Today, the Congressional Budget Office released a
preliminary analysis of the health care reconciliation package, finding that
the bill would reduce
the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years and $1.3
trillion by 2029.
Those numbers are inconvenient for congressional
Republicans, who have continually insisted that health care reform will
increase the deficit. For instance, Sen.
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claimed yesterday that the Democratic plan would "double and triple
our national debt."
In addition, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has previously called
the Democrats' push for health care reform "the most egregious example of the
problem of expanding
the deficit and expanding the debt on our children."
However, appearing on MSNBC today, Gregg seemed to concede
that his prior argument was wrong. Asked
about CBO's analysis, Gregg begrudgingly admitted that "under this bill, you'll
get a net savings."
Watch:
Gregg will obviously continue to oppose the bill on other
grounds, but his concession undermines the Republican rhetoric on the
deficit.
As the fight over health care reform comes down to the wire,
Republican lawmakers are intensifying their efforts to convince the public that
Democrats are making unsavory deals and breaking the rules to pass the
bill. In recent days, for example, there
has been "a ridiculous level of
misinformation and disinformation" about "deem
and pass," a relatively ordinary parliamentary procedure that will allow
the House to vote on the Senate bill and the reconciliation fixes
simultaneously.
Writing at Yahoo! News
today, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) continued to grossly distort the Democrats'
intentions. According
to Coburn:
The American
people have good reason to be concerned. The bill that may become law in a few days is not a collection of
so-called fixes or compromises but the exact bill the Senate passed on
Christmas Eve that was filled with backroom deals such as the Cornhusker Kickback. [...]
House leaders are so ashamed of the Senate bill that they have
concocted a procedural process to pass the Senate bill without having a direct
vote.
On the substance of the bill, the plan all along has been to
"fix" the bill that already passed the Senate, not to enact it in its current
form. One of the main changes Democrats
want to make is removing
the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback." In an attempt to put House Democrats on
the hook for the Nebraska
deal, Republicans have argued that the existing bill must be signed into law
before it can be fixed. But, regardless,
Democrats intend to make health care reform law without the "Cornhusker Kickback" by next week.
Furthermore, Coburn's claim that Democrats have "concocted"
a procedural process is a bald-faced lie.
Coburn is referring to the self-executing
rule -- also known as "deem and pass" -- which Republicans used more than 35 times in 2005 and
2006. Yesterday, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
argued that "deem and pass" is unconstitutional moments before admitting
that he had voted for self-executing rules on multiple occasions. Even House
Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) has conceded
that the procedure is legitimate.
Unfortunately, Republicans continue to show no
interest in having an argument based on facts.
They simply want to kill the bill, no matter what it takes.
Comprehensive health care reform will cost the
federal government $940 billion over a ten-year period, but will increase
revenue and cut other costs by a greater
amount, leading to a reduction of $130 billion in the federal deficit over the
same period, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, a
Democratic source tells HuffPost. It
will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.
The source
said it also extends Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years and reduces the
rate of its growth by 1.4 percent, while closing the doughnut hole for
seniors, meaning there will no longer be a gap in coverage of medication. The
CBO also estimated it would extend coverage to 32 million additional people.
That is excellent news for both health care reform proponents and
deficit hawks.
Most
right-wingers claim to be great admirers of General David Petraeus. Bill Kristol
has said that he's "America's
man of the year." Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) says he is "an exceptionally
smart and thoughtful man." House Republican Leader John Boehner says he has
"earned" the right to be listened to. John McCain calls him "a great American
hero."
But
now, some on the right -- most notably Sarah Palin -- don't think he's all that
great. As for having earned the "right
to be listened to," fugeddaboutit.
That
is because General Petraeus is now saying that Israel's
policies in the occupied territories harm US interests and potentially threaten
American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It
was Petraeus' warning that led to the Obama administration's condemnation
of Israel's
settlement policies. And that condemnation is driving Petraeus' erstwhile
friends crazy.
On
her Facebook page on Tuesday, Palin wrote
that the Obama administration is out of line when it criticizes Israeli plans
for new settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
She writes that "the
Obama Administration has decided to escalate, make unilateral demands of Israel, and
threaten the very foundation of the US-Israel relationship. This is quickly
leading to the worst crisis in US-Israel relations in decades, and yet this did
not have to happen. More importantly, it needs to stop before it spirals out of
control." She calls America's
concerns about Israeli settlements "this manufactured Israeli controversy."
But
that isn't how Petraeus sees it.
Speaking
about the Israeli-Palestinian issue before the Senate Armed Services Committee
on Tuesday, Petraeus
said:
"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors
present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests...
Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed
confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a
perception of U.S.
favoritism for Israel.
Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S.
partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the
legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other
militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives
Iran
influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and
Hamas...."
So
Petraeus is telling us that American interests -- and Americans in uniform -- are
threatened by the Israeli-Palestinian status quo and that Iran,
Hizballah, and Hamas benefit from it.
That's
pretty straightforward.
Why
doesn't this matter to Sarah Palin? What
part of national security does she not understand? Or more accurately, what part does she
understand?
UPDATE
The first poll on the Obama
administration's stand on settlements is out. It comes from the
right-leaning Rasmussen reports. And it's a doozy. It turns out that "49% of American
voters believe Israel
should be required to stop building settlements." Rasmussen also reports that their "national
telephone survey finds that just 22%
of voters disagree and believe Israel should not be required to
stop building those settlements. Another 29% are not sure."
This is important not only because
this poll represents a significant shift in public opinion, not against Israel but for
the President's approach. In fact, other poll responses indicate that the
electorate remains strongly pro-Israel. It is just that American voters
understand that Israeli settlements are bad for Israel, bad for Palestinians
and most significantly, as General Petraeus tells us, bad for America.
The diplomatic crisis over
Israeli settlements is going into its second week and there is no sign that
either side is backing down. It started when the Israeli government announced that it would expand settlements
in East Jerusalem while Vice President Joseph Biden was visiting Israel.
The initial reason for the
blow-up was the administration's anger that the Israeli government announced
the construction of 1,600 new settlement units in East Jerusalem while Vice
President Biden was in Israel. This was a slap in Biden's face because the United States has always opposed settlements
and, like the rest of the world, does not recognize Arab East Jerusalem as part
of Israel.
The United States has
consistently stated that the final status of East Jerusalem, like the West Bank
and Gaza, must
be resolved in negotiations and not resolved unilaterally by Israelis or
Palestinians.
Furthermore, by announcing
the new settlements while Biden was in Israel,
the Netanyahu government seemed to imply that the United States condoned the move,
which was the exact opposite of the truth.
That perception, if allowed to stand, would only harm US interests in
the Muslim world starting with US troops.
According to the Israeli daily, Yedioth
Achronoth, Biden himself made that point clear to Netanyahu:
The vice president told
his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a
connection between Israel's
actions and US policy, any
decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal
safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism.
Republicans
(and some Democrats) in Congress are arguing that President Obama's demand that
Israel
stop expanding settlements activity is somehow a unique position for a
president to take. This is not true. In fact, Presidents Carter and Clinton both
demanded a settlement freeze, as did Bush I and II, and President Reagan.
The President [Reagan],
in a televised speech demanded a "settlement freeze by Israel" that would preclude further
Jewish settlement in the occupied areas. Mr. Reagan spoke of such a freeze as
essential to what he described as a new United
States prescription for peace in the Middle
East. [New York Times, 9/2/82]
The policy has been consistent under both Democrats and Republicans:
settlements are an obstacle to peace and endanger US interests.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
is urging its 100,000 members to
pressure Members of Congress to urge the White House to back down. This is the
text of an email AIPAC sent to its members.
Members of the Obama administration have recently
made statements regarding the U.S.
relationship with Israel,
which have heightened tensions with America's only democratic ally in
the region. We strongly urge the administration to work closely and privately
with our partner Israel,
in a manner befitting strategic allies, to address any issues between the two
governments. Yesterday, AIPAC issued a press release addressing this important
issue.
Please urge members of the House and Senate to:
1. Make statements in support of America's strong relationship with Israel and the need for the U.S. to work closely and privately
with the Jewish state to address any issues between the two governments.
2. Contact Secretary of State Clinton and urge the United States to immediately defuse the current
tension with Israel.
AIPAC
and its friends are counting on organizing Congressional resistance so that the
Obama administration will back down and accept Netanyahu's plans to expand
settlements. Yesterday, Netanyahu said, "The building in Jerusalem
- and in all other places - will continue in the same way as has been customary
over the last 42 years."
It is critical that Members of Congress support the
president rather than thwart a courageous Presidential initiative that is right for America and Israel.
Some members of Congress can be expected to do the
right thing and support the Administration, despite outside pressure.
For instance, the following House members signed on
to an initiative organized by J
Street and other pro-Israel, pro-peace
organizations to ease the blockade of Gaza
that continues to devastate the people of that unhappy place. They can also be expected to back the
President in his determination to stop the expansion of settlements.
They are:
Raul Grijalva (AZ)
Lois Capps (CA)
Sam Farr (CA)
Bob Filner (CA)
Barbara Lee (CA)
Loretta Sanchez (CA)
Pete Stark (CA)
Michael Honda (CA)
John Conyers (MI)
John Dingell (MI)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI)
Keith Ellison (MN)
Betty McCollum (MN)
James Oberstar (MN)
Peter Welch (VT)
Jim Moran (VA)
Jim McDermott (WA)
Adam Smith (WA)
Lynn Woolsey (CA)
Jackie Speier (CA)
Diane Watson (CA)
George Miller (CA)
Jim Himes (CT)
Andre Carson (IN)
Bruce Braley (IA)
Donald Payne (NJ)
Rush Holt (NJ)
Bill Pascrell (NJ)
Yvette Clarke
Maurice Hinchey (NY)
Paul Tonko (NY)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Tammy Baldwin (WI)
Gwen Moore (WI)
Glenn Nye (VA)
John Yarmuth (KY)
Elijah Cummings (MD)
Donna Edwards (MD)
Michael Capuano (MA)
William Delahunt (MA)
Jim McGovern (MA)
John Tierney (MA)
John Olver (MA)
Stephen Lynch (MA)
David Price (NC)
Mary Jo Kilroy (OH)
Marcy Kaptur (OH)
Earl Blumenauer (OR)
Peter DeFazio (OR)
Chaka Fattah (PA)
Joe Sestak (PA)
Brian Baird (WA)
Jay Inslee (WA)
But there were some House progressives who were not on that list. Some of these are strongly pro-Obama,
including on issues related to the Middle East,
but will need encouragement to withstand the pressure that has already been unleashed on them to back Netanyahu this time.
This list includes:
Reps. Nancy Pelosi (CA) Jan Schakowsky (IL), Henry Waxman (CA), Jared Polis (CO), Rosa De Laura (CT), Steve Cohen (TN), Nita Lowey (NY), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), Barney Frank (MA), Ed Markey (MA), Alcee Hastings (FL) and Howard Berman (CA), the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Others
such as Anthony Weiner (NY), Brad Sherman (CA), Steve Israel (NY), Alan Grayson
(FL), Eliot Engel (NY), Steny Hoyer (MD), Chris Van Hollen (MD) and Shelley
Berkley (NV) have not only supported the AIPAC position, but have also been
quite vocal about it.
It
would be a remarkably positive, although unlikely, development if any of them chose
to back their own president on the issue of settlements. (Weiner has already
denounced the Obama administration for throwing a "temper tantrum.")
There is no Senate
equivalent to the letter from House members so there is no reliable and current
guide to where the progressives stand.
Both Senators Chuck Schumer (NY) and Barbara Boxer (CA) tend to be
down-the-line supporters of the AIPAC position. On the other hand, John Kerry (MA), Chairman of the Senate Relations Committee, and Patrick Leahy (VT), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, are strong advocates of an "honest broker" role for America in the Middle East.
Other progressives including
Harry Reid (NV), Carl Levin (MI),
Sherrod Brown (OH), Tom Harkin (IA), Robert Byrd (WV), Bernie Sanders (VT), Ben Cardin MD),
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Frank
Lautenberg (NJ), Russ Feingold (WI), Dick Durbin (IL), Dianne Feinstein (CA), and Al Franken (MN) are
more open to persuasion. They are all
coming under heavy pressure to back Netanyahu on the settlements issue. They need to be reminded, as Biden said in
Israel (and was echoed today by General Petraeus in his Senate Armed Services
testimony), that the "perception" that the United states supports settlements
"would only harm US interests in the Muslim world starting with US
troops." It might also be noted that the
settlements do even more damage to Israel itself and its prospects for
surviving as a secure and democratic state.
Speaking on the
House floor last night, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) joined the right-wing calls for ethnic
profiling. "Who has been blowing up our
planes and who has been hijacking us?" asked King. "It's young Muslim men. So, I would suggest that instead of spread
eagle searching the 80 year-old Norwegian grandmother with blue eyes and white
hair, we ought to turn our focus in a higher percentage on the people who fit
the profile of the kind that are likely to bomb us." King went on to say that
the government should also be recording Muslim prayer services to look for
warning signs.
Watch:
But recent
events contradict the notion that all terrorists look alike. Just last week, the Justice Department filed
terrorism charges against Colleen Renee Larose, "a
petite, blond-haired, blue-eyed" American woman known as "Jihad Jane." And
last month, Joseph Andrew Stack -- a 53 year-old white man who was angry with
the federal government -- flew a small plane
into an IRS building in Texas,
killing an American war veteran and injuring several others who worked
there.
Rep. Alan Grayson: "I look forward to an honest debate with Governor Palin on the issues, in the unlikely event that she ever learns anything about them."
The Christian Coalition is going up with an ad promoting clean energy legislation.
After the VA Attorney General (pretty much) outed himself as a birther, Gov. Bob McDonnell runs away from him.
GOP candidate Carly Fiorina flip-flops on cap-and-trade.
A new report released today by the Urban
Institute's Health Policy Center details the acute problems we will face if
comprehensive health care reform is not enacted. The reports notes, "if federal reform efforts
fail, over the next decade, the percent of the population that is uninsured
will increase, employer-sponsored coverage will continue to erode, spending on
public programs will balloon, and individual and family out-of-pocket costs
will rise." The researchers, led by John
Holahan, examined the present system and concluded that even under the best
possible scenario, the current health care delivery system would be unsustainable.
NUMBER OF UNINSURED
"Even in the best case, the number of uninsured would rise
to 57.9 million in 2020."
COST OF PREMIUMS
"Even in the best case, single premiums would rise to $7,800
and family premiums would rise to $19,500 by 2020, increasing much faster than
incomes."
AVAILABILITY OF
COVERAGE
"Even in the best case, the rate of employer sponsored
insurance coverage would fall to 53 percent in 2020."
MEDICAID & CHIP
COSTS
"Even in the best case, spending would increase by 59
percent to $442 billion in 2020."
COST OF PREMIUMS
"Even in the best case, employer premiums spending would
increase by 67 percent in ten years. These increases would be even higher if
employer coverage rates were to hold stead over this period rather than decline
as predicted."
UNCOMPENSATED COSTS
"In the best case, the cost of uncompensated care would
increase by 74 percent and total $111 billion in 2010. Together with increased spending on Medicaid,
and CHIP, this would mean higher federal, state, and local taxes even without
reform."
TOTAL HEALTH CARE
COSTS
"In the best case, these costs would rise to $471 billion by
2010."
In a statement, House Republican Conference chairman Rep.
Mike Pence condemned
earmarks as "emblematic of a broken Washington
that puts special interests before the public interest."
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), a leading Senate conservative,
doesn't agree. He says those favoring
the ban have been "demagogued into believing something that isn't true." As described by the Christian News
Service:
What really is at issue, he
believes, is whether federal spending will be directed by Congress, as the
Constitution intended it to be, rather than by the president and unelected
Executive Branch bureaucrats, who do not have the constitutional power of the purse
granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, or the
enumerated powers granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8.
[...]
But preserving the power to earmark
authorization bills as well as funding measures carrying out those
authorizations, Inhofe argues, is essential to preserving
Congress's core constitutional functions as the legislative branch of
government.
Sen. Inhofe elaborated, claiming that eliminating
Congressional earmarks will give even more power to the Executive Branch:
Now, there are a lot of spending
determinations that are made that I bitterly oppose. But if you say that you
end all -- they call them "earmarks" -- but say all spending by Congress then that
means all that is going to be done by Barack Obama in the White House. It will
go to the Executive. So, I have been very much concerned. I know that people,
an awful lot of the big-spending Republicans, they beat the drum on earmark
reform -- "We want to end all earmarks!" -- and all of that. And what they don't realize -- what the people
don't realize-is if you stop an earmark you don't save a nickel. All you do is
send that to the Executive Branch. It is the hardest thing in the world to
get across.
With Republicans calling
on Speaker Pelosi to follow suit in banning earmarks, it's clear
Republicans are planning on emphasizing this issue moving forward. Thus far, however, it seems the fiercest
opposition may come from their own side of the aisle.
Last week,
ESPNOutdoors.com published an op-ed
charging that the Obama administration "could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation's
oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even
inland waters." The column, written by Robert Montgomery, quickly inspired a collective
right-wing freak out. "Forget about the frickin' fish. People are losing their rights," Fox News'
Glenn Beck told his audience, following the lead of the conservative blogs. "Who's more important: the
fish or you?"
The rumors
turned out to be completely unfounded, but apparently
at least one member of Congress was also duped. Today, MinnPost.com's Derek
Wallbank reports
that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) asked him last week if he'd heard that "Obama
might be trying to ban sport fishing." Additionally, Wallbank writes that
Bachmann scoffed at administration's denial of the story:
During
a conversation in her Washington
office last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann asked me if I was working on any
interesting stories. I told her that, oddly enough, I was doing a story on
sport fishing, at which point she asked
me if I'd heard that President Obama might be trying to ban sport fishing.
[...]
I
told her I'd heard the rumor too, but the White House had pretty flatly denied
it when I asked them about it.
"Oh yeah, just because the White
House says it, you can take THAT to the bank," Bachmann said
sarcastically. "I'd believe legislation more than I believe anything Obama
says."
Not
Larry Sabato has a new video of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
(R) addressing possible ways to challenge President Obama's citizenship. According to Cuccinelli, the most likely
scenario is that someone charged with violating a law signed by Obama will
argue that the law is invalid because the president isn't legally qualified. Cuccinelli added that "speculation" that
Obama was born in Kenya
"doesn't
seem beyond the realm of possibility."
Watch:
Q What can we do about Obama and the birth certificate thing?
CUCCINELLI: It will get tested in my view when someone... when he
signs a law, and someone is convicted of violating it and one of their
defenses will be it is not a law because someone qualified to be
President didn't sign it.
Q: Is that something you can do as Attorney General? Can you do that or something?
CUCCINELLI: Well only if there is a conflict where we are suing the
federal government for a law they've passed. So it's possible.
Q: Because we are talking about the possibility that he was not born in America.
CUCCINELLI: Right. But at the same time under Rule 11, Federal Rule 11, we gotta have proof of it.
Q: How can we get proof?
CUCCINELLI: Well... that's a good question. Not one I've thought a lot
about because it hasn't been part of my campaign. Someone is going to
have to come forward with nailed down testimony that he was born in
place B, wherever that is. You know, the speculation is Kenya. And that
doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility.
On G. Gordon Liddy's radio show today, Sen. James Inhofe
(R-OK) condemned the Obama administration's effort to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Inhofe said that the biggest problem with holding detainees there is
"obesity" because "these guys have never eaten so well in their lives!" Liddy
weighed in moments later, noting that he spent "five years in nine different
prisons." Apparently, Inhofe agreed that Liddy's criminal record makes him
something of an expert on detention policy. "I'm glad you said that because,
see, you speak with authority on that," Inhofe said.
INHOFE: It's a state of the art
kind of facility. There's nothing that
is better than, I mean, there's no incarceration facility in the world that is
run better than Gitmo is. You know their
biggest problem they have there, G. Gordon?
LIDDY: No, sir.
INHOFE: It's obesity. 'Cause these
guys have never eaten so well in their lives! So, anyway, let's just go ahead
and have the trials there. If we have to
leave them there for the rest of their lives, that's fine. Either that or execute them. You know, these guys are not criminals. These are terrorist detainees, and there's a
big difference. You put those into our
incarceration system and integrate them with the prison population, by
definition, these guys teach other people to be terrorists. A guy might be in there for stealing hubcaps,
he's going to come out a terrorist. We
don't want that. The best thing to do is
keep Gitmo open.
LIDDY: Yeah, you know, I've been --
I spent five years in nine different prisons in this country and one thing I
observed from there, they're all constructed so as to keep people in. They are very vulnerable to an attack upon the
exterior. And these terrorist people can
get their terrorist buddies to make an attack on the exterior and, you know,
blow a hole in it and let them all out.
INHOFE: I'm glad you said that
because, see, you speak with authority on that.
Listen:
Liddy originally received a 20-year sentence
for his role in the Watergate scandal.
He has also acknowledged plotting
murders and domestic terror attacks.
Earlier this
week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) pledged that Republican candidates will run on
repealing health care reform if it becomes law.
However, as Talking Points Memoreported,
Cornyn later acknowledged that an actual repeal would be unlikely. Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner
(R-OH) also said
that Republicans would run on repealing health reform:
Chuck Todd asked Boehner this morning if he'd
advise Republicans -- both incumbents and challengers -- "to run on repeal
of this health care plan."
"Well, Chuck, if we get to that point, you can
bet on it," Boehner said.
Boehner's stance
puts him at odds with his top deputy, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), who has
said that Republicans should
not run on a full repeal. That said, it's unclear whether Boehner's promise
is sincere. Like Cantor, he has
not signed the right-wing Club For Growth's pledge to repeal health
reform.
I can't help but think of the Buffalo
Springfield lyrics: "There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly
clear."
That is how I feel about Vice President
Joseph Biden's just-concluded visit to Israel. I can't understand
what the Israelis were thinking.
First, it occurs to me that the Israelis
may not be as worried about Iran's
nuclear development as they say they are.
They say it is an existential threat, one
that poses the possibility of the total destruction of Israel.
But, if they really believed that, would
they have sabotaged a summit with Vice President Biden designed to coordinate
actions to deter an Iranian bomb? Would they have blown up the summit
over settlements?
Because that is what they did and it
indicates that the Iranian threat may be is less important to the Netanyahu
government than keeping the settlers happy, even at the price of disrupting
joint US-Israeli efforts to counter Iran.
And that suggests Israelis are not quite
as fearful of an Iranian bomb as they say. Or they already know how to
deter it. Or they have decided they can live with it (after all, Israel has 200
nuclear bombs with land, sea and air delivery systems).
Strange.
Biden's visit had two purposes.
The first was to make sure that the United States and Israel
are on the same page on Iran.
In the waning days of the Bush
administration, at the behest of the Israelis, Vice President Dick Cheney went
to President George W. Bush and asked that Bush permit them to bomb Iran before
handing the keys of the White House over to President-Elect Barack Obama.
(United States permission is
necessary because we control Iraqi airspace, which Israel
must cross to get to Iran.)
Bush said no. Like his successor,
he understood that if the US
allowed Israel to attack Iran, it would
have the same effect as us doing it ourselves, giving the impression we were
attacking the third Muslim country since 2001.
American interests throughout the Middle East would be put in immediate jeopardy.
Most significantly, our uniformed men and women in Afghanistan
and Iraq
would come under intense, even deadly, pressure from an enraged Muslim
population.
Even worse, a military attack on Iran could lead
to a major war, even nuclear war. Very likely, Hezbollah would launch thousands
of missiles at northern Israel,
forcing its population to flee. And the two Arab states that have signed
treaties with Israel -- Jordan and Egypt -- would come under strong
pressure from much of their respective populations to tear them up.
The mother of all disasters.
Bush wasn't having it. And neither
will President Obama.
The Israelis know that and now insist, at
the very least, that the United States
lead the battle for what they call "crippling sanctions" on Iran.
Biden came to Israel
to work out a common sanctions strategy, and to reassure the Israeli government
that the United States
would not abandon it should the Iranian nuclear threat actually develop.
Biden's second objective was to attempt
to re-start Israeli-Palestinian negotiations because President Obama believes
that continuation of the conflict, and the perception in the Muslim world that
the United States and Israel are joined at the hip, harms America's
interests worldwide. He's right.
In Cairo,
last spring, Obama called for the immediate resumption of negotiations.
He called for the Palestinians to recognize Israel's
right to peace and security, and he called on Israel to freeze settlements.
The Palestinian Authority has not engaged
in violence for years. But Prime Minister Netanyahu would not accept a
settlement freeze that included Arab East Jerusalem. And that is precisely where most of the
settlement expansion is taking place, as Palestinians are being forced out of
their homes to make way for settlers.
Also, what Israel
calls Jerusalem includes a chunk of the West Bank. When Israel
annexed Jerusalem after the 1967 war, it tripled
its size by fiat so that Palestinian areas -- areas never considered part of Jerusalem --were magically
transformed into neighborhoods in the holy city.
The United
States has never recognized these areas -- or any part of
East Jerusalem -- as part of Israel.
And neither does any country other than Israel.
Netanyahu's refusal to accept Obama's settlement
freeze killed off any chance for Israeli-Palestinian talks.
And that was it until Biden embarked on
his visit to Israel
and announced, after much staff groundwork, that indirect negotiations
would start with the President's Special Envoy, George Mitchell, mediating.
The resumption of US-brokered
negotiations would represent a significant success for the United States because progress toward an
Israeli-Palestinian agreement is intrinsically good, and also because
continuation of the conflict -- with the US backing the Netanyahu government
to the hilt -- is a huge Iranian asset as it tries to build support throughout
the Muslim world.
And then the roof caved in.
First, all was rosy. At a joint
public session Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu heaped praise on each
other. Netanyahu said, and it's true, that there is virtually no
American politician more devoted to Israel than Joe Biden. And
Biden, not unfamiliar with blarney, said that Netanyahu has taken great risks
for peace.
The US-Israeli relationship was sailing
along, all winks and smiles while the Palestinians smarted in the knowledge
that this was the "same old, same old."
Only then the Netanyahu government seemed
to totally lose it.
With Biden right there, it announced that
the government had approved plans for 1,600 new housing units for settlers.
And, within hours, the 1,600 became 50,000 new settler units. All in Arab
East Jerusalem.
The triumphant Biden trip was triumphant
no more. Suddenly the Vice President looked like he was set up, like a sucker
(or "freier," to use the Israeli term for the easily duped).
Biden was furious. According to Yedioth
Achronoth, he told the Israelis: "What you're doing here undermines
the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Pakistan. That
endangers us and it endangers regional peace."
All this led to an unprecedented US condemnation of Israel's behavior. Speaking of his
immediate reaction to Israel's
plan to expand settlements, Biden later said, "I, at the request of President
Obama, condemned it immediately and unequivocally." Speaking at the
White House, Robert Gibbs also condemned the Israeli plans.
In response, Netanyahu made clear that he
wasn't changing a thing. His Deputy Foreign Minister said there would be "no
more concessions." No more?
And that is where we are today. The
US-Israeli relationship is in crisis, a crisis brought on by the settlements,
which have become Israel's
curse from hell.
The good news is that not all crises are
bad; some are the necessary prelude to recovery.
Biden put it like this in a speech before
students at Tel Aviv University.
After restating his condemnation of the settlements (which was cheered by the
students), he said:
"...sometimes only a
friend can deliver the hardest truth...."
And that truth is that the United States,
at long last, must "hold both sides
accountable for any statements or any actions that inflame tensions or
prejudice the outcome of these talks...."
He then stated unambiguously that America intends to reconcile "the Palestinian
goal of an independent and viable state based on the '67 lines...and Israel's goal
of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders...."
The amazing thing is that this goal is
closer today than it was before Biden's trip.
That is because, for the first time in
memory, the United States
flat-out condemned Israel's
embrace of the settlement enterprise. The administration's condemnation
was issued without regard to the viability of Netanyahu's right-wing
coalition or the uproar that would be instigated by the lobby and its allies in
Congress.
Biden also stated, to an Israeli audience, that the Palestinian
state must be viable, contiguous, and would encompass the territories won
during the '67 war. And he indicated unprecedented support for Palestinian
aspirations, on an equal par with Israel's security.
Groundbreaking words.
Hopefully, the administration will dig in
and not flinch despite the screams of protest from the usual suspects. The
President should recall the old saying, "the dogs bark but the caravan moves
on."
It better.
The alternative is for America to again
be seen worldwide as the tail on Netanyahu's dog, for Iran to be strengthened
at the expense of the United States, and for Israel to sacrifice its own
security as a nation for the sake of an onerous occupation that cannot and must
not be sustained.
The Obama administration did itself proud
in Jerusalem
this week. But now comes the orchestrated pushback. (The AIPAC conference
takes place in Washington
in a few days and it will rally support for Netanyahu's plans, not Obama's.)
It's up to us to let the President and
Vice President know that most Americans -- including Israel's strongest supporters --
have their back.
Mr. President, ignore the noise.
Speak for America.
Earlier in the week, California
gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman held a press event in Oakland and then refused to take questions,
frustrating local reporters who she had invited to her event. A day later, Whitman was in Southern
California and filmed what appears to be a
fake town hall, in which people were pre-screened, asked to applaud
(Whitman: "lots of cheering would be good") and asked to re-ask specific
questions so that Whitman could re-answer them in a better way.
A
new Harris Poll found that 82% of Americans believe "Wall Street should be
subject to tougher regulations." The poll also found that 66% agree that "most
people on Wall Street would be willing to break the law if they believed they
could make a lot of money and get away with it."
Huge majorities want the government to stand up to the big
banks that caused the financial collapse, but Republicans are cashing Wall
Street's checks and standing in the way of reform. As the Wall
Street Journalreported
last month:
In discussions with Wall
Street executives, Republicans are striving to make the case that they are
banks' best hope of preventing President Barack Obama and congressional
Democrats from cracking down on Wall Street.
In fact, just yesterday it was announced that Senate Banking Committee
chairman Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) was unable to attract "a
single Republican endorsement" of his plan to reform the financial system.
The main sticking point in the debate is a proposal to
create an independent agency to look out for financial consumers' best
interests. Americans' distrust of Wall
Street bankers, as evidenced in the Harris Poll, is further evidence that the
public feels it needs an advocate that can stand up to the powerful bankers on
Wall Street.
Republicans, on the other hand, are openly advocating for
the protection of banks at the expense of Americans. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) claims
the "safety
and soundness (of banks) should be number one." Echoing Shelby's sentiment, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
brazenly declared, "the safety and
soundness of the system, taxpayer protection, ought to trump" the need for a
consumer-centered agency.
But reform won't only help put Americans' minds at
ease. It will help get our economy
moving again. Michael Ettlinger, the
Vice President for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress, wrote
that significant
reform is needed in order to restore investors' confidence in the system:
Investors also need to have their
faith restored in some of the basic tools that markets rely on. Without reform
it's going to be a long time before wise investors place much faith in
credit-rating companies and professional guidance from the financial services
industry. Nor are many going to be willing to put their trust in black box
models developed by Wall Street's mathematical geniuses.
On this issue, Americans have made up their mind. They see the need for tougher regulations and
desperately want Washington
to stand up to Wall Street lobbyists. Will
Republicans put their constituents ahead of their banker backers? Only time
will tell.
