Friday, March 07, 2003

Another Casualty of War: Decency Yes, don’t mistake the fact that Bush’s Iraq obsession has weakened America. It has created a less stable world, helped encourage others like the dictator in N. Korea to pursue nukes, enraged the Arab and Muslim communities and split NATO (something the USSR could never do).   And it could well lead to divisions here at home; not just along pro- or anti-war lines but in terms of ethnic conflict orchestrated by the Bushies and their allies in the GOP and media.   I guess along with adopting the Orwellian “war is peace” mantra the Bushies have also decided to embrace “divided we stand.”   PS why isn’t the rest of the media talking about this?   Let Them Hate as Long as They Fear By PAUL KRUGMAN “Why does our president condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials? Has 'oderint dum metuant' really become our motto?" So reads the resignation letter of John Brady Kiesling, a career diplomat who recently left the Foreign Service in protest against Bush administration policy.   "Oderint dum metuant" translates, roughly, as "let them hate as long as they fear." It was a favorite saying of the emperor Caligula, and may seem over the top as a description of current U.S. policy. But this week's crisis in U.S.-Mexican relations — a crisis that has been almost ignored north of the border — suggests that it is a perfect description of George Bush's attitude toward the world.   Mexico is an enormously important ally, not just because of our common border, but also because of its special role as a showcase for American ideals. For a century and a half Mexico has — often with good reason — seen its powerful neighbor as an exploiter, if not an outright enemy. Since the first Bush administration, however, the United States has made great efforts to treat Mexico as a partner, and Mexico's recent track record of economic stability and democracy is, and should be, a source of pride on both sides of the border.   But Mexico's seat on the U.N. Security Council gives it a vote on the question of Iraq — and the threats the Bush administration has made to get that vote are quickly destroying any semblance of good will.   Last week The Economist quoted an American diplomat who warned that if Mexico didn't vote for a U.S. resolution it could "stir up feelings" against Mexicans in the United States. He compared the situation to that of Japanese-Americans who were interned after 1941, and wondered whether Mexico "wants to stir the fires of jingoism during a war."   Incredible stuff, but easy to dismiss as long as the diplomat was unidentified. Then came President Bush's Monday interview with Copley News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn't vote America's way, saying, "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government" — emphasizing the word "government." He then went on to suggest that there might, however, be a reaction from other quarters, citing "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."   And Mr. Bush then said that if Mexico or other countries oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline."   These remarks went virtually unreported by the ever-protective U.S. media, but they created a political firestorm in Mexico. The White House has been frantically backpedaling, claiming that when Mr. Bush talked of "discipline" he wasn't making a threat. But in the context of the rest of the interview, it's clear that he was.   Moreover, Mr. Bush was disingenuous when he described the backlash against the French as "not stirred up by anybody except the people." On the same day that the report of his interview appeared, The Financial Times carried the headline, "Hastert Orchestrates Tirade Against the French." That's Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives. In fact, anti-French feeling has been carefully fomented by Republican officials, Rupert Murdoch's media empire and other administration allies. Can you blame Mexicans for interpreting Mr. Bush's remarks as a threat to do the same to them?   So oderint dum metuant it is. I could talk about the foolishness of such blatant bullying — or about the incredible risks, in a multiethnic, multiracial society, of even hinting that one might encourage a backlash against Hispanics. And yes, I mean Hispanics, not Mexicans: once feelings are running high, do you really think people will politely ask a brown-skinned guy with an accent whether he is a citizen or, if not, which country he comes from?   But my most intense reaction to this story isn't anger over the administration's stupidity and irresponsibility, or even dismay over the casual destruction of hard-won friendships. No, when I read an interview in which the U.S. president sounds for all the world like a B-movie villain — "You have relatives in Texas, yes?" — what I feel, above all, is shame.      5:54:01 PM

It’s Still the Economy? Well, there are still apologists out there trying to convince us that the workings of the economy are completely divorced form the trillions of dollars of incentives, taxes and expenditures made by the federal, state and local governments.   A reader writes:   My sis is doing radio sales and apparently at a training session they had a guy talking about the economy.  It seems that this guy’s take is that the economy is the economy and policy has very little to do with it.  He includes an analogy of a bull rider...just because he stayed on the bull doesn't mean he controlled the bull.  My feeling (and I appreciate your comments) is that there are some things a president cannot control (a blazing new technology and products, an unforeseen natural disaster or other disaster, etc.), there are responses that will affect the economy a great deal.    Also, I think that he is saying that the stock market is totally separate from the economy.  I do not agree with this at all.  At the very least, I think the stock market reflects the economy and at the most it controls the economy...when stock prices are low companies do not feel comfortable investing in capital equipment and R&D.   According to these self-appointed “economists” somehow a $300 billion surplus can transformed into an over $300 billion dollar deficit with causing even a ripple in the economy.   A president can either help alleviate a currency crisis (as Clinton did with Mexico) or tell the largest single element of the US economy to drop dead (as Bush did with California during the electricity crisis) and yet such an action have no effect on the larger economy… Don’t you believe it!   The analogy of the bull rider would be accurate if bull riders could stay on for eight years at a time, but then immediately fall off when radically different policies are enacted by government. Happily (for both man and bull) this is not the case.   Rather than try to construct an analogy let’s just acknowledge that the economy is a complex system driven by multiple inputs. Economics represents this complexity by abstracting and simplifying the model. Yet no matter how complex or simple you may think the economy is the basic fact is that in the modern world the single most consistent and powerful actor is the government. This does not make the relationship between government policy and the economy a simple one of cause-and-effect, but it does mean that of all the factors under our control, government policy is the single most powerful.   Hence although government may not be able to dictate economic circumstances (and neither can the stock market), it can ameliorate, aggravate, encourage or extend good economic times as well as the bad. That’s what we have seen the last ten years – the difference between priorities and execution between policies designed to encourage a healthy economy for all (balanced budgets, tax fairness, full employment, investment both in business and education) and those designed to cater to the special interests of a few (raiding social security to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, protecting energy companies – and screwing California, fiscal austerity for schools).   It is only those ideologues who have a particular axe to grind (typically those flacking for the wealthy and powerful) who want you to believe otherwise, because when the government doesn’t actively involve itself in the economy that enhances the power of the remaining economic interests who consistently do involve themselves in the economy – but only for their own personal benefit, not to benefit the nation as a whole.   Now why a company would have a guy basically pushing the GOP party line at job training? For exactly the reason outlined above. And why would the self proclaimed "Will Rogers of conomics," Dr. Gene Stanaland mislead you? Well, because he’s paid to – apparently between $5,000 and $10,000 a pop. Just do a google search and see how many “speaker’s bureaus” he’s listed with… (BTW due to time constraints I will address the specifics of his lecture in a later post.)   Folks like him are paid and paid well. Perhaps they believe some of what they’re selling, perhaps they just think that’s what you should believe. Want to see some of the people doing the paying for such services? Some of these folks - like this guy - are flacks for the corporate suits, such as those at: American Savings Bank, Coldwell Banker, General Dynamics, Hughes Aircraft Company, Toro Company, Union Carbide, General Electric, Burlington Industries, Georgia Pacific, DuPont, Kraft, and Dow Chemical. Others are on permanent retainer at “think-tanks” funded by these folks here. Believe me they do not have your best interests at heart.   (BTW this is highly insulting to the legacy of Will Rogers. He was not the member of any organized party – he was a Democrat.)   I’ve talked in the past about why the Clinton years were good for economics and why Junior’s ideologically driven policies have contributed mightily to lousing things up. Yes, the economy began to slow down before Junior became resident, but then if you’re a savvy investor and you see the policy writing on the wall, when do you decide to get out… at the last possible second? Plus, it is not as if the economy did not throw Clinton plenty of curves, he just handled them far better.   Junior on the other hand has done just about everything to make things worse. The high tech sector goes through a shake-down, so he green-lights his pals schemes in energy to concoct an energy crisis/shake-down that not only drove costs through the roof, it led to blackouts! The economy was sluggish so he OKs a tariff on steel – thereby driving up the price for manufacturers throughout the entire nation. The economy slows during the last half of 2000 – so he and Cheney “talk it down” spooking investors with their discussions of an “imminent recession” and the need for it to “correct the excesses.”   Well my friends, there is a great big difference between a bubble bursting and a major depression and it takes more than luck to turn one into the other – but Junior has managed to do it!   I could go on and on, but for now I’ll recommend the following book. Begala spends a good deal of time discussing Junior’s economic miscues (and the corrupt reasons behind them) more so then is let on by the publisher’s blurb below. Check it out:     It's Still the Economy, Stupid: George W. Bush, America's CEO Paul Begala   George W. Bush was our first POTUS with an MBA, from Harvard no less. He told us he'd run America like a business. He just didn't tell us it was Enron. He inherited the largest budget surplus in history; turned it into a massive deficit. He inherited the strongest economy in history; in just two years investors have lost $7 trillion. He inherited the lowest unemployment in a generation; 1.8 million people who had jobs when Dubya was inaugurated are unemployed today. He inherited a social security trust fund that was bulging - and getting ready for the Baby Boomers' retirement; now that trust fund is being spent on the day-to-day expenses of the federal government. All of this is a shock. We figured if Dubya would be good at anything it was inheriting things.   Reprising a theme of his bestselling "IS OUR CHILDREN LEARNING", fellow Texan-turned Washington insider Paul Begala turns his laser-beam focus on Bush, Inc. Begala investigates how a failed businessman was somehow made rich; how a minority investor was made managing partner of the Texas Rangers; how his daddy's SEC found he improperly disclosed his sale of Harken stock but decided not to do anything about it; how much Dick Cheney knew about Halliburton's accounting woes; and much, much more. But this isn't just about a guy making a small fortune off an oil company gone bad. Begala also looks at depth of corporate influence on the environment, education, trade policy, health and safety regulations, Social Security and many other aspects of American life.   Once again, Begala has written a devastating critique of the Bush brand of politics, and done it with biting humor and meticulous research. 5:41:28 PM

Krauthammer: Appeaser and Apologist Yes, hared to believe but now that “principled” “conservative” (read: boot-licking Bush lackey) Charles Krauthammer is explaining why the appeasement of North Korea is not the result of Bush bumbling but rather a carefully calculated strategy… yeah, and I have a bridge for sale as well…   The sheer audacity of attempting to pretend that this regime’s North Korea “policy” is anything but a complete and utter disaster is breath-taking – but then to praise it?!?   The “Big Lie” approach to propaganda is alive and well.   I’ll interject to his lies in red.   A Place for Temporary Appeasement By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 7, 2003; Page A33   It's only March, but we can safely award the 2003 trophy for most risible editorial pronouncement.   I’m sorry, that should be opinion, not editorial pronouncement – this one to be exact.   It goes, as usual, to the New York Times,   Of course it is usual for the NY Times because those folks living in the epicenter of the terrorist attacks are so “out of touch,” so insulated from real life. Not like the punditeers who exist within the beltway, like a certain Dr…   whose Tuesday editorial calling for the Bush administration to negotiate directly with North Korea (the United States has refused to do so until North Korea stops its nuclear program) ends with the following pronunciamento: "The place for insisting that bad North Korean behavior will not be rewarded is at the negotiating table."   Yes, hard to believe, but the NY Times actually believes in holding North Korea accountable for its “bad behavior.” Yes, and they believe that one can do that and still conduct diplomacy at the same time – unlike Dr. Kraut and Bush, who apparently believe that to engage in diplomacy somehow rewards North Korea?!?   Read that again and savor it. This is transparently, definitionally wrong.   In other words, he can’t show you logically why this position is wrong so he is going to try word games to define it as somehow “wrong.”   (BTW there is no such word as “definitionally” – does that make the sentence in which it occurs wrong by definition?)   The negotiating table is a place where you give and take. The one place where you cannot insist that bad behavior will not be rewarded is the negotiating table -- or there would be no negotiations.   Well, actually the “negotiating table,” - or perhaps the better term “diplomatic communications” - is precisely where you register dissatisfaction with another nation’s behavior. How else do you do it - by reading minds?   I can just hear Dr. K uttering a high-pitched, mincing “You should KNOW why I’m upset” while he turns his back and tosses his nose into the air. That’ll get results… yup, OK, suuuure.   The battleship Missouri was not a negotiating table. On the Missouri, we made unconditional demands.   Well actually those “uncompromising demands” were negotiated beforehand (and, ahem, compromised so that Japan could maintain the emperor) so that we could just have a signing ceremony on the Missouri.   Note to Dr. K: there is a big difference between negotiations and a ceremony.   At a negotiating table, you make concessions. That's what negotiations mean.   Well not necessarily – sometimes it means you find out if there is any common ground, or sometimes it means you send the other folks a message. That is why we shouldn’t try and warp this discussion by constantly referring to “negotiations” but rather discuss the establishment of a diplomatic process first…   …but then that would disrupt Dr. K’s rhetorical strategy of trying to depict the situation as one of either no communication or concessions. If he can make the “or” as unpalatable as possible perhaps he can convince the less rhetorically practiced to accept the “either” as the only real option – which it is not, of course.   Indeed, the very act of acceding to Pyongyang's demand for bilateral talks is a major concession.   See what I mean – now he’s trying to construe even the attempt at diplomatic contact as a “concession.” He doesn’t explain why of course… simply because he can’t.   The fact is that the Bushies don’t have a strategy to deal with North Korea – shocking as that sounds – and so they’d rather not talk to the North Koreans because then it would become patently obvious to everyone that they don’t have a plan. Plus they don’t want any attention to be drawn to North Korea because (1) it is a major embarrassment and (2) it shows up their Iraq policy for what it is, an opportunistic attempt to knock off an easy mark, grab some oil, and to have a “splendid little war” for domestic consumption and “rally round the flag” jingoism as the means for ’04 election.   Sometimes appeasement is the only available policy. While advocating concessions, however, one mustn't pretend that nothing is being given away. The time for appeasement may indeed have arrived, but it is too dangerous and important a policy to be carried out amid fantasies.   Actually appeasement is never a good policy – particularly with dictators on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons. The above paragraph is utter nonsense.   If we agree to direct talks with North Korea, it will be for the purpose not of lecturing them on their international obligations but of making concessions.   Why? Is that what we’re doing in Iraq?   Should we? We need realism here, and the reality is that in the past two months, the U.S. position in Korea has dramatically deteriorated:   Well it has “deteriorated” (he makes it sound as if it just “happened” like the weather changing or something) due to a complete lack of “realism” on the part of the Bushies. North Korea has observed this behavior on the Bushies’ part and is now exploiting it. How is continuing the charade going to change the situation for the better? I’ll bet you he never tells us how…   (1)   We discovered that we have zero diplomatic leverage in the region.   Actually we didn’t “discover” this – the Bushies created it by spouting off macho rhetoric (remember the “axis of evil”?) while carrying a little stick. So the big bad rhetoric intended to impress the domestic audience – but with no policy behind it – ended up creating a situation in which North Korea felt it had nothing to lose, and upon acting found out that the Bushies were push-overs and so kept pushing…   We thought the neighborhood would help quiet the crisis by putting pressure on North Korea. South Korea, China, Russia and Japan have done nothing.   Oh, I see… it is really S. Korea, China, Russia and Japan who are to blame… for what exactly? For continuing policies that were successful when Clinton was President and US policy was not hog-tied to domestic election rhetoric?   I guess those other countries should have known the Bushies were going to f***-up (ah, the value of being able to read minds!) and done something about Bush driving N. Korea to desperate actions before the crisis?   Less than nothing. China fears the collapse of North Korea will lead to refugees and chaos and loss of South Korean investment; South Korea is afraid of war and the devastating effect it would have on Seoul.   And none of these fears are reasonable?   And despite Dr. K mentioning such fears they still remain non sequiturs when we are discussing the causes of the crisis. These fears didn’t cause the crisis – it was the fears bred in N. Korea by reckless US rhetoric  - and actions.   You don’t think the N. Koreans have been watching the impending lynching of the Iraqi nation without drawing some conclusions, do you?   The common denominator in this collective abdication is that if pressure were applied to North Korea and a war broke out today, it would be fought locally and the locals would suffer. If the war could be postponed for several years, it could then reach American soil. North Korea will then have the ability, with missiles and nuclear weapons, to attack the American homeland with devastating effect.   So now the only answer is war… just a question of when? How about not causing a crisis to begin with?   And is he seriously suggesting that N. Korea’s neighbors are happy with N. Korea developing nuclear weapons? So that it can menace the US at some unspecified later date?!?   I don’t know how things are in Dr. K’s little world but here on earth NONE of the neighbors are happy about the latest developments and neither can they solve the problem – precisely because the problem is rooted in N. Korean fears of the irrational, unpredictable and unilateral US rhetoric and behavior under the Bushies.   The neighbors, therefore, would prefer that if there is to be war, it be tomorrow. They are quite content to ignore the problem and kick the can down the road indefinitely.   Actually they would prefer no war ever. You can only “kick the can down the road” if you happen to think (as Dr. K apparently does) that war is inevitable.   An inevitable war… that’s just what Gen. MacArthur said about China when he advised nuking them.   See, wasn’t he right? NOT!   (2) The prewar hiatus in Iraq has dragged on forever. The predicted winter war never occurred. It would by now have freed the United States to turn its attention -- and its military resources -- to seriously confronting Pyongyang.   Oh I see, the problem wasn’t an irrational drive to war against Iraq… it was that we haven’t gone to war fast enough!   Ole Krauty doesn’t seem to be able to put cause and effect together.   Cause: Iraq is put on notice 12 years ago and behaves (not willingly, but it does so by and large) - but now we are going to invade anyway.   Effect: N. Korea observes this, hears rhetoric about “axis of evil” and decides if the US is not constrained by the behavior of the designated target or even world opinion – then why bother “behaving”? Go nuclear as quick as possible.   The war in Iraq, supposedly to be waged to make us safe from “weapons of mass destruction” have instead fueled the fears of dictators, leading them to aggressively pursue said weapons. Hence we are now faced with a nuclear proliferation crisis triggered by the irrational policy in Iraq and we can’t even address this crisis because we are too focused on Iraq!   How ridiculous is this situation? We pursue war to make us “safe” from nukes but instead it makes us far less safe – and we can’t do anything to protect ourselves because of our “policy that was going to make us safe”?!?   (2)   North Korea is daily escalating the brinkmanship. It is nearing the irrational.   Well you tell me what is more irrational: the nation trying to gain our attention in order to enter into diplomatic contact, or us refusing to do so and in essence saying it’s OK for them to develop nukes?   Last weekend it buzzed a routine U.S. surveillance plane with fighter jets. Meanwhile, the United States is preoccupied with Iraq.   Yup, that says it all.   The war to “make us safer” has rendered us incapable of even defending our own pilots in international airspace. Pathetic.   I wonder… what Krauty would be saying if this had happened under Pres Clinton or even Pres Gore?   We no longer have the power to fight two wars at once. And the North Koreans know it. They are pushing their advantage to the edge.   Well we could fight two wars at once, but then they’d no longer be “splendid little wars,” now would they? They would require shared sacrifice, dedicated leadership, clear objectives and… eeeek, they would threaten the Bush tax plans!   The N. Koreans have no advantage over the US military… their only advantage is over the politicos in the white house and their political calculations. And so that is why they are winning…   The issue now is not just stopping North Korea's nuclear program.   Of course not… tax plans and election ‘04 silly!   North Korea's bellicosity today is such that the reckless and erratic Kim Jong Il may want to take advantage of America's temporary weakness to either initiate or provoke war, make a quick strike south and redraw the map of Korea -- just as Egypt's shocking 1973 crossing of the Suez Canal redrew the map of the Middle East.   And who made N. Korea so desperate… and then couldn’t back up the rhetoric? And so the solution is to not even talk to them?... because that would be a “concession”?   Gee, the NY Times editorial sounds better all the time.   I think I’d rather have a diplomatic process than a second Korean war… ooops, but I forgot, then the N. Koreans would be “winning”… and that’s different from now in what way exactly?   What to do? Because of Iraq, the United States cannot contemplate a military confrontation today. Iraq has stretched our military, political and diplomatic resources to the limit.   Is Krauthammer really saying that Bush’s obsession with Iraq has weakened our nation? I thought so… just checking. So why is he supporting Bush’s policies?   The only alternative policy is to temporize, to make a series of concessions to North Korea as a way to buy time.   Wow, that sounds “great” – that Bush is a freakin’ genius!   And why not just give them some nukes while we’re at it?   And the keys to Fort Knox?   Glad the “adults” are back in charge… NOT   Just time. We will not be able to restore a semblance of deterrence to the Korean peninsula until the Iraq war is over.   Why not?   I’m waiting…   Still no explanation… because the real explanation has nothing to do with US security - but everything to do with Bush’s political priorities.   He’s going to “kick that can down the road” because it is too embarrassing and too serious. It might distract folks from the jingoism of our “splendid little war” in Iraq.   In the interim, North Korea will have to be propitiated. First with direct negotiations (which might help ascertain Kim's intentions).   My goodness – was the NY Times editorial right? Why didn’t he tell us that up front?   Then with other blandishments, economic and diplomatic.   This is craven, cowardly and wrong.   This is appeasement, but it should be temporary appeasement.   Oh, well then it’s just like the federal deficits. Here today, gone… after the Dems hold office?   The blandishments should be immediately withdrawn as soon as Iraq is over and we can marshal enough strength in the northern Pacific to credibly threaten military action. At that point, bad behavior stops being rewarded. The free ride is over, and we begin again making serious demands about North Korea's rogue nuclear program.   Yup, more macho rhetoric, no policy - will this guy ever learn?   We will have to. We cannot wait until Kim's nuclear reach extends to the American homeland. By then it will be too late. Right now, however, is too early.   Another masterful piece of misinformation and rhetorical misdirection delivered by the Kraut: we can’t address the threat of nukes now because it is too early. Why?... well our inept policy in Iraq, the policy designed to protect us from the threat of terror and nukes. (Except that it isn’t, it’s making such threats worse - just like the CIA said.)   But just you wait, we’ll show’em.   We’ll have a war and N. Korea’s by-that-time developed nukes will only be able to reach our bases in Japan and S. Korea.   Plus I’m sure given our rhetoric that they’ll never see us coming.   And since they know how reliable, truthful, and respectful of international agreements we are they would never think to make contacts with “al Qaeda-like” organizations… no, the Bushies are much too clever for them…   I feel safer appeasing dictator Kim Jong-Il already... NOT! 3:45:52 PM

Lies, Damn Lies and Headli(n)es Sometimes the worst spinning and misleading is done before you’ve even read or heard a media article – in the headline or preface to a story. For example, take the time the meida spun Al Gore’s victory under various recount scenarios as a “loss” – because he would have lost under the partial recount in only three counties that he had originally asked for. (theo only other scenario he would have lost under was no recount that the Bushies sought and received from the GOP appointees on the Supreme Court – all other recounts, no matter how the “chads” were handled resulted in a Gore victory.) The full recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have correctly awarded Florida’s electoral votes to Gore – but you would never know that without delving deep into the accompanying article.   The same kind of chicanery has been employed on behalf of Bush’s unnecessary war on Iraq. Routinely the American public has been described as “strongly behind military action” – it is only if you bother to read the poll or do the math that you find out that roughly only one third of the public (Gee, the same proportion as GOPers) stand in lockstep with the Resident. Another third is opposed and the remainder only supports action “in concert with allies” or if OKed by the UN. In other words, that final remainder – always counted as in favor of military action are in reality opposed to the current policy: war regardless of the UN or world or allies opinion. But it is never reported that way, or if it is, it is done so in such a way as to be rendered as invisible as possible.   Here’s another example below – read it, do the math, and see how they play games with the facts to minimize the damage to the Chimposter’s war propaganda.   The headline could have read “60% opposed unilateral war” – but it didn’t:   The Associated Press Two-thirds of Americans believe President Bush has already decided to go to war with Iraq, although the public is divided on whether he's sufficiently explained the need for war.   The CBS News poll taken just before Bush held a prime-time news conference to talk about the Iraq issue found that 68 percent believe he's already decided to go to war, while 26 percent said he's still considering options.   People were evenly divided when asked whether Bush has made the case for war _ 47 percent said he has and 44 percent said he hasn't. People are also evenly split on whether Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is a threat who requires immediate military action, or whether he is a threat who can be contained.   Six in 10 said they want to see the United States wait until they have the support of allies, and about the same number want this country to take allies' views into account.   There is still strong public support generally for military action against Iraq, with two-thirds backing such a move.   But people are evenly divided on the consequences of such action _ with 43 percent saying war with Iraq will be fairly quick and successful, and 50 percent saying it will be a long and costly involvement.   The telephone poll of 723 people was taken Tuesday and Wednesday and has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.   1:47:21 PM