Dec 04, 2008
Can Obama Do Change?
Posted By Jerry
Immediately after his election, President-elect Barack Obama was properly deferential to George W. Bush and the U. S. Constitution: "We have only one president at a time." However, it has not worked out that way. Obama has dominated the news every day, with multiple press conferences announcing his teams of advisors and Cabinet appointments while answering questions on foreign and domestic policies. At the same time he makes personal appearances (60 minutes, Meet the Press, etc.) designed to establish close relationships with the citizens.
Clearly, the US has two presidents in effect. As Bush recedes in public consciousness, the outgoing president seems baffled by the Obama phenomenon. Plaintively, he told Charlie Gibson on ABC television that he ran for president in 2000 on a program for change and before that had been elected governor of Texas promising change. Then he giggled.
Some Obama supporters are questioning his appointments drawn from the pool of establishment figures who had worked in high positions in the Clinton and Bush administrations. They worry whether such people can deliver the change promised by Obama in his presidential campaign. There are also complaints that significant sectors of the electorate are unrepresented, particularly labor, liberals and anti-Iraq war activists. Obama supporters also worry that he will not receive a full range of options from teams of centrist advisors. While his appointment of Republicans will give the president the views of the right, it is not matched by views from the left. And this is a Democratic president.
Dec 03, 2008
Obama appoints his national security team
Posted By John Isaacs
President-elect Obama made his first significant appointments of officials who will focus on national security issues.
Confirming many stories, New York Senator Hillary Clinton will become Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will remain as Secretary of Defense.
In addition, General James Jones, USMC (Ret) wiill become National Security Adviser and Susan Rise was name U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Two more appointments related to national security: Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security: Governor Janet Napolitano and Attorney General: Eric Holder.
While there has been considerable buzz about whether the appointees represent the change promised by the President-elect, there is likely to be agreement on an early agenda for the team:
Begin the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq;
An exploration of negotiations with Iran;
Improved relations with Russia;
Continuation of the Bush Administration's efforts to persuade North Korea to eliminate its nuclear weapons;
Resurrection of serious talks to solve the Middle East morass;
Extension of the START I nuclear arms treaty and deep cuts in nuclear weapons;
Expansion of nuclear non-proliferation programs.
Click here for the full list of open key positions, including transition personnel.
Dec 03, 2008
Update on MN Recount for Al Franken
Posted By Katie
The recount in Minnesota for the race between incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R) and Council-endorsed Al Franken (D) is still underway - and seemingly far from over.
According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, two recent events have benefitted the challenger. They report,
Franken unexpectedly picked up 37 votes due to a combined machine malfunction and human error on Election Day that left 171 Maplewood ballots safe, secure but uncounted until Tuesday's final day of recounting in Ramsey County.
In addition, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's office,
asked local election officials to examine an estimated 12,000 rejected absentee ballots and determine whether their rejection fell under one of four reasons for rejection defined in state law. The Secretary of State's office asked that ballots that were rejected for something other than the four legal reasons be placed into a so-called "fifth category."
This is no guarantee that the ballots will be counted, but it is seen as a move that would benefit Franken, whose internal numbers show that the the candidates' vote totals could be within 50 votes of each other. Official results show a difference of 303 votes - significantly higher than Franken's internal numbers, but a tiny percentage of the more than two million votes cast.
The campaigns have challenged more than 6,000 ballots, moves which are sure to extend the fight for this seat beyond the date that all ballots are re-counted.
Know Minnesota well, and want the results county-by-county? Check out the recount on the Star Tribune's website.
Dec 03, 2008
Chambliss pulls out victory in GA run-off
Posted By Katie
Media reports last night indicated that progressive candidate Jim Martin of Georgia (D) lost his election bid to incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R). With 96% of precints in, according to the New York Times, Chambliss led Martin 57.5% to 42.5%.
Most sources attribute the substantial victory to the significantly lower voter turnout in the run-off than in the general election. Just over half the voters who participated in the general election came out for yesterday's run-off. Among those groups with significantly lower voter turnout were African Americans, who had been a key support group for Martin in the general election.
Chambliss's victory may prevent Democrats from attaining a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate, but the mere fact that this race - seen months ago as a lock for the incumbent - came down to a run-off can be seen as a victory for progressives in an election where voters overwhelmingly rejected the neo-conservative policies of the last eight years.
Dec 02, 2008
Experts respond to WMD report
Posted By Travis
The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation and Terrorism released its final report today: World at Risk.
The Commission was created by HR 1, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, in order to “address the grave threat that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses to our country.”
The panel was chaired by former Democratic Senator Bob Graham and former Republican Senator Jim Talent.
Leading experts from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the Council's sister organization, issued reactions to the Commission’s findings. Read how the wonks get down after the jump.
Dec 02, 2008
The end is in sight
Posted By Travis
John Isaacs, executive director at Council for a Livable World (and green tie guy at left), has a new op-ed out in the Guardian UK this afternoon. Text is below.
The End is in Sight
By John Isaacs
Published in the Guardian UK on December 2, 2008
The security agreement signed by the United States and Iraq and approved by the Iraqi parliament last week marks the beginning of the end of the American occupation.
It is about time. For more than six years, this war has undermined the American position in the world, trampled Iraqi sovereignty and caused over 4,000 American and 176 British combat deaths – not to mention tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties.
Robert McNamara's Vietnam war-era claim that we can see "the light at the end of the tunnel" now appears to actually be true in Iraq.
President-elect Barack Obama, in a December 1 press conference, agreed that the war is in its end-game. The US-Iraq agreement, Obama said, "points us in the right direction. It indicates we are now on a glide path to reduce our forces in Iraq."
The agreement mandates that "all US combat forces" withdraw from urban areas in Iraq by June 30, 2009, and that "all US forces" withdraw from the country by December 31, 2011. The agreed-to language upholds Iraq's "sovereign right" to demand the departure of US forces anytime and recognizes the United States' "sovereign right" to remove its forces earlier than the end of 2011.
This timetable is consistent with Obama's pledge, stated over and over during the election campaign, to remove all US combat troops within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.
Indeed, the agreement to remove all American forces by the end of 2011 goes beyond Obama's promises, as he has talked of leaving a residual force in Iraq indefinitely to train and equip Iraqi security forces, fight terrorists and protect remaining American personnel. Obama may well run up against an Iraqi desire to be rid of American troops once and for all.
When negotiations began more than a year ago, those opposed to the continuation of the war feared the worst. It would be, they thought, an attempt by President George Bush to tie the hands of his successor. Anti-Iraq war activists also believed the agreement was an effort to leave a permanent American presence in Iraq with the control of oil substantially in American hands.
However, Iraqi government officials, concerned with the appearance of ceding too much power to the Americans, forced many concessions from the Bush administration. Indeed, the agreement represents a stunning reversal for the Bush administration, which until now rejected any timeline for troop withdrawals and clearly saw Iraq as an outpost and demonstration of America's military power in the Middle East.
Instead, no matter how Iraq turns out in the end, this war will be marked by historians as a disaster in both conception and implementation.
The beginning of the end of the war does not mean that there will not be many hiccups along the way. While there are fewer casualties than before, there is little doubt that fighting may flare up again. There is still very little agreement on power sharing between the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds, and those groups may resume violent clashes in the future.
Moreover, the accord included a number of ambiguities that could grow into sore points. The two countries left vague the freedom of action for US soldiers, future security commitments and the protection of Iraqi assets.
And while the Iraqi parliament, and perhaps the Iraqi people through a future referendum, have been required to approve the agreement before it can go into affect, President Bush refused to submit the agreement for approval to the US Congress.
Still the agreement, combined with the coming to power of a new American president who opposed the war in the first place, means that American military involvement in Iraq is finally coming to an end.
Dec 01, 2008
There’s not a dime’s worth of difference
Posted By Ashley
The media has been all abuzz with the formal announcement that Obama's former favorite foe has been appointed Secretary of State. But, most of that coverage has been focused on exaggerated disagreements during the presidential campaign and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, all of which miss the point.
On policy, Obama and Hillary are not night and day, but more like 4:30 and 4:45.
“When it comes to foreign policy, Obama and Clinton agree far more than they disagree,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World. To paraphrase the late Alabama Governor George Wallace, Isaacs added: “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy.”
Isaacs based his assessment on a thorough examination of Obama and Clinton’s Senate voting records; national security platforms as laid out in articles and op-eds; and responses to queries in debates, public appearances, and questionnaires.
Isaac's analysis compares and contrasts their policy positions on Iraq, Iran, nuclear weapons, missile defense, and other relevant foreign policy issues. Read his full analysis here.
Dec 01, 2008
It's Not Hillary, It's the Policy Stupid!
Posted By Ashley
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the chairman of our sister organization just published an op-ed co-authored with former congressional Rep. Tom Andrews. With all the media attention that the Hillary as Secretary of State has been receiving, Tom and Gen. Gard take us back to what really matters, the policy.
It's Not Hillary, It's the Policy Stupid!
by Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.) and Tom Andrews
The media obsession over who's in and who's out of consideration for the Obama Cabinet brings the admonition on the famous "War Room" wall of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign to mind: "It's the Economy Stupid!" Those of us eagerly awaiting relief from the debacle called the Bush administration should avoid getting swept up the in DC parlor game of who is getting what position in the new administration and focus instead on the fundamental changes we need the Obama administration to start making. In short, "It's the Policy Stupid!"
President Obama will begin his presidency with enormous good will from the American people and great hope from the world at large. It is imperative that he seize this opportunity by quickly moving his campaign pledges into bold and decisive action despite the opposition that surely awaits him.
Nov 26, 2008
CLW supports U.S.-Iraq security agreement
Posted By Travis
This morning Council for a Livable World sent out a press release on the U.S.-Iraq status of forces agreement (known as a 'SOFA'). Text is below.
Washington, D.C. -- Council for a Livable World, a leading anti-Iraq war organization, announced its support today for the status of forces agreement recently signed by the United States and Iraq.
Iraqi and American negotiators have been working on the pact for over a year. The Iraqi parliament is expected to vote on the agreement on Wednesday. To pass, the agreement needs to get 138 votes out of 275 Iraqi lawmakers and also must be ratified by the Iraqi presidential council.
“Given where we find ourselves today, we see the agreement as the best way for the United States to leave Iraq promptly and responsibly,” said John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World. "The agreement reflects the views held by the majority of Iraqis and Americans that it is time for U.S. combat forces to start getting out of Iraq.”
Isaacs is available for comment today (Wednesday, November 26) from Washington, DC until 3PM.
The agreement mandates that “all U.S. combat forces” withdraw from urban areas in Iraq by June 30, 2009, and that “all U.S. forces” withdraw from the country by December 31, 2011. The agreement upholds Iraq’s “sovereign right” to demand the departure of U.S. forces anytime and recognizes the United States’ “sovereign right” to remove its forces earlier than the end of 2011.
For more information about the agreement, see the in depth analysis online.
The agreement also bars permanent American bases in Iraq, prohibits the United States from using Iraqi territory to launch attacks against other nations, and bars any residual U.S. forces in Iraq beyond the end of 2011.
“The signing of this agreement, along with the election of a new president who ran on a platform to end the war in Iraq, suggests that anti-Iraq war efforts have not been in vain,” added Isaacs. “Primary credit of course goes to the Iraqis. They drove a hard bargain.”
As with any complicated accord, not every part of the status of forces agreement is perfect. Downsides include both the Bush administration's refusal to send the agreement to Congress for approval and various ambiguities in the text that could lead to future disputes.
“Question marks remain in the agreement concerning freedom of action for U.S. soldiers, vague security commitments, and protection of Iraqi assets,” said Travis Sharp, a defense analyst at Council for a Livable World who studied the agreement. “Thankfully the text provides President-elect Barack Obama with flexibility to amend or cancel the agreement if he needs to.”
Nov 26, 2008
Galbraith: SOFA is 'stunning and humiliating' for Bush
Posted By Travis
Cross posted from Iraq Insider
Peter Galbraith, a top Iraq expert and former ambassador to Croatia, issued a statement today on the status of forces agreement (SOFA) recently signed by the United States and Iraq.
Galbraith serves as senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the Council's sister organization.
He said:
“The agreement represents a stunning and humiliating reversal of course by the Bush administration, which had vehemently opposed any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. For the last two years, President Bush has pretended that Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki is a democrat and an American ally. In fact, Maliki is a sectarian Shiite politician who heads a government dominated by pro-Iranian religious parties. The U.S. presence now no longer serves the interests of Iraq’s ruling Shiite religious parties or their Iranian allies, so we are now being asked to leave. While U.S. withdrawal is made easier by the fact that both the Iraqi government and the new U.S. administration want American troops out, the confluence of events leading to the agreement underscores the folly of President Bush’s lost Iraq war."
Of course, we timed this statement to come out this morning because the Iraqi parliament was supposed to vote on the SOFA today. Now, however, it appears that not only has the vote been postponed until tomorrow, but the Shiites and Kurds also have acquiesced to a Sunni demand to hold a national referendum on the SOFA next year. Even if the SOFA is approved by parliament tomorrow, it could still be rescinded if it is rejected in the referendum next year.
I don't know if this is democracy, but the lack of any clear schedule and the multiple layers of caveats does remind me of the United States Senate. Now, if only we could get these guys to brawl the way the Iraqis have recently.
