State of the Union: Pass Me the Tums
It started out okay…a few bones thrown toward immigration reform and energy initiatives. By the end, my stomach was in knots.
Did I hear Bush right when he said he wanted to authorize mercenaries? Well, he didn’t call them mercenaries, but look at the text of what he said:
A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.
Now “civilians with critical skills” could be people with medical, mechanical or technical expertise. Pilots, doctors, nurses, EMTs. But it could also mean other types of expertise, and that falls into my definition of a mercenary.
On other topics, this one struck me as the most absurd:
We need to expand Health Savings Accounts … help small businesses through Association Health Plans … reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology … encourage price transparency … and protect good doctors from junk lawsuits by passing medical liability reform. And in all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.
As to the expansion of HSAs — studies are showing that most employees do not feel that they are benefiting from HSAs. HSAs are a way for employers to shift the burden for the cost of health insurance onto the employee, and most employees do not feel that they have the knowledge or the tools at hand to properly allocate the meager funds allowed into a Health Savings Account.
As for the other platitudes about patients and doctors, let’s just call that for the BS that it is. Bush is a great crony of the Caremark directorate which makes millions getting between patients and their doctors. There is much to be done with the healthcare system, but throwing tax credits and deductions at the problem is NOT the solution.
There’s much more, but I was left with such a case of indigestion after listening, and so stressed that I haven’t really organized my thoughts very well.
Technorati Tags: Bush, State of the Union, Iraq, healthcare, HSA
Sphere: Related ContentGive Democracy and Diplomacy a Chance
George Bush is on one of his biggest propaganda campaign tours yet after his declaration last week that he would proceed with “the surge” of troops into Iraq. He might want to consider selling it to the troops before bringing it to us:
WSJ via Crooks & Liars
A group of more than 50 active-duty military officers will deliver a petition to Congress on Tuesday signed by about 1,000 troops calling for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. “Any troop increase over here will just produce more sitting ducks, more targets,” said Sergeant Ronn Cantu, who is serving in Iraq.
The photographer who gave me permission to use his photo here had this as a comment attached to it:
I feel that we are currently in the shadow of a number of bad decisions (Iraq, Guantánamo, violations of our constitution and civil rights) but the values that underly our democracy are strong and our people do support these values, some are just scared from what they are hearing in the news. I think that we will shine through these dark days…
His comment is the optimistic view. My take is more pessimistic at the moment, colored by the shadow of fallen kids on a battlefield they didn’t choose, barred by a bull-in-a-china-shop President who doesn’t understand the meaning of diplomacy, only escalation and expansion.
Whether Iran is a threat or not, Mr. Bush needs to take a step back and consider other means to the end, including creative ones.
I do believe we will somehow survive this, but at what price?
Sphere: Related ContentIs the Iran Nuclear Threat Real or Invented?
Iran and the magnitude of its threat has become a larger question mark in the debate about Iraq and President Bush’s commitment to troop escalations to stabilize Iraq. I am not a foreign policy expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the inferences that I drew from the State of the Union address and subsequent interviews and statements by the Administration so alarmed me that I decided to research the question of whether there is a true threat or it is simply an invention by the Bush administration to justify a wildly unpopular escalation.
I. Official Documents
For the official position, I began with the “official” House intelligence report released August 23, 2006, Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States. This is an unclassified document prepared to analyze the Iranian Threat for public consumption.
Some key points:
Iran has conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in violation of its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, and despite its claims to the contrary, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. The U.S. Intelligence Community believes that Tehran probably has not yet produced or acquired the fissile material (weapons-grade nuclear fuel) needed to produce a nuclear weapon; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has stated that Iran will not be “in a position to have a nuclear weapon” until “sometime between the beginning of the next decade and the middle of the next decade”.6 (Page 4)
On the very next page, the report states:
…the United States lacks critical information needed for analysts to make many of their judgments with confidence about Iran and
there are many significant information gaps. A special concern is major gaps in our knowledge of Iranian nuclear, biological, and chemical programs. US policymakers and intelligence officials believe, without exception, that the United States must collect more and better intelligence on a wide range of Iranian issues –its political dynamics, economic health, support for terrorism, the nature of its involvement in Iraq, the status of its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons efforts, and many more topics of interest.
It goes on to make the assertions later in the report that Iran “probably has an offensive biological weapons program” and “offensive chemical weapons program”, but admits having no evidence to prove those assertions.
This report appears to be an effort on the part of the intelligence community to shape the foreign policy debate with regard to Iran with unproven assertions, unstated facts, and known facts placed inside the most negative framework possible.
The Brookings Institute (well-known for their hawkish positions and warmongering attitudes), gave Congress this testimony, summarized by Brookings this way:
Pollack argued that key Iranian leaders remain hostile to the United States and to the West; they have refused to embrace the norms of the international community; they are determined to overturn the status quo.
…the United States must be prepared for [Iran] to pursue all of these goals with the same mix of rhetoric, diplomacy, bullying, subversion, and terrorism that they employed throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Pollack said that within the framework of a new containment of Iran, the United States should consider the possibility of waging a targeted air campaign aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities as a last resort.
The Brookings testimony gives valuable insight into the Administration’s position on Iran; namely, that they pose a threat (proven or unproven) and should be “contained”.
II. Other Points of View
From the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace (Proliferation News and Resources), this analysis by Director Joseph Cirincione:
There is no need for military strikes against Iran. The country is five to ten years away from the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs. Even that estimate, shared by the Defense Intelligence Agency and experts at IISS, ISIS, and University of Maryland assumes Iran goes full-speed ahead and does not encounter any of the technical problems that typically plague such programs. This is not a nuclear bomb crisis, it is a nuclear regime crisis. US Ambassador John Bolton has correctly pointed out that this is a key test for the Security Council. If Iran is not stopped the entire nonproliferation regime will be weakened, and with it the UN system.
But it will have to be diplomats, not F-15s that stop the mullahs. An air strike against a soft target, such as the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan (which this author visited in 2005) would inflame Muslim anger, rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular government and jeopardize further the US position in Iraq. Finally, the strike would not, as is often said, delay the Iranian program. It would almost certainly speed it up. That is what happened when the Israelis struck at the Iraq program in 1981.
The viewpoints of Cirincione and the official Intelligence reports converge on this point: Iran’s commitment to develop nuclear weapons technology is a threat. They diverge on the timeline Iran is on for this development and most importantly, the international response. (Related Links: Deadly Arsenals, Iran Cascade , which analyzes the steps Iran would need to take to succeed at uranium enrichment and nuclear proliferation)
The Washington Quarterly aggregates authors’ articles and opinions from think tanks and universities in the US and around the world. Their editorial board includes representatives from the Carnegie Foundation, The Brookings Institute, Harvard University, Fudan University (Shanghai), PIR Center, Moscow, and many others. Because of the diverse editorial board and group of contributors, I place more weight on their analysis as one which develops from many voices, each with their own perspective and concerns. The Winter 2006-2007 Issue has some excellent analyses of the “Iran Question”.
From Elliot Hen-Tov’s article “Understanding Iran’s New Authoritarianism” presents a balanced analysis of the gradual shift of political bases from the entrenched Muslim extremist clerics to a broader-based, but still fundamentalist regime. HIs analyis of Iran’s nuclear threat:
“Despite Tehran’s denial that it is building nuclear weapons and controverseal but reasonable economic arguments that it is developing a civilian nuclear energy base to free up more oil for exports and foreign earnings, there are at least three structural reasons to suggest Iran’s nuclear program is not limited to civilian use. First, for purely civilian nuclear energy, it makes no economic sense to build a vast nuclear program…Second, Iran has a long record of lying about rather unimportant but nevertheless seret activities. Third, Iran’s paralell ballistic missile program…is irrational unless they will be armed with weapons of mass destruction.” (Page 6)
Hen-Tov goes on to say this:
“One should view Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons through the prism of elite factionalism and regime development. The successful acquisition of nuclear weapons would acclerate a militarization of Iran’s regime. It will provide the Iranian regime with limited immunity against external threats and thus help preserve the regime, especially because domestic opposition is currently immaterial. In fact, if domestic forces do arise to challenge the regimem, nuclearization, portrayed as an issue of national pride, would become one of the few powerful tools that could provide regime legitimacy and enable popular mobilization.” (Page 7)
His analysis of a military strike against Iran:
“…a military strike against Iran would rally the Iranian poplation as well as the international community firmly in support of the regime. Instead, the United Nations could issue a set of sanctions against Iran. In that case, the effect would depend on the nature of the sanctions. Economically, Iran is fairly immune to sanctions in the short term. Only a limitation on oil sales would have any immediate impact on decisionmaking in Tehran…Iran needs to integrate into the world economy eventually, but it can endure its isolationist stance for the foreseeable future.”
“…Iran is gradually undermining its unique clerical theocracy with a shift toward conventional authoritarian models. Lacking any political or economic urgency for reform, this internal regime change is likey to address its most serious structural weakness: factionalism.”
From the article “A Win-Win U.S. Strategy for Dealing with Iran” by Michael McFaul, Abbas Milani and Larry Diamond:
In its nuclear negotiations with the rest of the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been pursuing a strategy of “heads you lose, tails we win.” In its carefully crafted and creatively ambiguous response to UN Security Council Resolution 1696, the Iranian regime claims that it is willing to negotiate on all issues, including suspension of enrichment activities, but will not accept any recondition for such negotiations.
Washington should propose to end the economic embargo, unfreeze all Iranian assets, restore full diplomatic relations, support the initiation of talks on Iran’s entry into the WTO, encourage foreign investment, and otherwise move toward a normal relationship with the Iranian government. In return, Tehran would have to agree to three conditions: a verifiable and indefinite suspension of activity that could feed into a nuclear weapons development program, including all enrichment of uranium, with a comprehensive and intrusive international inspections regime administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency; an end to support for terrorist groups and activities, including training, intelligence support, and weapons shipments for Hizballah, Hamas, and radical Shi‘ite militias in Iraq; and affirmation of basic human rights principles under international covenants and a recognition of the legitimacy of international and domestic efforts to monitor those conditions.
Conclusion
No matter what side of the argument one is on, it’s clear that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons presents a global threat that must be addressed. All agree on that. The question isn’t whether there’s a threat; it’s how best to deal with the threat and the time frame for the threat to fully materialize. The conservative viewpoint argues that the threat exists today, and a military response is required. Others argue that Iran is at least a decade away from realizing their goal. Those are compelling arguments and are contained within the links provided here.
What Next?
Is the answer an immediate military escalation with Iran as the target? Or is a diplomatic approach best? What do you think?
Technorati Tags: Iran, nuclear weapons, foreign policy
Sphere: Related ContentMr. Bush, This is Madness
I’ve been silent on the recent developments with regard to Iraq, mostly because I’m outraged and confused, and at nearly a complete loss as to how to even talk about it without shouting. I have always believed solidly in our democracy and passively trusted that leaders, when faced with overwhelming political opposition to their plans, will reach for a compromise.
Yet George Bush does just the opposite. Instead of looking for diplomatic or creative solutions in Iraq, he calls for a “surge”. Not only does he call for a “surge”, but he actually begins it BEFORE he brings his pre-State of the Union address to the nation. In concert with the inevitable bloodbath he is initiating, troops are sent to Somalia, bombs are dropped, more lies are told, and Bush once again tries to leverage out-of-the-air accusations toward Iran and Syria as a way to sell this insane plan to the people.
Instead of listening to his advisors, the Iraq Study Group and others, he shrugs and does what he wants anyway. This is not the way of democracy, but then, I’m convinced that Bush has never been a very big fan of democracy.
Bush will leave this legacy: He will be known as the most evil and destructive President to occupy the Oval Office, and by extension, Americans will be forever marked as the fools who allowed this man to wreak havoc upon the world in general and Iraq in particular. If we’re lucky, Iraq only. More likely Iraq, Syria, Iran and any other country he can wreck in his remaining two years.
Bush should be impeached. I said that in a comment on Kris’ blog last night. Yet, as I wrote it, I realized that impeaching Bush would leave us with Cheney, an unacceptable and possibly worse alternative. To that end, it was a brilliant strategy to keep Cheney, because he is the only person I can see that’s more evil than Bush — he is the back-end machinator.
Part of me wants to slap the 50%-plus-one-or-so-voters that put this evil cabal back in office again. Part of me wants to repatriate. What I feel most is a sense of deep disappointment and disillusionment. I have sons and a daughter who Bush would not give a care to sending over there to die. My friends have sons and daughters. My son will graduate from high school this year and have to register for the draft. His friends will register; some will enlist. Some who enlist will die, and their graves will be marked with valor for their individual sacrifice even as our country will be called to account for the crimes our leaders have committed against other countries.
Crooks and Liars has some wonderful posts reacting to last night’s speech. From AttyTood via Nicole Belle, a comparison of Lyndon Johnson’s State of the Union address dealing with the Vietnam issue to Bush last night:
LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war–a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.
GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
And of course, Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment on last night’s lunacy, which can be summarized with this one spectacular question:
Mr. Bush, the question is no longer “what are you thinking?,” but rather “are you thinking at all?”
Go watch the whole thing. There are times where I’ve considered Olbermann to be shrill. This is not one of them.
It could be that shrill is the new black. We may have to be shrill to be heard, because the conventional ways to communicate have not been effective. If you’re a Californian, it’s time to let Dianne Feinstein know that she needs to take a stand against this madness. Call her and demand that she oppose this call to send more of our sons and daughters to their deaths. California: 415-393-0707 Washington: 202-224-3841
Technorati Tags: Iraq, surge, state of the union, keith olbermann, crooksandliars, MSNBC
Sphere: Related ContentPat Robertson’s Hallucinations
He’s an embarrassment to Christians everywhere. This is a classic tactic used by people claiming to be Christians and prophets who are really just desperate to advance a dying agenda.
Some of his statements deconstructed:
The other thing I felt was that evil men, evil people, are going to try to do evil things to us and to others during the last part of this year. I don’t know if it’ll be in the fall or September or later on, but it’ll be the second half somehow of 2007. There will be some very serious terrorist attacks.
Translation: Give George Bush free reign to wreak havoc in the Arab world, since we know that’s the genesis of all terrorism and true God-fearing folks would support our President fully.
And then the Lord said he will restrain the evil people, but he will not restrain them necessarily initially. And, you know, He doesn’t have to restrain people. They’re evil people and they do evil things and they desire evil.
Translation: Nuke the Arabs. Nuke them now.
Question for Pat Robertson: What happened to “love your enemies as yourself”? Oops, I guess the Lord forgot to whisper that one in your ear.
Verily, I say unto Pat Robertson, may thy lips be sealed for the next hundred years, lest your false prophecy convince even one.
Technorati Tags: pat robertson, christian coalition, false prophet, right wing whacko
