Friday, March 21, 2003

Get your war on… …here 8:44:19 PM

Even a wing-nut or two… …has come unhinged by Bush’s recklessness and irresponsibility.   The following article ran in the Washington Times – yes, that’s right the Times, the Moonie-owned paper that is to the right of Attila the Hun.   The author – Paul Craig Roberts – has impeccable wing-nut credentials and has served stints in all the “right” think-tanks (funded by plutocrat dollars): the Olin foundation, the Hoover Institution, the Independent Institute, the Cato Institute. He has held the William E. Simon (Sec of Treasury under Nixon and dad of Bill Simon – failed wing-nut CA gubernatorial candidate) chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and worked both in congress and in the Reagan white house to implement voodoo economics (at the time called “supply-side economics”).   Yet even he is going off the reservation at the sheer incompetence/arrogance being displayed by the current regime.   The real question however isn’t why Roberts has “turned traitor” but why more so-called conservatives can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the truly ugly reality of the current situation. Is “partisanship” really more important than love of country?   (thanks to Tapped for the link)   A reckless path Paul Craig Roberts        We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.      — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, Aug. 12, 1945.            Will Bush be impeached? Will he be called a war criminal? These are not hyperbolic questions. Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America's allies.      What better illustrates Mr. Bush's isolation than the fact that he delivered his March 16 ultimatum to the U.N. concerning Iraq from an air base in the Azores, where there was no prospect for massive demonstrations against his policy. Standing with Mr. Bush against the world were Britain and Spain.      The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor. Its victim is a small Muslim nation unable to defend its own air space, much less to project power beyond its borders. If Iraqis attempt to resist invasion, they will be slaughtered.      On the eve of Mr. Bush's ultimatum, it came to light that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is a forgery. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has asked the FBI to investigate the origin of the forged documents that the Bush administration used to make its case that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.      Secretary of State Colin Powell denies that the Bush administration created the phony documents. "It came from other sources," Mr. Powell told Congress, but he could not identify the source.      As George Santayana said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it." The administration's use of forged evidence opens Mr. Bush to unflattering comparisons that his enemies will not hesitate to make. They will point out that it was Adolf Hitler's strategy to fabricate evidence in order to justify his invasion of a helpless country. He used S.S. troops dressed in Polish uniforms to fake an attack on the German radio station at Gleiwitz on Aug. 31, 1939. Following the faked attack, Hitler announced: "This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our own territory." As German troops poured into Poland, Hitler declared: "The Polish state has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms." The German High Command called the German invasion of Poland a "counterattack."      Thanks to his neoconservative cadre, outside the U.S. Mr. Bush is now a disliked and distrusted politician. Mr. Bush's enemies will exploit parallels to "naked aggression." After many decades of U.S. leadership in building an "international order," Mr. Bush's enemies will hold him accountable for his defiance of this order.      As much as those of us who prefer national sovereignty to world government lament the fact, the many decades of appealing to "world opinion" and enlisting it in behalf of our foreign policies has resulted in considerable authority being poured into that nebulous concept. In setting Mr. Bush in opposition to this American creation, neoconservatives have exposed him to serious charges. Democrats, who intended to use allegations about the 2000 Florida vote to destroy Mr. Bush's presidency as illegitimate, now have more deadly ammunition.      Mr. Rockefeller will not be the only one to ask if the forged nuclear documents are part of a Bush administration campaign to deceive the public. Polls show that 50 percent of Americans believe it was Iraqis who hijacked the airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Towers and Pentagon. Inattention or media incompetence are the likely explanations for this extraordinary misinformation, but some will now blame deception.      Others are already thinking the forged documents are part of a neoconservative campaign to deceive President Bush and win his support for their Middle Eastern policy.      Many perceive Mr. Bush as following a reckless path, one that politicians normally try to avoid at all costs. If Iraq resists and devastating new explosives, which our military has been testing at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, are dropped on Baghdad, there will be massive civilian deaths and charges of war crimes fueled by anger at American arrogance.      Mr. Bush and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an American president is temporary and relative. The U.S. is supposed to be the world's leader. For the Bush administration to pursue a policy that sets the U.S. government at odds with the world is to invite comparisons with recklessness that we have not seen in international politics since Nikita Khrushchev tried to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. Is Saddam Hussein worth this much grief?   Paul Craig Roberts is a nationaly syndicated columnist.   1:37:55 PM

Don’t be the last on your block… …be sure to get the latest to help you cope with the ever-evolving world situation: click here (and a good laugh may help you retain your sanity). 1:09:49 PM

"I would like to cut out Bush's tongue” And that’s a sentiment from our “allies” in Italy…. Guess they don’t cater to hypocrital con-men and bald-faced liars like the punditeers do in this country.   And this is going to get worse before it gets better- if it gets better.   Of course the Bushies don’t care – “let the world hate us as long as they fear us” seems to be their all-purpose motto: good for foreign affairs as well as media relations and domestic politics.   Arabs Protest at Iraq War, Two Killed in Yemen Fri March 21, 2003 03:03 PM ET By Caroline Drees   CAIRO (Reuters) - Thousands of protesters spilled on to the streets of some Arab capitals after Muslim Friday prayers and clashed with police trying to contain the anger at the U.S.-led war against Iraq. For a second day, demonstrations swept the Arab world against the U.S.-led invasion intent on ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.   Protests also erupted in several European cities.   In the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, an 11-year-old boy and another protester were shot dead in a clash between police and anti-war demonstrators, an Interior Ministry official said. Security sources had earlier said one of those slain was a policeman.   Nine marchers and 14 policemen were hurt in the clash that flared after police blocked about 3,000 protesters from marching on the U.S. embassy in the Arab state, the official said.   Witnesses said the demonstrators set tires and garbage cans alight while chanting: "Oh youth of Islam, say no to war and yes to peace" and "No to U.S. hegemony and hypocrisy."   In Cairo, the biggest city in the Arab world with almost 17 million people, at least 5,000 angry protesters clashed with police using water cannon outside the historic al-Azhar mosque.   "With our heart and our soul, we sacrifice ourselves for Iraq," chanted demonstrators outside al-Azhar, and in the Palestinian cities of Gaza and Nablus.   In a rare statement, Egypt's Interior Ministry appealed to citizens to vent their frustration in an orderly manner through previously authorized demonstrations.   In Jordan, thousands of protesters fought baton-wielding riot police after the authorities sealed off parts of the capital, Amman, to foil Islamist organized pro-Iraq protests.   Scores of young people were injured and several arrested as police used tear gas to disperse worshippers in the city's Wihdat area, a predominately Palestinian refugee neighborhood.   King Abdullah, a close friend of Washington, later urged his countrymen to moderate expressions of sympathy for Iraqis.   In Mauritania in northwest Africa, police fired tear gas to disperse thousands of anti-war protesters, who poured on to the streets of the capital, Nouakchott, chanting "Bush is a butcher" after Friday Muslim prayers at the city's mosques.   ANGER IN EUROPE In Italy, about 200,000 farmers marched through Rome for peace, waving rainbow-colored flags and paralyzing traffic.   "I would like to cut out Bush's tongue -- it's a war for the rich and those who pay in the end are the poor people," one woman told Reuters Television.   In Germany, more than 10,000 rallied. Activists blocked entrances to a U.S. military base in the southern city of Stuttgart as well as the American embassy in Berlin.   Stuttgart police carried about 50 sit-down protesters away from the gates of the U.S. European command headquarters (EUCOM), which is involved in logistics for the Iraq war.   Around 1,000 students in the French capital, Paris, staged an impromptu anti-war sit-down on Place de la Concorde.   In The Hague, Dutch police arrested five people who entered a secured area surrounding the U.S. embassy and poured fake blood on white clothes they wore. They were later released.   In the Lebanese capital Beirut, police used tear gas and water cannon to hold back hundreds of stone-throwing youths who tried to march toward the U.S. mission.   Hundreds of protesters in Bahrain, the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, also took to the streets to show their fury.   "We reject the war against Iraq. Arab rulers should unify their ranks against it, and should not allow U.S. bases in Gulf Arab states," said laborer Adel Isa, 45.   In Kuwait -- which a U.S.-led coalition freed from Iraqi occupation in 1991 and which was a key staging post for the current invasion -- worshippers said Iraqis had suffered enough.   PRAISE FOR SADDAM In Gaza, some protesters praised "beloved" Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and called on him to "strike Tel Aviv!"   Iraq launched missiles against Israel in the 1991 Gulf War.   "It is a war of the unbelievers against the Muslims in Iraq and everywhere," said Palestinian worshipper Amin Saeed. "What can we do? We are fighting Israel which represents the United States' dirty hand in the Middle East. We stand for Iraq."   Arab states have tried to persuade restive publics they have done all they could to avert a war, but many Arabs say they are dismayed by their countries' diplomatic impotence.   In many Middle Eastern cities, Muslim preachers fired up their congregations with powerful sermons denouncing the war.   From non-Arab Iran in the east to Morocco in the West, preachers accused Washington of stealing the region's resources and seeking global hegemony.   In Iran, which fought an eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s, Tehran's Friday prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said the U.S. "aim is to dominate Iraq's oil wells and also to dominate the region, and give Israel the security and guarantee that nobody could harm it."   (Additional reporting from bureaux in Cairo, Riyadh, Sanaa, Gaza, Tehran, Rabat, Kuwait, Amman and in Europe)   1:04:33 PM

Get your latest war update… …at DailyKos, where the news is not edited to fit any regime’s story line.   Read about battle coverage censorship, unexpected resistance and how the Marines unintentionally goofed in Umm Qasr. 12:46:11 PM

War does not halt Bush regime cronyism Never missing a chance to cash in on his status within the Bush regime, Richard Perle is once again caught with his hand in the cookie jar. It wasn’t bad enough he was exposed trying to shake down the Saudi sheiks in what amounted to a “protection” racket, now he his using his leverage within the defense establishment to grease the skids for the Chinese to take ownership a vast percentage of the fiber optics communications cables in this country. Regardless of the relative merits of the sale, is it appropriate for an official who wields such clout within the current regime that he has been described as the “godfather of the Iraq war” to be cashing in hundreds of thousands of dollars on a sensitive transaction with potential security repercussions?   Ask yourself – does this pass the Clinton/Gore test? (“What if Clinton and/or Gore were accused of such dealings?”) The obvious answer is no. So why is there a double standard? Only the mediots can explain… and we know they never investigate their own behavior.   Pentagon Adviser Is Also Advising Global Crossing By STEPHEN LABATON WASHINGTON, March 20 — Even as he advises the Pentagon on war matters, Richard N. Perle, chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board, has been retained by the telecommunications company Global Crossing to help overcome Defense Department resistance to its proposed sale to a foreign firm, Mr. Perle and lawyers involved in the case said today.   Mr. Perle, an assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration, is close to many senior officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who appointed him to lead the policy board in 2001. Though the board does not pay its members and is technically not a government agency, it wields tremendous influence in policy circles. And its chairman is considered a "special government employee," subject to federal ethics rules, including one that bars anyone from using public office for private gain.   Mr. Perle and his lawyer said yesterday that his involvement with Global Crossing did not violate the ethics rules.   According to lawyers involved in the review and a legal notice that Global Crossing is preparing to file soon in bankruptcy court, Mr. Perle is to be paid $725,000 by the company, including $600,000 if the government approves the sale of the company to a joint venture of Hutchison Whampoa, controlled by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and Singapore Technologies Telemedia, a phone company controlled by the government of Singapore.   Lawyers said today that Mr. Perle had been helping Global Crossing for several weeks. They said he was brought in as a prominent Republican with close ties to the current officials. He has taken on a particularly important role, they said, since the company recently pulled back its request for the government to clear the sale in the face of opposition from the Defense Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Those agencies have said that the proposed deal presents national security and law enforcement problems, because it would put Global Crossing's worldwide fiber optics network — one used by the United States government — under Chinese ownership.   Mr. Perle and his lawyers were preparing to file an affidavit dated March 7 and a legal notice dated today, March 20, that said he was uniquely qualified to advise the company on the matter because of his job as head of the Defense Policy Board.   But after a reporter raised questions today about whether Mr. Perle was using his job at the Defense Policy Board for the benefit of a client, they said the references to his job should not have been in the legal papers and would be deleted before they were filed in the bankruptcy proceeding.   In the March 7 affidavit, Mr. Perle said, "As the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, I have a unique perspective on and intimate knowledge of the national defense and security issues that will be raised by the CFIUS review process that is not and could not be available to the other CFIUS professionals." The company used similar language in its legal notice.   CFIUS refers to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a government group that includes representatives from the Defense Department and other agencies. It has been considering the deal and has the power to block it. "CFIUS professionals" refers to the other lawyers and lobbyists who have been trying to get the committee to approve the deal.   Mr. Perle, in an interview late this afternoon, said that he had not noticed the language in the affidavit and that it was an erroneous reference because the Defense Policy Board has nothing to do with reviewing the sale of American companies to foreign investors.   "It was drafted by the lawyers, and I frankly didn't notice it," he said. Shortly after that interview, Mr. Perle called back and said that he remembered that the language concerning the Defense Review Board had appeared in an earlier draft of the affidavit and that he had struck it out because it was incorrect. "You have a draft that I never signed," he said.   After consulting with a company lawyer, Mr. Perle called back and in a third conversation said that he had taken the phrase out of the affidavit "because it seemed inappropriate and irrelevant" but that someone put it back in the document and he signed it without noticing it.   "This was a clerical error, and not my clerical error," he said.   An adviser involved with one of the parties in the case said tonight that Mr. Perle had not read the affidavit closely and that he had, in fact, signed it but that it would be changed before it was filed.   Mr. Perle said he did not seek an ethics opinion as to whether he could work on the Global Crossing matter, because he said it posed no legal problems.   "I've abided by the rules," he said. "The question, I should think, is have I recommended anything to the secretary or discussed this with the secretary, and I haven't," he said, referring to Mr. Rumsfeld. "The alternative is if you are on the board, you can't have any action before the Defense Department. That isn't the rule. If that were the rule, I'd have to make a choice between being on an unpaid advisory board and my business."   Mr. Perle said that he was not engaged in lobbying with senior officials at the Defense Department and that his role was to advise Global Crossing on the process of gaining approval. He said his sole discussions with Pentagon officials had been over what assurances they would need to satisfy themselves that a deal would not pose any national security problems.   "I'm not using public office for private gain because the Defense Policy Board has nothing to do with the CFIUS process," he said.   But other lawyers and advisers to the companies involved in the deal said that Mr. Perle had been brought in precisely because he has access to top officials. They noted that Mr. Perle's fee was largely contingent on the deal's being approved, an unusual arrangement in Washington legal circles. And they noted that he was retained after Global Crossing, which has a history of using well-connected lobbyists, had realized that many of the other lawyers and lobbyists had strong Democratic ties but no solid Republican ones.   Among others who have been retained to gain approval of the proposed deal are Thomas F. McLarty III, the former Clinton chief of staff; Stuart E. Eizenstat, a former deputy Treasury secretary, and lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Dewey Ballantine.   Mr. Perle, who as chairman of the Defense Policy Board has been a leading advocate of the United States' invasion of Iraq, spoke on Wednesday in a conference call sponsored by Goldman Sachs, in which he advised participants on possible investment opportunities arising from the war. The conference's title was "Implications of an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea Next?"   12:30:59 PM

Latest War News via DailyKos Keep checking in with Kos for timely updates and interesting aspects of the ongoing war.   He’s been voted the best war blog by Forbes.com. Check out the site and see why.   What happened to "Shock and Awe"? After repeated boasts about "shock and awe" and MOABs and locus swarms and other horrific things soon the befall Iraq, the US has announced it is holding back that part of the campaign. This is kind of odd, since Bush promised that the armed forces would be allowed to prosecute their war unrestrained by political concerns.   Yeah, yeah, Bush was lying. But the fact of the matter is a major part of the invasion plan is now on hold. Why?   Decapitation The official line is that the US is assessing its "decapitation" efforts, hopeful that Hussein is either dead, cut off from his troops, or losing control in an internal power struggle. Problem is, none of that matters.   The Iraq leadership knows that the US is gunning for them and that it can listen to any electronic conversation. As such, the leadership will be laying low. There is no need for them to issue any more orders. The entire defense of their country is now predicated on a guerilla structure -- loose bands of armed soldiers with responsibility for certain sectors of Baghdad. Runners can carry messages from one unit to another, eliminating any chances for electronic surveillance. Secure land lines may also be used for communication purposes. If one sector of the city falls, not a problem. Urban guerillas can quickly adapt and collapse on a target, or withdraw -- all on local initiative. Such strategies have been shown effective time and time again in modern urban warfare (from Stalingrad to Chechnya).   Killing Saddam is not enough to put an end to the war, especially so long as the Iraqis can keep spitting out body doubles to reassure the populace. And killing military leaders won't harm a war effort that is already, by design, decentralized.   Defections During the first Gulf War, tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts surrendered at first sight of allied troops. We are not seeing anywhere near those numbers, which is a cause for concern.   In the first Gulf War, Iraqi conscripts were thrown into trenches facing off against the gathering allied armies. They were pummeled from the air for weeks, and by ground artillery for days. They were hungry, ill-equipped and demoralized. It's no wonder they surrendered.   Today, early indications are that Iraqis will fight. They have been spared the weeks of bombardment (far more effective than any short "shock and awe" campaign could ever be), and frankly, are being deployed in a far more effective manner. They are no longer exposed in the open desert, easy pickings for US air power and superior armor, but dug in inside urban centers, where the Americans must face them man to man, rifle to rifle.   So it's laughable to see American commanders and politicians crowing about how "well" things are going. Of course they are -- they haven't hit Iraq's main defense lines yet. Granted, such platitudes are necessary to assuage a nervous US public and restive world audience, but for all practical purposes, such assurances are bunk. What is more interesting, and most disturbing, are reports that some Iraqis are resisting the initial forays into Iraq. At this stage of the war, any Iraqi resistance is merely design to delay -- forcing invading troops to slow and proceed more cautiously, giving more time to defending forces in Basra and Baghdad. I would've assumed an easy trip north until US/UK forces hit the bridges. Even token resistance is disturbing and perhaps an early indication that Iraqi forces intend to resist more forcefully than expected.   **** Steve Guillard has put together some cool maps of Iraq.   **** I will be focusing on the "big picture" analysis of this war. If you want the blow-by-blow action check out The Agonist.   Update: Tacitus points out that there could be legitimate military reasons for the postponment of "shock and awe". He's right. 4:30:05 AM

Can the Media Assess Blame to the GOP? Apparently not… it’s OK to sandbag Democrats like Hart, Clinton, Gore and Kerry for follies real or imagined but when it comes to the GOP even overtly racist remarks are ignored for days on end (if it hadn’t been for the indefatigable efforts of bloggers – Josh Marshall and Atrios come to mind, and let’s not forget the ever-valuable MWO – Trent Lott would still be leading the senate).   Yet the foibles that the mediots love to use to destroy the political lives of Democrats pale in comparison to the grave and lasting damage done to this nation by the reckless irresponsibility and abject neglect of their oaths of office evidenced by the GOP every day on policy matters. What could be more important than national security or the nation’s fiscal solvency? And yet time and again the punditeers give the GOP a free ride on such policy issues.   Various explanations might account for part of the answer: a lack of policy expertise (and no desire to gain any), a cynical estimate that “no one cares/it doesn’t matter in the long run” (oh, if only true), a calculated omission in order not to “prejudice” one’s career opportunities (no faster way to doom one’s punditeer prospects than to be labeled a “shrill liberal”), and of course the fact that so many of today’s pundits were nurtured and suckled at the breast of the very GOP beast (through think-tank stipends and the many other wing-nut Trojan horses that currently infest the public sphere) and hence share an ideological interest in obscuring the responsibility of the GOP for the policy fiascos that weaken our nation today.   Paul Krugman doesn’t fall into any of these categories, having expertise in economic matters and an easy grace in making such matters eminently understandable; having no journalistic “career” to fetter his independence (he’s a professional economist with no apparent desire to join the hucksters on the “McLaughlin Group” etc.); and he certainly has no brief for voodoo policies of today’s GOP. This happy confluence of circumstances leaves him free to pen the illuminating nuggets of insight that we have come to cherish, like the latest one below regarding the intimate connection between tax policies, budget woes and the future of social security and medicare. Unfortunately his ability, freedom and inclination to call a spade a spade is rather the exception than the rule.…   Who Lost the U.S. Budget? By PAUL KRUGMAN The Onion describes itself as "America's finest news source," and it's not an idle boast. On Jan. 18, 2001, the satirical weekly bore the headline "Bush: Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over," followed by this mock quotation: "We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."   Whatever our qualms about how we got here, all Americans now hope that the foreign front proceeds according to plan. Meanwhile, let's talk about the fiscal front.   The latest official projections acknowledge (if you read them carefully) that the long-term finances of the U.S. government are in much worse shape than the administration admitted a year ago. But many commentators are reluctant to blame George W. Bush for that grim outlook, preferring instead to say something like this: "Sure, you can criticize those tax cuts, but the real problem is the long-run deficits of Social Security and Medicare, and the unwillingness of either party to reform those programs."   Why is this line appealing? It seems more reasonable to blame longstanding problems for our fiscal troubles than to attribute them to just two years of bad policy decisions. Also, many pundits like to sound "balanced," pronouncing a plague on both parties' houses. To accuse the current administration of wrecking the federal budget sounds, well, shrill — and we don't want to sound shrill, do we?   There's only one problem with this reasonable, balanced, non-shrill position: it's completely wrong. The Bush tax cuts, not the retirement programs, are the main reason why our fiscal future suddenly looks so bleak.   I base that statement on a new study that compares the size of the Bush tax cuts with that of the prospective deficits of Social Security and Medicare. The results are startling.   Accountants estimate the "actuarial balance" of Social Security and Medicare the same way a private insurance company would: they calculate the present value of projected revenues and outlays, and find the difference. (The present value of a future expense is the amount you would have to invest today to have the money when the bill comes due. For example, if $1 invested in U.S. government bonds would be worth $2 by the year 2020, then the present value of $2 in 2020 is $1 today.) And both programs face shortfalls: the estimated actuarial deficit of Social Security over the next 75 years is $3.5 trillion, and that of Medicare is $6.2 trillion.   But how do these shortfalls compare with the fiscal effects of recent and probable future tax cuts?   The new study, carried out by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates the present value of the revenue that will be lost because of the Bush tax cuts — those that have already taken place, together with those that have been proposed — using the same economic assumptions that underlie those Medicare and Social Security projections. The total comes to $12 trillion to $14 trillion — more than the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls combined. What this means is that the revenue that will be sacrificed because of those tax cuts is not a minor concern. On the contrary, that revenue would have been more than enough to "top up" Social Security and Medicare, allowing them to operate without benefit cuts for the next 75 years.   The administration has tried to deny this conclusion, inventing strange new principles of accounting in the process. But the simple truth is that the Bush tax cuts have utterly transformed our fiscal outlook, for the worse. Without those tax cuts, the problems of an aging population might well have been manageable; with them, nothing short of an economic miracle can save us from a fiscal crisis.   And there's a lesson here that goes beyond fiscal policies. On almost every front the outlook for the United States now seems far bleaker than it did two years ago. Has everything gone wrong because of evildoers and external forces? In the case of the budget — and the economy and, yes, foreign policy — the answer is no. The world has turned out to be a tougher place than we thought a few years ago, but things didn't have to be nearly this bad.   The fault lies not in our stars, but in our leadership. 4:17:37 AM