MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: May 4, 2008

« April 27, 2008 - May 3, 2008 | Main | May 11, 2008 - May 17, 2008 »

May 10, 2008

In the Shadow of Mother's Day

Below is a guest blog entry in honor of Mother's Day by obstetrician-gynecologist Nancy Stanwood:

I am fortunate to have met many wonderful mothers. These women understand what it means to raise a child well. They make daily sacrifices to keep their children physically and emotionally healthy and happy. As a new mother myself, I find their commitment inspiring.

What I know about these mothers, though, won’t be celebrated on Mother’s Day. They came to me to have abortions.

I am an obstetrician-gynecologist, and in my 13 years of delivering babies and providing abortions, I have ended pregnancies for many women with children at home. These mothers account for the majority of U.S. abortions. Six out of every ten women who have abortions in this country each year already have at least one child.

In my experience, these mothers have abortions to meet their responsibilities for their children at home.

They provide for their families in every way, giving love, time, money, energy, and nurturing. These mothers tell me that if they had another baby, they would not be able to care fully for each child. They know what it takes to be a good mother, and they know when they are not ready for a new baby.

Take my patient Catherine. She came to me for an abortion because her three-year-old son had cancer. His care was consuming her. She knew that she wouldn’t be able to attend to him and mother a new baby. Another patient, Dawn, already had a son when she became pregnant. She was also taking care of her mother, who was elderly and unwell. With her resources as a caregiver at the limit, Dawn chose to have abortion rather than short-change her mother and son.

In another case I handled, Louis and Mikela had two children with developmental disabilities due to the genetic syndrome Fragile X. They were managing the demands involved in parenting children with the syndrome, but then Mikela became pregnant again. Genetic tests showed that the baby would have Fragile X, too. Mikela and Louis wanted to give their children what they needed. They could support two children with special needs, but not three. Mikela had an abortion.

Catherine, Dawn, and Mikela had abortions because they knew what it takes to be a good mother. Like the other mothers for whom I have performed abortions, they refused to put their kids at risk of not getting enough food, attention, affection, or any of the other necessities for becoming a healthy, productive adult.

I became a mother seven months ago. By giving birth, I feel I made a solemn promise. I will be responsible for the physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being of this beautiful little creature for the next 18 years and beyond. I will put her needs first, I will always think about her welfare, I will make sacrifices for her.

This is the promise we celebrate on Mother’s Day. Many women keep this promise by having abortions.

Unless the law gets in their way. I practice in a state where the government trusts women to do what is best for their families without question. But in many states, mandatory waiting periods and other requirements make it difficult and sometimes impossible for women to end the pregnancies they are not ready for. Such restrictions are an insult to these mothers.

The Catherines, Dawns, and Mikelas of this country deserve better—on Mother’s Day and every day. They must be allowed to put their children first, whether they are mothers in my state or any other.

To defend the rights of mothers nationwide, 129 members of Congress have sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act. This bill recognizes that every woman has the right to decide if and when to have a baby, to determine whether she is ready to promise a child love and care. I support this legislation as a doctor, a citizen, and a mother.—Nancy Stanwood, MD, MPH

At Least One Conservative Says McCain Should Renounce Rev. Parsley

At least one conservative Republican has come out and said that John McCain ought to denounce the Reverend Rod Parsley for his extreme anti-Islam rhetoric, and that's James Pinkerton, with whom I regularly appear on Bloggingheads.tv. Pinkerton, who was a domestic policy adviser for the first President Bush and who advised Mike Huckabee during his recent GOP presidential primary contest, says that McCain should reject the endorsement he's accepted from Parsley, a pastor at an Ohio megachurch who has said that it is the historic mission of the United States to see the "false religion" of Islam "destroyed."

For more on Parsley's anti-Islam ranting and to see the reverend in his full anti-Islam glory, click here for the video of Parsley's attack on Islam that was produced by Mother Jones and Brave New Films.

Up to now, McCain has steadfastly refused to renounce Parsley, an influential political force in the swing state of Ohio. Doing so could seriously hurt McCain's chances in the Buckeye State. So Pinkerton shouldn't expect McCain to heed his advice. Here's Pinkerton and I discussing the matter:

May 9, 2008

John McCain, No Environmentalist

In New Jersey today, John McCain called himself a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican" and said, "I'm proud of my environmental record." This is a line — a myth, really — that McCain is sure to push in the general election.

True, John McCain does talk about the environment more than other Republicans. But that doesn't make him an environmentalist, and his environmental record is nowhere close to the Democrats in the race. Take it from those who know best.

In 2007, the League of Conservation Voters rated McCain a zero on the environment because he skipped every vote the organization graded. (Vote-skipping is a serious problem for Johnny Mac.) At the time, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said:

"We were appalled two weeks ago when John McCain was the only Senator who chose to skip a crucial vote on the future of clean energy in America-dooming the measure to fail by just a single vote. As it turns out, this was merely the most recent example of a clear pattern of missing the most important votes on energy and the environment--as his abysmal LCV score clearly demonstrates....

"[John McCain has] a lifetime pattern of voting with polluters and special interests instead of consumers and the planet when it comes time to stand up and be counted. Or perhaps worse yet: a consistent refusal to stand up and be counted at all."

The President of the League of the Conservation Voters, Gene Karpinski, adds, "To his credit, McCain has made global warming a priority... [but] throughout his time in Congress, McCain's voted pro-environment only one out of four times.''

Clinton and Obama also suffered due to vote-skipping in 2007, with LCV scores of 73 and 67 respectively. But the lifetime scores of the three candidates tell the true story. Hillary Clinton's lifetime score is 87 percent. Obama’s is 86 percent. John McCain's is 24 percent.

As Obama Takes Lead in Superdels, Clinton Makes Unlikely Bid for Popular Vote

ABC News reports that Barack Obama has passed Hillary Clinton among superdelegates, with a current count of 276-275. A couple caveats: (1) Every major news outlet has a different count when it comes to Obama and Clinton's superdelegate totals, and ABC News is the first to say Obama has passed Clinton. Nevertheless, the other networks will likely follow close behind — most others have Obama trailing Clinton by five to 10, and Obama has been closing steadily since Super Tuesday. (2) These numbers are constantly in flux, with new superdelegate endorsements coming every day.

Nevertheless, ABC's announcement is a sign of things to come. We will soon reach a point where there aren't enough outstanding pledged delegates and undecided superdelegates for Clinton to win the nomination. At that point, she either has to drop out or try to convince Obama superdelegates that they need to switch to her.

One way the campaign might convince superdelegates to do that? Winning the popular vote. Clinton is campaigning in Kentucky, where her campaign chairman addressed the issue with reporters:

Her goal is to surpass Obama in the national popular vote, said Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chairman.

"This is why Kentucky is critical for us. We not only have to have a very good win in Kentucky but a very good turnout," McAuliffe told Kentucky reporters. "I firmly believe ... by the end of this process, we will have moved ahead in the popular vote."

That is, to put it politely, improbable. According to MSNBC, Obama now leads Clinton by more than 700,000 (16,050,924 vs. 15,336,896). If you add Florida and Michigan (giving Obama Michigan's "uncommitted"), it becomes 16,857,727 vs. 16,522,255. That's a 335,000-vote lead for Obama

Here's a reasonable projection of the remaining states, also from MSNBC.

Total votes	Clinton	Obama	Split
WV: 400,000	240,000	160,000	60-40
KY: 500,000	300,000	200,000	60-40
OR: 600,000	270,000	330,000	45-55
SD: 100,000	45,000	55,000	45-55
MT: 125,000	56,250	68,750	45-55
Totals	911,250	813,750

Add that to the totals above and you've still got a 237,500 vote lead for Obama. And to be frank, I would be surprised by a 55-45 win for Obama in Oregon. It will likely be larger.

The Clinton plan to win the popular vote is looking unlikely indeed. It's desperation time: that campaign is being run on false hopes and wishful thinking.

But I suppose we already knew that.

The Paulites Aren't Done Yet

Ron Paul deserves representation at the Republican national convention in proportion to the support he received in the primaries. And his supporters are prepared to fight like hell to make sure he gets it.

Across the country, at state and county GOP conventions, diehard supporters of maverick Ron Paul are staging uprisings in an effort to secure a role for Paul at the national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul....

In Minnesota, Paul loyalists captured seven delegate slots at congressional district meetings, and in Nevada, the convention abruptly recessed on April 26 after balloting showed Paul supporters winning at least half of the initial contests for delegate slots to the national convention....

People are catching on.

Last weekend in Maine, McCain's forces were well organized, but Paul's activists nevertheless managed to pick up one of the 18 delegates at stake.

"They attempted fraud," [Julie O'Brien, executive director of the Maine Republican Party] asserted. "We knew what had happened in Nevada, so we really prepared in advance . . . to make sure everything was done by the book."

I say boooo to Julie O'Brien. I hope there are enough Paulestinians at the national Republican convention to rouse some rabble. To paraphrase one of our commenters, Ron Paul tried to save the Republican Party. Sometimes I wonder why he bothered.

May 8, 2008

Starbucks' Slutty Mermaid Making Waves

Lately, I've seen some changes at the two Starbucks that live less than a block away from the Mother Jones office. Last month, they both started pushing a new blend called "Pike Place Roast" as their regular drip coffee, as part of a campaign to compete with brisk coffee sales at Dunkin' Donuts and McDonald's. As part of the campaign, Starbucks re-introduced its 1971 brown-and-white logo featuring a two-tailed mermaid. Okay, technically it's a siren, but regardless, the image of a female figure brazenly spreading its tails has made a few Christians vow to boycott the company.

"The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute," explains alarmist Mark Dice, of a Christian group called The Resistance. "Need I say more? It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks."

While I'm curious what the value of a Slutbuck is relative to a Schrutebuck, I'm worried that Dice doesn't seem to understand the Starbucks siren is half-fish. She doesn't have legs to spread, much less a vagina to go between them. The fact that Dice doesn't get the difference between a fin and a foot may be an example of what abstinence-only funding does to education, but it's certainly not the first time spunky Christians have boycotted the multinational company.

Just last summer, a group of Christian ladies boycotted Frappuccinos because there was a homosexual-agenda-pushing Armistead Maupin quote on some of the cups. Others have boycotted the company because of anti-God quotes.

All I can say is that if Starbucks goes down, it won't be because of a handful of Christian boycotters. And it won't be because a friend of a CATO Institute vice-president couldn't buy a customized "Laissez Faire" gift card, either. As the WSJ tells it, a Starbucks slump will be due to oversaturation and a faltering economy that makes $4 lattes seem like less of a necessity. Whether that's an act of God or not is for you to decide.

Gag Order Lifted, Israel Obsesses Over Corruption Probe Targeting Prime Minister

As the sun set on Israel's 60th Independence Day celebrations tonight, Israeli media were partially liberated from a gag order that had restricted their reporting details of a fast moving and curiously timed corruption investigation of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. The probe's quickening pace now is curious given that it is focusing on financial transactions between Olmert and an American financier and philanthropist that date back to the 1990s when Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem and a cabinet minister in the government of Ariel Sharon.

"Olmert suspected of accepting illicit funds from U.S. businessman," a Ha'aretz headline proclaimed:

Olmert is being investigated for allegedly receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Morris "Moshe" Talansky, a Long Island based financier and philanthropist.

In a late night news conference, Olmert conceded that he had taken funds from Talansky, but told journalists that there was nothing illegal about the payments. "I never took bribes, I never took a penny for myself." He said he had confidence that his attorney Uri Messer "handled the money professionally and according to the law." (You can see a video of Olmert's press conference here).

Olmert also said that he would resign if indicted. "Even though the law does not require me to do this, I will resign from my job if the attorney general decides to issue an indictment against me."

All this drama takes place as President Bush is set to arrive in Israel Tuesday to mark its sixtieth anniversary celebrations, and to try to advance peace efforts.

The Olmert probe will likely hobble those, said MJ Rosenberg, of the Washington-based Israel Policy Forum, which supports a two-state solution. "Israeli politicians are always looking for excuses not to do the peace process," Rosenberg said. "That is the main impact of this."

So said a senior Palestinian offiical: "As of now there is no Israeli partner for talks on a final status agreements in light of the continuing investigation against Olmert," Ha'aretz cited an unnamed senior Palestinian Authority official.

In an interview with Israel's TV Channel 2, Talansky, the New York financier reported as being linked to the probe, said that he was baffled by the investigation. He said he had arrived in Israel last month to visit his children. Tuesday morning at 6:00 a.m. the police knocked on his door and asked him to come with them. He went with them and told them that he has known Olmert for more than twenty years and has met him at many events.

Among his philanthropic activities, Talansky, 75, served as a fundraiser and US contact for a Jerusalem based foundation, the New Jerusalem Foundation, founded by Olmert when he was mayor of Jerusalem. The foundation "centers its efforts on soliciting donations from Evangelical Christians," the Forward reported.

The New York Sun previously reported that Talansky was among a group of American investors who are suing Israeli Aerospace Industries, for succumbing they claim to Israeli government pressure to block satellite deals with countries including Venezuela and Angola.

A registered Democrat, Talansky, has "donated to many American candidates on both sides of the aisle," the New York Times reported. "He gave President Bush $1,000 in 2003, and was a generous donor to Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2000. Among his Democratic beneficiaries have been President Bill Clinton in 1995; Thomas S. Foley, then the House speaker, in 1994; and Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1992."

A Talansky cousin interviewed by the Times discounted speculation that Talansky had been part of a right wing effort to hobble Olmert at a time when Washington may be pressing him to stop settlement expansion in order to advance the Israeli Palestinian peace process. "“He’s no extremist in any way,” the Times cited Rabbi Abraham Talansky of his cousin.

But some media reports suggested Talansky was being investigated for his role as a suspected conduit for others trying to buy influence or favors from Olmert. "According to Israeli sources, investigators are probing allegations that Talansky served as a conduit between American donors and Olmert, as well as allegations that Talansky himself provided funds to Olmert," the Forward reported.

In 1999, Olmert ran against Ariel Sharon to be the Likud candidate for prime minister. A campaign finance investigation dating back to that time previously led to charges against people close to Sharon, including his son Omri, currently serving a prison sentence, the NY Times earlier reported.

Media reports Friday suggested several potential witnesses, including Talansky and Olmert's former law partner and confidant Uri Messer, were considering giving testimony for the prosecution against Olmert in exchange for immunity.

Guns Don't Kill People, Irresponsible Gun Dealers Do

Eric Thompson sells guns on the Internet. Of course, you may already know that. After all, his Green Bay, Wisc.-based firm, TGSCOM Inc. (www.thegunsource.com), has had some high-profile clients, including Seng-Hui Cho, who massacered 33 classmates at Virginia Tech last year, and Stephen Kazmierczak, who killed five students at Northern Illinois University last February. And surely for this, Thompson feels sorry. But don't ask him to apologize for his business, for he's committed to placing firearms in the warm, living hands of as many customers as possible... at the lowest possible price.

Since the initial shock of learning he had played a supporting role in at least two school shootings, Thompson has turned infamy into a marketing strategy. In the spirit of there being no such thing as bad publicity, he's taken full advantage of opportunities to appear on television, including his recent FOX News sparring match with Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. This followed Thompson's visit to Virginia Tech last month, where, almost a year to the day after the shootings, he spoke at an on-campus event sponsored by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. A school spokesman called the visit "terribly offensive" and said "the organizers appear to be incredibly insensitive to the families of the victims who lost loved ones and to the injured students still recovering from this horrendous tragedy." But Thompson, who claims to have donated money to a Virginia Tech victims' fund, stands by his decision to appear at the university. It's all part of the "special responsibility" he's been given to "help change people's opinions."

To that end, based on an email that appeared in my inbox this morning, Thompson appears to have hired Arena Strategy Group, a Republican-controlled PR firm in Wisconsin, to get out his message. The press release hails Thompson's decision to offer his entire stock of guns at cost, supposedly to allow more people to acquire them and therefore to be armed and ready the next time trouble knocks on their doors.

The release speaks for itself:

Most business owners are upset when they don’t make a profit. Not Eric Thompson. Thompson, owner of TGSCOM, Inc, the online firearms and sporting goods dealer that sold weapons and accessories to both the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shooters, couldn’t be happier to have sold thousands of firearms without making a dime the past two weeks.

Thompson’s regrettable tie to both campus shootings has compelled him to take an active role in helping to prevent future mass shootings. On April 23rd, Thompson launched www.gunsatcost.com and offered all in-stock firearms – which included over 5,400 types of guns – for two weeks without any markup in an effort to “give law-abiding citizens the tools to prevent tragedy.”

“The moments between when a dangerous criminal threatens the safety of innocent lives and law enforcement arrives are so critical.” said Thompson. “I am gratified I have been able to help so many law-abiding Americans buy a firearm at a discounted rate so they can protect themselves, their families and their entire community.”

Thompson also recently visited the Virginia Tech campus at the request of the student group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. While he was there, Thompson spoke about the importance of being able to carry a concealed weapon, including while on college campuses. He also met with friends of some of the shooting victims who share his belief that all qualified, licensed individuals should be able to carry a weapon for protection.

Thompson also partnered with the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus last month by supplying hundreds of holsters for their empty-holster protest. During the protest, thousands of students across the nation wore empty holsters to show their objection to the state laws and university policies that prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons on campus.

Is Boycotting Wal-Mart Activism?

We want the lowdown on student activism, past and present. Been arrested and regret it? Would your school win the prize for silliest student protest? Was student activism way better when you were in school? Is your cause unique?

Help us put together our best student activism roundup yet. It's our 15th annual! Check out last year's. Answer a few quick questions and you could win some cool prizes.

Click here to begin!

A Vote For McCain Validates Bush

There are, in the minds of many, historical legacies at stake in the 2008 presidential election. From Der Spiegel, via Nitpicker:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The Iraq war was perceived as the one chance the neocons had in our time to prove that their theories were right. Is neoconservatism already a historical footnote?

[Neoconservative Lawrence] Kaplan: The near-term argument here is that if John McCain wins the presidential election, neoconservatism will have been vindicated. Because by voting him into office, people will have tacitly given their endorsement to that sort of foreign policy. His advisers are the very people we are arguing about.

Crank Dat Mike Gravel!

Okay, I know, too many nonsensical Gravel videos of late. And I know, the Obama Girl stuff is unforgivably lame. But indulge me. I just love this video. Mike Gravel is willing to sing, profess his love for a woman 52 years his junior, and do the (incredibly freakin' annoying) Soulja Boy dance. He's officially in that I'm-so-old-I-can't-be-humiliated stage. Somebody give this man a reality TV show!

On a more serious note, I'm willing to guess that Mike Gravel doesn't know the meaning of the Soulja Boy lyrics, which are horrifyingly misogynistic. I'm not going to explain them, but you can get answers at UrbanDictionary.com. That song is incredibly popular, even among children, and it really shouldn't be.

Compromise in Michigan: Another Sign of Things to Come

This may be how the Democratic primary race winds down: superdelegates endorsing Obama (and in some cases bailing on Clinton in order to do so) and Michigan and Florida coming to compromises that don't jeopardize Barack Obama's lead. Michigan appears on track to do exactly that.

Michigan Democratic leaders on Wednesday settled on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the national convention.

Clinton won the Jan. 15 Michigan primary and was to get 73 pledged delegates under state party rules, while Obama was to get 55.

Clinton took 55 percent of the vote in Michigan, where only Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel joined her on the ballot. "Uncommitted" took 40 percent.

The only question here is whether seating the Michigan delegates through this compromise erases any hard feelings Michigan voters have with Barack Obama. Michigan and Florida have been used a cudgel by Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff. They've pointed to those two states for months as evidence that Barack Obama doesn't truly want to hear the voice of every American — the unstated corollary being that Obama doesn't respect the people of those two states.

I'm betting, however, that Obama can do some internal polling in Florida and Michigan, see if he still has a chance in either state (probably; more likely in Michigan than Florida), and make up with voters there through a little extra attention in the general. And outside groups can work overtime pointing this out.

Superdelegates for Hillary Wavering: A Sign of Things to Come?

Here's Clinton-backer Diane Feinstein talking to The Hill.

"I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party," Feinstein said. "I think we need to prevent that as much as we can."

Feinstein stressed that Clinton is not an "also-run candidate," but added that there is a question "as to whether she can get the delegates that she needs. I'd like to see what the strategy is and then we can talk further."

Feinstein insists that she isn't revoking her support of Clinton, but that she wants to "talk" with Clinton and see exactly what her strategy is for the rest of the primaries.

Meanwhile, Obama unveiled three superdelegate endorsements yesterday (North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek, North Carolina DNC member Jeanette Council, and California DNC member Inola Henry), and former Clinton supporter George McGovern switched to Obama and urged Clinton to drop out of the race. Today, the Obama campaign announced that John Edwards' campaign manager, former Congressman David Bonior, is endorsing.

Forget the media calls for Clinton to drop out. Forget the fundraising problems. It is the actions of the superdelegates over the next few weeks that will determine whether this race ends now or after all the primaries have been completed in June.

43,000 Troops Listed as Unfit for Combat Deployed Anyway

From USA Today:

More than 43,000 U.S. troops listed as medically unfit for combat in the weeks before their scheduled deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2003 were sent anyway, Pentagon records show.

This reliance on troops found medically "non-deployable" is another sign of stress placed on a military that has sent 1.6 million servicemembers to the war zones, soldier advocacy groups say....

Unit commanders make the final decision about whether a servicemember is sent into combat, although doctors can recommend against deployment because of a medical issue, Army spokeswoman Kim Waldron said....

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, the panel's chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Army leaders about an e-mail from the surgeon for the Fort Carson brigade that said medically "borderline" soldiers went to war because "we have been having issues reaching deployable strength."

"That should not be happening," Army Secretary Pete Geren told the committee. "I can't tell you that it's not, but it certainly should not be happening."

This isn't terribly surprising, considering the lengths the military is going to in order to get soldiers on the battlefield.

Former NSC Aide on Clinton, 'Dual Containment,' and HRC's 'Obliterate' Iran Remarks

Gary Sick served in the National Security Council of the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations, including as the chief White House aide on Iran during the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis. He currently is a senior researcher and professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, from where he runs a Persian Gulf oriented listserv for Gulf experts, academics, and journalists. He offered these comments there, with permission to share.

Hillary Clinton's warning that the United States could "obliterate" Iran if that country should "foolishly consider" launching an attack on Israel is, of course, pandering to a broad American constituency that wants to hear tough rhetoric about Iran. It is also intended to appeal to a constituency that needs constant reassurance that America's relationship with Israel is secure. And, by addressing a strategic hypothetical that would by any measure be many years in the future ("in the next ten years" in her words), it seems intended to convince doubters that a woman is tough enough - perhaps more than tough enough - to be commander in chief.

Although her use of the word "obliterate" was both excessive and ill-advised, it might be seen as a challenge to Obama to match her toughness, or even as simply pandering shamelessly to a constituency that thrives on political red meat. That is not very flattering to her, but it might be regarded as politics as usual. What makes this statement particularly troublesome is that it cannot be dismissed as mere off-the-cuff responses to a TV interviewer. Rather, it appears to be part of a broader, considered policy that would likely be at the heart of the Middle East strategy of President Hillary Clinton.

The Clinton campaign, while explaining her remarks to skeptics, made it clear that this was no slip of the tongue. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post reports that the "obliterate" remarks are part of a more extensive plan, first advanced in the debate prior to the Pennsylvania primary, for a new defensive alliance with the Arab states and Israel, in which the United States would extend not only a "security umbrella" over Israel but also "provide a deterrent backup" that would extend U.S. nuclear guarantees to Arab states who renounce nuclear weapons. The apparent author of this strategy is Martin Indyk. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/03/AR2008050301875.html.

Martin Indyk came into Bill Clinton's administration as director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council and later represented the United States as ambassador to Israel (twice) as well as a stint as Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs at the Department of State. He was present at every stage of the Clinton administration's Middle East policy, but he is most frequently remembered, at least by Persian Gulf specialists, as the author of the so-called "dual containment" policy.

"Dual containment" basically postulates that the way to deal with recalcitrant states in the Persian Gulf (i.e. states that are unsympathetic to U.S. interests and objectives) is to isolate them and "contain" them, relying on sanctions and superior military power. It was also quite explicit in linking "containment of Iraq and Iran in the east" with "promotion of Arab-Israeli peace in the west." This was a new twist in U.S. policy which had previously maintained that the Persian Gulf/oil could be separated from the Arab-Israeli dispute. The policy was therefore viewed by many as attempting to wall off the troublesome Persian Gulf region so that the United States could focus on the Arab-Israel issue, or, as it later evolved, on Israel alone. It was also a unilateral policy: collaborators would be nice, but in their absence the United States could and would act alone.

Although the name "dual containment" is no longer used, especially after the invasion of Iraq removed one of the policy's targets, it is nevertheless true that the dominant premise of the policy - that you deal with your enemies and rivals unilaterally by isolation and threats rather than engagement - is one Clintonian policy that has been adopted unabashedly by the Bush administration. It has defined U.S. policy in the region for the past decade and a half.

Dual containment was first announced by Indyk in May 1993, in the early months of the Bill Clinton administration. The previous administration of George Bush pere had held out the promise that "Good will begets good will," to entice Iran to intervene on behalf of the American hostages in Lebanon; Iran did so, but by the time the hostages were successfully released, Bush was deep into a presidential campaign and could not fulfill his commitment. Then, of course, he lost the election and the Iranians were told that they would have to forget about any U.S. promises.

Still, Iran had taken a serious decision to try to open channels to the United States, and when Bill Clinton was elected, they put out new feelers (in which I had a small role). These were ignored in favor of dual containment. Iran tried again with unilateral economic offers in 1995, but the Clinton administration responded by enacting far-reaching economic sanctions against Iran.

Dual containment and its accompanying sanctions were adopted with the stated objective of changing Iran's behavior on a number of issues: nuclear, Arab-Israel peace process, and terrorism, among others. After a full quarter of a century, with the United States doing everything in its power to coerce and threaten Iran economically and militarily, Iran's policies have changed to some degree, but it would take a real ideologue to claim that they have evolved on anything other than an Iranian schedule according to Iranian political objectives. In short, U.S. policies have failed utterly in their key objectives. Yet our answer - and the answer of the Clinton campaign from what we can tell - is more of the same. Clinton-Indyk give lip service to engagement, but then so does Bush-Cheney.

The "new defensive alliance" with Arab states of the Middle East that Sen. Clinton has been proposing in the past few weeks is so similar to the anti-Iran alliance that the Bush administration has been trying to sell to the Sunni Arab states (with Israel as a silent partner), that I must admit I cannot see the difference. In fact, the "Bush Doctrine" toward Iran and the Arab states was nothing but a continuation of the "Clinton-Indyk Doctrine" that preceded it, and it now appears that if Hillary should win the presidency, we will come full circle back to Clinton-Indyk redux.

I have known Martin Indyk since we were at Columbia together, and I respect him as a professional. But I thought dual containment was a terrible idea from the first time I heard it, and Martin knows it. By emphasizing threats and sanctions above even the most minimal engagement, I think this concept was the origin of many of our worst mistakes and missed opportunities over the past 15 years.

Characteristically, this latest version never stops to ask how the regional states may react to our unilateral unfolding of an "umbrella," much less our anticipation that they will respond with gratitude and formal recognition of Israel. That is what Indyk specifies as the price. This sounds like the kind of unrealistic expectations that we have built into our Middle East policies repeatedly over the past dozen years.

As my friends know well, I have been a stout defender of Hillary Clinton's campaign from the very beginning, while maintaining my admiration for Barack Obama. (In the most recent case, I was impressed by the fact that Obama refused to rise to the bait, while she accepted the hypothetical and ran with it.) I respected the depth of her politically skilled network, her grit and determination, and her ability to take a punch. My major argument, of course, was Clinton's experience. But experience is a two-edged sword.

The chance for a fresh start - for "change" in the current political lexicon - was to me the great hope of this presidential campaign. But Clinton's recent remarks, and the underlying policy from which they apparently sprang, are evidence that, at least on this issue, we might only look forward to more of the same under a Clinton presidency. In that sense, I think we would be losing one of the great chances of this generation to begin to fashion a more sensible policy in a region that I care about greatly.

May 7, 2008

Voters Shut Out of Indiana Primary Will Have to Appeal to Higher Authority

I hope someone informs the Supreme Court's mostly Catholic majority that their recent decision to uphold Indiana's voter ID law prevented a convent full of elderly and disabled nuns from casting a vote in yesterday's Democratic primary. In its decision, the court insisted the state had a legitimate interest in depriving lots of people of their right to vote because it would deter phantom fraudsters, even though the state has never had a single documented case of voter impersonation fraud. Clearly, the justices hadn't anticipated the sisters, who don't drive and didn't have much need of ID in the convent. Now shut out of court and the voting booth, the Indiana brides of Christ will have to appeal to God for a remedy.

Burma: Dispatches From a Nightmare

In the wake of the devastation left by Cyclone Nargis in Burma, "huge sections of the Irrawaddy Delta lie cut off from the outside world," writes Paul Danahar for the BBC in Southern Burma. "Monks are leading the cleaning-up process in the residential areas," says one blogger in Rangoon. "No electricity means no water; a real crisis, and people don’t know whether to pray for rain (no roofs) or not for water."

Below, more excerpts from this week's world press coverage of the crisis.

Burma, burmadigest in Burma Digest blog:

Yangon is Ground Zero; there are no more big trees left…Army Battalion no. 11, 22 and 77 are clearing the big roads. Otherwise, it’s mostly kohtu kohta (self-help). Monks are leading the cleaning-up process in the residential areas…

No electricity means no water; a real crisis, and people don’t know whether to pray for rain (no roofs) or not for water…People are using water from Inya Lake….

Petrol was 10,000 kyats to the gallon yesterday (maybe less today, because the govt. petrol pumps are selling petrol today). Candles have gone up from 100 to 300 kyats for a medium-sized candle; chicken is 10,000 kyats to the viss; eggs are 280 kyats (100% increase); pebyoke (baked beans) is 400 kyats for 10 ticals (doubled price)…

Tin roofing has gone up from 5000 to 30,000 kyats. General labourers are charging 7000 kyats per day just to drag logs away…

Rangoon has gone backwards 20 years.

Germany, Jürgen Kremb in Der Spiegel:

The Burmese dissident had actually only intended to call to let SPIEGEL ONLINE know he was still alive, but his phone call sounded more like a cry of outrage.

He had spent hours dialing the telephone just to get a connection outside the country. If Burma's ruling military junta discovered his call, they might have charged him with "subversive contact with foreigners" and punished him with a long prison sentence and torture.

"It looks like the end of the world here," he shouted into the telephone when he finally got a call through to Singapore on Tuesday morning and could tell SPIEGEL ONLINE about the situation in Rangoon after Cyclone Nargis wreaked havoc on the city. "Everything is destroyed, we have no drinking water and nothing to eat. Tens of thousands must be dead. Hundreds of thousands are homeless."

UK, Stephen McGinty in the Scotsman:

The helicopter, flying low over the paddy fields of the Irrawaddy delta, allowed the passengers on board a view down into a sodden hell. Scattered like grains of rice by the powerful winds of the cyclone and the destructive power of the tidal wave it whipped up, were the bodies of the lost—thousands upon thousands of men, women and children.

Yesterday, the death toll caused by cyclone Nargis, which hit Burma on Saturday at about noon, rose to 22,464, with a further 41,054 missing, according to the suspiciously precise figures of the country's military dictatorship. Yet fears were growing last night that those who survived the hand of nature may still succumb to the clumsy fist of their government which, despite calling for global assistance, continued to hold back international aid agencies on its borders.

Almost 60 years of suspicion towards the outside world will not be blown away overnight, but the effects of the worst cyclone since Bangladesh was struck in 1991, killing 138,000, may yet prise open the doors of this secretive nation now faced with a rising death toll and as many as three million people displaced by the disaster, according to Save The Children. The nation's leaders appear to be hedging their bets, aware of the necessity of finding a way to provide the destitute with life-saving water, food, clothes and accommodation, but fearful of the future ramifications of opening their borders to agencies they previously dismissed as riddled with spies.

Yesterday, a single aid plane touched down in Rangoon, while across the world aid agencies remain wrapped up in red tape. The flight from friendly Thailand landed at Rangoon's Mingaladon airport, but its £200,000 cargo of food, water and mosquito nets, brought in on a Royal Thai Air Force C130 was unlikely to make the slightest dent in the national catastrophe.

Thailand, Nophkhun Limsamarnphun in the Daily Express:

Burma's Department of Meteorology and Hydrology was told of the formation of Cylcone Nargis a week in advance, but the country was not prepared to handle a disaster of this magnitude.

Bhichit Rattakul, executive director of Thailand-based Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC), said yesterday that one of the first warnings came from the US Navy's Joint Typhoon Warning Centre, which issued an alert on April 27...

According to Bhichit, a former science minister and Bangkok governor, the data were passed on to authorities in several countries in the region, including India and Burma.

Korea, Sean Turnell in the Korea Herald

So where do Burma's generals hide all the money they keep away from the state's budget? No one but the generals knows for sure. An inspection of the vaults of the country's Foreign Trade Bank might be a good place to start, however, as well as those of some accommodatingly unscrupulous banks offshore. Whatever the precise location of Burma's riches, these hoards enable the junta to spend at its whim. A nuclear reactor, a new capital city, military pay increases—all of these and more have been on the menu of late.

"Merchant of Death" Indicted in U.S. Federal Court

It was just over two months ago that Viktor Bout, the elusive Russian arms trafficker, was jailed in Thailand after being felled by a months-long DEA sting operation. He remains in a Bangkok prison, pending extradition to the United States, where (short of a plea agreement) he will most likely face federal prosecution in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Yesterday, U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia and Acting DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart unsealed the federal indictment (.pdf) against Bout, charging him with four counts of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism.

An excerpt from the press release announcing the indictment:

Between November 2007 and March 2008, Bout agreed to sell to the FARC millions of dollars' worth of weapons—including surface-to-air missile systems ("SAMs"), armor piercing rocket launchers, AK-47 firearms, millions of rounds of ammunition, Russian spare parts for rifles, anti-personnel land mines, C-4 plastic explosives, night-vision equipment, "ultralight" airplanes that could be outfitted with grenade launchers and missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Bout agreed to sell the weapons to two confidential sources working with the DEA (the "CSs"), who represented that they were acquiring these weapons for the FARC, with specific understanding that the weapons were to be used to attack United States helicopters in Colombia...

As described in the Indictment, during a covertly recorded meeting in Thailand on March 6, 2008, Bout stated to the CSs that he could arrange to airdrop the arms to the FARC in Colombia, and offered to sell two cargo planes to the FARC that could be used for arms deliveries. Bout also provided a map of South America, and asked the CSs to show him American radar locations in Colombia. Bout said that he understood that the CSs wanted the arms for use against American personnel in Colombia, and advised that the United States was also his enemy, stating that the FARC's fight against the United States was also his fight. During the meeting, Bout also offered to provide people to train the FARC in the use of the arms.

The charges against Bout include: conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals; conspiracy to kill U.S. officers or employees; conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles; and conspiracy to provide material support or resources for a designated foreign terrorist group. If convicted, Bout could face life in prison for each of the first three counts and a maximum of 15 years for the fourth.

Of course, trying Bout in a U.S. court could prove embarrassing in light of the fact that the Pentagon unwittingly contracted with Bout-controlled firms to ferry troops and supplies into Iraq after the 2003 invasion—at a time when he was already being sought by federal authorities for his role in breaking various UN arms embargoes in Africa.

A Step Towards Victory at the FEC

Yesterday, President Bush put forward a revised list of nominees for the Federal Elections Commission. As we've reported in-depth, the FEC currently only has two of its customary six commissioners, meaning the body that regulates all federal elections lacks the quorum necessary to do its job. Bush's new slate of commissioners, and the Republicans' new willingness to play ball in the confirmation process, suggests that a fully functioning FEC may be on the horizon.

Here's the deal. Formerly, the nominees were Democrat Robert Lenhard, Democrat Steven Walther, Republican David Mason (the sitting Chairman), and Republican Hans von Spakovsky (HVS). Democrat Ellen Weintraub was already sitting on the FEC. The problem with that roster was that von Spakovsky was objectionable to Democrats, who saw him as the GOP's point man on minority disenfranchisement in his previous activities. Democrats wanted to vote on each nominee individually, leading to the likely rejection of HVS and the acceptance of everyone else. Final result in the Democrats' scenario: a FEC with three Democrats and a sole Republican. The Republicans rejected the idea and said instead that all the nominees, including HVS, had to be approved together. Deadlock ensued.

The new situation is this. Lenhard has withdrawn himself from consideration (he was kind enough to speak with me for my earlier story on this subject). Mason has been removed from consideration by the White House. The new slate of nominees is Democrats Cynthia Bauerly (new), Walther (old), and Democrat Weintrab (renominated) on the left, and Republicans Donald McGahn (new), Caroline Hunter (new), and von Spakovsky (old) on the right.

The key difference, though, is that Senate Republicans and the White House have agreed to up-or-down votes (which require a simple majority) on each individual nominee. The likely outcome is everyone except von Spakovsky will get approved and be sent the FEC. That creates an unbalanced FEC, but enough commissioners to be operable. "As to 3-3 versus 2-3, if the White House wanted to be assured of keeping parity, they would have kept David Mason and withdrawn von Spakovsky," said Reid spokesman Stephen Krupin in an email. "They have decided now to let the chips fall where they may."

Krupin said that a date for votes has not been set, but that Reid is committed to a functioning FEC "as soon as possible." Some good government groups are crying foul, however. They say that Mason's removal from consideration by the White House was motivated by Mason's questions about John McCain's late-2007 loan in which McCain may or may not have used public matching funds as collateral, a move that would bind McCain to spending limits he has surpassed.

Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer said:

"The White House dumped Mason after President Bush had twice proposed Mason for the FEC in the last two and a half years, in December 2005 as a recess appointment and in January 2007 as a nominee to the FEC for Senate Confirmation.

"The only apparent reason for President Bush to drop Commissioner David Mason at this stage... is to prevent him from casting an adverse vote against Senator McCain on important enforcement questions pending at the Commission.... President Bush's dumping of Mason can only be viewed as a bald-faced and brazen attempt to wrongly manipulate an important enforcement decision by the nation’s campaign finance enforcement agency.

"The White House action today represents the political equivalent of obstruction of justice.

"It is very similar to the improper way in which the White House and Justice Department previously removed U. S. Attorneys from their positions because of what they did, did not do or might do in various enforcement matters."

The Campaign Legal Center had a similar take. Downside for those on the left, or those interested in an honest brokering of the situation: McCain now has the functioning FEC he needs to be approved for general election public financing and has one fewer pesky commissioner to deal with. Upside: the $4 billion industry known as the federal elections will have oversight for 2008.

Republican Primary Results of Note

Our friends at Reason provide a solid round-up of Republican primary races that were resolved yesterday. Some good news and some bad. Anti-war Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina, subject of a sympathetic 2006 Mother Jones cover story, beat back a challenge from a pro-war candidate.

"I think more and more Republicans are starting to understand after five years that the Iraqis need to step up and take responsibility," Jones said.

Jones retained some strong military support in his district, particularly among retired Marines and other veterans.

"We are close to the veterans and they knew it," Jones said.

On the other hand, anti-sanity Republican Dan Burton of Indiana, subject of a scathing 2008 Mother Jones blog post, topped a Republican primary challenger by seven points, a sizable victory but a much smaller one than Burton is accustomed to in primary or general elections. For more on Burton, see this 1997 MoJo piece from deep in our archives.

Clinton: Damn the Pundits, Full Speed Ahead

The morning after, the Clinton crew was unbowed. As Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night was being creamed by Barack Obama in North Carolina and eking out a narrow victory in Indiana, pundits throughout Cable News Land were pronouncing her dead, dead, dead. Tim Russert said the race was over. But when a reporter on the campaign's morning conference call, asked Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, if there had been "any discussions about not going forward," he said, "No discussions." And he seemed to mean it.

On the call, Wolfson, deputy communications director Phil Singer, and chief strategist Geoff Garin were forward-looking. They claimed to be "happy" about the 1.8-percent win in Indiana--but without sounding at all jubilant about the squeaker. As for North Carolina--where she lost by 14 points--they claimed "progress" there and pointed to the fact that she beat Obama among white voters by 24 points (as if the increasing racial polarization within the Democratic primary electorate is something to celebrate). They acknowledged that Clinton had in recent weeks loaned her campaign nearly $6.5 million--and claimed it was a sign of her commitment to moving ahead and, of course, fighting for real people. They repeated the campaign's call to seat the disputed delegations of Florida and Michigan, and they indicated they were ready to rumble in the upcoming primaries. Voters in those states, Garin said, should be given the ability "to express their voice." He added, "All we are doing is suggesting the process ought to play out."

In other words, damn the pundits, full speed ahead. It appeared that Clinton--faced with three alternatives: fighting on as if nothing has changed, dropping out, or planning a graceful exit strategy--has for the time being settled on option one.

But the voyage got a lot rockier after Indiana and North Carolina. As the cable news analysts pointed out, it is now practically a mathematical certainty that Obama will end the primaries next month with a lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, even if the results in Florida and Michigan are included. So Clinton has run out of metrics. The days of fuzzy math are over. There will be no measure by which she will be able to argue she is the voters' choice. All the campaign is left with is an opinion: Clinton can do better than Obama against John McCain in the fall. Clinton and her lieutenants do have stats to cite, notably her performance among working-class voters (meaning, white working-class voters). She has demonstrated, Wolfson maintained on the call, "a proven ability" to win over these voters, while Obama has not. This is, he added, "the crux of the argument" that the Clinton campaign will be making to the superdelegates. And in the next primary states--West Virginia (May 13), Kentucky (May 20), Oregon (May 20)--Clinton will try to show once more that she fares better among lunch-pail Democrats.

So now Clinton, who passionately insists that democracy demands that the Florida and Michigan contest be counted and that voters in the last few states be granted the opportunity to state their preferences, is left with nothing but the most elitist of strategies: she must convince party insiders--the 300 or so not-yet-committed superdelegates--to vote against the popular will of the voters who participated in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. On the conference call, I asked Garin whether his campaign is essentially stuck with a "nullification strategy." He disputed his campaign's game plan was anything like a "nullification strategy." All delegates--pledged delegates and superdelegates--have "equal moral weight in the process," he said, and the rules of the party "anticipate there will be delegates" who will make "good faith decisions."

That is so. But for Clinton to win, these superdelegates will have to say that they know better than the voters. It is certainly permissible under Democratic Party rules. But might such an action blow apart the party? There is no way for the Clinton campaign to orchestrate this strategy politely or calmly and wrap it up quickly after the primaries conclude on June 3. After all, no superdelegate commitment is solid until he or she actually votes at the convention. Even if Clinton is able to sway enough superdelegates and win the necessary number of commitments, Obama will not fold his tent and accept this as a deal done. He would fight for those superdelegates and, if need be, fight the process. There would be a bloody battle from early June until the first ballot at the convention in late August. Nullification cannot be accomplished neatly. Clinton and her crew must realize that.

I asked Garin if he foresaw any problem if the candidate with the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes was not chosen at the convention. "When we get to June 3, we'll have a very close result," he said. "This might raise the question of how close is close." He didn't answer the question.

Right now, the Clintonites are saying they're not bailing. But in for a penny, in for a pound. The only way she can triumph is by first persuading superdelegates to vote against the wishes of primary voters and caucus-goers and by then mounting an ugly fight that will last for months until the convention--a fight that would likely create consequences that would resonate far beyond the convention.

It may be full speed ahead for Clinton and her gang, but that's only because her finger is on the button and she is considering pushing it.

Would Seating Michigan and Florida Change the Race?

Short answer? No. Here is MSNBC's First Read:

...on the delegate front, if Florida and Michigan were seated as is and Obama got the uncommitted delegates in Michigan, Clinton would net an additional 32 delegates from Florida and 18 from Michigan -- for a total net of 50. So add those numbers into the current pledged delegate count and Obama still would lead in the pledged delegate count by more than 100, approximately 110 in fact. So let's use 110 as the baseline. For Clinton to overtake him in the pledged delegate lead using THEIR math on Florida and Michigan, she'd need to win 75% of all remaining delegates. That's an impossible task. Most importantly, knowing the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee the way we THINK we do, the likelihood of the committee NOT punishing Florida and Michigan in some way (say a cut in half of their delegates a la the Republicans) would then make this FL/MI exercise moot.

I made a less precise version of this point yesterday in a post about how shifting expectations affected the race.