|
|
 |
|
|
 |
The
WAND News Bulletin is posted on the
web site monthly.
When it appears, WAND sends out a condensed
version via email. If you would like
to receive these email Bulletins, please
let us know.
WAND
was delighted to turn out on January
11 for the NO! More Troops events around
the country. That's Betsy Rivard
there (l), who serves on the
National Board of the WAND Ed Fund. |
| Table
of Contents | Click
to move to content within the Bulletin. |
Capitol
Hill Update, January 2007
 |
Happy
New Year. As the 110th Congress
takes up its (new, and different,
and often delightful) business,
we hope you will let them
know how you feel about
it.
It's
up to you to stay informed
and active, and to make
sure they listen!
|
|
Today,
our DC office urges you to do
all you can to prevent a war with
Iran. Pretty good for a start,
eh?
And
make sure to listen to the State
of the Union address on Tuesday
night! We'll send you more info
about this next week. |
 |
Diplomacy,
not war, with Iran
Tell Congress: Let’s
do all we can to avoid military
action against Iran
Send
a message to your Representative
and Senators today. |
- Support
direct negotiations with Iran
- Promote
stronger cultural and people-to-people
ties with Iran
- Require
a National Intelligence Estimate
(NIE) on the status of Iran’s
nuclear program
- Assess
the usefulness of so-called
pro-democracy provisions
|
|
Olbermann:
Special Comment
on Sacrifice
of War
To see video,
click
here.
...This
senseless, endless
war. But --
it has not been
senseless in
two ways.
It
has succeeded,
Mr. Bush, in
enabling you
to deaden the
collective mind
of this country
to the pointlessness
of endless war,
against the
wrong people,
in the wrong
place, at the
wrong time.
It
has gotten many
of us used to
the idea --
the virtual
"white
noise"
-- of conflict
far away, of
the deaths of
young Americans,
of vague "sacrifice"
for some fluid
cause, too complicated
to be interpreted
except in terms
of the very
important-sounding
but ultimately
meaningless
phrase "the
war on terror."
And
the war's second
accomplishment
-- your second
accomplishment,
sir -- is to
have taken money
out of the pockets
of every American,
even out of
the pockets
of the dead
soldiers on
the battlefield,
and their families,
and to have
given that money
to the war profiteers.
Because
if you sell
the Army a thousand
Humvees, you
can't sell them
any more until
the first thousand
have been destroyed.
The
service men
and women are
ancillary to
the equation.
This
is about the
planned obsolescence
of ordnance,
isn't, Mr. Bush?
And the building
of detention
centers? And
the design of
a $125 million
courtroom complex
at Gitmo, complete
with restaurants.
At
least the war
profiteers have
made their money,
sir.
|
Brother, can you spare
many billion dimes for a high
tech weapons system?
 |
We
think it's gotta get better,
but it only gets worse!
We think the federal government
will stop funnelling biiiiiiiiiilllllllllllliiiiions
of dollars to the MILITARY
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX to make
crazy blinking new weapons
that NOBODY NEEDS, and instead
send a few million to healthcare
for poor children (wacky!)
-- but they don't! (That's
an exoatmospheric kinetic
vehicle, and I'm not making
this up. Boeing makes it.
Take that, silly people
who can't afford health
insurance!) |
They keep offering more and
more semolians to the big defense
contractors! And not the ones
that make, like, pancakes and
juice boxes for our troops.
Or the ones who supply healthcare
to old and sick veterans. In
other words: NOT REAL SECURITY.
Nope.
These are the ones who make
toys. And PROFITS. Lotsa profits.
For the boys at the top.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr.
The
New York Times just reported
on it; then our friend Sayre
Sheldon responded in a letter
to the editor.
Heady
Days for Makers of Weapons
By LESLIE WAYNE | December 26,
2006
THESE are
very good times for military
contractors. Profits are up,
their stocks are rising and
Pentagon spending is reaching
record levels.
The
only cloud might seem to be
what the Democratic takeover
of Congress could mean for their
business. After all, this is
an industry that has generally
supported the Republican Party
by sending about 60 percent
of its political contributions
to Republican candidates.
But,
even so, few in the military
industry are worried. Next year’s
Pentagon budget is expected
to exceed $560 billion, including
spending for Iraq. And, sometime
this spring, President Bush
has indicated he will seek an
additional $100 billion in supplemental
spending in 2007 for Iraq and
Afghanistan...
Evidence
of the industry’s good
fortune is reflected in the
stocks of major contractors
over the last year. At the end
of 2005, the Lockheed Martin
Corporation, the largest contractor,
was trading around $62 a share.
Now Lockheed is around $92 a
share. Over the last year, Boeing,
which holds the No. 2 position,
saw its shares rise from about
$66 a share to around almost
$89 a share. Meanwhile, Raytheon
stock has risen from around
$39 a share to more than $53
a share in the last year and
General Dynamics has gone from
the high $50s a share to almost
$74 a share over the same period.
“We
certainly don’t foresee
any change,” said Thomas
Jurkowsky, a spokesman for Lockheed
Martin. “You certainly
cannot deny that there is a
lot of uncertainty in the world
— North Korea, Iran, Iraq.
The Democratic Congress will
see the reality of the dangerous
world we live in, and will make
decisions accordingly.”
And
from Sayre's
letter:
Knowing
that our soldiers in Iraq do
not get the equipment they need,
and that billions of dollars
continue to pay for anachronistic
cold war weapons, we do not
expect our new Congress simply
to knuckle under to the defense
contractors as they have in
the past.
Our
representatives have to learn
that the citizenry doesn’t
see it as being “soft
on defense” when they
restrict the enormous profits
of the weapons industries, cut
unnecessary weapons programs
and ensure that the people who
actually fight our wars get
the protection they deserve.
|
| What
$1.2 Trillion Can Buy
By DAVID LEONHARDT | The
New York Times | January
17, 2007
...But
the deteriorating situation
in Iraq has caused the initial
predictions to be off the mark
by a scale that is difficult
to fathom. The operation itself
— the helicopters, the
tanks, the fuel needed to run
them, the combat pay for enlisted
troops, the salaries of reservists
and contractors, the rebuilding
of Iraq — is costing
more than $300 million a day,
estimates Scott Wallsten, an
economist in Washington.
That
translates into a couple of
billion dollars a week and,
over the full course of the
war, an eventual total of $700
billion in direct spending...
Whatever
number you use for the war’s
total cost, it will tower over
costs that normally seem prohibitive.
Right now, including everything,
the war is costing about $200
billion a year.
Treating
heart disease and diabetes,
by contrast, would probably
cost about $50 billion a year.
The remaining 9/11 Commission
recommendations — held
up in Congress partly because
of their cost — might
cost somewhat less. Universal
preschool would be $35 billion.
In Afghanistan, $10 billion
could make a real difference.
At the National Cancer Institute,
annual budget is about $6 billion.
“This
war has skewed our thinking
about resources,” said
Mr. Wallsten, a senior fellow
at the Progress and Freedom
Foundation, a conservative-leaning
research group. “In the
context of the war, $20 billion
is nothing.”
|
Don't
Grow the Army
Expansion Ducks the Real
Question of Defining the Force's
Mission
By
Gordon Adams and John Diamond
| December 31, 2006
Full article, click
here. Washington Post
Army
Chief of Staff Gen. Pete Schoomaker,
The Post, the New York Times,
and many Democrats and Republicans
have converged over the past
month in support of a serious
expansion of the U.S. Army --
a permanent addition of 40,000
to 90,000 over the current ceiling
of 507,000 troops.
This
proposal is a bad idea. It is
irrelevant to the stresses the
Army is experiencing in Iraq.
It would build enormous long-term
costs into the defense budget,
and it presumes a role in the
world for the U.S. military
that the voters emphatically
opposed in November.
|
 |
Notes
from the WAND News Bulletin
editor
Nancy
Pelosi is Speaker of
the House. Nancy. Not
only is she a woman
(!), she's a mom. And
a grandmom. And these
roles mean a lot to
her. |
|
I don't
care if she manages
to implement policies
that make a real difference
(though I certainly
hope she does, and I
think she might). Just
her being there -- her
panache, her presence,
her personality, and
her gender -- are making
a difference.
I'm
no pollyanna, that's
for sure. And I find
politicians a shady
bunch, most of the time.
But this thing -- this
woman grabbing some
real power -- it just
rocks. It makes reading
the paper in the morning
just a little bit more
fun. |
|
Nancy
Pelosi holds a tea; WAND
staff go and celebrate
"A New Direction"!
If you're a political
addict like we are, it
just doesn't get any better
than that... Here are
WAND Public Policy Director
Marie Rietmann and WiLL
Associate Christina Cernansky
at the tea, flanked by
those big video heads
of Ann Richards and Nancy
Pelosi. (And the cucumber
sandwiches? We're not
sure.) |
|
More
on a Woman Speaker of
the House
David
Broder on "Pelosi's
House Diplomacy"
After
a decade of bitter partisanship
that has all but crippled
efforts to deal with major
national problems, Pelosi
is determined to try to
return the House to what
it was in an earlier era
-- "where you debated
ideas and listened to
each other's arguments."
That
does not mean she is abandoning
the Democratic agenda.
Far from it. But it does
mean that she has grasped
the key to doing her job:
"I am the speaker
of the House," not
the leader of the Democratic
Caucus. She expects few
interventions in floor
debate, and she is picking
her spots carefully from
a flood of television
interview requests.
Ruth
Marcus on "Grandma
with a Gavel"
The
images as California Democrat
Nancy Pelosi took office
last week were striking
-- and stirring -- in
their unfamiliarity. Pelosi,
holding her infant grandson
swaddled in a white receiving
blanket, as she sat in
the well of the House,
awaiting her election.
Pelosi, with the assurance
of a mother experienced
at dispensing cookies
to impatient toddlers,
giving each child his
-- and her -- turn with
the gavel. Pelosi raising
her hand to take the oath
as her grandson, at her
side, fiddled with grandma's
papers.
As
a journalist, I understand
the calculations at work
here: This plays to Pelosi's
advantages, humanizes
her image as shrill San
Francisco Democrat. As
a woman and a mother,
especially as a mother
of daughters, I was quietly
thrilled. About the marble
ceiling cracking, yes,
but also about the way
Pelosi cracked it -- reveling
in, not minimizing, her
mother- and grandmother-hood.
"Powerful"
and "mommy"
are not concepts we're
used to holding simultaneously.
We've become accustomed
to women who appear comfortable
wielding influence without
denying their femininity;
think Condoleezza Rice
in those high-heeled boots
or posing for Vogue in
a strapless black gown.
But
powerful women who also
happen to be mommies have
tended to play down the
mommy thing, almost as
if they think it would
diminish their ability
to be taken seriously.
In a world where women
are suspected of failing
to comprehend throw-weights,
having a baby on board
isn't a traditional road
map for success.
Victor
Fazio on "It's
really about '08, Nancy"
Pelosi's
First 100 Hours initiative
has drawn some comparisons
with the Republicans'
1994 "Contract With
America," a package
that sought to bring about
major policy change over
100 days. But for Pelosi,
the effort is less about
radical policy shifts
than about bringing policy
in line with what Democrats
believe is common wisdom
to Americans. Stem cell
funding, which has passed
once and enjoys bipartisan
support, is the quintessential
example. However, even
pay-as-you-go budgeting
garners support on both
sides of the aisle, including
from Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.) and former Federal
Reserve chairman Alan
Greenspan. Perhaps most
significant, there has
been bipartisan cosponsorship
of proposals for lobbying
reform, the minimum-wage
increase, the 9/11 commission
recommendations and Medicare
drug pricing.
|
 |
UN
Report: January 2007
by Sayre Sheldon, WAND representative
on the NGO Working Group
for Women, Peace and Security |
|
The major press interest
for the U.N. this month
has been the new Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon. Before
leaving, Kofi Annan made
several very critical
statements about U.S.
policies. His tenure has
been favorably judged
and his ability to challenge
the world to improve was
notable. The new Secretary
General arrives with more
of a low-key reputation
and immediately was criticized
for seeming to tolerate
the death penalty for
Saddam and then for appointing
as management undersecretary,
Alicia Ibarra who is not
seen as interested in
making changes.
Secretary Ban was then highly
praised by choosing a
Tanzanian woman, Asha-Rose
Mtengeti-Migiro, for the
U.N.'s second highest
post. Her appointment
was greeted with enthusiasm
by many: the South African
ambassador said."Women
are multi-tasking people.
And African women are
even better. Watch out!".
Also favorably commented
on so far has been the
indication that Bush will
send our present ambassador
to Iraq in the place of
retired John Bolton.A
recent summary of U.N.
peacekeeping missions
lists them as 18: we are
apt tp forget how much
the U.N. is doing due
to most of the attention
going to places where
it has had trouble being
allowed in, such as Darfur. |
|
Okay, so this
is somewhat frivolous,
but it's also quite tasty;
and the piece itself does
address why/how women's
fashion choices are scrutinized
more than men's... Plus,
we just think Nancy Pelosi
is the cat's pajamas,
ya know...
Speaking
Chic to Power
New
York Times | January
18, 2007
During
her first week on the
job, Mrs. Pelosi clinched
votes in the House on
the minimum wage, financing
for stem cell research
and Medicare drug prices,
drawing two veto threats
(for research and drugs)
from a notoriously veto-averse
president.
And
she did it looking preternaturally
fresh, with a wardrobe
that, while still subdued
and overreliant on suits,
has seldom spruced the
halls of Congress. On
Jan. 9, a Tuesday, she
wore an impeccable black
and white tweed skirt
suit, with strong shoulders
and the jacket nipped
at the waist; on Wednesday,
she draped a red shawl
insouciantly around a
red suit outside the White
House; and on Thursday,
she appeared in a mod,
deep-blue velvet, slimming
pantsuit.
|
|
Notes
from the WAND News Bulletin
editor
Today,
I'm wearing my Chicken Little
suit, and flapping my wings
and squawking. |
 |
The
sky actually is
falling. We
really are about to
(take your pick): melt
the polar icecaps and
flood the rest of the
world; get into a nuclear
war that will incinerate
us all; destabilize
the Middle East to the
extent that chaos reigns
and energy supplies
dwindle and halt the
economy; incite the
radical Islamic anarchists
to wage war on the West
for generations to come... |
And
this is all stuff we've
done to ourselves... You
do have to wonder if women
would've made such a mess
of it. Maybe so. Maybe not.
But you don't have to wonder
if women need to help fix
it: the answer is clearly
YES. |
|
"Doomsday
Clock" Moves Two Minutes Closer
To Midnight
Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists Adjusts
Clock From 7 to 5 Minutes Before
Midnight; “ Deteriorating”
Global Situation Cited on Nuclear
Weapons and New Factor: Climate
Change.
17 January 2007 | Full press release,
click
here.
|
|
The Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists (BAS) is moving
the minute hand of the Doomsday
Clock two minutes closer
to midnight. It is now 5
minutes to midnight. Reflecting
global failures to solve
the problems posed by nuclear
weapons and the climate
crisis, the decision by
the BAS Board of Directors
was made in consultation
with the Bulletin’s
Board of Sponsors, which
includes 18 Nobel Laureates.
|
|
|
Busywork
for Nuclear Scientists
New York Times Editorial |
January 15, 2007
The
Bush administration is eager to
start work on a new nuclear warhead
with all sorts of admirable qualities:
sturdy, reliable and secure from
terrorists. To sweeten the deal,
officials say that if they can
replace the current arsenal with
Reliable Replacement Warheads
(what could sound more comforting?),
they probably won’t have
to keep so many extra warheads
to hedge against technical failure.
If you’re still not sold,
the warhead comes with something
of a guarantee — that scientists
can build the new bombs without
ever testing them.
Let
the buyer beware. While
the program has gotten very little
attention here, it is a public-relations
disaster in the making overseas.
Suspicions that the United States
is actually trying to build up
its nuclear capabilities are undercutting
Washington’s arguments for
restraining the nuclear appetites
of Iran and North Korea.
Then
there’s the tens of billions
it is likely to cost.
And the most important question:
Nearly two decades after the country
stopped building nuclear weapons,
does it really need a new one?
The answer, emphatically, is no.
This is a make-work program championed
by the weapons laboratories and
belatedly by the Pentagon, which
hasn’t been able to get
Congress to pay for its other
nuclear fantasies...
America
would be much safer if the president
focused on reducing the number
of old nuclear weapons still deployed
by the United States and the other
nuclear powers. The new Congress
should stop this program before
any more dollars are wasted, or
more damage is done to America’s
credibility. |
|
WAND
co-sponsors event with Iranian
Human Rights Leader; No war on
Iran
Women
Nobel Laureates Dr. Shirin Ebadi
and Professor Jody Williams visited
Washington, DC January 8 to urge
constructive US-Iran engagement.
Dr. Ebadi, an Iranian human rights
lawyer, won the Nobel Peace Prize
in 2003 and Professor Williams,
founder of the International Campaign
to Ban Landmines, was the 1997
recipient. According to Dr. Ebadi,
“It’s the people of
Iran who have to gain their own
freedom and human rights improvements.
Military action or other punishments
against Iran will make the situation
for political reformists and human
rights advocates in Iran a lot
more difficult. I don’t
think that Iranian human rights
advocates need help of that sort
of help from the governments of
the West.”
 |
Dr.
Ebadi was one of the first
female judges in Iran. She
served as president of the
city court of Tehran from
1975 to 1979 and was the first
Iranian woman to achieve Chief
Justice status. WAND cosponsored
the visit of the two Nobel
Laureates. |
Dr.
Ebadi and Professor Williams are
members of the Nobel Women’s
Initiative. It was established
in 2006 by the six women who have
won the Nobel Peace Prize. (Seven
have won it but Aung San Suu Chii
is not allowed out of her house
by Burmese authorities.) It is
the heartfelt mission of the Nobel
Women’s Initiative to address
and prevent the root causes of
violence by spotlighting and promoting
the efforts of women’s rights
activists, researchers and organizations
working to advance peace, justice
and equality. It is the Nobel
Women’s Initiative’s
vision to create a culture of
peace defined by a commitment
to choosing non-violence and working
for equality with justice. For
more information, please visit
www.nobelwomensinitiative.org.
|
|
A
World Free of Nuclear Weapons
By
George P. Shultz, William J. Perry,
Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn.
The
Wall Street Journal
| January 4, 2007
Nuclear
weapons today present tremendous
dangers, but also an historic
opportunity. U.S. leadership will
be required to take the world
to the next stage -- to a solid
consensus for reversing reliance
on nuclear weapons globally as
a vital contribution to preventing
their proliferation into potentially
dangerous hands, and ultimately
ending them as a threat to the
world.
Nuclear
weapons were essential to maintaining
international security during
the Cold War because they were
a means of deterrence. The
end of the Cold War made the doctrine
of mutual Soviet-American deterrence
obsolete. Deterrence continues
to be a relevant consideration
for many states with regard to
threats from other states. But
reliance on nuclear weapons for
this purpose is becoming increasingly
hazardous and decreasingly effective. |
|
U.S.
moving to refurbish its nuclear
arsenal
By
William J. Broad, David E. Sanger
and Thom Shanker
January
7, 2007 | WASHINGTON
The
Bush administration is expected
to announce this week a major
step forward in the building of
the country's first new nuclear
warhead in nearly two decades.
It will propose combining elements
of competing designs from two
weapons laboratories in an approach
that some experts argue is untested
and risky.
The
new weapon would not add to but
replace the nation's existing
arsenal of aging warheads with
a new generation meant to be sturdier,
more reliable, safer from accidental
detonation and more secure from
theft by terrorists...
If
Bush decides to deploy the new
design, he could touch off a debate
in a Democratic-controlled Congress
and among allies and adversaries
abroad, who have opposed efforts
to expand the arsenal in the past.
While backers of the new weapon
said that it would replace older
weapons that could deteriorate
over time, and reduce the chances
of a detonation if weapons fell
into the wrong hands, critics
have long argued that this is
the wrong moment for Washington
to produce a new warhead of any
kind.
As
the administration tries to persuade
the world to put sanctions on
North Korea and Iran to halt their
nuclear programs, those critics
argue, any move to improve the
American arsenal will be seen
as hypocritical, an effort by
the United States to extend its
nuclear lead over other countries.
Should the United States decide
to conduct a test, officials said,
China and Russia — which
have their own nuclear modernization
programs under way — would
feel free to do the same. North
Korea was sanctioned by the UN
Security Council for conducting
its first test on Oct. 9. |
|
Bush
Picks New Head of Nuclear Agency
January
5, 2007 | AP Photo NY128
By H. JOSEF HEBERT,
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
(AP) - The White House said Friday
that President Bush has chosen
a replacement for the man ousted
as head of the government's nuclear
weapons program in the wake of
reports of embarrassing security
breakdowns | | | | | | |
