<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Pentagon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/pentagon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:32:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Ahead of Obama&#8217;s speech, U.S. acknowledges four American drone killings</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/ahead_of_obamas_speech_u_s_acknowledges_four_american_drone_killings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/ahead_of_obamas_speech_u_s_acknowledges_four_american_drone_killings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drones strikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Counterterrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al-Qaida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13306696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Letter from Eric Holder and reports on policy shift do little to allay concerns about endless, boundless drone war]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Thursday, President Obama will give the first major speech on counterterrorism of his second term. The New York Times<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=0&amp;nl=todaysheadlines&amp;emc=edit_th_20130523"> reported</a> that the speech will mark the opening of "a new phase" of counterterror efforts with greater restrictions applied to the use of lethal drone strikes. There's reason for skepticism.</p><p>On Wednesday afternoon, in a letter to Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder for the first time formally acknowledged that U.S. drones had killed four U.S. citizens -- including Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son. Bearing out long-held concerns in the human rights community over the description of these strikes as "targeted" killings, only one of these U.S. citizens (al-Awlaki senior) was on the government's kill list.</p><p>The New York Times' typically administration-friendly report suggests that Obama's speech will hail the dawn of a new age of high precision, unproblematic drone strikes. The language used in Holder's letter, however, alongside recent disturbing comments from top Pentagon officials, give us reason to doubt that the boundless, limitless War on Terror is coming to any sort of clean end.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/ahead_of_obamas_speech_u_s_acknowledges_four_american_drone_killings/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/ahead_of_obamas_speech_u_s_acknowledges_four_american_drone_killings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama to announce new effort to close Guantanamo Bay</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/obama_to_announce_new_effort_to_close_guantanamo_bay/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/obama_to_announce_new_effort_to_close_guantanamo_bay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 13:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guantanamo Bay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Detainees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13306700</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But the Pentagon still wants $450 million for upgrading the prison]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a big counterterrorism speech on Thursday, President Obama will announce a renewed effort to close Guantanamo Bay prison, and will restart transfers of detainees to other countries, reportedly now including Yemen.</p><p>From the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323336104578499433996940490.html">Wall Street Journal</a>:</p><blockquote><p>The U.S. has been in talks with the Afghan government about transferring Afghan detainees from Guantanamo. Human-rights advocates believe these detainees could be among the first transferred.</p> <p>A U.S. official said the transfers to Yemen would begin slowly, starting with two or three detainees, to ensure Yemen can keep track of the detainees and prevent them from joining militant groups. The official said that transfers to Yemen could still be months away.</p></blockquote><p>As the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/pentagon-wants-450-million-for-maintaining-upgrading-guantanamo-prison/2013/05/22/edd4c896-c2af-11e2-9642-a56177f1cdf7_story.html">Washington Post</a> reports, though, the Pentagon is still asking Congress for over $450 million to maintain and upgrade the facilities at Guantanamo Bay, a move that's at odds with the President's announcement:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/obama_to_announce_new_effort_to_close_guantanamo_bay/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/obama_to_announce_new_effort_to_close_guantanamo_bay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon adviser pushed Anthrax drug, which his firm produced</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/pentagon_adviser_pushed_anthrax_drug_which_his_firm_produced/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/pentagon_adviser_pushed_anthrax_drug_which_his_firm_produced/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 18:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anthrax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lobbying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biowarfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biotech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Department]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13303560</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Biowarfare consultant prodded government to stockpile antidote, bringing $334 million to his biotech company]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Los Angeles Times<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-anthrax-resistant-20130519-dto,0,3192936.htmlstory"> investigation</a> published on Sunday revealed how a biowarfare consultant to the Pentagon and DHS urged the government to stockpile a drug that defends against Anthrax -- a drug developed and sold solely by the biotech firm where he served as a director.</p><p>Former Navy Secretary Richard J. Danzig reportedly stressed the imminent threat of an Anthrax attack "while serving as a director of a biotech startup that won $334 million in federal contracts to supply" a drug to defend against it. As the Los Angeles Times reported:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/pentagon_adviser_pushed_anthrax_drug_which_his_firm_produced/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/pentagon_adviser_pushed_anthrax_drug_which_his_firm_produced/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon officials: Drone War on Terror is endless</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/pentagon_official_drone_policy_should_remain_for_at_least_20_years/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/pentagon_official_drone_policy_should_remain_for_at_least_20_years/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 13:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aumf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al-Qaida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13301294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At Congressional hearing, Defense officials defend AUMF and the boundless war-waging powers it grants]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>During a Congressional hearing Thursday on drone strikes carried out by the military, senior defense official Michael Sheehan admitted that the War on Terror is one without end or boundary. The assistant defense secretary told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. military operations against al-Qaida and associated forces "is going to go on for quite a while... beyond the second term of the president. . . . I think it’s at least 10 to 20 years.”</p><p>Sheehan's remarks served as a defense of the military's current drone strike policy. While the majority of U.S. drone strikes are carried out by the CIA and authorized by the president directly, the Pentagon oversees strikes in Pakistan and <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/cia_may_lose_drone_program/">will take increasing control of U.S. drone programs</a>. Sheehan also defended the current structure of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Act (AUMF), passed after 9/11, which, in its present iteration, grants the president wide-ranging powers to wage drone wars. “At this point we’re comfortable with the AUMF as it is currently structured,” said Sheehan. He admitted that there was no expiration date or geographic boundary to the War on Terror.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/pentagon_official_drone_policy_should_remain_for_at_least_20_years/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/pentagon_official_drone_policy_should_remain_for_at_least_20_years/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Where does all our military spending go?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/where_does_all_our_military_spending_go_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/where_does_all_our_military_spending_go_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TomDispatch.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Halliburton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commission on Wartime Contracting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kuwait]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burger King]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KBR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dick Cheney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13298144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As much as $385 billion is being doled out to private companies like KBR, the former subsidiary of Halliburton]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Outside the United States, the Pentagon controls a collection of military bases unprecedented in history. With U.S. troops gone from Iraq and the withdrawal from Afghanistan underway, it’s easy to forget that we probably still have about <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175338/" target="_blank">1,000</a> military bases in other peoples' lands. This giant collection of bases receives remarkably little media attention, <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175627/tomgram%3A_david_vine%2C_the_true_costs_of_empire" target="_blank">costs a fortune</a>, and even when cost cutting is the subject <em>du jour,</em> it still seems to get a free ride.</p><p>With so much money pouring into the Pentagon’s base world, the question is: Who’s benefiting?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/where_does_all_our_military_spending_go_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/where_does_all_our_military_spending_go_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How drones deceive us</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/how_drones_deceive_us/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/how_drones_deceive_us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Targeted killings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yemen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13293345</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The advantage of technologized warfare is also its most worrying: The perception of decreased risk to the aggressor]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the brave new world of technologized warfare, every week seems to bring a new sci-fi-movie-worthy revelation about America's ongoing drone operations. This past week was no exception. From the <a href="http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/may/02/us-drone-strikes-guantanamo">lawyer</a> who first outlined White House policy on drone attacks, we learned that the government is likely using such attacks instead of capturing alleged terrorists, all to avoid the thorny legal issues that come with prisoner detainment. From the <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-should-robots-be-able-to-decide-to-kill-you-on-their-own-20130430">United Nations</a>, we learned that the world may be closer to seeing its first self-directed Terminator-style killing machines -- technically called "Lethal Autonomous Robots" -- than many may have previously thought.</p><p>These kind of stories will continue for one big, if unstated, reason: robotic warfare seems to hold the promise of making many things easier, cheaper and less risky, at least for the countries that operate the drones. But the operative word is "seems," for drones involve a problematic illusion that distorts our perception of the risks we face.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/how_drones_deceive_us/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/how_drones_deceive_us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon study reveals sharp increase in military sexual assault</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/pentagon_study_reveals_sharp_increase_in_sexual_assault/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/pentagon_study_reveals_sharp_increase_in_sexual_assault/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexual assault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Violence Against Women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13292035</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pentagon report estimates that 26,000 service members were sexually assaulted in 2012 ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Pentagon released a study on Tuesday estimating that 26,000 military service members were sexually assaulted in 2012, up from an estimated 19,000 the previous year.</p><p>The report comes only days after Lt. Col. Jeff Krusinski, chief of the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response branch at the Pentagon, was arrested and <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/air_force_officer_heading_sexual_assault_prevention_unit_charged_with_sexual_battery/" target="_blank">charged with sexual battery</a> in Virginia, an incident that has, once again, brought a military culture plagued by rampant sexual violence and failures of accountability from military leadership into stark relief.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/pentagon_study_reveals_sharp_increase_in_sexual_assault/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/pentagon_study_reveals_sharp_increase_in_sexual_assault/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Man of Steel&#8221;: Pentagon propaganda flick</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/man_of_steel_pentagon_propaganda_flic_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/man_of_steel_pentagon_propaganda_flic_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 16:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AlterNet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Man of Steel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battleship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iron man]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13290839</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new "Superman" features F-35 fighter jets that haven't even been approved to fly]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/superman-f35-man-of-steel/">will fly its first mission on June 14, 2013</a>, but it won’t be over Afghanistan, Syria or Yemen. It’ll be over the mythical town of Smallville, in the upcoming <em>Man of Steel. </em>In reality, the F-35 may never fly. The program is currently grounded, due to flight difficulties, after the government poured <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/world/f-35-grounded/">$400 billion</a> into it. Reuters reports that the final cost of the program might be, sit down… <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE8310WB20120402">$1.5 trillion dollars</a>.</p><p>It’s an open secret in Hollywood that before the MPAA reviews many movies, the Pentagon does. David Robb documents the practice in his book <em>Operation Hollywood. </em>Whenever movie producers want to use Pentagon equipment: helicopters, bases, submarines, etc. they send a request to the Pentagon, along with five copies of the script. The Pentagon replies with proposed changes to the script, which the producer must either accept, or forgo the equipment (which disinclines studios to finance the film, since it entails extra costs). Then, while the movie is shot, a “minder” hangs along, to ensure the director sticks to the script. Final approval comes from Pentagon brass who pre-screen and censor the film.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/man_of_steel_pentagon_propaganda_flic_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/man_of_steel_pentagon_propaganda_flic_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon: North Korea close to developing long-range nuclear missile</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/03/pentagon_says_north_korea_is_close_to_developing_long_range_nuclear_missile_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/03/pentagon_says_north_korea_is_close_to_developing_long_range_nuclear_missile_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 21:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GlobalPost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Korea]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13289250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The defense department says Pyongyang is approaching its goal of building a missile that can strike the U.S.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.globalpost.com/"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://images.salon.com/img/partners/ID_globalPostInline.gif" alt="Global Post" /></a>North Korea "will move closer" to developing a long-range nuclear missile that can strike the US, according to the Pentagon's latest assessment.</p><p>In <a href="http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130503000231" target="_blank">a report to Congress</a> released Thursday, the US Defense Department said that North Korea's recent advances in missile technology, as showcased at the height of its standoff with South Korea, were "in line with North Korea's stated objective of being able to strike the US homeland."</p><p>"North Korea will move closer to this goal, as well as increase the threat it poses to US forces and allies in the region, if it continues testing and devoting scarce regime resources to these programs," the report said.</p><p>The Pentagon has no reason to expect that North Korea will halt its costly and controversial nuclear tests or rocket launches, the report said, since Kim Jong Un's regime appears to believe that building up a nuclear arsenal will protect it from outside attack and help undermine South Korea's alliance with the US.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/03/pentagon_says_north_korea_is_close_to_developing_long_range_nuclear_missile_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/03/pentagon_says_north_korea_is_close_to_developing_long_range_nuclear_missile_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is South Korea safe for investors?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/13/is_south_korea_safe_for_investors_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/13/is_south_korea_safe_for_investors_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GlobalPost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13269577</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The global marketplace is still struggling to make sense of the nuclear threat facing the Korean peninsula]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.globalpost.com/"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://images.salon.com/img/partners/ID_globalPostInline.gif" alt="Global Post" /></a>SEOUL, South Korea — We've heard a lot of talk in recent weeks about the military side of the North Korea threat. Today, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency is reporting that <a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/north-korea/130411/south-korea-prepares-seemingly-imminent-north-">North Korea could have the capabilities to build a nuclear warhead</a> small enough to fit on a missile — even though there's a lot of disagreement over that part.</p><p>But how does the threat of military action play for foreign investors in South Korea?</p><p>Today, President Park Geun-hye <a href="http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2970058&amp;cloc=joongangdaily|home|top" target="_blank">met with foreign investors</a> from Google, Citibank and Siemens — to name a few corporations — in her administration's Blue House, reported the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper. She tried to assure them that her administration would create a stable investment environment despite North Korea's bluster.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/13/is_south_korea_safe_for_investors_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/13/is_south_korea_safe_for_investors_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Classified Pentagon report says North Korea legitimate threat</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/classified_pentagon_report_says_nkorea_legitimate_threat/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/classified_pentagon_report_says_nkorea_legitimate_threat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kim Jong-un]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense intelligence agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13268393</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Report says Kim Jong-un likely has nukes capable of delivery by ballistic missiles, which may be unreliable]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Daily Beast Thursday reported on a classified Pentagon document that states that the the Defense Intelligence Agency believes "with moderate confidence" that North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of being delivered by ballistic missiles, but that the reliability of strikes would likely be low. Via The <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/11/pentagon-report-says-north-korea-likely-has-nukes.html">Daily Beast:</a></p><div> <blockquote><p>According to the report, “DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles however the reliability will be low.” That line was read aloud by Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Republican from Colorado, on Thursday during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Lamborn was questioning Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR9zshHt-V0" target="_blank">who seemed taken aback</a> and declined to answer the question, saying, “I haven’t seen it and you said it’s not publicly released, so I choose not to comment on it.”<a name="body_text2"></a></p></blockquote> </div><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/classified_pentagon_report_says_nkorea_legitimate_threat/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/classified_pentagon_report_says_nkorea_legitimate_threat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When drone strike victims receive condolence payments</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/what_do_we_know_about_condolence_payments_for_drone_strike_victims_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/what_do_we_know_about_condolence_payments_for_drone_strike_victims_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 18:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ProPublica]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone strikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Brennan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13262815</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The CIA gives financial compensation to the families of slain civilians, but the practice is shrouded in secrecy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.propublica.org"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/12/Logo-e1354323738840.jpg" alt="ProPublica" /></a> The U.S. drone war remains cloaked in secrecy, and as a result, questions swirl around it. Who exactly can be targeted? When can a U.S. citizen be killed?</p><p>Another, perhaps less frequently asked question: What happens when innocent civilians are killed in drone strikes?</p><div id="google-callout">In February, during his confirmation process, CIA director John Brennan <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/627432-brennan-post-hearing-questions#document/p2/a98456">offered</a> an unusually straightforward explanation: “Where possible, we also work with local governments to gather facts, and, if appropriate, provide condolence payments to families of those killed.”</div><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/what_do_we_know_about_condolence_payments_for_drone_strike_victims_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/what_do_we_know_about_condolence_payments_for_drone_strike_victims_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the Pentagon corrupted Afghanistan</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/how_the_pentagon_corrupted_afghanistan_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/how_the_pentagon_corrupted_afghanistan_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TomDispatch.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kabul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamid Karzai]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13258763</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If the U.S. finally loses its ally, it can point to the tsunami of cash it's poured into the country since 2005]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Washington has vociferously denounced Afghan corruption as a major obstacle to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. This has been widely reported. Only one crucial element is missing from this routine censure: a credible explanation of why American nation-building failed there. No wonder. To do so, the U.S. would have to denounce itself.</p><p>Corruption in Afghanistan today is acute and permeates all sectors of society. In recent years, anecdotal evidence on the subject has been superseded by the studies of researchers, surveys by NGOs, and periodic reports by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). There is also the <a href="http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/" target="_blank">Corruption Perceptions Index</a> of the Berlin-based Transparency International (TI). Last year, it bracketed Afghanistan with two other countries as the most corrupt on Earth.</p><p>None of these documents, however, refers to the single most important fact when it comes to corruption: that it’s Washington-based.  It is, in fact, rooted in the massive build-up of U.S. forces there from 2005 onward, the accompanying expansion of American forward operating bases, camps, and combat outposts from 29 in 2005 to <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175204/nick_turse_america%27s_shadowy_baseworld" target="_blank">nearly 400</a> five years later, and above all, the tsunami of cash that went with all of this.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/how_the_pentagon_corrupted_afghanistan_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/how_the_pentagon_corrupted_afghanistan_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CIA may lose drone program</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/cia_may_lose_drone_program/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/cia_may_lose_drone_program/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Targeted killing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterterror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disposition Matrix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13246876</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Targeted killing program would move to Pentagon, controversies largely in tow]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The CIA's controversial targeted killing program may be coming to an end, according to three senior U.S. officials who <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/19/exclusive-no-more-drones-for-cia.html">spoke to the Daily Beast</a>. The spy agency may gradually stop overseeing the "disposition matrix" that determines who is targeted by armed drones, and the program would shift to the Pentagon's control. The same concerns about unfettered executive power to determine life or death with drones strikes would, however, remain. But according to the Daily Beast's Daniel Klaidman, transitioning the program "could potentially toughen the criteria for drone strikes, strengthen the program’s accountability, and increase transparency."</p><p>As part of <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/obama_administration_has_expanded_kill_lists_to_a_matrix/">a pattern</a> traced for some months (particularly by the Washington Post's Greg Miller), in shifting the drone program from the CIA to the Pentagon, the Obama administration would codify shadow wars as fully integrated into modern U.S. warfare -- the stuff of Defense Department oversight. Klaidman reported:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/cia_may_lose_drone_program/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/cia_may_lose_drone_program/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t fall for Pentagon spin</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/12/despite_hype_defense_industry_still_thriving_after_sequestration/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/12/despite_hype_defense_industry_still_thriving_after_sequestration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sequestration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense contractor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chuck Hagel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money in politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13226538</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Never mind what you heard about massive new cuts to the defense industry. Here's how contractors avoided calamity]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you believe the hype, sequestration is going to deal a catastrophic blow to the politically powerful defense industry.</p><p>It's a “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/panetta-mullen-warn-against-additional-cuts-to-pentagon-budget/2011/08/04/gIQAHjiluI_blog.html">doomsday mechanism</a>,” former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared. The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) – the leading advocacy group for Pentagon contractors – has also <a href="http://secondtonone.org/resource_center#S1">warned</a> of the allegedly dire consequences of sequestration for their industry (which receives nearly <a href="http://www.usaspending.gov/search?form_fields=%7b%22spending_cat%22%3A%5b%22c%22%5d%2C%22fyear%22%3A%5b%222012%22%5d%2C%22dept%22%3A%5b%229700%22%5d%7d">$1 billion <em>a day</em></a> from the Pentagon), <a href="http://www.aia-aerospace.org/newsroom/aia_news/aia_vows_to_continue_fight_against_sequestration/">expressing</a> “extreme disappointment that sequestration was not averted.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/12/despite_hype_defense_industry_still_thriving_after_sequestration/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/12/despite_hype_defense_industry_still_thriving_after_sequestration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How budget cuts could affect you</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/how_budget_cuts_could_affect_you_6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/how_budget_cuts_could_affect_you_6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Mar 2013 14:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sequester]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budget cuts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unemployment benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illegal immigrants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[automatic cuts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aol_on]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13217451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Unemployment benefit reductions, fewer food safety checks, freed illegal immigrants and more]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Automatic spending cuts that took effect Friday are expected to touch a vast range of government services. Some examples:</p><p>DEFENSE</p><p>One of the Navy's premier warships, the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, sits pier-side in Norfolk, Va., its deployment to the Persian Gulf delayed. The carrier and its 5,000-person crew were to leave Feb. 8, along with the guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg. The Navy also began plans to gradually shut down four of its air wings - which include 50 to 60 aircraft each and are assigned to the carriers - and delay and cancel the deployments of several other ships.</p><p>Furlough notices will begin going out later this month to about 800,000 defense department civilians, who will lose a day's pay each week for more than five months. The Army will let go more than 3,000 temporary and contract employees and beginning in April, it will cancel maintenance at depots which will force 5,000 more layoffs. The Air Force Thunderbirds and the Navy's Blue Angels will cancel air show appearances.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/how_budget_cuts_could_affect_you_6/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/how_budget_cuts_could_affect_you_6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon agrees to publish Manning rulings</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/pentagon_agrees_to_publish_manning_rulings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/pentagon_agrees_to_publish_manning_rulings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bradley Manning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ccr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WikiLeaks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13214013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Journalists and human rights groups call the move long-overdue, demand greater transparency]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following multiple FOIA requests from journalists and pressure from human rights group, the Pentagon Wednesday published 84 judicial orders and rulings from the court-martial proceedings for Bradley Manning.</p><p>Up until now the only access to these documents has come second-hand. As the Guardian's Ed Pilkington described it, the refusal to publish the documents, "has led to an <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/bradley-manning-wikileaks-1000-days-detention">Alice in Wonderland world</a> where  [presiding military judge Denise] Lind has read out documents in court, which are then reported in the media."</p><p>Via <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/27/pentagon-releases-bradley-manning-documents">Pilkington:</a></p><blockquote><p>The 84 documents released by the army include court rulings on defence and government motions, and orders that set the scheduling of the trial that is currently earmarked to begin on 3 June. But the batch constitutes only a tiny portion of the huge mountain of paperwork that has already been generated in the proceedings, including some 500 documents stretching to 30,000 pages.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/pentagon_agrees_to_publish_manning_rulings/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/27/pentagon_agrees_to_publish_manning_rulings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon notifies Congress of likely furloughs</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/20/pentagon_notifies_congress_of_likely_furloughs_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/20/pentagon_notifies_congress_of_likely_furloughs_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leon Panetta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sequester]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[From the Wires]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13206836</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Department of Defense says it may have to shorten the workweek for 800,000 workers if the sequester kicks in]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Congress on Wednesday that if automatic government spending cuts kick in on March 1 he may have to shorten the workweek for the "vast majority" of the Defense Department's 800,000 civilian workers.</p><p>They would lose one day of work per week, or 20 percent of their pay, for up to 22 weeks, probably starting in late April.</p><p>To dispel the notion that this is mainly a problem for the nation's capital, the Pentagon's budget chief, Robert Hale, told reporters that the economic impact would be felt nationwide. The biggest potential losses, in term of total civilian payroll dollars, would be in Virginia, California, Maryland, Texas and Georgia, according to figures provided by the Pentagon.</p><p>Hale said the unpaid leaves for civilian workers would begin in late April and would save $4 billion to $5 billion if extended through the end of the budget year, Sept. 30. That is only a fraction of the $46 billion the Pentagon would have to cut this budget year unless a deficit-reduction deal is reached.</p><p>Panetta also said the across-the-board spending reductions would "put us on a path toward a hollow force," meaning a military incapable of fulfilling all of its missions.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/20/pentagon_notifies_congress_of_likely_furloughs_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/20/pentagon_notifies_congress_of_likely_furloughs_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mitch McConnell fooled by Onion-style article</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/20/mitch_mcconnell_fooled_by_onion_style_article/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/20/mitch_mcconnell_fooled_by_onion_style_article/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Onion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitch McConnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guantanamo Bay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13206467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Senate Minority Leader was duped by the military version of The Onion]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the grand tradition of politicians getting hoodwinked by parody websites, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was tricked by the military's answer to The Onion, The Duffel Blog.</p><p>The Duffell Blog is a fake military news site, with headlines like "Army Spends $100M On Piece of Equipment That Doesn’t Do Anything," "DoD Announces Casualty In War on Christmas" and "Syria to Host Iraq War Reenactors."</p><p>But, as Spencer Ackerman at Wired's <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/mcconnell-duffel-blog/">Danger Room</a> reports:</p><blockquote><p>On November 14, 2012, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wrote to Elizabeth King, the Pentagon’s congressional liaison, with a an unusually credulous query. “I am writing on behalf of a constituent who has contacted me regarding Guantanamo Bay prisoners receiving Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits,” McConnell wrote in a <a href="http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2013/02/McConnellDuffelblog1.jpg">letter acquired by Danger Room</a>. “I would appreciate your review and response to my constituent’s concerns.”</p> <p>Um, Guantanamo detainees getting GI Bill benefits? Yes, <a href="http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/10/guantanamo-prisoners-to-receive-gi-bill-benefits/">that’s from the Duffel Blog</a>, as McConnell’s constituent <a href="http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2013/02/McConnell.Duffelblog2.jpg">clearly states</a>, complete with the reference URL. Said constituent even notes that he or she can’t find any information about the alleged government payouts to suspected insurgents and terrorists.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/20/mitch_mcconnell_fooled_by_onion_style_article/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/20/mitch_mcconnell_fooled_by_onion_style_article/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hagel&#8217;s fight unprecedented</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/the_beginning_of_the_end_of_the_hagel_fight/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/the_beginning_of_the_end_of_the_hagel_fight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chuck Hagel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Filibuster]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13200477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Harry Reid files cloture to break the GOP filibuster, forcing a vote by Saturday]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there’s any doubt remaining that we’ve ventured into uncharted territory on the use of the filibuster, this should put it to rest.</p><p>Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this afternoon filed a cloture motion to break the Republican filibuster and end debate on the nomination of Chuck Hagel to head the Department of Defense.</p><p>“This is the first time in the history of our country that a presidential nominee for secretary of defense has been filibustered. What a shame. But that's the way it is,” Reid said on the Senate floor.</p><p>The move, while unprecedented, was not unexpected. It means that Democrats now need 60 votes to get Hagel confirmed, which could be a tall order, as only two Republicans have said they’ll vote for their former Senate colleague. But as Steve Kornacki <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/12/the_sore_loser_exception/">pointed out</a>, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain may vote on cloture to help Dems get to 60, even though he will probably vote “no” on the final confirmation vote. Others senators concerned about the dangerous precedent set by the Hagel filibuster may join him.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/the_beginning_of_the_end_of_the_hagel_fight/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/the_beginning_of_the_end_of_the_hagel_fight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
