|  |
| GOOD NEWS Several progressive documentary films, including Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, the Dixie Chicks movie Shut Up and Sing, and The War Tapes, are "among the 15 movies shortlisted for a 2007 Best Documentary Oscar."
STATE WATCH DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "D.C. moves to become pioneer in forcing 'green' construction."
SOUTH DAKOTA: "A state senator accused of sexual misconduct with an 18-year-old page resigned Tuesday...[but] intends to show up for the new South Dakota legislative term that begins in January."
MASSACHUSETTS: Foes of same-sex marriage, led by Gov. Mitt Romney (R), will rally Sunday at the State House.
EDUCATION: "Most students in big cities lag badly in basic science."
BLOG WATCH THINK PROGRESS: As Bush goes to Vietnam, White House website displays the wrong flag.
TALKING POINTS MEMO: Bush's "new" four-point Iraq strategy.
FEMINISTING: Pakistan's lower house ends the death penalty for extramarital sex, and revises clause making victims produce four witnesses to prove rape cases.
UNCLAIMED TERRITORY: Al Qaeda and Afghanistan -- together again.
DAILY GRILL "I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops."
-- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 11/12/06
VERSUS
"Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no."
-- CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid, 11/15/06
ARCHIVES Progress Report
STUDENTS Politics with an Attitude: Everyone from Barack Obama to Stephen Colbert talks to Campus Progress. Right-wingers seem scared of us. Find out why here. | |
|
| by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney
Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin
IRAQ
McCain's Dangerous Vision Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will deliver two major speeches today to prominent conservative political groups -- GOPAC and the Federalist Society -- in what is being billed as his assessment of the current state of conservatism and "how he would lead it." For an American public that just recently registered its utter dissatisfaction with the current course in Iraq, McCain's prescription for the future will be extremely unsatisfying. He has repeatedly called for an increase in U.S. troop levels, isolating himself from most national security experts and U.S. generals in Iraq. Yesterday, Gen. John Abizaid, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, rejected McCain’s calls for increased U.S. troop levels, informing him that he “met with every divisional commander, Gen. [George] Casey, the core commander, Gen. [Martin] Dempsey” and asked them if bringing “in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said ‘no.’” Escalation in Iraq would be a disastrous course for our nation's strategic security interests. Moreover, the overstretched American military does not have the manpower to provide more troops in Iraq. "He would just repeat the mistake of Vietnam," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. "If McCain refuses to acknowledge that some wars can become simply unwinnable, he may be exposing a weakness in his thinking that ultimately deprives him of the presidency."
WESTMORELAND REDUX: Echoing the failed strategy of the escalation during the Vietnam War, McCain has suggested that putting more troops into the middle of Iraq’s anarchic civil war would help the U.S. to ultimately prevail. Like Gen. William Westmoreland before him, who during the Vietnam War confidently declared victory and led the American military buildup in that country (from 20,000 troops in early 1964 to approximately 500,000 during the 1968 Tet Offensive), McCain risks shattering public confidence and undermining the resolve to fight the much broader war against global terror networks. Beyond the practical unfeasibility of sending in more forces, McCain misdiagnoses what adding more troops at this point would do to the situation on the ground in Iraq. As the Center for American Progress’s Iraq redeployment strategy argues, "A more visible presence of U.S. troops risks further stoking the flames of the insurgency by feeding perceptions of long-term U.S. occupation among many Iraqis." Commanders in Iraq have acknowledged that the recent effort to increase troop numbers in Baghdad only increased violence. A recent poll of Iraqis indicated that support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position -- now six in ten -- a number sure to increase if McCain were to get his way.
FOR RUMSFELD'S STRATEGY BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT: McCain's call for increasing troop levels in Iraq comes three years too late. As former administration officials and military generals have noted, a larger initial force was necessary to provide security on the ground and prevent the growth of the insurgency. Prior to the Iraq war, outgoing Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld argued for going in with substantially lower troop numbers than the prior Gulf War, a position which then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki publicly disputed. In October 2002, McCain was asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews about troop levels. McCain said at the time, "I believe that the kind of technology and the kind of military that we have today doesn't require massive numbers of troops. You might have noticed the conflict in Afghanistan, we had a few soldiers on the ground and used very incredibly accurate air power." As the Iraq occupation played out, it became increasingly clear that Rumsfeld and McCain were wrong and Shinseki was right. Yesterday, Abizaid testified, "Gen. Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution -- U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution -- should have been available immediately after major combat operations." McCain has conveniently forgotten that he endorsed an occupation strategy that would not require "massive numbers of troops." A year ago, he said he had “no confidence” in Rumsfeld, "citing his handling of the war in Iraq and the failure of the Pentagon to send more troops."
AN UNSUSTAINABLE STRATEGY: In a September 2006 op-ed in the Washington Post, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and National Review editor Rich Lowry laid the foundation for McCain's escalation strategy. "More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment," they wrote. In a Financial Times op-ed earlier this week, Kristol joined with his Weekly Standard colleague Robert Kagan in arguing for "increasing U.S. troops in Iraq by at least 50,000 in order to clear and hold Baghdad," perhaps attempting to make McCain's proposal for a 20,000 troop increase appear more reasonable. Outside of proposing the reinstitution of the military draft, the McCain-Kristol position is practically unfeasible because the U.S. military is already overstretched. "We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect. But when you look at the overall American force pool that`s available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps," Abizaid said. Earlier this year, incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), said, "Army readiness is in crisis. ... Today two-thirds of the brigade combat teams in our operating force are unready." Center for American Progress national security analysts Lawrence Korb and Peter Ogden noted, "When one combines this news with the fact that roughly one-third of the active Army is deployed (and thus presumably ready for combat), the math is simple but the answer alarming: The active Army has close to zero combat-ready brigades in reserve." The National Guard is “in an even more dire situation than the active Army.” Lowry, possibly reflecting the thinking of McCain, said, "People would react favorably" to escalating troop levels in Iraq. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that only 17 percent of Americans support increasing force levels.
MCCAIN BELIEVED WE WOULD BE GREETED AS 'LIBERATORS': As the violence in Iraq has intensified, McCain has tried to distance himself from his own previous positions. In August, McCain generated headlines for criticizing the Bush administration's happy talk. McCain said that talk “has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.” McCain was certainly not among those who "understood from the very beginning" that Iraq would be a difficult endeavor. In fact, just days before the invasion of Iraq was launched, he was asked directly about how he believed the conflict would play out. On MSNBC's Hardball (3/12/03), Matthews asked, "Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?" McCain responded, "Absolutely. Absolutely." Just a few days later, McCain appeared again on Hardball (3/24/03), and defiantly proclaimed, "There’s no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there’s no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators."
Under the Radar IRAQ -- KEY BAKER ALLY BRENT SCOWCROFT WANTS TO 'STAY' IN IRAQ: A host of former advisers to President George H.W. Bush have gained ascendancy in recent weeks. His former Secretary of State James Baker and former deputy national security adviser Robert Gates will assume major roles in determining the future course of Iraq. Both Baker and Gates are protégés and colleagues of Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser under Bush 41 who opposed the Iraq war. This assemblage of Baker, Gates, and Scowcroft has been described as "pragmatists" and "realists" by the media. The New York Times, noting his connection to Scowcroft and Baker, suggested the Gates' appointment may be "part of a carefully orchestrated course change." Neoconservatives have argued that the Baker-Gates-Scowcroft position "presents a clear shift" on Iraq. But these claims by the media and neoconservatives appear to be creating a false myth that the rise of the "realists" will change course in Iraq. In a recent interview with the Turkish Daily News, Scowcroft explicitly argued the U.S. must continue to stay in Iraq. "I think we have to stay and try and manage the situation to get some kind of a resolution where we can have an Iraq that is relatively stable," Scowcroft said. In other words, if Scowcroft's position is representative of his colleagues, the changing face of the Bush administration will bear a close resemblance to the old face.
JUDICIARY -- BUSH 'INTENDS TO STAY THE PARTISAN COURSE' WITH JUDICIAL NOMINEES: President Bush "renominated six previously blocked candidates for federal appeals court yesterday," despite his recent pledge “to work with the new Congress in a bipartisan way.” The move is "viewed largely as an effort to appease the party’s conservative base," the Wall Street Journal reports. Incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said in a statement, "This is exactly the kind of political game-playing that prompted Americans to demand change and a new direction in Washington." Of the six previously blocked nominees, four "were criticized as unqualified or too conservative." A nominee for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, Michael Wallace of Mississippi, was "rated unqualified for the appeals court by an American Bar Association panel." Another, Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes, "became a symbol of the Bush administration’s policies on terrorism, interrogations and other wartime powers." A White House spokeswoman said they are "hopeful that the days of judicial obstruction are behind us," noting that, in the last two years of his presidency, "a Republican Senate confirmed 15 of Bill Clinton's nominees to the federal appeals bench." But 31 judicial nominees have been approved this year, nearly double the total number of judges (17) confirmed in the 1996 congressional session, when Republicans controlled the Senate.
ETHICS -- DELAY DEFENDER BLUNT HITS CONSERVATIVES FOR DEFENDING CORRUPT POLITICIANS: Outgoing House Majority Whip and "DeLay protege" Roy Blunt (R-MO) delivered a post-election mea culpa at the Heritage Foundation, entitled "The New Way Forward: Refocusing the Conservative Agenda." Blunt said voters' rebuke of conservatism was due in part to "a seemingly constant stream of ethics issues afflicting a few Members of Congress." Blunt's suggestion to fix the problem is to stop covering up for corrupt members: "The test of any organization or political movement is how it responds when confronted with these individuals," Blunt said. "Before 1994, when conservatives were out of power and were unable to make new laws or rules, we recognized this truth and confronted serious legal and ethical violations by declaring that those who were part of that had no place in our movement. I suggest that we need to recommit ourselves to that standard." Roy Blunt should take his own advice. Last year, USA Today noted that Blunt was among former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's (R-TX) "most visible defenders since the probe into DeLay's use of corporate donations began. Blunt has contributed $5,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund and $10,000 to the DeLay Foundation." Despite various corruption allegations, Blunt made public statements "vowing that DeLay would not stop exerting influence in the House leadership. Blunt is currently locked in a tight race with John Shadegg (R-AZ) for Minority Whip, the #2 minority position in the House. The election is tomorrow. |
Think Fast Conservative senators say they are "eager" to have Trent Lott (R-MS) return to leadership as Minority Whip. "He's the most effective leader I know," said John McCain (R-AZ), "who has won Lott's support for his likely presidential bid."
President Bush has told senior advisers that the United States needs to make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and "that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase U.S. forces by up to 20,000 soldiers."
At a Senate hearing yesterday, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid publicly said for the first time "that the American position in Iraq had been undermined by the Bush administration's decision not to deploy a larger force to stabilize the country in 2003."
"U.S. funds intended to promote democracy in Cuba have been used to buy crab meat, cashmere sweaters, computer games and chocolates," a government audit found. President Bush has planned to boost spending by $80 million on the program, which critics "have long charged...[is] aimed more at winning votes in Miami than triggering political change on the communist island."
CNN's Glenn Beck to the first-ever Muslim congressman: "[W]hat I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'"
Yesterday, the House once again approved a stopgap spending bill "to keep the federal government running through Dec. 8." An earlier stopgap from September will expire on Friday, which Congress implemented because it "left most of the work on regular spending bills unfinished when it adjourned in early October to allow members to campaign for re-election."
Former Wisconsin Gov. and Bush Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson (R) said yesterday that he plans to run for president. Asked about his reason for running, Thompson said, "Why not?"
The Bush administration's plan to build a high-tech "virtual fence" along U.S. borders "is likely to cost far more than the $2 billion that industry analysts initially estimated, possibly up to $30 billion, a government watchdog agency warned yesterday."
And finally: John Abizaid's milkshake is better than yours. During a long day of testimony yesterday, Gen. John Abizaid and Amb. David Satterfield told Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) they had no time for lunch. Snyder told them "it was too bad they didn't even have a chance for a milkshake. 'They have good ones here, you know.'" A little after 4 pm, "Snyder quietly sat next to Satterfield and Abizaid as they testified. He held in his hands two chocolate milkshakes."
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment