neoConMen

2009-02-06T13:05:00.001-05:00

A tale of two presidencies (Krugman blog)

2009-02-06T13:05:00.000-05:00

2009-01-12T21:44:00.004-05:00

From Krugman 1/12/09 (nyt.com)

How did Bush do that?

I know, I know — “Presidents don’t have much effect on the economy,” etc.. But that’s not what the usual suspects were saying just a few months ago.

And in any case, there’s a mystery waiting to be solved: why were the last 8 years so bad? Even the good times weren’t all that good: by my quick count there were only 10 months under Bush in which the economy added as many jobs as it did in an average month under Clinton. How did Bush manage that?

2008-12-13T21:27:00.000-05:00

Colin Powell endorses Obama

2008-10-19T11:17:00.000-05:00

2008-08-21T15:57:00.000-05:00

Still think economy is better off under Bush?

2008-01-12T11:05:00.000-05:00

Then and Now:

Jan, 2001 / NOW (as of 1/12/08)

Dow
GW Bush: (1/19/01): 10,578 / (1/19/08): 12,606 (+2.7% /yr)
Clinton: (1/19/93): 3,257 / (1/12/01): 10,578 (+15.5%/yr)

Euro= $0.94 /=$ 1.48 (dollar has de-valued 57% )

Oil (light crude, per barrel) $26 / $93 (up 258%)

Unemployment 3.8% / 5.0% (Jan 01 to Dec 07)

Net Govt Saving (formerly current surplus or deficit):
surplus +$138b (3Q00)/ deficit -$237b (3Q07) (source: www.bea.gov)

Trade deficit, per month
$33.5 billion / $63 billion

National Debt

$5.73 Trillion / $9.2 Trillion

National Debt per US citizen:

$20,000/$30,206

Average New Jobs Per Month

+236,000 (Clinton) / 129,000 (Bush II)

US Troops in Iraq

Zero / 158,000

US Deaths in Iraq

Zero / 3,921 (as of 1/19/08)

Congratulations, Al

2007-10-12T19:14:00.000-05:00

The world knows now that the real elected president of the US won the Nobel Peace Prize today while the Supreme Court appointed president has long been deserving the nobel war prize.

Congratulations Al Gore.

Shift Happens

2007-08-27T10:57:00.000-05:00

Then and Now (updated)

2007-08-03T10:38:00.001-05:00

Jan 2001 / NOW (as of 8/2/07)

Dow
GW Bush: (1/19/01): 10,578 / (8/3/07): 13,352 (+3.9% /yr)
Clinton: (1/19/93): 3,257 / (1/19/01): 10,578 (+15.5%/yr)

Euro= $0.94 / $ 1.37

Oil (per barrel) $25.70 / $76.86 (up 200%)

Unemployment 3.8% / 4.6% (Jan 01 to Jul 07)

U.S. Treasury surplus +$119B / deficit -$423B

Trade deficit, per month
$33.5B / $66.2B

National Debt: $5.73 Trillion / $8.92 Trillion (+56%)

National Debt per US citizen: $20,00/$29,000

Average New Jobs Per Month
+236,000 (Clinton) / +70,000 (Bush II)

US Troops in Iraq
Zero / 160,000

US Deaths in Iraq
Zero / 3,665 (as of 8/2/07)

For God's Sake (Krugman 4/12/07)

2007-04-15T11:59:00.000-05:00

Thursday, April 12, 2007
PAUL KRUGMAN: For God’s Sake
In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”

Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.

Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.

The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.

But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.

Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.

For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.

Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of “intelligent design by a creator.” He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.

One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.

There’s Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?

Or there’s the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen’s faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.

And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.

You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins.

Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show “The 700 Club.” Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians,” not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. “Well, I totally concur,” said Mr. Robertson.

The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.

Next week Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at Regent’s Executive Leadership Series.

US and British Casualties in Iraq

2007-04-05T11:42:00.000-05:00

With US troops in Iraq having suffered 18 deaths in
the first 5 days of April and the Britain having
suffered 6, this is shaping-up to be one of the worst
months for British as well as US casualties since the
beginning of the war.

Combined, the ongoing military
death toll for the US and Britain is running at 4.8
per day this month--well over two times the average
daily death toll since the beginning of the War in
March of 2003.

Since the beginning of the War there have been 3,265 US
military deaths, over 25,000 total US military
casualties, and over 60,000 Iraqi civilians. For
important details see attached report on the 4th year
from Iraq Body Count.

Before April, we had just completed the worst
six-month period for US casualties (including deaths)
since March of 2003.

In the six month period ended March 31, 2007 there
were more US military killed in Iraq than in any
consecutive 6 month period since the war started in
March of 2003.

Oct '06 through March '07 544 deaths (3.0/day)
April '06 through Sept '06 386 deaths (2.1/day)
Oct '05 through Mar '06 396 deaths (2.2/day)
April '05 through Sept '05 398 deaths (2.2/day)
Oct '04 through Mar '05 473 deaths (2.6/day)
April '04 through Sept '04 285 deaths (1.6/day)

Better off under Bush?

2007-03-05T10:24:00.000-05:00

Then and Now:

Jan 2001 / NOW (as of 3/5/07)

Dow
GW Bush: (1/19/01): 10,578 / (3/5/07): 12,128 (+2.2% /yr)
Clinton: (1/19/93): 3,257 / (1/19/01): 10,578 (+15.5%/yr)

Euro= $0.94 /=$ 1.31

Oil (per barrel) $25.70 / $60.45 (up 135%)

Unemployment 3.8% / 4.6% (Jan 01 to Jan 07)

U.S. Treasury surplus +$119b / deficit -$478b

Trade deficit, per month
$33.5b / $66.2b

National Debt

$5.73 Trillion / $8.90 Trillion (+55%)

National Debt per US citizen:

$20,00/$29,000

Average New Jobs Per Month

+236,000 (Clinton) / -28,500 (Bush II)

US Troops in Iraq

Zero / 140,000

US Deaths in Iraq

Zero / 3,171 (as of 3/5/07)

The Citadel

2007-03-04T11:44:00.000-05:00

One of the great benefits that the net has brought to those of us aging boomers who still hack away on our guitars is the available content of lyrics and tabs (a guitar-friendly notation). Whereas we used to rely only on our ears or were forced to purchase over-priced and poorly written "composition" books, we can now find most of our favorite songs a click or two away from searching the title/artist. Why bring this up here? I wanted to learn a song I used to love back in grade school (yes, fifth grade) by the Rolling Stones, on their psychedelic period album "Their Satanic Majesties Request". The song is "Citadel" and the words, of which I only used to mumble, popped out like something that would be produced today by a new-age singer/songwriter/ protest band concerning Iraq and the reign of Bush in general; the "Citadel" could be the Green Zone or the White House.

Citadel
(Jagger/Richards)

Men are armed shout who goes there
We have journeyed far from here
Armed with bibles make us swear
Candy and taffy, hope we both are well
Please come see me in the citadel

Flags are flying, dollar bills
Round the heights of concrete hills
You can see the pinnacles
Candy and taffy, hope we both are well
Please come see me in the citadel

In the streets are many walls
Hear the peasants come and crawl
You can hear their lovers call
Candy and taffy, hope we both are well
Please come see me in the citadel

Screaming people fly so fast
In their shiny metal cars
Through their worlds of steel and glass
Candy and taffy, hope we both are well
Please come see me in the citadel

Angela Merkel, a Neocon as President of the European Union

2007-02-18T19:06:00.000-05:00

Angela Merkel, a Neocon as President of the European Union

by Thierry Meyssan, journalist and author, president of the Réseau Voltaire, France

As Angela Merkel now assumes the presidency of the European Union for the first half of 2007, Thierry Meyssan looks back on the amazing career of this communist propagandist in the former German Democratic Republic who made it to Chancellor of the reunified Germany. He emphasises her links with the neo-conservatives and her idea of US leadership in Europe.

Angela Merkel was born in Hamburg in 1954 (Federal Republic of Germany). Shortly after her birth, her family made the unusual choice of moving to the East. Her father, a pastor in the Lutheran church, then founded a seminary in the German Democratic Republic and became director of a home for handicapped persons. He refrained from making any public criticism of the regime and enjoyed a privileged social status, having two cars and making frequent trips to the West.

Angela Merkel was a brilliant student, graduating as a doctor of physics. She married a physician, Ulrich Merkel, whom she soon divorced. She then moved in with Professor Joachim Sauer, divorced like herself but already the father of two children. Angela Merkel obtained a research post in quantum physics at the Academy of Sciences.

At the same time, she became politically involved in the Freie Deutsche Jugend (Free German Youth), the state organisation for young people. She rose within the organisation to the post of Secretary of the Agitprop department, becoming one of the main experts in political communication in the communist dictatorship. For professional and political reasons, she often travelled within the Soviet bloc, above all to Moscow, particularly since she spoke Russian fluently.

Although for many years hoped and prepared for, the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 nevertheless took all governments by surprise. The CIA attempted to take over by recruiting senior individuals under the old system who were willing to serve the USA like they had previously served the USSR.

One month later, Merkel changed sides from one day to the next and joined the Demokratischer Aufbruch (Democratic Revival), a new movement inspired by the West German Christian Democrat party. She immediately took over the same functions that she had held before, except that the position was now, in West German terminology, “Press spokesperson”.

However, it soon became known that the president of Demokratischer Aufbruch, Wolfgang Schnur, had been a collaborator of the Stasi, the political police under the communist dictatorship. Merkel herself informed the press of this painful news, obliging Schnur to resign and enabling herself to be appointed in his stead as president of the movement.

Following the last parliamentary elections in the GDR, she joined the government of Lothar de Maizière, becoming the latter’s spokesperson, although Demokratischer Aufbruch only picked up 0.9% of the votes. During this period of transition, she was actively involved in the “2+4” negotiations that ended Berlin’s quadripartite status and the allied occupation, as well as in the negotiations aimed at reunifying Germany. In order, as she said, to avoid a mass exodus from the East to the West, she argued strongly in favour of getting the GDR to join the market economy and the Deutschmark zone.

Her partner, Joachim Sauer, was recruited by the US company Biosym Technology, spending a year at San Diego (California) at the laboratory of this Pentagon contractor. He then joined Accelrys, another San Diego company carrying out contracts for the Pentagon. For her part, Angela Merkel was perfecting her English, which she soon spoke fluently.

Once the GDR had been reunified with the Federal Republic and the Demokratischer Aufbruch had become part of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Angela Merkel was elected member of the Bundestag, the German federal parliament, and joined Helmut Kohl’s government. Although strict in matters of morals, he selected this young childless divorcee from the East living with a partner as Minister for Family, Youth and Women.

Within 14 months, the communist Agitprop leader of the DDR youth movement had become a Christian Democrat minister of Youth in the Federal Republic. Incidentally, she achieved very little in her first period as minister.

Continuing her career within the CDU, Angela Merkel launched an unsuccessful bid to get herself elected president of the Brandenburg regional party. However, Lothar de Maizière, who had become deputy president of the national party, was convicted of having distant relationships with the East German political police and was obliged to resign, to be replaced by Merkel.

In 1994, Klaus Töpfer, the Minister of the Environment, the Protection of Nature and Nuclear Security, was appointed director of the UN environment programme, following a series of clashes with the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, which accused him of underestimating economic reality. Helmut Kohl then ended the crisis by appointing his protégée Merkel as Töpfer’s replacement. Immediately after assuming office, Merkel sacked all the senior officials of her ministry who had remained loyal to her predecessor. It was during this period that she formed a friendship with her French counterpart at the time, Dominique Voynet.

In 1998, Chancellor Kohl informed the USA of his opposition to an international intervention in Kosovo, while the Social Democrats under Gerhard Schröder and the Greens under Joschka Fischer compared Slobodan Milosevic to Adolf Hitler and were calling for a humanitarian war.

The pro-US press then thundered against the Chancellor, accusing him of the economic difficulties that the country was suffering from as a result of reunification. In the September 1998 elections, the Christian Democrats were swept out of power by a wave of red and green, Schröder becoming Chancellor and appointing Fischer his Foreign Minister.

However, Helmut Kohl and his closest associates had apparently accepted money from obscure sources for the CDU, but refused to reveal the names of the donors, arguing that they had given their word. Angela Merkel then published a courageous article in the Foreign Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in which she distanced herself from her mentor. In this way, she forced him to withdraw from the party, with Wolfgang Schäuble, CDU party president, resigning shortly afterwards. Thus, in the name of public morality she grabbed the presidency of the party and, in the same surge of morality, adopted the Christian Democrat line and married her partner.

From then on, Angela Merkel was publicly supported by two press groups. Firstly, she was able to count on the support of Friede Springer, who had inherited the Axel Springer group (180 newspapers and magazines, including Bild and Die Welt). The group’s journalists are required to sign an editorial agreement laying down that they must work towards developing transatlantic links and defending the state of Israel.

Angela Merkel can also rely on her friend Liz Mohn, director of the Bertelsmann group, the number 1 in the European media world (RTL group, Prisma group, Random House group, etc.). Ms. Mohn is also vice-president of the Bertelsmann Foundation, an intellectual pillar of Europe-American relationships.

Angela Merkel relies on the advice of Jeffrey Gedmin, specially dispatched to Berlin to assist her by the Bush clan. This lobbyist first worked at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) under Richard Perle and Mrs. Dick Cheney. He enthusiastically encouraged the creation of a Euro with Dollar parity exchange rate. Within the AEI, he led the New Atlantic Initiative (NAI), which brought together all the America-friendly generals and politicians in Europe. He was then involved in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and wrote the chapter on Europe in the neocon programme. He argued that the European Union should remain under NATO authority and that this would only be possible by “discouraging European calls for emancipation.” Finally he became the administrator of the Council of the Community of Democracies (CCD), which argues in favour of a two-speed UN, and became director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin. Subsequently he turned down the offer from his friend John Bolton of the post of deputy US ambassador to the UN so as to be able to devote himself exclusively to Angela Merkel.

In 2003, the State Department entrusted Jeffrey Gedmin and Craig Kennedy with a huge programme of “public diplomacy”, in other words propaganda, including the clandestine funding of journalist and opinion formers in Western Europe.

In 2003, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder opposed the Anglo-American intervention in Iraq. Angela Merkel then published a courageous article in the Washington Post in which she rejected the Chirac-Schröder doctrine of European independence, affirmed her gratitude and friendship for “America” and supported the war.

In May 2004, she established a new situation by pushing through the election as President of the Federal Republic of the banker Horst Köhler, main author of the Maastricht Treaty and creator of the Euro, later president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and director of the IMF. She then began a “patriotic” campaign against radical Islamism.

Throughout the 2005 electoral campaign she criticised the increase in unemployment figures and the Social Democrats inability to deal with it, gaining for the CDU a lead of 21 percentage points in public opinion polls. It was then that her mysterious adviser, Jeffrey Gedmin, published an open letter to her in Die Welt. After criticising the German economic model, he wrote: “Before advancing the country, you need to defeat intellectually those nostalgic individuals who are dragging their feet. If Sarkozy succeeds Chirac, France might experience an upswing. It would be regrettable if Germany continued to decline.” In reply to this invitation, Merkel finally revealed her solutions. She promoted one of her advisers, the former Constitutional Court judge Paul Kirchhof, and entrusted him with the Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (Initiative for the New Social Market Economy). She announced the abolition of graduated income tax, proposing that the rate should be the same for those who only just have what is necessary and those who live in luxury. The outgoing Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, severely criticised this proposal in a televised debate. The CDU’s lead was decimated, and in the actual election, the CDU polled 35% of the votes and the SPD 34%, the remainder being spread amongst a number of small parties. The Germans didn’t want Schröder any longer, but nor did they want Merkel. Following long and laborious negotiations, a Grand Coalition was agreed, with Merkel, although Chancellor, obliged to surrender half of the minister posts to her opponents.

She pushed through the participation of a German contingent in the multinational force under US command in Afghanistan. Then, when Israel intervened in Lebanon, she successfully achieved the involvement of the German navy in the FINUL, arguing that “if Germany’s raison d’être is to guarantee Israel’s right to exist, we cannot say, now that this existence is threatened, that we will do nothing.”

As of 1 January 2007, Angela Merkel is the president of the European Union. She has never made any secret of her intention to force France and the Netherlands to accept the equivalent of the Constitutional Treaty project that they both rejected in referendums, nor of her intention to relaunch the proposed merger of the North American Free Trade Area and the European Free Trade Area, thereby creating a “great transatlantic market” to use the words once pronounced by Sir Leon Brittan.

© 2006, Current Concerns, www.currentconcerns.ch, Phone +41-44-350 65 50, Fax +41-44-350 65 51

We gave them something to cheer about

2006-04-21T17:22:00.000-05:00

"The (Iraq) invasion wasn't in our interests, it was in Iran's interest, Al Qaida's interest. Seeing America invade must have made Iranian leaders ecstatic. Iran's hostility to Saddam was hard to exaggerate.. Iraq is now open to Al Qaida, which it never was before - it's easier for terrorists to kill Americans there than in the US.. Neither our leaders or the mainstream media recognize the perversity of key US policies now begetting outcomes they were designed to prevent… 3 years later the US is bogged down in Iraq, pretending a Constitution has been put in place, while the civil war rages, Iran meddles, and Al Qaida swells its ranks with new recruits.. We have lost our capacity to lead and are in a state of crisis - diplomatic and military."

- Former National Security Agency Director Lt. General William Odom
(director of NSA (which monitors all communications) from 1985-88 under Reagan, and previously was Zbigniew Brzezinski's assistant under Carter. His latest 2004 book is America's Inadvertent Empire)

How much does one man (or woman) really need?

2006-04-17T09:20:00.000-05:00

Last week we learned that Lee R. Raymond, chairman of EXXON MOBIL, wrote himself a compensation package of $140 million last year, one in which the corporation he "ran" raked in a record $36 billion in profits. Along with another $258 million in options and other deferred compensation, Raymond will retire with a package worth more than $398 million. Without going into the usual comparisons of what this equates to or what else it could buy, or what countries have similar GDPs, let's just agree that it is a very large lump sum with which to live out one's golden years.

I've twice now received an email that is chock full of pictures of what is claimed to be the lavishly appointed digs of a Middle East sultan, including what is described as a silver plated Bentley in the driveway. The text in the mail message says something like "this is why gas is so expensive at the pump!". Friends, Mr. Raymond could easily afford these home upgrades and more than one silver-clad Bentley. But he must have somehow worked harder and played by the rules or we wouldn't be appalling the Sultan and applauding the CEO.

Raymond is attributed to merging EXXON and MOBIL into the largest and most profitable oil company in the world. Much of the profitability could be attributed to the doubling of world oil prices (which carry proportionate marginal profitability at the consumer level) and cost cutting (which primarily equates to the savings that come from laying off workers in redundant positions in a merger). Shareholders experienced less than 8% annual return during the past five years, which was nothing extraordinary.

For any who think this is an example of why America is great - that anyone has the same opportunity to achieve such wealth, I say you too must be a greedy, self-centered, ignorant drain on what could really make us a great nation. Oops, there I go launching pre-emptive class warfare!

American Theocracy

2006-03-19T17:28:00.000-05:00

In Kevin Phillip's new book " AMERICAN THEOCRACY:The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" we're given more dire predictions resulting from the influence and policies of the Bush administration. Those of us in the blogosphere have read much of these before. However, coming from a 1960's conservative Republican strategist who served in the Nixon administration, we have yet another compass point that should give us pause.

Phillips presents vast right wing Christian and Imperialish Oil conspiracy theories built upon evidence. By example: the failure to post American troops in front of the National Museum in Baghdad during the early days of the invasion, but the immediate posting of troops around the Iraqi Oil Ministry, which held the maps and charts that were the key to effective oil production. He supports the notion that the Bush administration's principal purpose in invading Iraq was to secure vast oil reserves that would enable the United States to control production and prices. "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath. You can't ask for better than that." Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, democracy and other public rationales were, Phillips says, simply ruses to disguise the real motivation for the invasion.

The United States has embraced a kind of "petro-imperialism," Phillips writes, "the key aspect of which is the U.S. military's transformation into a global oil-protection force," and which "puts up a democratic facade, emphasizes freedom of the seas (or pipeline routes) and seeks to secure, protect, drill and ship oil, not administer everyday affairs."

On the Christian crusade, a rapidly growing group of "Christian Reconstructionists" who believe in a "Taliban-like" reversal of women's rights, who describe the separation of church and state as a "myth" and who call openly for a theocratic government shaped by Christian doctrine, are on the march. A much larger group of Protestants, perhaps as many as a third of the population, claims to believe in the supposed biblical prophecies of an imminent "rapture" — the return of Jesus to the world and the elevation of believers to heaven. Our venerable US Senate leader, Bill Frist, and bubble boy Bush are firmly grounded in this camp.

Prophetic Christians, Phillips writes, often shape their view of politics and the world around signs that charlatan biblical scholars have identified as predictors of the apocalypse — among them a war in Iraq, the Jewish settlement of the whole of biblical Israel, even the rise of terrorism. He convincingly demonstrates that the Bush administration has calculatedly reached out to such believers and encouraged them to see the president's policies as a response to premillennialist thought. He also suggests that the president and other members of his administration may actually believe these things themselves, that religious belief is the basis of policy, not just a tactic for selling it to the public.

2006-02-26T14:40:00.000-05:00

In the National Review, I just read a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration by William F. Buckley, Jr. who is now effectively calling for a "Cut and Run" policy in Iraq. (Although I borrow the words from Richard Reeves' column in Nov of '04).

Founder of the National Review, Buckley is a leading elder statesman of American conservatism. Along with recent utterances of the not so distinguished Bill O'Reilly, this is strong evidence of conventional wisdom sharply moving to the conclusion that Iran, terrorist recruiters, and radical Islamists are the prime beneficiaries of this--so far--most unwarranted, disastrous and deadly project advanced by the Neocons.

With this nightmare, the Bush Administration and its Republican acolytes in the Congress have already brought us: the needless human tragedy of almost 2,300 dead (as of 2/25/06) and over 16,000 wounded (approximately 7,600 unable to return to duty) among US military, well over 30,000 dead Iraqis, and at least $400 billion in debt (through US Fiscal '06) for US tax payers and our children.

In rough terms, that cost breaks down to about $4,000 per US household, or $1,540 per man, woman and child. For those of us with young children (under age 18) and college students (in total, there are about 92 million US citizens under age 21) that's about $4,345 more debt riding on each of their backs. Call it the Birth Tax or Death Tax or whatever you want, but that monetary cost, along with the eternal debt paid by the shattered victims, cannot be repealed - they are what economists refer to as sunken costs.

Since the Bush Administration and its Congressional Republican allies have chosen to finance the war with record tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, that $400 billion is now the fastest growing part of the country's total debt: it has now rocketed to almost $8.25 trillion.

For perspective: on Sept 30, 2001, the total national debt stood at just under $5.81 trillion. This more than $2.44 trillion increase (+41%, with no end in sight) has been added in less than 4.5 years under Bush!

For perspective: in the last 5 complete Fiscal Years years under the Clinton administration (from 9/30/1995 through 9/30/2000) there was a slightly more than $700 billion (or +14%) increase in the National Debt.

Back in 2003 and 2004, the good Doctor Dean was certainly right (as were others, of course) in clearly and forth-rightly warning us about the fact 'you can't trust the Republicans with your money'; about the deceit that accompanied the Administration's taking us to war on Iraq; about the disastrous consequences that would accompany our becoming bogged-down in this sectarian civil war; and about its dangerous implications for our national security interests and reputation seen in the broader context at home and abroad.

Happy Holidays to Bill O'Reilly (Christmas War Room) from John Dingle (D-MI)

2005-12-16T07:52:00.000-05:00

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House

No bills were passed 'bout which Fox News could grouse;

Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
So vacations in St. Barts soon would be near;

Katrina kids were nestled all snug in motel beds,
While visions of school and home danced in their heads;

In Iraq our soldiers needed supplies and a plan,
Plus nuclear weapons were being built in Iran;

Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell;
Americans feared we were on a fast track to...well...

Wait--- we need a distraction--- something divisive and wily;
A fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly

We can pretend that Christmas is under attack
Hold a vote to save it--- then pat ourselves on the back;

Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger!

This time of year we see Christmas every where we go,
From churches, to homes, to schools, and yes...even Costco;

What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy,
When this is the season to unite us with joy

At Christmas time we're taught to unite,
We don't need a made-up reason to fight

So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter, and those right wing blogs;
You should just sit back, relax...have a few egg nogs!

'Tis the holiday season: enjoy it a pinch
With all our real problems, do we honestly need another Grinch?

So to my friends and my colleagues I say with delight,
A merry Christmas to all,

and to Bill O'Reilly...Happy Holidays.

And it was supposed to be Big Oil

2005-12-13T17:28:00.000-05:00

"Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability.
Whose interests were best served by the US invasion of Iraq in the
first place? It turns out that Iran and al-Qaida benefited the most,
and that continues to be true every day US forces remain there."

-Retired three star Lt. Gen. William Odom, former head of the
National Security Agency
UPI - December 2, 2005

Bernie Sanders - the most truthful Rep?

2005-12-08T10:27:00.000-05:00

Bernie is our beloved Congressional Representative. Hearing him rant about the latest outrage brought on by the Bush administration at one of his local meetings - open to all I might add, not screened, padded or closed in any way - is believing. I felt compelled to post the entire interview with Ruth Conniff. The one thing that disappoints me is his last statement, promising not to run for president if elected to Senate. As long as we have Bernie as the voice for the rest of us in one of the three branches, we are fortunate.

Published on The Progressive (http://progressive.org)
Bernie Sanders Interview
By Ruth Conniff
December 2005 Issue
Bernie Sanders, the independent, socialist Representative from Vermont, is poised to win the Senate seat vacated by Jim Jeffords in 2006. According to the Associated Press, Sanders has received donations from 100 times as many Vermont supporters as his likely opponent, the self-financed, Bentley-driving corporate executive Rich Tarrant.

An outspoken critic of the Patriot Act, the first lawmaker to take a busload of constituents to Canada to buy prescription drugs, the leader of a successful effort to block the Bush AdministrationÂs plan to slash worker pensions, and an economic populist with crossover appeal to VermontÂs rural dairy farmers as well as liberals in Burlington, Sanders is the kind of down-to-earth grassroots candidate willing to oppose the Republicans in no uncertain terms. Without taking corporate PAC money, he has managed to win against better-financed Republican opponents again and again. In 1996, when Newt Gingrich put up a well-financed candidate to unseat him, Sanders won reelection with 55 percent of the vote.

In September, Sanders came to Madison, Wisconsin, for ÂFighting Bob FestÂÂa progressive rally held annually in memory of Robert M. La Follette, the great Senator who helped usher in the Progressive Era. I caught up with Sanders at a hotel in downtown Madison, where he was preparing to speak to a group of lawyers at a fundraiser for his campaign and that of a fellow opponent of the Iraq War, Representative John Conyers.

Unlike many of his colleagues in Washington, Sanders has an utterly unassuming manner. Any other candidate for national office might arrive with an entourage, or at least an aide in tow, and think nothing of coming an hour late. Sanders tramped into the hotel lobby looking slightly windblown, having made the three-hour drive by himself from the airport in Chicago. He had called my cell phone to apologize, saying he was running behind by ten minutes.

He spoke earnestly, in his native Brooklyn accent, about the state of national politics and his own race for the Senate, refusing to put a rosy spin on things, cautioning that the troubles facing the Republicans donÂt mean an automatic win for their opponents. ThereÂs a lot of work to be done, he said, but progressives are right on the issues, and represent the true interests of a majority of Americans. The only thing to do, he said, is to get out and talk to our fellow citizensÂespecially those who donÂt already agree with us.

Question: What does Hurricane Katrina tell us?

Bernie Sanders: I think Katrina is one more indication of how inefficient and corrupt this Administration is, and indicates the absolute lack of seriousness that Bush has in making the government respond to the needs of the people. He is there primarily to give tax breaks to billionaires, to do the service of large corporations. This is just one more powerful, dramatic, painful example of the incompetence and lack of concern of this Administration. They are so separated from the lives of normal, low-income people that it never occurred to them that if youÂre poor and have no money, no car, that you canÂt leave. You donÂt just get in your SUV and go to a nice hotel a few miles away.

Q: People finally saw indifference and incompetence?

Sanders: What they were seeing on television was people dying because theyÂre poor. And theyÂre dying because they donÂt have a car they can get into and go to a hotel. But what you donÂt see on television is people dying today because they canÂt get to a doctor and they canÂt afford prescription drugs. ThatÂs why they are also dying. They are dying in Iraq because they are poor and they have gone into the military because they canÂt afford to go to college. TheyÂre dying because theyÂre living in communities where asthma rates are extremely high because the air is filthy. The suffering of the poor and working class people is a virtual nonissue for the media. But that is the reality.

Obviously, you were seeing it incredibly starkly in New Orleans. YouÂre poor, you canÂt get out of town, you die.

Q: Is this a particularly ripe moment for change?

Sanders: I think it is. Given the fact that poverty is growing, more and more Americans are losing health insurance, health care costs are going up, the middle class is shrinking, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, we have lost 2,000 soldiers in Iraq, weÂre spending some $300 billion there, and Bush has no idea of an exit strategy. Add all of those things together and the real question should be asked, how is it conceivable that he is even at 40 percent?

That speaks to the weakness of the opposition. People do not like George Bush. But I think itÂs fair to say that they are not flocking to the Democratic Party, or see the Democrats as a real alternative.

Q: So whatÂs your message to progressives?

Sanders: We have got to change the political culture in America. We need a political revolution. That means we are working on politics not just three weeks before an election but 365 days a year. We have to develop a strong economic message which says every American is entitled to health care through a national health care program. And weÂre not going to allow these large corporations to push through trade agreements which allow them to throw Americans out on the street and run to China. WeÂre not going to give tax breaks to billionaires and then cut back on the needs of our elderly or poor or kids or education. WeÂre not going to privatize Social SecurityÂin fact, weÂre going to strengthen it. WeÂre going to provide quality education for every kid in America, from preschool through college. We have to take on these corporate leaders who are selling out the American people, whose allegiance is now much more to China than it is to the United States. If we have the courage to take these people on, I think we can overwhelm Bush and his friends.

Why is it that two-thirds of white, rural men voted Republican? Why? ThatÂs what we have to address. ThatÂs crazy. These people are working longer and longer hours. They canÂt afford to pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas. TheyÂre losing their jobs. So why do they vote for President Bush? And the Republican Party? WeÂve got to address this.

ItÂs very easy to make fun of George Bush, but that ainÂt going to do it. What we have to do is knock on doors and go into communities where there are people who disagree with us on certain issues.

And we have to talk to them. TheyÂre our friends. TheyÂre our allies. TheyÂre our co-workers. We canÂt see them as enemies.

ThatÂs easier said than done.

All over this country you have progressive communities like Madison and Burlington, but weÂve got to go well, well, well outside of those communities. WeÂve got to go to the rural areas. WeÂve got to go where a lot of working people are voting Republican.

We just canÂt talk to each other. ThatÂs too easy.

Q: How is your own campaign going? Are you seeing a national Republican effort to defeat you? Is money coming in?

Sanders: Vermont is such a small state, and the most money thatÂs ever been spent in the history of political campaigns there is $2 million. That number is going to be surpassed many times. Vermont remains a Âcheap stateÂ for the Republican National Committee. So putting $5 or $10 million into VermontÂcompared to New York or California or IllinoisÂthatÂs small potatoes.

The truth is that Bush and Karl Rove do not like Vermont for a lot of reasons. They donÂt like the fact that Jim Jeffords gave the Senate over to the Democrats. They donÂt like Howard Dean. They donÂt like Leahy. They donÂt like me. And they would very much like to win this seat. So we expect huge amounts of money to come into the state. I believe that IÂll be running against the richest guy in the state of Vermont, worth a few hundred million dollars. So clearly we know they will do everything they can to win, including spending more money than has ever been spent.

Q: Do you think theyÂre going to use the socialist label against you, and do you think thatÂs going to matter?

Sanders: No, I doubt it will make a dent. IÂve run for statewide office plenty of times, and people know me. If you look at what they did to Max Cleland and what they did to John Kerry, we have a pretty good idea of what they can do. ItÂs the politics of personal destruction. They are incapable of debating issues, because their positions on all of the issues are horrendous. Their style has always been to try to personally destroy whom they run against. So we expect a great deal of negativity.

I won my last election by forty points. The Republican I ran against, at the end of the campaign, had decided that I was Âa friend of terroristsÂ and Âa friend of pedophiles.Â ThatÂs the kind of crap they came out with. I expect thatÂs the kind of crap theyÂll come out with again.

Their weakness is they have nothing to say. What are they going to say about the economy? What are they going to say about tax policy when they give tax breaks to billionaires and inadequately fund veteransÂ benefits? What do they say about the environment when they are among the few remaining people on Earth who do not believe in global warming and have just passed a disastrous energy bill that has almost no energy conservation or sustainable energy?
What can they say about Social Security when the vast majority of the people donÂt want to privatize it?

On issue after issue they are bankrupt. The only thing they can do is try to destroy the character and the integrity of their opponent. ThatÂs all that they have left.

Q: What kinds of things do you want to do as Senator?

Sanders: If people envisage me in the Senate they might think of me as someone who would emulate Paul Wellstone, fighting for the issues he fought for. He was a good friend of mine.

WeÂll be trying to do a couple of things. One is fighting for national health care. Another is fighting to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, and changing our trade policies.

But also weÂll be trying to use the office to connect the grassroots to the United States Senate and the Congress. Because of a mass media more interested in gossip and sensationalism than real issues, I would say a vast majority of the American public doesnÂt have a clue about how the Congress functions and what goes on.

I think itÂs important that members of the United States Senate spend time not just on Capitol Hill but making contact with ordinary people and engaging them in the political process. WeÂre not going to bring about change unless that happens.

In many respects, this country is becoming an oligarchy, with a tiny percentage of America owning the media, owning the country.

We have the technology to turn it around. Everyone can have health care. Everyone can earn a living wage. We can educate all our kidsÂwell.

But none of that happens unless thereÂs a political revolution. And itÂs not going to happen unless we deal with corporate control of the media.

Q: Where should progressives put their energy, in the Democrats or in third party efforts?

Sanders: IÂll give you an example. In Vermont we probably have the most successful third party in the country, electorally. When I was mayor of Burlington I defeated a Democrat. And out of that victory came what for all intents and purposes was a party. Legally it wasnÂtÂit was called the Progressive Coalition. It evolved into the Progressive Party, which now has six members of the state legislature. So itÂs not just in Burlington. TheyÂre doing a good job.

Without trying to oversimplify the issue, I think people are going to use common sense. The common sense is that there is nothing wrong with a third party. Third parties can play a very important role. And in Vermont, for example, I think the Progressive Party is playing a very important role. They are raising a lot of good issues in the legislature. Having said that, I think clearly somebody like a Ralph Nader taking away votes from a Kerry at this critical, critical moment in American history is something that a majority of the progressive community correctly reacted strongly against.

You have to look at the moment, at reality. At this particular moment progressives have got to unite.
In my view this happens to be one of the most dangerous moments in American history. These guys are not just reactionaries. They are changing the rules of the game so they will stay in power for the indefinite future. We see this abuse of power on the floor of the House. They kept the voting rolls open for three hours to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill. I had an amendment, which won, on the Patriot Act. They kept the voting open twenty minutes longer to defeat it. They break the rules. ItÂs like having a football game go into the fifth quarter because you donÂt like the results at the end of the fourth quarter. We know what DeLay did in Texas. They have taken chairmenÂyanked them outÂbecause they defy the leadership of the House. They are now attempting to destroy the judiciary system, which will have profound implications for the future of this country.

This is very, very serious. They are very radical people. Far more radical than someone like a Bill Clinton ever dreamed of being.

Q: What about Hillary? What do you think about her as the likely Presidential nominee?

Sanders: I think itÂs too early. Everybody in the world is running. Kerry is running. Edwards is running. Russ Feingold, I gather, is running. Here, IÂll make you a campaign pledge: If elected to the U.S. Senate, IÂll be the only person not running for President.

Ruth Conniff is the political editor of The Progressive.

Source URL:
http://progressive.org/mag_intv1205

Take the Peace Pledge

2005-11-28T18:51:00.000-05:00

The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is now recognized by the majority of Americans as a mistake which threatens the lives and security of present and future generations throughout the world. It has become clear that the continued presence of our military in Iraq can only worsen these threats as the situation there deteriorates further. Unfortunately, both the Democratic and Republican parties continue to ignore this reality while nominating one pro-war candidate after another to public office. Please join us in rejecting their failure to offer candidates with real solutions to this worsening disaster by pledging not to vote for pro-war candidates in the 2006 primary election.
******************************************
I pledge not to vote for any candidate in the 2006 primary election
who does not support prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
******************************************
Click here to send your pledge to: thepeacepledge@scpeacecenter.org

Please include in your Email confirmation:
1. Your name, address, Email address, and phone number.
2. We plan to publish the names oif those who sign the pledge, so let us know if you prefer to remain anonymous.

to snail mail the Peace Pledge download the pdf: PEACE PLEDGE
and mail to: State College Peace Center, P.O. Box 483, State College PA 16804

Anonymous 1
Anonymous 2
June Almes
Leonard Austin
Sofia Austin
Mark Baltrusaitis
Micah Barbash
Don Barletta
Hilary Barlow
Jesse Barlow
Benjamin J. Brewer
R.D. Bruce
Nicholas E. Brink, PhD
Toni E. Brink
N.C.Crane
Faye Coble
Caitlin E. Corr
Robert Drago
Paul Durrenberger
Suzan Erem
Barbara Evins
Ray Evins
Katie Feeney
Katie Frieden
Carol J Gold
Richard Gold

Arthur Goldschmidt
Delia Guzman
Greg Hancock
Theresa Haas
Elaine Hannon
John Heflin
Nathan Henning
Julia Hix
David Houck
Heather Hunter
Laurence Jaeger
Roberta Kurland
Patty Lambert
Andrew S. Lau
Robert L. Long
Phyllis Mansfield
Ron Matason
Andrew Merritt
Diane Mills
Bob Minard
Peter Morris
Norma Olsen
Robert Olsen
Campbell Plowden
Jean Roman

Kai Schafft
Karin Shaw
Peter B. Shaw
Elizabeth Shirey
J.D. Shuchter
Laura Piraino Silver
Martha Simmons
Paul K. Simpson M.D.
Judith M. Simpson
Chris Snively
Richard Taber
Joanne Tosti-Vasey
Christopher Uhl
Mary Vollero
Peter Warren
John Weiss
Kathleen A. Wilson
J. Phillip Yanak
Karen D. Yanak
Disclaimer: Contact information will never be sold or distributed for any reason.

Halloween Fright

2005-10-29T14:09:00.000-05:00

Which image is more frightening?

Richard Reeves: The Argument for Cutting and Running

2004-11-27T18:38:00.000-05:00

THE ARGUMENT FOR CUTTING AND RUNNING

Thu Nov 18, 8:00 PM ET

By Richard Reeves, The Boston Globe

NEW YORK -- This, I expect and others hope, is my last column on the specifics of the 2004 presidential election. After Election Day, I found my thoughts going back to something that happened during a panel discussion I moderated for The New York Observer in October. I mentioned then that I once asked a presidential candidate what was the worst part of running, and he said: "All the lying you have to do."

What do you mean? I asked. He answered: "You have to go to Michigan and lie about what you think about automobile emissions and air pollution. You have to go to New York and lie about what you really think of Israel and Ariel Sharon (news - web sites). You have to go to Miami and lie about your feelings about Cuba."

Kieran Mahoney, a very smart Republican consultant, took that up and said: "You were probably having dinner with a Democrat, because, frankly, the Democratic Party is out of step with the national electorate. More so than the Republicans. John Kerry (news - web sites) obfuscates, in my opinion, because if he were to tell the truth -- the unvarnished kind of liberal truth -- he would receive only the base Democratic vote, which would leave him 20 points short of being president."

He was on to something. Republicans do believe pollution laws are too restricting. They love Israel, or at least the idea of it. They hate and overrate Fidel Castro (news - web sites).

Perhaps that is why Senator Kerry had so much trouble talking about Vietnam and Iraq (news - web sites). Looking back, I think he might have been better off if he denounced the war in Iraq as national folly -- if that is what he believes, and I don't know if it is. He certainly would have been better off if he answered the know-nothing criticism of his opposition to the war in which he served bravely by saying he was right 30 years ago when he said sending troops into Vietnam was a mistake -- and he's still right.

Cut and run? Yeah, cut and run, just as President Reagan cut and ran in Lebanon a few weeks after more than 240 U.S. Marines were killed by a suicide bomber in Beirut. Those young men paid the ultimate price for being in the wrong place at the wrong time in someone else's civil war. My God, the lessons of Beirut terrify anyone who remembers or cares to think about them. We took that terrific hit one October morning in 1983 -- the explosion at the undefended Marine barracks was the largest non-nuclear explosion recorded -- and we did not know who did it or why.

Reagan had made a mistake, several of them, leading up to that disaster. We are repeating those mistakes in Iraq, basically taking sides in a civil war. That time, more than 20 years ago, American troops were indeed pelted with flowers and candy when they came as peacemakers -- and then came to be seen as occupiers.

The Israelis, led by Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, did worse than we did in that war. They gained none of the central goals of their decision to invade in June of 1982. They lost more than 1,000 soldiers killed in action -- the United States' loss equivalent would have been 50,000 killed; they divided their own country and drained their treasury paying for an 18-year occupation.

It was all a mistake. So is Iraq, but again, I do not know if Kerry believes that. You have to take him at his word, but if you do, then you have to conclude there was no fundamental difference between him and President Bush (news - web sites). That's the way you lose elections.

Maybe the Democrat would have lost anyway if he had decided to truly challenge Bush on the flawed assumptions of the 2002 invasion that led us to Baghdad and Fallujah. Maybe he should have listened to cooler heads. This was said by our secretary of defense defending the decision not to go into Baghdad during the first Gulf War (news - web sites) in 1991:

"Once you get to Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that going to have if it's set up by the American military there? How long does the United States military have to stay there to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens once we leave?"

That secretary of defense was a former congressman from Wyoming named Dick Cheney (news - web sites). What will happen once we leave this time? The answer is probably that the same things will happen whether we leave now or in 18 years.

Hawks push deep cuts in forces in Iraq

2004-11-27T18:20:00.000-05:00

Hawks push deep cuts in forces in Iraq

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | November 22, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A growing number of national security specialists who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein are moving to a position unthinkable even a few months ago: that the large US military presence is impeding stability as much as contributing to it and that the United States should begin major reductions in troops beginning early next year.

Their assessments, expressed in reports, think tank meetings, and interviews, run counter to the Bush administration's insistence that the troops will remain indefinitely to establish security. But some contend that the growing support for an earlier pullout could alter the administration's thinking.

Those arguing for immediate troop reductions include key Pentagon advisers, prominent neoconservatives, and some of the fiercest supporters of the Iraq invasion among Washington's policy elite.

The core of their arguments is that even as the US-led coalition goes on the offensive against the insurgency, the United States, by its very presence, is stimulating the resistance.

"Our large, direct presence has fueled the Iraqi insurgency as much as it has suppressed it," said Michael Vickers, a conservative-leaning Pentagon consultant and longtime senior CIA official who supported the war.

Retired Army Major General William Nash, the former NATO commander in Bosnia, said: "I resigned from the 'we don't have enough troops in Iraq' club four months ago. We have too many now."

Nash, who supported Hussein's ouster, said a substantial reduction after the Iraqi elections in January "would be a wise and judicious move" to demonstrate that the Americans are leaving. The remaining US forces should concentrate their energies on border operations, he added. "The absence of targets will go a long way in decreasing the violence."

Yonadam Kanna, secretary general of the Assyrian Democratic Movement and a member of Iraq's interim National Assembly, also backed the US-led removal of Hussein. He now says Washington must "prove that the United States is a liberator, not an occupier."

Kanna wrote in an e-mail interview yesterday that the elections and expanded training of new Iraqi security forces "must go in parallel with the partial withdrawal of multinational or US forces." He added that the remaining forces should be kept "away from daily and direct dealing and friction with the people, which lead sometimes to sensitivity and problems or clashes with the innocent."

Exactly how long the roughly 140,000 American troops will stay in Iraq remains unclear. Administration officials have been reluctant to make predictions, saying a departure date would only embolden Iraq insurgents. President Bush has said the US military will stay "as long as necessary" to set the country on the path toward democracy.

Some former top officials have predicted that it will be many years before most of the troops can come home. The former Iraq war commander, retired Army General Tommy Franks, said this month that tens of thousands of American troops will have to stay in Iraq for up to three more years.

But the view that it would be dangerous for the United States to pull out soon and that it may even need more troops is becoming another casualty in this war -- a war that has taken the lives of more than 1,200 Americans and shows little sign of abating.

The best strategy is to substantially reduce the number of American forces after the Iraqi elections, according to the specialists, who say maintaining the large occupation could be as dangerous to long-term American interests as a precipitous pullout.

"I have seen a metamorphosis," said Robert Pfaltzgraff, president of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Cambridge and a vocal supporter of Bush's Iraq policy, referring to debate both inside and outside the halls of government. "We should not be there with a large force. We should be there with a force that begins to quickly diminish."

Few specialists are calling for a complete pullout. They say the United States must first finish training Iraqi forces and use its military might to buy Iraqi authorities breathing space against the insurgency.

Still, a report completed over the summer calling for a complete pullout next year has struck a chord.

"The end of the foreign occupation will seriously undermine the terrorists' claims that their acts of violence against Iraqis are somehow serving the interests of Iraq," according to "Exiting Iraq," published by the conservative-leaning Cato Institute. Moreover, "The occupation is counterproductive in the fight against radical Islamic terrorists and actually increases support for Osama bin Laden in Muslim communities not previously disposed to support his radical interpretation of Islam."

"Staying on the current course, looking at the trends, is not going to work," said the report's chief author, Christopher A. Preble, Cato's director of foreign policy studies.

Evidence is growing of an anti-American backlash that threatens Iraq's stability. Dozens of Sunni political leaders, angered by the recent military onslaught of Fallujah, are threatening to sit out the nationwide elections.

Even leading war supporters such as Max Boot, an influential neoconservative thinker derided by critics as one of those who believe the United States must stick it out for an undetermined amount of time, contends that the US presence is beginning to threaten long-term goals.

"This is turning out to be a lot harder than anyone expected -- and harder than it needed to be," Boot said last week.

"I'm not one of those calling for a quick pullout," he added. "I agree there is some downside to the US troops' presence; it definitely fuels some nationalist resentment. All things considered, I think we're doing better in Afghanistan partially because we have fewer troops there."

Indeed, Afghanistan, where the United States has one-tenth the troops it has in Iraq, was cited by several specialists as a model for the American presence in Iraq following the elections. The US troops are rarely seen by the wider Afghan population, operating primarily along the borders and flushing out remaining pockets of resistance.

"I think that many are now beginning to see that El Salvador and Afghanistan are better counterinsurgency and postconflict reconstruction models than the strategies we've pursued in Iraq," said Vickers, the Pentagon consultant, who as a CIA agent helped oversee US support for Afghan rebels in their guerrilla war against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. "In counterinsurgency, an indirect approach is superior."

Still, officials frequently debate whether more US troops in Afghanistan would stem the burgeoning drug trade and curb the power of warlords. But most agree that anti-Americanism is far less prevalent in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, some specialists say the increased sentiment in think tanks for an expedited Iraqi pullout will spread to the administration, despite its tough rhetoric.

"Bush will surprise his opponents by disengaging from Iraq," predicted Edward Luttwak, a longtime Pentagon consultant who has argued that the push to create a democracy in Iraq will prove futile.

"I personally think it will start with a drawdown, and that, I suspect, will begin in April," said John Hamre, president of the center for Strategic and International Studies and former deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton administration who remains in close contact with senior Pentagon officials.

Said Ken Adelman, a member of the Defense Policy Board who predicted the Iraq war would be a "cakewalk": "If there is a [stable] Iraqi government after January you can withdraw. I would be OK with that."

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.

© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Whose your daddy?

2004-10-07T09:58:00.000-05:00

"You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said, he wrote in his book, because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation."
-John Kerry, debating Bush Sept 30,2004

Better off or not?

2004-08-25T07:53:00.000-05:00

You be the judge: No spin zone.

Jan 2001 / NOW (as of 8/24/04)

Dow 10,587 / 10,073

NASDAQ 2,770 / 1,838

Euro $0.94 / 1.24

Oil (per barrel) $25.70 / $46.58

Unemployment 3.8% / 5.5%

U.S. Treasury surplus +$119b / deficit -$478b

Trade deficit, per month
$33.5b / $55.8b

National Debt

$5.73 Trillion / $7.34 Trillion (+28%)

Average New Jobs Per Month

+236,000 (Clinton) / -28,500 (Bush II)

US Troops in Iraq

Zero / 140,000

US Deaths in Iraq

Zero / 964 (as of 8/24/2004)

Paul Krugman says it best

2004-08-24T20:41:00.000-05:00

The Rambo Coalition

August 24, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I
predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest
of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still
apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run
on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if
he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the
public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence,
profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.

But recent attacks on John Kerry have surpassed even my
expectations. There's no mystery why. Mr. Kerry isn't just
a Democrat who might win: his life story challenges Mr.
Bush's attempts to confuse tough-guy poses with heroism,
and bombast with patriotism.

One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the
ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their
partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct
attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service
in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John
Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot
in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his
records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked
their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain,
Max Cleland and now John Kerry.

How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is
that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age
of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities
of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in
the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the
tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing
types who see complexities and urge the hero to think
before acting are always wrong, if not villains.

After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real
threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for
him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down
elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting
ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a
dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we
were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't
attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or
if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in
the movies - you were being unpatriotic.

As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing
worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has
played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after
Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that
was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than
it kills.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush - who
must defend the indefensible - has turned to those who
still refuse to face the truth about Vietnam.

All the credible evidence, from military records to the
testimony of those who served with Mr. Kerry, confirms his
wartime heroism. Why, then, are some veterans willing to
join the smear campaign? Because they are angry about his
later statements against the war. Yet making those
statements was itself a heroic act - and what he said then
rings truer than ever.

The young John Kerry spoke of leaders who sent others to
their deaths because they wanted to seem tough, then "left
all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of
public rectitude." Fifteen months after George Bush
strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans
are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing
ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when
he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who
served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and
we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"

Mr. Kerry also spoke of the moral cost of an ill-conceived
war - of the atrocities soldiers find themselves committing
when they can't tell friend from foe. Two words: Abu
Ghraib.

Let's hope that this latest campaign of garbage and lies -
initially financed by a Texas Republican close to Karl
Rove, and running an ad featuring an "independent" veteran
who turns out to have served on a Bush campaign committee -
leads to a backlash against Mr. Bush. If it doesn't, here's
the message we'll be sending to Americans who serve their
country: If you tell the truth, your courage and sacrifice
count for nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/opinion/24krugman.html?ex=1094368228&ei=1&en=4820821747bf691c

Did George Bush send you a Dear John letter?

2004-03-22T08:24:00.000-05:00

'Talk is cheap. It takes real money to buy whiskey.' That apparently goes for Social Security and Medicare as well as the War in Iraq--which, itself has cost $110 Billion as of April 4, 2004.

Check-it-out: page 2 of YOUR latest personal statement from the U. S. Social Security Administration. The President recently sent me two messages about family finances. The first came in that yearly statement each of us receives from the Social Security Administration.

It's the personalized report confirming how much our earnings have been in past years and very specific projections for monthly Social Security benefits at "early" retirement (now looking later) or "normal" retirement (ditto). For the first time in 30 years of looking at these reports, I now find the following warning in bold-faced type:

"Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2042, the payroll TAXES COLLECTED WILL BE ENOUGH TO PAY ONLY ABOUT 73% OF SCHEDULED BENEFITS." (Emphasis mine)

The second message was an appeal for contributions to Bush's 2004 Campaign. This package also included strong words about the President's leadership in reducing tax burdens on families like mine, and the usual promise of greater prosperity and security for all.

I found no mention of the following as we near the end Bush's 4-year term of office:

1) almost 50% increase in unemployment and LOSS of more than 2 million jobs in the US economy since his Inauguration--as compared with 23 million NEW jobs in Clinton's 2 terms;

2) rapid plunge from annual budget SURPLUS of $150 billlion to a crushing DEFICIT of $534 billion in the current fiscal year;

3) federal budget and tax policies set to produce cumulative deficits of $2.75 trillion over the next 10 years (Congressional Budget Office projection as of February 27, 2004);

4) this approaching budget trainwreck for Medicare as well as Social Security financing;

5) the benefit of those tax-cuts falling so disproportionately into the bank accounts of America's wealthiest families.

Speaking of the long-term outlook for Medicare and Social Security: a March 19 New York Times article (by E. L. Andrews and R Pear) warned of "...new estimates showing that the total gap between the cost of promised benefits and the revenues to pay for them is close to $50 trillion....Whereas the Bush Administration estimated last year that the long-term gap was $18 trillion over the next 75 years." Highlighting the recent sharp slide in the outlook for these vital programs, the NYT article noted: "In their report to Congress LAST YEAR (emphasis mine), the trustees of Medicare and Social Security...said Social Security had $3.5 trillion of 'unfunded obligations' over the next 75 years." ]

Now we grapple with a projected shortfall of $50 trillion--5 times the annual US GDP! This is an astounding shortfall. Not least for the approximately 70 million American families that must begin to prepare for those burdens. Of course, we don't know how many more (if ANY more) working families there might be in 35 or 40 years, let alone 75.

Yet if preparations begin now, for each of those 70,000 households the average annual set-asside to meet that long-term $50 trillion liability might itself require an additional $7,500 to $9,000 a year.

Shortfall in Job Growth: Down 7.1 Million Jobs, and Counting!

2004-03-20T12:02:00.000-05:00

When will it end? Many of us are NOT earning $200,000 plus and holding jobs with guaranteed life-time security. Nor are we enjoying the lush fruit of inheritances or multi-million dollar investment portfolios. If results matter, this graph (by the Economic Policy Institute) offers striking evidence that Bush's economic policy has in fact been a collosal failure. No matter the economic problem--this Administration has simply become more strident for tax-cuts further benefitting America's wealthiest families. Yet the Bush II Administration has shown an astounding indifference to the needs of ordinary working families. Unless soon reversed, these policies will cost us and our children dearly for decades to come.

Snapshot for March 15, 2004.

Jobs fall behind growth in working-age population
The U.S. economy would have generated 7.1 million more payroll jobs if job gains had kept pace with the growth in the working-age population since the recession began in March 2001. The shortfall in job creation has two parts: 1) the 2.4 million job decline since the last peak in employment in March 2001 and 2) the 4.7 million jobs needed to keep up with the growth in the working-age population since that point.

The working-age population is growing by 1.2% a year. That reflects both the large numbers of young people who are reaching working age and the continuing net immigration. Had payroll jobs kept up with working-age population growth since March 2001, the economy would be adding 137,000 new jobs each month. Every month that payroll jobs grow by fewer than 137,000, the jobs gap widens. In the past six months, job growth has averaged only 61,000, with February 2004 showing a gain of just 21,000 new jobs (see JobWatch.org for a complete analysis of the February employment numbers). As a result, the jobs gap keeps widening.

Some have tried to rationalize the current low levels of job creation by arguing that there were too many jobs in March 2001. However, that argument does not make economic sense because March 2001 was a time of both low inflation and strong productivity. The bottom line is that, as the growth in the working-age population outpaces job growth, there are fewer employment opportunities for the growing number of people expected in the job market.

The number of payroll jobs reached a low point six months ago, in August 2003. Job growth has averaged only 61,000 a month in the last six months—far less than the 137,000 jobs a month now required to keep the jobs gap from widening. As a result, despite positive job gains, the jobs gap has grown from 6.6 million last August to 7.1 million in February 2004.

Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

This week's snapshot was written by EPI Research Director Lee Price.

Check out the archive for past Economic Snapshots.

Copyright © 2004 by The Economic Policy Institute. All rights reserved.

Personal Bankruptcy = Family Values

2004-03-13T13:01:00.000-05:00

There's much concern about family values now. It's not all about gender, marriage and civil rights. Some is about jobs, income, and money. Reuters on March 12 reported a record 1,660,245 personal bankruptcy filings in 2003. The US Census Bureau posts annual income data for just over 109 million households--with median annual income of about $42,409 in 2002. That would be 1 bankruptcy for every 66 households. The Reuters article puts the ratio at 1 for every 73 households. No matter: interest runs on and money comes due. Within a decade, it's quite possible that 1 of every 7 or 8 households in your neighborhood will have declared bankrupcy.

The Federal Reserve estimated total household private debt at the end of 2003 as $10.4 trillion, which would be average household debt of almost $68,000. With successive annual Federal Budget Deficits now running well over $500 Billion a year, total Federal Government debt has itself climbed over $7 Trillion.

We have no illusion that the burdens of carrying Federal Debt can be shared evenly among all 109 million households. In 9 million of those, families are contending with conditions of abject poverty. There are at least another 30 million in which occupants have their hands full coping with the difficult labor market, the health insurance crisis, kids at risk, and juggling payments for mortgage or rent, utilities, food, and transportation costs. For better or worse, the burden of government debt largely falls on the remaining--more fortunate--70 million households. Beyond whatever personal debt there is, each of these 70 million households carries roughly another $100,000 of long term Federal Debt. Likewise, when Federal budgets swing from annual surpluses of $200 Biliion to annual deficits of $500 Billion, that $700 Billion can be understood as another $7,000 added to the debt riding on each of those 70 million households.

The US economy has suffered an accumulated net loss of 2.6 million jobs since George W Bush was inaugurated just over 3 years ago. The short recession that took hold in the Spring of 2001 was officially over in November of 2001. Yet on March 5, 2004--at least 27 months after the end of that recession--we received the shocking report that just 21,000 net new jobs were created in the US economy during the month of February. Most of that slim gain reflected expansion in public sector jobs and it was far below the expectations of 125,000 or more new jobs.

Not since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression---over 70 years ago--has ANY President completed a 4-year term without being able to report a single new job being created in the US labor market. The Bush II record--and it truly is record-breaking--is one of showing an average monthly LOSS of 70,000 jobs. That also contrasts most sharply with the record of job growth in the preceding Administration. Between 1993 and 2000 there were average job gains of more than 200,000 per month. There were more than 20 million new jobs created by the end of Clinton's second term.

George W Bush's jobs record pales even in comparison to that of Eisenhower's first term in the mid 50's as well as the 4-year term of Bush, Sr., when there were also very weak performances in terms of job growth. Yet even then--among the most disappointing periods for job growth in the last 50 years--there were at least some new jobs created.

Warren Buffet on Bush Taxes and Class Warfare

2004-03-11T18:40:00.000-05:00

In the Spring letter to investors in Bershire Hathaway, Mr. Buffett apparently continues to rebuke Bush for tax policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Or so I've heard: the stock's a little rich for my blood, with the "B" shares going for about $3,050 each!

from Pacificviews.org: "Tax breaks for corporations -- and their investors, particularly large ones -- were a major part of the administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives," Buffett said. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning." "Many large corporations pay nothing close to the stated federal tax rate."

Hey, why work?

2004-03-11T10:19:00.000-05:00

Labor taxed at 45% vs. 15% for capital

For a household comprised of one or more wage-payroll or salaried employees (say, those earning between $40,000 and $87,000), total Federal payroll taxes will amount to approximately 45%. That would include: 1) Federal Income Tax at 27%; 2) the employee's contribution to Social Security and Medicare of 7.65%; 3) the empoyer's Social Security and Medicare "match" of 7.65%; and 4) the employer's contribution to Unemployment and Workmen's Comp of approximately 2.35%.

If--like George W Bush, Dick Cheney, John Snow or Don Rumsfeld, for example--you were fortunate enough to be able to derive that sort of household income entirely from qualified dividends and long-term capital gains on a substantial investment portfolio, you would be most grateful for a tax rate that is now approximately 15% on THOSE sources of income. Yes, it IS true that for the the minimum wage employee this combined federal payroll tax will be "only" about 33% in total. So these most poorly paid workers will be paying "only" about 120% MORE tax(rather than 200%!) on income from wage payroll than their much more fortunate counterparts living in the wealthiest of American households.

Yes indeed, this IS as good as it gets for those who truly are already in the investor class. But it is a horrible deceit and a cruel joke to suggest that we are all in that class, or that even any substantial number of households do have that $1 or $2 Million in investment assets that it takes to replace the need for convential earned income.

This is macabre: yet with the Bush Administration's almost unprecedented failure at net job growth for our economy, the dismal fact of 2.2 million jobs lost in little more than 3 years, clear prospect of more outsourcing as well as declining hourly wages and benefits for those who are still employed, the primary job stimulous I see (in the slashing of taxes on investment income for our wealthiest households) is in the business of selling multi-million dollar life insurance policies. Certainly, for the average American household, it is becoming a lot more difficult to earn enough disposible income for savings and investment, for that "nest egg" for the security of your own family, or for that modest "leg-up" that you would hope to pass on to the next generation. Certainly, it will not be done in that most old fashioned American way--"by earning it."