Center for American Progress


UNDER THE RADAR

CORRECTION: Yesterday's Progress Report said "80 military lawyers 'appealed to a senior representative of the New York State Bar Association to try to persuade the Pentagon to revise its practices' regarding interrogation rules in Iraq." In fact, 8 lawyers appealed. We regret the error.

IRAQ
More Blank Checks

On the same day the White House sent its new $25 billion Iraq spending request to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told lawmakers the administration would actually need at least $50 billion more, and other military experts told CongressDaily that number might even reach $80 billion. The $25-billion request will not release money until October of 2004 – four months from now despite an immediate need for protective equipment. The massive spending request was just one page in length, as the White House refused to detail how it wanted to spend the money – essentially demanding "unfettered flexibility" in an attempt to circumvent any congressional oversight. The legislation also included language allowing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to move resources into classified areas (such as interrogation operations) with next to no congressional approval. The request comes even as the administration has been unable to refute charges that it secretly moved $700 million out of Afghanistan operations and into Iraq war planning in 2002, without the consent of Congress which is required by law.

NEW STATE-BY-STATE REPORT ON IRAQ COSTS: The National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group, today released a new report analyzing how much the Iraq War has cost taxpayers in each state, and comparing it to how much each state has received for other federal programs. For instance, in Wisconsin, where President Bush will be giving a commencement address today, the state has forked over roughly $2.6 billion for Iraq, while receiving just $861 million for education programs, and $221 million for environmental protection in the same time period.

LAWMAKERS WANT MORE OVERSIGHT: Lawmakers from both parties yesterday appeared concerned that the carte blanche language in the White House's $25-billion request would allow the administration to spend money wherever it wants, instead of mandating that the money go directly to areas most in need. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young (R-FL) told CongressDaily that "he would insist on some restrictions on flexibility in using the additional funds." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized the bill as "a blank check," while "even staunch White House allies like Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) said that the Senate needed more details."

WHITE HOUSE HAS LOST ALL CREDIBILITY ON FUNDING ISSUES: After Wolfowitz made more predictions about the cost of war in Iraq, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) questioned his credibility, noting, "You have made numerous predictions, time and time again, that have turned out to be untrue and were based on faulty assumptions." To see Wolfowitz's and others' false claims about the cost of war, see American Progress's Claims vs. Facts database at www.claimvfact.org – we have just added a special topic on Iraq War Costs.

EVIDENCE WHITE HOUSE NOT TAKING SUPPORT FOR TROOPS SERIOUSLY: Despite the White House saying that the $25-billion request was specifically to help fund immediate military shortfalls, the text of the legislation (page 4 of this document) actually says the money cannot be spent until October 1, 2005 – a full 16 months from now. When this was pointed out by the Center for American Progress, CongressDaily reported that administration "spokesman Chad Kolton said it was in fact a typographical error -albeit a rather big one." Kolton then attacked American Progress for having the nerve to scrutinize the bill so closely, saying, "They might want to try turning the lights out a little earlier over there" – an action that apparently scores of taxpayer-funded staffers writing Bush administration legislation know all too well.

IRAQ
Geneva Conventions

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, contradicted their boss Donald Rumsfeld yesterday in a Senate hearing on interrogation techniques. Under questioning from Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the Pentagon officials acknowledged some of the interrogation techniques which were approved for use in Iraq violated the Geneva Conventions, the international rules governing prisoner treatment. Given an example by Reed of "a prisoner who was hooded, naked and forced to crouch for 45 minutes," Wolfowitz conceded, "What you've described to me sounds, to me, like a violation of the Geneva Convention." Pace "went a step further, saying directly: 'I would describe it as a violation, sir.'"

EXCLUSIVE NEW PICTURES BRING NEW QUESTIONS: The White House is trying to avoid responsibility for the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by pinning the blame on a handful of errant reservists. In truth, reports show the abuse was systemic. There's new photographic evidence that the abuse was directly linked to military intelligence; a new picture released to NBC shows military intelligence officers supervising the abuse of an Iraqi captive. Questions have also been raised "about the Defense Department's list of approved rules for interrogations and whether they violate the Geneva Conventions, a series of international treaties that govern the appropriate treatment of prisoners of war." This new photograph could be important in assessing blame and "determining whether interrogation techniques used at the prison were improper in themselves."

RUMSFELD'S SHADY ETHICS: On the same day Wolfowitz and Pace were meeting with the Senate, Rumsfeld took a moment during a flight to Iraq to dissemble about the abuse at Abu Ghraib, saying torture was a matter of opinion. Asked why he refused to acknowledge the Geneva Convention in Iraq had been violated, Rumsfeld said: "I think that everyone has to make those judgments themselves because if you think about it, Geneva doesn't say what you do when you get up in the morning...Some will say, well, I think it's terrific except that in my view it is mental torture to do something that is inconvenient in a certain way for a detainee. Like standing up for a long period or some other thing that someone else might say is not, uh, in any way abusive or - or harmful. And, uh, there's no way to get everybody to agree to all that because when Geneva was prepared and agreed upon, it didn't go to that level of detail."

HARMING AMERICA: The C.I.A. and Justice Department lawyers drew up "secret legal opinions" which the NYT writes "provided a legal basis for the use of harsh interrogation techniques." The memos "advise government officials that if they are contemplating procedures that may put them in violation of American statutes that prohibit torture, degrading treatment or the Geneva Conventions, they will not be responsible if it can be argued that the detainees are formally in the custody of another country." That twisted logic, aside from being ethically and morally repulsive, ultimately damages the United States. The WP editorial page writes, "But there are not separate Geneva Conventions for Americans and for the rest of the world. We learned this week that the Pentagon approved the use of hooding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, intimidation by dogs and prolonged solitary confinement as legal under the Geneva Conventions. By defending that policy, Mr. Rumsfeld is further harming America's reputation while sanctioning the use of similar techniques on captured Americans around the world. Instead of defending their use, the administration should be disavowing them and rededicating itself to international law."

HOW TO CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE OF MORAL AMBIGUITY: Did the White House create the atmosphere that caused or contributed to the abuse of prisoners? The administration has tried to avoid responsibility by pinning the blame on a handful of errant reservists. In reality, the administration itself "bears part of the blame for having approved more aggressive interrogation techniques." According to the LAT, senior military lawyers are charging the White House shut them out of the prison policy process, instead relying on politically-motivated civilian lawyers to relax the rules. According to Scott Horton, chairman of the New York City Bar Assn. committee that filed a report this month on the interrogation of detainees, "military lawyers told him that [undersecretary of Defense for policy Doug] Feith pressed for looser interrogation rules and won approval for them from the administration's civilian lawyers earlier in the U.S. war on terrorism." The military lawyers "complained that the Pentagon was creating 'an atmosphere of legal ambiguity'"

ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL?: The WP reports, "Wolfowitz said he had not seen the Army's rules for interrogations of Iraqis -- a document that was released at an Armed Services hearing three days ago and carried in some newspapers." "I saw this document for the first time this morning," he said in yesterday's Senate hearing.

MEDICARE
Of, By & For the Drug Industry

The Bush administration's promise that new Medicare prescription drug cards would immediately save seniors big money is finally meeting reality – and the results are ugly. Seniors are finding mass confusion, and restrictive caveats. Specifically, they are forced to lock into one of the 73 cards, even though the benefits of the card they choose are subject to change whenever drug companies want to maximize profits. Why would the administration set up this kind of system? Maybe because, as the Boston Globe reported, President Bush allowed his longtime Texas crony and financial backer David Halbert – a drug industry executive – to personally "craft the portion of the Medicare bill" that created the drug card program. Halbert's company, Advance PCS – which Bush himself once invested in and made up to $1 million from – was one of the first companies approved to participate in the new drug card program, and stands to make substantial profits. For more on the Bush-Halbert-drug-card nexus, see this special report by the Center for American Progress, and this editorial by the York Sunday News.

INDUSTRY CONVENIENTLY IGNORES THE FACTS: CongressDaily reports that a study commissioned by an industry front group called the "Healthcare Leadership Council" claims "the new drug cards could save more than 20% on the most common prescriptions." Despite the Council's objective-sounding name, its membership reads like a who's who list of major drug companies – and its poll is equally deceptive. The current savings are "based on drug prices posted this week by the providers of the 73 different discount cards" – but those drug prices are subject to change at any time, even though seniors are locked into whichever card they initially choose.

REPORT – INDUSTRY GAVE BUSH/CONGRESS $47M FOR PROVISION: A new study by the Center for American Progress finds that President Bush and key Congressional leaders received $47 million from the same large corporations who lobbied for a provision in the Medicare bill allowing them to dump their retirees from exsiting drug coverage. In January, the WSJ reported that the White House and its allies in Congress added "a little-noticed provision" to the law which rewards companies with a tax subsidy even if they reduce retirees' existing drug coverage – effectively providing a a financial incentive to reduce retiree benefits. According to the WSJ, that provision was pushed by the "Employers' Coalition on Medicare." American Progress's study charts how much each member of the "Coalition" gave to Bush and conservatives in Congress, and notes that at least 10 of the companies (who alone gave $17 million) have either tried or are trying to reduce retiree health benefits.

GOVERNORS ACT IN FACE OF WHITE HOUSE SHILLING FOR INDUSTRY: While the Bush administration continues to do the drug industry's bidding by blocking bipartisan prescription drug reimportation legislation, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) is moving forward with "a new program that will allow state employees to obtain certain prescription drugs free if they order the medication from a state-inspected Canadian pharmacy." Meanwhile, Oregon became the latest state to join the fight, with Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) "saying he intends to seek federal approval to let Oregonians import medications from Canada."

JUST HOW FAR THE DRUG INDUSTRY WILL GO FOR PROFITS: AP reports "Pfizer Inc. has agreed to plead guilty and pay $430 million in fines to settle charges that its Warner-Lambert unit flouted federal law by promoting non-approved uses for one of its drugs." Under the agreement released yesterday by federal prosecutors, "the company acknowledged spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote non-approved uses for the anti-seizure drug Neurontin, in part by paying doctors hefty speakers' fees and 'educational' trips that involved flying them to lavish resorts."







AFGHANISTAN – "UNWILLING" TO RECOGNIZE THREATS: With Iraq in turmoil, the administration has tried to paint a sunny picture of the postwar situation in Afghanistan; unfortunately, the reality is much grimmer. At a Senate Foreign Relations hearing yesterday, a special advisor from the United States Institute of Peace, Robert M. Perito, testified, "Two and one half years after the defeat of the Taliban, security remains the primary concern in Afghanistan…Today, Afghanistan faces the combined threat of resurgent terrorism, fractional conflict and dependence on narcotics." Following these and other revelations concerning the resurgence of the drug trade, problems registering voters, and an inability to properly account for a "US contractor-financed private foreign security force," International Crisis Group Senior Vice President Mark Schneider placed the blame for Afghanistan's deteriorating security and lack of resources squarely at the feet of the Bush administration: "This effort may fail," he said. "It will not fail because of a lack of desire, a lack of commitment by millions of Afghans… it may fail because the administration has been unwilling to recognize the magnitude of the threats which we face and to direct sufficient political, military and financial resources to overcome them."

CORPORATE – CEO PAY OUT OF CONTROL: Reuters reports, "The median compensation for chief executives at the largest U.S. companies rose to $4.6 million last year, up from a median $3.6 million in 2002." The 27% pay hike for CEOs "exceeds the 11.5% rise in 2002" and stands in stark contrast to stagnating wages for average workers. In 2002, the "median household income fell by $500, or 1.1 percent." The Corporate Library, which conducted the study, said the massive raises for CEOs "shows that calls for pay restraint are being ignored."

GOVERNMENT – OVERLOOKING OVERSIGHT: The Hill reports senior members of both parties believe "Congress has failed to carry out its critical role in overseeing the vast federal bureaucracy, falling particularly short since Republicans captured the White House in 2000." Congressional neglect "touches virtually every federal function — from education programs to government contractors." Some speculate Congress is failing to perform its oversight duties because of the "tightly knit relationship between leading congressional Republicans and President Bush...[who] has yet to issue a veto of any legislation." When an oversight hearing is held "the results aren't always as enlightening as they could be."

MEDIA – CONSERVATIVE SAVAGERY ABOUT PRISON ABUSE: If you thought that Rush Limbaugh had offensive things to say about the prison abuse in Iraq what until you hear Michael Savage. According to a new report by MediaMatters, Savage, a conservative radio host heard by more than 6 million visitors per week, said "these so called abuse photos frankly are mild by comparisons to what goes on in South of Market clubs in San Francisco." Far from condemning the abuse, Savage believes "you're gonna find that we need more of the humiliation tactics, not less." Savage suggests the military "should put dynamite in their behinds and drop them from 35,000 feet, the whole pack of scum out of that jail." Savage also told a caller "if there's any way to send a letter to Hillary Clinton and tell her to stop it before she kills more [Nick] Bergs, I would appreciate it."

HOMELAND SECURITY – RIGGS FINED FOR SAUDI ACTIVITY: "Federal banking agencies jointly imposed a near-record $25 million fine on Riggs Bank N.A. for a range of violations of money-laundering laws related to its oversight of accounts held by diplomats for two oil-rich nations." Of particular concern, Riggs failed to monitor "tens of millions of dollars in cash withdrawals from accounts related to the Saudi Arabian embassy," including "suspicious incidents involving dozens of sequentially numbered cashier's checks and international drafts written by Saudi officials, including Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan."




________________________________________________________________________