Adam Serwer

Reporter

Adam Serwer is a reporter at Mother Jones. Formerly a staff writer at the American Prospect, he has written for the Washington Post, the Root, the Village Voice, and the New York Daily News.

Get my RSS | Follow @adamserwer

Rick Santorum Attacks Obama On Israel And Iran, Possibly Misquotes The Wire

—By Adam Serwer

| Tue Nov. 15, 2011 4:50 PM PST

TPM Reporter Eric Kleefield catches former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum attacking Obama over insufficient support for an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Santorum chose a rather interesting way to express his thoughts on the risks of Israel bombing Iran:

“If you attack the king you had better kill the king otherwise you will be in big trouble,” he said, acknowledging a military attack on Iran’s nuclear development facilities would be difficult to accomplish.

Santorum appears to be mangling a memorable quote from Omar, a popular character in HBO's hit series about the war on drugs, The Wire. Check out the clip below, and read our interview with Michael K. Williams, the actor who played Omar (and now portrays Chalky White on Boardwalk Empire).

The actual quote is, "you come at the king, you'd best not miss."

UPDATE: Santorum also could have been mangling an equally concise quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "When you strike at a king you must kill him."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Is the US Getting Domestic Indefinite Military Detention for Thanksgiving?

—By Adam Serwer

| Tue Nov. 15, 2011 4:30 PM PST

A bipartisan group of senators is poised to force through dramatic changes to how the US government handles suspected terrorists—over the objections of the White House and Senate Democratic leadership.

Legislative language that emerged from the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday afternoon would mandate the automatic, indefinite military detention of noncitizens apprehended in the United States who are suspected members of Al Qaeda or associated groups. The wording, which is part of a must-pass bill to fund the military, also appears to allow the indefinite military detention of citizens and legal permanent residents. The bill would also extend restrictions on transfers of detainees from Guantánamo Bay, though only for one year.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Memo to Mitt: There's No Insurgency in Iran

—By Adam Serwer

| Mon Nov. 14, 2011 3:30 PM PST

"The insurgency in Iran is THIS BIG."

Since the GOP presidential primary season began, Mitt Romney has been helped by a Republican field filled with candidates whose penchant for gaffes has largely obscured Romney's less dramatic misstatements. That was the case in Saturday's foreign policy debate, where there was so much flailing happening that reporters barely noticed Romney offering up a howler of his own.

It's not quite as dramatic as Herman Cain trying to remember what his position is on Libya, but twice during the debate, in response to a question about Iran, Romney spoke of the need to aid Iran's "insurgents."

Well, it's worth putting in place crippling sanctions. It's worth working with the insurgents in the company to encourage regime change in the country. And if all else fails, if after all of the work we've done, there's nothing else we can do beside mil-- take military action, then of course you take military action. It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. This term "unacceptable" has been applied by several presidents over history, and our current president has made it very clear that he's not willing to do those things necessary to get Iran to be dissuaded from their nuclear folly. I will take a different course. I will make sure that the sanctions, diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, and support of insurgents within the country help them become dissuaded to get away from their nuclear ambition...

There is no insurgency in Iran. There's the non-violent Green Movement opposition that emerged in the aftermath of Iran's 2009 presidential election, but there are no "insurgents." It's possible that Romney simply misspoke and meant "dissidents," but one would expect Romney, who spent much of the debate agitating for war with Iran, to have some basic idea of the nature of the domestic political opposition in a country he's advocated bombing for nearly four years.

As Steve Benen noted on Monday, Romney seems to be benefiting from an unearned presumption of competence, namely the idea that Romney knows what he's talking about even when he doesn't. That sort of aura can only be enhanced when the other candidates are declaring that the ACLU is running the CIA, dropping one world-government conspiracy theories, and urging that the US become less reliant on oil from Iran it doesn't buy.

Herman Cain On Libya: Which One Was That Again?

—By Adam Serwer

| Mon Nov. 14, 2011 2:46 PM PST

Herman Cain, in an interview with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, struggles mightly to recall what the appropriate anti-Obama position is on Libya. Cain leans back in his chair and fidgets for ten long, painful seconds before saying, "President Obama supported the uprising correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes, I did agree or no, I didn't agree." Cain then added, "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reasons...Nope that's a different one...Got all this stuff twirling around in my head..." Finally Cain asks for a more detailed question. "Specifically what are you asking me did I disagree or not agree with Obama?"

There are plenty of valid criticisms of Obama's Libya effort, whether the war was worth fighting in the first place, the administration's decision not to go to Congress, its misleading assessments of how long the war would last, and its dubious, hypocritical legal rationale for acting without congressional authorization after months had passed. Cain didn't mention any of these. He simply said, "I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is," without explaining how that would have affected his decision, or what he would have done differently.

"I'm a much more deliberate decision maker," Cain said. "Some people want to say, as president you need to know everything. No you don't. I believe in having all the information, as much of it as I possibly can. Rather than making a decision, or making a statement about whether I totally agree or didn't agree, when I wasn't privy to the entire situation."

"I'm not trying to hedge on the question," Cain assured the board. "It's just my nature as a businessman." Well, it's better than "oops."

(h/t Jonathan Martin)

*This post has been edited for content.

How the Supreme Court Could Delay Ruling on Health Care Reform

—By Adam Serwer

| Mon Nov. 14, 2011 11:00 AM PST

The United States Supreme Court is set to rule on health care reform before the 2012 election.

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), either vindicating or dealing a death blow to the Obama administration's signature domestic policy accomplishment before the 2012 election. Or there's a third option: The court could kick the can down the road.

The "punting" option was laid out by Judge Brett Kavanaugh*, George W. Bush appointee, in the most recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which upheld the constitutionality of the law. In his dissent, Cavanaugh declined to address the merits of the Affordable Care Act, arguing instead that a law called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act prevents the courts from ruling on the issue until someone has actually been forced to pay the penalty for not purchasing health care. The act basically stipulates that in order to challenge a tax an individual must be forced to pay it first.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]