The Progress Report, OCTOBER 26, 2004

[Guest guest]

Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:39:53 -0700

Progress Report: The Scalia/Thomas Majority

" American Progress Action Fund "

<progress

 

 

The Progress Report

 

by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin

OCTOBER 26, 2004

 

IRAQ The $225 Billion Mess

JUDICIARY The Scalia/Thomas Majority

UNDER THE RADAR Go Beyond The Headlines

 

 

IRAQ

The $225 Billion Mess

 

The Washington Post reported this morning that the White House is

planning to seek another $70 billion in emergency funding for the wars

in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, bringing the total cost close

to $225 billion. Also, USA Today reports, " Pentagon officials are

considering increasing the current U.S. force by delaying the

departures of some U.S. troops now in Iraq and accelerating the

deployment of others scheduled to go there next year. " This will

affect more than 20,000 U.S. soldiers. The new numbers " underscore

that the [iraq] war is going to be far more costly and intense, and

last longer, than the administration first suggested. " Unfortunately,

the war has also been made longer and tougher in part by a series of

serious mistakes and errors in judgment by the administration. (For an

idea of just how much the war in Iraq has already cost your state,

take a look at this map.)

 

INSURGENT THREAT IGNORED: USA Today reports the administration was

repeatedly warned about the strong possibility of Iraqi insurgency in

the days before the war. These warnings, however, were ignored. For

example, two reports by the National Intelligence Council " warned Bush

in January 2003, two months before the invasion, that the conflict

could spark factional violence and an anti-U.S. insurgency. " A

separate report by the Army War College a month before the invasion

predicted, " The longer U.S. presence is maintained, the more likely

violent resistance will develop. " The war plan put together by Defense

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Tommy Franks, however,

" discounted these warnings. "

 

LOSING FALLUJAH: The Los Angeles Times reports the administration's

inconsistent, politically motivated response to the insurgency " turned

Fallujah from a troublesome, little-known city on the edge of Iraq's

western desert to an embodiment of almost everything that has gone

wrong for the United States in Iraq. " Today, Fallujah is a " haven for

anti-American guerrillas, a base for suicide bombers, and a

headquarters for the man U.S. officials consider the most dangerous

terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi. "

 

ZARQAWI GOT AWAY: The White House passed up the chance to take out

Zarqawi before the war in Iraq. The Wall Street Journal reports that

in June 2002, the Pentagon drew up detailed plans for a military

strike designed to hit the terrorist in his camp. Gen. John Keane, the

Army's vice chief of staff, called the camp " one of the best targets

we ever had. " The White House, however, quashed the plan, unwilling to

cause any international controversy in the leadup to the invasion of

Iraq. Zarqawi got away and used the war in Iraq to spearhead a

terrorist insurgency. He is responsible for a string of deadly car

bombings, beheadings as well as the recent massacre of more than 40

Iraqi army recruits.

 

REAL THREATS IGNORED: In its zeal to chase down phantom weapons of

mass destruction – which did not exist – the White House left

dangerous explosives – which did exist – unguarded and open to looting

by terrorists. Pentagon officials said the facility " was not high on

U.S. commanders' list of sites to guard because survey teams found no

nuclear or biological materials. " Scott McClellan also stated

yesterday, " There is not a nuclear proliferation risk, " he said.

" We're talking about conventional explosives. " These " conventional

explosives " have been widely used in the car bombs and suicide bombs

that are killing U.S. troops in Iraq. They are also powerful enough to

bring down entire buildings or " shatter " airplanes.

 

ADMINISTRATION PUSHES BOGUS THEORY: Yesterday, in an attempt to

downplay the looting of the dangerous explosives, the administration

tried to sell the theory that the weapons were already gone by the

time the U.S. forces reached the Al Qaqaa military facility, leaving

the U.S. no chance to safeguard the material. The LA Times reports,

" Given the size of the missing cache, it would have been difficult to

relocate undetected before the invasion, when U.S. spy satellites were

monitoring activity. " One former U.S. intelligence official who worked

in Baghdad concurred: " You don't just move this stuff in the middle of

the night. " On top of that, Iraqi officials told the International

Atomic Energy Agency earlier this month " that the explosives were

looted after April 9, 2003, when U.S. forces entered Baghdad. "

 

OIL WAS THE PRIORITY: The administration has had to fight the

perception that the United States invaded Iraq for the oil, a

perception that has fueled Iraqi anger at the U.S. presence. In a

press conference yesterday, however, White House Press Secretary Scott

McClellan was asked why the U.S. had left the dangerous explosives

unguarded. He responded, " At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there

were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the

oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of

the oil fields. "

 

JUDICIARY

The Scalia/Thomas Majority

 

Chief Justice William Rehnquist underwent surgery yesterday related to

" a recent diagnosis of thyroid cancer. " Rehnquist's serious condition

– even as he is expected to return to the bench on Monday – " gave

fresh prominence to the future of the Supreme Court. " Bush has said

publicly that the Supreme Court justices he admires are arch

conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If re-elected, it is

possible Bush could get three or more appointments, " enough to forge a

new majority that would turn the extreme Scalia-Thomas worldview into

the law of the land. " The result: " Abortion might be a crime in most

states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their

homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing

Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The

Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by

prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections

could disappear. "

 

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In the second

presidential debate Bush was asked, given the opportunity, who he

would appoint to the Supreme Court. Bush responded that he wouldn't

pick a judge who supported " the Dred Scott case, which is where

judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because

of personal property rights. " Why would President Bush reference Dred

Scott v. Sandford, which hasn't been good law since the end of the

Civil War? Because " to the Christian right, 'Dred Scott' turns out to

be a code word for 'Roe v. Wade.' " Dred Scott has been compared to Roe

v. Wade by prominent conservatives such as George Will, Peggy Noonan

and Michael Novak. By referencing Dred Scott, Bush made it clear that

" he would never, ever appoint a Supreme Court justice who condoned

Roe. " If Roe v. Wade is overturned, " there's a good chance that 30

states, home to more than 70 million women, will outlaw abortions

within a year; some states may take only weeks. " (For more on Bush's

misuse of the Dred Scott decision read this new column from American

Progress).

 

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD CRIMINALIZE PRIVATE SEXUAL CONDUCT: If

Scalia and Thomas controlled the Court, " states could once again

criminalize private, consensual conduct between adults, and could

prevent local governments from enacting even the most basic

anti-discrimination protections for gay men and lesbians. " Last year,

when the Court ruled that the police violated a gay man's right to

liberty when they raided his home and arrested him for having sex

there, Scalia and Thomas sided with the police.

 

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD END FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: The

Family and Medical Leave Act " guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks

of unpaid leave to care for a loved one. " Last year, the Court upheld

the law, but Scalia and Thomas voted to strike it down, arguing that

Congress exceeded its power in passing the law.

 

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD ALLOW STATE-SPONSORED RELIGION: Justice

Thomas has suggested that " despite many Supreme Court rulings to the

contrary...the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion

may not apply to the states. " If that view prevailed, " states could

adopt particular religions and use tax money to proselytize for them. "

 

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD LEGALIZE SEX DISCRIMINATION: If Scalia

and Thomas were in charge, " public universities, such as the Virginia

Military Institute, would be able to discriminate against women in

admissions. " Also, federal law " could no longer be used to protect

students from sexual harassment or other types of discrimination at

the hands of other students. "

 

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD LEGALIZE BRUTALITY AGAINST PRISONERS: A

recent case considered a Louisiana inmate who " was shackled and then

punched and kicked by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on. "

The beating left the inmate " with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a

cracked dental plate. " The Court ruled that the inmate's treatment

violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual

punishment. Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing " the Eighth Amendment

was not violated by the 'insignificant' harm the inmate suffered. "

 

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD GUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS: A

Scalia/Thomas majority would make short work of the law that protects

our air, water and land. Scalia and Thomas, for example, voted to

strip the EPA " of the authority to prevent damaging air pollution by

industries when state agencies improperly fail to do so. " Already,

federal judges appointed by Bush " were less sympathetic to

environmentalists' pleadings than those appointed by previous

Republican presidents... ruling in favor of environmental challenges

17 percent of the time. "

 

 

Under the Radar

 

AFGHANISTAN – MORE PRISONER ABUSE?: Cherif Bassiouni, the U.N. Human

Rights Commission's independent expert on human rights in Afghanistan,

" criticized the U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan for violating

international law by allegedly beating Afghans to death and forcing

some to remove their clothes or wear hoods. " While the coalition

justifies many of its practices as necessary for fighting the " war on

terrorism, " Bassiouni said they undermine efforts to enforce

compliance with international law and standards. He cited several

examples of alleged violations by coalition troops, including entering

people's homes without warrants, detaining people without judicial

authority, " beatings resulting in death ... forced nudity and public

embarrassment, sleep deprivation, prolonged squatting, and hooding and

sensory deprivation. " Bassiouni also " blamed warlords, local

commanders, and drug traffickers " for many of the rights violations,

but stressed that " the absence of security " had allowed such elements

to exact " a direct and significant impact on all human rights. "

 

TERRORISM – EMBRACING GADHAFI: President Bush has " often cited Libya's

announcement last December that it would stop trying to build nuclear

weapons as evidence that the invasion of Iraq has deterred other

nations from terrorism, " but the Washington Post's David Ignatius says

the administration is " undercutting its 'war on terrorism' " by

embracing a Libyan regime now known to have plotted to assassinate the

ruler of Saudi Arabia. New details support evidence that " in November

2003, at the very time that top Libyan officials were negotiating with

U.S. and British diplomats the details of a supposed renunciation of

terrorism, Libyan operatives were recruiting a hit team to kill Saudi

Crown Prince Abdullah and destabilize the oil-rich kingdom. "

Privately, the administration admonished Gadhafi, but " it has gone

almost unmentioned publicly by an administration eager to claim

success for its anti-terrorism policy. " So much for not sending mixed

messages.

 

CORPORATE – BUSH FOREIGN POLICY THREATENS PROFITS: A new poll shows

President Bush's foreign policy may be hurting overseas profits for

American companies. The poll, by an independent global market research

firm, says " American corporations are in danger of suffering a major

shift in purchasing habits as nearly 20% of foreign consumers say

they'll avoid select U.S. products due to America's position on

foreign affairs. " The poll reveals that " people in China, Japan,

Germany and other industrialized Western nations are less willing

today to purchase American brands — notably Starbucks, Marlboro and

Mattel — or fly American-based airlines than before the Iraqi invasion

and the United States' unilateral foreign policies. " More than half of

those surveyed cited " an increasingly negative perception of the U.S.,

while 67% believe U.S. foreign policy is guided by 'self interests'

and 'empire building.' "

 

CIVIL LIBERTIES – FBI TURNED BLIND EYE TO PRISONER ABUSE: The New York

Times reports, " FBI agents witnessed harsh treatment of detainees at

the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003, but did not believe that what

they saw was abusive or worth reporting, according to a newly released

document. " Some of the things the agents saw: an inmate with a sack

over his head who was covered with a shower curtain and handcuffed to

a waist-high rail; a naked or partly clothed inmate made to lie prone

on a wet floor; inmates stripped naked and put in isolation cells.

" The document, a May 19 report by the FBI's counterterrorism

division, " shows the bureau's leadership became concerned about what

its agents had seen only after Abu Ghraib went public. The report said

the treatment witnessed by the agents seemed similar to what agents

" had seen in prison strip-searches in the United States. "

 

MEDIA – SMITH DOESN'T WATCH OWN SHOWS: Apparently, even Sinclair CEO

David Smith is turned off by his company's programming: in an

interview on Friday, Smith denied being a Republican activist and said

he rarely watched anything but golf on TV. He denied trying to sway

the presidential election by requiring his stations to air a special

on Friday that included several minutes of an anti-Kerry documentary,

and said he gave more money to Democrats than Republicans. According

to Federal Election Commission records, at least the latter of these

statements was untrue. Since 1997, Smith has given only $2,250 in

donations to Democrats while he has pitched in $22,000 for

Republicans. " Brothers Frederick G. Smith and J. Duncan Smith, also

Sinclair board members, have made tens of thousands of dollars in GOP

contributions over the same period, record show. "