Iraq

From the AP:

BAGHDAD (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday the two countries have agreed that timetables should be set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the battle-scarred country.

Appearing together at a news conference, Rice and Zebari mutually asserted that a final agreement between Washington and Baghdad on a withdrawal plan and accompanying strategic framework pact is close to fruition - but not there yet.

Just a quickie. This clearly has been a bad, bad week for U.S. Sen. John McCain, but I think he hit rock bottom with his tortured -- and just plain wrong -- description of the surge in Iraq at a press conference in the cheese aisle -- the cheese aisle -- of a supermarket. McCain, a true military hero, was supposed to be the candidate strong on national defense.

It was supposed to be a wedge issue, an extra sharp distinction between him and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. Instead, he's left standing in front of plastic packages of neon colored cheese slices. McCain looked even more overripe than usual under the bright fluorescent lights. He looked whey bad. The grating episode got started when McCain -- blinking even more than ususal -- did an interview with Katie Couric and shredded the surge timeline. Strangely, CBS sliced the gaffe right out. But in the world of blogging and YouTube, it quickly ripened, finding its way to the political surface in no time; CBS quickly aired it in its entirety.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann highlighted the fromage case presser with a handy-dandy timeline. You can watch it here:

McCain's wheel down the cheese aisle may seem funny, but this is no laughing matter. This is only the latest in a series of frightening mistakes that curdles my blood. The bottom rind: this man is not fit to be president.

Austin, TX - The Administration agrees to a "time horizon" for removing our troops from Iraq. A senior diplomat is sitting down with an Iran nuclear negotiator. Secretary Gates publically calls for troops to be moved from Iraq to Afghanistan. The EPA releases a report confirming the very real and imminent threat of climate change. Bush agrees to cut greenhouse emissions at the G8. Taken together, this seems like an across-the-board repudiation of many fiercely held Bush Administation positions, all closely associated with the Vice President.

Where's Dick and his team of neocons in all this? There are of course many areas where the Administration seems deeply dug in, but change has come to the White House. Why, for what reasons, this is all happening now, it is too soon to tell. But change nevertheless has come to the White House in the final months of the Bush Administration.

1030am - Lots of talk here about Maliki's endorsement of Obama's timetable for withdrawal. What an extraordinary moment in what has been a remarkable political year, and what will no doubt be an important, even historic, trip abroad by U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. Even Maliki has joined the neocon repudiation chorus.

1035am - Speaker Pelosi is doing a remarkable job here at Netroots Nation. I am very proud of her for recognizing the importance of this gathering, and her thoughtful and powerful presence here this morning.

1050am - Asked about her agenda, the Speaker said health care, her innovation agenda, infrastructure and green energy. And throughout her 10-ten talk, her language was modern, her understanding of the issues detailed, her ability to weave a narrative compelling. I'm not sure too many politicians of either Party could have done as good as a job as she is doing this morning.

1120am - Gore has arrived, and is just knocking the ball out of the park.  He is as good as I've ever seen him.  He has captured the room, and I have to believe has now officially engaged/involved the netroots in his crusade.  This is an important day in the development of a national movement to solve the climate crisis. 

Amazingly, Gore and Pelosi are now just sitting and taking questions. This has been a great morning.  Kudos to Gina for her stage management of this powerful session. 

San Diego, CA - US Senator John McCain delivered an impressive performance today to the conference attendees at NCLR.  I must admit that he performed much better than I was expecting.  Senator McCain focused on his support for improving relations with Latin America (something that NDN had been promoting through our Latin American Policy Initiative), the importance for assisting small businesses to help the economy, he spoke of the contributions that many Hispanics provide to our Armed Forces and yes he spoke of immigration.  Although he did not provide the rock star atmosphere that was evident during Senator Obama's speech, he kept the audience engaged and informed.  It is no secret that I disagree with many of Senator McCain's positions, and that I have criticized him for betraying Hispanics when he walked away from his own bill to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform, but you have to give credit where credit is due.  Senator McCain acknowledged that he was not in the most friendly room given recent polls that show Hispanics favoring Senator Obama by 2 to 1, and yet he still allowed the audience to pepper him with questions that were clearly difficult for him to address.  In the most important exchange, at least in my opinion, Senator McCain was asked to clarify if his modified position on immigration that emphasizes border enforcement would be submitted in ONE bill or separate bills.  Senator McCain stated that his proposal would be ONE bill that includes a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants in this country, but would provide for securing the border first.  This is an important clarification to make because he has not made this statement before.  NDN has advocated over the past few years that any Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill must include all aspects in one bill as opposed to multiple bills that deal with the various issues of immigration reform.  This statement is significant, and it is important for immigration activists to confirm that this is in fact his position, and hold him to this position. 

Tomorrow, I will be speaking on a panel titled - Latino Voters: Making their mark on the 2008 Election.  For more info on the panel click here.  Exciting times my friends, Iand  will report back tomorrow. 

Buried in Wednesday’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll was this fact: 18 percent of Americans view energy and the cost of gas as the most important issues for the federal government to address. That number ranked third, behind the economy and the war in Iraq, and ten points ahead of health care. Add that to the 4 percent of Americans who see the environment and global warming and the environment as the number one issue, and 22 percent of Americans see some sort of energy concern as the most important federal issue.

Concern about the fact that only four percent see global warming as the most important issue notwithstanding, this is a welcome shift in political consciousness. The next step is for our leaders to explain why the top two issues, the economy and the war in Iraq, are actually related to energy and the cost of gas, and why confronting global warming relates to all three.

Unfortunately, political rhetoric and action is not yet where it needs to be on these issues. Instead of convincing dialogue about building a clean energy future that enhances energy and climate security, the American people get irresponsible talk from a supposedly pro-climate candidate about a gas tax holiday. The Senate debates cap and trade legislation, but won’t even extend the Solar Investment Tax Credit. Four dollar a gallon gasoline means that it is time to move forward to new sources of energy, not despair about the fact that the old ones aren’t working for us as well as we’d like.

High energy prices are here to stay, and the American people are struggling because of it. For now, it seems that many politicians are unwilling or unable to tell the American people that we have to innovate, not drill, out of this problem, and that there is no short-term solution.

Leadership means connecting the dots, from high energy prices, to climate change, to green collar jobs, to turmoil in the Middle East. It means realizing that four dollar a gallon gasoline is related to the Solar ITC. America is nowhere close to leading on energy, and the consequences will be grim should we take a pass on building the premier 21st century green economy. Thankfully, it seems that the market is taking hold. Companies like GM are starting to get the picture that we need to build plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt, and California is primed to install 200-250 Megawatts of solar in 2008 alone. Let’s hope political leadership can create the policy needed to support them.

Following his recent confusion regarding the difference between Sunni and Shiite, the wheels continue to fall off Old Man McCain's straight talk express, this time courtesy of the DNC. The recently released website, mccaindebates.com, features Arizona's Senior Senator contradicting himself on a number of points on the war in Iraq by playing quotes he gave, and perhaps, like his remark on his lack of understanding of economics, or today's revelations from the New York Times on his almost-party-switching, forgot about. It concludes saying, "No matter which McCain you listen to, he only offers a third Bush term on Iraq." This website features a two pronged argument that will play prominently as Democrats turn toward McCain: First, that he is not the straight shooter he claims to be - or appeared to be in 2000 - and second, a McCain presidency offers a nothing more than a third Bush term.

The folks over at CNN have a very useful column by Matt Barreto and Sylvia Manzano on the Latino electorate in Texas.  Their findings are based on a joint poll by Texas A&M and Latino Decisions that was conducted in late February.  There are many obvious findings such as opposition to the war in Iraq, support for immigration reform, and opposition to the construction of the wall along the US/Mexico border.  However, there is one key finding that I think is worth noting.  The poll results indicate that Obama is viewed favorably by 66% of Latinos.  Although this is not as high as the 78% that Clinton receives, it underscores the point that I have been stating that Latinos are not voting against Obama.  This is extremely important because of the misconception that many pundits and reporters have that Obama has a problem with Latino voters.  The problem he has is that Latinos tend to prefer Clinton, if Latinos were supporting Clinton because they disliked Obama that would be very troublesome.  This is very good news for the Obama campaign.  Another interesting finding is that McCain is viewed favorably by 48% of the Latinos in Texas.  This means that McCain will have significant trouble competing against either Democratic candidate for the Latino vote even in conservative states like Texas. I think that this poll continues to discredit reports that McCain will be able to take Latino votes away from the Democratic nominee.  This is not good news for McCain. 

I want to thank my friend Juan Marcos Vilar for sending the following video to me. It is by far the most effective Spanish language campaign video I have seen. We know that the Obama campaign has been successful at using new methods of communicating with voters, and I am sure that this video will get much attention online. While some commentators continue to assume that there is some tension between Latino voters against black candidates, I have stated that the primary reason Obama has not garnered greater support among Latino voters is simply because they do not know him well enough. This video incorporates moving images and provocative and penetrating lyrics, and will serve as a great tool to introduce Obama to Latinos. Whoever put this video together deserves a lot of credit (check them out at dipdive.com). It targets both the younger and older generations of Latino voters with messaging that is very effective to the Latino community. If the folks over at the Obama campaign continue with these types of communication, it well serve them well.

The New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks suggests in an editorial today, When Reality Bites, that a Democratic president may face some difficult choices in their administration and policies that have yet to be reconciled in this campaign... changing course in Iraq and domestic spending.

As some may recall I just returned from a 10 day foreign trip, including 6 days in Israel. There I spoke at a major policy conference and met with Israeli journalists, policy makers, elected officials, entrepreneurs and other civic leaders. All in all it was a remarkable trip.

I offered up some initial thoughts soon after arriving in Jerusalem. Since I returned I've been thinking a lot about the trip, and have watched as the people of Gaza spilled into Egypt and the Winograd Commission issued its report. I've come away from the trip with a profound sense that the Bush era has made the Middle East more radical, less stable, more anti-American and anti-Israeli. The policies of the Bush Administration have left our ally, Israel, in a much weaker position than they found it.

4 key points:

The Iraq War is directly responsible for the rise of Iran as a regional power. The Iraq War removed Iran's greatest regional rival, placed an Iranian-influenced Shiite-led government in the heart of the region and paved the way for Iran's current regional ascension, which includes much more robust support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The chaos which has ensued in Iraq will also no doubt create an entire new generation of trained radicals who will be haunting the region for years to come. And the failure of our policy in Iraq has made it much more difficult to rally domestic and world opinion against the prospect of a nuclear Iran, a development hat simply must be seen as one of the greatest security threats in the world today and one that is an existential threat to Israel.

As readers of this blog know I have been obsessed for years about what Bush and company believed would happen in the region if America put in charge of Iraq Shia political parties whose leaders left the country during their war with Iran, and lived and sided with Iran in its war against Saddam. Did we not understand the history of the regional Sunni-Shiite struggle? How could democracy flourish there, particularly without any real plan for investing in and nurturing Iraqi civil society? How could the first Shiite-led Arab government in the Middle East become anything but a threat to the region's Sunni populations, Sunni governments and an ally of Iran?

After the initial success of the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, George Bush had many choices on how to proceed to bring about a more peaceful and prosperous world, and further riding the world of security threats. At a strategic and operational level, it is now clear, for the interests of both Israel and the United States, that the decision to invade Iraq, the lack of a serious plan to bring about post-invasion regional security, the lack of a serious plan for investment in Iraqi civil society, has been a disaster and left the region much more unstable and dangerous than before.

The epic failure of Bush's democratization agenda as a regional strategy. Prior to going to Israel, I had believed that the President's "democratization" agenda was just a rhetorical facade for Western audiences to put a more pleasant face on his more imperial designs. But in Israel I learned that Bush and his foreign policy team actually believed in this agenda, and worked to carry it out in the region. They met with Arab heads of state, and told them that is was a new day and that they needed to open up their closed societies. They promoted elections in Iraq, which of course elected Shiite parties close to Iran and anathema to the region's Sunnis. And most consequentially, over the objection of the Israeli government, the Bush Administration allowed the participation of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah in elections in the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon without insisting that they give up their arms, recognize Israel's right to exist or renounce the killing of innocent civilians. Both Hamas and Hezbollah did well in their elections, and have now gained a degree of local, regional and international legitimacy - and political power - long denied them. The immediate impact was to plunge Lebanon into further political chaos, split the government of the PA into two and strengthen Iran's regional influence.

Again, what were they thinking?

As in Iraq, the Bush Administration seemed to believe that democracy itself had magical powers, that it was the act of electing a democratic leader which would bring about peaceful societies. But this idea is an extraordinary misreading of history. Hitler gained power through democratic elections. Chavez and Putin today, two of the world's most powerful autocrats, were elected. Fidel Castro is elected every few years in Cuba, getting, remarkably, all the votes cast. Elections themselves have never been sufficient to create open societies. The American formula, used so effectively to help bring modern and open societies to ever more of the world, was always more complex. It required free markets, personal liberty, the rule of law and yes democratic representation. Applying tried and true formula to the Middle East would have required Hamas and Hezbollah to renounce terror, recognize Israel, and demilitarize as a condition for participation in their elections. There can be no rule of law, no personal freedom if one of the major political parties in a nation keeps a private and well-funded private militia.

Bush's democratization agenda has become a joke in the Middle East. Israelis I spoke to saw it as a wildly naïve, dangerous concept and policy. This simplistic view of what builds complex, functioning, civil societies undermined both realistic planning for the peace in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli peace process. For it is harder to see today how meaningful peace can be brought to Israel and Palestine with he fanatics of the Hamas having control in Gaza and a newfound global legitimacy. Sunni Arabs have not exactly been inspired by the aftermath of our democratizing efforts in Iraq, which among other things strengthened the regional hand of Iran and the Shiites.

And, of course, once Hamas and Hezbollah had strong electoral showings, as many had predicted, the Bush Administration announced they would not work with these newly elected groups, further making the Bush call for democratization a hallow and cyniical one.

So also damaged in the Bush era is the whole idea of free and open societies themselves, as his loony vision of "democratization" has been instrumental in bringing further chaos and instability to an already troubled region. It will be vital that the next President, of whichever Party, restores the tried and true - and hard - vision of what it takes to build pluralistic, democratic and free nations.

The failure to lead the world in lessening its dependence on oil. There can be no doubt that the world's dependence on oil is itself becoming a grave security threat. We know the global environmental challenge a carbon-based economy offers. But we also have to come to terms with oil how many of the oil producing nations themselves - Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia - are becoming the main funders and purveyors of regional and global instability. And perversely, as the price of oil rises with the perception of global instability, these nations now have a national interest in maintaining or increasing the instability which fuels their economies and is the source of their regional and global power.

Hamas and Hezbollah are funded with Iranian oil money. Al Qaeda's start up capital came from a wealthy Saudi family, made rich by their relationship with the Saudi Royal family. Oil money funds the Madrassas which are radicalizing young Muslims around the world. Oil money is keeping dictators in power, preventing the modernization of many nations.

It is simply impossible to be for Israel and for a peaceful Middle East without also being for an enormous global effort to wean the world its debilitating addiction to oil. The Bush Administration's lack of leadership on climate change has in of itself strengthened the hand of the world's emerging petro-dictators, and lengthened their time of influence and power.

Bush's actions and rhetoric have made tens of millions of Europeans and Arabs much more anti-US and anti-Israeli. For many, the collective impact of the Axis of Evil war on terror language towards Muslims, the botched Iraq War, the lack of a commitment to lasting Arab-Israeli peace, the closeness of Bush and the Israeli government, and the sheer unpopularity of Bush himself has weakened the Israeli cause across the world, including in the United States. The Israelis are now seen not just aligned with the United States but one of the world's most unpopular and belligerent leaders. The UN may have once equated Zionism with racism, but now the world is essentially equating Zionism with Bushism, something that may be much more damaging for Israel than the infamous UN Resolution.

In my several days in Britain I was able to learn first hand how anti-Israeli many British elites have become. It was something I didn't expect, as it was a Brit almost a century ago who cleared the way for the early Israeli state, and Israel is the only nation in the entire Middle Eastern region which looks anything like a Western pluralistic democracy.

To sum up my trip to Israel left me excited about what a wonderful nation Israel has become, and worried about the worsening political situation around it. I have no doubt from my trip that the people of Israel are ready to accept a free and open Palestinian state, one that accepts Israel's right to exist, and one that does not launch attacks from across what we all hope will be a peaceful border. But years of historic and extraordinary failures of the Bush Administration have made the realization of a peaceful Middle East and a two state solution much more difficult, leading me to conclude that this American Administration has weakened our ally Israel and done damage to the hope of peace in the Middle East.