Posts by Ali Frick

Ali Frick is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress.

Gingrich: SCOTUS Decision Will "Cost Us a City"
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on June 16, 2008 at 6:55 AM.

On Face the Nation this morning, former House speaker Newt Gingrich echoed the extreme rhetoric of the right wing to decry the Supreme Court’s recent decision restoring the right of habeas corpus petitions to Guantanamo detainees, charging the decision would “cost us a city”:

This court decision is a disaster, which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be about whether you’re prepared to lose an American city on behalf of five lawyers — it was a five to four decision. … That ought to be a principled argument between McCain and Obama, about whether or not you’re prepared to allow any random, nutcake district judge who has no knowledge of national security to set the rules for terrorists.

Gingrich is taking his cues from Justice Antonin Scalia, who in his dissent declared that the majority’s decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

World Opinion Favors Obama in 2008 Race
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on June 13, 2008 at 4:16 AM.

A new Pew poll surveying 24 countries finds that there is “a widespread belief that U.S. foreign policy ‘will change for the better‘ after the inauguration of a new American president next year”:

People around the world who have been paying attention to the American election express more confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain to do the right thing regarding world affairs. McCain is rated lower than Obama in every country surveyed, except for the United States where his rating matches Obama’s, as well as in Jordan and Pakistan where few people have confidence in either candidate.

Today, however, Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi said that he has a “personal preference” for McCain because he “would no longer be the oldest person at the upcoming (Group of Eight summits).” McCain is a month older than the 71-year-old Berlusconi.

McClellan: White House Officials Blocked Intelligence Report, ‘Continue To Bury Their Heads In The Sand'
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on June 10, 2008 at 8:35 AM.

Yesterday, former press secretary Scott McClellan appeared on MSNBC’s Countdown to discuss last week’s Senate Intelligence Report, which found that the White House “built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein’s links to al Qaeda.” McClellan accused White House officials of having their “heads in the sand” and said they tried to block the committee’s investigation:

The White House never wanted to have the way the case was made, the way the intelligence was used to sell the war to the American people looked into by Congress. This was delayed for quite some time and Senator Rockefeller pushed this forward to get to the truth. And, the White House can continue to bury their heads in the sand but the reality is still the same.

I think the American people see it for exactly what it is. … We came to the very same conclusion that the intelligence was used in a way to make the threat sound more grave and urgent and serious than it was.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Team Smears McClellan as "Left Wing Blogger"
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on May 28, 2008 at 2:04 PM.

In an explosive new memoir, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes that the Bush administration engaged in a “political propaganda campaign” to sell the Iraq war and that it misled him on the Valerie Plame scandal. Today, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino slammed McClellan today as a “disgruntled” employee; former press secretary Ari Fleischer said he was “heartbroken.”

Other former White House officials started the smear campaign last night. Karl Rove, interviewed on Hannity and Colmes, asserted that McClellan sounded more like “a left-wing blogger” than himself. Former Homeland Security adviser Frances Townsend, interviewed on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, called McClellan “self-serving” and “disingenuous.”

McClellan is experiencing the same automatic smear response the White House deploys against former allies who dare to criticize the administration, including former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan or former head of faith-based initiatives John DiIulio. Some other lowlights:

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill

WROTE: Bush planned in invade Iraq before 9/11 and was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people” during Cabinet meetings.

SMEAR: “We didn’t listen to [O’Neill’s] wacky ideas when he was in the White House, why should we start listening to him now?” — A senior official who informed Bush of O’Neill’s comments, 1/12/04

Former Campaign Chief Strategist Matthew Dowd

SAID: Bush has “become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in”; that “our leaders have to understand what they [the American public] want. They’re saying, ‘Get out of Iraq.’”

SMEAR: “He’s going through a lot of personal turmoil but also he has a son who is soon to be deployed to Iraq. That could only impact a parents’ mind as they think through these issues.” — Dan Bartlett, 4/1/07

Former Counter-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Fox News: Volunteers Don't Deserve GI Bill
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on May 27, 2008 at 1:00 PM.

After garnering 256 votes in the House, Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) 21st Century GI Bill passed the Senate last week with 75 votes. Yesterday, on Memorial Day, the New York Times criticized President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — who skipped the vote — for opposing the bill, writing that Bush and McCain “would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.”

Discussing the op-ed this morning, Fox and Friends’s Brian Kilmeade defended Bush and McCain, saying their position is “just a different emphasis.” He insisted that current circumstances are “different” than after World War II, when the original GI bill was passed, because today’s veterans volunteered to serve:

This is just a different emphasis. … After all this is different. People point to, ‘Well, look what they did after World War II.’ Well after World War II, people were conscripted. They said, ‘You’re joining.’ They said for doing that and winning the war, here’s a college education. Now, people are saying, ‘I want to be a military person. I am signing on in a volunteer force.’

In reality, Bush and McCain’s stance on the GI Bill is not just a “different emphasis.” McCain’s watered-down alternative reserves the most generous benefits to those who serve at least 12 years. Furthermore, soldiers would not “jump off to college after three years,” as Kilmeade suggested, because they would still have to complete their enlistment terms.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Webb GI Bill Passes in Senate
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on May 22, 2008 at 10:59 AM.

Just over an hour ago, the Senate voted overwhelmingly — a veto-proof 75-22 — to approve Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) 21st Century GI Bill, which would expand educational benefits for veterans who joined the service after Sept. 11, 2001.

Before the vote, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who introduced his own watered-down, paltry version of the GI bill, exhorted President Bush to veto the measure, as he has indicated he will. Graham also insisted that his Republican colleagues would “get rewarded in the next election” if they vote against GI benefits:

This is a defining moment for the Senate, for the Republicans, and this war. I can tell you if we leave the generals alone and support our troops, they will win this war. And to my Republican colleagues, if we’ll stand firm for a fair procedure and a sensible solution to the veterans’ problems, we will get rewarded in the next election, not punished. If we give into this, we don’t deserve to be here.

It’s an odd proposition. A recent poll documented Americans’ overwhelming support for dramatically increased educational benefits of the kind Webb’s bill provides:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Biden Blasts McCain on Iran Mistakes
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on May 21, 2008 at 10:01 AM.

Blasting Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in a speech Monday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said negotiating with Iran would make President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.” When Time’s Joe Klein pointed out that Ayatollah Kahmenei and the National Security Council — not Ahmadinejad — set Iranian foreign policy, McCain dismissed the important distinction, arguing that “any average American” thought of Ahmadinejad as the Iranian leader, and so he would, too.

Speaking with ThinkProgress yesterday afternoon, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) blasted McCain for his “overwhelming lack of sophistication” when it comes to foreign policy, and said McCain, as a presidential candidate, should know more than “average Americans” when it comes to Iran:

I just think that it’s a reflection. I don’t want an average American as president. I have great respect for average — average Americans don’t want an average American president of the United States of America. I want someone above average. I want someone who knows what they’re dealing with. And it surprises me that John didn’t understand the complexities of the power struggle going on in Iran right now.

Watch it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Congress to Rove: No Justification for Refusing to Testify on Siegelman Case
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on May 15, 2008 at 4:58 AM.

Today, House Judiciary Committee leaders sent a letter to Karl Rove’s laywer, Robert Luskin, rejecting Rove’s offer to answer questions on his involvement in the Don Siegelman prosecution and other issues in writing. They wrote that, considering Rove’s willingness to speak to the media on the subject, “we can see no justification for his refusal to speak on the record to the Committee”:

As our previous letters have made clear, the Siegelman case is a principal reason for our invitation to Mr. Rove. But as we have also explained, that issue cannot be separated from the broader concerns about politicization within the Department and the U.S. Attorney firings, and Mr. Rove has made on-the-record comments to the media about all these interrelated matters. […]

Since you indicate Mr. Rove is now willing to submit written answers to questions, which by definition would be recorded in a manner similar to a transcript, we do not understand why he would not submit to providing transcribed answers to live questions, as he has done in media interviews.

In April, Luskin had indicated that Rove would testify if Congress subpoenaed him. By the end of the month, Luskin backed away from the pledge, claiming he had been taken out of context.

Elizabeth Edwards: ‘Most Preventable Cause Of Unnecessary Suffering’ Is Lack Of Health Insurance
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on May 9, 2008 at 6:43 AM.

Conservatives love to crow that the United States has "the best health care in the world." Yet these same conservatives overlook the fact that 47 million Americans lack any health insurance at all, leaving them shut out of access to this world-class health care.

Indeed, as Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Elizabeth Edwards told the Senate Health Committee today, "It doesn't matter what kind of services we have if we don't have access to them":

Health insurance matters. The quality of coverage, of course, matters, but health insurance itself is really crucial part of this. Probably the most preventable cause of unnecessary suffering in our health care system is the lack of adequate health insurance. We know how to lengthen and improve the lives of people with cancer. But we've chosen as a nation to turn our backs on some of us who have the disease. I urge you to reform health care responsibly, morally, and aggressively.

Watch it:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Torture Critics Derided as Advocating "Oprah Methods"
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on May 8, 2008 at 12:04 PM.

Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing on the Bush administration's use of torture. During the hearing, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) scoffed at what he called the "Oprah Winfrey methods" of interrogations built on long-established relationships -- the same method used to successfully interrogate Saddam Hussein. He also seemed to defend waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a 9/11 mastermind:

Some have said relationship-building interrogation techniques are preferable and even more reliable in the long run than stress methods. … I can tell by your grin that you acknowledge the somewhat absurd thought that you could move people who have masterminded the death of 3,000 Americans by Oprah Winfrey methods.

International lawyer Philippe Sands, who recently published a book on Bush's interrogation program, replied by stating simply, "Coercion doesn't work." He cited the British fight against the IRA, and said the use of torture "extended the conflict" by 15 to 20 years:

The thinking in the British military and the thinking across the board politically — it’s really not a left right issue, it is a broad consensus in the United Kingdom — is that coercion doesn’t work. That the experience of the United Kingdom, which moved in the early 1970’s to use techniques that were very similar to those that were used on Detainee 063, putting stress positions, humiliation, and so on and so forth, didn’t not work. The view is taken in the United Kingdom that it extended the conflict with the IRA probably by between 15 and 20 years.

Watch it:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Both Decrease And Increase In Troop Deaths Prove The Surge Is Success
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on May 6, 2008 at 6:49 AM.

Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Max Boot is one of the most vocal supporters of a neocon foreign policy. He says those who favor withdrawal from Iraq engage in wishful thinking and claims there is copious evidence that Iran is training al Qaeda. He said former CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon's hesitation to bomb Iran embolden[ed] the mullahs, and claimed that the recently-revealed Pentagon propaganda program is simply part and parcel of the daily grind of Washington journalism.

He has also been a vociferous defender of the Iraq troop surge. Today, in an online debate on the surge, Boot points to the overall decrease in troop deaths as evidence of its success:

I could cite statistics to show how the “surge”—not only an increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq but also a change in their strategy to emphasis classic counterinsurgency—has been paying off: Civilian deaths were down more than 80 percent and U.S. deaths down more than 60 percent between December 2006 and March 2008.

Just two days ago, however, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Boot argued that the recent increase in U.S. troop casualties showed the surge was working. Acknowledging that April was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq since August (Boot says 52 soldiers died; in fact 54 did), Boot says the U.S. is approaching “the enemy’s defeat“:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

O'Reilly: It's Bull That Torture Doesn't Work
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on May 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM.

Last night, in an interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly praised the Bush administration “for doing a good job protecting Americans after 9/11″ and attributed its success to its “aggressive manner” of protection, including “Guantanamo, water boarding three times, and other things.” (Recall, in 2005, O’Reilly declared he would “order the execution” of everyone at Guantanamo if he could.)

O’Reilly then questioned Clinton’s opposition to torture, insisting that if the U.S. had “an al Qaeda big shot” in custody, he would “dunk him into water” — i.e., waterboard him. When told that torture does not produce “high quality” information, O’Reilly cried, “That’s bull!”:

O’REILLY: I believe the Bush administration has done a good job in protecting Americans after 9/11. … And they’ve done so in a very aggressive manner, Guantanamo, water boarding three times, and other things, OK? If we get an Al Qaida big shot who won’t talk, I’ll dunk him into water if there is, we believe — our intelligence agency believes there is an imminent attack. You won’t dunk him in the water, you won’t, I will. […]

CLINTON: But if you actually talked to the people who were in the rooms with these guys, what they will tell me is that you do not get the high quality…

O’REILLY: That’s bull. It’s just bull. Michael Scheuer, who was the head of the bin Laden unit, sat there and said we broke these guys by waterboarding. It’s bull.

Watch it:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Glenn Beck Claims Wal-Mart Made a "Deal With Terrorists" by Ending Its Lawsuit Against a Brain Damaged Employee
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on April 3, 2008 at 5:20 AM.

Invoking a little-noticed clause in Shank’s contract that kicked in once she won a settlement with the trucking company, Wal-Mart sued the Shank family to recoup the medical expenses it had spent on her care, all $470,000.

In response, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann last week began decrying Wal-Mart’s actions nightly, four times labeling $9-billion corporation one of his “Worst Persons in the World.” Last night, however, Olbermann was able to announce the good news — that Wal Mart yesterday wrote to the Shanks to tell them it would drop its suit:

Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times. … Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank’s care, and we will work with you to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care.

Unfortunately, CNN’s Glenn Beck could not attain a similarly enlightened perspective. He condemned Wal-Mart on his radio show today, insisting the corporation had made a “deal with terrorists” and had succumbed to “blackmail”:

Well, what are the principles? The principles are right is right, wrong is wrong. No matter how much I need it, no matter how har