The Old Eighteen

Obama, don't drop the ball on FISA bill

I haven't taken the opportunity yet to talk about the FISA bill that passed in the House Friday, so let me just say first of all that Steny Hoyer is an idiot if he thinks that this bill represents some sort of compromise, or anything other than the complete capitulation that Russ Feingold characterized it as.  Democrats have no political need whatsoever to cave in on telecom immunity to the most unpopular president in American history and his equally unpopular fellow Republicans.  By doing so, Hoyer and the rest of the pisspants caucus have gained nothing for themselves or the party this fall, and have in fact lost standing with the Democratic base.  There's a reason why, as unpopular as Bush is right now, Congress has an even lower approval rating, and that's because while Bush is corrupt and incompetent, he at least stands for something.  The only thing Steny Hoyer stands for is to pull his urine-soaked trousers off at the end of every day.

The fight against telecom immunity has now moved to the Senate, where our presidential candidate has an opportunity to make sure that the FISA bill gets filibustered to death if retroactive immunity isn't removed from the bill.  Thus far, Barack Obama has expressed partial support for the bill but has also said that he will work to get telecom immunity removed before it comes to a vote.  MoveOn.org, which played a crucial role in helping Obama secure the Democratic nomination, is holding his feet to the fire, calling on him to honor his pledge last year to filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity.  I think they're right to do so - this is an opportunity for Obama to show that he is in charge of the Democratic party, and to provide some much-needed leadership in an area where Democratic leadership has been sorely lacking to date.  This is a big test for him, and if he drops the ball here, it's going to sap some of the enthusiasm for his presidential campaign from many of his strongest supporters.

Report: disease outbreak near proposed San Antonio lab could cost US billions of dollars

This doesn't sound good:

The government acknowledged that an outbreak of one of the most contagious animal diseases from any of five locations being considered for a new high-security laboratory – an event it considered highly unlikely – would be more devastating to the U.S. economy than an outbreak from the isolated island lab where such research is now conducted.

The 1,005-page Homeland Security Department study, released Friday, calculated that economic losses in an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease could surpass $4 billion if the lab were built near livestock herds in Kansas or Texas, two options the Bush administration is considering. That would be roughly $1 billion higher than the government's estimate of losses blamed on a hypothetical outbreak from its existing laboratory on Plum Island, N.Y.

The administration is studying the safest place to move its research on such dangerous pathogens from Plum Island to the U.S. mainland near herds of livestock, raising concerns about a catastrophic outbreak. A final choice is expected by late fall. The foot-and-mouth virus does not infect humans but could devastate herds of cattle, swine, lambs and sheep.

[...] The new National Bio-and Agro-Defense Facility would replace the existing 24-acre research complex on Plum Island, which is about 100 miles northeast of New York City in the Long Island Sound. Besides foot-and-mouth disease, researchers also would study African swine fever, Japanese encephalitis, Rift Valley fever and the Hendra and Nipah viruses. Construction would begin in 2010 and take four years.

Call me crazy, but if you're looking for a place to build a facility where you're going to be studying highly contagious animal diseases, it seems to me that you wouldn't want to build it in close proximity to a bunch of livestock.  The risk level of an actual outbreak is said to be low, but if an outbreak did occur, the consequences could be devastating.  And we live in an age where terrorist attack is always a possibility, so why take such a chance if it's not necessary?  Here's an example of the kind of disaster that the Bush administration is flirting with:

A simulated outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease – part of an earlier U.S. government exercise called "Crimson Sky" – ended with fictional riots in the streets after the simulation's National Guardsmen were ordered to kill tens of millions of farm animals, so many that troops ran out of bullets. In the exercise, the government said it would have been forced to dig a ditch in Kansas 25 miles long to bury carcasses.

Economic concerns appear to be the driving factor behind the push to relocate this facility.  I'm all for the government saving a little money, but is whatever savings we get by moving this facilty really worth assuming the risk involved?

Lieberman pushes Republican smear connecting Obama with Hamas

Harry Reid, were you paying attention when this interview appeared on CNN?

After being reminded by Wolf Blitzer that Obama has repudiated Hamas as a terrorist organization, Lieberman begrudgingly acknowledged that Obama "clearly doesn't support any of the values and goals of Hamas."  But then he couhged up this incredible statement:

But the fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, "Why?"

And it suggests the difference between these two candidates.

Fair enough.  By the same twisted logic, I'm sure Bootless Joe will agree that the fact that John McCain has been endorsed by John Hagee, who referred to the Catholic Church as the "great whore" of Revelations and blamed the Holocaust on the judgment of god as punishment for "the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews," likewise raises the question "Why?"  As in, "why did John McCain actively seek out Hagee's endorsement?"  As for the difference it suggests betwen him and Obama, well, you be the judge.

::

(via Crooks and Liars)

Nelson Mandela flagged as a terrorist by the Bush administration

Because America hasn't been made quite enough of a laughingstock in the eyes of the world community:

Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation “embarrassing,” and some members of Congress vow to fix it.

The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa’s governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and ’80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country’s ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit.

Because of this, Rice told a Senate committee recently, her department has to issue waivers for ANC members to travel to the USA.

Sometimes I wonder if we'll ever be able to undo the damage that George Bush and the Republicans have inflicted on this country over the last few years.

::

(via Oliver Willis)

John McCain on Iraq: "It's the oil, stupid!"

John McCain may have made a bit of a gaffe today during a campaign event at a Jewish community center in Colorado, when he inadvertently admitted something about the war in Iraq that a lot of people on the left have been saying since the whole thing began, and have taken a lot of verbal abuse from the right for suggesting.  He was originally asked a friendly question about his "100 years" statement, which he responded to with his usual line of defense, but then, without warning, he veered off into the ditch, effectively admitting that the war in Iraq was being fought over oil:

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain said.

He made matters worse later, when he made a lame attempt to backtrack on his earlier statements by saying that he was actually referencing the first Gulf War:

With no senior advisors traveling with the senator today, the campaign’s traveling press secretary Brooke Buchanan came to the back of the plane before landing to defend her boss’ remarks. The initial defense asserted that he was not referring to the current war in Iraq, but America's involvement in the first Gulf War, which was at least partially due to the country’s reliance on foreign oil.

After the plane had landed, McCain himself tried to clarify his remarks, at first agreeing with his press secretary: “I was talking about that we had fought the first Gulf War for several reasons. One of them was Saddam Hussein’s invasion and that’s just not something that’s acceptable…but also we didn’t want them to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil. And it’s more important than in any other part of the world.”

McCain then summarized his point by basically restating his remarks from earlier in the day: “We will have independency of foreign oil and we will not have to have that as a factor in any conflict that we have to engage in. …I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons. That’s what I was saying. And that’s all I mean.”

But then when specifically asked by an Associated Press reporter if, when he made the statement, he was “thinking about the first Gulf War,” he said no.

“No, I was thinking about- it’s not hard to- we will not,” McCain stumbled. “By eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have to have our national security threatened by a cut off of that oil. Because we will be dependent, because we won’t be dependent, we will no longer be dependent on foreign oil. That’s what my remarks were.”

He was sure to emphasize over and over again that the reason he supported the War in Iraq was because he “believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he was going to use them.”

McCain said “the congressional record is replete with that and for me to change my view, how many years later, I mean would, just wouldn’t be logical.”

My friends, the time for logic was when Grandpa John voted for this war.  But since doing so, he and the rest of the fools who got us into this mess have given us a litany of reasons why we invaded - weapons of mass destruction, ties between Hussein and al Qaeda, bringing democracy to an oppressed people - and all have either turned out not to be true, or rang hollow in the ears of the American people.  Now, without meaning to, McCain may have finally hit on the truth of why we really invaded.  And as voters saunter off to the cash register to pay $3.00 $3.10 $3.25 $3.40 $3.59 a gallon for the gas that they just filled their tank with, maybe it will begin to finally dawn on even the most stubborn holdouts among them that the war in Iraq, judged by the metric of our pain at the pump, has failed dismally to achieve even the one unstated goal that passes the smell test anymore - to secure American access to oil and thereby maintain low fuel prices.  It would be callous to say that 4,000+ American servicemen have died for nothing, but it would be intellectually dishonest not to view their deaths as a tragic waste of human life and potential.  Their blood, and the blood of those yet to die, is on your hands, John McCain.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques"? No, it's torture

As someone who has suffered from sleep deprivation due to problems with imsomnia, I can tell you that it's torture even when it's not being inflicted by other people.  I've never been subjected to sensory deprivation, but I have a hard time coping when the electricity goes out for a few hours, so the idea of having no sensory stimulation at all, for hours or even days, kind of scares me.  The fact that noone is having their fingernails pulled out doesn't change the fact that physical suffering is being induced when people are deprived of sleep or sensory stimulation, and that it's being done to break a person down emotionally so they'll say whatever an interrogator wants them to.  Even if what they say to stop the torture isn't true, as often turns out to be the case.  And even if they have nothing to tell because they're completely innocent.

The fact that we're even being forced to discuss whether or not sleep deprivation, or sensory deprivation, or waterboarding (what they used to call "water torture" before Bush & co. started papering over techniques like these with Orwellian buzzwords) are torture is a sad sign of how far we have fallen as a nation and as a people.  We may never get back to the moral authority we once had on issues like this, but if we do, it'll be a long time, and a lot of people will suffer horribly in the interim.

Obama nails McCain on Iraq

Following his brilliant speech on race yesterday, Obama has wisely decided to put the Jeremiah Wright mess behind him and move on to talk about the issues.  Today he gave another excellent speech, this time a detailed statement about foreign policy.  The highlight of the speech, and the part that will get the most attention, are his statements about John McCain, in which he draws attention to McCain's confusion about what's actually happening on the ground in Iraq:

"Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.

[...] That is what Sen. McCain wants to discuss — tactics. What he and the administration have failed to present is an overarching strategy: how the war in Iraq enhances our long-term security, or will in the future. That’s why this administration cannot answer the simple question posed by Sen. John Warner in hearings last year: Are we safer because of this war? And that is why Sen. McCain can argue — as he did last year — that we couldn’t leave Iraq because violence was up, and then argue this year that we can’t leave Iraq because violence is down.

When you have no overarching strategy, there is no clear definition of success. Success comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely. Here is the truth: Fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.

So when I am commander in chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden — as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer."

Obama pledged to end the war in Iraq by withdrawing 1 to 2 combat brigades per month over a period of 16 months, leaving a small core of troops in Iraq to protect our diplomatic mission and constitute a rapid response counter-terrorism strike force.  He also promised to finish off the Taliban in Afghanistan and pursue a more aggressive fight al-Qaeda there and in Pakistan.  Other high points of the speech:

• On counter-terrorism: "We need to strengthen security partnerships to take out terrorist networks, while investing in education and opportunity. We need to give our national security agencies the tools they need, while restoring the adherence to rule of law that helps us win the battle for hearts and minds. This means closing Guantanamo, restoring habeas corpus, and respecting civil liberties. And we need to support the forces of moderation in the Islamic world, so that alliances of convenience mature into friendships of conviction."

• On nuclear proliferation: "[A]s President, I will secure all loose nuclear materials around the world in my first term, seek deep cuts in global nuclear arsenals, strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and once more seek a world without nuclear weapons."

• On global poverty: "Now is the time to meet the goal of cutting extreme poverty in half, in part by doubling our foreign assistance while demanding more from those who receive it. And now is the time to build the capacity of regional partners in conflict prevention, peacekeeping, and the reconstruction of ravaged societies."

• On the environment: "[T]he catastrophic consequences of the global climate crisis are matched by the promise of collective action. Now is the time for America to lead, because if we take action, others will act as well. Through our own cap and trade system and investments in new sources of energy, we can end our dependence on foreign oil and gas, and free ourselves from the tyranny of oil-rich states from Saudi Arabia to Russia to Venezuela. We can create millions of new jobs here in America. And we can secure our planet for our children and grandchildren."

• On education and global trade: "America’s sluggish economy risks ceding our economic prominence to a rising China. Competition has always been a catalyst for American innovation, and now should be no different. We must invest in the education of our children, renew our leadership in science, and advance trade that is not just free, but fair for our workers. We must ensure that America is the economic engine in the 21st century just as we were in the 20th."

• On rebuilding the military: "Now, we must upgrade our tools of power to fit a new strategy.  That starts with enhancing the finest military in the history of the world. As Commander in Chief, I will begin by giving a military overstretched by Iraq the support it needs. It is time to reduce the strain on our troops by completing the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines, while ensuring the quality of our troops. In an age marked by technology, it is the people of our military – our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen – who bear the responsibility for complex missions. That is why we need to ensure adequate training and time home between deployments. That is why we need to expand our Special Forces. And that is why we must increase investments in capabilities like civil affairs and training foreign militaries."

• On renewing American diplomacy: "Instead of shuttering consulates in tough corners of the world, it’s time to grow our Foreign Service and to expand USAID. Instead of giving up on the determination of young people to serve, it’s time to double the size of our Peace Corps. Instead of letting people learn about America from enemy propaganda, it’s time to recruit, train, and send out into the world an America’s Voice Corps.  And while we strengthen our own capacity, we must strengthen the capability of the international community. We honor NATO’s sacrifice in Afghanistan, but we must strive to make it a larger and more nimble alliance. We must work with powers like Russia and China, but we must also speak up for human rights and democracy – and we can start now by speaking out for the human rights and religious freedom of the people of Tibet. And while we are frustrated by the UN, we must invest in its capability to keep the peace, resolve disputes, monitor disarmament, and support good governance around the world – and that depends on a more engaged United States.

Obama is moving quickly to put the Jeremiah Wright mess behind him; whether this will work remains to be seen, but I think he's positioned himself well to deal with this issue as it resurfaces throughout the course of the campaign.  And he's presented a detailed plan for America to extricate itself from the quicksand in Iraq and rebuild its standing in the world.  Meanwhile, McCain is looking out of touch on one of the biggest issues of the campaign, in an area that is supposed to be his strong suit.  All in all, it looks like Obama will come out of this week stronger, having survived a major political crisis that threatened to derail his campaign.

Grandpa John makes a major foreign policy gaffe

More here.  And to think, foreign policy is supposed to be his strong suit:

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.

(via Matt Yglesias)

Bush thinks the war in Afghanistan is "romantic"

What I want to know is, where was all this yearning for "romance" during the Vietnam War when his daddy was getting him a safe spot in the Texas Air National Guard?

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Mr Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines helping this young democracy succeed.

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history."

It's okay, Shrub, your daughters are "slightly younger" and they're certainly not preoccupied running the country, so maybe they'd enjoy the "romance" of going to Afghanistan.  I'll bet it's really "romantic" over in Iraq, too.

House Dems pass FISA Bill without telecom immunity

Cue petulant snit from President Bush:

"Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations:

“First, the President knows that it was the Administration’s incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed – that’s one possibility. They simply didn’t do it right. Second, the Administration’s legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong; or public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law.

“None of these alternatives is attractive but they clearly demonstrate why the Administration’s insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies; it has always been about protecting the Administration.”

(via Atrios)