ThinkProgress Logo

Security

McCain’s Hard-Line Rhetoric ‘Increases Prestige’ Of Other Hard-Liners

mccainstare.jpgWarning against the legitimizing effect of talks between the American and Iranian presidents, John McCain said today in a speech before the National Restaurant Association in Chicago that such high-level meetings “would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States“:

[Meetings would] reinforce his [Ahamdinejad's] confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.[...]

An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people.

Here’s another area where McCain reveals his ignorance of the Iranian system, and of the effects of his own self-gratifying rhetoric. While Ahmadinejad enjoys influence by virtue of his being a public figure, it is not he but Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and Iran’s National Security Council, who set Iranian foreign policy.

As for “increasing the prestige” of Ahmadinejad, as Iran analysts Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh pointed out last December, Ahmadinejad’s prestige has benefited from the bellicose rhetoric coming from American conservatives, allowing him “to suppress dissent and divert attention from domestic woes to international crises he is only too happy to fuel.”

Clearly, Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than for John McCain to continue Bush’s policy of confrontation and escalation. And McCain seems all too willing to oblige, as he hysterically calls “radical Islamic terrorism” the “transcendental challenge of the century,” carelessly casting together groups and movements with conflicting goals and ideologies and treating them as a single monolithic enemy. McCain still doesn’t seem to understand that Iran and Al Qaeda are two very different groups, representing two different threats. And McCain and Bush seem to be the last people in the world to figure out that their Iraq policies have empowered Iran’s hard-liners and weakened moderates and other U.S. allies throughout the Middle East. Yet McCain continues to persist as if these policies have worked.

Politics

Waxman reveals docs showing White House involvement in EPA’s CA waiver denial.

A day before EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is set to testify before the House Oversight Committee, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) released documents highlighting the White House’s interference in the EPA’s denial of California’s waiver request last December. Waxman revealed testimony from EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett, who confirmed the denial came only after White House input:

According to Mr. Burnett’s deposition testimony, Administrator Johnson’s preference for a full or partial grant of the waiver did not change until after he communicated with the White House. When asked by Committee staff “whether the Administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision” to deny the waiver, Mr. Burnett responded: “I believe the answer is yes.

The Wonk Room has more.

Yglesias

Wicked WIC

It can’t be said often enough that the rules governing what is and isn’t eligible for purchase under the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program is crazy and horrible (Ezra example — soy milk doesn’t count as “milk” but chocolate milk does). You could try to modify the program to make it less crazy, but it’s obviously the result of a screwed up political process and undue power on the part of Big Cow.

It seems to me that we should just scrap the whole thing and make WIC-eligible people eligible for larger food stamp grants. The food stamps program is far from perfect, but it’s a lot less ridiculous and the reasoning behind the idea of two separate-but-similar programs is less than compelling.

Yglesias

Dear Urban Land Company

Sending me more emails about the units available at your new ugly condo dubbed “the Floridian” will not compel me to buy one of them. Week after week, month after month you keep emailing me about this property. Evidently, you’re not selling units. That’s because you’re asking for too much money in a neighborhood that, though lovely, now has excess condo capacity. If you lower your price, I might buy one! And if not me, surely someone else will.

Climate Progress

This just in: Great Ice Age of 2008 is still over

This is a follow up to the Climate Progress exclusive from last month, “The Great Ice Age of 2008 is finally over — next stop Venus!” NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center reported (here):

Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the thirteenth warmest on record for April and the January-April year-to-date period ranked twelfth warmest.

So global coolers will have to find some other fish to fry freeze. [Yes, I know, deniers/delayers, the mere fact that this wasn't the warmest April or warmest January-April on record proves conclusively we must be cooling.] Interestingly the warmest April and January-April on record according to NOAA/NCDC occurred in … wait for it … 2007.

The rest of us know that we are on the cool side of all-time warming because we’re still in a (weakened) La Ni±a and a local mininum of the solar irradiance cycle (see figure) but the deniers/delayers insist that if CO2 doesn’t explain every single short-term and medium-term temperature fluctuation, then the whole damn theory of human-caused warming is as debunked as, say, the notion that men ever landed on the moon.

nasa-solar-fixed.jpg

By the way, I don’t like to brag or anything, but as I correctly predicted last month:

Read more

Politics

Gen. Odom: Military Analysts Can’t Defend Relationship With Pentagon ‘Because Of Its Conspiratorial Nature’

odomreal.gifOn April 20, the New York Times published an extensive exposé of a secret Pentagon program that used 75 retired military analysts employed by television networks “as ‘message force multipliers’ or ‘surrogates’ who could be counted on to deliver administration ‘themes and messages’ to millions of Americans ‘in the form of their own opinions.’” The program successfully infiltrated most media outlets; a review by Media Matters last week showed that these analysts have been quoted more than 4,500 times since 2002.

Appearing on the Diane Rehm Show this morning, Lt. Gen. William Odom (ret.), the former Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, said he was “shocked” by the revelation, saying the actions of these military men would be difficult to defend:

Well I was a little shocked by it. … My own sense of my obligations and my officer’s honor in the past would make me think that’s not a proper thing to do. … But I don’t think they’ll be able to defend that position publicly very well, particularly because of its sort of conspiratorial nature. I think it’s quite legitimate for military officers to talk to a number of people in the Pentagon, but to be part of a recurring meeting that is designed to shape the public opinion — that’s a strange thing for officers to be willing to do, in my view.

Listen here:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/05/5-19rehm.320.40.flv]

The secrecy Odom condemns was a prerequisite for participation. “The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.”

Unlike Odom, conservatives see little wrong with the Pentagon’s operation. Neocons Max Boot and John Podhortez dismissed the revelations as “part and parcel of the daily grind of Washington journalism” and said the story “reveals nothing more than that the Pentagon treated former military personnel like VIPs.” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino insisted that it was “absolutely appropriate to provide information to people who are seeking it and are going to be providing their opinions on it.”

Climate Progress

Waxman: ‘White House Involved In California Waiver Denial’

Henry WaxmanHouse Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has today released documents and testimony that show White House involvement in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to deny California’s request for a waiver to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks.

According to testimony by former EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s “preference for a full or partial grant of the waiver did not change until after he communicated with the White House“:

When asked by Committee staff “whether the Administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision” to deny the waiver, Mr. Burnett responded: “I believe the answer is yes.” When asked “after his communications with the White House, did he still support granting the waiver in part,” Mr. Burnett answered: “He ultimately decided to deny the waiver.” Mr. Burnett also affirmed that there was “White House input into the rationale in the December 19th letter” announcing the denial of the waiver and in the formal decision document issued in March 2008.

Burnett refused to testify on any further specifics, telling the investigators “that he had been directed not to answer any questions about the involvement of the White House in the decision to reject California’s petition.” Burnett, who was involved in a series of questionable EPA decisions during his tenure, resigned from the EPA on May 6. He was deposed on May 15.

On December 19, 2007, the date President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced that his agency would deny California’s waiver request. This request, made in 2005, set off a series of legal battles that culminated in the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA that ordered the EPA to take action on greenhouse gases. Since then, the EPA has failed to obey the Supreme Court mandate, despite the efforts of career staff.

Waxman’s memo concludes:

It would be a serious breach if the President or other White House officials directed Administrator Johnson to ignore the record before the agency and deny California’s petition for political or other inappropriate reasons. Further investigation will be required to assess the legality of the White House role in the rejection of the California motor vehicle standards.

Johnson is expected to testify before Waxman’s committee tomorrow at 1 PM.

UPDATE: Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch writes in: “This is an incredibly sordid story. Steve Johnson should come out and finally tell the truth about this situation. And he should resign for agreeing not only to be a White House pawn but for trying to deceive the public about what happened.” Frank has more at Gristmill.

UPDATE II: National Journal’s CongressDaily reports that Johnson may refuse to turn over documents subpoenaed for tomorrow’s oversight hearing. In a letter to Johnson last Friday, Waxman indicated his expectations about the documents on the “revised national ambient air quality standards for ozone”:

Unless the President asserts a valid claim of executive privilege with respect to the documents being withheld by EPA, you will be expected to personally bring the documents to the hearing. The Committee’s subpoena was directed to you and you will be in defiance of the subpoena if you appear at the hearing without the documents.

UPDATE III: Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) responds: “The EPA’s top leadership has decimated the integrity of the agency, and allowed it to become a total tool of the White House. This report asserts that the White House was directly involved in the decision to deny California’s waiver — over the objections of the Agency’s career scientists and attorneys. This demonstrates incredible arrogance by the White House — to wholly pervert an Agency that is supposed to be independent.”

Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) responds: “When I asked Administrator Johnson about this matter several months ago, the stilted, repetitive legalese of his answers made him seem like a man who had been coached on his answers and had something to hide. I hope he will be much more forthcoming tomorrow, and give the American people the straight answers they deserve.”

Yglesias

Law of Large Numbers

The thing about something like this story of a soldier using the Koran for target practice is that it really sets into relief how audacious the goals of counterinsurgency theorists are for what U.S. military conduct could really be like. In the annals of wartime abuses, Koran-shooting is extremely stupid but also really not that bad compared to, say, massacre or pillage or torture. And it’s so obviously dumb that, clearly, the chain of command was not sending tacit “everyone shoot Korans” messages down the line. And yet it’s still really dumb and counterproductive.

Now consider that our deployment in Iraq has involved upwards of 200,000 soldiers at one time or another. I’d just be phenomenally hard to get a group of people that large together that didn’t include any people who sometimes make the occasional idiotic blunder. Indeed, it’d be hard to get a group of people that large (about the population of Reno, Nevada) together that didn’t include a few serious bad apples — murders and rapists and the like. And historically speaking, while good discipline has always been an asset in war, nobody’s won wars by having perfect discipline. But the prescriptions for successful counterinsurgency oftentimes seem to me to suggest that we really do need perfect or near-perfect discipline to succeed, and I just don’t think that’s realistic.

Yglesias

The Easy Cases

2183436388_83ec35b3a6.jpg

Krugman says:

Infrastructure is another problem. Public transit, in particular, faces a chicken-and-egg problem: it’s hard to justify transit systems unless there’s sufficient population density, yet it’s hard to persuade people to live in denser neighborhoods unless they come with the advantage of transit access.

This is all true enough (and what Duncan said) but before we try to run in terms of transit and infrastructure it makes sense to walk. Many Americans live in places where there is no transit infrastructure, and a healthy number of people live in places that just aren’t well-suited to creating any such infrastructure. But it’s a big country and some people already are living near transit infrastructure.

One piece of very low-hanging fruit is to promote denser development near our existing stations (instead of, e.g., bungalows and vacant lots near the Brookland Metro here in DC) which are often places where developers are clamoring to build and potential residents clamoring to live but incumbent property owners are trying to avoid sharing the wealth. Another opportunity is to improve service quality and frequency at things like our existing commuter rail lines. With gas prices rising, I bet a lot of Virginians are giving VRE a second look but they’re probably discovering that it sucks. Making an existing commuter rail line more useful isn’t brain surgery and doesn’t involve any paradoxes or dilemmas, it just needs to be made a funding priority.

Last, it’s always worth reiterating that while a lot of Americans live in genuinely low-density environments, many car-heavy parts of the U.S. are actually pretty dense. New Jersey is, as I’ve noted before, about as dense as the Netherlands which is one of the least driving-oriented countries. Los Angeles, too, though far from the densest city in the world is actually pretty dense and once featured a lot of transit in the form of streetcars while the well-designed Portland is hardly the second coming of Tokyo. If we start doing better with the relatively easy cases, that would create a more supportive environment for more difficult issues.

Photo of New Jersey Transit station by Flickr user Morrissey used under a Creative Commons license

Politics

Toobin: McCain’s judicial advising coming from ‘the most extreme elements of the conservative movement.’

In The New Yorker, legal analyst Jeff Toobin looks at what the Supreme Court might look like under a McCain presidency:

The question, as always with McCain these days, is whether he means it. Might he really be a “maverick” when it comes to the Supreme Court? The answer, almost certainly, is no. The Senator has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush’s judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement. With the general election in mind, McCain had to express himself with such elaborate circumlocution because he knows that the constituency for such far-reaching change in our constellation of rights is small, and may be shrinking. … When it comes to the Constitution, McCain is on the wrong side of the voters, and of history; thus, his obfuscations.

(HT: Huffington Post)

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up