Friday, March 28, 2003

Do you sense a pattern? What can one say about Krugman – the man is a nation treasure. Here’s his latest for those who are not registered with the NY Times.   Delusions of Power By PAUL KRUGMAN   They considered themselves tough-minded realists, and regarded doubters as fuzzy-minded whiners. They silenced those who questioned their premises, even though the skeptics included many of the government's own analysts. They were supremely confident — and yet with shocking speed everything they had said was proved awesomely wrong.   No, I'm not talking about the war; I'm talking about the energy task force that Dick Cheney led back in 2001. Yet there are some disturbing parallels. Right now, pundits are wondering how Mr. Cheney — who confidently predicted that our soldiers would be "greeted as liberators" — could have been so mistaken. But a devastating new report on the California energy crisis reminds us that Mr. Cheney has been equally confident, and equally wrong, about other issues.   In spring 2001 the lights were going out all over California. There were blackouts and brownouts, and the price of electricity was soaring. The Cheney task force was convened in the midst of that crisis. It concluded, in brief, that the energy crisis was a long-term problem caused by meddling bureaucrats and pesky environmentalists, who weren't letting big companies do what needed to be done. The solution? Scrap environmental rules, and give the energy industry multibillion-dollar subsidies.   Along the way, Mr. Cheney sneeringly dismissed energy conservation as a mere "sign of personal virtue" and scorned California officials who called for price controls and said the crisis was being exacerbated by market manipulation. To be fair, Mr. Cheney's mocking attitude on that last point was shared by almost everyone in politics and the media — and yes, I am patting myself on the back for getting it right.   For we now know that everything Mr. Cheney said was wrong.   In fact, the California energy crisis had nothing to do with environmental restrictions, and a lot to do with market manipulation. In 2001 the evidence for manipulation was basically circumstantial. But now we have a new report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which until now has discounted claims of market manipulation. No more: the new report concludes that market manipulation was pervasive, and offers a mountain of direct evidence, including phone conversations, e-mail and memos. There's no longer any doubt: California's power shortages were largely artificial, created by energy companies to drive up prices and profits.   Oh, and what ended the crisis? Key factors included energy conservation and price controls. Meanwhile, what happened to that long-term shortage of capacity, which required scrapping environmental rules and providing lots of corporate welfare? Within months after the Cheney report's release, stock analysts were downgrading energy companies because of a looming long-term-capacity glut.   In short, Mr. Cheney and his tough-minded realists were blowing smoke: their report described a fantasy world that bore no relation to reality. How did they get it so wrong?   One answer is that Mr. Cheney made sure that his task force included only like-minded men: as far as we can tell, he didn't consult with anyone except energy executives. So the task force was subject to what military types call "incestuous amplification," defined by Jane's Defense Weekly as "a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation."   Another answer is that Mr. Cheney basically drew his advice about how to end the energy crisis from the very companies creating the crisis, for fun and profit. But was he in on the joke?   We may never know what really went on in the energy task force since the Bush administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep us from finding out. At first the nonpartisan General Accounting Office, which is supposed to act as an internal watchdog, seemed determined to pursue the matter. But after the midterm election, according to the newsletter The Hill, Congressional Republicans approached the agency's head and threatened to slash his budget unless he backed off.   And therein lies the broader moral. In the last two years Mr. Cheney and other top officials have gotten it wrong again and again — on energy, on the economy, on the budget. But political muscle has insulated them from any adverse consequences. So they, and the country, don't learn from their mistakes — and the mistakes keep getting bigger.   4:51:53 PM

Just when you thought… …it couldn’t get any worse, Josh Marshall is here with an “interesting tidbit” to brighten the day.   Couple what he says below with what he has to say here about “dubya dubya III” and it makes you wonder how Josh could ever have thought it a good idea to encourage the Bushies…   <snip>…at least we're not going to try to evangelize Iraq by turning over aid distribution to evangelical faith-based organizations from the Bible Belt, right? Well ... Here's another charmer from the always invaluable Beliefnet. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, said yesterday that his organization, Samaritan's Purse, has an army of relief workers "poised and ready" to roll into Iraq to serve the physical and spiritual needs of the Iraqi people. He's in constant contact with the US government agencies in Amman to help coordinate efforts. Graham says that he knows he can't just whip out the good book and start preaching the gospel in an Arab country. But "I believe as we work," said Graham, "God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son... We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian I do this in the name of Jesus Christ." That should go over well. I mean, it's not like the Muslim Arabs have a chip on their shoulder or anything about the Christian West launching a new crusade against them to reclaim Arabia for the cross. So it shouldn't be any problem. In all seriousness, obviously the US can't bar anybody with a Christian affiliation from doing relief work in Iraq. But optics seems to be the issue here. The American president is a deeply-believing born-again Christian. He's closely associated with Franklin Graham. Graham has repeatedly called Islam a "wicked" religion. And now Graham's missionaries are coming in behind US tanks invading Iraq. <snip> 6:10:36 AM

Bush regime criticism… …of Al Jazeera sounds pretty hollow when you stop to think that this is the same crew that appeared on Rush Limbaugh and praised his “work” (Dick Cheney) or seems only to have time for Murdoch owned outlets (Fox news, Skynews).   Al Jazeera at least manages to anger people on both extremes – as noted below - unlike the “politically correct” pablum spoon-fed the US public by Fox.   Jazeera Reigns Supreme in Arab Airwaves During War Fri March 28, 2003 08:03 AM ET By Miral Fahmy DUBAI (Reuters) - The United States and Britain have slammed its coverage as gory and biased, but Qatar's Al Jazeera channel remains the number one source of news for the millions of Arab viewers fixated upon the war in Iraq. Arabs from Cairo to Riyadh are tuning into Jazeera for an Arab perspective on a conflict that is deeply unpopular and has sent anti-American sentiment sky high. Some media academics have dubbed the channel's provocative coverage sensationalist and accused it of fomenting Arab fury at the war. But its images of bombed Baghdad buildings, bloodied and bawling Iraqi children and slain U.S. and British troops -- which beam into tens of millions of Arab homes 24 hours a day -- have only increased Jazeera's popularity. In Dubai, popular waterside cafes tune in their widescreen televisions to Jazeera so that patrons can watch the news. In Bahrain, barbershops leave the channel blaring at their customers' request and passersby in the Gaza Strip crowd around the windows of electronics stores to watch Jazeera. Subscriptions for the satellite channel have even soared in Europe, where audiences are fascinated by its often lurid images even if they do not understand a word. Audience ratings figures are scant for the region, but Jazeera, which won over millions of viewers during the U.S.-led war on Afghanistan in 2001, appears to have come up trumps again despite fierce competition from other Arab and Western media. Two other Arab networks -- Al Arabiya and Abu Dhabi TV -- are also vying to win audiences by their coverage of the war, but Jazeera's popular touch makes it the firm favorite. "Jazeera is the only news channel that vents one's frustration in its frank and daring coverage," said Jordanian Youssef Abdul-Qadar, who works at an Amman optician. Grocer Ahmed Salameh, also from Amman, agreed. "Jazeera is more accurate than other channels. It's closer to the Arabs' point of view" he said. In the nearby Gaza Strip, where Jazeera has won over viewers by its graphic and often sympathetic coverage of a Palestinian independence uprising against Israel, Palestinians hailed the network's accuracy and lack of prejudice. "Jazeera's coverage of the war is the best. It tries to be accurate despite the misleading reports from the (U.S.-led) coalition," said 33-year-old Mohammed Ahmed Hassan. JAZEERA VINDICATES ARAB ANGER AT WAR Jazeera made its name after airing exclusive footage of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which raised many questions about its relationship with Afghanistan's now defunct Taliban government. The channel is renowned in the region for its controversial programs and some media experts have said it knowingly broadcasts Iraqi propaganda to gain exclusive material, a charge Jazeera officials strongly deny. During its eight years on air, Jazeera has managed to raise the ire of most of the region's secretive governments, who are unaccustomed to its outspoken, Western-style reporting. This time, however, Jazeera managed to irk U.S. and British officials from Secretary of State Colin Powell to Prime Minister Tony Blair by showing images of U.S. prisoners of war and bullet-riddled corpses of American and British soldiers. The United States said the "disgusting" images violated U.N. conventions and shortly afterwards, Jazeera was banned from the New York Stock Exchange. But for many in the Arab world, the pictures vindicated their anger at the invasion and raised Jazeera's esteem. Many Arabs are angry at Washington's support for Israel. Palestinian construction worker Ali Farouk said the images of soldiers "made us fly without wings." Saudi student Badr al-Isa said they were proof of Jazeera's professionalism. "They (CNN and BBC) have been showing pictures too. The Americans don't like an Arab channel that is professional and out of their control," he explained. Arabs might be addicted to Jazeera, but some viewers are wary of its coverage. In Cairo, the most populous Arab city, some Egyptians interviewed by Reuters thought the channel was biased and had a secret agenda dictated by host nation Qatar, a small Gulf state that hosts a key U.S. and British military command center. "In my opinion, Jazeera is biased toward the United States," said retiree Mohammed al-Masry, sipping tea with friends while sitting on a central Cairo pavement. "Is there pressure on Jazeera from the U.S. or Qatar? It exaggerates the heroism of U.S. forces. There are many brave citizens and soldiers in Iraq and Jazeera doesn't show them." 5:52:11 AM

A couple of questions: One, how do you “mistake” another country for a partner? Who is keeping track of this stuff, an 18 year-old intern? Scratch that – an 18 year-old intern would probably actually take this stuff seriously – it is obvious that no one, least of all the Bush regime, is doing so. Why would Slovenia be getting $7.5 million – especially if it isn’t even a “partner”? Is this money just handed out for signing on, without any requirement to show a need? And finally, since Slovenia isn’t getting it, would it be possible to get that $7.5 million for our public schools? (Who am I kidding, these are the Bushies we’re talking about…) US mistakes Slovenia for partner in war The United States has mistakenly named Slovenia as a partner in its war against Iraq.   Slovenian Prime Minister Anton Rop says the US even offered his country a share of the money budgeted for the conflict.   He says when asked for an explanation the US State Department admitted Slovenia was named in a document by mistake.   Slovenia now will not get the $7.5 million it was mistakenly offered in the US war budget.   5:34:54 AM

And these guys are our allies… …just imagine what our enemies in the Islamic world are making of this…   First freedom fries, now a “war holy day” – what will the GOP “leadership” think up next? US Congress votes for war holy day Unites States lawmakers have passed a resolution urging the President to set aside a day of fasting and prayer for the divine protection of US troops in Iraq.   The US lower house passed the resolution by a vote of 346 for, 49 against and 23 abstentions.   The Senate passed a similar motion last week.   5:23:47 AM

Parody closer to truth Eric Alterman brings this funny parody to our attention.   Meanwhile, I assume the following is a parody, though its authorship is unknown to me. It appears on blogcritics.org                Apology from Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks                As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I now realize that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect.                I hope everyone understands, I’m just a young girl who grew up in Texas. As far back as I can remember, I heard people say they were ashamed of President Clinton. I saw bumper stickers calling him everything from a pothead to a murderer. I heard people on the radio and TV like Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott bad mouthing the President and ridiculing his wife and daughter at every opportunity.                I heard LOTS of people disrespecting the President. So I guess I just assumed it was acceptable behavior.                But now, thanks to the thousands of angry people who want radio stations to boycott our music because criticizing the President is unpatriotic, I realize it’s wrong to have a liberal opinion if you’re a country music artist. I guess I should have thought about that before deciding to play music that attracts hypocritical red necks.                I also realize now that I’m supposed to just sing and look cute so our fans won’t have anything to upset them while they’re cheating on their wives or getting in drunken bar fights or driving around in their pickup trucks shooting highway signs and small animals.                And most important of all, I realize that it’s wrong for a celebrity to voice a political opinion, unless they’re Charlie Daniels, Clint Black, Merle Haggard, Barbara Mandrell, Loretta Lynn, Ricky Skaggs, Travis Tritt, Hank Williams Jr, Amy Grant, Larry Gatlin, Crystal Gayle, Reba McEntire, Lee Greenwood, Lorrie Morgan, Anita Bryant, Mike Oldfield, Ted Nugent, Wayne Newton, Dick Clark, Jay Leno, Drew Carey, Dixie Carter, Victoria Jackson, Charleton Heston, Fred Thompson, Ben Stein, Bruce Willis, Kevin Costner, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bo Derek, Rick Schroeder, George Will, Pat Buchanan, Bill O’Reilly, Joe Rogan, Delta Burke, Robert Conrad or Jesse Ventura.                God Bless America,        Natalie 5:04:04 AM

Cartoon time 4:15:30 AM

Casualties understated? Here’s an interesting article (via intel dump) that hints at what is almost assuredly the case: that the Pentagon has deliberately slowed the reporting of casualties (“because news from the battlefront has been slow to be tallied”) for fear of the impact upon public opinion.   This is the heart of the reported clash between Camp Lejeune and the DoD: by reporting casualties the marines short-circuited the politico-PR process by which casualties are being parceled out by Rumsfeld and his cabal.   Yet another example of how politics and ideology trump all other considerations in the minds of the “Mayberry Machiavellis” of the Bush regime.   Casualties, Expectations Might Collide Experts Warn of Rising Losses as Factor in Support for War By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 28, 2003; Page A25     The numbers of U.S. servicemen killed, wounded or missing on the Iraqi battlefield are mounting steadily, and military experts warn that Americans might soon be confronting military carnage they have not seen since the Vietnam War.   About 30 U.S. servicemen have been publicly reported killed in a week of combat, along with 20 British soldiers and marines. But that total could be considerably higher, because news from the battlefront has been slow to be tallied. The number of wounded appears to be soaring.   Officials at Camp Lejeune, N.C., released a curt tally yesterday morning, listing 11 Marines from the 2nd Expeditionary Force as missing within the past 24 hours and 14 as wounded in action in fighting near Nasiriyah. Defense Department officials quickly informed the public affairs office at Camp Lejeune that the release was a violation of Pentagon policy, said Marine Maj. Michele Flynn, a base spokeswoman. Casualty totals are supposed to come from Washington, and the Pentagon has released those numbers reluctantly.   Reports from the battlefield tell of violence that is not reflected in the upbeat assessments issued at press briefings at the Pentagon and Central Command in Doha, Qatar. More than half of a contingent of 120 Marines were wounded Wednesday when they were hit with gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades on the approach to a bridge at Nasiriyah. Fifteen of their Humvees and seven-ton trucks were destroyed.   "Nasiriyah was supposed to be a six-hour fight," a wounded gunnery sergeant said at a field hospital yesterday. "It's already been five days. Five days of nonstop, 24-hour fighting."   Body armor that protects the head and torso has done wonders to keep troops alive, but officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District have been told to prepare for an influx of wounded soon.   "We don't really know if the country will accept casualties like this because it hasn't been tested in 30 years," said Charles Moskos, a Northwestern University sociologist who has studied the reaction of the public and the military to casualties.   More Americans have already died in Iraq than have been killed in the military's war on terrorism since it was launched after Sept. 11, 2001. The Defense Department lists 20 deaths by hostile action in Afghanistan, the Philippines and the Persian Gulf until the invasion of Iraq.   In the 1999 air war over Kosovo, the United States did not suffer a single battlefield death.   In the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago, there were 147 deaths on the battlefield; 235 were killed in accidents and other noncombat situations. But that conflict stretched over nearly six weeks. At the rate that Operation Iraqi Freedom is going, the United States could expect 180 deaths in that length of time -- but extrapolating from the opening week may be pointless.   Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that the hardest fighting is to come, when allied troops confront Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards and Special Republican Guard troops ringing Baghdad and his hometown of Tikrit, then try to capture the capital. On the other hand, the Iraqi government could collapse with the first Republican Guard clash.   Even the Gulf War's tally is relatively bloodless, when compared to the 58,203 who died in Vietnam, the 36,568 who died in Korea, the 405,399 who died in World War II and the 116,516 who died in World War I.   Whether the current casualty rate is politically sustainable is highly uncertain. A poll conducted in February by Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found that Americans believe 1,000 servicemen and women would lose their lives in a war with Iraq, a number that they by and large could accept.   But those expectations of significant casualties plunged as the war approached. By March 20, a Washington Post poll found that only 37 percent expected the United States to suffer significant casualties.   "That suggests recent experiences with war did influence expectations in the public about what will happen," said James Burk, a sociologist at Texas A&M University who has studied public response to casualties.   Some experts say politicians tend to underestimate the public's capacity to accept death and injury on the battlefield. Burk said that as long as the public believes the war is being conducted reasonably, casualties will only bolster the public's resolve, especially if the Iraqis are inflicting them with guerrilla tactics that Americans believe are beyond the pale of decency.   When more than 200 Marines died in a 1983 suicide bombing in Beirut, the public wanted to stay the course, Burk said. It was only when the political leadership in Washington and abroad began to fracture that the Reagan administration had to pull U.S. peacekeeping forces out.   In contrast, public opinion had already turned against U.S. military operations in Somalia by the time Special Operations forces lost 19in a single battle in Mogadishu, Burk said. By October 1993, a military deployment that started as a humanitarian relief operation had evolved into a bloody, seemingly fruitless police action.   "Somalia is a case where we see how understanding the reasonableness of the mission is more important for public support than the taking of casualties," Burk said.   Kull largely agreed. Three factors appear to influence the American public's willingness to accept casualties: whether the conflict is legitimate in the world's eyes, whether its goals are worthwhile, and most important, whether the campaign is succeeding.   That presents a mixed outlook for the current war, he said. So far, the public sees the campaign as succeeding, and that has overcome the negative influence of worldwide opposition. For the most part, the public sees the goal of stripping Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and overthrowing Hussein as worthwhile.   But danger lies in the failure so far to find caches of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Kull warned. Couple that with continuing international protests, and it is not hard to see why Pentagon officials have repeated incessantly that the military campaign is on track and proceeding successfully.   Moskos raised another concern, a factor that he believes is a truism in warfare: "The country will accept long-term and heavy casualties only if the children of the privileged are willing to put their lives on the line."   In an all-volunteer military there is no sign that will happen, he said, concluding: "I don't think we're going to be willing to take casualties."   Correspondent Peter Baker contributed to this report from Camp Viper in southern Iraq. 3:02:57 AM