Posts by Amanda Terkel

Amanda Terkel is Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Deputy Editor for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress.

In Israel, Bush Lays Down Some Serious Fear-Mongering
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on May 15, 2008 at 4:57 PM.

During today’s press gaggle, reporters pressed White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino about President Bush’s comments implying that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Democrats favor a policy of appeasement toward terrorists. Perino denied that Bush was taking aim directly at Obama, stating that presidential candidates often believe “the world revolves around you.”

However, she wouldn’t refute that his comments were meant to include the senator:

Q: But, so, not aimed at him — do they include him?

PERINO: He’ll have to speak for himself as to what his policy is and you guys can know it well. This was a speech that the President gave to the Knesset. And this is not a new statement by President Bush. This is long-established United States policy, so it should come as no surprise that President Bush suggests that we should not be talking with these people.

Perino’s comments contradict what Bush administration aides are admitting privately. As CNN’s Ed Henry reported earlier today:

White House aides are acknowledging that this was a reference to the fact that Sen. Obama and other Democrats have publicly said that it would be ok for the U.S. President to meet with leaders like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

NBC’s John Yang also said that a White House official told him that Bush’s comments were aimed not only at Obama, but at former President Jimmy Carter and his suggestion that the United States talk with Hamas.

Webb GI Bill Would Encourage Young People to Join the Military
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on May 12, 2008 at 10:03 AM.

The Bush administration has come out strongly against Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) efforts to dramatically expand educational benefits for returning veterans. In a press briefing on May 6, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell warned of the "harm" Webb’s 21st Century GI Bill would do to troop retention and objected to the generous benefits given after "only" two years of service:

But we are certainly concerned that this would be eligible to them after only two years of service. We think pegging it to a longer period of service -- the number we have in mind, at this point, is six years of service -- that the longer you stay in, the sweeter the benefits are to you. ... The last thing we want to do is provide a benefit -- or the last thing we want to do is create a situation in which we are losing our men and women who we have worked so hard to train.

On Friday, the American Legion released a statement criticizing the Bush administration's position and endorsing Webb's bill:

"This bill would encourage young men and women to join the military," [National Commander Marty] Conatser said. "As far as retention goes, the CBO estimates that a simple $8,000 bonus to personnel at their first enlistment point would increase reenlistments by 2 percentage points. Another way to encourage mid-level servicemembers to stay in the military is to transfer GI Bill benefits to family members so the servicemember can remain in the military and still benefit from the program."

As Conatser points out, any declines in reenlistment would be made up for by increases in recruitment. The recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assessment found that Webb’s bill, which would "more than double the present value of educational benefits for servicemembers at the first reenlistment point," would result in a 16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate. However, it would also "result in a 16 percent increase in recruits."

Conatser also addressed criticisms that the GI Bill is too expensive, pointing out that the "bulk of that cost is paid for by the men and women who wear the uniform. Benefits are just a small, small cost of war."

Conservatives Retreat into Fox's Media Bubble
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on April 28, 2008 at 3:31 PM.

A new analysis by University of Georgia associate professor Barry Hollander finds that between 1998 and 2006, Americans became increasingly polarized in their news-gathering habits. After examining five national Pew Center for the People and the Press during that time period, Hollander concluded that the public now lives in “a huge echo chamber of attitudes and ideas.”

The Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Political Insider reports:

In 1998, 27 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of Democrats tuned in regularly to Atlanta-based CNN. Eight years later, the number of Democrats had risen to 29 percent.

But the number of Republicans who tuned in to CNN had shrunk to 19 percent. Gosh, where do you think they went?

Over the same period, Fox News’ share of Republican viewers jumped from 14 to 36 percent.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

What Does The State Department Have Against Nelson Mandela?
Posted by Amanda Terkel on April 14, 2008 at 11:40 AM.

Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made headlines when she condemned the “embarrassing” U.S. travel restrictions on former South African President Nelson Mandela. “I really do hope we can remove these restrictions” on the African National Congress, said Rice. But as Vanity Fair reports, Rice’s State Department has repeatedly fought a bill that would remove the restrictions on Mandela:

To redress this injustice, Rep. Howard L. Berman (D—CA) introduced a bill last week that would lift all such travel restrictions on A.N.C. officials. […]

But a conversation VF Daily had with a Capitol Hill staffer familiar with the subject makes Rice’s statement seem either disingenuous or out of step with recent State Department policy. According to this source, the bill was drafted more than five years ago but was adamantly opposed by State and the Republican-controlled Congress. Lawyers at the State Department “fought it tooth and nail,” arguing that if the A.N.C. was removed from the list then other groups would want to be removed, too, the staffer said.

A State Department spokesman “said she was not aware of any past resistance to the bill and reinforced Rice’s recent statement.”

Glenn Beck Rants Against Endangered Polar Bears: "They Eat People! They’re Big, Angry Bears!"
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on April 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM.

Last night on his CNN Headline News show, right-wing pundit Glenn Beck hosted global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). Beck allowed Inhofe to rant about how — with “all the liberals” running the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works — he was forced to sit through hearings on “that nice white fuzzy polar bear.”

Inhofe argued that the polar bear population isn’t endangered. “[I]f anything, it’s an overpopulation problem,” said Inhofe. Beck then jumped in and claimed that, in fact, the extinction of polar bears may be a good thing:

They eat people! For the love of Pete, they’re big, angry bears. They eat people. Not that I say we go out and kill all of them, but I mean, it doesn’t seem to be a problem here. Senator, I can’t take the — I can’t take the lies anymore.

There is currently an estimated 20,000-25,000 polar bears worldwide who are threatened with “losing their habitat and becoming extinct over the next 50 years” because of global warming and melting sea ice. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that without action, “11 of the 19 subpopulations will be extinct by the middle of this century, with an additional three subpopulations vanishing shortly thereafter.”

On Wednesday, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne skipped a Senate hearing on listing the polar bear as a threatened species. His agency missed a Jan. 9 deadline to decide on classifying the polar bear, in violation of the Endangered Species Act, according to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

Perhaps if little furry bunnies — which do not eat people — were endangered, Beck would want to save them.

Transcript:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

HUD Head Evicted: White House Officials "Questioned Ability to Lead the Agency"
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on March 31, 2008 at 10:08 AM.

Today, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Alphonso Jackson announced his resignation, effective April 18, marking the exit of one of Bush’s few remaining holdovers from Texas. CNN’s Ed Henry reports that Jackson is departing because he has “been struggling privately” with ethics allegations.

The Washington Post reports that officials summoned Jackson to the White House last Monday, and “discussed his ability to continue to lead the agency.” Jackson faces ongoing probes “by a federal grand jury, the Justice Department, the FBI and the HUD inspector general.” At least five lawmakers have called on Jackson to resign, including Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Barney Frank (D-MA).

In May 2007, Jackson testified to Congress, “I don’t touch contracts.” In retrospect, that statement appears to have been at best a gross inaccuracy, and at worst, an outright lie. A look at Jackson’s tenure of incompetence and corruption:

Loyalty Over Merits: During a speech on April 28, 2006, Jackson recounted a conversation he had with a prospective contractor who had a “heck of a proposal.” This contractor, however, told Jackson, “I don’t like President Bush.” Jackson subsequently refused to award the man the contract. A former HUD assistant secretary confirmed that Jackson told agency employees to “consider presidential supporters when you are considering the selected candidates for discretionary contracts.”

Political Retaliation: In 2006, Jackson allegedly demanded that the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) “transfer a $2 million public property” at a “substantial discount” to Kenny Gamble, a developer, former soul-music songwriter, and friend of Jackson’s. When PHA director Carl Greene refused, Jackson and his aides called Philadelphia’s mayor and “followed up with ‘menacing’ threats about the property and other housing programs in at least a dozen letters and phone calls over an 11-month period.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Krugman on Bush and McCain's Housing Crisis Response: "It’s Like Katrina" to Say "Let People Suffer"
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on March 31, 2008 at 4:39 AM.

Last week, Sen. McCain spoke to the Orange County Hispanic Small Business Roundtable in California on solving the nation's economic woes. During that speech, he stated that he does not believe the federal government should assist struggling homeowners:

I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.

McCain instead advocated a laissez faire approach, saying that he would “convene a meeting of the nation's accounting professionals” and “top mortgage lenders” and try to persuade them to voluntarily help Americans.

Today on ABC This Week, former Labor secretary Robert Reich and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman compared McCain’s approach to Herbert Hoover. “John McCain makes Herbert Hoover look like an activist,” said Reich. Krugman then added that ignoring the housing crisis is just as bad as the administration’s response after Hurricane Katrina:

It would be a little different if the administration said housing prices are going up. If they hadn’t said there’s no bubble. It’s a national disaster in effect. It’s like Katrina. To say, oh, let people suffer, saying let those people who made the mistake of staying in New Orleans suffer.

On March 16, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) also said, “The President's hands-off attitude is reminiscent of Herbert Hoover in 1929 and 1930.”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Gives Out Wrong Number for Home Owner Help Hotline
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on March 29, 2008 at 3:47 PM.

Yesterday, President Bush visited Novadebt, a credit counseling service in New Jersey, to promote his Hope Now Alliance, which is intended to help homeowners facing foreclosure. But while there, Bush gave out the wrong toll-free number (despite a large sign with the correct number hanging behind him).

Danny Cerchiaro, a homeowner attending Bush’s speech, “whispered” the correct number “in Bush’s ear” after the speech. Bush then quickly returned to the lectern and recited the correct number:

There are hundreds of thousands of homeowners like Theresa and Danny who can benefit from calling HOPE NOW. And so one of my purposes is to make it clear there is a place where you can get counseling. And I want my fellow citizens, if you’re worried about your home, to call this number: 188-995-HOPE [sic]. Let me repeat that again: 188-995-HOPE. […]

Thank you all very much.

Danny just told me I’ve got to get the number right — 1-888-995-HOPE.

This isn’t the first time Bush has given out the wrong Hope Now number. In December 2007, Bush told the American public that the number was 1-800-995-HOPE, instead of 1-888-995-HOPE, leading people to call a Christian education academy near Dallas.

Cheney on 2/3 of Americans Opposing Iraq War: "So What?"
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on March 19, 2008 at 11:15 AM.

This morning, on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, ABC's Good Morning America aired an interview with Vice President Cheney on the war. During the segment, Cheney flatly told White House correspondent Martha Raddatz that he doesn't care about the American public's views on the war:

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there's a general consensus that we've made major progress, that the surge has worked. That's been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it's not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ: So? You don't care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

This opposition to the war is not a "fluctuation" in public opinion. The American public has steadily turned against the war since the 2003 invasion. According to a new CNN poll, just 36 percent of the American public believes that "the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over -- down from 68 percent in March 2003, when the war began."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

White House Blames Bad Arabic Translation for Confusion Over Agreement with Iraq
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on March 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM.

In November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki signed a non-binding “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship” that committed America to defending Iraq:

Supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats. […]

Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.

After facing intense criticism from lawmakers, the White House backed off, recently stating that arrangement is “not going to have a security guarantee.” Officials are now trying to come up with excuses to explain away their initial bumbling as well. Their latest? The long-term agreement was incorrectly translated from Arabic to English. Politico reports:

But the senior administration official, who briefed two Politico reporters on the condition that he not be identified by name, said that the “security assurances” phrase “was something we struggled with, it really was.” He said the original Arabic phrase was “translated in kind of an interesting way,” and that a better translation might have been, “We'll consult.”

This excuse seems unlikely. First, White House officials have never before mentioned it. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said that the administration “certainly did not speak to this unfortunate translation from Arabic” when it briefed senators on the planned agreement recently. Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) also said that he hadn’t heard the argument.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Says Americans Must Thank Telecoms for Spying on Them, It's "Patriotic Service"
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on March 13, 2008 at 9:07 AM.

Today, all three networks carried President Bush’s address to the American public bashing the House’s compromise wiretapping legislation. During the speech, Bush once again criticized the American public for failing to fully appreciate the patriotic sacrifices of the nation’s telecoms:

Companies that may have helped us save lives should be thanked for their patriotic service, not subjected to billion-dollar lawsuits that would make them less willing to help in the future.

The House bill may be good for class action trial lawyers, but it would be terrible for the United States.

Claiming that telecoms are patriotic corporations that should be thanked by the American public is Bush’s latest talking point in his push for retroactive immunity, but hardly his only one. A look at Bush’s claims:

1. The House bill “would require the disclosure of state secrets.” The House’s compromise legislation specifically addresses this issue by allowing “defendants in civil lawsuits would have the right to present classified evidence to the judge in such cases, without the plaintiffs being present.” [Link]

2. Without granting telecoms immunity, Americans won’t be “safe from terrorist attack.” Telecoms have continued to cooperate with the administration’s wiretapping since the expiration of the Protect America Act. Intelligence officials now simply need to get a warrant to carry out surveillance; warrants can even be obtained after the surveillance has begun. [Link; Link]

3. The House bill is “good for class action trial lawyers.” In reality, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in these cases work in “small” nonprofits with “tiny” budgets. If anyone’s looking for a “financial gravy train,” it’s conservatives, who are “griping” that their efforts to protect telecoms haven’t yielded more contributions from the industry. [Link; Link]

4. Telecoms should be “thanked for their patriotic service.” These corporations chose to break the law and profited greatly from doing so. At least one company refused to comply with the Bush administration’s request because it knew the actions were illegal. [Link]

Maybe Americans should tell the telecoms they’re doing a heckuva job.

Transcript:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Bush Debt Totals $7.7 Trillion
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on March 12, 2008 at 5:57 AM.

Today, lawmakers took to the Senate floor and blasted President Bush’s wasteful spending. To fully illustrate the impact, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), brought up a chart showing the budget plans of President Clinton versus the budget formulated by Bush. He concluded that by squandering Clinton’s government surplus, Bush has cost the country $7.7 trillion:

This next chart illustrates the value of the differences between the budget landscape planned by President Clinton and the one created by President Bush. As you can see, the difference between the two is a staggering $7.7 trillion. This number represents the fiscal harm that President Bush has inflected on our nation. This number is the Bush debt. […]

Like most concepts of enormous size, this amount takes some thought to comprehend. $7.7 trillion is $25,000 owed by every adult or child in the United States.

The federal budget deficit is currently at “$87.7 billion so far this budget year, double the $42.2 billion imbalance recorded during the same period in 2007.”

Additionally, five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, national unemployment is going up. Between December 2006 and December 2007, the national unemployment rate increased by 13.6 percent in seasonally adjusted terms, from 4.4 to 5.0 percent. Additionally, 68 percent of the American public believes that redeployment from Iraq would help fix the country’s economic woes.

Transcript:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

How Bad Has McCain Been on Iraq? He Even Backed Chalabi
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on March 10, 2008 at 6:35 AM.

Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi was one of the most sordid figures in the run-up to the Iraq war. Paid by the Bush administration to muster pre-war intelligence, Chalabi drummed up claims that Saddam Hussein had WMD, helping lead the United States into war. More recently, he promoted the “surge” to the Iraqi government.

A new book by Aram Roston reveals that Chalabi supported John McCain (R-AZ) for president in 2000, believing that the senator would be the most receptive to his agenda. Muckraked reports:

One of his key backers has been John McCain, who was one of the first patrons of Chalabi’s grand-sounding International Committee for a Free Iraq when it was founded in 1991. McCain was Chalabi’s favored candidate in the 2000 election since Chalabi knew that he would be able to free up the $97 million in military aid plus millions pushed through in Congress and earmarked for Chalabi’s exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, but held up by the Clinton State Department.

Indeed, McCain was a Chalabi backer long before President Bush took power. In 1997, he tried to pressure the Clinton administration into setting up an Iraqi government in exile. Despite opposition from the Pentagon and the State Department, the next fall, McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, committing the United States to overthrowing Saddam and funding opposition groups. According to a 2006 article by John Judis:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »