Posts from — March 2008

It may sound like a joke but it’s not very funny. You probably know about Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and his book on the estimated cost of the war in Iraq, which comes in just under $3 trillion, and could end up being as much as five. Trillion.

The argument is summarized nicely in the authors’ Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post. Remember that this war is being financed through debt. It’s all borrowed money. Bush cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans at the same time his administration was decimating our economic future and being enormously disingenuous (one could call it “lying”) about the war’s costs.

You can add in the brutal oil prices as a direct result of the War, too (so much for those winks about cheap gas, remember them?). $100/barrel is three times higher than it would have been without the War. Think of that the next time you fork over fifty bucks to fill your minivan.

Three trillion dollars is - to be blunt - a shit-load of money. We can think about what we could have done with this money (education, health care, Social Security, mass transit, green energy - take your pick). But instead of enriching our lives, the money will go to a war whose impact may create “an economic downturn that’s likely to be the worst in more than a quarter-century.” We’ll feel it for decades.

In one sense we can never put a dollar value on war. The real impact transcends petty economics. I have no idea what it’s like to get one of those telegrams or nightmare phone calls, nor can I begin to imagine coming home and restarting my life (the real number of injured has been kept from public knowledge, as well, which is a disgrace). Most of us see this war through a hazy, disconnected perspective, as if it was being fought by some other country, and not our own.

At the same time it’s clear that my generation is the first perhaps ever in US history which can’t claim to be “better off than our parents were.” There’s been a sizable, tangible shift in wealth going on right before our eyes, which had started even before the Iraq War came along. But now it appears that this historic blunder’s impact is going to be felt in ways that haven’t yet sunk in. And my kids’ generation is going to be paying the price most of their lives.

When I think back to those maddening days leading up to the war, the frustration which I had managed to contain in recent years starts rushing back. I marched against the war with half a million people in DC and in NYC because we KNEW - even then - that there were no WMDs. We knew this because we heard the weapons inspectors who’d just gotten back from Iraq, we listened to Scott Ritter, we listened to those in a position to know, and so we knew. Now I ask you, how was it that I knew this - just some marketing writer sitting at a PC - while people like Hillary Clinton - a US Senator for God’s sake - claim that they didn’t?

I’d like Clinton’s supporters to answer this one for me. And then prove to me that Hillary’s hawk-like stances are only “political posturing” and “calculation”. To be fair I don’t expect a Clinton administration to out-Bush Bush on Iraq from this point forward. But we don’t have to try and imagine where she stands on war in general; we have her vote to make up our minds.

Anyway, back to the economics: The reaction from the White House, according to Democracy Now!, has been to say: “People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing…One can’t even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9/11.”

Man oh man. What does one say to such nonsense? I was going to come up with a clever and erudite response myself but then I stumbled onto Tom Tomorrow who - like aways - puts it best. Check it out here.

It’s easy to get caught up in the nomination horse race and forget that the worst president in history is still on the job. Yes, he’ll be gone soon enough - but that doesn’t mean he can’t keep doing great harm until then. Think about it: It was only a few years ago that Canada was looking awfully attractive. 2004 was very dark indeed. I like to keep my posts brief so rather fill this space with a laundry list of “misdoings” to remind you of those dark days here’s a ready-made Google search for you. It’s got 3.2 million results. Go nuts.

So here we are in the final stretch and we survived - so far, anyway. A lot of folks - myself included - are breathing easier knowing that January 2009 is getting closer. I think one of the reasons (among many) that there’s no mass demand for impeachment is because of sheer Bush exhaustion. People have decided to wait for him to just go away.

But he’s not gone yet. This week comes a reminder of how nightmarish those early years were when it looked like Bush and Co. were unstoppable, when we could only imagine the kinds of things that might happen next, when up was down, and we wondered if we’d lost our own country. This reminder was Bush’s veto of the Anti-Torture bill. The NY Times explains:

I’m not going to use this blog to explain why this is horrific beyond expression. Suffice it to say torture is immoral, un-American, and illegal. It makes us much less safe. It doesn’t even work, if that’s an important consideration for you. Yet here he is again, continuing his “legacy”, which is a legacy of torture. You’d think a man who professes to have found God would think twice. I guess he’s worked his way around that inconvenience too.

Reading about this week’s veto brought back with full force that “world-is-upside-down” helplessness from 2002 when I watched even my thoughtful friends taken in by administration manipulation. It was maddening, like living in some kind of bad science fiction movie. It wasn’t all that long ago. And let’s be honest here: If it hadn’t been for what can only be called outright administration incompetence, we’d be living in very different circumstances right now.

History is often a frustrating story of mistakes repeated. It’s possible that we’re making a serious one right now by assuming that the nightmare is over. But the truth is there’s plenty of hours left until daylight. I can’t shake the feeling that these guys are not going to just go away quietly. It’s very possible they’ll take advantage of the public’s distraction to pull off a few final moves. Will it be Iran? Check these very disturbing words from the Baltimore Sun:

Scary indeed. It’s kind of like when someone you love goes through a terrible illness, and just as they emerge from danger you get the news about a relapse. In this case that “someone” is our country.

We might be in for a bumpy ride to the finish line here. As the legendary Bernard White from Pacifica’s WBAI used to say, now is the time to “stay strong and pay close attention…”

I really wanted to leave the Hillary campaign alone for a few days but the way the media is clamoring about her “comeback” - along with the real possibility of new primaries in Florida and Michigan - there’s a chance she could pull this off. The national polls are tightening too, if you pay attention to those kinds of things (today they’re tightening back towards Obama, but remain in a “statistical dead heat”). Her “kitchen sink” barrage of dishonesty is starting to stick, apparently. And she’s acting like a front runner when in reality she’s losing, mathematically anyway.

The whole thing is Bush-league and the Imperial Presidency all over again. Much as I prefer a Democrat in 2008, I can’t honestly imagine ever being able to pull the trigger for her.

As I’ve written here before, she supported the War, the Patriot Act, co-sponsored a flag-burning amendment and she’s out-Bushed Bush on Iran. It’s one thing to “lean across the aisle” and work with republicans to get decent things done. It’s another thing to out-flank them from the right.

But mostly I can’t look past her truly distasteful campaigning. There was the “Red Phone” ad (see below), which some are calling her “turning point”; and then came that despicable attempt to link Obama to Islam last week (”Obama is not a Muslim, as far as I know”). The implications of this kind of race-baiting are too extensive to cover in a short blog post, but they’re right out of the Lee “Willie Horton” Atwater game, if you’re old enough to remember that ad from ‘88. How can I - or anyone with a social conscience - support a candidate who pulls this kind of crap?

Getting a corporate-backed Democrat into office just so we don’t have another Republican ain’t worth it. Are we voting for a party or are we voting for progressive change?

This “Red Phone” ad really put me over the edge - take a look for yourself and tell me you don’t get the same revulsion I did. I’m through with candidates who use fear and trembling to fleece us of common sense. Do people really fall for this anymore?

I’ve got kids and the fears I have about the world they face are real and deeply felt. I don’t need a politician to manipulate these concerns of mine for a cheap vote. Right now there’s no chance in Hell I’d vote for her.

In case you missed it (and if you’ve already smashed your TV then you may not care) Tucker Carlson - Mr. Bowtie smugness of the right - has been canceled by MSNBC. I don’t generally enjoy another person’s misfortune, particularly when it concerns unemployment. But in this case I’ll make an exception.

I can’t hear the name Tucker Carlson without recalling that brilliant skewering he took at the hands of John Stewart a few years ago on CNN’s Crossfire (you know, that infotainment show where ideaologues pretended to discuss vital matters of life and death by out-shouting each other). The classic moment took place as Tucker tried to upbraid Stewart for the softball interview he apparently had with John Kerry.

A classic moment and it would have been hysterical if it wasn’t so depressing. Still, if you enjoy watching corporate media flunkies suffer a rare moment of honest upbraiding, take six minutes and watch this clip: