You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (61)

PLAYS: (213)

July 23, 2009 CNN

CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. Look at this. I mean, there have been nearly 20 drone strikes in Pakistan alone already this year. And the Air Force says this unmanned aircraft program is only where manned aircraft were in the 1920s.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LAWRENCE (voice-over): A U.S. counterterrorism official says Osama bin Laden's son is probably dead. There's not enough evidence to be sure, but officials believe Saad bin Laden was killed in a missile strike by an unmanned Predator drone.

On Monday, the Air Force outlined where it wants to go with unmanned aircraft systems -- drones able to switch from refueling missions to long-range assault, or remote operator controlling several planes at once?

LT. GEN. DAVID DEPTULA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR INTELLIGENCE: ... which allows us to project power without projecting as much vulnerability.

LAWRENCE: But that distance can also be a weakness. Bombings by drones have been blamed for civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And in those cultures, some see it as cowardly to fight remotely, possibly leading to a loss of respect and support for U.S. forces.

In 2004, unmanned drones were running five combat air patrols, compared to 35 a day now. But in that time, one thing has remained relatively constant.

DEPTULA: We have become accustomed to operating in battle space that we control.

LAWRENCE: Meaning there's no enemy jets trying to shoot them down. The Air Force admits it's got a ways to go before drones can survive on that battlefield.

DEPTULA: Because some of the systems that we have today you put in a high threat environment, and they'll start falling from the sky like rain.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAWRENCE: But they are making progress. Right now, each combat air patrol takes about 10 pilots to operate. In a few years, they expect to reduce that to five. And eventually, ,about half the patrols would be fully automated and need no pilots -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Chris Lawrence, thank you.

Obama is apparently preparing to carry through on his campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and Bob Gates has instructed the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for doing so (h/t Kat). Steve Benen and Kevin Drum are both happy that Obama isn't backing away from his promise, and so am I. But the plan seems to involve closing Gitmo within two years, and that's too long.

It means that for two years detainees, many of them innocent of all charges as even the Bush administration nowadays has been forced to admit, will either continue to be subjected to kangaroo courts rebranded as "tribunals" or held in illegal imprisonment if tribunals are suspended. It means that those who ordered illegal rendition, torture, years of imprisonment without trial, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions and the trashing of America's legal system so as to allow evidence obtained by torture to be admissable while habeas corpus pleas were not will have an extra two years to argue by proxy that criminal charges would be politically inadvisable.  It will mean two years in which Obama's administration and its foreign policy goals will be tarred abroad with the brush that Bush fashioned, because the rest of the world looks at America and doesn't distinguish as carefully between administrations as do partisan Americans.

And most importantly, it means two more years of the greatest gift to terrorist recruitment, which means more people will die. "Matthew Alexander", the Air Force Major who was an interrogator in Iraq and has been highly critical of "enhanced interrogation" told Scott Horton in an interview published Friday:

The number-one reason foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq to fight is the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. The majority of suicide bombings are carried out by foreign fighters who volunteered and came to Iraq with this motivation. Consequently it is clear that at least hundreds but more likely thousands of American lives (not to count Iraqi civilian deaths) are linked directly to the policy decision to introduce the torture and abuse of prisoners as accepted tactics. Americans have died from terrorist attacks since 9/11; those Americans just happen to be American soldiers. This is not simply my view–it is widely held among senior officers in the U.S. military today. Alberto Mora, who served as General Counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “U.S. flag-rank officers maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq–as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat–are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”

Continue reading »

CAF's Research Director Eric Lotke discusses the "Investment Deficit" report.

On November 18th, the Campaign for America's Future, a progressive think-tank, launched a report that called for a massive investment to create jobs and restore America's neglected infrastructure. Now, President-Elect Obama has promised to deliver exactly that.

In launching their report, CAF authors Eric Lotke, Alex Carter, Brian Dockstader, Schuyler Beckwith and Molly Swartz wrote:

America is falling apart. Falling apart, and falling behind.

Previous generations of Americans built interstate highways and transcontinental railroads. Now we sit in traffic.

Americans from an earlier era pioneered universal primary education and chartered great universities on public land. They enacted the G.I. bill to give the greatest generation the access to college that helped build our modern middle class. Nowadays American students toil in overcrowded classrooms with leaky roofs, while the cost of college soars out of reach.

America grew up investing in its land and its people. Historically, we directed roughly 8 percent of our gross domestic product to long-range investments, and the investment paid off. Now we are down below 4 percent. Our post World War II infrastructure is starting to decay, and we aren’t replacing it. We are lamenting the loss of jobs rather than hiring people to renew and rebuild.

Other countries are racing past. China spends 9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure investment and opens a new subway system every year.

...As this report is released, America’s economy is in a deep downturn, which is now spreading across the globe. A major recovery program is essential to lift this economy from what is likely to be the worst recession since the Great Depression. Direct public investment—in new energy and conservation, in modernizing our infrastructure, in education and training, and research and development—should be the centerpiece of any recovery plan. That is not only necessary to lift the economy in the short run; it is a vital down payment on the sustained public investment that we need to sustain a competitive and decent society in a global economy.

(You can read the full report here in PDF format.)

Today, Obama announced what will doubtless be one of his centerpiece domestic policies for his first term, along with healthcare reform.

I have already directed my economic team to come up with an Economic Recovery Plan that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011 — a plan big enough to meet the challenges we face that I intend to sign soon after taking office. We’ll be working out the details in the weeks ahead, but it will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels; fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.

These aren’t just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis; these are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long. And they represent an early down payment on the type of reform my administration will bring to Washington — a government that spends wisely, focuses on what works, and puts the public interest ahead of the same special interests that have come to dominate our politics.

On domestic issues, at least, Obama seems prepared to listen to - and act upon - the ideas of his progressive base. A big commitment to a minumum baseline of infrastructure spending seems far more reasonable and rational than the same idea being applied to military spending. And given the economic situation right now, it would seem impossible to do both without the kind of massive deficit spending Obama has already said he won't enter into. That's something that gives me hope that Obama's foreign and national security policies won't end up quite as hawkish as the seem to be tending right now. 

And now for some good news.

Last May, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten instructed federal agency heads to make sure any new regulations were finalized by Nov. 1. The memo didn’t spell it out, but the thinking behind the directive was obvious. As Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute put it: “We’re not going to make the same mistakes the Clinton administration did.”

... But that strategy doesn’t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996.

The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment — Oct. 3, in this case — is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. The new Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.

In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress.

Given how often the Bush administration have sidelined Congress to push their own policies, the notion that a majority of Congress can so easily sideline Bush's last six months in office has a delicious sense of karma about it.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Democratic lawmakers are planning a massive infrastructure package as an economic stimulus after the November elections.

"Not only is Wall Street frozen, but Main Street is in real trouble. A stimulus aimed at Main Street makes sense," New York Sen. Charles Schumer told CNN.

He said the plan should "get into the guts of the economy" by boosting spending on infrastructure such as roads, sewer and water projects.

Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who served under President Bill Clinton, told CNN that an infrastructure plan that could quickly pump money into the economy was the most important action that U.S. authorities could take to help deal with the current economic crisis.

"I would put in place an infrastructure piece... bridges, water systems roads, highways, but not new projects that are going to take a long time to set up," Rubin said. "There are a lot of existing projects where states and cities are having a hard time finding a lot of financing where you could funnel that money right into existing activities where you would be able to act very very quickly."

Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told ABC he'll be spearheading the House version of the package.

Meanwhile, Republicans are apparently set on "staying the course" on tax cuts, which have failed to prevent the economy getting into such dire straits in the first place.

Continue reading »

  Uninsured Americans will spend $30 billion a year in out of pocket expenses and incur another $56 billion in government-subsidized expenses, says a new study for healthaffairs.org by Jack Hadley of George Mason University in Virginia and a team at the Urban Institute.

"The uninsured receive a lot less care than the insured, and they pay a greater percentage of it out of pocket. Contrary to popular myth, they are not all free riders," Hadley said.

Current estimates show that 47 million Americans lack any health insurance, and 28 million have gone without for some part of the year. The U.S. Census bureau is scheduled to release new estimates on Tuesday.

The study goes on to suggest that if the uninsured were covered, they would spend more on healthcare. An insured person spends about $100 dollars more a year, on average, out of their own pocket than does someone without insurance.

And in the meantime, Sen. Bernie Sanders has a sensible suggestion for a filler measure.

For a relatively small amount of money, we can provide primary health care to every American in need of it through an expansion of the successful Federally Qualified Health Center program.  On a budget of only $2 billion a year, this program, which has enjoyed widespread bipartisan support, now provides primary health care, dental care, mental health counseling, and low-cost prescription drugs to 17 million people through 1,100 health center organizations in every region of the country for an average cost of $125 per patient per year.  The doors of these centers are open to all, including patients with Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, or no insurance at all, with sliding-scale fees.

... for a total of $8.3 billion a year, we could have 4,800 centers caring for 56 million people in every medically-underserved region of the country.

This upfront investment – which constitutes less than 0.5 percent of overall U.S. spending on health care – would more than pay for itself. The centers are among the most cost efficient federal programs in existence today.  On average, medical expenses at health centers are 41 percent lower than in other health care settings. 

Most importantly, from a financial point of view, by treating people when they should be treated, we can save billions by keeping patients away from emergency rooms and expensive hospitalizations. 

What's not to like?

[McCain speaking in front of the NRA in May, 2008]

John McCain's campaign won't say whether he's for or against allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns, as he tries to pander to his lobbyist pals and the Republican pro-gun base but wanders into the "War On Some Terror" minefield by mistake.

Sen. John McCain portrays himself as a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. But does that extend to gun rights for suspected terrorists? His campaign won't say where he stands on a bill to eliminate a gun-control loophole that even the Bush administration wants closed: a gap in federal law that inhibits the government from stopping people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns. The bill was inspired by an official audit covering a five-month period in 2004 which found that, because of the loophole, the Feds had to greenlight 35 out of 44 cases where a gun buyer was on a terrorist watch list. One group opposed to closing the loophole is the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun manufacturers' trade association. Until this spring, one of its congressional lobbyists was Randy Scheunemann, now a top McCain campaign adviser on foreign policy.

... Registration documents filed by Scheunemann's company, Orion Strategies, list the terror-gap bill as one of its specific lobbying objectives, and the registrations listed Scheunemann as a lobbyist until he took a leave. McCain's campaign refused to answer questions about whether the senator supports or opposes the White House plan to close the loophole, and it also declined to say if Scheunemann had ever lobbied McCain on gun-control bills. "Randy Scheunemann is a foreign-policy adviser to Senator McCain, and he is on leave from Orion Strategies. We have no further comment," says Jill Hazelbaker, a campaign spokeswoman.

Yes, we know neocon Randy got McCain in over the old guy's head on Georgia. But does McCain really want to keep dancing around issues for the paid man who seems to do all his thinking for him?

The NSSF rightly says that the current bill removes "due process" from gun owners because "anyone can be put on the list". But what about due process for all those non-flyers first? (Or maybe for those held at Gitmo after being handed in for a bounty and tortured to ellicit confessions? What about their due process?) What was that? Randy doesn't get paid to whisper in John's ear about them? Oh, that makes everything clearer.

P.S. And just to add icing on the cake, Scheunemann was himself arrested by Capitol Hill police for a gun violation back in 1997 - possession of an unregistered gun and ammunition - when he was Trent Lott's top advisor. Talk about a conflict of interests.