With two weeks to go, Republicans are desperate to avoid a historic drubbing at the polls.  In Colorado, they are pulling out all the stops to try to stop progressive Betsy Markey from defeating right-wing Rep. Marilyn Musgrave.

Republicans are spending $1 million to air a TV ad that falsely claims Musgrave is about to be put in jail.

When questioned about the ad by reporters, the Musgrave campaign could not provide any evidence to back their inflammatory and offensive claims.

In response, Colorado Senator Ken Salazar (D) called the ads “absolutely false” and condemned Musgrave as an “agent of hate.”

You can learn more about Betsey Markey and help her fight back against these Rove-style attacks here.

Republican incumbent Senator Gordon Smith is far from being the only candidate this election season to emphasize links to Barack Obama in an attempt to build off of the presidential campaign’s momentum. He is, however, likely the only candidate to do s…

I just posted this new commentary by Executive Director John Isaacs on our sister organization’s website. The text is below.

Don’t Be Fooled By Calls for New Nukes
By John Isaacs
October 17, 2008

Over the past several months, a handful of conservative security analysts have begun to argue for upgrading the current U.S. nuclear arsenal. These arguments typically call for bolstering America’s “nuclear deterrent,” which of course is a euphemism for building more new nuclear weapons.

A representative example came in the July 14 issue of Defense News in a commentary by David Trachtenberg titled “Death Knell for Nuclear Deterrence.”

Trachtenberg, a consultant and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, writes that the United States currently has a “faith-based” nuclear deterrent. What he credits to faith, however, he should instead credit to facts and science.

The United States has more than 4,000 deployed nuclear weapons and more than 1,200 in reserve. Almost all of these most destructive weapons ever built are larger than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than 60 years ago. To all but those who are wearing blinders, this nuclear force packs a world-destructive wallop and is many times larger than the nuclear forces of all countries except Russia.

Trachtenberg uses terms like “aging” and “cold war relics.” The question is not the age of the weapons but whether they work and whether they can do the job that has been assigned to them. Each year, the Departments of Defense and Energy have certified that our nuclear weapons stockpile still works quite capably.

Moreover, a 2006 study conducted by U.S. national weapons laboratories and reviewed by JASON, a widely respected independent government advisory group, found that the plutonium cores of the current nuclear stockpile are, and will continue to be, reliable at least for the next 40 to 50 years.

Trachtenberg asserts that the smaller stockpile of nuclear weapons that the United States maintains will heighten the “appetite of rogue states and terrorist groups” to gain their own weapons. He apparently does not understand politics or history. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have been seeking nuclear weapons regardless of what the United States does. Why? Because if a terrorist group explodes a nuclear weapon on an American city, the U.S. nuclear response is irrelevant and we will have no one on which to retaliate.

The North Koreans and the Iranians have moved toward nuclear weapons programs not because of any U.S. reductions, but more likely because they learned the lesson of Iraq in 2003: The United States will attack non-nuclear countries but not those with nuclear weapons.

The goal of sharply reducing the supply of nuclear weapons and materials is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states. We don’t need to build new nuclear weapons or to modernize our nuclear weapons to remain the strongest power in the world.

There is no doubt the relationship between the United States and Russia has been strained of late. Recent events like the Russia-Georgia crisis, the proposed third missile defense site in Europe, and the independence of Kosovo have pitted the two countries against each other at a time when cooperative action – on terrorism, Iran, energy, and nuclear proliferation – is needed most.

Former U.S. Secretaries of State George Shultz recently wrote an op-ed in which they argue against a policy that further isolates Russia and propose steps for a constructive U.S.-Russia relationship.

The two experts explain that Russian military action and brash rhetoric against Georgia sent shockwaves throughout that region – and around the world. The U.S. response, to isolate and chastise, however, is a “drift toward confrontation” and is “not a sustainable long-range policy,” as Russia is imtimately tied to  Europe,  Asia, and the volatile Middle East, and has a nuclear stockpile comparable to our own.

Kissinger and Schultz suggest that Russia’s recent actions are a result of a series of miscalculations, a desire for acceptance as an equal in the international community, and a somewhat defensive historical and psychological perspective.

Rather than pursue a policy of isolation, the authors – echoing Ronald Reagan’s 1983 approach after the Soviets shot down a Korean airplane – recommend a consistent approach of “strength and diplomacy.” Many members of Congress, who agree that the U.S. response to Russia must be measured and balanced to prevent future conflict, have also expressed that sentiment.  Senator Hillary Clinton and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, among others, have stressed the importance of continued U.S.-Russian dialogue.      

Kissinger and Shultz point out that the immediate crisis involving Georgia should not overshadow the many national security interests shared by the two countries. The Sochi document – a cooperative strategy outlined by President Bush and then-President Vladimir Putin in April 2008 – provides an effective roadmap for addressing those challenges. This roadmap, combined with an approach of “strength and diplomacy,” they maintain, provides the most constructive opportunity for both nations to confront issues from terrorism and Iran, to nuclear proliferation and energy.

 

Cross posted from Iraq Insider For the past several months, the United States and Iraq have gone back and forth over negotiations on a proposed security agreement. Among the most contentious issues have been whether there should be a withdrawal date fo…