TALKING POINTS: Iraq Talking Points

Talking Points for Iraq War Anniversary

President Bush’s State of the Union Address Full Text:

Latest Public Opinion Polls

• “Though the Bush administration has framed the intervention in Iraq as a means of fighting terrorism, all around the world—including in the US—most people view it as having increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks. The near unanimity of this assessment among countries is remarkable in global public opinion polling.”—Steven Kull director of PIPA

• more people than not in 20 of 35 countries think US-led forces should withdraw from Iraq in the next few months, while in nine countries, more people think US-led forces should remain until the situation is stabilized. Six countries are divided. On average, 50 percent favor an early withdrawal, while 35 percent favor remaining until the situation is stabilized.

• The countries most eager for US coalition withdrawal are Argentina (80%), Egypt (76%), China (67%), Brazil (67%), Saudi Arabia (64%) and Senegal (64%).

• The countries most inclined to favor the US remaining until Iraq is stable are the US (58%), Afghanistan (58%), Australia (57%), Great Britain (56%) and Germany (55%).

• However, if the new Iraqi government asks US-led forces to remain until the situation is stabilized, the picture changes sharply. On average, 48 percent think US-led forces should agree to stay at the request of the new Iraqi government, while 32 percent stand by the view that, even if asked, US-led forces should pull out in the next few months.

What do Iraqis Want?

• Naturally one of the most interesting questions is how Iraqis feel about the presence of US-led forces. Iraqis are sharply divided, with 49 percent favoring an early withdrawal and 49 percent favoring US-led forces remaining until Iraq is stable.

• If the new Iraqi government asks the forces to stay, support for doing so rises only slightly, to 53 percent.

Countries With Forces in Iraq

• Six countries polled have troops in Iraq. In three, majorities favor remaining until Iraq is stabilized—the US (58%), Great Britain (56%) and Australia (57%).

• In Italy, views are divided (44% pull out, 47% remain) and in Poland, a plurality of 50 percent favors pulling out while 39 percent favors remaining. In South Korea a slight majority (51%) favors pulling out while 47 percent favors staying.

• If Iraq’s new government were to ask the forces to stay, support for staying jumps to a majority in all six of these countries—Australia (74%), US (73%), UK (69%), South Korea (69%), Poland (61%) and Italy (60%).

Countries that Neighbor Iraq

• Iraq’s immediate neighbors as well as Egypt all have clear majorities calling for withdrawal: 76 percent in Egypt; 64 percent in Saudi Arabia; 61 percent in Turkey and 58 percent in Iran (though over a third, 36 percent, prefer that the coalition remain).

• Even with an Iraqi government request, only 11 percent of Saudis think the coalition should stay (leave, 49%), 18 percent of Egyptians (leave, 63%), and only 28 percent of Turks (leave, 45%).

• When asked how the intervention had affected the likelihood of terrorist attacks around the world, all neighboring countries lean to the view that it had increased it. This is especially true of Egypt (83%) and Iran (77%). Turks agree only a little less forcibly (64%). In Saudi Arabia, a 49 percent plurality also thinks so, but 40 percent preferred not to answer the question. Afghans have the most mixed views: 39 percent think the war increased the likelihood of attacks, 29 percent think it decreased the likelihood and 20 percent think it made no difference.

(Source: Read the full analysis, “World Public Says Iraq War Has Increased Global Terrorist Threat” by World Public Opinion)

What US Troops Want

• Pollster John Zogby says he has been asked by senior military brass to give a presentation at the U.S. Central Command in Florida about his firm's recent poll of American troops in Iraq.

• 23 percent of the troops surveyed said they want to stay "as long as they are needed,"

• Seventy-two percent of the respondents said the United States should leave Iraq within the next year, and that included a 29 percent minority who said the United States should pull out of Iraq "immediately."

(Source: Most American troops are seeking Iraq exit strategy too By Clarence Page Originally published March 7, 2006)

Cost of War:

• The bill as of Aug. 2005 : $204.4 billion

• What $204.4 billion could have paid for in the U.S. for one year:

*Affordable housing units: 1.8 million or

*Scholarships for university students: 40 million or

*Head Start slots for a year: 27 million

• What $204.4 billion could have paid for around the globe for three years:

* Full funding for global anti-hunger efforts for and

* Full funding of world-wide AIDS programs for and

* Full funding for every child in the world for basic immunizations

• Estimated cost of war to date to every U.S. citizen: $727

• Average monthly cost of the Vietnam War, adjusted for infl ation: $5.1 billion

• Average monthly cost of the Iraq War: $5.6 billion

• Amount that military contractor Halliburton has been awarded in contracts: $10 billion

(Source: The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of the Iraq War A Study by the Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy In Focus. By Phyllis Bennis, Erik Leaver and the IPS Iraq Task Force; a comprehensive accounting of the costs of the war on the United States, Iraq, and the World. Report released August 31, 2005.)

• Top members of the Bush administration urged Congress Thursday to quickly pass a $91 billion spending bill that includes money to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• The emergency spending bill includes about $65 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as about $20 billion for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. Additional money would go to the State Department and intelligence agencies for international operations and classified activities.

(Source: Rice and Rumsfeld Press for $91 Billion for Iraq By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, NYTimes)

**For additional Information on the Cost of the Iraq War, see:

1) Bilmes, Linda, and Joseph E. Stiglitz. "The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years after the Beginning of the Conflict." KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP06-002, January 2006. http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/cost_of_war_in_iraq.pdf

2) How Costly Is Too Costly? Finding the Tipping Point for Vietnam -- and for Iraq by Mark Engler

The Future of the World: a global community?

Taken from projections National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project at: http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_es.html

• The likely emergence of China and India, as well as others, as new major global players—similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical landscape. The 21st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and India, comes into its own.

• The world economy is likely to continue growing impressively: by 2020, it is projected to be about 80 percent larger than it was in 2000, and average per capita income will be roughly 50 percent higher.

• An expanding global economy will increase demand for many raw materials, such as oil. Total energy consumed probably will rise by about 50 percent in the next two decades compared to a 34 percent expansion from 1980-2000, with a greater share provided by petroleum.

• The nation-state will continue to be the dominant unit of the global order, but economic globalization and the dispersion of technologies, especially information technologies, will place enormous new strains on governments. In a rapidly globalizing world experiencing population shifts, religious identities provide followers with a ready-made community that serves as a “social safety net

• The US economy will become more vulnerable to fluctuations in the fortunes of others as global commercial networking deepens. US dependence on foreign oil supplies also makes it more vulnerable as the competition for secure access grows and the risks of supply side disruptions increase.

• While no single country looks within striking distance of rivaling US military power by 2020, more countries will be in a position to make the United States pay a heavy price for any military action they oppose. The possession of chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons by 2020 also increase the potential cost of any military action by the US against them or their allies.

• Over the next 15 years the increasing centrality of ethical issues, old and new, have the potential to divide worldwide publics and challenge US leadership. These issues include the environment and climate change, privacy, cloning and biotechnology, human rights, international law regulating conflict, and the role of multilateral institutions. The United States increasingly will have to battle world public opinion, which has dramatically shifted since the end of the Cold War.

(For other future projections based on current military, resource and health status, see the World Watch Institute Report “State of the World 2005” at: https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/01/11/ )

Endangered Species Act

Talking Points for ESA

What is the Endangered Species Act?

• The Endangered Species Act (ESA), enacted in 1973, is the nation's primary tool for conserving imperiled plants and animals. Currently over 1,200 U.S. species and over 550 foreign species are listed as either threatened or endangered.

• Endangered species: In imminent risk of going extinct.

• Threatened species: In imminent risk of becoming endangered.

• The ESA also protects "critical habitats" - the places where endangered species live. (Source: The National Wildlife Federation)
  

'Endangered species' safety threatened'

• 41% percent of the act’s listed species have stabilized or even improved their numbers.

• The act is under attack by lawmakers for its restrictions on property use and development.

• The House of Representatives passed legislation (Pombo Bill) eliminating habitat protections that hamper development. Political appointees would make decisions about protection.

• The Pombo Bill would eliminate the requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency consult with wildlife agencies before approving pesticide use.

• The Bush administration’s proposed budget would cut endangered species funding by $7.7 billion, a 10 % reduction.

(Source: The Kansas City Star, "Endangered species' safety threatened" 2/24/06)

What's next: The fight moves to the Senate

• On March 15, we expect to see a bill introduced by Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), with a mark-up and vote following as soon as March 29.

Background on H.R. 3824: Pombo's "Wildlife Extinction" bill

The bill, sponsored by Richard Pombo (R-CA), passed the House of Representatives on September 29, 2005, with a vote of 229 to 193. Specifically, the "Extinction bill" would:

• End all critical habitat protection for the river banks, forests, beaches, meadows, and other special places that endangered plants and animals need to survive and recover;

• Repeal all provisions that protect threatened and endangered species from the harmful impact of pesticides;

• Require Fish and Wildlife Service to allow unfettered habitat destruction if the federal government fails to meet a 180-day deadline for telling developers whether their actions would kill or harm an endangered species;

• Jeopardize virtually all protections for wildlife by creating a tangle of bureaucracy and regulations that would make it impossibly burdensome for biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service to act;

• Give the Service just 180 days to choose between allowing corporate and private landowners to kill endangered animals and plants at will, or paying whatever ransom they might demand for lost profits to keep them from breaking the law;

• Substitute political science for biological science and allow political appointees to manipulate science to fit their political agenda;

• Eliminate the vital check and balance role that expert wildlife agencies have played in safeguarding imperiled species from federal projects that may jeopardize their continued existence; and

• Change the definition of what constitutes an “endangered species,” making it harder to protect individual populations of endangered wildlife if a species is endangered in America but healthy in a foreign country.

Background on S. 2110: Senator Crapo( R-ID) and Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AK)
On December 15, 2005, Senator Crapo and Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) introduced the "Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act" (S. 2110)
The bill is cosponsored by Wayne Allard (R-CO and Craig Thomas (R-WY).

Specifically, the Crapo bill would:

• Destroy one species’ habitat in exchange for another’s by creating a conservation bank where developers could buy and sell credits for destroying endangered species habitat;

• Delay protections for species and habitat by extending from one year to three years the deadline for final listing decisions after a proposal is submitted to list an imperiled species as threatened and endangered;

• Undermine recovery plans by creating a convoluted new planning process that allows industry to rewrite and overrule the decisions of wildlife experts;

• Create roadblocks to listing endangered species by installing an ambiguous priority system for listing endangered species that includes industry interests;

• Eliminate federal oversight of endangered species by allowing projects on private property to proceed under "provisional permits" if there is no recovery plan in place for a species;

• Restrict wildlife agencies from improving conservation agreements in response to changing threats to endangered species; and

• Pay developers to not violate the law by creating tax breaks to compensate private landowners for conservation work done on private property -- even if those landowners are not actively enhancing or creating endangered species habitat.

(Source: Earth Justice)

Myths and Facts

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Endangered Species Act. These are a few of the most common myths and the real truth behind them:

• The ESA and Private Property

MYTH: The ESA gives the federal government the power to snatch away people's private property.
TRUTH: Except in one unusual case involving water rights, no federal court has ever found that the ESA has lead to an unconstitutional land grab.

• Success or Failure?

MYTH: The ESA is a failure because it has led to the recovery of only a handful of species.
REALITY: The ESA is like an emergency room: it only handles urgent cases. The success of an emergency room is measured by whether the patient's condition is stabilized or improved to the point where recovery is possible with further care. Applying the same definition, the ESA has been remarkably successful: As of 1996, 37 percent of all threatened and endangered species were on the rebound. Nearly half of species that had been on the list more than seven years were stable or improving. The longer a species enjoys the ESA's protections, the more likely its condition will stabilize or improve. The red wolf, the black footed ferret, and the California condor are just a few examples.

• Junk Science?

MYTH: The process of listing species under the ESA is based on faulty and incomplete science, which leads to the listing of species not needing protection.
REALITY: Studies reveal that most species are not listed until their numbers are perilously low. A 1995 Science magazine article reports that the median number of surviving individuals at the time of listing is 1,000 for animals, and just 100 for plants. Protecting species before they reach the very brink of extinction would be more effective and cheaper.

• Job Killer?

MYTH: The ESA puts plants and animals above people, costing us money and jobs.
REALITY: The ESA explicitly requires balancing species protection with people's economic needs. Once a species is listed, the ESA requires that people and the economy be considered at every stage - including the designation of habitat, the development of regulation and the creation of alternatives. Plus, the ESA actually helps the economy by protecting the ecosystems that provide food, medicine, flood protection and recreation.

• A Chokehold on Development?

MYTH: The ESA brings construction and development to a halt.
REALITY: Of more than 219,000 development projects reviewed under the ESA between 1998 and 2001, less than one percent were found to potentially jeopardize listed species - and most of these were allowed to continue after including reasonable alternatives to minimize environmental harm.

• Too Expensive?

MYTH: Protecting endangered species is an expensive luxury we can't afford.
REALITY: Extinction is something we can't afford. Biodiversity provides us with priceless benefits - from supplying lifesaving drugs to maintaining natural ecosystems and recreational lands. In 2003, the amount we spent to implement the ESA was $126 million - the same cost as 13 miles of a four-lane federal highway
(Source: The National Wildlife Federation)

For more information on the Endangered Species Act, visit the website for the US Fish and Wildlife at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

Media Reform

Media Reform Talking Points

Media Consolidation and Sound bites

• As of September 30, 2003 – 13,450 broadcast radio stations are listed as licensed by the FCC (“State of the News Media- Ethnic/Alternative” www.Journalism.org)

• Five corporations (Disney, Viacom, GE/Vivendi, Newscorp/Liberty and AOL-Time Warner) own the seven major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, UPN,NBC, FOX, WB and Telemundo) in addition to both of the major cable news services (CNN and MSNBC). (“Free TV swallowed by Media Giants” Center for Digital Democracy, 9/15/03)

• The top five producer of prime time programming accounted for 42% of the total in 1989. In 2002, the major networks were the top five producers of prime time programming and accounted for over 80% of the total. (“Free TV swallowed by Media Giants” Center for Digital Democracy, 9/15/03)

• Historically, nightly network newscasts are descried as having 22 minutes of news in a 30-minute program. A recent survey observed a closer average of just over 18 minutes of news in a 30-minute program. The balance is made up by teases, promotional announcements and advertising FCC (“State of the News Media- Network TV” www.Journalism.org)

• Although many other radio formats have some news content included in their programming, stations that identify as news/talk formats are the primary news source for 15% of radio listeners. (“State of the News Media- Radio” www.Journalism.org)

• From 1994 to 2002, full-time radio newsroom employees dropped 44%, part-time 71%. The number of network TV news correspondents has been cut by a third in the last 20 years. Those who remain have 30% more work. Newspapers now have about 2,200 fewer full-time newsroom employees than in 1990. (http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org)

Ethnic Media Consolidation

• In early February, executives said they would consider selling the $2-billion-a-year Los Angeles–based company. Potential buyers include private-equity investors and major media companies such as CBS, News Corp., Disney, Time Warner (parent of CNNMoney.com and FORTUNE's publisher), and Grupo Televisa, the Mexican television company that owns 11 percent of Univision and provides it with most of its telenovelas. (Source: Univision is ready for its closeup: Let the bidding begin for the star of Spanish-language media. http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/23/news/companies/univision_fortune/ )

• With the network consolidation of UPN and WB, viewers might be seeing less of the black programming those two networks have become known for, reports the Wave.
• UPN and WB have been the two television networks that air prime-time shows featuring predominantly black talent on both sides of the camera. But with the recent merger, it could mean fewer opportunities for black shows to be scheduled in a network time-slot. (Source: What Will the Demise of UPN, WB Mean to TV LA Wave By Andre Herndon and Marisela Santana, Staff Writers http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=3bdefc6555b1fe67b40dda405a3b070)

Ethnic Media Preferences

• Ethnic media (television, radio stations and newspaper) reaches 84% of Californians who self identify as Hispanic, African American or Asian American. (NCM, “Survey 2002”)

• Spanish language media reaches 89% of California Hispanics, 79% of Afrian Americans are reached by African American media and Asian American media reaches 75% of the Asian population most likely to consume ethnic media (primarily Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean populations) (NCM, “Survey 2002”)

• Ethnic radio stations are preferred by 43% of the three ethnic populations surveyed in California, 36% prefer ethnic television stations, networks and programs. (NCM, “Survey 2002”)

• Over half of the Asian and Hispanic population reads newspapers in their own language or read both their own language and English papers. (“State of the News Media- Ethnic/Alternative” www.Journalism.org)

• NBC purchased the second largest Spanish language network, Telemundo for $2.7 billion in 2002. (“State of the News Media- Ethnic/Alternative” www.Journalism.org)

• In New York, circulation of African American newspapers doubled from 1990 to 2000 at 494,000. (“State of the News Media- Ethnic/Alternative” www.Journalism.org)

Latest PEW Survey

• Public attitudes toward the press, which have been on a downward track for years, have become more negative in several key areas. Growing numbers of people question the news media's patriotism and fairness. Perceptions of political bias also have risen over the past two years.
• Public attitudes toward the press, which have been on a downward track for years, have become more negative in several key areas. Growing numbers of people question the news media's patriotism and fairness. Perceptions of political bias also have risen over the past two years.
• The latest Pew survey on the news media finds that the sustained growth in online news consumption has implications for overall newspaper readership. Overall, a third of Americans below age 40 cite the internet as their main source of news, and many of these people are reading newspapers online.
• The poll also finds that the public makes broad distinctions between fact-based and opinion-oriented news outlets. Roughly six-in-ten Americans (61%) say local TV news programs mostly report facts about recent news developments, rather than opinions; smaller majorities see daily newspapers (54%) and nightly network TV news (53%) as mostly fact-based.
• The internet continues to grow as a source of news for Americans. One-in-four (24%) list the internet as a main source of news. Roughly the same number (23%) say they go online for news every day, up from 15% in 2000; the percentage checking the web for news at least once a week has grown from 33% to 44% over the same time period.
• Republicans are now closely divided as to whether the press protects or hurts democracy; 40% say it protects democracy, while 43% believe it hurts democracy. Two years ago, by a fairly sizable margin (44%-31%) more Republicans felt that the press helped democracy.
• Democratic opinion on this measure has been more stable. In the current survey, 56% say the press protects democracy while just 27% say it hurts democracy.

See the full survey, “Public More Critical of Press, But Goodwill Persists: Online Newspaper Readership Countering Print Losses” http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=248

Alternative Sources for News

• Circulation of alternative weeklies (weekly newspapers, often free of charge and local with an emphasis on entertainment and advertising with in depth coverage of fewer stories) more than doubled from 3 million in 1990 to 7.5 million in 2002. (“State of the News Media- Ethnic/Alternative” www.Journalism.org)

• The alternative press is no longer a haven for the young – the average reader is between 30 and 40 years old, has a high income and education level. (“State of the News Media- Ethnic/Alternative” www.Journalism.org)

• Between half and 70% of people who go online also get their news there – between 80 to 150 million Americans. (“State of the News Media- Online” www.Journalism.org)

• The most popular online sources for news also have television outlets – CNN and MSNBC attracted over 20 million a month. Yahoo attracted 17 million and AOL ranks fourth, with 16 million. (“State of the News Media- Online” www.Journalism.org)

• Over 80% of online users think news sites they regularly visit are “entirely” or “mostly” reliable.

• Web Logs (blogs) have become a new source of sharing ideas. It is estimated that there are over 4 million blogs online and over half are expected to be abandoned. However, more than half of bloggers are teenagers and 40% are people in their 20’s. (“State of the News Media- Online” www.Journalism.org)

• The number of black newspapers with online presence more than doubled from 2001 to 2003. (“State of the News Media- Ethnic/Alternative” www.Journalism.org)