Restore Sanity? Jon Stewart Gave Senator Coburn a Bum Rap on Haiti Aid

Like many Americans, I have a great deal of sympathy with the thrust
of Jon Stewart's Rally
to Restore Sanity on October 30. It's bad enough that the
debasement of public discourse is unpleasant, and encourages some
Americans to want to withdraw from politics completely; but the
debasement of public discourse is also a major obstacle to enacting
policies that America needs.

If you think, for example, that endless war in Afghanistan is not in
America's interest, and that we would be better off seriously pursuing
a negotiated political solution with leaders of the Afghan Taliban and
with countries in the region including Pakistan and Iran, it's not in
your interest to have a political environment where someone can
essentially shut down your voice by accusing you of wanting to "cut
and run," or of being "soft on terrorism," or of "not caring about
Afghan women." Such a political environment is a mandate for endless
war. The debasement of public discourse has been a major obstacle to
ending the war in Afghanistan.

This week the New York Timesreported
that serious efforts towards "talks about talks" have begun between
the Afghan government and leaders of the Afghan Taliban. This and
similar reports have sparked significant debate: are these
developments really significant, or are they being hyped? Are Taliban
leaders of sufficient rank being included to make the talks
meaningful? Is Mullah Omar, leader of the main branch of the Afghan
Taliban, being excluded? Is Pakistan being excluded? If key players
remain excluded, won't that be likely to sink the talks?

These are good and important questions. What does not seem to be
occurring so far to any significant degree is anyone accusing the
Obama Administration of wanting to "cut and run," or of being "soft on
terrorism," or of "not caring about Afghan women," because it is
supporting talks between the Afghan government and leaders of the
Afghan Taliban to end the war.

This is a very positive development; let's do what we can to make it persist.

It has not always been so.

Four years ago, Republican Senator Bill Frist, then Majority Leader,
on a trip to Afghanistan, said that the war against Taliban guerrillas
could never be won militarily and that "people who call themselves
Taliban" should be brought into the government.

This could have been an opening towards a more sane U.S. policy that
moved toward ending the war - the same policy that we are pursuing
today, many American and Afghan dead later, according to the New
York Times report.

But that's not what happened. Instead, what happened was this:

Democrats criticized Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
(R-Tenn.) yesterday for saying that the Afghan war against Taliban
guerrillas can never be won militarily and for favoring bringing
"people who call themselves Taliban" into the government.

Democrats accused Frist of trying to "cut and run" in
Afghanistan, something Republicans have been accusing Democrats of
seeking to do in Iraq.

"Senator Frist now suggests that the best way forward in Afghanistan
is to coddle the Taliban by welcoming Taliban members into a coalition
government, as if 9/11 had never happened," House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday in a statement.

And that's why Senator Frist's proposal never got a fair hearing, and
a significant cause of the fact that we are only pursuing now - if the
New York Times report is substantially correct - the policy
that Senator Frist proposed four years ago.

If on Monday, some Democrats propose something reasonable and get shot
down without a fair hearing, and on Tuesday Republicans propose
something reasonable and get shot down without a fair hearing, then if
you think in strictly partisan terms, the score is 1-1. But from the
point of view of the broad public interest, the score is 0-2. So there
is a broad public public interest in turning this situation around, or
at least ameliorating it.

Which is why the broad public interest would be served if Jon Stewart
would lead by example, and correct his nationally
broadcast claim that Republican Senator Tom Coburn was holding up
$1.15 billion in reconstruction aid for Haiti.

According to UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs,
the aid consortium InterAction, the State Department, and Josh Rogin
of Foreign Policy's "The Cable," it just ain't so.

The UN reports:

blockquote>In reporting that "not a cent" of the US$1.15 billion the
US promised for Haiti reconstruction at the UN donors' conference in
March had reached the stricken nation, the Associated Press largely
cast the blame on a single senator - Tom Coburn, a conservative
Republican from Oklahoma who had objected to a minor provision in the
legislation that authorized the spending.

Coburn had "anonymously pulled" the legislation until his concerns
could be addressed, the wire
service reported on 28 September, and the senator was swiftly
vilified by prominent liberals for sacrificing the poor of Haiti on
the altar of his ongoing campaign for fiscal prudence. Comedian Jon
Stewart called him an "international a**hole of mystery", for placing
a "secret hold" on the bill. MSNBC broadcaster Keith Olbermann said
Coburn was "committing an atrocity against the people of Haiti and
doing so in the name of 'We the People' of the United States."

It is true that Coburn has placed a hold on much-needed funds for
Haiti - $500 million in fact - but he is not holding up the $1.15
billion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised to a round of
applause at the UN donors' conference.

That money was included in a supplemental spending bill that passed
both houses of congress, after months of bureaucratic back and forth,
and was signed by President Barack Obama on 29 July 2010.

As of September, the US Agency for International
Development (USAID) reported that more than $1.1 billion of the $1.642
billion for Haiti relief had been spent since the earthquake. But the
$1.140 billion for recovery and reconstruction has remained in the US
treasury because the vast proportion of this assistance cannot be
disbursed until the secretary of state reports to various
congressional committees on exactly how the money will be spent and
how its oversight will be managed. Senator Coburn has nothing to
do with the obstruction of this money. [my
emphasis.]

InterAction wrote:

There has been some confusion on why the $1 billion Haiti
Empowerment, Assistance and Rebuilding Act of 2010 has been delayed.
Previous reports blaming Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) for holding up
the bill while Haitians weather hurricane season and floods in
unstable short-term IDP camps were incorrect. The bill is in fact
delayed because of a complicated appropriations process, further
tangled by the Pakistan flooding and Congressional recess, but is due
to move soon. [my emphasis]

Josh Rogin reported
for Foreign Policy's The Cable:

The problem is that Coburn's hold is not responsible for
delaying the $1.15 billion Congress already appropriated in late July
to help Haiti. That bill, which is totally separate from the one
Coburn is holding up, was the supplemental appropriations act signed
by President Obama on July 29. Authorization bills, like the one that
Coburn objects to, are useful for setting out Congressional direction
on how money should be spend, but aren't strictly necessary to the
disbursement of the funds. The appropriations bills are the ones that
actually spend the money.

Even the State Department acknowledges that Coburn is not responsible
for the delay in this tranche of funds for Haiti.

"Senator Coburn's hold is not related to the $1.15 billion pledge
made by the administration in March," State Department spokesman P.J.
Crowley told The Cable. He explained that the State Department
and Congress are still working on how exactly to spend the money,
totally apart from Coburn's hold on the separate authorization bill.
[my emphasis]

It's all teed up for you, Jon. Acknowledge that you slammed Senator
Coburn unjustly. Change the discourse. Lead by example. Restore Sanity!.