"So, bottom line, in Nordhaus' best-case scenario, cheap oil and lower prices at the pump cancel out some of the war costs, and you get a tab of about $100 billion, some $1,000 per U.S. household.

The worse-case, higher prices at home, more spending abroad, a total of roughly $2 trillion -- $20,000 per U.S. household over a decade."

• "We have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror."
• "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied."
• Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes."
• The cause of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector, and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed."
• And I've [not] made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully that as a result of the pressure that we have placed--and others have placed--that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country."

For Bush, the problem's personal--it's Saddam. In the course of the news conference, the Presdident used the word Saddam or Saddam Hussein 39 times; add to that 6 times he referred to him not by name (though personally) as "dictator." Throughout the entire news conference, the word "Iraq" or its variants only appeared 36 times together--and many of these referred to the "Iraqi people" and so on.

I think it's very clear, too--despite the President's objections about words--what's going on in his mind in the last comment I quoted (if you overlook the mangled first sentence). Despite all the talk of disarmament, the danger of the Iraqi regime's weapons and their availability on the open terrorist market, the President will be satisfied if Saddam (not Iraq) disarms or leaves the country. Leaves the country? That's not consisent with anything we've heard from the White House. But it is consistent with getting back at Saddam personally. Which, when you read the transcript, is the unmistakeable tell the President gives about his real intention.

"The demand for American troops to stay comes as a shock to United States officials, who had assumed they were responding to commonly held Korean thinking by pushing ahead with plans for shifting the American military posture."

For my money, this is WAY bigger news. The United States was prepared to remove troops from South Korea, and they hadn't even asked South Korea? Good LORD, that's yet another massive diplomatic failure.

But I digress. The point here is Google, right? Care to guess how many related articles were listed on this story as of 10:13 am Pacific Time? Twelve.

(Meanwhile, a neighbor of an uncle of Osama bin Laden's gardner has heard from a Pakistani official that Osama bin Laden's sons may have been captured, the Grover Cleveland Junior High School Gazette of Grand Rapids is reporting.)

A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush released a list of the world's most-wanted terrorists. There were 22 names on it. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was No. 22.

And the list wasn't alphabetical.

Interestingly, information on the FBI website still seems to support this. There's Mohammed, way down at the bottom of the page (Osama's in the top left corner). Also confirmed here and here (though he's 18 of 22). Check out the links because they may move him up to cohere with White House reports.

"Bush's proposal is vague on many points, including the terms for insurers. But Tricia Neuman, a vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said the plan would have to provide a windfall for the companies, "or too few would participate for the plan to work."

The analysts said drug companies also could be expected to reap huge profits under Bush's approach. More senior citizens would be able to afford prescriptions, and doctors could be expected to write more of them. And drug company executives fear that federal price controls on their products would be the result if a drug benefit were provided within Medicare.

Several administration officials said the drug and insurance businesses would profit from Bush's plan, which is estimated to cost $400 billion over 10 years."

But wait, that's not all. Karl's scored a trifecta!

If Bush's proposal were enacted, it could provide a high-profile benefit for industries that are reliable donors to Republican candidates and committees. The Center for Responsive Politics said that for the past two elections combined, pharmaceutical manufacturers gave $30 million to Republicans and $8 million to Democrats.

| link |

"The federal deficit is growing much more quickly than expected, even before Congress takes up President Bush's tax-cutting proposals and without factoring in the costs of a war in Iraq, Congressional analysts have concluded."

'The tax code is not performing, and it's making a mess out of the budget, said Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa, chairman of the House Budget Committee. 'Unless we get the economy growing again, we're going to keep getting these kinds of corrections.'"

| link |

(Oregonians could enlighten him about how this process works.)

"Every religion is welcomed in our country; all are practiced here. Many of our good citizens profess no religion at all. Our country has never had an official faith. Yet we have all been witnesses these past 21 weeks to the power of faith to see us through the hurt and loss that has come to our country."

Also innocuous is Tennessee Representative Zach Wamp's comments on his congress website about the breakfast:

"In 1953, President Eisenhower attended the first combined Prayer Breakfast, and Presidents have participated every year since. The National Prayer Breakfast was President George W. Bush's first major appearance since being sworn in on January 20th."

But it's not all quite so ecumenical as that. Cruising around the official sponsor's website, you find some interesting commentary:

"The acceptability of Prayer Breakfasts is one of the most viable strategies for reaching into community life and impacting business and governmental leaders. Leaders desire to come, get involved, and experience a fresh new reminder of our country’s Spiritual Heritage.

• The GOAL of Prayer Breakfast Network is to reach every city possible across the USA through a well-planned Prayer Breakfast.

• Our PURPOSE is to reach leaders for Jesus Christ.

• Our OBJECTIVE is “Pray for all in authority, that we might lead Godly lives.”

• Our STRATEGY is to use Prayer Breakfasts. The acceptance of Prayer Breakfasts is one of the most viable strategies for reaching into community life and impacting business and governmental leaders. Leaders desire to come, get involved, and experience a fresh new reminder of our country’s Spiritual Heritage."

And just to bring it all back home, Rep. Wamp mentions a little bit more that hints at the Family (in nice, separation-of-church-and-state prose):

"The Senate and the House of Representatives each continue to hold their own weekly breakfast to discuss problems, both personal and national, in the spirit of fellowship and prayer. Members meet in the spirit of peace and in the Spirit of Christ, but they need not be Christians. All members are welcome, regardless of their political or religious affiliation; sincere seekers, as well as the deeply devoted, all on a common journey to understand the place of faith in their lives and to discover how to love God and one’s fellow man."

And no more promises about not printing anything anymore.

"it's not that there are groups who gather with the express aim of exploring the means by which they can gain influence and political power. This has happened since the beginning of human history. In our county it is our right, if not our duty, to so act to protect the values that WE cherish--so that our views are not trampled upon.

It's an interesting point--one I've been pushing around all weekend. Intuitively, I felt it missed a basic point, but on the face of it, the statement seems the essence of democracy: individuals voicing their opinions about the nature of governance. I was hung up on this secrecy thing it occured to me, because obviously the Christians have enormous governmental influence, and I never consdered this anything but good politics. Certainly consistent with the constitution. But the secrecy...

It starts from the obvious question: why would they need to be secretive? George Bush doesn't hide his own beliefs: he tells people what they are and he endorses PACs, media, and nonprofits who are specifically politico-religious. So what's the advantage of secrecy?

One thought is that the Family's ideas don't make good PR and so better to keep them on the hush. (According to Sharlet, they have a list of statements in a document called "Thoughts and Principles of the Family" that are not mainstream: "We recognize the place and responsibility of national secular leaders in the work of advancing His kingdom." "We desire to see a leadership led by God--leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit.") But still, we don't descriminate against a speaker because we don't like his speech: the Family has the right to espouse this view.

But one could argue that the secrecy is there to protect not constitutionally-protected speech, but the implementation of unconstitutional actions described in the speech. And this is what I fear. Any third-party involved in politics is bound by disclosure laws--whether it's the oil industry, labor, or religious groups. This is part of the protection that ensures that the three wings of government maintain the checks and balances that are critical to a healthy democracy. The Family's raison d'etra, however, is exactly the opposite. It wishes to harness the power of the government to further the ends of Christ. Its strategy, it seems clear from the article, is to work in secrecy to recruit and convert politicians who will in turn pack the courts and pass laws favorable to Christian values and work with governments who agree to this course.

Why are we planning to invade Iraq? George Bush has told us nothing of a religious war. But if the agenda of the Family were to hold sway across all halls of US power, it might well be. (And to Listening, who is leery about my conspiracy-coddling, let me say that I'm not asserting this.)

We live in a democracy, which means there needs to be safeguards against the tyranny of the many. If these are dismantled for the sole reason of establishing the tyranny, it's clearly a constitutional breach. Call me a canary in the coal mine, but I think it's not too soon to start asking hard questions about what appears to this blogger to be an establishment of religion.

“In the process of introducing powerful men to Jesus, the Family has managed to effect a number of behind-the-scenes acts of diplomacy. In 1978, it secretly helped the Carter Administration organize a world-wide call to prayer with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and more recently, in 2001, it brought together the warring leaders of Congo and Rwanda for a clandestine meeting, leading to the two sides’ eventual peace accord last July. Such benign acts appear to be the exception to the rule. During the 1960s, the Family forged relationships between the US government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa’s postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century’s most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the US government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustao Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. ‘We work with power where we can,’ the Family’s leader, Doug Coe, says, ‘build new power where we can’t.’”

Those directly linked to the Family include senators Nickles, Grassley, Domenici, Ensign, Inhofe, Nelson, and Burns, and representatives DeMint, Wolf, Pitts, Wamp, and Stupak. And George W? Sharlet doesn’t identify him directly, but he gets pretty close:

”At the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast [a Family-sponsored event in Washington] George H. W. Bush praised Doug Coe for what he described as ‘quiet diplomacy, I wouldn’t say secret diplomacy,’ as an ‘ambassador of faith.’”

So I think Preacher George has a little backing here. What’s really alarming isn’t just that this is a secret society, nor that it pushes fundamentalist Christian views. What bothers me is that fundamentalism of any stripe does not consider itself beholden to any authority on earth.

Sharlet describes a scene at the Family’s residential house in Virginia (where he was, for a time, a resident) in which Ed Meese, conservative Christian businessmen, and politicians were meeting with ambassadors from Rwanda and Benin. A former senator told the Rwandan that participants in the Rwanda-Congo war should “stop worrying about who will get diamonds and oil and focus on who will get Jesus.” When the Rwandan responded with incredulity, the Family smiled, rubbed their bibles and murmured “Thank you, Jesus.” They weren’t worried about the war in Africa—it was a terestrial concern. They pitied the poor Rwandan who had not the faith in something larger than the small little events on planet Earth. And so they gave thanks to Christ for their own certainty that things like wars were insignificant. That kind of belief may be a wonderful thing in some contexts—but it’s patently anti-democratic, and to tell the truth, gives me the heebie-jeebies.

The whole article is a must-read, but you’ll have to go to a newsstand, because it’s not online. The best six bucks you’ll spend. (Oh, and there’s an argument about why the war is futile, as an added bonus.)

QUESTION: Second question. You have admitted that Saddam may attack our invading troops with chemical and biological weapons. On Sunday, 60 Minutes reported that many military leaders believe that our troops have neither the proper equipment, nor the proper training to survive a chemical and biological attack. The report quoted an Army audit that found that 62 percent of the gas masks examined "had critical defects that could cause leakage." Now, since 100,000 U.S. veterans in the Gulf War may still be suffering from Gulf War Syndrome -- many of them believe that this is from inhaling toxic fumes. Tens of thousands of them were exposed to sarin gas when we bombed a Iraqi munitions dump -- how can the President send troops into harm's way knowing that they are not adequately protected from a chemical and biological attack?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has full faith and confidence in the Department of Defense and in their planning for the worst. And I think premised in your question is the fact that perhaps you now are coming around to the realization that Iraq does indeed have weapons of mass destruction and a willingness to use them. It's not anybody in the United States government who has admitted -- in your word -- that Iraq might use these weapons; it's that Iraq has such weapons, they've used them in the past. And hence the danger not only to the troops who are in the region, but to people abroad, people in the United States, and friends and allies and civilians in the region who remain vulnerable to Saddam using such weapons on innocents.

I can't put my finger on it. Wait, is it...is it.... Oh right, coherence.

The Iraqis have WMD and a willingness to use them, we have defective equipment, and there are five million civilians in Baghdad. And so the answer is to invade Iraq. Is there any question in which Ari will not find a justification for invading Iraq?

“Webster’s dictionary defines [liberalism] as ‘a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties….’ I believe the most practical and hopeful compass by which to guide the American ship of state is the philosophy of liberalism. Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiative taken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, just to name a few.”

Based on a mission statement of this sort, the Democratic Party should follow it up with a clear vision based on the values of the mission, policy area by policy area, making the case in each one that the progress of society depends on the belief of the essential goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual. I’d like to expand on these issues to include a broad range of policy areas. By way of example, though, here are two:

Foreign Policy
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has moved from a world of democratic-socialist detente and entered a era of multilateral interdependence. It is a hopeful era in geopolitics, for it offers the possibility of international cooperation based on world good rather than national interest. But it is also a dangerous time, underscored so clearly by the attacks of 9/11. The old system of national might is no longer useful in this chaotic new world. The United States should set the example to the world that democracy is the hope not just of nations, but of the world. It should seek to strengthen international cooperation and dialogue, working through cooperative bodies like NATO and the UN. It can ensure it’s own safety only through the recognition that while any nation is unsafe, all nations are unsafe. This is not an issue of national interest, it is the world’s interest.

To that end, foreign policy should emphasize cooperation. The US should also tailor policy that will encourage stability: recognizing that chaos, poverty, and instability is a breeding ground for violence, it should support efforts to reduce those elements and encourage broader freedoms. The Democratic Party will sponsor initiatives to aid foreign countries by: offering direct aid; offering incentives to encourage partnerships between foreign and domestic corporations; supporting international agreements to aid foreign countries; take the lead in resolving the crisis in Israel; encourage international trade agreements that benefit the economies of foreign countries.

The Environment
It is the right of every American to have clean air and water. Furthermore, it is the duty of this country to protect its natural resources for our immediate benefit and for the benefit of future generations. Ample scientific data exist to inform many environmental policies; the Democratic Party will rely first on these data in determining policy. The Democratic Party will also seek to build bridges between natural partners in land-management issues: environmentalists, ecologists, sportsmen, farmers, and ranchers.

With regard to current environmental issues, the Democratic Party supports: strengthening the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Air and Water Acts; immediate adoption of the Kyoto accords; protection of forest land, including setting aside ancient forests and prohibiting commercial logging on national forest land, but also encouraging the healthy harvest of timber through incentives; continued support of the Endangered Species Act. The Democratic Party opposes drilling in ANWR.

Furthermore, recognizing that sustainability is the only sound course to preserve our natural resources, the Democratic Party will propose legislation to: fund development of alternative-fuel technology; fund further research and development of reusable resources, recycling, and alternative energy. This funding could be creative use of public/private partnerships, which would have the ultimate benefit of creating new technologies and new industries, positioning the United States to take the lead and reap the benefit.


These are just suggestions, of course. They’re off-the-top-of-my head ideas. Certainly there are bigger brains out there who’ve devoted far more thought to this. It’s a dialogue that’s long overdue, and it’s a dialogue that must happen if the Democratic Party is ever to regain relevance in national policymaking.

In reporting on Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation to the United Nations Security Council, many journalists treated allegations made by Powell as though they were facts. Reporters at several major outlets neglected to observe the journalistic rule of prefacing unverified assertions with words like "claimed" or "alleged."

This is of particular concern given that over the last several months, many Bush administration claims about alleged Iraqi weapons facilities have failed to hold up to inspection. In many cases, the failed claims-- like Powell's claims at the U.N.-- have cited U.S. and British intelligence sources and have included satellite photos as evidence.

Catching the administration in a lie has become sort of a parlor game for liberals. So if you missed the report, you can impress your friends with some of the new ones FAIR uncovered. (Go to the article for specifics.)

FAIR has another report that reiterates Colin Powell's somewhat checkered history with the truth. It is noteworthy to mention these facts (which include arms shipments during Iran-Contra, civilian killings in Nicaragua, and the Panama invasion) because the main reason Powell was selected to float the US claims was because of his credibility. The Bush administration felt it needed someone who was pretty much untouchable in the media so that tricky questions about the claims wouldn't be asked. (A fun game is to imagine Rumsfeld behind the mic, presenting the same "evidence." Doesn't seem quite as credible, does it?)

"One measure would create a program to allow the timber industry to harvest prime trees in exchange for their help in managing the forests. Others focus on the Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska, the largest national forest and the one with the most undeveloped land.

"Both the Tongass and the Chugach National Forest, also in Alaska, would be exempted from a nationwide policy banning road building in undeveloped national forest areas. The Forest Service would have to let the industry cut enough timber sales in the Tongass to satisfy market demand. And the forest management plan would be sheltered from legal challenges.

"Together these efforts are designed to provide a steady supply of old-growth trees from the Tongass without interruptions that have become common as a result of lawsuits filed by environmental groups.

It sounds like horrible public policy--designed to benefit timber industry executives in the short run at the expense of forests and the logging industry. There's nothing in the provision that encourages timber companies to develop sustainable harvest techniques, nor money that could be used to convert mills to harvesting second growth.

It's a slimy enough maneuver that even a group of Republicans said it "would seriously undermine the legislative process to add new provisions behind closed doors and at the very last minute to a must-pass spending bill that is already four months old."

(As an aside, a troubling pattern in journalism is to cite "environmentalists" as a kind of collective, often without attributing a single quote to a particular group. Environmentalists span the range from the pro-violence Earth Liberation Front to Sport-Ute drivin Sierra Clubbers. This article eventually cites two sources, but it's late in the article. As part of their agenda in the language wars, Republicans have successfully demonized the word "environmentalists." Journalists should hold themselves to a higher standard here and not paint all opponents of radical, rape-the-forests legislation with the same brush.)

“This country is blessed with virtually millions of good-hearted volunteers who work daily miracles in the lives of their fellow citizens. And today I ask our religious broadcasters, those who reach into every corner of America, to rally the armies of compassion so that we can change America one heart, one soul at a time.”

That was Preacher George yesterday, mustering the troops. It was a speech the White House innocuously labeled “President Bush Discussess Faith-Based Initiative in Tennessee,” delivered at the ecumenical-sounding National Religious Broadcasters convention. It was neither an innocuous speech nor an ecumnenical group: you had to look no further than the “Advancing Christian Communications” backdrop behind Preacher George to understand the audience.

If the State of the Union address introduced the Preacher to the world, this speech clarified his intention. It was less a political speech than it was an assurance that religion had finally been institutionalized as politics. Think I’m going too far here? Listen:

“The American people have deep and diverse religious beliefs, truly one of the great strengths of our country. And the faith of our citizens is seeing us through some demanding times. We're being challenged. We're meeting those challenges because of our faith.”

The country is able to meet its challenges how? Through its constitutional democracy and laws? No. “We’re meeting those challenges because of our faith.” The President appears to be a deeply religious man, and he does not see a distinction between the goodness of religious belief and the goodness of a strong government. It’s a theme he repeated throughout the speech. More:

“Government, of course, must be involved and will be involved. We just reformed our welfare in America and we've helped a lot of people. Yet, even as we work to improve the welfare laws, we know that welfare policy will not solve the deepest problems of the spirit.”

“I welcome faith. I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems.”

After the last sentence, Bush paused to tip his hat to the constitution: “I understand there's a -- that government must not and will not endorse a religious creed, or directly fund religious worship. That's obviously not a role of government, and that's not what we're talking about here.”

But he apparently does not understand this, because a few paragraphs later, he said:

“I continue to work with members of Congress of both political parties to enact faith-based legislation to encourage more charitable giving, so we're more likely able to rally the armies of compassion.”

And a little later:

“As well, I am concerned about those who are addicted to drugs, who fight for their very lives and survival against addiction. I believe that we can take a approach that focuses on the addict, give that person a voucher to be redeemed at any program that he or she chooses. Especially those programs that have got the capacity to change heart and, therefore, change habit.”

What he’s saying here is that it’s not really effective for government to meet the needs of citizens. “Compassion” in this case is more than simple material aid: it’s the Christian compassion that can “change heart and, therefore, change habit.” So even while his new budget cuts programs to the poor, he wishes to transfer these to “faith-based” providers. Why? Because the President isn’t paying lip service to his faith: he believes the only way to affect change is through religious ministration.

But that’s not all. Oh my, no. If this speech characterized Preacher George as a compassionate benefactor, it also showed his vengeful side as well.

“As I said in my State of the Union, liberty is not America's gift to the world. Liberty is God's gift to every human being in the world. America has great challenges; challenges at home and challenges abroad. We're called to extend the promise of this country into the lives of every citizen who lives here. We're called to defend our nation and to lead the world to peace, and we will meet both challenges with courage and with confidence.”

George W. Bush, the leader of the US, calls upon himself to defend the nation and lead the world to peace. He does not believe liberty is the US’s gift—it is God’s gift. America is just the enforcer of this truth. For the President, this is the mission statement. Thus, the real reason we have the pre-emption doctrine is revealed:

“If war is forced upon us -- and I say "forced upon us," because use of the military is not my first choice. I hug the mothers and the widows of those who may have lost their life in the name of peace and freedom. I take my responsibilities incredibly seriously about the commitment of troops. . . . We will try in every way we can to spare innocent life. The people of Iraq are not our enemies.”

Onward Christian soldier. Let them know of your compassion. Let them see the bright, violent light of your goodness. Clear away the evil, restore the purity:

“America views the Iraqi people as human beings who have suffered long enough under this tyrant. And the Iraqi people can be certain of this: the United States is committed to helping them build a better future. If conflict occurs, we'll bring Iraq food and medicine and supplies and, most importantly, freedom.”

This was an alarming speech. We’re not going to hear much about it because, for one, most Americans are Christian. Those who aren’t (particularly those in the media) will dismiss it as rhetoric. But it’s far from rhetoric: it’s a worldview that dictates who receives beneficence, and who receives wrath. We’re about to go to war not because war is justified but because the President of the United States regards Saddam Hussein as evil.