Republicans are stalling on START, but in justifying their posture they are having a very hard time providing any real rationale.

Part of the problem for the GOP is that the vast majority of Republican Senators don’t actually oppose the treaty. They are just trying to stall and as a result they allude to vague “concerns.” But since they aren’t opposing the actual treaty, just opposing having a vote on the treaty (which has only been sitting in front of the Senate for eight months), they come across incredibly incoherent.

Case in point was Senator Orrin Hatch’s (R-UT) appearance on Fox News today. This was the second time in two days where Senator Hatch appeared on TV to talk about START. Yet Hatch’s comments have been shockingly incoherent. While it is one thing for a Senator to be asked a question out of the blue that he is unprepared for, in this case the fundamental purpose of the interview was to talk about the START treaty.

Hatch was asked simple straightforward questions, such as “will the treaty make us safer.” And in response — after stammering about the treaty impacting “certain defense approaches” and preventing us from “defense mechanisms” (what in the world does that mean?) — he actually felt the need to admit that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

FOX ANCHOR: What is your take on this treaty overall?

HATCH: Well, I’m still studying it. I haven’t made up my mind on it yet. I am concerned about a number of things about not being able to fully check up on and verify matters with regards to their particular lines of weapons. Some of the telemetry problems bother me quite a bit. There are other aspects about it that i’m just very concerned about. I do hope that we can find a treaty that we can do between the two countries because it would be a good thing but i’m worried about this treaty. For instance there’s a real question whether we can do defense of the United States approaches — certain defense approaches under this treaty. I’m going to have to have those types of things resolved before i can vote for it.

FOX ANCHOR: …Is it your believe that this treaty will make us more safe or more vulnerable as a country?

HATCH: Some think it’s going to make us more vulnerable because it doesn’t cover very important aspects. At least one aspect of it prevents us being able to have defense mechanisms. It’s just a matter of real concern. I’ve got to really study it more to be able to be up on it as well as i should, but i’m concerned about some of the verification provisions, some of the telemetry provisions. I come it from the point of wanting to support a good relationship between Russia and the United States.

Watch it:

While this could be dismissed as just one Senator getting lost, the fact is that Republicans have been incredibly incoherent when talking about the START treaty. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), who referred to the threat from the Soviet Union twice yesterday, also provided a vague nonsensical justification for opposition, as was pointed out by Andrea Mitchell.

Senator Hatch, I have an idea. Instead of going on television to talk about a treaty that you haven’t yet taken the time to “study,” why don’t you study the treaty a bit and get some answers to his concerns? Better yet just read the rest of this post Senator and you will have your stated concerns answered.
Read more

Back in April, when Arizona’s enacted the nation’s harshest immigration law, several groups banded together to organize a boycott campaign against the state. Today, the Center for American Progress, along with the consulting firm Elliott D. Pollack & Company, released a report surveying the economic impact of the boycott. The report’s findings show that the boycott has in fact had a significant impact on the state’s convention industry:

Arizona’s Hotel and Lodging Association publicly reported a combined loss of $15 million in lodging revenue due to meeting cancellations just four months after the bill’s passage. Our extensive research estimates that the actual lost lodging revenue from these cancellations is at least three times that amount: $45 million. That estimate provides a basis for calculating other losses in visitor spending. Analyzing average food and beverage, entertainment, in-town transportation, and retail sales brings the combined loss of estimated conference attendee spending up to a startling $141 million.

This significant hit to direct visitor spending could not come at a worse economic time for Arizona and yet these numbers still vastly understate the overall consequences of these cancellations for the state’s economy. Cancelled meetings and conferences over the next two to three years would have supported nearly 2,800 jobs. The cancellations will trigger more than a quarter billion dollars in lost economic output and more than $86 million in lost wages.

The damage doesn’t end there. The study also noted that “large convention bookings typically occur several years in advance, and many organizations and associations will be making booking decisions over the course of the next year.” Regardless of the position taken by those entities on immigration, they may perceive planning a convention in Arizona as potentially controversial and take their business somewhere else.

Based on that future scenario, the report concludes, “Arizona businesses will lose $76 million in direct revenue from decisions not to book in Arizona in the future. That loss translates into 1,475 lost jobs, $46 million in lost wages, $135 million in lost economic output, and $5 million in lost tax revenues.”

Arizona is currently facing an estimated $825 million budget deficit. Local economist John Lucking said that Arizona can “expect to see sluggish growth through next year.”

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he will introduce the DREAM Act after Thanksgiving. In a press release, Reid stated, “Last time we sought to bring up this bill, all Republicans blocked our effort, even though many have been supporters of the DREAM Act in the past. I hope that our Republican colleagues will join me, Sen. Durbin and Democrats in passing this important piece of legislation, now that we have a stand-alone version and that political season is over.”

Without the support of at least a handful of Republicans, the DREAM Act doesn’t stand a chance. Though the majority of Democrats support the legislation, Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Jon Tester (D-MT) have all either voted against the DREAM Act at some point in their careers or expressed reservations about the legislation. However, in the past, the DREAM Act has enjoyed the support of a handful of Republicans. Immigration reform used to be a bipartisan issue. Where these Republicans seem to stand now is outlined below:

LEANING YES:

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN): Lugar and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced the DREAM Act on March 26, 2009. Although Lugar voted against moving on the Department of Defense (DOD) bill which included the DREAM Act as an amendment, his senior adviser explained that the lawmaker objected to “a vote on proceeding to the defense bill in a very politically charged and unusual way. The DREAM Act deserves a proper debate on its merits.”

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT): Bennett voted to proceed with debate on the DREAM Act in 2007. Bennett was stripped of his party’s nomination earlier this year and will be leaving the Senate in a month. Essentially, he has nothing to lose by sticking to his guns.

TOSS-UPS:

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): Snowe voted to proceed with debate on the DREAM Act in 2007. Snowe justified voting against the DOD bill in September by saying that “the Senate should have the ability to debate more than the three amendments the Majority Leader is allowing.” Snowe is up for reelection in 2012 and could always choose to stick with her party to play it safe.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): Like her colleague, Collins voted in favor of the DREAM Act in 2007. Before voting against proceeding with the DOD bill, Collins explained, “I find myself on the horns of a dilemma, I support the provisions in this bill. I think it is the right thing to do. I think it is only fair… But I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments.” Although she is not up for reelection any time soon, like her colleague (Snowe), Collins is feeling pressure to move farther to the right.

Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL): LeMieux’s predecessor, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) was a strong proponent of immigration reform and the DREAM Act. Since Rubio will replace him in 2011, LeMieux doesn’t have to worry about getting reelected. Yet, he is “mulling” a 2012 Senate bid. He has also expressed some hesitation about the bill, saying, “It’s a very difficult situation for kids who are brought to this country and it’s no fault of their own. I understand that and I am sympathetic, but to attach this to this [DOD reauthorization] bill without trying to fix our broken immigration system is disingenous and irresponsible.”

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH):Voinovich voted against proceeding with the DREAM Act in 2007. However, he has been a strong proponent of AgJOBS, a bill that would put undocumented agriculture workers on a path to legalization and has often been perceived as a swing-vote on immigration bills. He is also retiring from the Senate at the end of the year.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK):Murkowski voted against proceeding with the DREAM Act in 2007. However, she voted in support of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. After a tough reelection race, it looks like she will be returning to the Senate to serve another a term. And chances are she’s not to happy with the Republican establishment after losing the Republican primary to Joe Miller.

LONG-SHOTS:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): Hutchison voted in favor of the DREAM Act in 2007. However, since then, she has moved farther to the right on the immigration issue. She faces a tough primary in 2012.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):Cornyn did not support the DREAM Act in 2007. Though he supported comprehensive immigration reform which included the DREAM Act in 2007, it doesn’t sound like he’s up for it in 2010. “This is getting to be a joke. No one believes that there is enough time that we could do a responsible job,” said Cornyn on the DREAM Act in July. According to him, the Senate should approach the issue in “a responsible, reasonable way and not just try to play to the peanut gallery and act like we’re going to do something we’re not.”

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): Kyl has supported immigration reform in the past, but voted against the DREAM Act in 2007. Like many of his colleagues, his immigration position has hardened and shifted to an enforcement-only approach.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA): Brown replaced the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), a champion of immigrant rights and a tireless advocate for immigration reform. Though there is a lot a pressure on him to take a pro-immigrant stance, so far, he has stuck to his anti-immigrant guns. He recently lashed out at Harvard University, stating “They should embrace young people who want to serve their country, rather than promoting a plan that provides amnesty to students who are in this country illegally.”

DEFINITE NO:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): Hatch has supported both the DREAM Act and immigration reform in the past. However, he is facing a tough reelection in 2012 and has already seen his colleague, Bennett, go down in flames. Given the political climate he’s facing in Utah, my guess is he’ll vote no.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Grassley voted in support of immigration reform in 2006, but against the DREAM Act in 2007. Over the past three years, his position on immigration has moved so far to the right, it is nearly unrecognizable.

Our guest blogger is Ken Gude, Managing Director of the National Security and International Policy Program at American Progress.

Ahmed Ghailani has been convicted in federal criminal court for his role in the 1998 Embassy bombings in East Africa. The judge in the case will sentence Ghailani to a minimum of 20 years and a maximum of life in prison, guaranteeing a very long sentence for the first Guantanamo detainee to be prosecuted in civilian court.

Naturally, this has made conservatives very angry. They prefer that all terrorism suspects be prosecuted in military commissions, presumably because they believe the sentences delivered in federal criminal court are too long, and they want Guantanamo detainees to be released sooner.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called it “a tragic wake-up call to the Obama Administration to immediately abandon its ill-advised plan to try Guantánamo terrorists” in federal courts. “We must treat them as wartime enemies and try them in military commissions at Guantánamo,” Rep. King said. Liz Cheney’s group Keep America Safe railed that “bad ideas have dangerous consequences… We urge the president: End this reckless experiment. Reverse course. Use the military commissions at Guantanamo that Congress has authorized.”

Ghailani and several other co-conspirators were indicted for their roles in the bombings in 1998. Four were convicted in federal criminal court in 2001. Ghailani remained at large until he was captured in Pakistan in 2004, but rather than bringing him to the United States to stand trial like the others, he was put in a secret CIA-run prison for two years and tortured. In 2006, he was transferred to Guantanamo, where he was held until his June 2009 move to New York to stand trial.

The choices the Bush administration made to hold Ghailani in a secret prison, torture him, and delay any trial had several negative effects on the prosecution’s case. Two key witnesses that had participated in the earlier trial have died since 2004. None of the statements Ghailani made while in custody were admissible at trial, and an additional witness was ruled ineligible because of the conditions of Ghailani’s “enhanced interrogation” at secret CIA prisons. Yet despite all of the problems caused by the Bush administration’s decisions, Ghailani was convicted in a fair and transparent system of justice, and will be sentenced by the judge to serve at least 20 years, and probably more, in federal prison.

Understand, the military commissions King and Cheney so favor have held just four trials in their nine years of existence. Two of the defendants have reached guilty pleas, one defendant presented a defense at trial, and another boycotted his trial and was convicted without his involvement. Of the four, two have already been released and have been living freely in their home countries for the last two years, and one was convicted of murder and will serve a maximum of eight years. Only the defendant who offered no defense received a long sentence — life.

The clear and unambiguous record of the military commissions is that they deliver shorter sentences than civilian courts. In fact, the minimum sentence that Ghailani can receive is longer than the combined sentences of the three military commissions defendants who participated in their trial. Yet this is the trial system that conservatives demand. The only conclusion is that they want these Guantanamo detainees to be released quickly.

Following Senator Jon Kyl’s (R-AZ) announcement that he will delay and obstruct the New START treaty, editorial boards in newpapers around the country have eviscerated him and Senate Republicans.

Kyl was described as “narrow-minded,” politically “craven,” and as putting forth “lame excuses.” The New York Times even said Iran should send Kyl a “thank you note.” Given that 73 percent of Americans support the New START treaty, according to a just released CNN poll, the stance of Kyl and Senate Republicans is proving incredibly unpopular.

Here are what newspaper editorial boards are saying:

The New York Times:

The world’s nuclear wannabes, starting with Iran, should send a thank you note to Senator Jon Kyl… The treaty is so central to this country’s national security, and the objections from Mr. Kyl — and apparently the whole Republican leadership — are so absurd that the only explanation is their limitless desire to deny President Obama any legislative success.

Los Angeles Times:

when Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the GOP’s point man on the issue, decided this week that the treaty wasn’t important enough to be taken up by the lame-duck Congress, it was pretty clear that he was acting not in the interest of the nation but of his party.

Times Record of Mid-coast Maine:

Our country’s national security shouldn’t be subject to political gamesmanship. But that’s exactly what’s happening in the U.S. Senate, where the Republican leadership has been using lame excuses to hold up the ratification vote…The silence of our two U.S. senators on this treaty is perplexing, given that both Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins have supported earlier arms control agreements negotiated by Republican presidents. We encourage them to speak up for national security and urge their Republican leaders to stop the politicking and ratify this treaty.

Read more

Dismantling the arguments against the New START treaty on the NewsHour last night, Richard Burt, the Reagan administration’s chief U.S. negotiator for the original START treaty, noted that “there are only two governments in the world that wouldn’t like to see this treaty ratified, the government in Tehran and the government in North Korea.”

Aside from the fact that nearly 75 percent of Americans want to see it ratified, Burt also warned that, if the treaty fails, not only would “we miss the opportunity to improve relations with the Russians, who have supported us on Iran and U.N. sanctions and increasingly in Afghanistan,” but the U.S. would also “lose all credibility on the problem of stopping nuclear proliferation.”

Discussing the jockeying over the treaty on Rachel Maddow’s show last night, The Cable’s Josh Rogin made a similar point, noting that a failure to ratify New START “hurts Obama’s credibility to negotiate future treaties with any other countries around the world.”

But as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already — repeatedly — admitted, the GOP’s main goal is making sure that President Obama is “a one term president.” Severely handicapping the President’s ability to credibly conduct American foreign policy — regardless of the actual consequences — is just one tactic in that larger effort.

Very much related, a fairly comprehensive new report on Iran from the Stimson Center and the U.S. Institute of Peace describes how Iranian political jockeying has impacted U.S.-Iran diplomacy over the years:

Iran’s domestic politics have repeatedly undercut US efforts to engage Tehran. In a country where the political system is based in part on an enduring hostility to US political, economic, and even cultural power, Iranian leaders are fearful of any wider solution to the nuclear program that points to rapprochement with Washington. Supreme Leader Khamanei is the most powerful representative of this intensely suspicious view of the US, and thus may resist a wider normalization of relations with the US.

The rise of a new generation of ultra-hardliners, whose most visible spokesman is President Ahmadinejad, poses a host of further challenges. Iran’s president and his allies view the quest for an independent nuclear fuel cycle as central to Iran’s efforts to forge a new alliance of middle-size powers that can challenge the “hegemony” of the capitalist Western countries. That is why their on-going efforts to quell the Green Movement and seize political control from more mainstream conservatives poses a real threat, not merely to many Iranians, but to the region as a whole.

Leaving aside the obvious point about the mutually reinforcing relationship between Iran’s ultra-hardline neoconservatives and the U.S.’s, just as it’s important to try and understand how Iranian domestic politics affects Iranian foreign policy and U.S. perceptions of Iranian aims, we also have to consider this in the other direction: How might Iranians might view the ability of a small group of Republican ultra-hardliners to scuttle as manifestly reasonable and bipartisan a nonproliferation treaty as START? What does it say to them about President Obama’s ability to ratify any future treaty with Iran, which would likely be far more controversial? Will a failure of START strengthen those Iranian voices — either inside the government or out — who oppose nuclear weaponization? Or will it strengthen the hardliners who see the international nonproliferation regime as a joke, and argue that a nuclear weapon is essential for Iranian power and prestige?

In an op-ed in Politico today, Center for American Progress president and CEO John Podesta noted the importance of ratifying New START vis-a-vis Iran and Russia. “The U.S.-Russia ‘reset’ has paved the way for greater Russian cooperation on pressuring Iran to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons and on supply and support for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. If New START goes down, or is further delayed, Russian cooperation could wane, if not end,” he wrote.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room

Dismantling the arguments against the START treaty on the NewsHour last night, Richard Burt, the Reagan administration’s chief U.S. negotiator for the original START treaty, noted that “there are only two governments in the world that wouldn’t like to see this treaty ratified, the government in Tehran and the government in North Korea.”

Burt also warned that, if the treaty fails, not only would “we miss the opportunity to improve relations with the Russians, who have supported us on Iran and U.N. sanctions and increasingly in Afghanistan,” but the U.S. would also “lose all credibility on the problem of stopping nuclear proliferation.”

Discussing the jockeying over the treaty on Rachel Maddow’s show last night, The Cable’s Josh Rogin made a similar point, noting that a failure to ratify New START “hurts Obama’s credibility to negotiate future treaties with any other countries around the world.”

But as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already — repeatedly — admitted, the GOP’s main goal is making sure that President Obama is “a one term president.” Severely handicapping the President’s ability to credibly conduct American foreign policy — regardless of the actual consequences — is just one tactic in that larger effort.

Very much related, a fairly comprehensive new report on Iran from the Stimson Center and the U.S. Institute of Peace describes how Iranian political jockeying has impacted U.S.-Iran diplomacy over the years:

Iran’s domestic politics have repeatedly undercut US efforts to engage Tehran. In a country where the political system is based in part on an enduring hostility to US political, economic, and even cultural power, Iranian leaders are fearful of any wider solution to the nuclear program that points to rapprochement with Washington. Supreme Leader Khamanei is the most powerful representative of this intensely suspicious view of the US, and thus may resist a wider normalization of relations with the US.

The rise of a new generation of ultra-hardliners, whose most visible spokesman is President Ahmadinejad, poses a host of further challenges. Iran’s president and his allies view the quest for an independent nuclear fuel cycle as central to Iran’s efforts to forge a new alliance of middle-size powers that can challenge the “hegemony” of the capitalist Western countries. That is why their on-going efforts to quell the Green Movement and seize political control from more mainstream conservatives poses a real threat, not merely to many Iranians, but to the region as a whole.

Leaving aside the obvious point about the mutually reinforcing relationship between Iran’s ultra-hardline neoconservatives and the U.S.’s, just as it’s important to try and understand how Iranian domestic politics affects Iranian foreign policy and U.S. perceptions of Iranian aims (for example, how Iran’s inability to agree to the October 2009 TRR deal was treated by some simply as evidence of Iran’s irretrievably aggressive intent), we should also consider this in the other direction: How might Iranians might view the ability of a small group of Republican ultra-hardliners to scuttle as manifestly reasonable and bipartisan a nonproliferation treaty as START? What does it say to them about President Obama’s ability to ratify any future treaty with Iran, which would likely be far more controversial? Will a failure of START strengthen those Iranian voices — either inside the government or out — who oppose nuclear weaponization? Or will it strengthen the hardliners who see the international nonproliferation regime as a joke, and argue that a nuclear weapon is essential for Iranian power and prestige?

It would be great if conservatives could cease rubbing their hands together for a moment to consider some of these questions.