ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Iraqi Parliamentarian: 70 Percent Of Iraqis Want Withdrawal, Huge U.S. Embassy Not A ‘Positive Signal’

By Satyam Khanna on Jun 4, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Today, the House held a hearing featuring two members of the Iraqi Parliament in order “to hear their assessment of the proposed U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement,” an agreement proposed by the Bush administration permitting combat forces in Iraq for an unspecified period of time. Iraq is currently seeing “growing and widespread protests…over the scope of the agreement.”

In the hearing, parliamentarians Nadeem Al-Jaberi and Khalaf Al-Ulayyan expressed their support for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. In an exchange with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Al-Jaberi said that U.S. presence in Iraq is highly unpopular with the public, as roughly 70 percent of Iraqis favor a withdrawal:

PAUL: What percent of the Iraqi people would agree with us leaving under those circumstances?

AL-JABERI: I ask you to perhaps have a referendum, and that will tell you the truth.

PAUL: So you have no idea. You have no idea. Maybe only 5 percent would support us leaving. You have to have an idea.

AL-JABERI: Of course not. The majority of the people of Iraq are with the withdrawal. … Perhaps even about 70 percent.

Watch it:

Given the Iraqis’ opposition to U.S. forces, Paul asked how the public perceives the 104-acre, $700 million U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which consists of 27 buildings and 3,000 employees. Jaberi ripped its massive scale:

AL-JABERI: It is certainly larger than the diplomatic mission for which it has arrived for. … I mean why do we need 3,000 employees in an embassy in Iraq if we consider it as a diplomatic mission like any other diplomatic mission? From the principle of reciprocity, would it be appropriate for Iraqis to establish a 3,000 employee embassy in Washington? … It [the embassy] certainly would not be a very positive signal to the Iraqi people.

Al-Jaberi also criticized the enclosed nature of embassy activities, which sits in the heavily-fortified Green Zone: “And yes, there is some procrastination in its relationship with the society, because its relations are limited to the Green Zone.”

Update

Spencer Ackerman notes that al-Ulayyan, when asked about the invasion of Iraq, remarked: “I would prefer if it didn’t happen, because it led to the destruction of the country. The U.S. got rid of one person. It put in hundreds of persons that are worse than Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, now Iran is going into Iraq, and this is under the umbrella of the United States.”


Update

,Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) also released a letter today from 31 Iraqi legislators “asserting that the proposed [long-term security] agreement is opposed by a majority of the parliament if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops.”

Politics

Flashback: McCain Opposed Divestment From South Africa

By Igor Volsky on Jun 4, 2008 at 8:30 pm

mccainaipac.jpgDuring his speech before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) touted the success of America’s divestment campaign from South Africa’s racist apartheid regime and proposed a similar policy towards Iran:

We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign. …Years ago, the moral clarity and conviction of civilized nations came together in a divestment campaign against South Africa, helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid. In our day, we must use that same power and moral conviction against the regime in Iran, and help to safeguard the people of Israel and the peace of the world.

Years ago, McCain lacked the “moral clarity and conviction” to consistently support divestment from South Africa. Despite voting to override President Reagan’s veto of a bill imposing economic sanctions against South Africa in 1986, McCain voted against sanctions on at least six other occasions:

– 1985: Voted To Recommit Anti-Apartheid Act To Foreign Affairs Committee Postponing Sanctions Against South Africa: McCain voted to postpone for one year the imposition of any sanctions against South Africa, permitting the president to waive the sanctions if he determined that the African National Congress had not renounced violence. [HR 1460, Vote 129, 6/5/85, Failed 139-282, D 7-238; R 132-44; I 0-0]

– 1985: Voted To Allow U.S. Firms Continue Investing In South Africa: McCain voted to let U.S. firms continue investing in South Africa if their units comply with a code of worker rights. [HR 1460, Vote 110, 5/21/85, Failed 148-256, D 3-227; R 145-29; I 0-0]

– 1985: Voted Against Requiring Immediate Withdrawal Of U.S. Investment From South Africa: McCain voted against imposing a total ban on U.S. exports to South Africa. [HR 1460, Vote 128, 6/5/85, Failed 77-345, D 77-167; R 0-178; I 0-0]

– 1985: Voted Against Establishing A Commission To Study Apartheid In South Africa And To Recommend Sanctions: McCain voted against establishing a commission to study apartheid in South Africa and to recommend what sanctions the United States should impose on the government. [HR 1460, Vote 126, 6/5/85, Failed 108-310, D 6-235; R 102-75; I 0-0]

– 1985: Voted Against Imposing Sanctions Against South Africa: McCain voted against imposing sanctions immediately against South Africa. [HR 1460, Vote 130, 6/5/85, Passed 295-127, D 239-6; R 56-121; I 0-0]

– 1986: Voted Against Considering Imposing Economic Sanctions Against South Africa: McCain voted against providing for House floor consideration of the bill to impose economic sanctions against South Africa. [HR 4868, Vote 159, 6/18/86, Passed 286-127, D 238-4; R 48-123; I 0-0]

McCain’s schizophrenic voting record on divestment undermines his lofty campaign rhetoric and moral platitudes. McCain was as slow to recognize the importance of “helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid” as he is quick to consider bombing Iran.

Politics

GE claims CO2 is a ‘possible contributing factor to climate change.’

By Satyam Khanna on Jun 4, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Kevin Grandia notes that a May 28 press release from GE, a leading coal-energy powerhouse and advocate of “clean coal” technology, seems to question whether carbon dioxide is directly causing climate change, citing it as only a “possible contributing factor.” The press release reads:

GE is a leader in the development, and application of IGCC technology, while Schlumberger provides unique expertise, technology and project management for the storage of carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2 is a possible contributing factor to climate change.

In fact, as the IPCC has noted, it is very clear that greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, are causing global warming. “This statement is made all the more stranger considering the major marketing effort GE has undertaken to paint itself as a leader on reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Grandia notes.

Politics

Matthews: No one in the media has ‘laid a glove’ on McCain in ’10 years.’

By Matt Corley on Jun 4, 2008 at 7:40 pm

During MSNBC’s coverage of the South Dakota and Montana primaries last night, host Chris Matthews noted how Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized the media’s coverage of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in his speech last night, saying that “Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent.” “What is his beef with the media, I’d like to know that” said Matthews, adding “I mean, after ten years of covering this guy, I have yet to see anybody lay a glove on him.” Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/06/MatthewsMcCainBeef.320.240.flv]

Tim Russert added, “Well, he used to call it his base.”

Health

McCain’s Insurance Deregulation Scheme Promises A Downward Spiral In Health Care Coverage

By Igor Volsky on Jun 4, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Last night on CNN’s Larry King Live, Jamal Simmons, a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), argued that Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) health care plan would “do for the health care industry what the Republicans did for the credit card industry”:

Yes, what’s interesting about this and what we’re going to find out about John McCain is that John McCain was a neo-con before George Bush was a neo-con. He’s been friends with all these guys: Doug Feith, Bill Kristol, all these guys. You want to talk about health care? Johns McCain wants to do for the health care industry what the Republicans did for the credit card industry. They want to deregulate it and let people be able to choose their health care.

Watch It:


Indeed, as Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, argues in a recent Slate article, deregulation of the credit card industry “offers a cautionary tale about a little-understood provision at the center of John McCain’s health care plan.”

Following a pair of Supreme Court decisions which deregulated the banking industry, credit card companies relocated to states with no interest rate caps and charged “what they wanted” to borrowers in states with interest rate limits. McCain’s reform takes a similar tact. He would allow health insurers to operate across state lines “without complying with the laws in the state in which they operate,” and permit insurance plans from out-of-state to lure away healthier patients.

As Gordon points out, insurance companies “would have little incentive to continue doing business” under certain state rules which “require that companies issue coverage to all new customers and not set higher rates for people who are already sick”:

[Under legislation that McCain supports], insurers wouldn’t even need to pick up and move their operations; it would be enough to file some paperwork with a state insurance commissioner and pay that state’s relevant taxes…An insurer operating under Arizona law would be able to offer healthy New Yorkers a cheaper policy than an insurer working under New York law that has to price policies the same for everyone.

If the deregulated environment allows credit card companies to “use pricing practices, like teaser rates, to attract cash-strapped families and then…double or triple those rates without notice,” Gordon argues that McCain’s approach to deregulating the health insurance industry would similarly permit insurance companies to deny coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions and “improve their own profits by offering targeted policies to people with the fewest health expenses”:

As with the history of credit cards, it’s Robin Hood in reverse. Apart from the obvious injustice, this approach could add to spiraling health costs. The sickest 10 percent of Americans are already responsible for 70 percent of the nation’s health expenses. When more such Americans go uninsured, skip checkups, and land in the emergency room, they end up costing taxpayers more.

Pre-existing conditions are not confined to chronic diseases. In fact, some individual insurance companies do not count a C-section as a pre-existing condition, and policies differ based on state laws and regulations. Under McCain’s proposal to free insurance companies from state regulations, insurers that continue to extend coverage to moms who have had a C-section would quickly find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with insurers that provide the least protection to new moms.

Thus, McCain’s deregulation scheme, like past banking reforms, seeks to extend industry profits, not consumer protections.

Climate Progress

Opening ANWR cuts gas prices TWO cents in 2025

By Joe Romm on Jun 4, 2008 at 7:00 pm

In the climate and energy debate, conservatives continue to argue that the only solution to high gasoline prices is drill, drill, drill, especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (see Eco-Gingrich says, “Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay More”). This argument is false, false, false.

The Administration’s own Energy Information Administration found differently in a 2004 Congressionally-requested “Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR” (see “Note to Bush, media: Opening ANWR cuts gas prices one penny in 2025“). I pointed out then that the 2004 analysis was based on low oil prices, and that higher oil prices would raise the savings.

A May 2008 re-analysis by EIA, “Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” in fact found

Read more

Politics

After Failing To Protect 9/11 First Responders From Toxic Threats, Thompson Awarded Contract To Treat Them

By Amanda Terkel on Jun 4, 2008 at 6:46 pm

bushtom.gif Tommy Thompson served as President Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services from January 2001 to 2005. It was during his tenure, after the 9/11 attacks, that the Bush administration largely ignored the health risks facing first responders at the World Trade Center site.

Doctors concluded that the dust there was basically a “toxic soup,” leading to serious health problems for workers. Then-EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman was also accused of lying about the air quality. Approximately 40,000 people were exposed to the dust, and “71,000 have enrolled in a long-term health monitoring program for people with and without health problems.”

Many of these first responders have since been unable to attain health coverage from either their insurers or the U.S. government. As the AP notes, Thompson was “criticized for not doing enough” to help these workers.

Yet apparently, the Bush administration believes Thompson did a hecukva job dealing with the aftermath of 9/11. The Centers for Disease Control has awarded Thompson an $11 million contract to treat some of those very same workers who became sick on Thompson’s watch:

The contract awarded by the Centers for Disease Control is aimed at tracking the health of between 4,000 and 6,000 workers who live outside the New York City area, where a separate health monitoring program is in place. The CDC is part of the Health and Human Services Department, which Thompson headed in Bush’s first term.

Internal e-mails obtained by The Associated Press show that the one-year contract went to Logistics Health, Inc., a La Crosse, Wis.-based company where Thompson is president.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) responded, “It is ironic that former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson’s firm won the contract to provide the services, given the history of delay from the Bush administration when he was secretary and now.”

Yglesias

Ah Straight Talk

By ThinkProgress on Jun 4, 2008 at 6:44 pm

One virtue of having a reputation as a straight-talker is that you can get away with constant lying. For example, in response to a question about why he twice voted against a commission to investigate the response to Hurricane Katrina, John McCain says he voted in favor of every investigation. In reality, just as the New Orleans local news reporter said, he twice voted against a commission to investigate the matter.

Now there’s probably some crazy strained reading of McCain’s remarks so that his claims are consistent with reality. And since everyone knows McCain’s a straight-talker, the press will read it that way. And because that’s been the press’s response each of the dozens of times in the course of this campaign that McCain’s told bald-faced lies, his reputation for straight-talk never vanishes. A lesser figure who was in the habit of constantly lying and flip-flopping would develop a reputation as a kind of madmen, so invested in self-love that he thinks he has no obligation to political principles or basic factual accuracy.

Media

Media Blindly Pick Up McCain’s Talking Point That Town Hall Meetings Are His ‘Strength,’ ‘He’s At His Best’

By Ben Armbruster on Jun 4, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) sent a letter to invite Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to join him “in participating in town hall meetings across the country to discuss the most important issues facing Americans.” Later today, McCain told reporters that he “prefer[s]” town hall style discussions, saying he “would never have been able to win in New Hampshire if we hadn’t have conducted 102 town hall meetings.”

After learning of the proposal, media figures took him at face value, simply repeating McCain’s claim that he is well-suited for the town hall meetings:

– MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell: “One of the points there is to take advantage of McCain’s presumed strength in the town hall format and in loose conversations.”

– MSNBC’s Monica Novotny: “So it seems that these town halls would work to his strength.”

– Fox News’s Juan Williams: “That’s his strength. That format, when you get John McCain doing town hall meetings, he’s at his best.”

Watch it:

Really? Are town hall meetings really good for McCain? Does the town hall format create space for the presumptive Republican nominee to shine? Not exactly. Here are some lowlights of McCain “at his best” during various town hall meetings this GOP primary season:

– QUESTION: “How do we beat the bitch?” McCAIN: “That’s an excellent question.”

– SUPPORTER: “Another man — wondering if an attack on Iran is in the works — wanted to know when America is going to ‘send an air mail message to Tehran.’” McCAIN: “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”

– QUESTION: “President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — [cut off by McCain].” McCAIN: “Maybe a hundred.”

– Student on McCain’s position on gay marriage: “I came here looking to see a leader. I don’t.”

– McCain called a student asking about his age “a little jerk,” adding, “You’re drafted.”

The media has seemed to be operating in the “if McCain says it, it must be true” mode for most of this campaign season. McCain has not only benefited from “very friendly” press coverage over the years but numerous reporters have said they’re unsure when they’ll start scrutinizing his record and what he says.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up