliminating the charitable deduction and investment taxation, Mr. Carson would also repeal the estate tax, the mortgage-interest deduction, the state and local tax deduction,  depreciation rules and the alternative minimum tax.

Wow, no distorting preferences for charity or housing. And no double taxation of any form, along with expensing instead of depreciation. Very impressive.

Carson has basically put forth a pure version of the plan first proposed by economists at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Perhaps most important of all, Carson’s plan is a flat tax and just a flat tax. He doesn’t create any new taxes that could backfire in the future.

Here’s what the Carson campaign wrote about his flat tax compared to the plans put forth by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Unlike proposals advanced by other candidates, my tax plan does not compromise with special interests on deductions or waffle on tax shelters and loopholes. Nor does it falsely claim to be a flat tax while still deriving the bulk of its revenues through higher business flat taxes that amount to a European-style value-added tax (VAT). Adding a VAT on top of the income tax would not only impose an immense tax increase on the American people, but also become a burdensome drag on the U.S. economy.

I would have used different language, warning about the danger of a much-higher future fiscal burden because Washington would have both an income tax and a VAT, but the bottom line is that I like Carson’s plan because the worst outcome is that future politicians might eventually recreate the current income tax.

What I don’t like about the Paul and Cruz plans, by contrast, is that future politicians could much more easily turn America into France or Greece.

Here’s my video that explains why the flat tax is the best system (at least until we shrink the federal government to such a degree that we no longer need any form of broad-based taxation).

[brid video=”17710″ player=”2077″ title=”The Flat Tax How it Works and Why it is Good for America”]

P.S. If you want to get hyper-technical, Carson’s plan may not be a pure flat tax because he would require a very small payment from everybody (akin to whatGovernor Bobby Jindal proposed). Though if the “de minimis” payment is a fixed amount (say $50 per adult) rather than a second rate (say 1% on the poor), then I certainly would argue it qualifies as being pure.

P.P.S. Carson still has a chance to move his overall grade to A or A+ if he makes the plan viable by proposing an equally detailed plan (presumably consisting ofgenuine entitlement reform and meaningful spending caps) to deal with the problem of excessive government spending.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Dan Mitchell, CATO economist and PPD contributor,

World

American soldiers Afghanistan

FILE – In this Sunday, Oct. 18, 2009 file photo, U.S. Army soldiers stand with Afghan policemen before a joint patrol of Qalanderkhail, outside of Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan. An Afghan official says that a suicide bomber has killed three foreign troops in an attack on a joint Afghan-NATO foot patrol on Monday, Dec. 21, 2015. (Photo: AP/Maya Alleruzzo)

At least one U.S. special operations soldier is dead and two are wounded in an attack by the Taliban in Helmand province Afghanistan Tuesday, PPD confirms. Pentagon officials confirmed that one of the wounded was a member of the helicopter extraction team which came under heavy mortar fire and is now grounded in the hostile area.

The unidentified U.S. special operations soldier is the first American serviceman to lose his life in Afghanistan this year.

A source in the Defense Department tells PPD that forces are mobilizing to rescue the remaining U.S. operators and extraction team. The attack follows a suicide bombing that killed six American soldiers and wounded three NATO troops near the U.S.-run Bagram Airfield in December. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing, which was the largest attack on foreign troops in Afghanistan since August.

However, the presence of the Islamic State in Afghanistan has grown and obfuscated the opposition to U.S.-backed forces in the government. Not only are the Taliban making a comeback in Parwan, Helmand and other provinces, but foreign fighters from the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) and other regions have been pouring into the country. Defense Ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri said among the insurgent forces fighting in Helmand, which is an opium haven for Islamists, “three out of 10 are foreign fighters.”

Muhammad Kareem Atal, the head of Helmand’s provincial council, reenforced Waziri’s concerning account of the realities on the ground.

“Around 65 percent of Helmand is now under Taliban control,” Atal said. “In every district either we are stepping back or we are handing territory over to Taliban, but still, until now, no serious action has been taken.”

At least one U.S. special operations soldier

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe