National Security Legislative Wrap-up

The House-Senate conference on the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization Conference Report (H.R. 1585) completed work on December 6, and sent the bill to the House and Senate for final approval, which is likely this week. The House and Senate appropriations committees are working on an omnibus appropriations bill which will cover the remaining 11 appropriation bills yet to be passed by Congress. The House is scheduled to vote on it Tuesday, and the Senate should vote on it later this week. The measure will include both the Energy and Water and Foreign Operations appropriations bills. The current Continuing Resolution (CR) expires on Friday, December 14.

ACTION IN THE LAST WEEKS

The conference report on the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 1585, has been completed, and it is is expected that the conference report will be voted on by the House and Senate this week. The bill contains $506.9 billion for defense programs plus $189.4 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan war funding.

About a quarter of the Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations bill to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- which now totals about $196 billion -- was considered the week of November 12. The bill was called a "bridge," in that it would provide temporary funding for current operations until the full amount can be considered next year. The measure would have required some U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin 30 days after the bill is enacted, and it set a goal -- but not a requirement -- that most troops be brought home by December 15, 2008. In addition to these measures, the bill required more time at home between tours of duty in Iraq, banned waterboarding and other torture techniques, and prohibited the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq.

The House approved the bill by a 218 - 203 vote. The Senate refused to bring up the bill; it voted 53 - 45 in favor of beginning debate, but 60 votes were required and the bill died. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tried to bring up a $70 billion bill to pay for the wars that had no restrictions, but his measure died 45 - 53. The Senate could reconsider the measure this week or next. Both Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pledged not to approve new war funding without any restrictions. The Senate may consider a less restrictive version at that point in December, but the House may wait until 2008.

The Fiscal Year 2008 Energy and Water Appropriations bill has passed the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee but may never get to the Senate floor, instead going directly to a House-Senate conference as part of a larger package of bills. It will be folded into a larger Omnibus Appropriations bill covering 11 appropriations bills not yet enacted. The Omnibus Appropriations Bill should be considered this week.

The Fiscal Year 2008 State, Foreign Appropriations bill is being considered by a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences between the two bills. It will be folded into a larger Omnibus Appropriations bill covering 11 appropriations bills not yet enacted. The Omnibus Appropriations Bill should be considered this week.

Congressional Schedule for DoD and DoE Bills

Provided below is an updated schedule of Congressional action on key Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Energy (DoE) bills, as prepared by David Culp of FCNL.

Dem Prez Candidates on Iran … Again

Last week’s NPR-sponsored Democratic presidential debate in Iowa was initially dominated by all things Iran: the recently released NIE, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Iranian involvement in Iraq, etc. (Some might recall that last month’s MSNBC-sponsored debate also was dominated by the topic of Iran.) It then turned to foreign policy doctrines, China, safety standards for toys, China again, and immigration. The full transcript can be found here.

Although chalked full of interesting moments, one highlight came in the spat between NPR moderators Robert Siegel and John Inskeep and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, with former Sen. John Edwards thrown in for good measure. After noting “there's no evidence that Iran had a nuclear weapons program,” Kucinich took exception to Edwards’s claim that “everyone at the table would acknowledge that Iran represents a serious issue for the Middle East and for us.” He then reinforced the point that he, and he alone, has opposed every piece of legislation ever … that said all options are on the table and that Iran had nuclear weapons programs.

Provided below are some key portions of the debate as they regard to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation. Key points are bolded.

ROBERT SIEGEL: … The new National Intelligence Estimate contains a major change. It says that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Today President Bush said that nothing's changed in light of the report. He said the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, doesn't do anything to change his opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world.

For all of you — and let's go left to right across the radio dial — do you agree with the president's assessment that Iran still poses a threat? And do you agree that the NIE's news shows that isolation and sanctions work?

Senator Clinton.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I'm relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing's changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change.

I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that's what the president should do. He should seize this opportunity and engage in serious diplomacy, using both carrots and sticks. I think we do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson. But we're not going to reach the kind of resolution that we should seek unless we put that into the context of a diplomatic process.

[snip]

MR. MIKE GRAVEL: Iran's not a problem, never has been, never will be.

What you're seeing right here is something very unique, very courageous. What the intelligence community has done is drop-kicked the president of the United States. These are people of courage that have watched what the president is doing, onrush to war with Iran.

And so by releasing this information, which is diametrically opposed to the estimate that was given in '05 by showing that there is no information to warrant what the White House has been doing, they have now boxed in the president in his ability to go to war. So, my hat is off to these courageous people within the bureaucrats — bureaucracy of the intelligence community.

[snip]

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I think Iran continues to be a threat to some of its neighbors in the region, so they're still funding Hamas, they're still funding Hezbollah, and those are things we have to be concerned about. But it is absolutely clear that this administration and President Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology. And that's been the problem with their foreign policy generally. They should have stopped the saber-rattling, should have never started it, and they need now to aggressively move on the diplomatic front.

I have said consistently since the beginning of this campaign that it is important for the president to lead diplomatic efforts, to try to offer to Iran the prospect of joining the World Trade Organization, potential normalized relations over time, in exchange for changes in behavior. That's something that has to be pursued.

[snip]

SEN. CHRIS DODD: Well, again, this is 16 agencies that have drawn this conclusion, it wasn't just one. So it's a very compelling case that's been made here for exercising caution and pursuing what I've advocated, and others have as well, and that is, pursuing as much of a diplomatic solution to the problems that Iran poses. And there are some. It would be foolish to say otherwise here.

But the important point is we can't do this unilaterally. And that's one of the dangers here. If we really try to impose sanctions by ourselves or other such efforts here, they will fail. It's very important to understand the linkage, obviously, not only between Iran, but Iraq and Iran, and our ability to build this kind of international support for efforts to convince Iran on a variety of issues to move in a different direction is being seriously compromised by our continued military presence in Iraq.

So there needs to be not only understanding what's written in this report, but simultaneously understanding that that more multilateral approach is going to be hobbled and difficult as long as we find ourselves bogged down in the Iraq situation.

[snip]

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: With all due respect with anybody who thinks that pressure brought this about, let's get this straight. In 2003, they stopped their program.

You cannot trust this president. He is not trustworthy. He has undermined our security in the region. He has undermined our credibility in the world. He has made it more difficult to get cooperation from the rest of the world. He has caused oil to go up roughly $25 a barrel with a security premium because of his threat of war.

It is outrageous, intolerable, and it must stop. The president of the United States — it was like watching a rerun of his statement on Iraq five years earlier. This — Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly with the rest of the world at our side, but we've made it more difficult now because who is going to trust us? Who in Europe, who in China, who in Russia? It's outrageous.

MR. JOHN EDWARDS: … What — what I believe is that this president, who just a few weeks ago was talking about World War III, he, the vice president, the neocons have been on a march to possible war with Iran for a long time. We know that they've prepared contingency plans for a military attack. My view is that the — this has been going on since the famous "Axis of Evil" speech, and the United States Senate had an important responsibility in standing up to him and stopping him on the vote on whether to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The president says we're in a global war on terror, and then he declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and also a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. It's absolutely clear and eerily similar to what we saw with Iraq, where they were headed — and there's a different approach, a smart approach using our friends in Europe and the European banking system to deal with this.

[snip]

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Just as five years ago I warned that there was no evidence that would merit war against Iraq and warned this country not to do it, so for the past few years I've been saying that there's no evidence that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. And unfortunately, the president, just as he was able to convince some of my colleagues here to vote for the war against Iraq, despite the fact there wasn't any real evidence, so he has been able to get some of my colleagues here — Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards — to say of Iran "all options are on the table." As a matter of fact, he's still saying that. So we really need to switch to not just diplomacy, but my candidacy offers the American people someone for president who was right the first time.

[snip]

STEVE INSKEEP: Senator Clinton, as some of your opponents have noted, in September you voted on a resolution involving the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which, among other things, called them proliferators of mass destruction. In view of this latest intelligence estimate, which says Iran's nuclear program was stopped in 2003, do you believe that's still true?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, there were other purposes for that resolution. It does label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and there is evidence that they do support Hamas and Hezbollah, as Senator Obama just said, and in addition have, until recently, been supplying weapons and technical advisers to various factions within Iraq.

Since that resolution passed — which was non-binding and did not in any way authorize the president to take any action that would lead to war — our commanders on the ground in Iraq have announced that we've seen some progress from the Iranians backing off, no longer sending in weapons and materiel, and beginning to withdraw their technical advisers.

INSKEEP: Forgive me, are the Revolutionary Guards proliferators of mass destruction?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, many of us believe that. You know, earlier this year, Senator Edwards told an audience in Israel that the nuclear threat from Iran was the greatest threat to our generation. Back in 2004, Senator Obama told the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board that he would even consider nuke — surgical strikes by missiles to take out Iran's nuclear capacity. So there was a very broadly based belief that they were pursuing a nuclear weapon.

INSKEEP: Let's hear from people you've just mentioned. Senator Edwards, do you remember saying that?

MR. EDWARDS: Well, first of all, Senator Clinton and I just have an honest disagreement about this, but a very strong disagreement. I think it's very clear that Bush and Cheney have been rattling the saber about Iran for a very long time, and I said very clearly when this vote took place on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that it was important for us to stand up to them.

INSKEEP: But your remarks in Israel that Senator — that Senator —

MR. EDWARDS: Well, everyone — everyone at the table would acknowledge that Iran represents a serious issue for the Middle East and for us —

REP. KUCINICH: No, I do not acknowledge —

INSKEEP: Congressman Kucinich does not, but —

MR. EDWARDS: Let me finish, if I can.

REP. KUCINICH: Let me characterize my own remarks.

MR. EDWARDS: If I can just finish, Dennis, for just a second.

But I do want it to be clear that, especially on an issue as big as Iran, it's very important for voters in Iowa — caucus-goers in Iowa and New Hampshire voters — to understand the differences. And I do believe very strongly that it was important for us to stand up because what Bush and Cheney did after the vote in the Senate is they declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

[snip]

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Senator Clinton's mention of the Chicago Tribune article back in 2004, I think, is a little bit misleading. Because what I was specifically asked about was if Iran was developing nuclear weapons, how could we respond? And in those situations, what I said is we should keep options on the table. But what I've been consistent about was that this saber-rattling was a repetition of Iraq, a war I opposed, and that we needed to oppose George Bush again. We can't keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt, knowing the ways in which they manipulate intelligence.

[snip]

SIEGEL: … A moment ago when Congressman Kucinich objected to or interrupted the statement from Senator Edwards that everybody agrees Iran is a threat, you say, Congressman Kucinich, I misinterpreted your earlier remarks that Iran is not a threat.

REP. KUCINICH: All I did was raise my hand. I wanted a chance to respond.

SIEGEL: Yes.

REP. KUCINICH: … The point that Senator Clinton made was a valid point with respect to the comments of Senator Obama and also the comments of Senator Edwards at the Herzliya conference. See, when people say all options are on the table, as the three senators have, they actually encouraged President Bush and licensed his rhetoric. And what I'm saying is that I'm the only one here who in Congress repeatedly challenge, in every chance and every legislation, repeatedly challenge this mind-set that said all options are on the table and that Iran had nuclear weapons programs.

SIEGEL: OK. Cleared up.

REP. KUCINICH: I'm the only one who can make that claim.

SIEGEL: Clarified.

Second Guessing the Iran NIE

Gary Hart, Chairman of the Center’s sister organization, Council for a Livable World, recently wrote an interesting piece in the Huffington Post comparing Alan Dershowitz’s second guessing of the new NIE on Iran to the Right’s derision of any Cold War intelligence that challenged the notion that “the Russians are coming and they're 30 feet tall." As he sardonically notes, “Intelligence is good when it tells you what you want to hear. Otherwise, it is dangerously flawed if not sinister.” Click here for the full piece.


Council Board Member Jim Walsh also had a great piece in the Boston Globe in which he asks and answers whether, given the intelligence community's recent failures, the Iran NIE is credible. In outlining why he believes the NIE on Iran is on target, Walsh argues:

First, the idea that Iran suspended nuclear weapons activities in fall 2003 is consistent with how countries typically behave. Throughout the nuclear age, governments have been reluctant to carry on clandestine nuclear programs when inspectors are on the ground. Saddam Hussein, for example, shut down his WMD programs in the early 1990s, because he feared inspectors might uncover his efforts. In fall 2003, Iran was under intense scrutiny regarding its nuclear program. As a consequence, Tehran agreed to join an upgraded inspections regime called the Additional Protocol. From an Iranian perspective, it would have been foolhardy to invite inspectors in only to get caught with an active program.

Second, it is consistent with what we know about Iran. This new intelligence estimate reverses a 2005 conclusion that Tehran was determined to get the bomb no matter what. That earlier conclusion always seemed at odds with the history of Iran's nuclear efforts, which could be called inconsistent at best. Though Tehran showed an interest in nuclear technology under the shah and again beginning in the mid-1980s, the program was slow to make progress, even though it was receiving help from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan's secret nuclear network. For a country that was "determined" to become a nuclear weapons state, Iran was taking its time.

Third, the fact that this intelligence estimate contradicts a previous report is itself a healthy development. When graduate students at MIT present their research, I often ask if they were surprised by anything. I always worry about the ones who say they found exactly what they expected. A good intelligence process is one that is open to being wrong and not afraid to report it.

Finally, this intelligence estimate offers its new conclusions despite the political consequences. The vice president and those of like mind are probably pretty upset right now. And the president, who can still make a case against enrichment in Iran, nevertheless finds himself on the defensive about his past statements. As for policy, the intelligence estimate makes it less likely that the United States will use military force, which is good, but that it may also have the effect of taking the pressure off or even emboldening Iran, which is bad.

Click here for the full piece.

North Korea Nutshell: The Good, The Bad, and the Expected

The last week in news involving North Korea has been full of both worry and cautious optimism. As the careful reader will remember, the next round of the 6-party talks in Beijing was supposed to begin this week, with the topic of the day being North Korea’s draft list of nuclear materials and facilities. The list never came and the talks were postponed accordingly. While some see this as a looming crisis, others point to the fact that when dealing with a subject as important as denuclearization, some flexibility in time tables is required.

North Korea is still under the deadlines imposed by the October 3rd agreement to disable its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and present its declaration. U.S. Ambassador Chris Hill has now promised several times that the list is on its way and each time no list arrived. Compounding this problem are technical issues, which may prevent the nuclear reactor disablement from finishing before the clock strikes midnight on December 31st. During his recent visit to North Korea, Hill found that the on-site team at the reactor at Yongbyon had to handle some issues with removing the 8,000 spent fuel rods from the reactor and that because of this, the time line for disablement activities to be completed would likely extend beyond the end of the year as well.

But this begs the question, what was the purpose of the end of the year deadline? By setting a date, the other 5 nations were putting pressure on North Korea to begin disablement immediately and open discussions as to what a declaration would look like. This pressure succeeded as shortly after the agreement was reached initial experts were allowed into Yongbyon and significant progress has been made. The delay seems to not be a purposeful effort by North Korea but just a matter of safely handling dangerous and decrepit equipment.

The issue of the declaration seems to be another matter entirely. The U.S. is demanding that the North reveal all of its plutonium reserves, its connections with Pakistan concerning uranium enrichment activities, and clear up some of the questions on their connection to Syria. All of these are extremely sensitive issues and it will likely take a fair amount of back and forth discussions, including significant pressure from the other 5 parties, to come up with a document that will at least marginally satisfy everyone. Unless a breakthrough happens in the next week or so and 6-party talks are quickly arranged as a Christmas present to negotiators, we will likely see an announcement by Hill that discussions on the list are “ongoing” and that taking into consideration the North’s positive stance towards disablement the parties will allow the final list presentation to come in early 2008.

However, a slim chance for this deadline to be made remains, courtesy of some adept diplomacy. While making his visit to North Korea, Amb. Hill dropped off a letter personally signed by Bush. The letter, which addressed Kim Jong’il personally, urged the North Korean leader to fully carryout his denuclearization obligations and cited how normalization between the two nations could follow. Although these were already the stated position outlined in previous agreements between the nations, an attempt at personal correspondence between the two leaders is a fundamental shift from where Bush stood earlier in his administration. North Korea has long sought the prestige brought on by such high level contact, so it will be interesting to see if they respond well to this groundbreaking overture.

Back on the subject of the North’s impending declaration, ArmsControlWonk has a fantastic guest post from James Acton of Kings College London. In it, he goes through the nitty-gritty technical details of how inspectors would go about verifying the amount of plutonium North Korea should have on hand. As well, he explains that if inspectors were given a reasonable amount of records and access, they could get fairly close to the exactly the amount of Pu the North should have on hand (which estimates currently place between 50-70kg or nearly 10 bombs worth). I won’t get into more details here, but if you have a nose for the exact science of what is going on with one of the most contentious elements of the declaration I highly recommend you give the post a read.

Finally, while the United States is embroiled in election fever as the primaries move ever closer, the South Koreans themselves had a huge development leading into their December 19th Presidential election. Lee Myung-bak, candidate for the conservative Grand Nation Party (GNP), was cleared of a financial scandal that could have severely damaged his candidacy. When this scandal initially broke it lead some in the GNP to question Lee's candidacy and a fellow conservative, Lee Hoi-chang, announced an independent run that threatened to split the conservative vote and give the Liberal party a chance it likely would not have had otherwise. But the clearing of Lee's name, as well as his decision to announce that he will be donating all of his financial assets (except his $5million home), to charity, leave little room for his opponents to overtake his 20 point polling lead.

Everybody's Talking about the NIE

Bush and friends may still be beating the war drums, but they've been harder to hear amid the cacophony of voices both on the Hill and around the world since Monday's release of the declassified key findings from the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran.

The intelligence community now judges that Tehran ended its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. In other words, they acknowledge they were wrong. The 2005 NIE had incorrectly judged that, "Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure." The reality was far from that. The new report reveals that diplomacy and threats of sanctions were an effective tool in halting Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.

And everyone has been talking about it. Here's what they have to say:

The UN and the EU
"We told you so." Well, kind of. The findings of the NIE reaffirm the position of the EU and the UN that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and that the only effective solution to dealing with Tehran is strong diplomacy. Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA director-general reacted, "Although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran." He later commented the next day that the findings should "help defuse the crisis."

Various members of the EU have also acknowledged that this finding validates their approach, which will therefore not change in response to the report. A spokesperson for Chief of EU foreign policy, Javier Solana, told AFP that the NIE "does not change our dialogue-pressure approach." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman added, "The report confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It also shows that the sanctions program and international pressure has had some effect." That last point is key to solving what remains of the nuclear issue with Iran. While other factors (the ending of Libya's nuclear program and the U.S. invasion of Iraq) may have influenced the decision to end their nuclear weapons program, this report reveals that Iran was (and likely still is) susceptible to international pressure and strong diplomacy.

Iran
"We told you so, too." Ahmadinejad has declared these findings a victory, since it validates his claim that Iran lacked a clandestine nuclear program. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki stated, "It's natural that we welcome...countries that correct their views realistically which in the past had questions about Iran's nuclear activities." Iranians realize that these findings will decrease what was already minimal support from the international community for the hawkish policy advocated by the Bush administration.

Israel
"We disagree." Israeli officials, while stopping short of directly contradicting their closest ally, have openly stated that they believe Iran has continued to develop nuclear weapons. Defense Minister Ehud Barak agreed that Iran ended its nuclear program in 2003, but stated that in Israel's opinion, it has since then "apparently continued that program...There are differences in the assessments of different organizations in the world about this, and only time will tell who is right."

Bush and friends
Oh, Bush and friends. In typical "whatever happens, it validates our point" style, the Bush administration is arguing that the NIE findings actually support their hawkish stance. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley stated Monday that the findings confirm "that we were right to be worried about Iran... [T]he international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran - with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure."

President Bush even said that the results do not increase the likelihood of him taking pre-emptive military action off the table. And despite the proven success of diplomatic engagement, "nor will the United States change its policy of trying to isolate Iran diplomatically and punish it with sanctions."

And, the ever-hawkish, but always interesting John Bolton agreed that the NIE "underscored the need for American toughness." According to the New York Times, he added that "the finding Iran halted a weapons program could just mean that it was better hidden now." Ahhh, truthiness.

So what do we do now?
Though the news that Iran has suspended its nuclear weapons program for four years is obviously positive, the NIE does leave room for concern. With some disagreement over time frame, the IC estimates with "moderate confidence" that Iran could be capable of producing enough weapons-grade HEU between 2010 and 2015. Furthermore, it estimates with "moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

So what do we do now? The most relevant part to pull from the NIE for policy development is that that Iran halted its weapons program in response to international pressure. As the Director of National Intelligence argues, "this, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might--if perceived by Iran's leaders as credible - prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program."

In other words, Iranian leaders are rational actors, and a balance of carrots and sticks offered through strong diplomacy is essential for a resolution to the issue of their continued uranium enrichment. Mutual engagement holds the only potential for mutual security.

National Security Legislative Wrap-up

Congress returns this week from its Thanksgiving recess. The top national security bill on the agenda is the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization Conference Report, likely on the House floor as early as Wednesday. It is possible that the Senate will again consider legislation to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, it is reported that House and Senate appropriations staff are working on an omnibus appropriations bill which will cover the remaining 11 appropriation bills yet to be passed by Congress. The measure will include the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. The bill could be completed next week, before the current Continuing Resolution (CR) expires on Friday, December 14, but is still threatened by a Presidential veto.

ACTION IN THE LAST WEEKS

The Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 1585, is being considered by a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bills. It is expected that the conference report will be voted on by the House and Senate this week.

About a quarter of the Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations bill to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- which now totals about $196 billion -- was considered the week of November 12. The bill was called a "bridge," in that it would provide temporary funding for current operations until the full amount can be considered next year. The measure would have required some U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin 30 days after the bill is enacted, and it set a goal -- but not a requirement -- that most troops be brought home by December 15, 2008. In addition to these measures, the bill required more time at home between tours of duty in Iraq, banned waterboarding and other torture techniques, and prohibited the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq.

The House approved the bill by a 218 - 203 vote. The Senate refused to bring up the bill; it voted 53 - 45 in favor of beginning debate, but 60 votes were required and the bill died. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tried to bring up a $70 billion bill to pay for the wars that had no restrictions, but his measure died 45 - 53. The Senate could reconsider the measure this week or next. Both Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pledged not to approve new war funding without any restrictions. The Senate may consider a less restrictive version at that point in December, but the House may wait until 2008.

The Fiscal Year 2008 Energy and Water Appropriations bill has passed the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee but may never get to the Senate floor, instead going directly to a House-Senate conference as part of a larger package of bills. It is expected to be folded into a larger Omnibus Appropriations bill covering 11 appropriations bills not yet enacted.

The Fiscal Year 2008 State, Foreign Appropriations bill is being considered by a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences between the two bills. It is expected to be folded into a larger Omnibus Appropriations bill covering 11 appropriations bills not yet enacted.

Jeffrey Lewis: 5 Myths About the Bomb and Us

In case you missed it, Jeff Lewis put out a great piece over the weekend that breaks down five current misperceptions about U.S. nuclear weapons.

For the curious, the five myths are:

1. The U.S. nuclear stockpile is the smallest since the Eisenhower administration.
2. Our nuclear arsenal is as small as it can be.
3. Accidents can't happen.
4. Russia isn't an enemy, so we don't need arms control.
5. Reductions in U.S. forces don't matter to Iran or North Korea.

Sadly, this list really could be endless. Another myth that immediately jumps to mind is that the current U.S. stockpile is (or could become in the near future) so dangerously unreliable that we need to rush ahead with RRW.