ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Payne’s ‘perceived bribery’ costs him DHS post.

Stephen Payne, a “GOP lobbyist and fundraiser with close ties to the White House has quit a Homeland Security Department advisory committee following allegations of influence peddling and quid pro quo donations to the Bush presidential library,” UPI reports:

Department spokeswoman Laura Keehner confirmed to United Press International that Stephen Payne was asked to resign. [...]

“The department asked him to step down” from his post on the Secure Borders and Open Doors Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, Keehner said, declining to comment on the reasons.

[Payne] said he had resigned from the advisory council because “under the current circumstances there will be too many distractions for me to successfully focus on (its) important work.”

Both DHS and the House Oversight Committee have opened investigations into Payne’s activities. The watchdog group CREW is urging the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into Payne and his relationship with the Bush administration. (HT: TPM)

Update

The Austin American-Statesman reports that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s relationship with Payne is raising some ethics issues. Payne may have drafted an op-ed in 2005 that was published in Hutchinson’s name which helped promote his clients in Azerbaijan:

What also remains murky is Payne’s role in a 2005 opinion piece that Hutchison authored for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. It was headlined “Azerbaijan: Opportunity for America,” and in it Hutchison writes that the country “holds great promise” as an oil source in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Payne brags in materials for his business that he “developed” a series of op-eds promoting the country, including one by Hutchison.

Hutchison’s current staff contends that it does not know the precise origins of the column she wrote promoting Azerbaijan, although her spokesman says she was heavily involved. Chris Paulitz, her communications director at the time, declined to comment today on Payne’s role in writing the piece.

Yglesias

Exciting New Reasons to Bomb Iran

I sometimes feel like “bomb Iran” is just a policy proposal walking around in search of a solution. Mostly, it’s supposed to solve something related to their nuclear program but nobody can ever quite say what. Sometimes, it’s for something to do with their “meddling” in Iraq. Here via Tyler Cowen we see Shmuel Rosner confront the fact that bombing Iran isn’t a good way of preventing them from getting nuclear weapons, and come around to favoring bombing Iran anyway:

According to this line of thinking, which has adherents…focusing on the tactical questions surrounding such an operation — how much of Iran’s nuclear program can Israel destroy? how many years can a bombing campaign set the program back? — is a mistake. The main goal of a hit would not be to destroy the program completely, but rather to awaken the international community from its slumber and force it to finally engineer a solution to the crisis…any attack on Iran’s reactors — as long as it is not perceived as a military failure — can serve as a means of “stirring the pot” of international geopolitics. Israel, in other words, wouldn’t be resorting to military action because it is convinced that diplomacy by the international community cannot stop Iran; it would be resorting to military action because only diplomacy by the international community can stop Iran.

This, honestly, would be downright silly if not for the fact that bombing countries is per se a serious business. One likes to think that Israel hasn’t managed to survive this long in a dangerous neighborhood by being run by morons and, thus, this policy is going to be rejected. Meanwhile, as one can see here, what’s needed here are fewer rumors of war and more direct engagement by the United States in a serious diplomatic effort at a rapprochement with Iran. Israel’s soi disant friends in the United States seem to get antsy at the prospect of anything resembling a real diplomatic initiative, but it would clearly be the best thing for Israel as well as for the US, Iran, Iraq and the world at large.

Climate Progress

Wall-E is an eco-dystopian gem — an anti-consumption movie (from Disney!)

wall-e-command.jpgDisney/Pixar’s new hit Wall-E is easily one of the best movie dystopias ever. It ranks with Blade Runner, Brazil, A Clockwork Orange, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, the Matrix, Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green, and the first two Terminator movies.

Yes, Hollywood loves dystopias. Perhaps because it is one (okay, technically it is an anti-utopia).

I have a couple of reasons for writing about the movie. One is that we can expect to see more environmental dystopias as the painful reality of global warming becomes more and more obvious to all. Wall-E makes clear that even the most brutal satire of our self-inflicted environmental predicament can be a box office success, if it is well done. The second reason is the incredible irony of Disney making this movie.

As a film it is superb, a must see for children and adults. Critically acclaimed, it received a rare 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. The New Yorker‘s tough-to-please David Denby writes:

Watching Pixar’s animated film “WALL-E” must be a humbling experience for other filmmakers, because it demonstrates not just the number but the variety of ideas you need to make a terrific movie.

This may be the only major movie ever made that is both a dystopia and anti-utopia. In the dystopic first half, we see a lifeless post-eco-apocalyptic Earth overrun by toxic garbage, which is collected and compacted by our robotic hero, WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth-Class). WALL-E has become sentient by collecting and studying the waste of humanity, including an old tape of the movie Hello Dolly he plays over and over again.

In the anti-utopic second half, the megacorporation Buy ‘N Large had created a seeming paradise for humans on board “Executive Starliners” where every task has become automated. But hundreds of years after what was supposed to be a brief exodus while Earth was cleaned up, humans have become “a flabby mass of peabrained idiots who are literally too fat to walk.” These lazy, overweight video-addicts — whoever could the moviemakers be talking about? — are less human than WALL-E.

Though criticized by some conservatives as anti-capitalist, WALL-E is perhaps best described as one of the most anti-consumption movies ever made. That’s why even Michael Gerson, a Former Bush speechwriter known for his evangelical moralism, loved the movie and saw it as a daring attack on “a culture of consumption.”

As much as I loved the movie, I did find an odd disjunction….

Read more

Politics

Fox News host: 15 year-old detainee ‘maybe deserved’ harsh treatment.

Today, lawyers for Canadian national Omar Khadr, a Guantanamo detainee, released an interrogation video from 2003, showing Khadr weeping and begging for better medical treatment. Discussing the video today on Fox News, host Trace Gallagher declared Khadr had killed an American solider — Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade — and so “maybe he deserves” to be tortured. Watch it:

According to reports, Khadr — who was just 15 years old when captured — was tortured while held by the U.S. in Bagram, Afghanistan, where “he was repeatedly brought into interrogation rooms on stretchers, in great pain” and “pain medication was withheld, apparently to induce cooperation.”

Politics

Feith Lies To Congress: ‘I Championed A Policy Of Respect For Geneva’

In May, British international lawyer Philippe Sands told Vanity Fair that Iraq war architect Doug Feith was instrumental in the Bush administration’s shredding of the Geneva Conventions. Feith “took the steps to ensure that none of these detainees could rely on Geneva,” Sands said.

In a house hearing today, Feith disputed Sands’s interview, calling it a “twisted account.” “I strongly championed a policy of respect for Geneva, and I did not recommend that the President set aside Common Article 3,” he claimed. Feith said Sands had “smeared” him:

So Mr. Sands’s account about me is fundamentally wrong. This is important not because that account smears me, it’s significant because it exposes the astonishing carelessness or recklessness of his book and his Vanity Fair article.

In his opening statement, Sands said Feith’s claim “is not an accurate statement.” “I did interview Mr. Feith for my book,” Sands explained, volunteering to make available the “audio and the transcript” of his interview to the committee. Sands said that Feith told him that detainees were not to receive Geneva protections “at all”:

This is what he said to me: “The point is, the al Qaeda people were not entitled to have the Convention applied at all. Period. Obvious.”

Watch it:

Feith has tried to whitewash his role in the administration’s torture program before, for example, telling right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt that he was “extremely strongly pro-Geneva convention.”

Another torture architect who has worked closely with Feith has tried a similar attack on Sands. Last month, John Yoo said Sands had falsely claimed he interviewed Yoo, claiming it “reflects on the veracity of the balance of the book.” Sands in fact never made such a claim and was quoting Yoo’s statements from a 2005 debate.

Politics

Boehner falsely claims there’s no ‘wildlife’ in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In a press conference today previewing a House Republican trip to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that’s meant to promote drilling, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) doubted the existence of actual wildlife in the refuge. “We’re going to look at this barren, Arctic desert where I’m hoping to see some wildlife,” said Boehner. “But I understand there’s none there.” Boehner repeated his skepticism during an interview on CNN, telling Wolf Blitzer, “I’ll be looking for all that wildlife.” Ironically, CNN paired Boehner’s interview with b-roll of actual wildlife moving around the refuge. Watch it:

Boehner would likely be less skeptical if he just visited the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s website for the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which notes that it is “renowned for its wildlife” and is inhabited by 45 species of land and marine mammals, 36 species of fish and 180 species of birds. View photos of some of the wildlife here.

Security

John McCain Plays Catch-Up on Afghanistan

Our guest blogger is Colin Cookman, Special Assistant for National Security at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

mccainafghanistan.jpgJohn McCain attempted to play catch-up on the issue of Afghanistan today, delivering a speech on national security (which the campaign had initially scheduled for later in the week) in response to a foreign policy address by Democratic candidate Barack Obama. McCain, who secured his party’s nomination three and a half months ago and touts himself as a candidate with strong national security bona fides, does not discuss Afghanistan or Pakistan – where top U.S. intelligence officials have repeatedly warned Al Qaeda is operating “safe havens” – under the “national security” section of his campaign website and has not issued any recent major statements on the region.

In a 2007 Foreign Affairs article outlining his foreign policy vision, McCain called for more NATO military forces, military trainers, and police mentors for the country, but stopped short of pledging any additional American forces and offered little in the way of specifics on how to deal with the associated challenges in Pakistan.

McCain attempted to shed that position in his speech today and acknowledged the reality that progressives have been arguing for several years now: Afghanistan has been under-resourced and neglected by this administration and needs a greater commitment of resources, troops, and policy-making attention in order to staunch the slow slide towards instability that has been plaguing the country since the Bush administration, McCain, and other conservative leaders took us to war in Iraq in 2003.

Read more

Politics

Flashback: McCain joked about how much women love to be raped.

The blog Rum, Romanism and Rebellion pulls out a 1986 Tucson Citizen article recounting a joke about rape told by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Speaking to the National League of Cities and Towns in Washington, DC, McCain allegedly said:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”

McCain was swiftly criticized by women’s groups. A spokeswoman for NOW in Arizona said the organization’s members were “incensed by his cruel and sexist remark.” McCain said he did not “recall” telling the joke. More recently, the McCain campaign scheduled a fundraiser with a Texas oilman who compared rape to the weather while running for governor. “As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it,” said Clayton Williams in 1990. After public outcry, the event was “postponed.”

Digg It!

Update

Huffington Post’s Sam Stein spoke to reporter Norma Coile, who wrote the original article. Coile told Stein, “I’m not sure exactly what the wording was of the joke, but something was said. Some joke involving a rape and ape was said.”

Politics

McCain flip-flops on sending three more brigades to Afghanistan.

During his townhall meeting in New Mexico today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that “our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades.” “Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available,” added McCain. “Our commanders in Afghanistan must get them.” Watch it:

But on his campaign bus after the event, McCain “modified his assertion” that the U.S. could send three additional brigades to Afghanistan by drawing on troops that were leaving Iraq. Instead, he told reporters that “he might call on NATO to supply part of the additional troops he hopes to send to the region.”

Health

Bush’s Medicare Veto Undermines Coverage For Low Income Americans

bushmedicare-2.jpgToday, President Bush “vetoed the Medicare bill that would stave off a 10.6 percent cut in reimbursements to doctors and replace it with a slight increase.” In his veto statement, Bush claimed that the legislation, which made cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, “would reduce benefits to millions of seniors, including lower-income seniors, who have chosen to join these plans“:

While the MMA increased the availability of private plan options across the country, it is important to remember that a significant number of beneficiaries who have chosen these options earn lower incomes. The latest data show that 49 percent of beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans report income of $20,000 or less. These beneficiaries have made a decision to maximize their Medicare and supplemental benefits through the MA program, in part because of their economic situation. Cuts to MA plan payments required by this legislation would reduce benefits to millions of seniors, including lower-income seniors, who have chosen to join these plans.

In fact, the bill Bush vetoed actually “helps low-income beneficiaries pay the costs of Medicare benefits” by increasing “the amount of assets that applicants are able possess and still qualify for the Medicare Savings Program.”

Bush’s argument that low income Americans benefit disproportionately from Medicare Advantage plans echoes the now discredited analysis of AHIP, the health insurance lobby. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities points out, this claim is “based on misleading use of data“:

– “The Administration notes that about 49 percent of Medicare Advantage enrollees have incomes below $20,000, but generally fails to point out that 51 percent of fee-for-service beneficiaries do.”

- Nearly half (48 percent) of all Medicare beneficiaries with incomes below $10,000 are enrolled in, and thus receive supplemental coverage through, Medicaid. This is nearly five times the proportion (10 percent) who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

- Among beneficiaries with incomes below $20,000… a larger share receive supplemental coverage through Medicaid than through a Medicare Advantage plan”

Thus, Bush’s veto undermines the health care coverage for “low-income seniors” in the name of saving it.

UPDATE: The House of Representatives voted 383 to 41 to override Bush’s veto.

Older

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

Sign Up