Posts by Faiz Shakir

Faiz Shakir is the Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor of ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report.

A Surge of Confusion (or: John McGaffe Strikes Again)
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on July 25, 2008 at 3:51 AM.

In an interview on Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) asserted that the 2007 troop surge in Iraq "began the Anbar awakening," the process by which Sunni tribal leaders allied with U.S. force and turned against al Qaeda in Iraq. McCain also suggested that to disagree with his version of history "does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed" in Iraq. In fact, it is McCain himself who has done a disservice to history.

The Anbar awakening began in the late summer and early fall of 2006, months before the surge was announced in January 2007. While the Anbar awakening is an important contributor to the drop in violence in Iraq, it is only one of several factors. Meanwhile, the stated goal of the surge -- Iraqi political reconciliation -- remains unmet.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

In Debate Over Permanent Bases In Iraq, U.S. Seeks Authorization For War In Iran
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on June 11, 2008 at 3:10 PM.

The ongoing negotiations between Iraqi leaders and the Bush administration over the future role of the military occupation “have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate.”

The Bush administration’s demand for 58 permanent bases in Iraq — a near doubling of the current 30 bases — are causing Iraqis to warn that the status of forces agreement would be “more abominable than the occupation.” The administration is reportedly holding hostage “some $50bn of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement.”

The reason the White House is so hell-bent on signing a long-term agreement may have less to do with Iraq and more to do with Iran. According to press reports of the ongoing negotiations, the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.” Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party, confirmed:

The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq…if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.

The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.

Other details from press accounts confirm that the Bush administration has one eye on Iran in the course of its negotiations with Iraqis. The Washington Post explains that the administration is seeking “the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.” Moreover, the U.S. wants control over Iraq’s airpsace:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Kucinich Introduces Articles of Impeachment
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on June 10, 2008 at 4:32 AM.

This evening on the House floor, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is presenting 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush to Congress. “The first article Kucinich presented regarded the war in Iraq. ‘Article 1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq.’”

UPDATE: Video of a portion of Kucinich’s speech:

Schumer: "Bush Is Herbert Hoover"
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on March 17, 2008 at 6:17 AM.

As the economy spirals downward into what many economists view is already a recession, President Bush delivered a speech this week expressing confidence “in the ability of the markets” to turn it around.

In 1930, as the U.S economy was sinking into deep recession, President Herbert Hoover said this to Congress:

Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement. Economic wounds must be healed by the action of the cells of the economic body - the producers and consumers themselves.

In his speech this week, Bush echoed Hoover: “The temptation of Washington is to say that anything short of a massive government intervention in the housing market amounts to inaction. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. … Government actions are — have far-reaching and unintended consequences.”

The unfortunate similarities in these statements and attitudes led Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to offer this observation on Fox News this morning:

The President is indeed behaving like Herbert Hoover. We’re in the most serious economic problem we’ve been in in a very long time — much worse than 2001. The President’s hands-off attitude is reminiscent of Herbert Hoover in 1929 and 1930.

Schumer added that this has become “the Bush recession,” while Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) noted that this will be the second recession in this administration.

In an editorial this morning, the New York Times fact-checks Bush’s economic speech:

Mr. Bush boasted about 52 consecutive months of job growth during his presidency. What matters is the magnitude of growth, not ticks on a calendar. The economic expansion under Mr. Bush -- which it is safe to assume is now over -- produced job growth of 4.2 percent. That is the worst performance over a business cycle since the government started keeping track in 1945. […]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Centcom Chief Admiral Resigns After Publicly Opposing Bush on Iran
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on March 11, 2008 at 1:19 PM.

Last week, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino downplayed Fallon’s possible retirement, decrying “rumor mills that don’t turn out to be true.”

Fallon opposed the “surge” in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials’ warmongering rhetoric “not helpful.” He rejected the praise in the Esquire piece, calling it “poison pen stuff.”

A reporter noted to Gates there was a “line in that Esquire story that said basically if Fallon gets fired, it means we’re going to war with Iran. Can you just address that?” Gates responded, “Well that’s just ridiculous.”

UPDATE: Sources at the Pentagon said that Fallon was worried the White House would “perceive the magazine piece as a challenge to the president’s authority, and insisted that couldn’t be further from the truth.”

UPDATE II: Last year, Fallon vowed that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.”

UPDATE III: TPM has Fallon’s statement here.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Condoleezza Rice Was "Bombarded" with Warnings Before 9/11, Commission Biased Against Clarke
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on March 8, 2008 at 5:28 AM.

New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s new book — The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation — paints a damning portrait of Condoleezza Rice. Shenon argues that Rice was “uninterested in actually advising the President,” but was instead more concerned with being his “closest confidante — specifically on foreign policy — and to simply translate his words into action.”

Today’s Sydney Morning Herald prints an extract from Shenon’s book which provides further details about Rice’s incompetence. “Emails from the National Security Council’s counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats” before 9/11, Shenon writes. Some examples:

“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)

“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)

“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)

“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)

“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)

“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)

“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)

But 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikow was not interested in pursuing criticisms against Rice. Zelikow — who had worked closely with Rice on the Bush transition team in 2000 and 2001 — “made it clear to the team’s investigators that Clarke should not be believed, that his testimony would be suspect.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

New Poll: Majority of Americans Support Mandated Purchase of Health Coverage
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on February 29, 2008 at 12:09 PM.

When Medicare was being created in 1964, Ronald Reagan said, "I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program."

To this day, conservatives continue to resist universal programs. In his 2008 State of the Union address, President Bush once again mentioned private health savings accounts, despite the fact that they may increase the number of uninsured Americans. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) similarly touts private plans, saying he wants people to "go out and choose their insurer anywhere in America."

A new poll from NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Harvard School of Public Health, however, finds that most Americans reject conservatives' approach to health care. In fact, the majority of the public supports mandates requiring Americans to purchase health insurance. NPR reports:

When asked whether they would support a broad proposal that would require everyone to get coverage, 59 percent said they would support it. Such a proposal would require employers to provide coverage or pay into a pool. The government would help low-income people get coverage, and insurance companies would be required to take anyone who applies. People who don't get coverage through one of these channels or purchase it themselves would pay a fine.

(click for larger version)

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Iraq Vet to McCain: "How About 1,000 Years of Affordable Health Care?" [VIDEO]
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on February 26, 2008 at 4:44 AM.

VoteVets unveiled a new ad yesterday as part of a campaign, questioning McCain's desire to stay in Iraq for a thousand years. In the ad, Rose Forrest -- an Iraq war veteran -- asks: "How about a thousand years of affordable health care? Or a thousand years of keeping America safe? Can we afford that for my child, Senator McCain? Or have you already promised to spend trillions of our dollars... in Baghdad?" Watch it to your right.

A new poll of swing voters commissioned by US Action found that a huge majority -- 69 percent of them -- support ending the war and reinvesting in health care and new clean energy jobs. A recent AP poll found that 68 percent of Americans believe pulling our troops out of Iraq would help a great deal or somewhat in addressing our faltering economy.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Pat Buchanan: McCain "Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi" [VIDEO]
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on February 6, 2008 at 11:12 AM.

On the NBC Today Show, liberal radio host Rachel Maddow, conservative pundit Pat Buchanan, and Democratic strategist Paul Begala discussed the importance of "change" in the upcoming election. Voters want a "clean break from Bush," argued Maddow. Begala added that McCain does not represent that type of change:

BEGALA: If McCain wins, he's running for a third term for Bush. He wants to make Bush's Iraq war permanent, Bush's economic program permanent.

Buchanan concluded the segment by arguing that McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi." Watch it to your right.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress released a video documenting the fact that the leading Republican candidates are mimicking Bush's policies and are looking to institute a third Bush term.

Mukasey Channels Gonzales, Claims He "Doesn't Know" If Bush Violated FISA
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on January 31, 2008 at 6:59 AM.

In yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Mike Mukasey refused to answer whether Bush had violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act under the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Under questioning from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Mukasey said he "can't contemplate" a situation where President Bush would assert "Article II authority to do something that the law forbids."

Specter shot back, "Well, he did just that in violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act...didn't he?" Mukasey continued to hedge:

MUKASEY:I think we are now in a situation where [that issue] had been brought within statutes, and that's the procedure going forward.

SPECTER: That's not the point. The point is that he acted in violation of statutes, didn't he?

MUKASEY: I don't know whether he acted in violation of statutes.

Specter explained that the question was a no brainer, as FISA "expressly mandates you have to go to a court to get an order for wiretapping. There's really no dispute about that."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain's Campaign Platform: "Less Jobs, More Wars"
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on January 30, 2008 at 5:24 AM.

During the coverage of this evening's Florida primary results, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough discussed the impact of John McCain's victory with Pat Buchanan. The Republican establishment will rally around McCain and say "he's the guy," Buchanan said, but he cautioned that McCain's vision for America was foreboding.

"What does he say? The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're gonna have a lot more wars," Buchanan said of McCain. Scarborough remarked that McCain's "inviting" presidential platform for the fall consists of "less jobs and more wars":

BUCHANAN: Here's a guy, basically, what does he say? The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're gonna have a lot more wars.

SCARBOROUGH: We're gonna start a lot of wars! He has promised, for the record Keith, John McCain's platform -- and it certainly looks inviting for the fall -- he has promised less jobs and more wars. Now that's something we can all rally behind.

While campaigning in Michigan earlier this month, McCain said some Michigan industries cannot be resurrected. "I've got to give you some straight talk: Some of the jobs that have left the state of Michigan are not coming back," he said.

And just this weekend, McCain told a crowd of supporters, "There's going to be other wars. ... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Huckabee Claims Iraq WMD Were Hidden Like "Easter Eggs"
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on January 25, 2008 at 12:09 PM.

During the Republican presidential debate last night, Mike Huckabee suggested that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, but that they were moved prior to the war. In making this observation, Huckabee compared Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to an Easter egg hunt:

Everybody can look back and say, oh well we didn't find the weapons. Doesn't meet that they weren't there. Just because you didn't find every Easter egg didn't mean it wasn't planted.

Chris Matthews pressed Huckabee on this point in an interview after the debate. "Do you believe there are WMD in Iraq that hasn't been found that would have justified the war had we discovered it?" he asked. Huckabee offered this response:

I think it's more likely that that weapons of mass destruction that we know that he at one time had, he used weapons against the Kurds, good chance they may have gone to Jordan. We don't know where they are.

Josh Marshall points out that, "if you keep up on right-wing moonbat orthodoxy," you'll know that it's Syria -- not Jordan -- where they allege the weapons were supposedly smuggled to.

The Bush-commissioned Iraq Survey Group, charged with determining the truth regarding Saddam's weapons programs, declared in its final assessment that "it was unlikely" that any such official transfer to Syria took place:

The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. ... ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria. [...]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Disowns U.S. Intel, Tells Israelis Iran NIE "Doesn’t Reflect My Views"
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on January 14, 2008 at 6:46 AM.

After the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was released, Israel publicly challenged the U.S. intelligence consensus that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program. "In our opinion," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, Iran "has apparently continued that program."

Just days after the NIE was released, Bush quickly announced he would make the first visit to Israel of his presidency to mend differences over Iran.

In private meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week, Newsweek reports that President Bush disowned the U.S. intelligence community's judgments:

But in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week, the president all but disowned the document, said a senior administration official who accompanied Bush on his six-nation trip to the Mideast. "He told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views" about Iran's nuclear-weapons program, said the official, who would discuss intelligence matters only on the condition of anonymity.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Pentagon Hedges on Naval Confrontation with Iran, Admits Threat May Not Have Come from Iranians
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on January 10, 2008 at 2:20 PM.

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said that three of its Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz had been harassed and provoked by Iranian speedboats. The Navy said it had felt so threatened that it was about to open fire on the boats. A four-minute video of the episode provided to the public by the Pentagon contained one particularly harrowing moment:

"I am coming to you," a heavily accented voice says in English. "You will explode after a few minutes."

Navy officials said the voice was recorded from the internationally recognized bridge-to-bridge radio channel.

Some bloggers were immediately skeptical, noting the voice did not sound Iranian. Iran released its own video, arguing the footage did not show any Iranian boats approaching the U.S. vessels, nor any provocation. Today, the Navy acknowledged that the verbal threat made in the tape may not have been Iranian:

"We're saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there," said the spokesperson. "It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. However, it happened in the middle of all the very unusual activity, so as we assess the information and situation, we still put it in the total aggregate of what happened Sunday morning. I guess we're not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we're not saying it absolutely didn't."

Without definitive evidence that it was Iran who was making the provocative verbal threats, Bush nevertheless seized on the episode -- just hours before he was set to depart for the Middle East -- to underscore "his assertion that the Iranians are capable of acting recklessly." "We viewed it as a provocative act," Bush said. Yesterday, he warned Iran, "There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple."

Newshoggers has more.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain Claims Americans Won't Mind If We Stay in Iraq for '10,000 Years'
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on January 7, 2008 at 8:01 AM.

Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said it "would be fine with" him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for "a hundred years" or even a "million years."

Fifty-nine percent say the U.S. should "stick to a withdrawal timetable" instead of keeping "a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years."

But on CBS's Face the Nation, McCain claimed that Americans would not be "concerned" if the U.S. spends "10,000 years" in Iraq:

The point is it's American casualties. We've go to get American's off the frontlines, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities, and then I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years.

As Crooks and Liars notes, on NBC's Meet the Press, McCain further expressed his desire for a permanent Iraq occupation, going as far as to suggest that he supports "permanent bases" in the country:

RUSSERT: Would you have permanent bases?

McCAIN: If that seems to be necessary in some respects. It depends on the threat.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »