We know. The thought of Bush and Cheney on a bus with their suitcases, headed out of Washington, is enough to make the worst day seem pleasant. But, we found a way to make it even better: imagine Bush cronies and allies in Congress sitting right next to him – senators like Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, or John Sununu. Great picture huh? Well, it can be accomplished, but we only have less than 51 days to do it.

Check out our new online fundraising campaign for congressional candidates that are destined to boot out Bush allies in Congress – members who have helped Bush create the situation in Iraq, a nuclear crisis with Iran, new nuclear weapons programs, torture, civil rights violations and the destruction of America’s image abroad.

Join us  in our work to bring fresh, progressive voices to Congress in 2009!

April 23, 2008  By Jeff Lindemyer.   With the nation’s eyes focused squarely on the presidential candidates, little attention has been paid to the growing list of influential members of Congress who plan to retire at the end of this year. The…

May 15, 2008 stands as a historic day: the House of Representatives voted no-confidence in President Bush’s Iraq War Policy. Iraq war veterans opposed to the war lobbied the House. Their visible presence, in quiet, intense and moving conversation with House members told it all. The anti-War movement stood united in its efforts to support the efforts made by anti-war legislators.

The House used its appropriations power to limit Bush’s unrestrained war policies and set a time limit for troop withdrawal. It took an additional step by ending Iraq war funding. Most House Republicans refused to fund a war they support thereby adding to the no-confidence vote. The House expanded the GI Bill and paid for its expansion by asking rich people to pay an addition half a percent more on their taxes.

This note will discuss the legislation’s provisions, analyze the House votes and discuss why the Bush demagoguery on these issues has no merit.

The House Democratic leadership, operating as a team, listened to its members to structure a way of the House working its will on key issues directly related to the Iraq War. What the leadership structured is a precise use of the power of the purse to choose priorities and set boundaries on the use of our tax dollars by an unaccountable and unrestrained President.

The Bill’s Provisions

The House leadership divided the legislation into three parts known as Amendments 1, 2 and 3.

Amendment1: This Amendment provided funds to continue the war until a new President can set new policies for troop withdrawal. This Amendment allowed those opposed to the war to vote no, those who voted yes would not be politically vulnerable by not supporting the troops (mostly marginal Democrats from rural districts that overwhelmingly supported Bush in 2004). Supporters of the war, most House Republicans, were expected to support the legislation. Instead most House Republicans voted present. That is they refused to fund the war they claim to support.

Amendment 2: This Amendment established significant ground rules limiting the President’s authority to wage an unrestrained war. It establishes four significant policies sharply drawing the line with Bush policies:

   * Sets a mandate for withdrawal of troops from Iraq starting 30 days after enactment and to be completed within 18 months. What this policy does is establish a framework for a supportive President to begin a process of orderly troop withdrawal that protects our troops during the withdrawal phase.
    * Rotates the troops by requiring sufficient rest periods of more than a year between the time they are stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan before they resume combat duty. This responds to the many examples of men and women having multiple times of service in combat zones with hardly any real time at home.
    * Sets specific policies barring President Bush from unilaterally binding the next Administration in committing troops to Iraq.
    * Makes the prohibition on torture by US personnel crystal clear.

Amendment 3: The heart of Amendment 3 recognizes the service of our women and men in Afghanistan and Iraq by expanding veteran’s education for 10 years at an investment of $52 billion dollars. It extends the benefit for those serving in the National Guard who presently do not receive GI Education benefits. The GI Bill gets paid for by requiring approximately 500,000 taxpayers to have a surtax of 0.5% of couples earning more than $1,000,000 or individuals earning more than $500,000. That small increase will bring in the money to pay for the added costs of educating our veterans.

Analyzing the House Vote

Amendment 1 failed for two reasons: 63% of the Democrats opposed continued funding of the war. The 37% Democratic supporters of this funding mostly came from marginal electoral districts or rural areas. For most of them Bush carried their districts overwhelmingly in 2000 and 2004.

Seventy percent of the House Republicans surprised the President by voting present—neither yea nor nay. In their panic they abandoned Bush. They disrespected their constituents by not giving them their public judgment on the war.

Amendment 2 succeeded with the support of 94% of the House Democrats. It attracted 8 Republicans an increase of 4 in support of a deadline for withdrawal.

Amendment 3 had support from 97% of the House Democrats and 32 Republicans amounting to 17% of the House Republicans.

The Politics of It All

As a builder of House coalitions among liberal and moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans (an endangered group), I admire the work of the House Democratic leadership and the relevant committee sub-committee chairs. Ideas from many sources were drawn on including specific suggestions from Council for the Livable World and other anti-war groups.

Critical time was spent with Democratic House members listening to their concerns and structuring the process to enable House members to vote on all key issues. That is why it is a democratic process. Republicans have no cause to complain. In their day as a majority they did not allow key issues to be voted on.

The House Republican leadership and Bush will fire a steady drumbeat accusing the Democrats of abandoning the troops. That’s false. In using the public funds for withdrawal of the troops the money when appropriated serves to protect the troops. Even if true that funds will run out in mid-June (a very debatable matter), absent any enacted legislation, the Pentagon has acknowledged that money can be borrowed from the Navy and Air force funds. On that matter Congress will not stand in the way.

This vote present represents the panic House Republicans have in losing three straight bye elections in rock ribbed Republican House districts. Cheney’s presence in Mississippi campaigning for the defeated Republican adds to the panic. Old Rovian tactics of linking the conservative Democrats to Obama and Pelosi failed. Panic is palpable.

Above all it represents a triumph among House opponents of the Iraq war who recognize this disastrous and costly mistake. A strong majority of House officeholders want to take prompt action to begin to protect our troops, save Iraqi lives and strengthen our security by ending this disaster.

David Cohen is the Senior Congressional Fellow at Council for a Livable World

There are breathless analyses by reporters and cable news anchors about the ebb and flow of the contest for President based on the latest polling.

Obama is ahead, McCain is catching up, Obama’s trip overseas was either a great boon or a great bust, McCain’s forceful ads have put Obama on the defensive.

Hold your horses. There is less movement than is portrayed. Perhaps none at all.

Let’s look as some of the polling.

A CBS News poll released August 6 shows Obama leading McCain 45% to 39%. After all the too’ing and fro’ing in the past month, the findings are unchanged since a CBS/New York Times poll released on July 15. Indeed, that six point spread was unchanged from June when the poll had Obama ahead 48% to 42%.

A Time Magazine poll also released August 6 shows Obama ahead 46% to 41%. As the story reported, “Obama’s margin in the Time poll is the same as in its June survey.”

And of course there was at least one poll showing that McCain has inched ahead and others showing that Obama has a wider or narrower lead.

What does all this mean?

Is Obama ahead? Probably so by a few points.

Has Obama locked up the race? Most certainly not.

Has McCain with his new aggressive tactics caught up? Probably not.

How much should you believe polls? With several grains of salt, unless you are on a low sodium diet.

As well-respected pollster Mark Mellman recently wrote, “beware of stories told about this or any other election based on poll changes.”

And one more reminder: there is not a presidential election in the United States but rather 51 state elections (counting Washington DC as a state for electoral purposes). Thus the more important polls are those in key states.

What do the state polls show?

See above.

John Isaacs Executive Director, Council for a Livable World & Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

The two major presidential candidates left standing would make major changes to the national security and foreign policies carried out by the George W. Bush administration over the last seven years. Not surprisingly, exactly what kind of changes depends on who ends up on the steps of Capitol Hill taking the oath of office in January 2009 — Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).

The following analysis is based on several indicators: the candidates’ U.S. Senate voting records; their national security platforms as laid out in articles, op-eds and speeches; and their responses to queries in debates, public appearances, and questionnaires. Although campaign pledges and voting records do not always accurately translate into actual policy, they can provide important clues as to the future president’s inclinations.
IRAQ WAR

The war in Iraq has produced the sharpest divisions between the two candidates on the 2008 campaign trail. When the next president takes office, he will face major decisions about Iraq, where the United States will have been for almost six years, and where it is likely that upward of 140,000 U.S. troops will still remain.

John McCain cosponsored the 2002 vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq, arguing at the time that Saddam Hussein was “a threat of the first order.” Although he was a vehement critic of the administration’s “mismanagement and failure” during the early war years, he advocated the surge of additional troops to Iraq and the need to stay as long as necessary to win the war. He joined with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to pen an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Surge Worked.” He has suggested that his Democratic opponents advocate “surrender” by calling for a withdrawal timetable and billed his campaign as the “No Surrender Tour.” McCain has proposed that the U.S. military’s 50-plus years in South Korea, Japan and Germany is a good model for Iraq.

In 2002, when he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama opposed the war. However, after he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he voted against early proposals by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and others to set a timetable for withdrawal; now Obama votes consistently in favor of establishing a timetable. Obama’s plan for exiting Iraq would send home one or two combat brigades a month, with most combat troops out by the end of 2009. At an MSNBC debate in September 2007, Obama refused to guarantee that he would have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of his first term. Obama has also opposed permanent bases in Iraq.
IRAN POLICY

President Bush has displayed unremitting hostility toward the radical regime dominating Iran, a country that U.S. intelligence sources report had previously been pursuing a nuclear weapons program. He branded Iran part of the “axis of evil” and promoted regime change as the preferred U.S. policy. With a few limited exceptions, the United States under Bush has refused to talk directly with Iran.

McCain has been clear about his position on Iran. In February 2008, he told an audience: “I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.” He also rejects “unconditional dialogues” with Iran.

Obama has delivered messages on Iran that were more mixed. He has said “The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.” In a June 2008 speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, he refused to take the military option against Iran off the table: “I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.”

In the same speech, however, Obama promised: “aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests.” He has said also that it “would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran” and condemned the administration’s “saber-rattling” on Iran. Obama missed a vote on a controversial amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Lieberman that proposed labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama called the amendment a repeat of the mistakes that led to war in Iraq; however, he had cosponsored an earlier bill declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS

World free of nuclear weapons: In 2007, a bipartisan group of senior and former government officials called for moving toward a “world free of nuclear weapons.” In their article by that name, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) and former Secretary of Defense William Perry urged the United States to lead an international effort to rethink traditional deterrence, reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles and take other steps toward the longer term goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Obama has been clear in his support of their effort. In response to a Council for a Livable World questionnaire, he promised: “As president, I will take the lead to work for a world in which the roles and risks of nuclear weapons can be reduced and ultimately eliminated.”

In a May 2008 speech, McCain also endorsed the concept: “A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, ‘our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.’ That is my dream, too.”

New nuclear weapons: The Bush administration has put forward proposals to build a new generation of nuclear weapons; however, these plans might be seen as conflicting with U.S. efforts to restrain other states’ nuclear ambitions. McCain has supported the proposed new nuclear weapons programs. In four key Senate votes from 2003 to 2005, McCain voted to proceed with the work on such weapons. But in his May 2008 speech, he declared: “I would cancel all further work on the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a weapon that does not make strategic or political sense.” McCain did not express an opinion on another new nuclear weapons program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Obama, only in the Senate for the fourth vote, opposed the new weapons. He has not been categorical in response to the Council for a Livable World’s queries about his position on new nuclear weapons, responding that he did not support “a premature decision to produce the [Reliable Replacement Warhead].”

Nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT): One of the longest sought goals of the nuclear age has been a global ban on all nuclear test explosions as an important step to advance nuclear nonproliferation. In 1996, after 50 years of work, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed and opened for ratification. However, three years later, the Senate decisively rejected the treaty. Although the United States has not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1992, the Bush administration has not put the treaty forward for a new vote.

McCain voted against the treaty, stating at the time: “The viability of our nuclear deterrent is too central to our national security to rush approval of a treaty that cannot be verified and that will facilitate the decline of that deterrent.” More recently, McCain has committed to continuing the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing that has existed since 1992, and promised to take “another look” at the test ban treaty. Although Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the 1999 vote, he has promised to make the test ban treaty a priority of his first term in office and pledged to work to rebuild bipartisan support for the treaty.

Nuclear non-proliferation: Efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries have faltered during the Bush administration. McCain has promised expanded proliferation efforts, increasing funding for American non-proliferation programs, strengthening international treaties and institutions to combat proliferation, increasing funding for the International Atomic Energy Administration and negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

Obama has committed to securing all vulnerable nuclear weapons materials around the world within four years of taking office: “I’ll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials during my first term in office.” He has also promised to seek a global ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and “dramatic reductions” in nuclear weapons stockpiles and a strengthened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
MISSILE DEFENSE

In 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and since then has moved swiftly to deploy national missile defense interceptors in Alaska and California. The latest fiscal budget request for 2009 is $12.3 billion for all forms of missile defense.

McCain has declared that he “strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses.” His votes in the Senate back up that claim: he opposed all three amendments to cut the program in 2004. In a 2001 speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, he advocated abandoning the ABM Treaty.

Obama has been critical of the Bush missile defense plans: “The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes.” Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin in 2005 (the last major vote on missile defense) while McCain missed the vote. Obama has not indicated plans for missile defense upon assuming the presidency.

Missile defense site in Europe: McCain has also been clear in his support for a third missile defense site in Europe that is bitterly opposed by Russia. Congress cut a portion of the funding for the program in 2007 in advance of approval from the two Central European countries. In an October 2007 debate, McCain said: “I don’t care what [President Vladimir Putin’s] objections are to it.” He has also described the system as a “hedge against potential threats” from Russia and China.

Obama has been less clear what he would do with the Bush proposal, but indicated that he would not allow the program “to divide ‘new Europe’ and ‘old Europe.'” He also suggested that: “If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies, we should — but only when the system works.”
NORTH KOREA

During the last seven years, it is believed that North Korea reprocessed enough plutonium for about six to ten nuclear weapons. In 2006, North Korea became the ninth country in the world to test a nuclear weapon. In the last 12 months, negotiations among six countries — the six-party talks including the United States, North Korea, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea – produced an agreement where North Korea would disable its facility and provide a full declaration of its nuclear sites and activities. In exchange, the United States would beging the process of removing North Korea from the terrorist list, easing economic sanctions and moving toward normalization of U.S.-North Korea and Japan-North Korea relations.

After President Bush announced on June 26 that North Korea would be taken off the state-sponsored terrorism list in response to North Korea’s declaration of its nuclear program, Obama called the move “a step forward.” He went on to say: “We should continue to pursue the kind of direct and aggressive diplomacy with North Korea that can yield results. The objective must be clear: the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.”

McCain was a bit less effusive, calling the announcement “a modest step forward.” He added: “Our goal has been the full, permanent and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula . . . If we are unable to fully verify the declaration submitted today and if I am not satisfied with the verification mechanisms developed, I would not support the easing of sanctions on North Korea.”
OTHER ISSUES IN BRIEF

Closing Guantanamo Bay prison:Obama and McCain agree: Close the prison.

U.S.-India nuclear deal: McCain and Obama both voted for the U.S.-India nuclear deal in 2006, but Obama also voted for amendments to condition the deal on India ending military cooperation with Iran and a presidential certification that nuclear cooperation with India will not aid India in making more nuclear weapons. McCain continues to endorse the treaty “as a means of strengthening our relationship with the world’s largest democracy, and further involving India in the fight against proliferation.”

Military forces: McCain and Obama have both called for expanding the size of our active duty military forces.