Rush Limbaugh goes the extra mile in rant about New York Times reporterShock jock turns on Andy Revkin after his comments on population and greenhouse gas emissionsComments (34) Rush Limbaugh as the 'Woolly Bully' Black Joker in a deck of cards. Photograph: Rex FeaturesUS radio host Rush Limbaugh's main reason for existence is to go too far — and then drag mainstream conservative discourse out there with him.But even by Limbaugh's standards — and remember this is a man who has over the years referred to Greenpeace and Sierra Club as "econazis" and "environmentalist wackos" — he seems to have gone the extra mile in calling the New York Times environmental reporter, Andy Revkin, a jihadi and a terrorist and telling him to kill himself.As Revkin's colleague, Paul Krugman, says on his blog: "Always good to know what we're dealing with."Limbaugh started off by ranting against militant environmentalists likening them to "jihad guys" (Media Matters for America has audio):They convince these families to strap explosives on who? Not them. On their kids. Grab your 3-year-old, grab your 4-year-old, grab your 6-year-old, and we're gonna strap explosives on there, and then we're going to send you on a bus, The jihad guys have to maintain control. The environmentalist wackos are the same way.  Then Limbaugh turns on Revkin:This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr Revkin, why don't you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?   The talk show host was raging about remarks Revkin delivered by Skype to a conference last week in which he talked about how population growth would raise greenhouse gas emissions. Revkin covers much of the territory in a column in his Dot Earth blog last month that asked — stating clearly that he was not making any such proposal — whether there would be a possibility one day of spinning off a carbon market from contraceptives. That is, if population growth means more emissions, should there be credit for limiting future children? Now it's not entirely clear what set Limbaugh off on his anti-Revkin rant. The column was published more than a month ago; the conference last week was not widely covered although it was reported by a Christian news service. Revkin repeatedly makes clear he is not advocating forced population control – let alone call for suicide bombings to promote greener policies. Not that any of this would faze Limbaugh. But it's worth noting that Limbaugh is the second figure on the right to equate environmentalism with terrorism in just a few days. Daryl Metcalfe, a state representative in Pennsylvania, who like Limbaugh has a history of attacking gays, Muslims and others, reached his own personal low this week when he called a veterans' group "traitors" for supporting a climate change bill. The connection is important. The White House and Democratic leaders in the Senate over the last few weeks have been finding traction among voters with the argument that dependence on fossil fuel poses a national security threat. Operation Free, a group of Afghan and Iraq war veterans this week began taking that argument on the road, with a bus tour to persuade Americans that catastrophic climate change is a security risk — which is now the official position of the CIA and the Pentagon. Not that the Pentagon or CIA apparently rank as security experts to Metcalfe. He wrote an email to the group saying: Any veteran lending their name, to promote the leftist propaganda of global warming and climate change, in an effort to control more of the wealth created in our economy, through cap and tax type policies, all in the name of national security, is a traitor to the oath he or she took to defend the Constitution of our great nation! Remember Benedict Arnold before giving credibility to a veteran who uses their service as a means to promote a leftist agenda. Drill Baby Drill!!!  The veterans are demanding an apology. As for Revkin, he says Limbaugh's rant is a distraction from a deadly serious issue: "This might be funny, in a sad way, if it weren't for the fact that my mailbox is already heaped with hate mail. And of course there's the reality that explosive population growth in certain places, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, could be blunted without a single draconian measure, many experts say, simply by providing access to family planning for millions of women who already want it, but can't get it — whether or not someone gets a carbon credit in the process."      

 Read Today's Articles 
  

 No, The U.S. Didn’t Just ‘Discover’ a $1T Afghan Motherlode 
Read Article 



 

The top ten - The Times US presidential rankingsA panel of experts from The Times has ranked every one of the US presidents. Here are the greatest Woodrow Wilson
(1913-1921)42-32: the worst presidents
32-22: the let-downs
21-11: the nearly-greats
Who was on the panel?

Here we are: these are the ten men selected by a panel of experts at The Times as America's greatest presidents. John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and John Adams failed to make the cut, as did all but one of the presidents to have graced the Oval Office since the 1960s. We have ploughed through the dross (Bush Jr.), the disappointments (Clinton) and the contenders (Jackson) but here are the ten greatest ever Commanders-in-Chief. 10. Woodrow Wilson

1913-21 (Democratic)

Snuck into the top ten despite being unpopular with some of our panel who felt many of his goals were never realised.

A radical first term included anti-trust legislation, tariff revision and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Wilson’s reputation, however, was built on his destruction of America’s cherished non-interventionist policy in his second term.

He was reluctant to lead the US into the First World War, but was then instrumental in building a multi-lateral post-war consensus which included the League of Nations, even if Congress never allowed America to join it.

9. James Polk

1845-49 (Democratic) The 10 worst presidents to have held office - The Times US presidential rankings42-33: a panel of experts from The Times has ranked every one of the Commanders-in-Chief - and here are the very worst The Times US presidential rankings - numbers 32 to 22 The Times US presidential rankings - numbers 21 to 11 The top ten - The Times US presidential rankings Multimedia Across the pond: blogging the election Full coverage and analysis of race for White House Podcast: satrical view from both sides of the Atlantic Polk was one of the greatest presidential advocates of the idea that expanding the Union from the Atlantic to the Pacific was “manifest destiny”. Victory in the war with Mexico allowed the United States to acquire California, Nevada, and parts of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. "Trounced the Mexicans and dramatically increased the size of the Union, all in one term." Chris Ayres, Los Angeles correspondent. 8. Ronald Reagan 1981-89 (Republican) Feted by many of the panel and implicated in the current financial crisis by others, Reagan's controversial reputation remains but his revolutionary zeal forced him into the top ten. He was elected with a clear mandate for radical economic policy to tackle high inflation and unemployment rates. His tax cutting, budget slashing, laissez-faire strategy known as “Reaganomics” became extremely popular as the US economy recovered. The former actor’s foreign policy was more divisive and his administration was attacked for perceived bellicosity as well as embarrassments including the Iran-Contra affair. But even though he was seen as a hawk when he took office, Reagan managed to grasp the historic opportunity brought about by Mikhail Gorbachev's rise to power in the Soviet Union to help bring an end to the Cold War. "Revived American self-confidence at its lowest ebb." Gerard Baker, US editor. 7. Harry Truman 1945-53 (Democratic) Truman entered the White House after just 82 days as Roosevelt’s Vice President and with very little foreign experience. He was soon called upon to make some of the most significant international policy decisions in American history. He sanctioned the use of atomic weapons over Japan, signed up to the United Nations and NATO as well as formulating the Truman Doctrine, which shaped America’s anti-Communist policy for decades to come. Industrial disputes, scandals and the alleged harbouring of Soviet agents diminished Truman’s reputation at home leaving him with a 22 per cent approval rating. "Prevented a possible Third World War by containing the Soviet Union." Camilla Cavendish, columnist. 6. Dwight Eisenhower1953-61 (Republican) The popular Second World War commander succeeded in bringing his military might to bear on US domestic reform. Eisenhower continued most of the existing “new deal” and “fair deal” policies and introduced some radical reforms of his own. In the face of huge Southern opposition, he sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the desegregation of schools as well as ending segregation in the armed forces. He also created the interstate highway system. 5. Theodore Roosevelt 1901-09 (Republican) The youngest ever President, Roosevelt, 42, was a progressive Republican and tried to move the GOP into more radical territory. His “square deal” policies included greater regulation to protect consumers, attacks on corporate monopolies and conservationism to safeguard wildlife and the American wilderness. In foreign policy, he oversaw a major expansion of the Navy, ordered the construction of the Panama Canal and won the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating the Russo-Japanese War. "Controversially reset America's compass for the 20th century." Gerard Baker. 4. Thomas Jefferson 1801-09 (Democratic-Republican) A political philosopher and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence was narrowly elected as the third President in a disputed contest settled by the House of Representatives. A proponent of small government, Jefferson succeeded in reducing the national debt, as well as the size of the army and navy. However, he almost doubled the size of the United States after the Louisiana Purchase, which annexed land now encompassing part of 15 states. "The cleverest man ever to occupy the presidency." Ben Macintyre, writer-at-large. 3. Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933-45 (Democratic) The longest-serving of all the presidents, Roosevelt was in office for more than a decade until his death. He was re-elected four times during one of the most tumultuous periods of the 20th century. His radical, big-government spending programme designed to kick-start the US economy became global consensus after the Second World War, but it was widely mistrusted before the conflict. FDR also ended US isolationism by leading America into battle in Europe. "FDR is top for me, because he navigated America out of depression and through the Second World War." Tom Baldwin, Washington Bureau chief 2. George Washington 1789-97 (No party) Washington led the army that vanquished the British during the American Revolutionary War before presiding over the drafting of the Constitution. When it came to elect the first US President he was chosen unanimously by electors representing the 11 states of the Union. He was celebrated as the Father of the Nation after expanding the Union and overseeing the creation of a taxation system, a national bank and the first Supreme Court judges. His Farewell Address also became one of the cornerstones of American democracy but he still missed out on top spot in our rankings. "Inspired generalship and making it all possible." Ben Macintyre 1. Abraham Lincoln 1861-65 (Republican, National Union) The number one: our panel chose the radical Republican who kept the fledgling nation alive when it could have collapsed altogether. The first Republican President, Lincoln led the defeat of the Confederate states in the American Civil War and freed around four million slaves by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. The formal abolition of slavery in the US was ratified soon after his death. He succeeded in unifying the nation militarily as well as laying out a moral imperative for its governance in his Gettysburg address. During the final days of the civil war he was shot dead by John Wilkes Booth. "Fought and won a just war, kept the United States united and created the ground for a country which could live up to its constitution." Camilla Cavendish. "Had the coolest-sounding presidential name of all time." Chris Ayres.

U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them TherePresident Obama announced that he had kept a campaign promise by ending the war -- but he didn't have much of a choice"President Obama's speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren't being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They're leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay."

Weapons come second
By Frida Berrigan

Even saddled with a two-front, budget-busting war and a collapsing economy, Barack Obama may be able to accomplish a lot as president. With a friendly Congress and a relieved world, he could make short work of some of the most egregious overreaches of the George W Bush White House - from Guantanamo to those presidential signing statements. For all the rolling up of sleeves and "everything is going to change" exuberance, however, taking on the Pentagon, with its mega-budget and its mega-power, may be the hardest task he faces.

The mega-Pentagon
Under Bush, military spending increased by about 60%, and that's not including spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight years ago, as Bush prepared to enter the Oval Office, military spending totaled just over US$300 billion. When Obama sets foot in that same office, military spending will total roughly $541 billion, including the Pentagon's basic budget and nuclear warhead work in the Department of Energy.

And remember, that's before the "war on terror" enters the picture. The Pentagon now estimates that military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost at least $170 billion in 2009, pushing total military spending for Obama's first year to about $711 billion (a number that is mind-bogglingly large and at the same time a relatively conservative estimate that does not, for example, include intelligence funding, veterans' care, or other security costs).

With such numbers, it's no surprise that the United States is, by a multiple of nearly six, the biggest military spender in the world. (China's military budget, the closest competitor, comes in at a "mere" $120 billion.) Still, it can be startling to confront the simple fact that the US alone accounts for nearly half of all global military spending - to be as exact as possible in such a murky area, 48% according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. That's more than what the next 45 nations together spend on their militaries on an annual basis.

Again, keep in mind that war spending for 2009 comes on top of the estimated $864 billion that lawmakers have, since 2001, appropriated for the Iraq war and occupation, ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, and other activities associated with the "war on terror". In fact, according to an October 2008 report by the Congressional Research Service, total war spending, quite apart from the regular military budget, is already at $922 billion and quickly closing in on the trillion dollar mark.

Common sense cuts?
Years late, and with budgets everywhere bleeding red, some in Congress and elsewhere are finally raising questions about whether this level of spending makes any sense. Unfortunately, the questions are not coming from the inner circle of the president-elect.

Democratic Representative Barney Frank drew the ire and consternation of hardline Republicans and military hawks when, in October, he suggested that Congress should consider cutting defense spending by a quarter. That would mean shaving $177 billion, leaving $534 billion for the US defense and war budget and maintaining a significant distance - $413 billion to be exact - between United States and our next "peer competitor". Frank told a Massachusetts newspaper editorial board that, in the context of a struggling economy, the Pentagon will have to start choosing among its many weapons programs. "We don't need all these fancy new weapons," he told the staff of the New Bedford Standard Times. Obama did not back him up on that.

Even chairman of the House Appropriations Sub-committee on Defense, Democrat John Murtha, a Congressman who never saw a weapons program he didn't want to buy, warned of tough choices on the horizon. While he did not put a number on it, in a recent interview he did say: "The next president is going to be forced to decrease defense spending in order to respond to neglected domestic priorities. Because of this, the Defense Department is going to have to make tough budget decisions involving trade-offs between personnel, procurement and future weapons spending."

And now, Obama is hearing a similar message from the Defense Business Board, established in 2001 by secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld to give advice to the Pentagon. A few weeks ago, in briefing papers prepared for president-elect Obama's transition team, the board, hardly an outfit unfriendly to the Pentagon, argued that some of the Defense Department's big weapons projects needed to be scrapped as the US entered a "period of fiscal constraint in a tough economy". While not listing the programs they considered knife-worthy, the board did assert that "business as usual is no longer an option".

Desperate defense
Meanwhile, defense executives and industry analysts are predicting the worst. Boeing chief executive officer Jim McNerney wrote in a "note" to employees, "No one really yet knows when or to what extent defense spending could be affected, but it's unrealistic to think there won't be some measure of impact." Michael Farage, Sikorsky's director of air force programs, was even more colorful: "With the economy in the proverbial pooper, defense budgets can only go down."

Kevin G Kroger, president of a company making oil filters for army trucks, offered a typical reaction: "There's a lot of uncertainty out there. We're not sure where the budgets are going and what's going to get funded. It leaves us nervous."

It's no surprise that, despite eight years of glut financing via the "war on terror", weapons manufacturers, like the automotive Big Three, are now looking for their own bailout. For them, however, it should probably be thought of as a bail-up, an assurance of yet more good times. Even though in recent years their companies have enjoyed strong stock prices, have seen major increases in Pentagon contracts, and are still looking at boom-time foreign weapons sales, expect them to push hard for a bottom-line guarantee via their holy grail - a military budget pegged to the gross domestic product (GDP).

"We advocate 4% of the GDP as a floor for defense spending. No question that has to be front and center for any new president's agenda," says Marion Blakey, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group representing companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

Listening to defense industry figures talk, you could get the impression that the Pentagon's larder was empty and that the pinching of pennies and tightening of belts was well underway. While the cuts suggested by the Defense Business Board report got a lot of attention, the Pentagon is already quietly laying the groundwork to lock the future Obama administration into a possibly slightly scaled-down version of the over-the-top military spending of the Bush years.

Business as usual?
At the beginning of October, the Pentagon's latest five-year projection of budget needs was revealed in the Congressional Quarterly. These preliminary figures - the full request should be released sometime next month - indicate that the Pentagon's starting point in its bargaining with the new administration and Congress comes down to one word: more.

The estimates project $450 billion more in spending over those five years than previously suggested figures. Take fiscal year 2010: the Pentagon is evidently calling for a military budget of $584 billion, an increase of $57 billion over what they informed Bush and Congress they would need just a few months ago.

Unfortunately, when it comes to military spending and defense, the record is reasonably clear - Obama is not about to go toe-to-toe with the military-industrial-complex.

On the campaign trail, his stump speech included this applause-ready line suggesting that the costs of the war in Iraq are taking away from important domestic priorities: "If we're spending $10 billion a month [in Iraq] over the next four or five years, that's $10 billion a month we're not using to rebuild the US, or drawing down our national debt, or making sure that families have health care."

But the "surge" that Obama wants to shift from Iraq to Afghanistan is unlikely to be a bargain. In addition, he has repeatedly argued for a spike in defense spending to "reset" a military force worn out by war. He has also called for the expansion of the size of the army and the marines. On that point, he is in complete agreement with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. [1]

They even use the same numbers, suggesting that the army should be augmented by 65,000 new recruits and the marines by 27,000. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these manpower increases alone would add about $10 billion a year - that same campaign trail $10 billion - to the Pentagon budget over a five-year period.

The word from Wall Street? In a report entitled "Early Thoughts on Obama and Defense", a Morgan Stanley researcher wrote on November 5, "As we understand it, Obama has been advised and agrees that there is no peace dividend ... In addition, we believe, based on discussions with industry sources that Obama has agreed not to cut the defense budget at least until the first 18 months of his term as the national security situation becomes better understood."

In other words: Don't worry about it. Obama is not about to hand the secretary of defense a box of brownie mix and order him to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.

Smarter, not more, military spending
Sooner rather than later, the new administration will need to think seriously about how to spend smarter - and significantly less - on the military. Our nose-diving economy simply will no longer support ever-climbing defense budgets.

The good news is that the Obama administration won't have to figure it all out alone. The contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus's new Unified Security Budget have done a lot of the heavy lifting to demonstrate that some of the choices that need to be made really aren't so tough. The report makes the case for reductions in military spending on outdated or unproven weapons systems totaling $61 billion. The argument is simple and straightforward: these expensive systems don't keep us safe. Some were designed for a geopolitical moment that is long gone - like the F-22 meant to counter a Soviet plane that was never built. Others, like the ballistic missile defense program, are clearly meant only to perpetuate insecurity and provoke proliferation.

To cut the military budget more deeply, however, means more than canceling useless, high-tech weapons systems. It means taking on something fundamental and far-reaching: America's place in the world. It means coming to grips with how we garrison the planet, with how we use our military to project influence and power anywhere in the world, with our attitudes towards international treaties and agreements, with our vast passels of real estate in foreign lands, and, of course, with our economic and political relationships with clients and competitors.

As a candidate, Obama stirred our imagination through his calls for a "new era of international cooperation". The United States cannot, however, cooperate with other nations from atop our shining Green Zone on the hill; we cannot cooperate as the world's sole superpower, policeman, cowboy, hyperpower, or whatever the imperial nom du jour turns out to be. Bottom line: we cannot genuinely and effectively cooperate while spending more on what we like to call "security" than the next 45 nations combined.

A new era in Pentagon spending would have to begin with a recognition that enduring security is not attained by threat or fiat, nor is it bought with staggering billions of dollars. It is built with other nations. Weapons come second.

Note
1. According to media reports on Wednesday, Gates on Tuesday night accepted Obama's offer to remain as defense secretary.

Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate at the New America Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative (ASI). She is a columnist for Foreign Policy in Focus and a contributing editor at In These Times. In early December, ASI will release "Weapons at War 2008: Beyond the Bush Legacy", co-authored by Berrigan and William D Hartung, an examination of US weapons sales and military aid to developing nations, conflict zones and nations where human rights are not safeguarded. Emailif you would like a copy of the executive summary. \n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it