ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Right-Wing Paranoia In US And Russia Over Missile Defense Is A Big Arms Control Obstacle

missile-defense-europeThe negotiations on START may or may not be close to being finished. But it is pretty clear what is holding up an agreement over the treaty: It’s missile defense in Europe. While missile defense concerns on both sides can likely be resolved for this treaty, eventually US-Russian tension over missile defense will have to be resolved if the President is to further advance his disarmament agenda.

The Russians, after initially seeing the Obama administration’s announced change to Bush’s European missile defense program as a significant victory, have realized that the current plan proposed by President Obama will (despite claims from politically craven conservatives) produce a more capable and comprehensive missile defense system for Europe. While the shift in focus by the Obama administration – from long-range missiles that Iran doesn’t possess to short and medium range missiles that Iran does possess – is clearly not directed at Russia, the Russians are still very worried about latter phases of the Obama plan, which call for developing long-range missile interceptors in Europe.

At issue here is that the Russians simply don’t trust the United States – a distrust that has little to do with the Obama administration. An article in Der Spiegel paraphrasing Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Endowment’s Moscow Center notes:

The Russians, in particular, feel that they are once again being misled. They may believe that man now in the Oval Office has honorable intentions, but they do not believe he is capable of reversing his country’s position on nuclear weapons… For the Russians, this is clearly reflected in Washington’s plans to develop new missile defense systems around the world.

Thus in negotiating a nuclear arms reduction deal through a new START treaty, the Russian military and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin fear that the US is trying to pull a fast one on them. The Russians fear that if we both cut our nuclear forces to the same levels, they will be at a disadvantage, because long range missile defense programs conceivably (if they actually worked effectively which they don’t) could take out some Russian nukes, thereby depriving the two sides of nuclear parity.

Despite assurances from the Obama administration, Russian paranoia makes perfect sense. Not only do they see the US squirm in response to the sensible argument that in any arms control agreement there has to be a connection between offensive and defensive systems in order to maintain the nuclear balance. But they also see that the US is willing to throw billions of dollars every year at unproven and ineffective missile defense systems. And they note with concern when they see three conservative Senators say they won’t support a treaty Ronald Reagan initiated if even symbolic language about missile defense is included. From this, the Russians conclude that we will stop at nothing to develop a massive and comprehensive system that will try to neuter a Russian nuclear response. Der Spiegel quoting Russian military experts:

“This is where the White House’s age-old plan to suffocate our strategic armed forces and destroy our own intercontinental missiles, directly after START, is being implemented,” … They insist that Russia is being surrounded by an “anti-missile fence” that will provide the Americans with one-sided superiority.

Many American conservatives will even acknowledge that their hope is for US missile defense systems to do exactly what the Russians fear it will do. While the right will make the easy domestic political argument – why wouldn’t you want protection from the Russians? – the fact is that any system we develop will only push the Russians to build more nuclear weapons to overcome US defenses. Missile defense won’t make us safer or protect us from nuclear attack, instead it will only lead to greater international distrust and a new nuclear arms race, which would just further increase the dangers of proliferation. Dmitry Rogozin, Moscow’s ambassador to NATO in Brussels noted this bluntly when he said “this [missile defense] plan presents us with even greater challenges. Our military will react with a new weapons system.”

Hence, right-wing paranoia in the United States about Russian nuclear intentions plays directly into Russian paranoia about America’s nuclear intentions. In other words, both our right wings freak each other out, making arms control efforts exceptionally difficult.

Alyssa

Shut Up and Talk

I don’t know whether Emily Nussbaum’s overlords at New York have forced her to start blogging, or if, months after launching Surf, she’s finally decided she’s comfortable with the medium, but whatever the proximate cause, I am exceedingly happy that the lady is now gracing us with what appear to be semi-regular posts.  Especially when they’re as good as this one, laying out rules for musical numbers in sitcoms and ultimately concluding that maybe what we all need is a break.  She writes:

Just because Glee is a phenomenon and High School Musical made money doesn’t mean perfectly clever non-musical sitcoms can go throwing terrible production numbers into the mix. It isn’t genre experimentation, it’s just annoying. Also, High School Musical was terrible, so no one should use those songs as a role model.

Media

Eric Massa

File-Eric_Massa

I really think that political journalists who’ve spent more than 20 minutes over the past 24 hours covering the Eric Massa story need to turn the TV off, turn the BlackBerry off, turn the Twitter off, shut everything down, go to a nice quiet room, take a deep breath, look in the mirror and ask themselves why they got into this business.

How many reporters are covering this story? What are the odds that some important fact of Massa’s life will go unrevealed if you do not devote your talents and energies to looking into it? Isn’t it more likely that you’re going to commit useful journalism by looking into something else? Anything else? Like, literally, anything else? It seems to me that at the margin pretty much any use of a journalist’s time would have a greater social value than further Massa reporting. A nap, even. Get well-rested for tomorrow’s goofy story.

Economy

Health Insurance Lobby Leaves The Door Open To Supporting A GOP Repeal Of Health Reform

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the lobbying juggernaut for the health insurance industry, hosted its annual conference at the Ritz Carlton this week. As a vote on health legislation nears, the industry announced yesterday that it is funding a new round of national ads aimed at killing reform. The insurance industry has attacked every version of health reform thus far, from the Senate Finance bill, to the bill that passed the House already, to measures proposed by the White House. On a call with investors, Goldman Sachs detailed how health insurers would benefit the most from not passing any health reform all.

Even if reform passes, political attack groups funded by big business, like the Club for Growth, and Republicans are promising to repeal health legislation, rescinding coverage for over 30 million Americans and perpetuating widespread industry abuses. In addition to leaders like Newt Gingrich (who is funded by AHIP and other insurers), National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and dozens of GOP House and Senate leaders have pledged to repeal health reform if they are successful in the midterm elections.

ThinkProgress caught up with Robert Zirkelbach, the spokesman for AHIP, after a press briefing at the conference to ask about the GOP effort to repeal health reform. Zirkelbach carefully dodged the question directly, but left the door open to possibly supporting such an effort in the future:

TP: Let’s say the current reform bills you’ve registered disapproval with, let’s say they pass in their current form. Would you support a Republican effort, the Republican campaign promise to repeal some or all of the bill?

ZIRKELBACH: I’m not going to speculate about health reform legislation, what’s going to happen after, when we haven’t seen the current bill. I think we’re a ways a way [crosstalk] I’m not going to begin to speculate about whats going to happen.

Watch it:

Yesterday at the AHIP conference, Steve ErkenBrack, a health insurance executive from Colorado, mused about what it would take for political leaders to stop the “demonization” of insurers. He then suggested that insurance company executives had to simply “wait until November [elections] get passed,” presumably when the GOP either retakes Congress or a large number of seats. Listen here:

As ThinkProgress has documented, AHIP has waged a two-faced campaign to kill reform. Understanding that health insurers are unpopular, AHIP has tried to defray potential criticism by telling the administration and the public that “this time” the industry will fully support health reform. However, insurers have quietly been working behind closed doors to kill health reform, secretly funding $20 million plus in attack ads, orchestrating a far right effort to declare reform unconstitutional, and directing employees to attend rowdy anti-health reform protests.

Economy

Alexander: I Will Use ‘Every Right And Privilege I Have As A Senator’ To Prevent FedEx Drivers From Unionizing

Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

Earlier this week, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) announced that he had placed a hold on a pending bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), because the House-passed version of the legislation changes an inequity in labor law that makes it more difficult for truck drivers at FedEx to unionize than drivers at other shipping companies. Currently, Memphis-based FedEx is governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), under which the barriers to organizing are higher, while the proposed change would pull FedEx under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Corker said that he supports the FAA reauthorization, but that he won’t lift his hold until he is assured that the House language (which is not included in the Senate bill) won’t be added in conference committee. His Tennessean counterpart, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), has also voiced his support for the hold, and today said that he will use “every right and privilege I have as a senator” to prevent FedEx drivers from organizing:

“I hope to help them pass it, but I’m going to use every right or privilege I have as a senator to make sure that in the end of the process, the legislation does not include the unfair provisions singling out FedEx that’s in the House bill,” Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said. “I’m going to work my way through this.”

That definitely sounds like a threat to filibuster, which in reality is all Corker is announcing with his hold, and it shows the extraordinary lengths to which these two senators are willing to go to protect one company in their home state from having to collectively bargain with its workers.

The RLA, which is technically only supposed to apply to airlines and railroad companies, stipulates that workers can only form one national union, with a ban on local unions. For obvious reasons, holding a unionization campaign for the entirety of FedEx’s ground organization at once poses certain logistical problems.

Even though it has a network of delivery trucks, FedEx has successfully lobbied for years to remain classified as an airline, and saying that “you can’t put stop signs at 30,000 feet.” FedEx CEO Fed Smith — “who raised more than $100,000 for 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain and was George W. Bush’s fraternity brother” — has said that “I don’t intend to recognize any unions at Federal Express.”

Opponents of the change like to characterize it as a “bailout” for UPS. But as Jim Berard, a spokesman for Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), said, “it is certainly not a bailout for UPS. We are not giving UPS money. What the bill does, it brings FedEx under the same labor laws as UPS.” Though Alexander characterizes the bill as “singling out” FedEx, as Berard said, in reality “the bill’s purpose is to treat people who have the same type of job equally under federal labor laws.”

The bill which Corker is holding also authorizes higher pilot training standards that the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended in response to a fatal plane crash near Buffalo last year. Families of the crash victims are criticizing the hold.

Yglesias

Yes We Can!

barack-hope-poster 1

Austin Bramwell says we can’t fix bad public schools so we should just solve America’s affordable housing problems:

To reduce the number of such cases, how about this: since reforming schools is so inherently difficult, we should instead try to make housing more affordable even in the best school districts. I would consider first reforming zoning laws that restrict density and discourage/prohibit rental housing.

Kevin Drum thinks this is politically impossible and proposes that we fix the schools instead:

Or, on a more serious note, we could fund poverty and educational interventions with proven track records, allow schools more leeway to deal with incorrigible students, encourage our best teachers to work in our most challenging schools and allow principals to fire the ones who fail, promote experimentation via charter schools, and make sure every school is adequately funded. Feel free to add your own favorite ideas to this list. It’s a little messy and it’s no silver bullet — it’s a long, hard slog, if you will — but these are the sorts of things that will eventually make a difference. Best of all, some of it is even politically feasible.

But why not both!

Political feasibility is an important issue when you’ve got an actual bill before the congress that might or might not pass. Dennis Kucinich needs to stop being an idiot and start thinking more about political feasibility. But people who are just writing about national issues spend, in my view, way too much time thinking about political feasibility. Of course fixing bad public schools is hard. Of course curbing housing regulations that hurt poor people is hard. And of course building support for anti-poverty interventions is hard. Public interest reform is always hard.

And yet it’s possible. Problems do get solved. When baby boomers were born there was no Medicare, private citizens weren’t allowed to own telephones (really! look it up!), and black people generally couldn’t vote. We can fix zoning laws, we can improve education, we can get children out of poverty. Bad urban/suburban planning is hard to fix, but it’s also really important, and so is improving school performance.

Politics

Even Though Bush Used False WMD Claims To Justify Iraq War, Rove Claims They Dealt With ‘Reality’

karl_rove2In his book that was released this week, former top Bush aide Karl Rove claimed that President Bush would not have authorized an invasion of Iraq in 2003 if he had known Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. “Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” Rove writes. “The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”

The New York Times’ Peter Baker asked Rove about that comment and noted that Rove still justifies the invasion anyway. “Do you really think the Iraq war was worth it?” Baker asked. “The world is a better place,” Rove said. When Baker asked about other justifications the administration used for war (human rights and spreading democracy) Rove accused the Times reporter of talking about “hypotheticals” and that it was the Bush White House that was dealing with “reality“:

ROVE: You’re talking about hypotheticals. What we were talking about was the practical reality that in the aftermath of 9/11 we had somebody who was refusing to abide by international weapons inspections and live up to the agreement that he made after the first Gulf War. And whom every Western intelligence agency believed had weapons of mass destruction. That was a calculus in the aftermath of 9/11 that we could not tolerate. We had to deal with the world as we knew it, as we thought we knew it.

Except the “reality” was that Saddam Hussein didn’t have WMD. Moreover, in the months before the invasion, Saddam did, in fact, allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq, who, according to a report commissioned by President Bush himself after the war, had disproved intelligence on Iraq’s WMD before the war. Yet, the Bush White House dismissed their findings:

By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested — and disproved — by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the president and released Thursday.

The work of the inspectors — who had extraordinary access during their three months in Iraq between November 2002 and March 2003 — was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and the intelligence community in the run-up to the war, according to the commission led by former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) and retired appellate court judge Laurence H. Silberman.

On NBC yesterday, Rove argued that there was a “worldwide consensus” before the invasion that Iraq had WMD. Apparently, expert weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq did not fall into that category.

Thus it’s unclear what “practical reality” Rove is referring to, seeing the “reality” was that Iraq didn’t have WMD — thus dislodging the main case for war and thereby making the entire effort impractical.

Health

Health Insurers Deploy Charm Campaign For Sebelius Speech

Sebelius shaking hands with AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni

Sebelius shaking hands with AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni

Compared to President Obama’s fiery condemnations of the health insurance industry, Kathleen Sebelius’s speech before the insurance industry’s annual conference struck a more conciliatory note. Dressed in a gray suit that made her look almost identical to AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni, Sebelius steered clear of criticizing insurers for funding efforts to undermine reform and asked just two things of the industry. The secretary reiterated the administration’s request that insurers publicize their rate hike requests and asked the industry “to work with us” and “help us pass comprehensive health reform.”

But listening to Ignagni’s introduction of Sebelius, one would think that the insurance industry had been cooperating with Congress all along:

IGNAGNI: We entered 2009 with a major commitment to do something that was unexpected by various communities in the stakeholder arena, which is to commit to massive change in the way we do business. So we are on the page and fully committed to insurance reforms, not half steps, but massive change….we have proposed dramatic comprehensive solutions to get to the issue of affordable and predictability projection into the health care system…. We’re working very hard. We do not have all the problems solved, but you have our commitment, Madam Secretary, to continue this work with physicians and hospitals, to free them up to practice medicine.

Despite its public support for health care reform, however, the insurance industry has engaged in a “duplicitous” campaign to undermine the effort (and openly engaging in practices that undermine Ignagni’s rehtoric.) In January, the National Journal revealed that from September to December 2009, “six of the nation’s biggest health insurers began quietly pumping big money into third-party television ads aimed at killing or significantly modifying the major health reform bills moving through Congress.” The companies used AHIP “as a conduit to avoid a repeat of the political flack that hit the insurance industry after it famously ran its multi-million dollar ‘Harry and Louise’ ads to help kill health care reforms during the Clinton administration.”

Earlier, the industry had sponsored several reports criticizing the Senate legislation, and funded state efforts to challenge the constitutionality of health reform. Several insurers — including Aetna and UnitedHealth — have long been dues-paying members of the Chamber, which has just unveiled another round of health care reform ads.

Media

The Cult of the Presidency

Excellent John Sides montage of how the media raises unrealistic expectations and mis-depicts presidential authority:

obamatimecovers

The Afghanistan cover seems fair enough, since in practice congress and the courts grant the President almost unlimited latitude in national security policy. But on health care, the President is clearly much more powerful than any individual Senator or House member, but collectively congress has more authority. On the economy, not only does the President need to share power with Congress, but the quasi-independent Fed exercises vast influence.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up