ThinkProgress Logo

Security

New Report Spells Out Catastrophic Consequences Of Military Action Against Iran

By Faiz Shakir on Feb 6, 2007 at 3:32 pm

iranYesterday, a coalition of British NGOs, think-tanks, and trade unions published a new report that assesses an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be “highly dangerous.”

The document, entitled “Time To Talk: The Case For Diplomatic Solutions On Iran,” warns that President Bush “feels duty-bound to stop Iran’s nuclear program. With little faith in diplomacy, the use of US military force remains a possibility, since Bush believes it unlikely that a…successor will have the ‘political courage’ to undertake a military strike.” There will likely be “great pressure on the President either to contemplate military action before he leaves office or to give the green light to Israeli strikes,” the report states.

The consequences of a U.S. or Israeli strike are “potentially so serious that complacency about the possible outcomes of a military strike could be perilous.” The report attacks “the assumption that targeted military strikes against Iran’s nuclear installations would effectively set back Iran’s nuclear program in the mid-to-long term.” Among the scenarios that the report lays out:

chart

The underlying message is that, while the threat from Iran is serious and negotiations are difficult, “it cannot be said that the potential for diplomacy has been explored fully when direct talks between Iran and the US have not taken place.”

Yglesias

Time for a Health Care Post

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 6, 2007 at 3:26 pm

So . . . John Edwards has a health care plan. You can find some serious analysis from Jonathan Cohn and Ezra Klein. Mark Schmitt’s reaction, however, was just to say that candidates shouldn’t release detailed plans at all:

[T]here will be particular problems with any health care proposal. They all have vulnerabilities, they all create situations in which people might have to accept change or might get less than they currently have. And the people who are most likely to vote based on health care are also people likely to be fearful of losing what they have. It will always be for political opponents to push that fear button.

I’ve argued in the past that it’s good to campaign on a specific plan because if you do lay one out and do leave yourself exposed to the vulnerabilities Mark highlights and win anyway, then you’re in a strong position as president to get your plan passed. Conversely, if you stand for election on vague promises and then try to get something passed, you’ll have a big problem. As Kevin Drum says, “you’ll get the feel-good vote during the election but then lose later on when you try to fulfill your campaign promise and run smack into….the fear button.” The more I think about it, though, the more I think both perspectives on this are correct.

Which is part of why I came to the conclusion I reach in this column. I don’t think it’s smart for candidates to either run on specific universal healht care plans or to run on a promise to devise a specific universal health care plan once in office. Rather, what I’d like to see is a candidate who says that Medicare For All is the right idea, who concedes that Medicare For All probably won’t be passing congress in 2009, and therefore promises to bring Medicare for As Many As Possible:

First, change the 2003 Medicare reform bill to give the government meaningful price leverage over the pharmaceutical companies and eliminate the role for private insurance companies. Beyond that, see what you can get — Robert Kuttner laid out a few options yesterday. Propose that Medicaid cover everyone under 25. If you can’t get that, take everyone under 21. If you can’t get that, take everyone under 18. If you can get that, propose adding full-time students under 25. Then all full-time students. Then everyone under 25. Lower the threshold for Medicare to 50. Or to 55. Or to 60. Lower it to 64 if that’s all you can get. Then come back next year and propose lowering it to 50. Or to 55. Or to 63. Keep coming back. Let people under the threshold “buy in” to Medicare on some terms.

To my way of thinking, this kind of approach (call it “flexible intransigence”) is the best way of getting things done in the context of an American political system that makes large-scale change intrinsically difficult. And I think that when you look at successful partisan positioning on domestic policy, this is the sort of thing you see. When Democrats run and win on minimum wage hikes, they don’t run and win on minimum wage plans they’re running and winning on the general idea that the Democratic Party is committed to making the minimum wage higher. Similarly, the GOP will make taxes lower. Democrats, similarly, should be committed to “Medicare for more!” People like Medicare.

Politics

House to take up Iraq resolution.

By ThinkProgress on Feb 6, 2007 at 3:02 pm

“With the Senate’s debate on an Iraq resolution stalled by partisan division, House Democratic leaders pledged today to begin debate next week in their chamber on a similar nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush’s decision to send more American troops into the war,” the AP reports. “Democratic leaders are considering the highly unusual step of holding a joint meeting of the foreign affairs and armed services committees later this week to debate a resolution.”

Media

O’Reilly And Beck Agree: We’re ‘Afraid’ To Have ‘A Lot Of African-American Friends’

By Amanda Terkel on Feb 6, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Last night on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly led a discussion about Sen. Joe Biden’s (D-DE) racially-insensitive remarks toward Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). But instead of exlusively focusing on why the remarks were condescending to African-Americans, he said blacks should “feel sorry for us white folks here, because I’m telling you now I’m afraid to say anything. … White Americans are terrified.” Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/02/oreillyrace.320.240.flv]

My Two Sense points out that CNN’s Glenn Beck hosted a similar discussion last night, during which he said, “I don’t have a lot of African-American friends, and I think part of it is because I’m afraid that I would be in an open conversation, and I would say something that somebody would take wrong, and then it would be a nightmare.” Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/02/beckrace1.320.240.flv]

As The New York Times’s Lynette Clemetson notes, “When whites use the word [articulate] in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment. … Such a subtext is inherently offensive because it suggests that the recipient of the ‘compliment’ is notably different from other black people.”

Digg It!

Transcripts below: Read more

Politics

Waxman: Top Iraq Reconstruction Official Flown To Baghdad To Avoid Oversight Hearing

By ThinkProgress on Feb 6, 2007 at 1:16 pm

carney.jpgFor the first time since the war began, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) is holding aggressive oversight hearings into the billions in waste, fraud, and abuse of U.S. funds in Iraq.

On Jan. 10, when President Bush first made his plans for escalation public, he also announced plans to “appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.” The next day, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice named career diplomat Timothy Carney to the position.

During this morning’s hearings, Waxman revealed that the State Department has blocked Carney from appearing at the hearing, despite the fact that Carney personally told Waxman he “was willing to come.” Moreover, the Bush administration has apparently rushed him to Baghdad despite claiming that the reason he could not appear at the hearing was because he “did not yet know what he was going to do in Iraq.”

WAXMAN: So I invited Ambassador Carney to testify today. When my staff talked to Ambassador Carney directly, he was cooperative and said he was willing to come. This the State Department refused.

Their first excuse was that he had not yet filled out his paperwork. Even though Secretary Rice publicly announced his critical new position, he apparently could not talk to Congress because he had not been officially hired.

Next, the State Department said Ambassador Carney could not come because he did not yet know what he was going to do in Iraq. This seemed odd, especially since the secretary had already announced that he was her new point person on Iraq reconstruction.

Then, just last week, we were informed that the department suddenly decided that Ambassador Carney was needed in Baghdad right away. So even though he was not officially hired and, according to the State Department, had no idea what he was going to do in Iraq, he was put on a plane to Baghdad this past Friday.

Waxman added that the State Department has “now told us that they may make him available to Congress in six months.”

UPDATE: Lane Hudson has a wrap-up of the hearing with several more videos.

Politics

White House lawyers up.

By Amanda Terkel on Feb 6, 2007 at 12:58 pm

“A line item buried in the president’s budget reveals the Bush administration is gearing up for emboldened legal challenges from Gitmo detainees. A brief paragraph in President Bush’s 2008 budget request shows he plans to hire nearly two dozen new Justice Department lawyers to fight suits brought by Guantanamo detainees challenging their imprisonment.”

Climate Progress

Budget Reality Trumps Energy Security Rhetoric

By Joe Romm on Feb 6, 2007 at 12:26 pm

While Bush talks a good game on energy security, he doesn’t back the rhetoric up with action. That is especially true when it comes to his own budget, as made clear in a press release from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy:

President’s Budget Undermines Energy Security

Washington, D.C. (February 6, 2007): The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) today issued a preliminary assessment of the Administration’s FY 2008 budget request, finding that the request continues to shrink funding for the energy efficiency programs that should be front-line priorities in the nation’s energy agenda.

“The President can’t increase our energy security by continuing to cut the clean energy budget,” said Acting Executive Director Bill Prindle. “This request should be dead on arrival in Congress, because it cuts 2007 spending for efficiency and renewables by 16%, and the efficiency budget alone could fall by up to a third.”

The total FY 2008 request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at the Department of Energy is $1.236 billion. The funding level of FY 2007 for EERE is $1.473 billion based on Congress’ recent continuing resolution decision. Thus, the request represents a $237 million (16%) cut from 2007 levels.

The request also sacrifices important efficiency programs to fund a few Administration priorities. For example, low-income weatherization is cut $98 million, industrial efficiency programs $13 million, vehicles technologies $3 million, and federal energy management $3 million in order to support increases in hydrogen ($59 million), solar ($66 million), and biomass ($90 million). The request also cuts about $46 million from distributed energy systems in the Office of Electricity budget. All of these comparisons are from 2006 levels as DOE’s program allocation for the 2007 budget has not yet been released.

The vehicle technologies program is the home of work to move forward on hybrids and diesels, and to increase heavy truck efficiency. These are the steps that can move us toward oil security in the next decade, yet the Administration proposes no additional funding for the program.

“Efficiency is the first fuel in the race for energy security,” Prindle added. “If we don’t get our energy demand under control, none of the President’s or anyone else’s clean energy proposals will be able to catch up.”

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing energy efficiency as a means of promoting both economic prosperity and environmental protection. For information about ACEEE and its programs, publications, and conferences, contact ACEEE, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 801, Washington, D.C. 20036-5525 or visit http://aceee.org.

Politics

‘Anti-Escalation’ Senators Vote For Escalation

By Payson Schwin on Feb 6, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Last night, Senate conservatives successfully blocked debate on a bipartisan anti-escalation resolution.

At least eight senators who claim to oppose sending more U.S. troops to Iraq voted the wrong way, supporting the conservative filibuster. They include Sen. John Warner (R-VA) — who actually introduced the anti-escalation resolution in question — and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) — who has aggressively demanded that every U.S. senator take a position on Iraq.

Here’s a full list of the senators who voted to protect President Bush and block debate on Iraq, along with their public disapprovals of Bush’s escalation plan:

– Sen. John Warner (R-VA): “Sen. John Warner (R-VA) will introduce a resolution today ‘making clear that he does not support the President on increasing the troop levels in Iraq’ and calling escalation ‘a mistake,’.”

– Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): “It’s Alice in Wonderland. … I’m absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.” (Cosponsored Warner resolution.)

– Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR): “This is the president’s Hail Mary pass. … We are extending an ineffective tactic to further the status quo.” (Cosponsored Warner resolution.)

– Sen. John Sununu (R-NH): “Sen. John Sununu told CNN Tuesday he will not support President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to Iraq, although he hasn’t yet decided whether to back a Democratic resolution opposing the move.”

– Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): “We should not place more American servicemen and women in harm’s way to instill a peace that the Iraqis are not willing to seek for themselves.” (Cosponsored Warner resolution.)

– Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): “I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer. … Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution.”

– Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “We’re all looking for a plan that will work. … The current plan is not working, and 21,500 additional troops — it’s a snowball in July. It’s not going to work.“

Notably, Sens. Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who say they oppose escalation, resisted partisan pressure and voted against the conservative filibuster.

As for Sen. Hagel, who said recently, “We need to put the Congress on record here” — he is now “on record,” in support of Bush’s escalation.

UPDATE: Commenters have noticed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is listed as having opposed debate on Iraq. In fact, Reid changed his vote to “no” at the end of the vote simply as a procedural move so he could later move to reconsider the motion (i.e., revote) — a right reserved only for those voting with the majority.

Digg It!

Climate Progress

IPCC: Warming Oceans are Cause for Worry

By Joe Romm on Feb 6, 2007 at 11:52 am

According to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment, “discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.”

The increases in oceanic temperature are particularly worrisome: “Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system.”

As the oceans warm, they expand, and they provide fuel for more intense tropical storms. Also, warmer oceans “reduce… [their] uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions that remains in the atmosphere.” Less and less will we be able to rely on the ocean to naturally absorb carbon dioxide–one explanation for the accelerated growth in CO2 concentrations in recent years.

Unrestrained Emissions + Feedbacks + Less Oceanic CO2/Heat Absorption = Incalculable Warming…

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up