Politics One-third of military women report harassment. By Satyam Khanna on Mar 14, 2008 at 10:01 pm The AP reports that one-third of women in the military and six percent of men said they were sexually harassed, according to the latest Pentagon survey: The figure for women was worse than the previous finding several years ago but better than a similar survey taken in 1995, the Defense Department said in a report Friday. [...] There were 2,688 sexual assaults reported last year by people in uniform, the figures showed. That was down about 9 percent from the 2,947 reported the year before. [...] Reports of sexual assault reports had jumped by about 24 percent in 2006 and nearly 40 percent in 2005. Officials attributed the increases partly to more aggressive efforts to encourage victims to come forward. ()
Media AP Says McCain Is A ‘Man Of The People’ For Taking Train Despite Noting He Rode First Class By Ben Armbruster on Mar 14, 2008 at 8:00 pm Earlier this month, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) hosted a “thank you” Sunday cookout for over 40 reporters from a wide variety of news outlets at his vacation home in Arizona. McCain’s expression of goodwill came despite a brief falling out with those covering his presidential campaign following the New York Times story that questioned his relationships with lobbyists. ThinkProgress noted at the time that the reporters took the bait. His “charm offensive” to “woo the reporters” and appease the press — who have been said to be his political “base” — paid off as reports from the event not only praised McCain but also boasted of his cooking skills. Now, McCain is reaping the dividends. The Associated Press published an article this afternoon that focused solely on the fact that, even though he has access to a charter plane, McCain took a train from Washington D.C. to Philadelphia. More than that, the article praised him for it, calling him a “man of the people.” Yet two sentences later, the AP included a detail of the trip that completely undermines that claim: John McCain traveled like a man of the people Friday morning, riding an Amtrak train to Philadelphia after a late night of voting in Washington. “Nice to see you, nice to see you,” McCain said to workers and passengers who greeted him on the 8 a.m. high-speed Acela Express train. McCain, accompanied by a campaign aide, was left alone by the public as he sat in the first-class car for much of the 1 1/2 hour trip. The article, of course, was written by Libby Quaid, who not only attended McCain’s barbecue, but also filed a story from where it was held. It is well known that McCain tries to cozy up to the press. The fact that McCain has “flattered, befriended, and courted reporters” allows articles published about him to say he’s a “man of the people” despite taking an upscale, “high-speed” train while riding in “the first-class car.” ()
Politics Tabling Elliot Spitzer By ThinkProgress on Mar 14, 2008 at 7:20 pm For the latest edition of The Table we brought Megan McArdle on board so as to marginalize Ross’ quaint anti-prostitution views while our crack production team devised a newer, bigger, better, and even more absurd intro sequence: () Politics Rep. Steve King Cites Contractor Immunity As Argument For Why Telecom Immunity Would Be A Success By Ben Armbruster on Mar 14, 2008 at 6:22 pm Today, the House passed an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that provides no “retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed.” During a House debate on the bill before the vote, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) argued that the telecom companies should receive the retroactive immunity. As an example of why this solution would work well, he pointed to the existing immunity for contractors: I don’t understand the difference between why we would not want to identify an information company that answered the call to protect America. To me I think those are the closest two comparisons that we can get. We protect contractors when they went to that smoking hole in that war zone. Why wouldn’t we protect telecommunications companies when they stepped up in good faith and believed that they were legally operating under the law? Watch it: [flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/kingcontractor3.320.240.flv] It’s unclear exactly which contractors King is referring to. Across the board, however, contractor immunity has done little other than shield corporations from gross negligence. After 9/11, Congress appropriated $1 billion in federal emergency money to contractors and subcontractors working at or near Ground Zero. They were to use the funds “to set up a new insurance company to cover potential claims.” This insurance company, however, is now refusing to settle claims filed by firefighters and cleanup crews over illnesses caused by unsafe working conditions; the contractors claim they have immunity from any lawsuits. Moreover, as we have seen in Iraq, guards from the private security contractor Blackwater have escaped punishment after killing 17 Iraqis in a Baghdad shoot-out and killing a top Iraqi politician’s bodyguard on Christmas Eve 2006. More than anything, King’s argument shows why telecoms should not be granted immunity. Transcript: Read more () Politics McCain fundraising on Europe, Middle East trip. By Satyam Khanna on Mar 14, 2008 at 5:42 pm Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) recently announced he would travel on a “10-day congressional delegation trip to Europe and the Middle East” next week, along with supporters Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). “I’m going as a member of the Armed Services Committee, not as the nominee of our party,” he insisted. Nevertheless, McCain will still hold fundraisers: McCain’s campaign has sent out an invitation for a March 20 luncheon at Spencer House — the neo-classical home built for an ancestor of Diana, the late Princess of Wales — “by kind permission of Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild.” The price to attend is $1000 to $2,300. And the dress code for the event? “Lounge suits” — British for business attire. Jill Hazelbaker, McCain’s campaign spokeswoman, said today that Congress will be reimbursed for the political portions of the trip. () Politics Omnihanlon By ThinkProgress on Mar 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm I hadn’t realized that Michael O’Hanlon also does local news. New member of congress Nikki Tsongas, for example, introduced legislation that would require troop withdrawals from Iraq so naturally the Lowell Sun turned to America’s leading former defense budget analyst: “It just doesn’t compute,” Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said, arguing that Tsongas’ plan could cause Iraqi factions to recoil in self-defense as the country destabilizes with the rapid departure of American troops.In that destabilizing atmosphere, O’Hanlon said, Tsongas’ plan to establish an international diplomatic group, which she calls the Middle East Security and Economic Organization, would amount to little more than a group of officials meeting “in hotels.”“Iraq has made a lot of progress in the past two or three months,” said O’Hanlon, a critic of the war who believes the surge brought limited stability to the country. “It’s just funny to see a freshman member reach those sweeping conclusions.” Funny, indeed. You actually see a classic here of best case / worst case mismatch. We can’t leave because if we did things could get worse. But things got steadily worse for about four straight years while we were there, so it’s not like keeping 100,000+ troops in Iraq is some kind of assurance that Iraqi political dynamics will play out in a favorable way. There’s no reason to arbitrarily assume the worst if we leave and assume the best if we stay. UPDATE: “The Good News,” by Michael O’Hanlon, The Baltimore Sun November 25, 2003: “Things could still get worse in Iraq. But at the risk of speculating, it seems more likely that they will start getting better. We are already witnessing improvements in the Iraqi quality of life; we may soon start to see improvements in the security situation.” () Politics 70 percent of economists say U.S. in recession. By Satyam Khanna on Mar 14, 2008 at 5:14 pm According to a new Wall Street Journal poll, 70 percent of economists surveyed say the United States has “slid into recession.” “The evidence is now beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Scott Anderson of Wells Fargo & Co. () Culture Must-Reads By ThinkProgress on Mar 14, 2008 at 5:12 pm Ezra Klein wonders what the must-read magazines are. I think this is an unduly touchy subject for someone who works in the magazine industry to take on. I’ll just say that excluding publications that anyone I know works for, I like Dwell, Monocle, N+1, and (yes!) ESPN the best. () Yglesias No Qaeda Takeover By ThinkProgress on Mar 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm Olivier Roy points out that people claiming that if we leave Iraq it’ll somehow be taken over by al-Qaeda don’t know what they’re talking about. But, hey, don’t listen to him — he’s done actual scholarly research that’s relevant to the issue and that kind of thing has no place in American political debate. () Security White House: Confusion Over Long-Term Agreement With Iraq Resulted From A Sloppy Arabic Translation By Amanda Terkel on Mar 14, 2008 at 4:26 pm In November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki signed a non-binding “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship” that committed America to defending Iraq: Supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats. [...] Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace. At the time, the White House said that the unprecedented arrangement would not need “input” from Congress. After facing intense criticism from lawmakers, the White House backed off, recently stating that arrangement is “not going to have a security guarantee.” Officials are now trying to come up with excuses to explain away their initial bumbling as well. Their latest? The long-term agreement was incorrectly translated from Arabic to English. Politico reports: But the senior administration official, who briefed two Politico reporters on the condition that he not be identified by name, said that the “security assurances” phrase “was something we struggled with, it really was.” He said the original Arabic phrase was “translated in kind of an interesting way,” and that a better translation might have been, “We’ll consult.” This excuse seems unlikely. First, White House officials have never before mentioned it. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said that the administration “certainly did not speak to this unfortunate translation from Arabic” when it briefed senators on the planned agreement recently. Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) also said that he hadn’t heard the argument. Second, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Bergner recently stated that Bush does have “constitutional authority” to “continue combat operations” in Iraq without Congress’s authorization. As evidence, he cited the 2002 authorization of force against Saddam Hussein and the resolution passed after 9/11. Clearly, Bergner never thought there was an Arabic mistranslation. Both Webb and Delahunt also have their doubts about the administration’s newest excuse: Delahunt said he suspected that the administration, having been “outed, if you will” by congressional oversight, has decided that it’s the “safe course” to argue that the words aren’t what they appear to be. Webb’s spokeswoman, Jessica Smith, wondered why the White House didn’t “retranslate” the offending language before releasing the Declaration of Principles. This distrust is understandable; in January, Bush attached a signing statement to a defense authorization bill saying that he would disregard a provision that “bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq.” The truth is that White House officials tried to undermine Congress on Iraq and were forced to muster a weak excuse when they were caught. () Older Get ThinkProgress email alerts Powered by NewsWhip Get the daily Progress Report Got a Hot Tip? Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest. Name: Email: Tip: (required) ThinkProgress Archives March 2008 S M T W T F S « Feb Apr » 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate Switch to Mobile
Politics Rep. Steve King Cites Contractor Immunity As Argument For Why Telecom Immunity Would Be A Success By Ben Armbruster on Mar 14, 2008 at 6:22 pm Today, the House passed an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that provides no “retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed.” During a House debate on the bill before the vote, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) argued that the telecom companies should receive the retroactive immunity. As an example of why this solution would work well, he pointed to the existing immunity for contractors: I don’t understand the difference between why we would not want to identify an information company that answered the call to protect America. To me I think those are the closest two comparisons that we can get. We protect contractors when they went to that smoking hole in that war zone. Why wouldn’t we protect telecommunications companies when they stepped up in good faith and believed that they were legally operating under the law? Watch it: [flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/kingcontractor3.320.240.flv] It’s unclear exactly which contractors King is referring to. Across the board, however, contractor immunity has done little other than shield corporations from gross negligence. After 9/11, Congress appropriated $1 billion in federal emergency money to contractors and subcontractors working at or near Ground Zero. They were to use the funds “to set up a new insurance company to cover potential claims.” This insurance company, however, is now refusing to settle claims filed by firefighters and cleanup crews over illnesses caused by unsafe working conditions; the contractors claim they have immunity from any lawsuits. Moreover, as we have seen in Iraq, guards from the private security contractor Blackwater have escaped punishment after killing 17 Iraqis in a Baghdad shoot-out and killing a top Iraqi politician’s bodyguard on Christmas Eve 2006. More than anything, King’s argument shows why telecoms should not be granted immunity. Transcript: Read more ()
Politics McCain fundraising on Europe, Middle East trip. By Satyam Khanna on Mar 14, 2008 at 5:42 pm Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) recently announced he would travel on a “10-day congressional delegation trip to Europe and the Middle East” next week, along with supporters Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). “I’m going as a member of the Armed Services Committee, not as the nominee of our party,” he insisted. Nevertheless, McCain will still hold fundraisers: McCain’s campaign has sent out an invitation for a March 20 luncheon at Spencer House — the neo-classical home built for an ancestor of Diana, the late Princess of Wales — “by kind permission of Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild.” The price to attend is $1000 to $2,300. And the dress code for the event? “Lounge suits” — British for business attire. Jill Hazelbaker, McCain’s campaign spokeswoman, said today that Congress will be reimbursed for the political portions of the trip. ()
Politics Omnihanlon By ThinkProgress on Mar 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm I hadn’t realized that Michael O’Hanlon also does local news. New member of congress Nikki Tsongas, for example, introduced legislation that would require troop withdrawals from Iraq so naturally the Lowell Sun turned to America’s leading former defense budget analyst: “It just doesn’t compute,” Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said, arguing that Tsongas’ plan could cause Iraqi factions to recoil in self-defense as the country destabilizes with the rapid departure of American troops.In that destabilizing atmosphere, O’Hanlon said, Tsongas’ plan to establish an international diplomatic group, which she calls the Middle East Security and Economic Organization, would amount to little more than a group of officials meeting “in hotels.”“Iraq has made a lot of progress in the past two or three months,” said O’Hanlon, a critic of the war who believes the surge brought limited stability to the country. “It’s just funny to see a freshman member reach those sweeping conclusions.” Funny, indeed. You actually see a classic here of best case / worst case mismatch. We can’t leave because if we did things could get worse. But things got steadily worse for about four straight years while we were there, so it’s not like keeping 100,000+ troops in Iraq is some kind of assurance that Iraqi political dynamics will play out in a favorable way. There’s no reason to arbitrarily assume the worst if we leave and assume the best if we stay. UPDATE: “The Good News,” by Michael O’Hanlon, The Baltimore Sun November 25, 2003: “Things could still get worse in Iraq. But at the risk of speculating, it seems more likely that they will start getting better. We are already witnessing improvements in the Iraqi quality of life; we may soon start to see improvements in the security situation.” ()
Politics 70 percent of economists say U.S. in recession. By Satyam Khanna on Mar 14, 2008 at 5:14 pm According to a new Wall Street Journal poll, 70 percent of economists surveyed say the United States has “slid into recession.” “The evidence is now beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Scott Anderson of Wells Fargo & Co. ()
Culture Must-Reads By ThinkProgress on Mar 14, 2008 at 5:12 pm Ezra Klein wonders what the must-read magazines are. I think this is an unduly touchy subject for someone who works in the magazine industry to take on. I’ll just say that excluding publications that anyone I know works for, I like Dwell, Monocle, N+1, and (yes!) ESPN the best. ()
Yglesias No Qaeda Takeover By ThinkProgress on Mar 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm Olivier Roy points out that people claiming that if we leave Iraq it’ll somehow be taken over by al-Qaeda don’t know what they’re talking about. But, hey, don’t listen to him — he’s done actual scholarly research that’s relevant to the issue and that kind of thing has no place in American political debate. ()
Security White House: Confusion Over Long-Term Agreement With Iraq Resulted From A Sloppy Arabic Translation By Amanda Terkel on Mar 14, 2008 at 4:26 pm In November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki signed a non-binding “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship” that committed America to defending Iraq: Supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats. [...] Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace. At the time, the White House said that the unprecedented arrangement would not need “input” from Congress. After facing intense criticism from lawmakers, the White House backed off, recently stating that arrangement is “not going to have a security guarantee.” Officials are now trying to come up with excuses to explain away their initial bumbling as well. Their latest? The long-term agreement was incorrectly translated from Arabic to English. Politico reports: But the senior administration official, who briefed two Politico reporters on the condition that he not be identified by name, said that the “security assurances” phrase “was something we struggled with, it really was.” He said the original Arabic phrase was “translated in kind of an interesting way,” and that a better translation might have been, “We’ll consult.” This excuse seems unlikely. First, White House officials have never before mentioned it. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said that the administration “certainly did not speak to this unfortunate translation from Arabic” when it briefed senators on the planned agreement recently. Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) also said that he hadn’t heard the argument. Second, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Bergner recently stated that Bush does have “constitutional authority” to “continue combat operations” in Iraq without Congress’s authorization. As evidence, he cited the 2002 authorization of force against Saddam Hussein and the resolution passed after 9/11. Clearly, Bergner never thought there was an Arabic mistranslation. Both Webb and Delahunt also have their doubts about the administration’s newest excuse: Delahunt said he suspected that the administration, having been “outed, if you will” by congressional oversight, has decided that it’s the “safe course” to argue that the words aren’t what they appear to be. Webb’s spokeswoman, Jessica Smith, wondered why the White House didn’t “retranslate” the offending language before releasing the Declaration of Principles. This distrust is understandable; in January, Bush attached a signing statement to a defense authorization bill saying that he would disregard a provision that “bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq.” The truth is that White House officials tried to undermine Congress on Iraq and were forced to muster a weak excuse when they were caught. ()
Earlier this month, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) hosted a “
