ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Indyk: The Israelis Hated Eastern European Missile Defense

At an American Enterprise Institute event today — “Should Israel Attack Iran?” (yes, they’re obviously trying to get peoples’ attention) — former Ambassador Martin Indyk revealed an interesting wrinkle to the story of Eastern European missile defense system, which the Obama administration canceled last month, a move conservatives have heavily criticized as — what else? — appeasement.

Recounting recent meetings with Israeli national security officials, Indyk said that “the Israelis were upset at the way that Bush had offended Russia with missile defense” in Eastern Europe. The Israelis, like many Americans and most of the rest of the world, saw the deployment of untested missile defense technology in Poland and the Czech Republic as needlessly provocative of Russia, whose support is seen as necessary for any effort to bring Iran’s nuclear program under control.

Speaking about President Obama’s engagement policy, Indyk said “The key to this strategy has always been Russia,” because of their close relationship with the Iranians, and Obama “is bringing them [the Russians] around.” After the administration announced the canceling of the missile defense system, Indyk said, the Russians told the Iranians “if you do not go along with the proposal to ship out low enriched uranium” to Russia for reprocessing, “then you will be on your own.”

President Obama’s diplomacy “is about trying to concert the international community into a solid block against the Iranian nuclear program such that the Iranians would see that it is not in their interest to pursue nuclear weapons.” Indyk said “That is what is happening now.”

Amb. John Bolton, who was one of the biggest critics of the administration’s canceling of the missile defense system, was dismissive. “The Iranians are never going to be talked out of that effort” to obtain nuclear weapons, he said. As to the question of whether Israel should attack, Bolton said only that he believed “the use of force is necessary.” Bolton did, however, say that he did not think Israel “need[ed] to, or should” use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.

AEI analyst Michael Rubin, who has been pretty clear-eyed about the costs of military action, said that in the event of an attack either by the U.S. or Israel, “Iranians will rally around the flag.” As for the idea that the Iranian people would rise up against the regime after such an attack, Rubin said “it’s wishful thinking. The best thing that ever happened to Islamic revolution was Saddam Hussein’s invasion” in September 1980, which allowed the still-wobbly regime of Ayatollah Khomeini to unify the country and consolidate power.

Politics

Michael Savage says Glenn Beck does a ‘reasonably good job copying people who are brighter than him.’

On his radio show yesterday, Michael Savage took issue with the Obama administration’s accusations of partisanship against Fox News, calling the entire controversy a “kabuki play” generated for ratings and a bid for News Corporation (Fox News’ parent company) to expand business. Savage also took aim at Glenn Beck, saying Beck might soon be muzzled with a “bit in his mouth” by his bosses at Fox News. Savage proceeded to call Beck a dim-witted con artist:

SAVAGE: Within 90 days, he has got a bit in his mouth and he’s moving on to something else. [...] I’m not impressed by him. I’ve seen the act before. I’m not for him or against him, he does a reasonably good job copying people who are brighter than him who have done their work before him and taking as many ideas from as many people as he can without giving anyone credit. I get that. There’s nothing new about that either. But, my prediction is he’s got a bit put in his mouth very very fast and or he’s going to be fired.

Listen here:

Savage isn’t the only top far-right talker to trash Beck. Last month, Mark Levin, another top 10 radio show host, called Beck “mindless,” “incoherent,” and “pathetic.”

Yglesias

Endgame

C’est la faute des magazines:

— AIPAC sort of fixing up eyesore vacant lot in my neighborhood; next on the agenda, a new attitude toward settlements.

— Bernard Avishai says he’s a Zionist but Jeffrey Goldberg wants to kick him out of the club.

— Sweden burns rabbits for fuel. Really.

“État-providence” is French for “welfare state”; it’s a much better phrase.

— I think maybe the Wizards need to hire new medical staff.

— Windows 7 is the Creed of operating systems.

It’s a French pop kind of day, this is Yelle “A Cause des Garçons”.

Yglesias

War Crimes in Sri Lanka

2009_SriLanka_USWarReport

Human Rights Watch’s anti-Sinhalese agenda once again on display:

A US State Department report on possible violations of the laws of war in Sri Lanka made public on October 22, 2009 shows the need for an independent international investigation, Human Rights Watch said today. The report details violations of the laws of war committed by both government forces and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) from January through May 2009.

“The US State Department report should dispel any doubts that serious abuses were committed during the conflict’s final months,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Given Sri Lanka’s complete failure to investigate possible war crimes, the only hope for justice is an independent, international investigation.”

Note how they cleverly mask their partisan, one-sided agenda behind a pretense of criticizing both sides in a fair-minded way. Very insidious.

Climate Progress

Obama: ‘It’s Hard To Say’ Why Critics Of Clean Energy Accuse Him Of Socialism

This afternoon at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, President Barack Obama challenged the nation to explore the “new frontiers” of the “clean energy economy of tomorrow.” He praised Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for working on legislation to make our energy system “more efficient, far cleaner, and provide energy independence for America.” But Obama challenged critics “whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action,” saying the status quo “endangers our prosperity” and the “only purpose” of those who question climate science “is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary”:

The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized. But I think it’s important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we’ll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action that we’re engaged in. There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy — when it’s the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those who cynically claim — make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary. So we’re going to have to work on those folks.

Following the speech, the Wonk Room asked President Obama why such critics accuse the president of socialism. Obama replied:

You know, it’s hard to say. Maybe if you have an answer to that, you’ll let me know.

Watch it:

Among the critics of President Obama’s clean energy agenda who say it will destroy the economy are Glenn Beck, Marc Morano, Fox News, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and even Democratic candidate for the governor of Virginia, Creigh Deeds. Beck believes the White House energy and environment adviser Carol Browner is a socialist. Morano, Inhofe’s former blogger, argued limits on global warming pollution is the “biggest threat to freedom” at the Accuracy in Media conference today. Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer calls the regulation “cap and tax.” Inhofe warns of a “global tax” from the United Nations. And Deeds is now running ads claiming the “cap and trade bill” would “hurt the people” of Virginia.

The reason Obama’s critics accuse him of socialism is because, for reasons of “interest or ideology,” they support a system of economic inequity based on an unsustainable fossil-fuel economy. The current system has reaped great rewards for the ultra-wealthy and the industrial polluters at the expense of the health and welfare of their fellow Americans. To avoid blame for their malfeasance, they must paint Obama as the villain, and his essential reform agenda as even scarier than the status quo, with language that taps into the darkest fears of the American public.

Update

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also shot back at critics today, although he also criticized current legislation:

Global climate change is not a religion to me but I do believe carbon pollution is harmful to the environment and I want to find a way to fix that problem. But it’s got to be good business. None of the bills in the House or the Senate right now are good business. They would really hurt manufacturing and they would hurt rate payers. . . .

“If you don’t control carbon people are going to keep building coal-fired plants. You have to make carbon emissions such that it’s worth your time to invest in wind, solar and nuclear. I think carbon controls can be reasonably had without disrupting our economy.

Politics

The price of Glenn Beck Day: $17,748.85.

Glenn Beck Last month, Bud Norris, the mayor of Mt. Vernon, WA, controversially decided to award hometown boy Glenn Beck the ceremonial key to the city and declare Sept. 26 “Glenn Beck Day.” In response, approximately 800 people turned out to demonstrate — “the largest protest anybody could remember” in the town — and the city council unanimously passed a resolution that distanced itself from the mayor’s decision. Now, the Seattle Times reports that the event cost the small town $17,748.85, an amount that has stunned the Mt. Vernon finance director. Additionally, the event didn’t make the $10,000 the mayor had expected to donate to a local theater:

There were 577 tickets sold that generated $14,425, before expenses.

Income from ticket sales would have been higher if 92 comp tickets hadn’t been given out.

Norris says he gave comps to Beck’s family, “community leaders, people in leadership roles. … I’m told that’s pretty common.”

So the tickets sales netted $5,746.83 — after $5,754.17 was deducted for the hall rental, and $2,924 deducted for radio ads.

Why radio ads for an event that received such free publicity and was sold out in one day?

“The radio advertising was to make sure we sold tickets. I didn’t know what kind of response we would get. I didn’t want to go through all this and have 50 people show up,” says Norris.

Nevertheless, Norris has no regrets: “I don’t go to bed at night worrying about what people are saying about me on the Internet or blogs.” (HT: Gawker)

Yglesias

Obama’s Nobel Prize Reconsidered

225px-Mikhail_Gorbachev_1987

It seems Mikhail Gorbachev thinks Barack Obama deserved his Nobel Prize.

I was in Denmark when the winner was announced, so I knew all about this back when Americans were asleep. And I can confirm that the general reaction among Danish government officials and visiting American environmental journalists alike was that this was a pretty silly idea. But in semi-defense of the Nobel Committee I will say that if you completely ignore recent precedent and instead focus on the text handed down in Alfred Nobel’s will, there’s a strong case that Obama actually is the person who’s “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” As long as we interpret “standing armies” to include “standing nuclear weapons arsenals” it does seem to me that Obama has done more on this than anyone else.

Health

Rockefeller Questions CBO’s Assertion That Tort Reform Could Save $54 Billion

ElmfRockySen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) doesn’t believe the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) when it says that tort reform could reduce the use of ‘defensive medicine’ and save the federal government $54 billion over 10 years. In a six page letter to ‘Doug’ (Elmendorf, the director of the CBO), Rockefeller points out that the CBO recent conclusion reverses years of precedent and relies on academic studies that actually undermine the budget office’s final conclusion:

CBO’s recent letter to Senator Hatch creates more questions that it answers. The several cited reports contain conflicting data, which tends to support CBO’s prior conclusion that the evidence available on the issue of defensive medicine is “inconsistent” and “mixed.” It is impossible for CBO to conclude that we will see cost savings from a reduction in health care services without analyzing the effects on patient health.

“CBO has repeatedly concluded that cost savings associated with medical malpractice reforms would be minimal and the at evidence concerning defensive medicine is ‘inconsistent,’” Rockefeller writes, noting that the budget office has previously determined that “the effect of medical malpractice reform “would be relativley small — less than 0.5 percent of total health care spending” and would “save [only] $5.6 billion over 10 years.”

Indeed, states that have adopted tort reform have failed to significantly lower health care costs. When Texas capped non economic medical malpractice damages to $250,000 in 2003, most conservatives argued that the reform would free doctors from having to prescribe unnecessary treatment. It didn’t happen. According to the Dartmouth research on disparities in health care spending, many Texan doctors are still prescribing aggressive treatments that don’t improve outcomes. In fact, as of 2006, Texas was still at the top of the list of high-spending states.

A physician’s motivation for engaging in ‘defensive’ behavior or overtreatment is far more complicated than the fear of lawsuits, health expert Maggie Mahar explained during an interview with the Wonk Room:

It may be that he saw a case like this once before and it went sour, and he doesn’t know why and so he wants to be extra careful. It may be that he has been seeing Ms. O’Connell for years, she is a dear person and he really cares for her and he just wants to make sure that no stone is left unturned. Could be that he has been seeing Ms. O’Connell for years, she is a pain in the ass, and he knows that if he doesn’t order every treatment that her neighbor says he needs, he’s going to be hearing from her. And it could be that he is afraid of being sued. If I were the doctor, I wouldn’t be able to untangle my motives and say to what degree fear of malpractice suits is driving my actions.

Experts believe that the current reimbursement structure does more to shape practice patterns than fear of liability. “The current health system reimburses doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers based on the number of visits and procedures that are done. As a result, health care providers’ revenues and profits increase when they deliver more services and the cost of health care goes up,” Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress, wrote in a recent report.

The current reform legislation attempts to re-align the incentives in the current system. It encourages providers to coordinate primary care services, expands pilot programs that reimburse providers in bundles and for episodes of care and allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand successful models. These kinds of reforms have saved money in places like Cleavland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic and will likely do more to reduce defensive medicine than the largely unsubstantiated reliance on tort reform.

Politics

Pawlenty Says He Would Lead A Campaign To Opt Out Of The Public Option In Minnesota

Reports surfaced today that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is considering a proposal to include the public option that would allow states to “opt-out” of the program.

Today on ABC’s Top Line, co-host David Chalian asked Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) if he would “opt-out” of the public option for his state if the measure passed. Pawlenty dodged: “Well, I don’t know if we would opt out but I personally would like to opt out because I don’t like government run health care.” But Chalian persisted, and ultimately, Pawlenty said that he would oppose the public option for Minnesota:

CHALIAN: But you would lead a charge in your state to opt out if that was an option available?

PAWLENTY: I think so because I don’t like government run health care.

Watch it:

However, Pawlenty has said that he supports “government run health care” in the past — in fact, just as recently as last September. “I support Medicare and Medicaid,” Pawlenty declared.

Regardless, the Wonk Room’s Igor Voskly notes that the opt out provision won’t lower costs like a stong public option will:

But a state-based approach won’t have the ability to significantly lower health care costs or change delivery patterns. Progressives point to existing state-based employee public options or Medicaid programs that contract out to private insurers and thus don’t provide a meaningful alternative or competition. A state triggered public option, would lead to the same outcome, they argue.

To avoid this scenario, the White House needs to stop sending clarification statements to Sargent and stake out a firm position — they will never find the votes if they don’t whip them. Why not start on higher negotiating ground and embrace the HELP bill’s (relativley) strong public plan.

Pawlenty’s not alone. Unfortunately, Democratic candidate for governor in Virginia, Creigh Deeds, said this week that that as governor, he would “certainly consider opting out” of the public option “if that were available to Virginia.”

Yglesias

Europe’s China Problem

Euro_banknotes 1

Paul Krugman has a wise column about the havoc being wreaked by China’s refusal to let its currency get more expensive relative to the dollar. Krugman thinks we should be trying to do something about this. But as Dan Drezner observes, though China’s dollar-linkage policy is a problem for us, it’s a much bigger problem for Europe and other developing countries:

As a matter of direct economic interest, however, why haven’t the Europeans and East Asians been screaming bloody murder about this? China’s policies are forcing them to take actions they don’t want to take — so why aren’t they complaining more loudly about this?

Why?

Optimistically, it’s been my experience that members of other countries tend to have a better appreciation than America does that making loud public demands is often a counterproductive diplomatic approach. But one has to fear that the real culprit here may be the European Central Bank’s weird deflationary bias.

Older

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

Sign Up