ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Taguba backs commission to investigate Bush-era abuses.

taguba4.jpg Last summer, former Abu Ghraib investigator ret. Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said that the Bush administration had “committed war crimes” and needed to be “held to account.” Yesterday, 18 human rights organizations, former State Department officials, and former law enforcement and military leaders — including Taguba — signed onto a letter asking the President to create a non-partisan commission to investigate the Bush administration’s torture policies. In a new interview with Salon, he explains why:

I feel we have to come to terms with policies that have gained such notoriety and have been debated about whether they were in the best interest of our national security, and whether those who created these policies were pressured by their senior leadership. [...]

[I support] a structured commission with some form of authority with clear objectives and a follow-on action plan. I’m not looking for anything that is prosecutorial in nature, unless a suspected violation of relevant laws occurred, which should be referred to the Dept of Justice.

- Matt Finkelstein

Yglesias

Avigdor Lieberman Boosted By Pro-Pork Backlash

pork_chop_1.jpg

One of the oddities of Israeli politics is that Avigdor Lieberman’s far-right anti-Arab Yisrael Beitenu party is also a staunch upholder of secularism, since its primary source of support is immigrants from the former Soviet Union, who tend to be secular and many of whom like eating pork. And soon before the last election, the ultra-orthodox Shas party stepped up its anti-pork rhetoric. This, according to Jeffrey Yoskowitz, likely helped drive some secular voters away from Likud and toward Lieberman, in order to save their pork:

In lambasting the sausages and pork chops of Russian culture right before the election, Yosef aroused widespread fear among the Russian population of what Shas would do if it won enough votes to enter a governing coalition. “I wasn’t going to vote this year but now my husband says we have to vote for [Lieberman], otherwise [Shas] will shut us down,” Haaretz quoted one Russian shop-owner as saying. “It’s true we don’t sell pork here, but I’m from Russia and that might be enough [to close us.]” Lieberman himself credited Yosef for his bump in support, saying that of all the forces working in his favor, “No doubt, the rabbi deserves first prize.”

Netanyahu was also damaged by the rising Russian tide against Shas. His Likud party had turned to religious parties such as Shas and Agudat Israel to build coalitions in the past, which has facilitated their attempts to ban pork, make selling leavened bread on Passover illegal, and perpetuate many policies that singularly serve the interests of the ultra-Orthodox community. Therefore, while many Russian voters cared about Netanyahu’s security position, Lieberman’s core platform promised both the security of their borders as well as their culture–meats, cheeses, and all. It is not surprising, then, that Lieberman’s gains in support coincided in a drop in support for Likud–which, according to the last published poll before the election (released the day before Yosef’s speech), was slated to win a slim lead over the Kadima party.

He also observes that Israel’s pork community is quite embattled:

Escalating tensions have led to clashes between Russian immigrants and their religious neighbors in a number of cities across the country. In August 2007, for example, a Russian-owned deli was attacked in the northern beach town of Netanya–an occurrence that had become so commonplace that is was a theme canonized in the 2005 Israeli film, The Schwartz Dynasty. A month later, a similar non-kosher shop in Tzfat was attacked, just 24 hours after the Jewish Day of Atonement. The owner of a pork processing factory in Haifa, Dadi Marom, complained to me that every Friday afternoon his weekly sausage and beer tasting is interrupted by ultra-Orthodox protests.

In the United States, of course, Jews are a small numerical minority and the observant and un-observant alike tend to appreciate the dangers of intolerance and the virtues of a state that doesn’t seek to enforce religious taboos.

Politics

Jindal Rejects $90 Million In Recovery Funding That Would Have Benefited 25,000 Louisiana Residents

jindalbush.jpgWhen President Obama signed the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act last week, it included three different provisions to benefit unemployed workers. The first provided funding to states that allowed for a $25 per week increase in benefits. The second extended the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program which gives 20 weeks of federally-funded unemployment benefits to individuals “who had already collected all regular state benefits,” while the third provision widened the pool of people eligible to receive unemployment benefits.

Today, however, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal announced his intention to oppose changing state law to allow his Lousiana citizens to qualify for the second two unemployment provisions. Jindal said the state would only be accepting money to increase the unemployment insurance payments for those who currently qualify for unemployment insurance.

In all, Jindal turned away nearly $100 million in federal aid for his state’s unemployed residents. Further, as the National Employment Law Project projected on Febuary 13, EUC extension alone would have benefited 24,981 Louisiana residents. Jindal justified his decision by claiming that expanding unemployment benefits would result in tax increases for businesses. In a press release, the governor’s office explained:

The Governor said the state will not use a portion of the stimulus package that requires the state to change its law to expand unemployment insurance (UI) coverage to qualify for up to $32.8 million of the federal stimulus funding because it ultimately would result in a tax increase on Louisiana businesses.

But it is not clear why participating in the expanded unemployment insurance program would result in tax increases for business. By Jindal’s own estimate, the recovery package would have funded his state’s unemployment expansion for three years, at which point the state could — if it chose to do so — phase out the program.

As New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin suggested earlier today, perhaps Jindal’s presidential ambitions are “clouding” his judgement. “I think he’s been tapped as the up-and-coming Republican to petition a run for president the next time it goes around. So he has a certain vernacular, and a certain way he needs to talk right now,” Nagin said.

Yglesias

Crook: Obama Housing Plan “Seems Well Thought Out”

I’m of the view that the housing plan element of the administration’s three-legged stool (housing/fiscal expansion/banking reform) is pretty clearly the least important. But still, better to do it well than to do it poorly. And Clive Crook makes the case that they’re doing it well.

Politics

Foreign service employees overwhelmingly favor extending benefits to same-sex couples.

Earlier this month during a town hall meeting with State Department employees, Secretary Hillary Clinton expressed “real concern” that same-sex partners in the foreign service aren’t offered the benefits that are provided to heterosexual couples. A new poll conducted by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) found that a significant majority of the department’s employees agree. When asked if AFSA should “advocate for official recognition and benefits for same-sex domestic partners of Foreign Service members,” 71 percent said yes while only 17 percent opposed.

Health

Rep. Boustany: I Haven’t Read Medical Research Provision, But I Still Would Have Voted Against It

boustanycer.jpgDuring the debate surrounding the $787 billion stimulus law signed into law this week by President Obama, several Republicans and lobbyists for drug groups and the insurance industry strongly objected to a provision that dedicated $1.1 billion to researching the effectiveness of medical drugs and procedures.

Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA), a heart surgeon, opposed the provision because he feared that the government would use the research to deny treatments to Medicare patients because they cost too much. In fact, “when the House Ways and Means Committee debated the stimulus measure, Boustany offered an amendment that would have prevented Medicare from basing coverage decisions on cost alone.”

Once it was defeated, Boustany went on the offensive:

- Federal bureaucrats will misuse this research to ration care, to deny life-saving treatments to seniors and disabled people. [NYT, 2/15/2009]

- Congress should fund research to improve the quality of patients’ medical care, instead of creating new barriers to deprive them of beneficial treatments. [Press Release, 12/12/2009]

Today, in an interview with Congressional Quarterly, Boustany revealed that he hadn’t read the final version of the bill, but would have “voted against the stimulus bill even if the comparative effectiveness provision had been written to his liking“:

While I see some value in doing research to see what’s the best clinical approach, taking into consideration cost and quality, I’m just deeply concerned about cost alone being a factor in making clinical decisions.

Had Boustany read the final language, he would have discovered that the legislation actually addressed his concerns. In fact, the bill states that the research will compare “clinical outcomes effectiveness,” not cost:

That the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares clinical outcomes effectiveness, appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, and other health conditions...”

The conference report addressed the matter more boldly, “the conferees do not intend for the comparative effectiveness research funding included in the conference agreement to be used to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.”

The stimulus legislation established an agency to “conduct and support research that would assess the benefits of competing treatments,” regardless of their cost. As Robert Laszewski points out, “comparative research–which drugs or medical devices work the best–makes a lot of sense. That is especially true in the wake of decades of research that continues to point to wide overuse of technology as the primary cost driver in our health care system.”

In the long run, comparative effectiveness research could be used to make health care more cost-effective. That is, to improve the quality of care, lower health care costs and make insurance more affordable, Medicare could spend health care dollars with “an eye to lifting the quality and reducing the cost of health care” without refusing “to pay for popular treatments that it covers today — unless the research reveals serious risks.”

Yglesias

Commerce Cabinet Crisis VII: Daniel C. Roper

200px_daniel_calhoun_roper_pers0178.jpg

In March of 1933, the United States of America emerged from its nightmarish flirtation with the ludicrous concept of being governed by a President whose former job was Secretary of Commerce, and returned to the honest and decent practice of picking a relatively inexperienced governor. And along with Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal came a new Commerce Secretary, Daniel Calhoun Roper of South Carolina, one of the white supremacists who made mid-century Democratic Party politics so charming. Roper’s father was a leader of the so-called Scotch Boys (they came from Scotland County, SC) during the Civil War. Roper himself was born shortly after the war’s end, in 1867, and graduated from Duke in 1888.

In 1892 he got himself elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives. Then in 1893, he went to work on the staff of the US Senate’s Interstate Commerce Committee. Starting in 1900, he spent ten years working for the Census Bureau and then joined the House Ways and Means Committee staff. Woodrow Wilson made him first assistant postmaster general, which was an important patronage position at the time, and he served as chairman of Wilson’s reelection campaign. He then became chairman of the 1917 US Tariff Commission, which sounds dull but at the time it was a quite important economic policy position as lowering trade barriers was a major Democratic Party priority. His service in the Wilson administration ended with a stint heading up the IRS from 1917-1920. Then it was into the wilderness for Roper until the Democrats came roaring back with FDR.

In the early New Deal years, Roper was sort of FDR’s envoy to the business community. He set up an outfit called the Business Advisory Council composed of pro-New Deal executives. The National Recovery Administration cartelization policies really were pretty favorable to the interests of big business, but there were tensions over the administration’s pro-union inclinations, which led to the departure in 1934 of some initially supportive BAC members. Still, the BAC helped spearhead some business support for the creation of Social Security, though the majority of the business community was having none of it. He resigned from the cabinet in 1938 and became Ambassador to Canada.

Yglesias

Stupid Budget Tricks

Not only is the Obama administration’s decision to end Bush-era dumb budget gimmicks that made the deficit seem smaller than it really was a good idea, I also think it’s a political no-brainer. For one thing, you’ll get some points from someone for being honest. For another thing, I never really understood what the Bush Gang thought it was accomplishing with this stuff. It served to antagonize the tiny minority of people who care about long-run budget projections and impress . . . who, exactly? People, it seems, who don’t care enough about long-run budget projections to unravel the trivially obvious gimmicks they were using. But why do you care what those people think?

In a lot of ways, the Bush administration always struck me as a group of people who were just so impressed with their own shamelessness and dishonesty that they wildly exaggerated the extent to which lying about stuff is a useful governing tool. They loved the game, they loved the gamesmanship, they held the public in contempt, experts in more contempt, and the press in even more contempt, and so they just went and did it.

Yglesias

Darrel Thompson Sure Can Quit Burris

Three weeks ago, Darrel Thompson, a senior adviser to Harry Reid, was dispatched to serve as Chief of Staff to Senator Roland Burris to help him put a team together and manage his office. Now Thompson is quitting as Democrats everywhere once again hop off the Burris bandwagon now that it’s come out that he hasn’t been playing it straight about his dealings with former governor Blagojevic. And now Illinois Governor Quinn is calling for a speedy special election process to get the state a senator untainted by this whole mess. That sounds like a very good idea to me.

Politics

Fred Kagan: ‘The Iraqis Were Not Bitching’ About Civilian Deaths Because They ‘Sort Of Accept’ Them

kagan23412.jpgAEI’s Fred Kagan, the architect of the Iraq surge, has a history of grossly misreading events on the ground in Iraq. In August 2007, amidst the height of skyrocketing violence in Iraq, Kagan claimed that “sectarian deaths” were “way down.” After Baghdad had been virtually cleansed of Sunnis in March 2008, Kagan decried the “magnificent myth” of ethnic cleansing in Iraq.

At an AEI panel Wednesday, Kagan drastically overplayed Iraqis’ tolerance for “collateral damage” resulting from U.S. military incursions. Comparing Afghanistan and Iraq, Kagan said that a notable difference between the two wars is that Iraqi civilians “were not bitching” when civilians were killed:

KAGAN: The interesting thing is that when we were fighting those battles and doing that damage, on the whole the Iraqis were not bitching about collateral damage. You had nothing like the degree of upset about how many civilians were being injured and how much damage was being done to the infrastructure in Iraq at a much higher level of destruction than you have in Afghanistan at a much lower level of destruction.

Kagan then attributed the differences between Iraqis’ so-called tolerance for civilian deaths — and Afghan’s intolerance — to “cultural reasons”:

KAGAN: I think there’s a cultural reason for that: Afghans don’t fight in their cities. Iraqis do. For good or ill, Iraqis expect to fight in their cities. That’s where the insurgents dug in, Saddam Hussein planned to dig in to the cities or lure us into an urban fight. It’s sort of understood that the battlefield is going to be there, that doesn’t mean that they don’t complain about it, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem, but it does mean that when the insurgents dig in and we root them out, the Iraqis don’t on the whole say “darn it, you shouldn’t have blown up all of our houses.” They sort of accept that. Afghans do not.

Listen here:

Over at the Wonk Room, Matt Duss notes that Kagan’s casual dismissal of human rights marks a line in the sand between progressives and neoconservatives. “Neoconservatism is based in the idea that there’s no national security problem that can’t be overcome by the relentless application of the military force. Progressives understand that this is wrong,” he writes.

According to Kagan, Iraqis’ overwhelming disapproval of the U.S. occupation, demanding a timetable for withdrawal, and celebrating a man who threw shoes at President Bush signifies their tolerance for “collateral damage.”

Older

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

Sign Up