ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

The Afghanistan Speech

I have not yet watched the speech, but I have read the text and wanted to put some thought down before my impressions are polluted by contact with other people’s commentary.

AFPAK 1

You can think of this speech as containing two arguments. One is “yes committing the United States to defeating the Taliban is a good idea” and the other is “I have a workable plan for doing it.” In general, I think the case for the first proposition is weak, but I think war opponents have tended to understate the feasibility of the Obama/McChrystal kind of plan. The speech itself, however, was oddly weak on the feasibility point and instead lead into the weird kinda sorta promise to start winding the war down in 2011 which struck me as a promise vague enough to not reassure the left while also being concrete enough to set the right-wing piranhas in motion.

At the intersection of these two arguments is the idea of “no blank check” for Hamid Karzai. How, one naturally wonders, is the check not blank if the President of the United States has defined the mission as serving a vital American interest? If you made the case that the mission is a good idea differently—if you just said we’re obligated to the Afghan people and government to give it a try—then your check has real limits. We’re obligated, but they’re obligated too, and if they don’t meet their obligations we can meet ours so we’ll have to walk away. But that’s not what he said. What he said was “I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan . . . [w]e must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.” Insofar as that’s true, then it’s true completely independently of how we feel about the Afghan government, so Afghan government actions have a limited influence on our policy, so whatever checks we write to them are pretty much blank.

At any rate, this promise that “[a]fter 18 months, our troops will begin to come home” doesn’t strike me as the kind of thing you can take to the bank, but I hope it comes true and I hope it’s not a promise they would make unless they’re reasonably confident they can fulfill it.

Security

Obama Rebuts ‘Dithering’ Charges: None Of The Options Called For Troop Deployments Before 2010

In recent weeks, Republicans have been attacking President Obama for taking too long to settle on a strategy for the war in Afghanistan. The charge has been led by Vice President Cheney, who accused Obama of “dithering” and endangering U.S. troops:

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.

Tonight in his prime-time address to the nation, Obama ordered the deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and said that the U.S. would begin withdrawing in 18 months. He also pointed out that none of the options put before him were set to occur before 2010, so his review process did not result in any endangerment of U.S. troops — a statement that seemed to be a direct response to criticisms such as Cheney’s:

As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.

Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners.

Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people — and our troops — no less.

Watch it:

Climate Progress

Congressman ‘Caveman’ McCotter Cites The Experience Of Cavemen To Deny Manmade Global Warming

Last night on Fox News’ Red Eye, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) explained to host Greg Gutfeld why he does not believe that human activity is causing global warming. McCotter, who is the chairman of the Republican House Policy Committee, a GOP group charged with helping Republican lawmakers come up with legislative ideas, has used his global warming denials as a pretense for fighting to block cap-and-trade proposals.

Environmental groups have declared that McCotter is a “Caveman Congressman.” The satirical Caveman Energy Caucus website notes that lawmakers like McCotter have “chosen OLD energy when they voted no” on Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation. Ironically, as he explained his backwards denial of settled climate change science, McCotter cited the experience of his cavemen namesake to note that the melting of glaciers had a positive effect:

MCCOTTER: Remember, the people who talk about the melting of the glaciers and others, imagine if you were in a peninsula around 1,000 BC or so or earlier and your name was Tor and you’re out huntin’ mastodon. And you didn’t notice that the glaciers were melting and leaving the devastating flooding in its wake that became the Great Lakes in the state of Michigan.

So I think what we have to do is go back in history and look at this and realize that the Earth has been here a long time and they’ve selected periods of time and say somehow this proves there’s a manmade global warming occurring is absolutely wrong. We have to look at the different periods of history, we have to look at the different effects, and then we have to have direct empirical data to correlate between man’s activity and the effect on the planet, and that is yet to be proven and highly doubt that it’s going to be any time soon.

Watch it:

McCotter is wrong on several fronts. First, the glacial melt which formed the Great Lakes occurred between a period of 15,000 and 10,000 BC, not 1,000 BC, as McCotter claims. But we do not have to look to the past to see shrinking glaciers. Global warming is currently melting 18,000 Himalayan glaciers — the largest concentration of glaciers outside the great polar ice sheets. The global trend of melting glaciers has only accelerated, with 2009 marked as the 18th consecutive year glaciers around the world have decreased in size.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has conclusively shown that carbon emissions, caused chiefly by the burning of fossil fuels, are the largest contributor to global warming. If McCotter is interested in what sets this “period in history” apart, he should know that every single year of this century (2001-2008) has been among the top ten warmest years since instrumental records began.

Cross-posted on ThinkProgress.

Climate Progress

Must-see House hearing on “State of Climate Science” — Holdren and Lubchenco to testify on urgency of impacts, Wednesday, 10 am

Golfer Tiger Woods with his wife Elin Nordegren at the Presidents Cup golf tournament in San Francisco in Octoberhttp://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/12/20/science-topper.jpg

WASHINGTON – With the international climate change talks in Copenhagen fast approaching, there is real urgency to reach diplomatic consensus on a planetary solution. In a hearing this Wednesday, the Select Committee will explore with climate scientists from the Obama administration the urgent, consensus view on our planetary problem: that global warming is real, and the science indicates that it is getting worse.

Well this should be lively, as one can expect the conservatives on Energy Independence and Global Warming to bring up …. hmm, wait, don’t tell me … Tiger Woods?

You can find the webcast here, 10 am ET, Wednesday.  The rest of the news release follows:

Read more

Politics

After ripping Democrats for hiding ‘behind closed doors,’ GOP objects to more transparency in health care debate.

On the Senate floor yesterday, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made a request on behalf of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) that senators proposing amendments to the health care bill place the text of their amendments online. Immediately following Reid’s request, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) took to the floor to object to the transparency proposal. Enzi argued that, although the bill appears to lead to greater transparency, “we can also see ways that this can limit the ability for the minority to offer amendments.” Watch it:

Lincoln “issued a statement chastising Republicans for blocking efforts at government transparency.” Just weeks ago, the Republican Party lined up to accuse Democrats of opposing greater transparency. In October, the RNC and the House Republican Conference churned out YouTube videos to attack Democrats for working “behind closed doors.” A week later, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) attacked Democrats, saying that “instead of listening to the American people, Democrats hid behind closed doors.” Similarly, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently complained that the health care bill was “drafted behind closed doors.”

Security

Senor: Obama ‘Throwing The Left A Bone’ By Blaming Bush On Afghanistan

senorOn a Republican National Committee conference call today, former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Den Senor accused President Obama of “throwing a bone to the left” by “continuing to blame the policies of the Bush administration” for the current situation in Afghanistan.

Saying he was “pleasantly surprised” that President Obama had apparently decided to commit more forces to Afghanistan (something Obama had, of course, promised to do as a candidate) Senor said the president needed to level with the American people about the situation in Afghanistan. “It’s critically important that the president make clear that this is not the last speech on this subject, but the first of many.”

Asked whether the charge by Dick Cheney and other conservatives that the president was “dithering” on Afghanistan now seems silly because of Obama’s presumed decision to escalate the U.S. commitment there, Senor acknowledged that Obama “was presented with a bunch of really bad options, and he picked one that was least bad,” but added:

[President Obama] is, by doing this, challenging the left of his party. I think that’s why you see these comments he’s making continuing to blame the policies of the Bush administration in Afghanistan, which is as much about throwing a bone to the left as it is about anything.

Part of leveling with the American people about the situation in Afghanistan is talking honestly about why we’re still there after eight years. And that involves discussing the poor policy choices of the previous president. I don’t think it’s even controversial any more to point out that the U.S. effort in Afghanistan was disastrously mismanaged by the Bush administration. The failure to catch or kill Osama bin Laden when there was an opportunity, the failure to deliver on promised reconstruction aid, and the decision to divert troops and materiel to Iraq created a huge mess that President Obama must now devote significant resources and attention — and a substantial portion of his presidency — to cleaning up. There’s no reason why the American people, and the former Bush administration officials responsible, shouldn’t be reminded of this at every opportunity.

Yglesias

Endgame

You’ll think I’m dead:

— China’s perception of threats.

— WTF is going on with excess reserves.

— Maybe the White House should be less secure against the likes of party crashers and possible assassins.

— Stimulus was too short on infrastructure projects.

— John Barrow says voting no on health reform somehow wasn’t a vote against Obama.

Going to see the Pixies tonight instead of watching the president’s war speech but I guess “Wave of Mutilation” is the most war-like Pixies song.

Security

Anti-Immigrant Group Attacks Dobbs’ New Immigration Stance, Mourns Loss Of Its ‘Champion’

The anti-immigrant group American for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) was crushed to hear Dobbs say that he supports a path to legalization for undocumented workers in an interview on Telemundo late last month after all the years he dedicated to railing on “amnesty.” Yesterday, Dobbs brought ALIPAC president William Gheen on his radio show and bemusingly proclaimed that his Telemundo interview was not a flip-flop, but rather the re-articulation of the same views he has always expressed:

GHEEN: It’s been a pretty rocky weekend for us…We’ve got a website up supporting you if you run for Senate or President. And we have an organization that has a rule against endorsing or supporting any candidate who would support a change in the law to accommodate illegal aliens currently in the United States…you have been a champion for us.

DOBBS: And I remain so. And I remain a champion for rational, effective and humane immigration policies

You do know that I have never called for the deportation of illegal immigrants in this country. And I still don’t and I’m going to stand up with whomever wants to discuss this issue…William, I hope you’ll join me at the table as we talk about this…William, how bout it?

GHEEN: I can respect you deciding to do that. Me — I don’t think it’s worth our time. I think these [advocacy] groups are enemies of the United States. I think these people are bordering on treason against the people of the United States of America. They support the invasion of this country. They support open border policies that put our people at risk of crime, disease, and terrorism.

Listen:

Dobbs didn’t go as far as to challenge any of Gheen’s disturbing attacks against immigrants and advocates, but he did dedicate a significant amount of time to defending himself. Dobbs insists that he has always encouraged a rational discussion on the issue and has long supported a path to legalization and humane immigration reform as long the borders are secured and immigration controlled. Yet his stance is new to most people’s ears. Latinos aren’t buying it, xenophobes are furiously skeptical, and Dobbs would probably still have his job at CNN if that were the case.

In fact, in 2007 Dobbs proclaimed, “When this president [Bush] and open-borders, illegal-alien-amnesty advocates say, ‘You can’t deport them,’ my answer is, ‘You wanna bet?’ Because this is the United States.” Politifact found no evidence of Lou Dobbs ever saying “point blank” that he opposes a path to legalization, though he “certainly gave the impression that he didn’t much care for it.” He has also accused President Obama of “pandering to the pro-amnesty open-borders lobby,” despite the fact that Obama similarly indicated that there cannot be immigration reform with a path to legalization until the government shows that it is capable of enforcing the laws which are currently in place.

In his Telemundo interview Dobbs also tried to erase the past by claiming that he never said that immigrants are bringing leprosy to the U.S. and attacked host Maria Celeste for bringing up a report from four years ago. However, just two years ago Dobbs did in fact air and defend the leprosy report, affirming “If we reported it, it’s a fact.”

Gheen has announced that ALIPAC members are in favor of publicly dropping their support for the “new” Lou Dobbs and disabling websites they have created such as www.LouDobbsforPresident.org.

Politics

Family Reserach Council Claims Obama Has A ‘Plan’ To ‘Impose Homosexuality’

Earlier this month, the far-right Family Research Council (FRC) sent a fundraising action alert fearmongering about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which has been introduced in both the House and Senate and President Obama says he is “pushing hard to pass.” “This law would punish anyone in the workplace who dares oppose homosexual behavior, cross-dressing and other unhealthy behaviors,” said the FRC alert.

In a four-page solicitation letter mailed to supporters this month, which was obtained by ThinkProgress, the conservative organization went even further in its rhetoric, claiming that President Obama wants to “impose homosexuality and silence Christianity in workplaces”:

Family Research Council letterhead on ENDA

In the body of the letter, which was signed by FRC President Tony Perkins, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) is quoted as saying that ENDA legislation would mean that “the federal government would be dictating to religious institutions and organizations whom they must hire.” The letter also claims the law could lead to an “employer telling you to remove the Bible from your desk because it is offensive to the homosexual or cross-dresser he was forced to hire.”

These claims are ridiculous. Despite what Price says, the legislation would not force anyone to be hired. It would only mean that it would be illegal “to fire, refuse to hire, or fail to promote employees simply based on sexual orientation,” as it is currently illegal to do in cases of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Additionally, as the Human Rights Campaign points out, current ENDA legislation “exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military.”

Update

Media Matters Action Network has a rundown of the Family Research Council’s fervently anti-gay record.

Yglesias

Israel’s Recession

William Galston has a post about the resilience of the Israeli economy in the face of the global recession, arguing the U.S. could stand to learn a lot:

In it we learn that the Netanyahu government raised taxes, avoided traditional stimulus measures, and ruled out government bailouts for banks and bondholders. In short, the government rejected supply-side economics, Keynesian economics, and “too big to fail” economics—a trifecta of heresies against the competing orthodoxies that dominate the U.S. landscape. The result: a rebound that Barclays analysts call “the strongest recovery story” in Europe and the Middle East.

Undergirding this heterodox strategy is a principle that I’ll call “sound diet” economics—namely, eat your spinach before dessert.

Knowing that Israel is a small country, I suspected that the real story is that Israel did is just let its currency sink in value, boosting exports. And, indeed, since the onset of the downtuwn in mid-2008 the Shekel has gotten cheaper relative to the Euro, the Yen, and even dollar which has itself been depreciating:

israel

This is exactly what I would do if I were in charge of Israel. Faced with a downturn, a small developed economy needs to be much more worried than a large developed economy does about maintaining markets’ confidence in your ability to sustain your debt level. At the same time, a small developed economy has much more ability to sustain employment and growth by making its currency cheaper. So a policy of austerity and devaluation is a very reasonable course of action. The United States is in a very different situation. Trade is a much smaller share of our overall economy (less than half as much), our currency automatically appreciates in a panic (because of the “flight to quality” effect), and we have much greater ability to borrow.

Long story short, the Israeli story, though interesting and possibly relevant to Sweden, Iceland, and New Zealand, doesn’t have much of a moral for the United States.

Older

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

Sign Up