Sunday’s debate between GOP presidential hopefuls in Orlando featured some of the testiest exchanges yet between the candidates, who also seemed to find an unlikely unifying figure in Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton.
* * * Read the full story at BayouBuzz.com
After concluding two days of hearings into the progress of the US troop surge in Iraq, several prominent members of the US Congress have slammed the surge as a failure and a distraction from the growing threat of global terrorism.
General David Petraeus testified that there have been “significant” decreases in violence in Iraq since the surge commenced mid- year and that the level of security incidents are now “the lowest since June 2006.” He recommended that the US maintain current troop levels until at least next summer, when he said it may be possible to begin the withdrawal of 30,000 troops. In the longer term, he envisions a US military presence in Iraq for another decade.
Opponents of the war responded that the US needs to start winding down its presence sooner to pressure the Iraqi government to meet political reconciliation benchmarks, which are necessary to quell the sectarian violence. The Iraqis have failed to meet 15 out of 18 agreed benchmarks since the troop surge commenced, according to a recent report of the US Government Accountability Office.
At the first joint hearing on Monday, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said the surge had been a strategic failure: “The current escalation in our military presence in Iraq may have produced some tactical successes, but strategically, the escalation has failed. It was intended to buy time for Prime Minister Maliki and the other Iraqi political leaders to find ways to move toward the one thing that may end this terrible civil conflict – and that, of course, is a political settlement. As best we can see, that time has been utterly squandered.”
He added, “As long as American troops are doing the heavy lifting in Iraq, there is no reason – none at all – for the Iraqis themselves to step up. Military progress without political progress is meaningless.”
This is a view shared by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate. He told the NewsHour on Tuesday that the Bush administration knows it can’t succeed in Iraq militarily and appears to be using the surge to buy time to pass the unpopular war onto the next US President. “I think there’s no potential for success,” he said. “We should be overseeing … We should not be in the midst of this civil war.”
Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the committee’s ranking Republican, also doubts that the troop surge can succeed in the absence of political reform. “I think, in fairness, what we heard is that the national government is way, way off in the future,” he said. “The odds for a good result coming out of the surge are still not very good.”
Sen. Biden insisted that the surge could not be credited with the US military’s much-touted success in Anbar province, as claimed by Gen. Petraeus. “He was trying to conflate the notion that, because the Sunnis decided that they had enough of al Qaeda, that somehow that meant that the central purpose of the surge, to give the sectarian warring parties breathing room so that they could come up with a political accommodation for all of Iraq had worked,” said Sen. Biden.
Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) also rejected the claim that the surge had achieved a meaningful reduction in violence: “We have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation, to the point where now we just have the levels of intolerable violence that existed in June of 2006, is considered success. And it’s not. This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake.”
After hearing the testimony of Gen. Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, another Democratic presidential candidate, said, “I believe that you, and certainly the very capable people working with both of you, were dealt a very hard hand. And it’s a hand that is unlikely to improve, in my view.” She also told Gen. Petraeus that she thought he had become a “de facto spokesman for a failed policy”.
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a Republican presidential candidate, declared his full support for the surge. “Make no mistake, the consequences of American defeat in Iraq will be terrible and long-lasting,” he said. “Some senators would like to withdraw our troops from Iraq, so we can get back to fighting what they believe to be the real war on terror, which is taking place somewhere else. This is inaccurate. Iraq has become the central front in the global war on terror and failure there would turn Iraq into a terrorist sanctuary in the heart of the Middle East, a host for jihadists planning attacks on America.”
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney also said that Iraq remains a central front in the war on terror. “The importance of a successful conclusion to Iraq must be weighed in light of the global threat of violent jihad and terror. America must continue its commitment to the strategy Gen. Petraeus is executing.”
However, other Republicans and Democrats argued that staying the course in Iraq will weaken the ability of the US to effectively deal with the threat of terrorism. Gen. Petraeus was asked repeatedly if the war in Iraq had made the US any safer, to which he responded that he did not know, because he was focused on his mission.
A clearly frustrated Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) countered, “With all due respect, these two critical leaders here in our government are not willing to seriously comment about how this relates to the larger global fight against terrorism, the allocation of resources. This is a classic example of myopia. This is the myopia of Iraq that is affecting our ability to look at this as the global challenge it is.”
Sen. Clinton said she found it unacceptable that the Bush administration continues to spend billions in Iraq while Osama bin Laden remains free to taunt Americans and al Qaeda expands its recruiting and training operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Rep. Lantos accused the Bush administration of “wrecking” the US military at the expense of counterterrorism, and bequeathing the onerous debt to the next generation of Americans: “We are wrecking our military and the enormous financial cost of this war is limiting our ability to address our global security needs. The cost of this war in Iraq will be passed along to our grandchildren and beyond.”
Sen. Lugar noted the advice of top military advisors that the war was now taking a toll that will undermine the US military’s strength for years to come. “The United States has other obligations in the world. Furthermore, some of our military people are pointing out that we have overstretched these troops and we’re lowering the qualities that we need for the recruits that are coming in. In short, this is a nation that has some potential military difficulties.”
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who has long opposed the war in Iraq and recently announced his retirement from politics, asked: “Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we’re doing now? For what? The president said, ‘Let’s buy time.’ Buy time? For what? Every report I’ve seen, there’s been really very little, if any, political progress and that is the ultimate core issue – political reconciliation in Iraq.”
President Bush is expected to discuss his plans for the war in Iraq in a nationally televised speech on Thursday.
* * * * *
This article was first published at BayouBuzz.com
The campaign of presidential hopeful Barack Obama received a huge boost in profile on Saturday when Oprah Winfrey hosted a star-studded gala fundraiser at her sprawling ‘Promised Land’ estate in Montecino, California.
Pop musician Stevie Wonder and gospel vocalist BeBe Winans performed for 1,500 guests who paid $2,300 each to support and meet Senator Obama (D-Ill.). Guests included Chris Rock, Whoopi Goldberg, Sidney Poitier, Forest Whitaker, Cindy Crawford, Jimmy Connors, Linda Evans and Dennis Haysbert, according to the Associated Press. Actors Will Smith, Jamie Foxx and Halle Berry were also expected to attend.
Guests were instructed to leave cameras and recording devices at home and the media was barred from the event. Yet despite the media ban, photographers in helicopters buzzing overhead did their best to capture the spectacle of celebrities arriving for the event.
The gala reportedly raised $3 million for the presidential campaign of Sen. Obama. However, there is considerably more speculation surrounding the extent to which Ms Winfrey’s backing might expand Sen. Obama’s political base, especially with respect to African-American and women voters.
“It’s very hard to say,” Sen. Obama told the Chicago Tribune. “I think a presidential race is unique. The job is unique. People who might buy my book because of an appearance on Oprah are obviously going to have a much more serious and sober deliberation when it comes to deciding who the next leader of the free world is.”
A CBS Newspoll found that thirty-one percent of registered voters surveyed believe that most people they know would be more likely to support Sen. Obama’s bid for the White House because of Ms Winfrey’s endorsement. However, 63 percent said the endorsement would not make any difference, while 3 percent said that most people they know would now be less likely to vote for him.
Nevertheless, Ms Winfrey has been called “arguably the world’s most influential woman” by the American Spectator, CNN and Time.com. Her fan base is fiercely loyal owing to her down-to-earth manner and rags-to-riches story. She grew up in rural poverty in Mississippi, first caught the public’s eye in the Steven Spielberg film The Color Purple, and then became a cultural icon when her Chicago-based Oprah Winfrey Show went national in 1986.
Today, her wealth is estimated at $1.5 billion and her media empire includes a women’s television cable network, a film production company, a radio channel, a magazine and a web site that reportedly attracts 68 million page views per year.
She has previously avoided the political arena. Yet following Sen. Obama’s appearance on her show in 2004, following his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, the two became friends. They later flew together to the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to view the devastation and the displacement of local residents.
“I haven’t been actively engaged before because there hasn’t been anything to be actively engaged in,” said Ms Winfrey. “But I am engaged now to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States.” She is reportedly considering appearing in television ads for Sen. Obama and speaking at public appearances.
While he remains circumspect regarding the political dividends that might result from Ms Winfrey’s endorsement, Sen. Obama acknowledges that her enormous popular appeal could well open doors to audiences he might otherwise not reach.
“Ultimately, they’ve got to be persuaded by me that I’m the right person for the job, but Oprah is somebody who has enormous reach, and that means that I may get a hearing in certain quarters,” he said.
* * * * *
This article was first published at BayouBuzz.com
Democratic presidential candidates traded barbs over the Iraq war in the New Hampshire debate on Sunday night, with former senator John Edwards (N.C.) accusing Senators Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) of failing to show leadership during the recent Congressional debate over the Iraq war funding bill.
Senators Clinton and Obama voted against the bill, but did not make their intentions known until near voting time.
“Others on this stage, (Senator) Chris Dodd (Conn.), spoke out very loudly and clearly,” said Mr Edwards. “Others did not. Others were quiet. They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote. But there is a difference between leadership and legislating.”
Senator Obama fired back: “The fact is that I opposed this war from the start. So you’re about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue.” While still a US Senator, Mr Edwards voted in favor of the 2002 resolution to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
Meanwhile, Senator Joseph Biden stepped up to defend his vote to continue funding the war, saying, “Look, I cannot, as long as there is a single troop in Iraq that I know … if I take action by funding them, I increase the prospect they will live or not be injured, I cannot and will not vote no to fund them.”
Other candidates rejected further military funding, arguing that it only served to prolong the war.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) said the only way for Congress to end the war is to take a hard line and cut off funding. “Just say, ‘No money, the war is over’,” he said. “The money’s in the pipeline right now, enough to bring the troops home. Let’s end the war, and let’s make this a productive evening.”
Former senator Mike Gravel (Alaska) said that no candidate who authorized the invasion of Iraq should be President. “Sure, it’s George Bush’s war,” he said. “But it’s the Democrats’ war also. We have killed more Americans than was done on the 11th of September. More Americans died because of their decision. That disqualifies them for President.”
When asked to explain why they had not read the National Intelligence Estimate before they voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Clinton said she had been “thoroughly briefed”, while Mr Edwards maintained he had “all the information I needed” to make a decision. However, throughout his campaign, Mr Edwards has said that his vote in 2002 was a mistake, while Senator Clinton, who also now opposes the war, refuses to say that her vote was in error.
Despite their differences, Senator Clinton claimed common ground with her fellow Democratic candidates regarding the war in Iraq. “The differences between us are minor,” she said. “The differences between us and the Republicans are major.”
Mr Edwards then took issue with the term “global war on terror”, which he called a politically charged bumper-sticker slogan. “That’s all it is, all it’s ever been, was intended to do, for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does – the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture,” said Mr Edwards. “None of those things are okay. They are not the United States of America.”
Senator Clinton disagreed. “I am a senator from New York,” she said. “I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda.”
The discussion on health care opened with a question regarding the cost of providing universal coverage. Mr Edwards said his universal health care plan would cost $90 billion to $120 billion a year, which he said would be partially funded by allowing the Bush administration’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire. “I believe you cannot cover everybody in America, create a more efficient health care system, cover the cracks … getting rid of things like pre-existing conditions and making sure that mental health is treated the same as physical health … I don’t think you can do all those things for nothing.”
He took aim at Senator Obama’s recently announced health plan, which he said would not provide universal coverage. Senator Obama, whose plan has been estimated to cost between $50 billion to $65 billion per year, said he would make health insurance more affordable, but not mandatory. “My belief is that most families want health care but they can’t afford it,” he said.
Senator Clinton, who has long framed the cost of her plan in terms of trimming more than $100 billion per year from national health care spending, insisted that the main obstacle would not be cost but politics. “You’ve got to have the political will – a broad coalition of business and labor, doctors, nurses, hospitals – everybody standing firm when the inevitable attacks come from the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies that don’t want to change the system because they make so much money out of it,” she said.
Senator Clinton continues to lead the other main Democratic candidates in recent polls. In a CNN survey of national polls in May, she averaged 41 percent, compared to Senator Obama’s 26 percent, and Mr Edwards’ 14 percent. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found Senator Clinton leading with 42 percent while Senator Obama trailed with 27 percent, and Mr Edwards with 11 percent.
* * * * *
This article was first published at BayouBuzz.com
Presidential candidate Barack Obama announced his plans on Tuesday for sweeping reforms to the US health care system which he said overcharges patients, tolerates poor quality health care, rewards waste and inefficiency, favors disease treatment over disease prevention and leaves 45 million Americans uninsured.
Speaking at the University of Iowa on Tuesday, Senator Obama (D-Ill.) said health insurance premiums have skyrocketed at a rate of nearly 90% over the past six years, four times that of wage rises. He said the bulk of health care cost increases have been due to administrative charges, insurance company profits, excessive salaries and bonuses for industry CEOs, and the growing cost of prescription drugs.
“Every year, candidates offer up detailed health care plans only to see them crushed under the weight of Washington politics and drug and insurance industry lobbying,” said Senator Obama. “Well, this cannot be one of those years.”
Citing a raft of statistics, he said health care costs impose an onerous burden on US businesses and health consumers: over half of small businesses cannot afford to insure their workers; 11 million insured Americans spend more than a quarter of their income on health care; and over half of all personal bankruptcies are now caused by medical bills.
Senator Obama also said that the US spends “almost twice as much for health care per person than other industrialized nations, and too much of it has nothing to do with patient care”.
He vowed that if elected President he would enact a universal health care plan by the end of his first term in office. He believes there is now strong support for universal health care in the US, unlike when it was first proposed by the Clinton administration in the early 1990s, because the rising costs of health care have convinced many more businesses and individual states to back reform.
Under his strategy, he said the average family’s health insurance premiums would be reduced by as much as $2,500 per year. The plan would cover all essential medical services including preventive, maternity, disease management and mental health care, and no one would be excluded because of a preexisting condition or illness.
This would cost between $50-$65 billion per year. It would be funded by providing incentives for all but the smallest businesses to participate, and by allowing the Bush administration’s temporary tax cut for the wealthiest Americans to expire.
The Obama health care proposal is based on five principles:
1. Reduce insurance premiums for businesses and workers by subsidizing “catastrophic cases” such as cancer and heart disease
2. Focus the health care system on preventing costly, debilitating diseases
3. Reduce the cost of health care by improving the quality of health care – (includes providing the public with information about preventable medical errors, nurse-to-patient ratios, and hospital-acquired infections)
4. Save billions in waste and inefficiency by moving away from a paper-based medical records system to one based on the latest information technology – (to enable ready access to patient information such as prescriptions and allergies, prevent errors and substantially reduce time spent on paperwork)
5. “Break the stranglehold” that a small group of drug and insurance companies have on the health care market – (includes making generic drugs more easily accessible and prosecuting monopolies in the insurance industry)
Senator Obama acknowledged that there would be initial resistance to any proposal for a universal health care system in US, especially from some pharmaceutical and insurance companies, yet he said such reform is critical and long overdue.
“We have reached a point in this country where the rising cost of health care has put too many families and businesses on a collision course with financial ruin and left too many without coverage at all – a course that Democrats and Republicans, small business owners and CEOs, have come to agree is not sustainable or acceptable any longer.”
By announcing the details of his strategy, Senator Obama has weighed in more forcefully into the debate over universal health care, which has been a cornerstone of the campaigns waged by his fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
* * * * *
This article was first published at BayouBuzz.com
The war of words between Australian Prime Minister John Howard and US Presidential candidate Barack Obama spilled over into the Australian Parliament on Monday and culminated in a censure motion against the Prime Minister.
On the Nine Network’s Sunday program, Mr Howard slammed Senator Obama (D-Ill.) and the Democratic Party the day after Mr Obama officially announced his bid for the US Presidency and declared that, if elected, he would withdraw all US troops from Iraq. “I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” said Mr Howard. “If I was running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.”
Senator Obama wasted no time returning fire at Mr Howard’s “cowboy rhetoric”. “I think it’s flattering that one of George Bush’s allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced my [presidential] candidacy,” said Sen. Obama. “I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400. So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq, otherwise it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”
On Monday, Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer told ABC Radio, “That would be half of our army. Australia is a much smaller country than the United States and so he might like to weigh that up.” Australian Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd condemned the Prime Minister’s remarks and moved a censure (vote of no confidence) motion against Mr Howard, citing his “false statement” that terrorist network al Qaeda would be hoping for a Democratic candidate to win next year’s US presidential election.
“To accuse the Democratic Party of being the terrorist’s party of choice, this is a most serious charge,” said Mr Rudd. “To accuse the party of Roosevelt, to accuse the party of Truman, to accuse the party of Kennedy and Johnson … of being the terrorist’s party of choice?” The censure motion also took aim at Mr Howard’s “gross insensitivity” for lecturing the US on whether or not to withdraw its troops, when more than 3,000 US troops had lost their lives in Iraq. The motion, which was defeated along party lines, further accused Mr Howard of damaging the Australia-US alliance by playing partisan politics.
“Mr Howard must not allow his personal relationship with President Bush to impact on Australia’s long-term alliance relationship with the United States,” said Mr Rudd. “The alliance … has prevailed with such strength and certainty because it has always been above party politics.” Senator Obama also rejected claims that a US withdrawal would increase the threat of terrorism, noting that the Bush administration’s “own intelligence agencies have indicated that the threat of terrorism has increased as a consequence of our actions over there.”
According to an October 2006 poll conducted by the Lowy Institute for International Policy, this is a view shared by the majority of Australians. It found that 84 per cent of Australians believe the Iraq war has done nothing to lower the threat of terrorism. Two-thirds of respondents disagreed that the war would lead to the spread of democracy in the Middle East, and 91 per cent said they believed that the Iraq war had worsened US relations with the Muslim world.
Executive director Alan Gyngell said the poll showed a strong trend in the attitudes of Australians toward the Iraq war. Referring to the Australian public’s long-standing skepticism about intelligence used in the lead up to the US-led invasion, Mr Gyngell told ABC Radio, “The debate seems to be over about the reasons that we went into Iraq, that is 84 per cent disagree with the statement that the threat of terrorism has been reduced by Iraq. There’s pretty strong agreement that is hasn’t worked.” He also said that, “There’s a very strong view that the US has too much influence on our foreign policy.”
These sentiments were expressed by Mr Rudd yesterday in the Australian Parliament, when he said the Howard Government had spent too long following the lead of the Bush administration. “Mr Howard and Mr Downer as well have become followers, not leaders, when it comes to international affairs. And when it came to Iraq in particular, they just followed the American lead rather than doing the responsible thing for Australia and the world,” said Mr Rudd. Prime Minister Howard is seeking a fifth term in office later this year and, like President Bush, he is beginning to experience a powerful backlash from the electorate who want a deadline set for withdrawing Australian troops. And like the November mid-term elections in the US, the unpopular Iraq war is shaping up to be a determining factor in the looming Australian federal election.
Mr Rudd, who has pledged to withdraw Australian troops from combat roles if he is elected, has said that “being a good ally … doesn’t mean that you have to comply with everything the United States says”. He added that he would not “leave our ally immediately in the lurch” and would act only following “clear-cut consultations with the Americans”. An AC Nielsen poll published on Monday gave Mr Rudd’s Labor Party a 16-point lead over the Howard (Liberal-National) Government, with Labor leading 58 per cent to 42 per cent on two-party preferred terms. Mr Rudd’s personal approval rating registered at 65 per cent – the highest by an Opposition Leader in decades.
* * * * *
This article was first published at BayouBuzz.com
Senator Barack Obama officially launched his bid for the US Presidency on Saturday in Springfield, Illinois outside the Old State Capitol building where President Abraham Lincoln delivered his historic “house divided” anti-slavery speech in 1858. “I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness – a certain audacity – to this announcement,” he said. “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”
In his speech, Sen. Obama vowed to transform US politics and wrest the controls of government from “… the cynics, and the lobbyists, and the special interests who’ve turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” Playing his freshman senator status to his advantage, untainted by ‘the ways of Washington’, Sen. Obama also spoke of his distaste for bitterly divisive partisan politics, which will almost certainly resonate favorably with US voters.
As supporters and curious onlookers crowded the stage, Sen. Obama blamed poor leadership and political gridlock for national crises related to energy, climate change, education, health care, the plight of the working poor and the Iraq war, which he collectively called the “challenges of this millennium”. “All of us know what those challenges are today,” he said. “What’s stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics – the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial.”
Senator Obama has one significant advantage that distinguishes him from his higher profile Democratic challengers, Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) – he has long opposed the war in Iraq and will not need to repeatedly explain why he supported the invasion but opposes the war now. When the US Congress passed the 2002 Iraq Resolution, Sen. Obama was an Illinois State Senator who publicly opposed the invasion, which he called “dumb”, and warned that the US faced a long and potentially disastrous occupation in Iraq. He now supports a phased withdrawal of US troops and opposes President Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
“America, it’s time to start bringing our troops home,” Sen. Obama told the crowd on Saturday. “Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace.” The Iraq war will be a critical issue in the lead up to the primaries and the presidential election, given that it was a determining factor at the mid-term elections, when US voters rejected the war and put Democrats in charge of both Houses of Congress.
Senator Obama’s rise from State Senator to US Presidential hopeful has been swift. Even before being elected to the US Senate, he electrified the 2004 Democratic convention with a hard-hitting, much-lauded keynote address in which he coined the phrase “the audacity of hope”. The son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, Sen. Obama has written two best-selling books, including an autobiography entitled Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance and his more recent political tome, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, published in October 2006.
Senator Obama has a BA from Columbia University where studied political science and international relations. In 1991, he obtained his JD degree magna cum laude from Harvard, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He has since worked as a civil rights lawyer, taught constitutional law and served for eight years in the Illinois State Legislature until his election to the US Senate in 2004.
* * * * *
This article was first published at BayouBuzz.com
The Bush administration has consistently misled the public about the threat of global warming, said scientists who testified yesterday before a US House committee hearing into political interference with climate change science. Global warming also took center stage at a separate hearing in the US Senate yesterday, where the debate flared as senators offered their views and solutions regarding climate change. The White House’s refusal to hand over documents requested by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has also raised a recurring issue attending federal investigations into the Bush administration – the conflict between Executive Privilege and the need for Congress to be able to hold the President accountable. Executive Privilege is not named in the US Constitution but is implied by the Separation of Powers; it can be invoked to protect state secrets, national security and confidential discussions between the government and its advisors.
Committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said he believes the public’s right to know, and their democratic right to hold the government accountable, must take precedence in the committee’s current investigation: “The committee isn’t trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security … We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior Administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimizing the potential dangers. I believe Congress is entitled to these documents.” Mr Waxman referred specifically to allegations that Philip Cooney, the Bush administration’s former head of the Council on Environmental Quality who now works as a lobbyist for ExxonMobil, had routinely imposed his own views on the reports of climate change scientists.
Dr Drew Shindell, a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies for 12 years, testified that his press releases about the findings of climate change studies had been “delayed, altered and watered down.” He cited one example where a study explained that Antarctica would warm considerably over the next century, based on projections of continued greenhouse gas emissions, which had clear implications for rising sea levels. He said the original press release had been “softened” to the extent that it raised almost no interest and delayed the study’s entry into the wider public discussion regarding the scientific understanding of global warming. Another witness, Rick Piltz, told the hearing that he resigned as senior associate with the US Climate Change Science Program in 2005 after White House officials repeatedly insisted that the language in official reports on global warming be weakened or deleted. He cited one instance in which the potential consequences of climate change had been entirely deleted from a report to Congress.
Dr Francesca Grifo gave testimony on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, which defends whistle-blowers. She said a survey of 279 scientists had revealed that nearly half the respondents had been pressured to delete the terms “climate change” or “global warming” from their reports, while one third of the scientists reported that officials had made public statements that misrepresented their findings. Scientists who participated in the survey also complained that uncertainty had been injected into issues on which most scientists agree, and that they had been banned from talking to the media about their research, which Dr Grifo argued is a violation of their freedom of speech. “You don’t give up your constitutional rights when you become a federal scientist,” she said.
Meanwhile in the US Senate, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, conducted a hearing inviting Democrat and Republican senators to offer their views and solutions on climate change. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said his bill would cut greenhouse gases by 2 percent each year and reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “This is an issue over the years whose time has come,” said Sen. McCain. “I don’t think any time is too late, but I do believe if we don’t act fairly soon, we may have reached a tipping point where we may not be able to reverse this trend.”
The bill’s co-sponsor, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), said that the Bush administration’s lack of leadership had undermined global efforts to reduce emissions. “We were laggards on this issue. That has been giving excuses to some of the rapidly developing nations, like China and India, to say, ‘If the United States with all its wealth and its enormous energy consumption is unwilling to do this, why would we who are still trying to feed our people want to invest in dealing with this problem?’” Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) complained that the hearing was being used by some senators to enhance their presidential ambitions, and gestured towards Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). He said capping carbon emissions would adversely affect the US economy and lifestyle. “We’re 25 percent of the world’s economy today, and, under today’s technologies, if you are 25 percent of the world’s economy, you are going to be the largest emitter,” said Sen. Craig. “We have the lifestyle to prove it, and all of us live that lifestyle, and none of us want to deny it to our citizens.”
As he walked out of the hearing, Sen. Clinton replied, “I’m sorry that Senator Craig is leaving the room, because I wanted to certainly express my very strong support for maintaining America’s lifestyle. As I recall, on my many trips to California, which has kept electricity use (low) for 30 years, the lifestyle is pretty good.” She also said, “This is a problem whose time has come.” Former committee chair James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” repeated his claim that there is “no convincing scientific evidence” that human activity is causing global warming, “We all know the Weather Channel would like to have people afraid all the time.”
“I’ll put you down as sceptical,” quipped Sen. Boxer. Despite the scepticism of some senators, Sen. Boxer said, “We have the feeling that there is critical mass here to be very serious about this, at long last”. At least 60 votes are needed in the Senate to overcome a potential filibuster that could prevent the passage of legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Sen. Boxer intends to first introduce measures to improve energy efficiency in federal buildings, which is supported by the White House.
President Bush recently referred to “the serious challenge of global climate change” in his State of the Union address. However, he remains opposed to mandatory caps on carbon emissions, which scientists consider critical in the fight against global warming. Even with bipartisan support for such legislation, there are concerns that Mr Bush will use his veto power to prevent its passage.
* * * * *
This article was first published at BayouBuzz.com
On Wednesday evening, President Bush unveiled his new Iraq strategy, which focuses on a surge of 21,500 US troops and sets a collision course between the White House and the US Congress.
In his speech to the nation, the President conceded that mistakes had been made in the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, including invading with too few troops, failing to understand historical sectarian tensions in Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi army, banning the secular Ba’ath Party and underestimating the strength of the insurgency. The establishment of al Qaeda in Iraq – and its expansion in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries in the Middle East – was another consequence, but not acknowledged in the President’s speech.
Most of the additional troops will be embedded in Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, with 4,000 US marines to be sent to the Anbar province in western Iraq, which has become a stronghold for al Qaeda since the US invasion. Mr Bush also seems to have acknowledged the importance of economic development, a hallmark of counterinsurgency doctrine. Since the 2003 invasion, the unemployment rate has hovered around 60%, which has assisted the recruitment of young men into local militias who offer sporadic income.
Iraq will receive $1.2 billion in a new economic assistance package that emphasizes grass-roots employment creation, instead of giving all the reconstruction work to US military contractors. Yet many believe that such realizations have come too little, too late – and that the bloody civil war in Iraq has now escalated to such a level that further US military intervention will be ineffective.
Recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans support a withdrawal of US troops, and the return of Democrats to power in both houses of Congress in November has been widely regarded as a rejection of continued US involvement in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are strongly opposed to the increase in US troops in Iraq, yet their options for heading off the increase are limited.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has consistently ruled out de-funding the US military in Iraq, which she fears could be interpreted as a lack of support for US troops. She and other key Democrats believe that the solution to Iraq’s problems are political and not military. “Iraqi political leaders will not take the necessary steps to achieve a political resolution to the sectarian problems in their country until they understand that the US commitment is not open-ended. Escalating our military involvement in Iraq sends precisely the wrong message and we oppose it,” said a joint statement by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Democratic Whip Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Rep. Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
Politically, the Democrats lack the numbers to block Mr Bush’s plan but will launch a series of hearings and pass non-binding resolutions to denounce the increase in troops. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) has also proposed legislation that would require congressional approval for any increases in troop numbers; however, even if passed, it is likely to be vetoed by Mr Bush.
Although several congressional Republicans have openly criticized the increase in troops, it is unclear how many would actually vote with Democrats to override a presidential veto. In any event, the votes expected to be taken in Congress will serve the Democrats’ political strategy by dividing the Republicans over the war and demonstrating the commitment of the Democrats to act on the will of the American people.
While there has been widespread opposition to the troop surge from members of Congress, the most vocal opposition has predictably come from the Democratic ranks. “As our commanders have said repeatedly, Iraq requires a political solution, not a purely military one, and we did not hear such a proposed solution tonight,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he doubts that the troop surge will “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence” and wants Congress to ensure that “the mistake of going into Iraq was not compounded by this further mistake”. Expressing concern for the broader implications of the war in Iraq, Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) said, “Escalating our involvement with an increase in the number of troops in Iraq will further strain our own military and reduce our ability to fight a global war on terror.”
Many Republican senators support the view that US policy in Iraq needs to be driven by political solutions. “I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer. Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution,” said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.).
“This is a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a Vietnam veteran. On the other hand, a number of Republicans still believe the war is winnable and have defended the troop surge.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has long advocated a surge in troops, said, “`We have to succeed. We must succeed. The consequences of failure are catastrophic in the region.” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) supports the troop surge as “our best shot at victory in Iraq.” He also said, “If Democrat leaders don’t support the president’s plan, it’s their responsibility to put forward a plan of their own for achieving victory.” The so-far elusive goal of victory in Iraq was the objective stressed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates when he faced a highly skeptical House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, but the committee’s new chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), has dismissed President Bush’s new strategy as “three and a half years late and several hundred thousand troops short”. Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was grilled on the Iraq war by a hostile Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) drove home the point that, like other decision-makers in the Bush administration, Dr Rice had no children or immediate family endangered by the war in Iraq: “Madam Secretary, please. I know you feel terrible about it. That’s not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions.”
* * * * *
This article was first published at BayouBuzz.com
President Bush is reportedly preparing to announce an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 US troops to Iraq next week, in a move expected to provoke a fiery clash with the new Democrat-controlled Congress, including war-weary Republicans anxious to put the war behind them before the 2008 congressional and presidential elections.
“We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war,” Mr Bush wrote in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal last week. Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) immediately commented, “We hope that when the president says ‘compromise,’ it means more than ‘do it my way,’ which is what he’s meant in the past.” In his opinion piece, Mr Bush argued that US forces must remain in Iraq until the insurgency is defeated. He is expected to detail his new Iraq strategy on Wednesday, after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announces his new security plan.
It is understood that Mr Maliki does not favor additional US troops in Iraq, and told Mr Bush during a two-hour video conference discussion on Thursday that he would consult with his military advisors to see if more US troops were needed. Democratic leaders in the US Congress are fiercely opposed to increasing the number of US troops in Iraq. After being sworn in as House Speaker on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, “The election of 2006 was a call to change – not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country. Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in the war in Iraq. The American people rejected an open-ended obligation to a war without end.”
She and new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wrote in a letter to Mr Bush on Friday, “We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq … Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain … Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror.” Ms Pelosi has ruled out cutting off funding for the war, yet said she is considering attaching conditions or performance criteria to any grants of further funding.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, agreed that Congressional oversight would be an effective means of winding down the war: “Believe me, we don’t have to talk about cutting the funds, impeaching the president. The American community is fed up, and we’ve got to get some answers. And let me make it abundantly clear. No president can conduct any war without the support of the American people.” On Friday, Mr Bush met with several senators to hear their ideas on Iraq, including Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.). After the meeting, Mr Obama said he had told Mr Bush that he opposes a troop increase and that Democrats and Republicans share “grave misgivings about what’s taking place”.
Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who also met with Mr Bush on Friday, said there is almost universal disapproval in Congress for increasing troop levels and added, “I don’t think there was a sense that a case had been made.” Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has strongly supported a troop surge in the past, has recently said, “It has to be significant and sustained. Otherwise do not do it.” Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) agreed that only a “substantial and sustained” increase in troop numbers would be supportable.
Yet this option has been dismissed as unsustainable by current and former military commanders. Only last month, Gen. John Abizaid, (retiring) commander of US forces in the Middle East, told a Senate panel that higher troop levels are not sustainable because nearly every unit is either deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, recovering from deployment, or preparing for one. Last month, former Secretary of State and retired four-star general Colin Powell said, “I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work. The current active Army is not large enough and the Marine Corps is not large enough for the kinds of missions they’re being asked to perform. There are really no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there there longer, and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops. If I were still chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my first question to whoever is proposing it would be, what mission is it these troops are to accomplish? If victory means you have got rid of every insurgent, that you have peace throughout the country, I don’t see that in the cards right now.”
Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.), the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said there are growing fears that Mr Bush is prolonging the war for the duration of his term as President, which ends in January 2009, to avoid taking responsibility for the US defeat in Iraq. The US has already spent an estimated $437 billion on the Iraq war, according to the Congressional Research Service, with a further $100 billion tipped to be spent in 2007. The resulting record US deficits have horrified both Democrats and Republicans: $248 billion for the fiscal year just ended, down from $319 billion in 2005 and $413 billion in 2004. It has been widely argued that the Iraq war has broken the US economy and is now on the verge of breaking the US military. It remains to be seen whether the new Democrat-controlled Congress will be able to rein in the President’s “go for broke” strategy in Iraq.
* * * * *
This article was first published at BayouBuzz.com
