The aftermath of Hurricane Irene has created not only an estimated $12 billion worth of damage, but it continues to leave many east coast residents without power and access to basic necessities.

In Vermont, where flooding has cut off a dozen towns from the rest of the state and left thousands without access to electricity, the state’s ability to respond to Irene has been hobbled by a previous disaster: the war in Iraq.

The Burlington Free Press reports that the state has had to borrow 10 helicopters total from Illinois and New Hampshire to respond to the disaster because all six of its Black Hawk helicopters are still in Iraq:

Eight helicopters on loan from the Illinois National Guard were expected to arrive Tuesday night in Vermont to help the Vermont National Guard deliver food, medicine, water and other supplies to 13 Vermont towns cut off from the rest of the state in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Irene. The outside helicopter support is needed because all six of the Vermont Guard’s Black Hawk helicopters are still in Iraq, where they and 55 Vermont soldiers are wrapping up a yearlong hospital transport mission, said Lt. Lloyd Goodrow, spokesman for the Vermont Guard. [...] The New Hampshire National Guard sent over two of its Black Hawk helicopters on Monday. The two were used to transport Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Craig Fugate, Gov. Peter Shumlin, Sen. Bernie Sanders I-Vt., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., on a survey of flood-damaged areas in the state.

“We’d be in a very different scenario if they were here,” said Lt. Lloyd Goodrow, a spokesman for the Vermont National Guard, of the six Black Hawk helicopters. The helicopters being used in operations to drop supplies to the dozen towns that have been cut off are smaller than Vermont’s Black Hawks, and deliveries are occurring slowly.

Today, Al Jazeera reports on an explosive new story that finds that the very same Bush official who spearheaded normalizing relations with Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi was secretly working with the dictator as late as this month to design a public relations campaign to undermine both the rebel forces and NATO.

Al Jazeera’s Jamal Elshayyal unearthed files in Libya’s intelligence headquarters that suggest that David Welch — the former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush who brokered the deal that normalized relations between Libya and the United States and who later went on to work for the manufacturing and development giant Bechtel — met with Libyan officials in early August to coordinate on undermining the Libyan rebels and NATO forces by, for example, trying to establish ties between the uprising and al Qaeda:

I found what appeared to be the minutes of a meeting between senior Libyan officials – Abubakr Alzleitny and Mohammed Ahmed Ismail – and David Welch, the former assistant secretary of state who served under George W Bush and the man who brokered the deal which restored diplomatic relations between the US and Libya in 2008. [...]During that meeting Welch advised Gaddafi’s team on how to win the propaganda war – suggesting several “confidence building measures”, the documents said. The documents appear to indicate that an influential US political personality was advising Gaddafi on how to beat the US and NATO. [...] Minutes of this meeting note his advice on how to undermine Libya’s rebel movement, with the potential assistance of foreign intelligence agencies, including Israel. “Any information related to al-Qaeda or other terrorist extremist organisations should be found and given to the American administration but only via the intelligence agencies of either Israel, Egypt, Morroco, or Jordan… America will listen to them… It’s better to receive this information as if it originated from those countries…”

Watch Al Jazeera’s video report about the documents:

It is unclear exactly what would motivate Welch to help Qaddafi battle the pro-democracy uprising and even his own country, but it should be noted that Welch’s position at Bechtel put him in a spot where he was incentivized to maintain strong business relationships with Libya. Shortly after helping normalize relations between the two countries, Welch became a vice president at Bechtel, overseeing the company’s Middle Eastern operations. Under Welch, the company rapidly expanded in Libya, even setting up its first office in the country since the 1960s.

Also included among the documents that Al Jazeera uncovered was evidence that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a Libya war foe, had contacts with Qaddafi’s regime and had asked for evidence of corruption or al Qaeda contacts among the rebels.

In a statement released yesterday, House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) called for the U.S. to violate its own laws and ratified international treaties governing the U.S. role as host to the United Nations.

In the statement, which focused on sanctioning officials from the Iranian government, Ros-Lehtinen said the U.S. should deny Iranian and Syrian officials access to the U.S. for the upcoming U.N. General Assembly:

And with the U.N. General Assembly convening in New York in weeks, the U.S. must unequivocally deny all Iranian and Syrian regime officials access to U.S. soil.

It’s impossible to read this statement as anything but a call from the top foreign policy official in the House of Representatives for the U.S. violate its own laws, specifically those enacted by the Congress in 1947 that established New York City as the host of the international body.

The U.S. and the U.N. signed the “Headquarters Agreement,” also known as U.S. Public Law 80 – 357, in June 1947 and both Houses of Congress subsequently passed the measure and the President signed it into law.

Article IV of the Headquarters Agreement outlines several provisions with regard to travel to New York by representatives of Member States:

Article IV — Communication and Transit
Section 11
The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations [...]
Section 12
The provisions of Section 11 shall be applicable irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments of the persons refereed to in that section and the Government of the United States.
Section 13
(a) Laws and regulation in force in the United States regarding the entry of aliens shall not be applied in such a manner as to interfere with the privileges referred to in Section 11. When visas are required for persons referred to in that Section, they shall be granted without charge and as promptly as possible.

While Ros-Lehtinen has long been an opponent of the U.N. — she introduced a bill this week that would withdraw much of the U.S. funding for the organization — her call yesterday demonstrates that her anti-U.N. ideology trumps even respect for established U.S. law.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the media rounds to promote his new memoir, and this morning, he stopped by Fox and Friends where he credited the Iraq war with helping to start the Arab Spring. While Cheney cautioned that it’s hard to lump all Middle East countries together, he said it’s likely that the pro-democracy movement that swept the Arab world in the past six months is a “ripple effect” of the introduction of democracy in Iraq:

KILMEADE: Is it a reach to say Libya’s unrest…all has a lot to do with what happened in Iraq? Letting those people, seeing those people vote, and the Arab community seeing what’s going on?

CHENEY: Well, I think there may be some of that going on. [...] But I think that what happened in Iraq, the fact that we brought democracy, if you will, and freedom to Iraq, has had a ripple effect on some of those other countries.

Watch it:

A number of Bush foreign policy apologists have tried to claim the Arab Spring as vindication of the Iraq War and its cheerleaders’ claim that the invasion would help spread democracy across the Middle East. But as CAP’s Matt Duss pointed out this month, “there is no real evidence for the claim.” The war was overwhelming unpopular in the region and, as an April 2010 RAND study concluded, “Iraq’s instability has become a convenient scarecrow neighboring regimes can use to delay political reform by asserting that democratization inevitably leads to insecurity.”

Indeed, Iraq is hardly a model of democracy, and its leaders, rather than seeing solidarity with activists in other Arab countries and encouraging them, have done little to help the pro-democracy movement and at times even expressed sympathy for the autocratic regimes the movement is seeking to overthrow.

Addressing the question in July, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Steven Cook concluded, “It is time to put the Bush boosters’ arguments where they belong: in the trash heap of discredited ideas.” “There is no connection between the invasion of Iraq and Arab efforts to throw off generations of dictatorship,” he added.

Neoconservative blogger Ed Lasky takes issue with the Center For American Progress’s new report — “Fear, Inc.” — documenting the Islamophobia industry in America. He cites a Reuters write-up of a Pew poll surveying American Muslims that says, among other things, “that most Muslims felt ordinary Americans were friendly or neutral toward them.” This prompts Lasky to ask:

If Muslim Americans felt discrimination were rampant, would they express contentment and happiness with living in America? Would they be confident about the future of America and their own personal futures? Would they feel that most Americans are friendly or neutral towards them. [sic.]

Where is the Islamophobia that supposedly is proliferating across America? The charge is merely meant to line the pockets of activist groups and chill any criticism of Muslim actions, however insensitive (the 9/11 Mosque) or questionable (the adoption of aspects of Sharia law) they may be perceived to be by some Americans.

But the same Reuters article Lasky cited says that Muslims in America are content with their lives in the U.S. despite fairly widespread feelings of discrimination related to their faith, not because such feelings do not exist. Reuters writes:

Since 2007, there has been little change in how Muslim Americans see how they are viewed by the rest of America, with 28 percent saying other Americans viewed them suspiciously and 22 percent saying they had been called offensive names. Only 6 percent said they had been threatened or attacked, while 38 percent were bothered by their sense that they were singled out for increased government surveillance.

In response to questions about being a Muslim in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks, 55 percent said it is more difficult while 37 percent saw no change.

Almost two in five American Muslims, then, are distressed that their government may be spying on them. Perhaps Lasky should check out the moving recollection of Hamed Aleaziz, who writes about his unsuccessful experience trying to glean information from members of the congregation he grew up in after the mosque was targeted in an FBI sting operation:

After my unsuccessful experience trying to shed light on the impact of this FBI sting on my former home, I wonder if anyone will ever be able to understand what life’s like after the FBI targets your community.

Furthermore, the Pew report itself sheds more light on those statistics Lasky conveniently ignored. More than half of Muslim Americans think “government anti-terrorism policies single out Muslims in the U.S. for increased surveillance and monitoring.” The report goes on:

A quarter of Muslim Americans (25%) report that mosques or Islamic centers in their communities have been the target of controversy or outright hostility. While 14% report that there has been opposition to the building of a mosque or Islamic center in their community in the past few years, 15% say that a mosque or Islamic center in their community has been the target of vandalism or other hostile acts in the past 12 months.

Lasky, who rose to prominence by spreading smears about Barack Obama while he ran for president, ought to consider the breadth of the study he’s citing, or at the very least the article about it he selectively quoted from. If Lasky wants to distance the effect of Islamophobic rhetoric from the feelings of American Muslims, that’s one thing. But to simply pretend that American Muslims, despite their overwhelming satisfaction with life in the U.S., are not sometimes discriminated against or perceive discrimination is patently dishonest.

Our guest blogger is Sarah Margon, associate director for sustainable security at the Center for American Progress.

Less than a week after a car bomb devastated the United Nations’ headquarters in Nigeria and killed more than 20 employees, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) has decided to introduce legislation that, if passed, would defund and significantly damage U.S. engagement with this important international institution. The bill is meant to coincide with the Palestinian Authority’s push for statehood recognition at the U.N. A spokesman for Ros-Lehtinen explained:

“The text includes a section that follows in the successful precedent set by the George H.W. Bush Administration in 1989 by withholding U.S. funding to any UN entity that upgrades the status of the Palestinian mission. It contains other provisions conditioning U.S. funding to the UN on the implementation of concrete reforms. The bill will be introduced with the support of several dozen original co-sponsors.”

Ros-Lehtinen’s bill sets a dramatic precedent that far exceeds previous anti-U.N. initiatives. It would require the U.N. to adopt a voluntary budget model in which countries selectively fund U.N. agencies rather than use the current formula for assessed (required) dues, which is determined for each member state based on the country’s gross national income, as well as factors like population and levels of debt. It would also end funding for Palestinian refugees, restrict the use of U.S. funds to the goals outlined by Congress, and stop U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations until major management reforms are made.

The introduction of this bill comes at a time when the United States has had notable success in galvanizing international action through the United Nations, whether in Libya, where the Security Council adopted a resolution authorizing a NATO military campaign to protect civilians or at the U.N. Human Rights Council, which recently called for an international inquiry into potential crimes against humanity by the Syrian government. Back in May, CAP expert Matt Duss also noted the U.N.’s success in Iran — where the multilateral sanctions, adopted under a June 2010 Security Council resolution — have begun to significantly impact Iran’s ability to proceed with its nuclear program. In fact, the expert panel noted that new measures constrain “Iran’s procurement of items related to prohibited nuclear and ballistic missile activity and thus slowing development of these programs.”

In general, the United Nations reflects the commitment of its member states to tackle enormous global challenges. The institution itself represents a shared understanding that it is cheaper and more effective for countries to work together toward the same ends. Continuing our engagement at the U.N., while pressing for greater reform to make it more effective, will enhance our ability to work collaboratively with other partners — both traditional and not. As I wrote in an op-ed in the Hill, it will also promote our agenda by leveraging key actors.

There is little question that the U.N. needs to undergo significant reforms, but one of the best ways for that to happen is to ensure the United States remains actively engaged and at the helm of such efforts. An April 2010 CAP report reminds us that:

[…] [H]istory shows that robust U.S. engagement is actually the best way to reform the institution. Ironically, cutting funds now also means we are shifting our obligations onto future generations since U.N. membership still requires dues even if Congress cuts the budget. Restricting U.S. support for the United Nations ultimately has a much higher price tag than it does savings as doing so substantially decreases our political legitimacy while costing America money and jobs.

Today’s threats to our national security are constantly evolving. If we are to address them systematically, we need to marshal all available resources to do so. Unilateral approaches are certainly one option to do so, but as the war in Iraq indicates, they are dramatically less effective and more expensive.

After serving as the California attorney general and a lobbyist for the firm Venable, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) decided to run again for Congress in 2004, claiming that the War on Terrorism had drawn him back into public service. “If 9/11 had not occurred, I would not be running,” he told reporters at the time.

This year, Lungren became chairman of a key anti-terrorism subcommittee that oversees the nation’s infrastructure and technology security. Tasked with protecting vulnerable chemical manufacturing plants from a terrorist attack, Lungren’s main legislative accomplishment has been the shepherding of the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) through committee. However, many are arguing that the bill is laden with loopholes for the chemical industry. Large-scale chemical companies, like Koch Industries, have lobbied against expensive requirements to use less dangerous chemicals and to let the Department of Homeland Security set certain safety standards. Lungren’s bill, as critics have detailed, extends reckless loopholes for chemical companies while exempting many water treatment plants from post-9/11 safety rules.

As Homeland Security officials have warned for years, an explosion at a chemical plant remains one of the most lethal terrorism risks for the nation. A Center for American Progress report, Chemical Security 101, details the dangers posed by unsecured chemical facilities across the nation. Notably, there is at least one chemical plant within proximity of Lungren’s district:

– The General Chemical Bay Point Works in Pittsburg, California is a chemical manufacturing facility produces high purity electronic grade hydrofluoric acid (concentration 49% to 70%) for use in semiconductor and silicon manufacturing industries. An explosion or attack at this plant would endanger the lives of up to 3 million people in the Sacramento and Bay Area.

Lungren led House Homeland Security Committee Republicans in voting to kill amendments that would have closed security loopholes and required safer chemicals at the General Chemical Bay Point plant near his district.

Though he promised to return to Congress to keep the country safe from terrorism, Lungren’s primary accomplishment is a giveaway to chemical companies more interested in short-term profit than protecting the lives of Americans.

Texas Governor and GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry finally laid out his foreign policy platform and, in doing so, attempted to set himself apart from both the neoconservative foreign policy of George W. Bush and the progressive realism (and corresponding embrace of multilateral institutions) employed by the Barack Obama administration.

Perry rejected the aggressive unilateralism of the Bush foreign policy, saying:

I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism. We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened and we should always look to build coalitions among the nations to protect the mutual interests of freedom loving people.

But he shied away from the mulilateral coalition building proven effective by Obama in toppling Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya and gaining U.N. Security Council support for Iran sanctions. Perry said, “We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multi-lateral debating societies.”

Perry is eager to distance himself from Bush’s foreign policy doctrine, which left the U.S. overextended in two wars. And he needs to steer his campaign clear of endorsing Obama’s foreign policy since a large swath of the GOP criticized the White House’s Libya strategy and predicted Obama’s “leading from behind” would lead to defeat for Libyan rebels.

But distancing himself from the Bush administration or the “military adventurism” exhibited in the invasion of Iraq might be difficult with Douglas Feith — a Bush administration official well known for leading the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans which was reponsible for cooking up faulty intel on Iraq’s WMD program — and Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld serving to advise Perry on foreign policy.

Indeed, advice from Feith might have been what led Perry to already contradict his position against military adventurism when asked about about preemptive military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. He said there are “a lot of different ways to deal with Iran,” and added:

I’m never going to take off the table our ability to have a military solution to a country like Iran.

Perry, much like George W. Bush in 2000, appears to be making campaign promises of a modest foreign policy and cautious use of military force all while surrounding himself with foreign policy hawks who will do all they can to keep the U.S. on a war footing.