Candidates still unknowns to many
   Quick, somebody, get these people a program so they can tell who the players are.
   A mid-October Harris Poll shows a remarkable percentage of the 596 Democrat and independent respondents participating did not know who several Democratic presidential primary contenders are.
   Thirty-two percent, for example, didn't know who Rep. Dick Gephardt is, although he has served in the House for 26 years, ran for president in 1988 and a year later was elected House Democratic leader. Over the years he's been interviewed in magazines and newspapers, and has appeared numerous times on the Sunday talk shows and other programs. For all of that, he registered two poll points behind Rev. Al Sharpton, of whom only 30 percent hadn't heard.
   Granted, many people are not keenly interested in politics or politicians. Granted, as talking heads and pundits often remind us, it's still early in the process. But we still expect that some level of inevitable information osmosis would result in better recognition levels than this.
   Best recognized in this poll was Sen. Joe Lieberman, whom 81 percent said they knew about. That's not too surprising, since he was a candidate for vice president in 2000. Next in line were (in percent): Sharpton, 70; Gephardt, 68; Sen. John Kerry, 63; Gov. Howard Dean, 58; Gen. Wesley Clark, 53; Sen. John Edwards, 50; Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, 44; and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 30. The numbers were four to five points higher when responses of only those who had voted in 2000 were counted.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:08 PM

 
Bush on GDP jump — hurrahs for hisself
   Today's big news is that third-quarter gross domestic product grew by an astonishing 7.2 percent. That's really good news, at first glance.
   A closer look and some careful thought are in order before anyone breaks out the champagne — anyone but the big multinational corporations, big investment houses, big-time investors and hedge funds, that is. They can get into the bubbly with gusto because, in President George W. Bush's America, they count first, last and always. And a lot of what they get to count is everyone else's money. Ill-gotten gains, some call it.
   The problem is that, in today's U.S. economy, a giant increase in GDP doesn't mean what it once meant. Once upon a time, it would've meant that in response to surging consumer demand producers of goods and services had stepped up production, employing more people, buying more from suppliers, boosting employee incomes, shareholder returns (in time) and government revenues.
   Today, that jump in GDP simply means a lot of foreign-made goods were sold, a lot of domestic jobs were exported, a lot American workers were replaced by automated systems, while others were just shown the door — productivity up, costs down, profits soaring, jobs gone for good. It's an MBA's dream come true. It's middle- and working-class Americans' nightmare.
   This is what three neoconservative Republican, supply side uber alles administrations and a Republican-Lite/New Democrat administration have brought us.
   No surprise that Bush practically jumped in front of the TV cameras this morning to start claiming credit. Never mind about war spending at the rate of $1 billion a month, with more and bigger to follow. This Good News is all because of his economic policy, which consists solely of one huge, deficit-ballooning tax cut after another.
   Oh, and Bush assures us, again and for the 2,000th time, that "as long as there's an American out there looking for a job, who can't find one, then we've got work to do." Maybe he could cut to the chase and give that American an airline ticket to China, India, Mexico, Korea or Brazil — where GDP is up and employment is going through the roof.
   For insight into some "work" the president and his Republican troops in Congress are not about to do in behalf of out-of-work Americans, see the next post.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:28 PM

 
Republicans just say no to long-term jobless
   The long siege of recession, "jobless recovery" and structural changes in the economy that have destroyed millions of jobs permanently has left millions of Americans out of work for extended periods not seen since the Great Depression.
   Congress has responded by extending unemployment benefits, as has been done in past deep recessions and slow recoveries. Additional extensions are clearly warranted in current circumstances, which include a Bush administration economic policy designed to boost big-corporation bottom lines, CEOs' pay and big investors' returns, not working Americans — and those who want and need to be working Americans.
   But neither the Bush administration nor Republicans in Congress are willing to further extend jobless benefits for hurting individuals and families whose benefits have been exhausted or are about to be.
   On Wednesday, Oct. 29, Rep. Darlene Hooley, D-Ore., addressed this issue in a speech to the House:

   Important note: It's not as though extending unemployment benefits would throw a monkey wrench into President Bush's bizarre budget scheme or add to the biggest-ever deficit he's run up. The federal unemployment insurance fund has $20 billion in it — money already set aside from the payroll withholding of America's working people, so many of whom continue, now, to be in need.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:27 PM

 
Halliburton gets treat; Taxpayers being tricked?
   With the U.S. spending $1 billion a week on Iraq, soon to reach a total of $166 billion, House Democrats are crying foul over where huge portions of this money are going.
   On Wednesday, Oct. 29, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., took part in a colloquy on the House floor concerning "War Profiteering in Iraq." Pallone drew a bead on Halliburton, a corporation formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney and now receiving the mother of all sweetheart deals from the government for various projects in Iraq.
   Here, from the Congressional Record, are excerpts of Pallone's remarks:

   "Mr. Speaker, right now Halliburton holds a monopoly on Iraq. The company's no-bid contract was first negotiated in secret and originally intended for the sole purpose of extinguishing oil fires that could result from the war. Once again in secret, last spring, that contract was extended with the Army to include the reconstruction and repair of Iraq's oil infrastructure. The administration did not allow other companies an opportunity to bid on this reconstruction.
   "Now, today, Mr. Speaker, just today, Halliburton faces no competition and no oversight. And today also the Bush administration announced the contract would be extended longer than expected, blaming sabotage of oil facilities for delays in replacement contracts.
    "Up to this point, Halliburton has been free to spend the American taxpayer's money at will and Congressional Republicans who, night-in-and-night-out, come to this House floor to complain about waste in the Federal Government, have been silent. I think that is outrageous.
    ". . . The vice president tried to squash such a story when he appeared on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14. The vice president stated, `And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I have severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind, and haven't had now for over 3 years.'
   "Well, despite the vice president's claims, the Congressional Research Service issued a report several weeks later concluding that because Cheney receives a deferred salary and continues to hold stock interests, he still has a financial interest in Halliburton. In fact, if the company were to go under, the vice president could lose the deferred salary, a salary he is expected to continue to receive this year, next year and on into 2005. While losing around $200,000 a year would not put a big dent in the vice president's wallet, he clearly still has a stake in the success of Halliburton.
   "It is possible that Halliburton is the right company to do this work in Iraq, but how then does the Bush administration and the Republican Congress explain why there is so much secrecy surrounding the whole deal? Could it be that the Republican Congress and the Bush administration are concerned that the more light that is shed on Halliburton's use of taxpayer money would be more examples of waste and mismanagement that would likely be exposed?
   "Despite the fact that Halliburton now goes about its business in Iraq without any Federal oversight, my colleagues on the Democratic side, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), exposed the outrageous fact that Halliburton seems to be inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers.
   "In a letter to OMB Director Joshua Bolton, (they) wrote that the independent experts they consulted have been appalled to learn that the U.S. Government has paid Halliburton $1.62 to $1.70 to import gasoline into Iraq. According to these experts, the price that Halliburton is charging for gasoline is outrageously high, potentially a huge rip-off and a highway robbery. During the relative period, the average wholesale cost of gasoline in the Mideast was around 71 cents per gallon, meaning that Halliburton was charging 90 cents per gallon just to transport the fuel into Iraq. According to the experts, such an exorbitant transportation charge is inflated many times over.
    "Compounding the cost to the taxpayers, this expensive gasoline is then sold to Iraqis at a price of just 4 to 15 cents per gallon; 4 to 15 cents per gallon.
   "Now, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, but the U.S. taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing over 90 percent of the cost of gasoline sold in Iraq.
   "Once again, my Republican colleagues are silent on the issue. Those waste-watchers that come down here periodically and talk about waste in the federal government, those Republicans who come down to the floor periodically to rail against waste — a government they currently control, I might add — you do not see them coming down to the floor to rail about Halliburton's gouging of the federal purse. They are silent."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:24 PM

 
Dobbs' Buffett item best-of-breed news
   Hands down, CNN's Lou Dobbs is doing more good TV journalism than anybody about the haywire policies ruining the U.S. economy for most Americans. Indeed, for long and too-frequent stretches, Dobbs qualifies as the only cable news journalist covering this critical news.
   The veteran finance/economy reporter and anchor is to be commended and thanked for the series "The Exporting of America" and "The Great American Giveaway," and so is CNN.
   On Tuesday, Dobbs focused in one program segment on the thinking and actions of one of the most successful, insightful and impressively decent financiers in U.S. history, Warren Buffett. For those who haven't been paying attention to what's happening to our economy, those who feel they're somehow not affected and for free traders who deny all, Buffett's assessment should come as a badly needed dose of reality.
   Here is a transcript of this segment.

   Dobbs: One of this country's most successful and respected investors has issued a blunt warning on American trade policies. Warren Buffett warns that the United States is literally handing its net worth over to foreign investors.
   Peter Viles is here now with the story. "The Great American Giveaway," indeed, Pete.
   Peter Viles, CNN correspondent: It sure is.
   This is a very stern warning, Lou, from Warren Buffett. And he's putting his money where his mouth is. For the time in his life, Buffett says he been betting against the American dollar.

    (Begin videotape; Viles voiceover): In China, Commerce Secretary Don Evans carrying a message on trade: Watch out, because people back home are getting upset. The pressure is building, from Republicans like Don Manzullo, whose Illinois district is chockablock full of struggling factories, from Democrats like Brad Sherman, whose California district has been hurt by outsourcing of service jobs.
   Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif.: "The entire world economy is based on this bizarre notion of shipping huge amounts of goods and now services to the United States and accepting our promissory notes, our securities, ownership of our land. Well, eventually, we run out of securities that the world wants to buy. And then it crashes."
   Viles: Now pressure from a new source, investor Warren Buffett, who writes in Fortune magazine — quote — "America's growing trade deficit is selling the nation out from under us."
   Buffett's calculations: there's roughly $50 trillion of wealth in the United States right now. But because of chronic trade deficits, foreigners own $2.5 trillion of it, or 5 percent of our national wealth; and because of trade deficits, are gaining roughly half-a-trillion a year.
   Steve East, economist, Friedman Billings Ramsey: "Mr. Buffett's point is well taken. The trade deficit isn't just something that could hurt us in the future. It's something that's hurting us right now. GDP would be 5.5 percent higher right now if it weren't for the trade deficit."
   Viles: Back to Buffett. He's not just spouting off. He's putting his money behind his theory. Here's a chart of the U.S. dollar. And here's where Buffett started betting against the dollar, spring of last year, just about the time it peaked. (End videotape)

   Viles: Now, Buffett does have a plan to fix this, very simple. Let U.S. exporters sell the right to import goods into this country. Effectively, prices of exports would fall. Prices of imports would go up. Trade, by definition, would be in balance. It's very simple.
   One problem, Lou, very doubtful the World Trade Organization would allow such a system.
   Dobbs: The World Trade Organization is posing major hurdles to rational trade policies, rational immigration policies right now.
   Viles: We have locked into a system that benefits almost every other country in the world, because they want to sell to us, but it doesn't allow us to use unilateral policy to get out of this mess.
   Dobbs: Benefiting nearly every country in the world, save this one.
   Viles: It sure is.
   Dobbs: The free traders, notwithstanding. Peter Viles, thank you.

   See a transcript of Dobbs' whole Oct. 28 program here.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:52 PM

 
Press conference absurdly incomplete
   President Bush held a rare press conference Tuesday that was more notable for what was not said than for what was said.
   For example, one main order of business on Bush's recent overseas tour was to get the Chinese to stop suppressing the value of the yuan, China's currency. Silence from the White House on this little detail has been deafening ever since Bush got back.
   Yuan valuation is crucially important. As China's biggest customer, having run up a staggering $103 billion trade deficit with that country last year alone, the U.S. desperately needs to sell more U.S.-made goods to, and buy fewer imports from, China. Trade economists estimate that China's policy of forcing the value of the yuan down artificially entices buyers of its exports with what amounts to a 40 percent discount, while making U.S.-made goods and services prohibitively expensive, in most cases, for Chinese buyers.
   In short, China is doing with currency value what World Trade Organization rules and trade treaties specifically forbid doing by other means. The impolite, dead-accurate term for this is cheating.
   With U.S. free-trade policy mindlessly allowing the gutting our own economy at a breathtaking pace, and with China first in line at doing the gutting, one would expect at least one question about this at the press conference. But no, nary a word was said.
   Oh!pinion wonders if White House press corps members are a little too careful not to offend President Bush by asking really hard questions about really touchy subjects. Free-trade-related questions are oh, so touchy now because, after all, Bush is as busy as he and his Bush Pioneers and Bush Rangers can be soliciting big campaign donations from exactly the higher-ups at, and super-rich investors in, the huge multinational corporations that are adding to their incredible wealth because of the status quo. Maybe if we get to a point where some of the old, familiar reporter faces start being replaced by cut-rate correspondents with names like Jiang and Singh, questioning of the president about free trade, globalization, outsourcing, etc., will become more acute.
   The flip side of China's cooperation on yuan valuation was China's help in getting somewhere with North Korea. We notice that little detail was conspicuous by its absence at the press conference as well.
   A week ago, Oh!pinion predicted the kind of results Bush apparently achieved on these matters. We would prefer to have been wrong.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:56 PM

 
Bush, booster and Saudi bucks — pee-u
   There's something really off-putting — downright smelly — about a president of the United States having for one of his top fund raisers and longtime best pals a lavishly paid lobbyist for Saudi Arabia.
   That would be the same Saudi Arabia from which came most of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attackers who killed some 3,500 innocent Americans in New York City, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. The same Saudi Arabia that is the land of Osama bin Laden's birth.
   The lobbyist and Bush good buddy, as reported by the Associated Press Tuesday, is Tom Loeffler, a former member of Congress from Texas and principal in a D.C. law and lobbying firm he started not long after Bush became president.
   By way of background on the Bush-Loeffler connection in pre-presidential days, there's this, from anatopia.com: "Tom Loeffler (was) appointed to the University of Texas Board of Regents. Loeffler also represented Envirocare of Utah, who was seeking to build a low-level radioactive waste dump in Texas at the time of GWB's ascendancy to the governorship."
   In 2000, Loeffler and his wife were big contributors to Bush's campaign directly, and as "Bush Pioneers" brought in 195,000 in contributions from others.
   In April 2002, Common Cause reports, one day after Bush had a difficult meeting with Saudi Arabia's ruling prince down on the ranch in Crawford, Texas, Bush threw a do for Loeffler there. In December 2002, the Saudis hired Loeffler's firm to handle PR.
   This political incest is nothing if not lucrative. According to AP, Loeffler's firm has made $420,000 off the Saudis so far this year and the Loefflers have contributed $2,000 to Bush's re-election campaign.
   We are reminded, particularly, of a congressional report concerning the 9-11 attack that Bush censored before its release at the end of July. Reports at the time alleged those blanked-out pages detailed money links between Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda supporters. Bush said disclosing contents of the blanked-out pages would compromise intelligence sources and methods.
   Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and Ambassador Bandar Bin Sultan urged Bush to divulge the whole report, including the 28 pages, saying there was no way they could clear their country of suspicions arising from hidden information. Their protest could be genuine or just a clever cover story. Under the circumstances there's no way to tell.
   AP reported the Saudis have spent $17.6 million on PR in the U.S. since the 9-11 attack.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:15 AM

 
International Longshoremen back Gephardt
   The International Longshoremen's Association today announced its endorsement of Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., for president in 2004. The ILA brings to 20 the number of international labor organizations backing Gephardt.
   ILA President John Bowers said Gephardt has earned support of the union's 60,000 members and their families "for many reasons, most notably his support of workers' right to strike, his opposition to the economically crippling North American Free Trade Agreement, his advancement of civil rights and a strong national defense, and his genuine concern for health care and Social Security."
   This backing will add breadth to the Gephardt campaign's national reach because the ILA represents dock workers on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Great Lakes region, major U.S. rivers, Puerto Rico and Eastern Canada. Its affiliate, ILA Masters, Mates and Pilots, represents maritime workers on both coasts.
   "Dick Gephardt offered support several years ago to our ILA `Charleston Five' members, who were arrested and faced prosecution for legally picketing a nonunion operation in the Port of Charleston, S.C.," Bowers said. "ILA members in South Carolina have not forgotten the Republican administration that sought to punish these mostly African-American ILA members and courageous leaders like Dick Gephardt who helped defend their rights as workers."
   Gephardt can count on strong support from ILA members in Alabama, Texas and Mississippi who've been hurt "because of the failed NAFTA treaty," Bowers predicted, adding they "will fight hard to get Mr. Gephardt elected president."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:54 PM

 
Poll shows Bush support declining
   A recent Chicago Tribune-WGN-TV poll indicates Illinois voters are souring on President Bush's leadership.
   The random telephone sampling of 700 registered voters in Illinois showed 46 percent approval of the job Bush is doing, down from 57 percent in June, while 44 percent disapprove, up from 34 percent five months earlier. Past polling in the region had shown Bush with an approval rating as high as 82 percent.
   Asked whether they want to see Bush re-elected, 49 percent said no and only 38 percent said yes. The remaining 13 percent had no opinion.
   Asked about the likelihood of the U.S. getting bogged down in a long-term military mission in Iraq, a sizeable 74 percent said yes.
   Results of the Oct. 15-20 poll were published in a Chicago Tribune news release, in the paper's Sunday edition and are subject to a plus or minus 4 percentage points margin of error. More details are available at the Tribune Web site.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:48 AM

 
Rockefeller insists on complete investigation
   Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, sees a whitewash in the making and is blowing the whistle on it in an effort to give the American people the full story they deserve.
   The committee has been investigating why and how the U.S. got to the point of invading another country on the basis of faulty information. A clear understanding of that is critical to avoiding a costly and potentially disastrous repeat performance.
   Prior to the invasion, President Bush spent months making increasingly strident charges about Iraq's weaponry, hostile intentions and likelihood of assisting the forces of terrorism. So did Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and other administration officials.
   By the time U.S. troops were being assembled and readied for the invasion early this year, the dire predictions included talk of nuclear weapons, vast stocks of chemical and biological agents, unmanned aircraft and new missiles with a longer range. The talk finally reached a crescendo with ominous pronouncements about "an imminent threat." Americans were so thoroughly propagandized that, to this day, a substantial number believe — despite even the president's subsequent statements to the contrary — that Saddam Hussein had something to do with planning or carrying out the 9-11 attack.
   What's more, Wolfowitz and others repeatedly made assurances that our troops would be welcomed as liberators, that order would be restored quickly, that Iraqi oil could quickly be used to finance restoration of the country and that our involvement would be of fairly short duration.
   As events have unfolded, nearly everything all those officials said on the way to war turned out to be wrong. Or false — there's a crucial difference rooted in intent.
   So far, the Intelligence Committee has focused its inquiry on the CIA and other intelligence agencies. After Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kans., the intelligence committee chairman, told reporters last week that the committee's report was nearly complete and a draft report would be prepared shortly, Rockefeller went public to take exception. In a Friday statement, Rockefeller said the investigation is far from complete.

   Rockefeller is absolutely right. The key questions here are:

   1. To what extent was intelligence given to this country's leadership wrong in the first place?
   2. To what extent was the intelligence given to the leadership misinterpreted or misstated to the American people and why?
   3. To what extent did the recipients of the intelligence information and their expectations influence preparation and selection of the information provided?

   What Rockefeller is protesting is that questions No. 2 and 3 are so far being ignored by the committee, which is outrageous.
   There is ample reason for skepticism that what occurred was just a remarkable series of miscalculations and false assumptions all falling along the same lines at the same time.
   Common sense makes obvious the incredible weight of influence, even if not directly spoken, exerted on intelligence officials when so many of their highest-ranking superiors, all the way to the president, had made bold statements about something the intelligence people were supposed to provide more information about. Clearly, to contradict the president, vice president, defense secretary and on down could be to jeopardize one's career. Anyone who doubts that need only review the abrupt end of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's distinguished career. Or, recall what happened to Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsay when Lindsay predicted the Iraq war would cost $250 billion or more. The administration had been low-balling estimates of the war cost, in the rare instances when anyone would even discuss that little detail. Lindsay, it turns out, had it about right — consolation perhaps to ease his discomfort from having been summarily dismissed.
   Unfortunately, getting it right doesn't necessarily relate to accuracy or efficacy in the Bush administration. Honing to the administration line, a requirement, trumps all.
   It's worth noting, given the inevitability of charges that Rockefeller is objecting for partisan reasons, that the West Virginian has built a solid reputation in the Senate as a responsible legislator who does his homework and works well across party lines.

   Everyone should contact their senators about this matter, especially everyone represented by Republicans. Demand that pressure be put on Roberts to do the right thing and pursue this investigation to its full, logical conclusion — which certainly includes the White House and departments of Defense and State.

   Knight-Ridder has a good story on this.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:43 AM

 
Weekend Whacks: Plungers and PC molesters

Death-defying float no way to deal with depression
   Kirk Jones, the 40-year-old Michigan man who decided to float down Niagara Falls this week, with just a smile on his face and the clothes on his back, yet, had better not tempt fate again — ever. He survived the stunt, purely by luck or maybe the grace of God; take your pick. In our view, Jones has used up a lifetime's worth of good luck in one swell foop.
   With all the ills and accidents that befall innocent human beings, costing them their lives, and with all the worthy causes for which people make the ultimate sacrifice, we find it impossible to admire what Jones did. We hope no one will be foolish enough to emulate him or try to top him.
   To his credit, Jones doesn't want anyone else to try his stunt either. Reuters reported Jones was released from jail, on $760 bail, Thursday. He had been held on charges of mischief and unlawfully performing a stunt. Jones said no one should do it, no matter how depressed they are.
   He might want to check into some benign forms of dealing with depression before his Nov. 26 court date, when he could be fined as much as $7,600.


Don't worry your little head, we'll take care of it
   Mention Big Brother and most people think of intrusive, meddlesome government bureaucrats or spooks. There's a growing body of evidence these days that suggests Big Brother is more likely to be in business.
   The latest indication comes from AOL, which for several weeks has been reaching into its subscribers' Windows XP, Windows NT and Windows 2000 computers to turn off a network service feature that allows spammers and attackers to pop up unwanted spam — or maybe do something worse. That's a worthy goal, except that AOL has been doing it without asking or even properly notifying people ahead of time.
   Whoa! That kind of unannounced meddling in someone else's computer is ethically wrong (translation for MBAs: bad, in the sense of evil wrongdoing). Not only is it wrong, it sets a dangerous precedent. Get a clue, AOL decision makers: the next such secret adjustment from your quarter might be made on your customers' PCs by a ticked-off employee who's out to settle a score in a destructive way.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:25 AM

 
U.S. taxpayers shouldn't pick up Saddam's tab
   International donors have pledged some $12 billion to aid in restoring Iraq, according to news reports. That's the good news.
   The not-so-good news is that nearly all of the promised aid to be added to $21 billion from the U.S. comes in the form not of gifts or grants, but instead as loans and excusals of repayment for old debts.
   While Secretary of State Colin Powell wasted no time lauding the pledges of help as support for the Bush administration's undertaking in Iraq, this development can only be seen as further isolation of the Bush administration where postwar Iraq is concerned. President Bush and his Republican stalwarts in Congress insist aid for Iraq be 100 percent grants, not loans. Bush has threatened to veto any deviation from this policy. If the U.S. does provide its aid to Iraq as a pure gift, it will be the only major funds provider to do so. Britain and Japan are giving money, but on a much smaller scale.
   All this invites the question, why should U.S. taxpayers finance the repayment of Saddam Hussein's debts to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Those countries might be expected, as neighbors, as Islamic Arab nations, as incredibly wealthy oil exporters, to come to Iraq's aid with generous grants. Unfortunately, that kind of neighborly generosity is not the way of the Middle East. They're pledging loan money only.
   So, if President Bush gets his way, with the U.S. giving Iraq $21 billion while Saudi Arabia and Kuwait just make more loans, American taxpayers' dollars will soon find their way into some of the most overstuffed bank accounts on Earth. That's because Iraq will owe Kuwait for new loans on top of old reparations debts and will owe Saudi Arabia for new loans on top of old loans.
   In reality, today's announcement qualifies as neither a substantial boost for the rapid rebuilding of Iraq nor as substantive support for Bush's Iraq reconstruction policy. It more accurately registers as thin camouflage for distinctly differing notions about what should be done and how it should be done — and as yet one more reason the U.S. is known around the world as Uncle Sucker.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:02 PM

 
Money Rx for what ails Bush's record?
   President Bush is back from his Asia-South Pacific tour. He ended the tour as he began it, with a fund-raising event, this time during his 12 hours in Hawaii. Bush reportedly brought in $600,000 at a dinner.
   This raises anew the question, why does Bush feel the need to raise so much money for his 2004 re-election campaign? The $87 million he has is huge and his $200 million goal is both gargantuan and unprecedented.
   Consider: Bush has no primary challengers; his party controls both houses of Congress, providing considerable leverage; the Republican National Committee has brought in about 2.5 times what the Democratic National Committee has managed to raise this year. What's more, Bush's fund-raising for the year is very close to what the top six Democratic primary candidates put together had been able to raise by early October. That's an estimated $87 million for Bush vs. $89 million for Howard Dean, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark.
   No doubt the Bush campaign plans to buy lots of TV ads. TV advertising is both expensive and, some contend, much less effective than one-on-one, word-of-mouth campaigning and campaign support.
   One theory holds that the Bush campaign intends to buy the kind of boots-on-the-ground manpower support that Democrats traditionally have received from labor union members. That's plausible as a concept, although we wonder how it would work in practice. Will this be a day labor, man the phones, hand out the leaflets, drive seniors to the polls effort? And if it is that, will what those paid boosters have to say register as sincere, enthusiastic support with, presumably, independents?
   Although it's still very early, we draw two conclusions from Bush's obsessive-compulsive fund raising.
   First, there is almost certainly a gut-level feeling among Bush's people that their man is going to have to run on a record most Americans have not warmed to. Surveys show a marked and persistent lack of public enthusiasm for his huge tax cuts — the closest thing Bush has to an economic policy. Misgivings generated by the credibility-damaging way Bush took the country to war in Iraq, coupled with dissatisfaction with our postwar expenses and loss of lives there, have sent Bush's poll numbers down to where they were in early 2001. Beyond those factors, there is a conspicuous dearth of progress on matters many Americans consider important: turning around the horrendous loss of jobs, prescription drug benefits for seniors, help with spiraling higher-education costs and making health care coverage much more affordable.
   Second, there is a strong likelihood that at least some of those millions Bush and his party are stockpiling will be used for politics of personal destruction activities, other types of dirty tricks, and for legal hassles regarding polling places, contesting vote counts/recounts and such. We have no idea exactly how much the Bush 2000 campaign spent on post-election rabble rouser deployments and expensive legal talent. It appeared, however, that at that point money was no object; Republicans could and would spend whatever was necessary to stop the vote recounting, generate publicity nationwide and win in the courts what was so in doubt from Florida polling places.
   If our suspicions prove correct, Democrats will want to get on with deciding on a frontrunner quickly, with large numbers of supporters of those who don't make the cut falling in behind that frontrunner with their personal and financial support.

   Bottom line: As lousy as Bush's record is — and it's the worst of any president in our lifetime — dislodging him from the White House is not likely to be easy or cheap. Perhaps more than ever, money talks.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:44 PM

 
Vermonter blasts self-inflicted disaster
   America's free trade years could well be called The Goldmine Era — an epoch in which rich, powerful special interests get the gold while our middle class gets the shaft.
   In a first-rate, give-'em-hell speech, Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., this week described how America's engine of progress, economic security and upward mobility for the many has been run off the track. Sanders also detailed why repairs are not under way and what's required to begin to get things back on track.
   Titled, "The Increasing Economic Divide Among Americans," Sanders' hourlong speech was delivered on the House floor Tuesday, Oct. 21. It bristled with damning details and stark examples of U.S. trade and economic policies, and politics, gone haywire — and kept that way deliberately. Here's a brief sample:
   "The bottom line is — and this Congress must finally recognize it — our trade policies are failing. Permanent, normal trade relations with China has been a disaster. NAFTA has been a disaster. Our membership in the World Trade Organization has not worked for the middle class and working families, for this country, and the time is long overdue for the United States Congress to stand up to corporate America, to stand up to the president of the United States, to stand up to all of the editorial pages all over America who have told us, year after year after year, how great unfettered free trade would be."
   Sanders' speech was long and the Oh!pinion Special Feature excerpt of it, though substantially shorter, is still longer than we usually will carry. However, we feel the two-page excerpt is justified by all the hard truths and telling facts Sanders included. We trust you'll find it well worth your reading time.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:42 PM

 
House Republicans balk at giveaway
   Suddenly, there's some getting out of line from that well-practiced drill team the U.S. House of Representatives has become during a long period of Republican domination.
   It was only a nonbinding resolution, yet the 277-139 roll call vote endorsing the Senate approach to funding Iraq reconstruction, making about half the administration's requested $21 billion a loan, marked a departure from lockstep mode for 84 Republicans. The resolution also expressed preference for Senate enhancements of medical care provisions for veterans and reservists.
   With Majority Whip Tom De Lay enforcing ideological rectitude and politically correct voting habits among his compliant flock, and with stealth Speaker Dennis Hastert doing whatever he actually does from way in the background, the institution has atrophied. Spirited, enlightened debate is rare. Typically, Republicans conduct business with the attitude that they have the votes, so why waste time debating?
   Bills are sometimes brought forth late at night, to be voted on without proper study and debate. At other times, odd, mischief provisions are slipped into big bills, where it's hoped or assumed they won't be scrutinized or trigger debate. The floor schedule is often limited to only a day and a half or two days a week. Speaking times, when there is a debate, are cut to the bone.
   All the more remarkable, then, that so many House Republicans balked on Tuesday. Their unwillingness to rubber-stamp what President Bush has said he really wants is drastically out of character and thus an indicator of how extremely questionable the Bush approach is.

   The White House reaction to this break in the ranks came in a letter from the administration's budget director, according to the Associated Press. Joshua Bolton said if the loan language stays, "senior advisers" will recommend to the president that he veto the bill, AP reports.
   The revolt may be only a gesture and president may well get his way in the end, of course. But in giving him that victory, some House Republicans may sew the seeds of their own defeat in 2004. Folks back home have heard sound arguments for not just giving all those billions to Iraq, which has the second-largest oil reserves in the Mideast, and they are making comparisons between Congress' generosity with Iraqis and its tight-fistedness in meeting needs here at home.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:53 AM

 
Kennedy nails administration to the wall
   Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor last Thursday to tell why he will vote against the Bush administration's supplemental budget request for some $87 billion for Iraq-related expenses.
   Kennedy's speech is a damning indictment of Bush's handling of Iraq, from the initial drum-beating for war to the war's badly handled aftermath. It bristles with charges the administration should have to answer — and be held to account for.
   Remarkably, given the alleged liberal bias of the media, Kennedy's speech was afforded barely a six-second sound bite and brief mention by major TV news programs. Newspapers did little better. In light of the staggering costs and ongoing danger arising from this entanglement, every American would benefit from reading or hearing, and considering, what the senator had to say.
   Here is an excerpt of Kennedy's speech, from Oct. 16, The Congressional Record, Senate, pages 12638-12639:

    "The trumped-up reasons for going to war have collapsed. All the administration's rationalizations as we prepared to go to war now stand revealed as `double-talk.' The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from al-Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not.
    "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie. And now, despite the increasingly restless Iraqi population, despite the continuing talk of sabotage, despite the foreign terrorists crossing thousands of miles of border to attack U.S.
service men and women in Iraq, the administration still refuses to face the truth or tell the truth. Instead, the White House responds by covering up its failures and trying to sell its rosy version of events by repeating it with maximum frequency and volume, and minimum regard for realities on the ground.
    "No PR campaign by the increasingly desperate White House can redress the painful loss of a young American soldier almost every day. Instead of greater stability and order, the forces arrayed against us are steadily increasing the intensity and sophistication of their assaults on our troops. Bombs that were once set off by trip wires are now being set off by remote control. The threat of shoulder-fired missiles makes it unsafe for civilian planes to land at Baghdad Airport.
    "No foreign policy in our free society can succeed for long unless it is supported by our people. Our men and women in uniform fought bravely and brilliantly, but the President's war has been revealed as mindless, needless, senseless, and reckless. The American people know all this. Our allies know it. Our soldiers know it. We should never have gone to war in Iraq when we did, in the way we did, for the false reasons we were given. But now that we are there, two imperatives are absolutely clear: America cannot withdraw now, leaving Iraq to chaos or civil war, becoming a danger to us far greater than it did before. The misguided policy of the past is no excuse for a misguided policy for the future.
   "We need a realistic and specific plan to bring stability to Iraq, to bring genuine self-government to Iraq, to bring our soldiers home with dignity and honor. Until the administration genuinely changes course, I cannot in good conscience vote to fund a failed policy that endangers our troops in the field and our strategic objectives in the world instead of protecting them. The greatest mistake we can make in Congress, as the people's elected representatives, is to support and finance a `go-it-alone, do-it-because-I-say-so' policy that leaves young Americans increasingly at risk in Iraq.
    "So when the roll is called on this $87 billion legislation, which provides no effective conditions for genuine international participation and a clear change in policy in Iraq, I intend to vote no. A no vote is not a vote against supporting our troops. It is a vote to send the administration back to the drawing board. It is a vote for a new policy -- policy worthy of the sacrifice our soldiers are making, a policy that restores America as a respected member of the family of nations, a policy that will make it easier, not far more difficult, to win the war against terrorism."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:47 PM

 
Weblog names — it's a jungle out there
   What do "Shoppingqueen's Personal Journal," "Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love" and "Melancholics Anonymous" have in common?
   They're all weblogs.
   The universe of weblogs is amazingly diverse. This is reflected in the types, designs and purposes of these very personal pages. It's also immediately evident in the names bloggers choose for their pages.
   During visits to weblog directories over the past several weeks we've collected some of the more memorable names we've seen. These range from the banal to the bizarre, with lots of just plain wacky ones thrown in.
   We have no idea if the contents of these pages live up to what one would expect from the names and have visited only a few. For now, the name's the thing.
   For a look at our names collection, click here.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:05 PM

 
Weekend Whacks: They shoot from the lip

Congressman exhibits news judgment from hell
   Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., evidently wanted to do his part in the GOP campaign to brighten news about postwar Iraq in the worst possible way. He succeeded spectacularly by telling an audience that reconstruction is "a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."
   Nethercutt made the remark Monday while speaking at the University of Washington in Seattle. The Associated Press reported he followed up by saying he does not want any more soldiers to die. After being excoriated by Washington Democrats, Nethercutt said his words had been mischaracterized.
   AP quotes the Democratic response, in part, " . . . as he tried to marginalize the loss of hundreds of U.S. soldiers, Nethercutt insulted the memory of those who have died."

Rice remark diplomatically incorrect
   Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security advisor, did her bit to maintain the administration's reputation for sharp-elbowed and two-left-footed diplomacy. Speaking at a press conference recently about Bush's Asia-Australia trip, Rice referred to his brief Japan visit as "a layover."
   The administration had billed the stop as a thank-you visit, to express appreciation for Japanese help with the war on terrorism. The no doubt unintended slight was not missed by Japanese media.
   Starting off a visit to a foreign nation, however brief, trying to overcome a bad impression is not something any national leader appreciates having to do. It's especially unhelpful when the leader is seeking cooperation from the host — in this case, that Japan quit jiggering the value of the yen downward to keep the country's exports up and its imports down.

Throw another `my bad' on the barbie, mate
   Bush himself exhibited signs of foot-in-mouth disease recently by referring to Australia as the sheriff of the Southeast Asian region. This raised in the minds of some the image of a sort of deputy or sidekick — not the way proud Australians want to be regarded.
   Bush took pains to explain that he meant no offense. But, as reported on CNN Friday, some people in other countries are becoming acutely sensitive to what they consider a cowboy-cavalier Bush mindset.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:14 PM

 
Bush backers kick in cash; Jobs? Fuhgedaboutit
   President Bush's kind of people are piling up a mountain of re-election campaign money. Mt. Cashmore is up to $87 million and growing rapidly, according to whitehouseforsale.org. The plan, apparently, is that if they can just provide him enough altitude he will start rolling from the top and gravity and momentum will take care of the rest.
   These wealthy backers obviously realize that mountain will have to be very high because Bush's track record is not winning friends and influencing most people in ways helpful to re-election. Tax rebates of $93,500 generate enthusiasm, no doubt, but only in relatively few voters.
   Then there's the big catch — these are Bush's kind of people, after all. Forking over and running around lining up a whole lot of $2,000 donations is one thing. Bailing Bush out of his jobs-loss dilemma is quite another.
   Sure, they realize their inside man has presided over the net loss, using inadequate official numbers, of some 3.3 million American jobs, with more being outsourced, off-shored, downsized away and otherwise eliminated daily. Still, they're very likely to draw the line on providing that kind of help. Hiring a whole lot of people between now and next summer means taking a chance with the corporate bottom line — not in their game plan. It means taking a chance on America's long-term future, not just pumping up shareholder value for short-term gain — against their religion. It means giving something back to their country — sorry, they gave at the office, to Bush. Besides, a bunch of Bush's kind of folks are heavily involved in many countries and feel themselves beholden to none, judging by their actions.
   A clear indication of what to expect comes from The Business Roundtable, an organization of big-corporation CEOs. In a news release this week, this outfit reports on a survey of 111 of its members showing they expect "a modest further strengthening of the U.S. economy." This is said to be notably more bullish than their sentiments last spring.
   When asked, "How do you expect your company's sales to change in the final quarter of 2003?" 71 percent of responding CEOs said they expect an increase, while 23 percent expect no change and 6 percent see decline ahead. So, most of these CEOs look to do more business and make more money.
   When asked about hiring plans, however, they're outta here. To "How do you expect your company's U.S. employment to change in the final quarter of 2003?" only 12 percent said they expect an increase, while 52 percent said no change and 36 percent expect a decrease.
   Unless the economy literally catches fire, a remote possibility to put it mildly, expect these CEOs to keep doing what they're doing right into the election year: cash, sure; jobs, no.
   The Republican National Committee might want to hire a few Sherpa guides, though, and stock up on oxygen tanks. George W. Bush is probably going to need them.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:15 PM

 
Troop survey at odds with good-news PR
   Fresh on the heels of President Bush's good-news PR campaign to get everyone on the same positive-minded page about postwar Iraq come survey results showing many of our troops are anything but positive-minded.
   For example, a third of troops surveyed in August see their mission in Iraq as muddled and the war in Iraq as being of little value.
   That is one of several disturbing findings from a survey conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, which distributed questionnaires to 1,935 of our servicemen all over the country. Participants were selected from among troops available to participate — a credible bid for randomness.
   Among the findings:

   Half the soldiers say their unit's morale is low.
   Half the soldiers say their training is inadequate.

   Ominously, though not surprisingly given the makeup of the force and the circumstances of their extended combat-zone tours, half say they do not plan to re-enlist. Today's military relies heavily on National Guard members and reservists, who must leave their civilian careers and businesses when called up, often incurring financial as well as family difficulties. Lengthy deployments often impose a hardship, while open-ended ones constitute a deal-breaker for many.
   Bush and his Republican loyalists in Congress have busied themselves lately portraying postwar Iraq as a place where progress is evident everywhere, most Iraqis are grateful, and our soldiers are highly motivated and well satisfied to be part of a team doing an important job. According to the president, these important aspects of the news have been all but ignored by major media that concentrate on killings, car bombings and dissent among Iraqis.
   As an antidote, and no doubt to bolster support for pouring $87 billion into Iraq as a giveaway instead of a loan, Bush and others have sought to go around what Bush calls "the filter" to speak to regional and local newspapers and other media.
   Another reason for pushing the positive — and for our troops' dissatisfaction — may have to do with diverting attention from uncomfortable aspects of the genesis of Bush's Iraq war. Those include a prewar message that shifted between going in to end the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and going in to effect regime change. Sometimes, it was that we were going in to create a model of democracy and enlightenment in the region. All that from an administration whose principals not long before had nothing but scoffing for Clinton-era ventures in "nation-building" — something a Bush administration would not involve itself in, we were told in 2000.
   Then, there were the rosy predictions that our involvement would be a 90-day affair, after which suddenly enthused and cooperative allies and the U.N. would be only too happy to join with the winner to stabilize the country and restore its economy. That last no-sweat proposition was to be financed largely with oil revenues.

Last but not least, there was that splendid photo-op, with the president in a flight suit, swooping onto an aircraft carrier to proclaim major hostilities were over. Some of our troops who've seen their friends seriously wounded or sent home in a body bag, the fate of hundreds since Bush's fly-in festivities, tend to think major hostilities are ongoing — and that Bush still doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Site to see: The Washington Post has a good story on this.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:31 PM

 
Bush may get help but not for trade ripoff
   President Bush is to depart Thursday on a trip to Asia and Australia, hoping to enlist support for U.S. efforts in postwar Iraq, the war on terrorism and toward reducing trade imbalances that are helping to gut the U.S. economy. His itinerary includes Japan, the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia.
   The key stops on his route will likely be Japan, Friday, and Bangkok on Oct. 20-21, where he will participate in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Bush is to press Japanese Prime Minister Junichuro Koizumi and communist China's President Hu Jintao to stop forcing the value of their currencies down in order to make export goods flooding U.S. markets artificially cheap.
   The Bush administration has made clear it sees ending the pegging of the Chinese Yuan to the U.S. dollar, at an estimated 40 percent below the buying power of a floated Yuan, as the answer to America's six-to-1 trade imbalance with China. That is, a situation in which China sells $6 worth of goods here for every $1 worth of U.S. goods that eke their way into China's highly restrictive markets.
   The status quo worked to China's advantage last year to the tune of $103 billion. That's how much more China made off U.S.-China trade than the U.S. did. This year's imbalance is likely to be even greater.
   The Associated Press reports that, "In a letter to Bush on Tuesday, at least seven senators urged him to take action on the currency issue to stem the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs. `More American jobs are in jeopardy,' they wrote. `Doing nothing puts these jobs, our economy and our future at risk.'"
   The senators, America's 3.3 million jobless workers, a substantial number certain to lose their jobs in coming months and years, and many small and medium-size U.S. businesses, needn't get their hopes up. Japan and China have achieved tremendous economic success by, in contrast to U.S. policy, single-mindedly pursuing what is in their national interest, no matter what other countries say. As well, both have developed highly effective ways of getting away with doing what they're doing.
   One big enabling factor in their success along these lines is U.S. foreign policy, which invariably trumps the domestic needs of all but the wealthiest and most politically powerful U.S. interests: giant, usually multinational, corporations, big financial institutions, and big investors. (All of which, it bears mentioning, figure at the top of the large and growing list of Bush and Republican campaign contributors.) Unfortunately for America's middle- and working-class people, and smaller businesses, their own needs will fall by the wayside. Again.
   That's because, in the current scenario, Bush reportedly wants a $5 billion Japanese contribution to his Iraq project. From both China and Japan, Bush desperately needs help in curbing North Korea's nuclear weaponry aspirations. Expect Japan and China's leaders to provide, if anything, the half a loaf of support that will not in any way alter the lucrative trade regime now benefiting their countries while ruining the U.S. economy.
   Bush will return home claiming success in winning assistance for his foreign policy projects. He likely will also pass off as promises to do the right thing some vague, meaningless Japanese and Chinese assurances that they've taken the need to free-float their currencies under advisement.

   The further irony in all this is that, even if Japan and China were to acquiesce about their currencies, there is sound economic thinking behind the notion that such measures alone would barely blunt the trade-powered demolition of America's economy. Currency valuations play a part in the pathology, but only a part.
   The truth is that the most inept, ill-informed and ideologically case-hardened economic underperformers to get their hands on the levers of power in Washington since the Hoover administration don't know what else to do. Worse, they don't want sound advice, either.

   Sites to see:
   San Francisco Chronicle news story on Bush's Asia trip.
   For specifics about Bush fund raising and those who want the best government their money can buy, whitehouseforsale.org.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:31 PM

 
Senators' good-news pitch includes nonsense
   A group of Republican senators just back from a visit to Iraq imparted this morning some of the good news they believe is not being reported to the American people. Their news conference, broadcast on C-SPAN, included Sens. Mitch McConnell, Ky.; Conrad Burns, Mont.; Craig Thomas, Wyo.; and Lincoln Chaffee, R.I.
   The event was a mix of sunny, hopeful statements, spin and obvious nonsense.
   McConnell depicted an Iraq where freshly refurbished schools are opening, street commerce is starting to flourish and grateful, smiling locals give visitors in the company of American soldiers the thumbs-up along the roadsides. Burns commented on the sorry state of Iraqi infrastructure after 30 years of Baathist despotism. He was impressed by the extensive poverty there and a decrepit power plant that wouldn't be allowed to operate in the U.S.
   Two senators made statements so questionable that Oh!pinion wonders about the credibility of the rest of what they had to say. Burns said, "Iraq is a big country," and in a moment repeated that, with emphasis. In fact, Iraq is roughly the size of California. That's small as countries go.
   Thomas topped that by voicing his judgment, almost in an offhand way, as though everyone knows and accepts this, that Iraq is a "cradle of terrorism," that Iraq had al Qaeda active within the country. When a reporter sought to question Thomas further on this, the senator reiterated what he had said, adding that he couldn't understand why anyone would not be clear on it, that everyone knows it.
   While it's true that a terrorist group that reportedly has al Qaeda ties has operated autonomously in a remote border region of northeast Iraq for some years, the dominant portion of the country controlled by Saddam Hussein's regime had little involvement with terrorists. This was mostly a matter of sending money, including sums to the next of kin of Palestinian suicide bombers. The Bush administration tried mightily to find some damning link to al Qaeda and the 9-11 attack prior to the invasion and came up with almost nothing.
   Sen. Thomas is perhaps confusing what was with what is now the case as a result of President Bush's elective war. In the aftermath, terrorists/guerrilla fighters appear to have flocked in from elsewhere in the region. To the extent they stay and prey on cooperative Iraqis, coalition forces and other outsiders there to help rebuild the country, it could be said Bush & Co. unwittingly introduced terrorism as a force in Iraq.
   McConnell said he believes the violence comes from those who've lost power and want it back, probably partly true, at least. It was also noted during the conference that Saddam had let loose 100,000 convicts shortly before the invasion. The populace and our people are evidently subject to their depredations, as well as the guerrilla fighters'.
   Chaffee, the one senator on this mission who had not voted to authorize the president's invasion go-ahead, said he now supports efforts to rebuild the country and put it on a good footing.
   The senators' trip and news conference appear to have been undertaken to complement a White House public relations campaign to get Americans feeling good, or at least better, about where $87 billion, plus interest, of their children and grandchildren's money is going. In keeping with their good-news theme, the senators made only passing mention of the rioting, car-bombings and violence in which, just in the past 24 hours, three more of our troops were killed.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:56 PM

 
Cohen-Mitchell event well worth viewing
   On Monday, C-SPAN carried a discussion of world affairs, largely concerned with our involvement in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that was nothing short of excellent.
   The principals were moderator David Gergen, former advisor to President Nixon; William Cohen, former senator and secretary of defense; and George Mitchell, former Senate majority leader and roving peace negotiator. The discussion originally took place Sept. 24 at Southern Methodist University, in Dallas.
   In refreshing contrast to the in-your-face verbal brawling and spinning that are the stock in trade of "Hardball" and "Crossfire," here you had two extremely knowledgeable, thoughtful and decent individuals engaging in informed, insightful discourse on a high level. Cohen is a Republican who served in President Clinton's Cabinet. Mitchell is a Democrat. Yet, courtesy and mutual respect were the order of the day. Light, not heat, was generated.
   Among the highlights of the exchange were Mitchell's declaration that, from his experience in Northern Ireland and Central Europe, he sees the common-denominator precondition for peace and stability as being economic opportunity and children's safety. People in these strife-torn places want and need jobs, to be able to support their families, he said. He noted that solutions that focus on leadership positions and personalities tend to fail at meeting those economic needs.
   Cohen explained how the U.S. policy of containment not only kept Saddam Hussein from perpetrating further aggression in the region, but also eased the way for our forces during the invasion. Saddam's air defense system was all but destroyed when the invasion began, he said.

   C-SPAN often rebroadcasts events such as this conference. Anyone who did not see it would do well to watch for a future airing.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:48 PM

 
Going from blunder to full-scale quagmire
   Out in the countryside, a quagmire is land so water-saturated that it won't support your weight. Walk into it and you're caught a mess, maybe even in mortal danger.
   "Quagmire," as used to describe U.S. involvement in a foreign country, means becoming bogged down in a land with three kinds of locals: those who attack our troops, those who support the attackers and those who refuse to support our troops. Even where the numbers in the first two categories are extremely small, if the numbers in the third category are large our troops face constant, deadly danger. Our losses will vary up and down, but will continue with maddening steadiness. Attrition, too, is hell.
   What's more, there is a political-economic overlay. Stateside, from the top down, powerful people develop a vested interest in staying the course. This dynamic is epitomized by one statement echoing down the decades since our terrible, decade-long debacle in Vietnam. It is President Lyndon Johnson's declaration that he would not be the first president in U.S. history to preside over a defeat in war. His successor, Richard Nixon, who ran for president promising to end the war quickly, persisted in Vietnam with every bit as much stay-the-course stubbornness.
   That happened because the impetus was then, as it is now, all toward staying the course. To back out would be to open a president up to charges he had blundered into the quagmire in the first place. To back out would be to show weakness before our enemies around the world. Mustn't do that.
   Beyond presidents there is the military establishment. Military reputations are made, medals are earned, careers blossom and promotions accelerate in wartime. Beyond the military establishment, business interests have a stake in persisting. Big contractors get windfall contracts and major suppliers do terrific business, in the U.S. and in-country.
   Finally, there is the matter of investment. Money and goods are poured into the country, to repair and improve infrastructure, to involve and pacify the locals. Facilities are built — air bases, seaports, headquarters, supply depots, etc. Each costly input provides another high-value target for those seeking to oust us. And, perversely, each costly input becomes another brick in the wall blocking our exit. Backing out would mean writing all that off, abandoning lots of it to the enemy. Mustn't do that, either.

   We now have about 150,000 troops and some civilians in Iraq. More of them have been killed in guerilla and suicide attacks since invasion hostilities ended than died in the invasion. Additionally, many Iraqi civilians, particularly those cooperating with our people, have been killed. Yesterday, six Iraqis were killed, 32 injured, when two bomb-laden cars tried to hit the central Baghdad hotel where many Americans and Iraqi officials are staying. Last Friday, a suicide bomber drove his car into a police station there, killing himself and nine others. Also on Friday, a funeral turned into rioting against U.S. occupation. The previous Friday, thousands of Iraqis rioted because of lack of jobs.
   This week, Congress is expected to approve most or all of President Bush's supplemental budget request, $66 billion for military operations in Iraq, $21 billion for an extensive shopping list of nonmilitary projects and purchases there. If approved, it will push the tab for Bush's elective war past $200 billion — so far. Congress has held hearings and wrangled about the nonmilitary portion of the supplemental for a couple of weeks.

Before proceeding, the president, his Cabinet members and advisors, our senators and representatives, ought to venture out onto the Capitol Mall, to gather in front of a long, dark, granite wall bearing more than 50,000 names. There they will see how costly staying the course through a quagmire can become.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:47 AM

 
Weekend Whacks: The hits keep on coming
Let's save the sinners by killing the sinners?
   For sheer death-dealing potential on a worldwide scale, it's hard to top the efforts of our Whacko of the Week, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family. Trujillo and other Catholic clergy are peddling the notion that condoms offer no protection from the AIDS virus.
   Never mind about definitive, documented scientific evidence proving condoms do offer excellent protection against the AIDS virus, when used properly. The important thing to the Vatican, apparently, is not saving lives but saving souls from what awaits those who engage in sex outside of marriage and for purposes other than procreation.
   Certainly, ours would be a better world if people would behave themselves and save sex for marriage. But if that is the goal, the Catholic Church has got a really wacky way of pursuing it. What can Trujillo & Co. be thinking, "better that we have millions of dead sinners than millions of wayward-but-redeemable souls to work with"? Also, Oh!pinion continues to be amazed at how little faith people of supposedly strong faith seem to have in God's justice, because they so often seek to get the jump on it themselves, in this life.
   This incredible, highly dangerous nonsense was reported in London's The Guardian Thursday by Steve Bradshaw. He quotes Trujillio as saying, "The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom." Bradshaw also points out in his story science-based statements to the contrary from the World Health Organization and U.S. National Institutes of Health.
   Especially fiendish is the fact that the Catholic Church is pushing this bogus message in African nations with low education levels and sky-high HIV/AIDS statistics.
   If these whacked-quack clerics would look up from the Bible's prohibitions about sex long enough to consider the Ten Commandments, they might realize they're acting in clear violation of at least two: "thou shall not bear false witness" and "thou shall not kill."


Let's kill some State Department bureaucrats for Jesus?
    Continuing with this week's faith-debased theme, we turn our attention to that inimitable televagelist, the Rev. Pat Robertson. Since religion is his business -- albeit not his only business -- you might've thought ol' smilin' Pat of "700 Club" fame is all about peace on Earth, goodwill toward men. Well, you would've thought wrong.
   Last week, Robertson had as a guest on his show a columnist, Joel Mowbray, who has a book out that's critical of the U.S. State Department, to put it mildly. Seems Mowbray ends his book with words to the effect that the best solution for what's wrong at Foggy Bottom would be for him to sneak a nuclear weapon in there and blow the place up.
   You might expect that preacher Pat would've taken exception to that, saying something like: "Well, Joel, things may be bad at Foggy Bottom, but you're talking, or maybe joking, about something that could kill and maim millions of innocent people. And you're doing it at a time when the memory of people killed in New York and the Pentagon by terrorists is still so fresh and so painful to so many. I can't condone that at all."
   The Associated Press story on this dismal duo reports that instead Robert son merely asked, "I mean, you get through this, and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as bad as you say?"
   Which leads us to wonder, can the icons of the religious right in America reveal themselves as being much more shabby and pathetic than they already have?


Microsoft Enhanced Security System (MESS), 13.0
   Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has announced yet another "we're getting really serious about security this time" overhaul of the leaky-code sieve known as Windows XP/Windows XP Professional.
   Of course, when it was introduced a couple of years ago, Windows XP was heralded as the really, really, really secure Windows -- the most secure Windows operating system ever. And, of course, faster than you can say "buffer overrun," hackers made a costly, painful and hugely embarrassing shambles of those claims.
   In response, Microsoft has tried several things, including denial, delay and, in the end, a steady stream of sometimes buggy and problematic patches and collections of patches. Now, Microsoft plans to offer a new comprehensive service pack and then, less frequently, more-comprehensive patches. Indeed, one could almost make a career of trying to keep up with all the patches Windows requires.
   The really hard whacks we award Micro$oft this week, though, are for limiting this, ahem, improved security regimen to XP and Me versions only, leaving out the millions of us who still use Windows 98.
And why do millions of us stick with Windows 98? Are we just too cheap to send Micro$soft another $100 to $200 on schedule? No, it's because a whole lot of us have learned over the years that this company has a way of marketing largely cosmetic makeovers and baby-step improvements as top-to-bottom, profoundly important and excitingly revolutionary advancements in operating system design. In short, they lie like champs and we're not buying it this time, literally.


Would someone give the gentlelady a geography book?
Rep. Shirley Jackson Lee, D-Texas, needs to spend a little quality time with a good map of the United States. Or, she'd do well to bone up on where her colleagues come from. During a Tuesday-night colloquy on the House floor by several Democrats decrying the administration's handling of postwar Iraq, Lee referred to Rep. Peter De Fazio of Oregon as being from "right up there on there on the border." In fact, there is another state, Washington, between DeFazio's state and Canada -- a fact Lee presumably is aware of because she mentioned meeting with De Fazio in Seattle recently.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:25 PM

 
CNN's Blitzer lets big lie slide by
   Print journalists' work is typically scrutinized by both content and copy editors. Along with getting spelling, grammar and punctuation right, the editors' goal is to ensure that meanings are as clear and unambiguous as possible, that the piece answers more questions than it raises and, most of all, that the facts are straight. TV journalists get by on a much lower standard.
   The latest evidence of this came this morning, when CNN's veteran, prize-winning Wolf Blitzer hosted a discussion of last night's Democratic presidential primary candidates' debate. His guests were Republican-right "strategist" Ralph Reed and Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor.
   We won't belabor the fact that between the time Blitzer gave Reed and the time Reed took for himself, plus time allowed a couple of callers, Tucker barely got a word in. That's life on the tube.
   The way Reed's bald-faced lie — that President George W. Bush never said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that what he said was really that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people — was just accepted without challenge, is another matter. Reed, who is nothing if not a seasoned spinmeister, went way beyond spin this time. There's no polite way to describe what he did. He just flat-out lied.
   Yes, Bush said Saddam Hussein had used WMD on his own people. But he also said, numerous times, "Iraq has" WMD. That Iraq is making WMD. That Iraq poses an imminent threat to the U.S. because of its WMD capabilities. Reed lied.
   But, thanks to a passive Tucker and a completely numb-between-the-ears Blitzer, this outlandish whopper went out to millions of viewers. No comment, no question, no challenge, no nothing.
   While this is one of the most blatant examples of this kind of lapse we've seen, such occurrences are not rare. There ought to be some kind of regular auditing of the practices and competence of cable network talk show/segments hosts. For his part, Blitzer ought to spend some quality time behind the woodshed with a good journalism professor.

   "And now, moving right along . . .," as they say in broadcasting.

Shortly after Blizter's debacle, along come CNN's Candy Crowley and Miles O'Brien, attempting to psych out the significance of who among last night's Democratic debaters took off his jacket and rolled up his sleeves, and who didn't. And who did first. And who rolled his sleeves up only part way.
    Think about that. Here are two extremely well paid TV journalists who have, presumably, the attention of several million people, thanks to hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of sophisticated electronics. Their subject is nine people vying to lead the country and the free world, people who have studied difficult issues, prepped intensively and tried very hard to make a good showing in a highly competitive undertaking. We have a country riddled with serious problems and we're locked into a global war against terrorism.
    So what do these high-level journalists discuss? Jackets and shirtsleeves.
   Unbelievable!
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:30 PM

 
People should take down party of dirty tricks
   Now, it's an electronic bug in the office of a Democratic mayor of a major city — a mayor locked in a close and bitterly contested election race that is to be decided in less than a month.
   Philadelphia Mayor John Street has learned he's had no privacy in his own office, thanks to an FBI that admits to planting a state-of-the-art eavesdropping setup in his office but refuses to either openly implicate the mayor in some kind of wrongdoing or state that he's not under investigation. This is outrageous.
   This summer, a source said to be high up in the Bush administration leaked to conservative columnist Robert Novak the name of a CIA undercover operative. The apparent motive for the leak was to get even for a contrary newspaper piece written by the operative's husband and to intimidate others from crossing the administration. The operative's usefulness to the agency is ruined and there could be fatal consequences for people she's been in contact with abroad.
   This spring, it was a wealthy California Republican congressman with his eye on the governor's office and a plan to game the system for his own political gain. Darrel Issa was ultimately dissuaded from making his power grab, but in the recall fallout Gov. Gray Davis lost the chance to serve out the term he was elected to. Davis was dumped not because of criminal or outrageous behavior, only because people decided they no longer like him or his leadership.
   In 2000, first, it was a lot of minority people in Florida and a few other places being misdirected to, turned away from and hassled in election places. It was ancient, sometimes unreliable voting machines in poorer districts, while more-affluent voters in nearby districts used newer, much better equipment.
   In 2000, next, it was a Republican Florida state attorney general who did everything she could to abort vote recounts in contested districts. And it was Republican-friendly low-level bureaucrats, office workers, students and others recruited in Washington, D.C., and surrounding suburbs, given airline tickets and per-diem money, then sent in packs to Florida. Their mission was to raise hell against vote recounting and create an atmosphere of chaos and disruption. Republican organizers and Bush campaign leaders behind this operation wanted to give the nation the impression that irate Florida Republican loyalists were staging honest, impromptu protests against all the recounting. The idea was also to make the recounting appear an unnecessary, unseemly and ridiculous exercise.
   In 2001, the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court took it upon itself to decide the outcome of the contested presidential election, giving us our first court-appointed president, George W. Bush. A conservative Republican, of course.
   From 1992 to 2000, it was a widespread, coordinated and relentless campaign of personal destruction against Bill and Hillary Clinton. It was a costly and interminable Whitewater investigation that went nowhere. It was ex-state troopers and bimbos urged, egged and almost certainly bribed, into coming forward with one lurid charge after another. It was $50 million-plus of taxpayers' money squandered on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's seemingly endless, witless and ultimately fruitless quest to get President Clinton. Then, it was impeachment proceedings undertaken not because of abuse of presidential power, treason or some equivalent crime, but rather because of a shabby peccadillo stupidly perpetrated in the White House.

Oh!pinion lumps most political conspiracy theories into the same category as low-priced deeds to landmark bridges and "herbal Viagra" spam. But it's becoming impossible, in the face of so many dots flowing from Republican/neoconservative sources, to not make logical connections. No, not all Republicans are dirty tricksters. But the fair-minded, honorable ones are conspicuously unwilling to identify and deal effectively with the rats in their ranks.
   More likely than an ongoing conspiracy, what we have from today's Republican/neoconservative establishment are the machinations and manipulations of some underhanded opportunists in and out of office (the name Grover Norquist leaps to mind, for one) who are not content to seek their ends within the context of traditional politics laced with tens of millions of dollars. They regularly go outside those boundaries to engage in character assassination, legal offensives and a variety of dirty tricks to get what they want — and to quash who and what they don't want.
   The party of Watergate dirty tricks infamy and of Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon seems, as was said of the Habsburg emperors, to neither have learned nor to have forgotten anything. In the current CIA operative-outing outrage, after dragging its feet for a delay during which in all likelihood evidence was ditched, the White House insists on a type of investigation that reeks of cover-up from the start.
   It's been said many times but bears repeating in this context: All that's required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
   Special counsel investigations and Democrats' howling in righteous indignation will only expose and appropriately deal with extrapolitical renegades and dirty tricksters now and then. The real remedy will only come when a clear majority of Americans wise up, join hands and put radical right-wing extremists and their Republican enablers back in the same box their kind was kept in from 1932 to 1952.

   The beast that ought to be starved in America 2003 is not our federal government. It is the one currently in control of our government.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:17 AM

 
There's a circus at both ends of TV cable
   There is a well-established tradition among some news media — typically, ethical, high-quality news media — that you lay off all horse-race reporting while the polls are open on election day. It's not a law because a law would be unconstitutional. No industry or professional sanctions are involved because any such would go against the spirit of the Constitution and grain of those subject to the sanctions.
   Decency and good sense lie behind voluntary decisions to not rehash horse-race details on election day. First, there's the notion voters should play their part in our democracy in a relatively quiet, dignified atmosphere. That strikes some as quaint and anachronistic. But those people are the kind who are okay with plastering advertising on the backs of public restroom stall doors, flooding e-mail inboxes with hated spam and interrupting millions of suppers with unwanted telephone sales pitches, to make more money. In short, they're the bane of decent people's existence.
   Secondly, there's the notion that the media should above all be about reporting the event, not shaping it. To do that, they would report only the weather, traffic, turnout and any unexpected incidents at polling places during voting hours on election day.
   Contrast that with MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews' exhibition this morning. Speaking of California Gov. Gray Davis, Matthews said, in his typically breathless, machine-gun-burst style: . . . that's why so many people can't stand him; that's why so many people hate* him . . . "he's a black hole for charisma . . ." and on and on in that way. (The word "hate" is marked because Matthews was spewing so much invective so fast that we're not sure of the exact word he used. We are sure "hate" accurately reflects the tone and sense of his remarks.)
   Like all cable media talk shows, Matthews' content-hungry "Hardball" has gorged on the California recall for weeks, all the while condescendingly characterizing it as an unseemly circus sideshow of a political event. Which begs the question: Where in this does cause leave off and effect kick in?
   CNN, mercifully free of anything quite like Matthews' diarrhea-of-the-mouth bloviating, showed as part of its coverage a night-before interview with Davis conducted by Judy Woodruff. Not surprisingly, it was a good, thoughtful piece, albeit Davis got to make something of a pitch in the middle of it. For balance, a longtime ally of Arnold Schwarzenegger was given air time, as was a Republican strategist.
   Fox News, a de facto operating extension of the Republican National Committee, had Brit Hume and Tony Snow giving details of late polls from a jubilant Schwarzenegger camp showing that challenger winning easily. They did this in such a way as to make poll results sound as much like election results as possible. Next comes an interview with Republican strategist Ken Kachigian, who said he's hearing nothing but gloom, doom and defeat from his friends on the Democratic side.
   Meanwhile, back at MSNBC, Pat Buchanan was chatting up San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and pushing speculation Davis people are planning a recall drive of their own if Schwarzenegger wins. And so it goes.

   Could all this noise skew results of the election, maybe discouraging potential Davis voters who might decide there's no hope, so why bother to even go to the polls? Do cable media organizations stand to gain by keeping this pot boiling as hot as possible for as long as possible? Should these things be factors in determining who gets to govern 35 million people?
   For all the talk-show talk and all the news segments with little more to offer than the talk shows' speculation, one thing is clear: What's been going on in California is no more of an unseemly circus than what's been coming out of the cable news/talk operations on election day.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:45 PM

 
Economist sees Bush satisfied with status quo
   With the governance equivalent of The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight in full charge of the U.S. economy, heaven help us all, it's all the more worthwhile to read some good sense made of the subject.
   Professor James Galbraith teaches at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin, and is a senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute. For a concise, thought-provoking examination of the big picture Galbraith sees in the third year of Bush 43's presidency, read "Why Bush Likes a Bad Economy," at The Progressive Web site.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:27 PM

 
Patrons see Bush as high-yield investment
   A relative few Americans are very comfortable with a situation in which the rich get richer at an unprecedented rate while nearly 3 million others go jobless, millions more struggle to get by underemployed and millions more who still have jobs find they're trapped on a down escalator where real wages and key benefits are concerned, with no job security at all.
   This situation, intolerable already, is in perfect trim to get steadily, inexorably worse. What's more, with everything to gain and little to lose, those satisfied with the status quo are donating generously to keep America on its present course. Clearly, they have the best government their money can buy and intend to keep it that way.
   From a July 3 ABCnews.com article, "Dubya's Money Men" by Michael S. James: "Political observers believe Bush's network of fund-raisers, along with campaign-finance rule changes that work strongly in Bush's favor, will likely allow the president to overwhelm any Democratic opponent with an unchallenged flurry of spending.
   " . . . political observers see the Bush fund-raising machine in a league of its own. Some expect the Bush campaign may raise a record $200 million, largely through individual `hard money' donations, before the election is through. The total would approximately double the Bush campaign's record fund-raising total for the 2000 election."
   Meanwhile, 10 presidential primary candidates divide the smaller, overall less-affluent, field of potential donors who are greatly dissatisfied with America's situation and future outlook. Obviously, it's important for the Democratic field to narrow drastically and soon. It's equally important for those who do not make the cut and their supporters to get behind the one or two primary candidates who emerge as the most supported. That means putting aside hostilities built up along the campaign trail, overcoming personality differences and really giving the top Democratic contender(s) good will, time and money.
   One of the best possible outcomes of the 2004 election, in addition to night/day change in administrations and national policy, would be for the U.S. electorate to demonstrate it will make sense of issues, will opt for sound leadership, and will vote accordingly -- not just respond to perceived image, to glossy, purchased hype, to high-powered spin and saturation attack ads.
   What's more, if the next president is to be effective in turning around this country's economy, self-destructive free trade policies, anti-labor and anti-environment policies, he's going to have to win with coattails, making possible a change in the balance of power in at least one, and preferably both, houses of Congress.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:11 PM

 
Weekend whacks — and there's no shortage
Well, folks, this week's been good for stacks of whacks, even beyond those solidly earned — and already awarded — to Rush Limbaugh (see below). From Texas to Boston to California, the economy may be down but screwing up is a growth industry. So, grab a paddle and let's get it on.

Deep doo-doo in the heart of Texas
    Those attending a Sept. 26 football game at Dallas' Hillcrest High School were treated to a halftime program by the Paris, Texas, high school marching band. The program titled, "Visions of World War II," was billed as an "attempt to factually portray the history of World War II, triumph of good over evil, and to honor our veterans for their sacrifices in ensuring freedom throughout the world." Music of several countries was played while the flags of those countries were waved. So far so good.
    Things went very wrong when spectators were treated to the band's rendition of Deutschland Uber Alles, a Nazi anthem and Hitler favorite, while the flag of Nazi Germany was waved. The crowd reacted with angry booing, to their credit, and began throwing things, to their discredit.
    To make matter worse, this regrettable spectacle took place on Rosh Hashanah, the start of the Jewish new year, an especially holy day for people of the Jewish faith.
    Band director — or is it obergruppenfuhrer? — Charles Grissom later apologized for his error in judgment and the Paris School District formally apologized to the Dallas high school and school district.
    Oh!pinion sincerely hopes both school systems used the incident as a teaching moment, to make clear that World War II was not a conflict among equally honorable combatant nations that were simply vying for contested territory. Nazi Germany was about exterminating an entire race of people, along with significant minority populations, not to mention large-scale enslavement of others. It was about systematic state terrorism practiced on a scale and with a cruel thoroughness never before seen in history. And those are just the briefest of damning details.

Those aren't Boston baked beans, they're mouth droppings
    Last Monday, a Boston radio sports show co-host likened inner-city ki