What Game Does McCain Think He's Playing?

…we need to pull the plug on the media's disturbing habit of acting as if foreign policy and domestic policy are completely separate entities -- a pair of high stakes board games that can only be taken off the shelf and played one at a time. To hear the media tell it, combining the two would make about as much sense as using your Monopoly pieces to play Risk.

--- Arianna Huffington

The 100-Year-War man wants his electorate to imagine staying in Iraquagmire just like we stayed in the Phillipines and Korea:McCain has no clue about the domestic consequences of his open-ended occupation of Iraq. He says he doesn’t know anything about economics. In Jan 2000, McCain claimed:

I didn't pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a 'supply-sider' based on the fact that I really didn't jump into the issue.

In November 2005, McClain said,

I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.

And in December 2007, McClain said

The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should, I've got Greenspan's book.

When McCain confesses his ignorance of economics, that is one place where I take him at his word. You can’t keep on going on having both guns and butter forever. The American way of war has always been to call on the current generation to make their sacrifices along with the troops in the field and their families. That’s because most wars in American history were explainable to the people as war forced on us. Most of them weren’t unprovoked, elective or vanity invasions of nation-states who had no inclination or capability to attack us. So, the current generation of our people understood their war was born of dire necessity and were willing to carry the burdens of shortages and taxes to sustain the national effort. Not so with the Bush-Cheney-McCain war occupation or pacification of Iraq. Our government fudged and lied about the casus belli; then they lied and fudged about how much it would costs us; and in the upcoming presidential campaign of John McCain they will lie and fudge about how much longer it will go on.

McCain doesn’t understand much about economics, by his own admission, but Joseph Stiglitz does know a tad. He’s a Nobel Prize-winning economic professor at Columbia. A Harvard colleague of Stiglitz is Linda Bilmes, a former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the U.S. Customs Department. Together, they have published a monograph with the self-explanatory title The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of The Iraq Conflict. Stiglitz says of Iraq that

. . . the big picture is that, by our most conservative estimates, this war has cost an almost unimaginable $3 trillion. A more realistic estimate, however, is closer to $5 trillion once you include all the downstream "off budget costs" of long-term veteran benefits and treatment, the costs of restoring the now depleted military to its pre-war strength, the considerable costs of actually withdrawing from Iraq and repositioning forces elsewhere in the region.

I have a lot of trouble imagining even how to write a Trillion dollars out, numerically. It’s 3,000,000,000,000

A trillion dollars wasn’t what it was supposed to cost was it? Mitch Daniels, the Office of Management and Budget director, and Secretary Rumsfeld estimated the costs in the range of $50 to $60 billions, a portion of which they believed would be financed by other countries. (Adjusting for inflation, in 2007 dollars, they were projecting costs of between $57 and $69 billion.) The tone of the entire administration was cavalier, as if the sums involved were minimal. Even Lindsey, after noting that the war could cost $200 billion, went on to say: “The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.”

But where are we? Stiglitz and Bilmes argue the true costs are at least $3 trillion under what they call an ultraconservative estimate, and could surpass the cost of World War Two, which they put at $5 trillion after adjusting for inflation. The direct costs exclude

• interest on the debt raised to fund the war,
• health care costs for veterans coming home, and
• replacing the destroyed hardware and degraded operational capacity caused by the war.

Well, according to the authors, the cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans –

• already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected

• to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War,
• almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and
• twice that of the First World War.

Stiglitz and Bilmes write that the only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion. With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese,

• the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars.
• the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

In two weeks’ time the fifth year of McCain’s 100-year war occupation will draw to a close. Operating costs (spending on the war itself, what you might call “running expenses”) for 2008 are projected to exceed $12.5 billion a month for Iraq alone, up from $4.4 billion in 2003. That’s almost four times what we’re spending on the Afghanistan theater of the war on terror – the locus of the planning for the 911 attacks on our cities.

I excuse myself from the inability of fathoming the unfathomableness of the eventual cost of $3,000,000,000,000, or its monthly price tag of $12,000,000,000. Reading through previews and reviews of the work of Stiglitz and Bilmes as well as their Congressional testimony, I can begin to grasp the reaches of this nightmarish loss in blood and treasure. The money spent on the war each day is enough to

• enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year,
• make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants,
• pay the annual salaries of nearly 11,000 additional border patrol agents or 14,000 more police officers.

A trillion dollars could have

• hired 15 million additional public school teachers for a year or
• provided 43 million students with four-year scholarships to public universities

It doesn't matter whether it's George McCain or John McBush. Both are playing risk with funny money. Robert Borosage says

John McCain enjoys a fawning press and a maverick reputation. He likes to describe himself as a conservative populist. Straight talk is his boast. But when it comes to the economy, he's peddling the same poisonous brew that is sapping this country's strength. That is why even though John McCain is a decent man, the campaign this fall will be ugly and mean. McCain couldn't survive a straight up policy debate.

Clearly, if John McCain doesn't understand the economy, he doesn't understand security. If we had infinite resources, we might be able to have perfect security. But America, like every other country, has resource constraints. That means you need to be smart -- that is, economic -- about the money we spend. If you weaken the American economy, you won't be able to find the resources you need for security. The two cannot be separated.

Come this fall, when Senator Obama demonstrates to America that Senator McCain can’t cash his rubber checks with funny money, it’s not going to be pretty.

A Petition Addressed to Senator Hillary Clinton

A Demand for Transparency and Full Disclosure

To: Senator Hillary Clinton

We, the people, respectfully request that you please do what Senator Barack Obama has already done and release your tax returns so that you can provide full discloser before another vote is cast and another donation is sent.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Mark McKinnon Is Republican-of-the-Week

Another in our series demonstrating The Vigil's dedication to bipartisanship.

Mark McKinnon started out in political life as a Democratic media adviser. He was on Michael Dukakis' team in the 1988 presidential campaign. After that, he went back to Texas, returned to corporate work, raised a family and evolved into a 'pro-government' Republican.

He met George Bush, and liked him, worked for him, and helped elect him Governor and later, President. Since 1984 he's been John McCain's advisor. Before McKinnon signed on for the McCain '08 campaign, he wrote

... a confidential communication ... to the McCain campaign when I came abroad, and I don’t really want to say much more than that, except to say that under any circumstances, depending on who the nominee is, I will be supporting 100 percent John McCain.

Question: But I just want to clarify... that you wouldn’t work in the general election, you’d be supporting him on the sidelines?

McKinnon:

I will be supporting from the sidelines.

Question:Why... sit this out if you have such strong feelings for John McCain, if Barack Obama is the opponent. What is it you’re concerned about?

McKinnon:

I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal. I disagree with him on very fundamental issues. But I think, as I said, I think it would a great race for the country, and I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama. I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign.

This Republican knows that the up-coming campaign will be vicious. I find it strangely encouraging that this Obamacan, who is also a McCainiac, has higher standards of decency than one of the two major Democratic candidates.
Maybe Senator Obama is right. There is room for hope.

Celebrate on The Fifth Anniversary of Bush's Iraquagmire

The Un-Provoked, Unnecessary, Largely Unilateral Invasion And Unplanned Occupation Of Iraq (UULUIUOI) will be five years old in two weeks.

Coming to a street theater near you!

There's still plenty of time for one to find a place to fit in!

'First we have been down, then we have been up, then down, then up.'

.... in this election, we will offer two very different visions of the America we see in the twenty-first century. Because John McCain may claim long history of straight talk and independent-thinking, and I respect that. But in this campaign, he's fallen in line behind the very same policies that have ill-served America. He has seen where George Bush has taken our country, and he promises to keep us on the very same course. It's the same course that threatens a century of war in Iraq....

Victory In Mesopotamia

The War is over.

Iraq lost.

Iran won.

And we
got stuck
with the occupation.

Bush will be leaving office with America holding his bag. And McCain is willing to see to it that we hold on to it for another 100 years.

When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to pay his first state visit to Iraq, he did not come like a thief, unannounced, in the dead of night. He came in like a victor, pre-announced, in the light of day. Unlike Bush and McCain visits, Ahmadinejad did not come wearing Kevlar; neither did he have to be flown in by helicopter, but traveled by ground convoy. Security was not cleared with American occupation troops. His flight in was handled by Iraqi air traffic controllers, and security on the ground was assigned to Peshmarga. After landing in Iraq, Ahmadinejad's motorcade took Iraq's notoriously dangerous airport road to Talabani's palace at the start of his two-day visit, eschewing the helicopter trip usually taken by other visiting dignitaries as a security measure. Yes. I said two days. Bush has never stayed overnight in any of his three visits. Bush's last trip in September 2007 was to a desert airbase in Anbar province in Iraq's west. He flew in unannounced to ward off insurgent attacks and the visit was over in a few hours.

Ahmadinejad was welcomed by Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, with the traditional pomp and ceremony of a red-carpet greeting and honor guard as a military band played their national anthems. As the two walked along the red carpet, the Iranian president shook hands with members of the Iraqi government, and was presented with flowers by children. In their joint Baghdad news conference, the Iraqi President told Ahmadinejad

Your trip to Iraq carries a message for other countries that they should visit Iraq and never undermine the Iraqi nation. Iraq with its friends such as the Islamic Republic of Iran will remain powerful, said the Iraqi president.

We hope the visit will lead to further expansion of ties and cooperation between the two countries.

Talabani told Ahmadinejad to call him 'Uncle Jalal,' as he known in Iraq's Kurdish north. Ahmedenejad responded to this warm welcome,

This is a new page in the history of the relations between the two countries.

We have the same understanding of things and the two parties are determined to strengthen their political, economic and cultural cooperation.

An interpreter translated their conversation for reporters, even though Talabani is a fluent speaker of Farsi. Halfway through the news conference Talabani, who is 74 and overweight, signalled for a chair so he could sit down. His Iranian counterpart, a spry 51, remained on his feet.

Outside the Talabani compound, US troops who normally man key intersections near the residence were nowhere to be seen.

After seeing Talabani, Ahmadinejad drove to Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone to meet Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in his office just two kilometers (one mile) from the US embassy. Maliki was equally warm in his welcome, saying that Ahmadinejad's visit was a "positive" signal to the other Arab countries.

There was a high level of trust and I frankly say that the recent Iranian position towards Iraq is extremely helpful. The visit will encourage and motivate neighboring countries to visit Iraq.

Ahmadinejad used the platform with Maliki to lash out at Bush's accusation that Tehran was supporting militants in their attacks on US troops in Iraq. In the heart of the Green Zone, Ahmadinejad said,

Bush cannot solve US problems in the region by accusing others. Gone is the era of accusations. The Iraqi nation does not want the US.

Six years ago, there were no terrorists in our region. As soon as the others landed in this country and the region, we witnessed their arrival and presence.

Bush said Saturday that he had advised al-Maliki to give the Iranian leader a message:

He's a neighbor. And the message needs to be, quit sending in sophisticated equipment that's killing our citizens.

And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, came to Baghdad, unannounced and wearing Kevlar, to deliver Bush’s message to Maliki and other Iraqi officials. I'm betting Mullen's mission had little effect. It really doesn't add up: before the invasion, the Iraqis supposedly were building enough sophisticated WMDs to destroy Western civilization. But, after the invasion, they don't know how to build a shaped charge? Only those wily Persians know how to do that?

Bush's Mesopotamia is clearly a quagmire. The tragedy is compounded because there were many who foresaw to consequences of this reckless invasion. There were just not enough in the Congress in October of 2002 smart enough and brave enough to say "No". For example, Barack Obama had not yet reached the Senate.. Had he been there to answer the same call Hillary Clinton answered on red phone at 3:00 am in the morning, he would have said, as he actually did say then,

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

That's why I'm supporting Barack Obama for President. We've tried it the other way for the past 7+ years. Now we have to get absolutely the smartest and bravest people into positions of national leadership.

Is Tim Russert a Willing Tool of the Reich-Wing Christian Establishment?

It's an open question.

I don't allege anything about a right-wing conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy. It's an establishment.

I guess because I am basically only somewhere between being a non-sectarian secularist and a non-denominational deist, I haven't kept up with the religious wars of our American realm. Woe was me then, when I was blown off my couch, while watching last week's Cincy debate between Senators Clinton and Obama.

I was totally unprepared for Tim Russert's witch-doctor hunt into Barack Obama's past acquaintances and non-acquaintances. I mean whatever was he after? Did Russert want to log a fatwa against candidates being endorsed by Minister Louis Farrakhan? Russert wasted seven minutes of his national TV audience's time on this. And, of course, Hillary was only too happy to pile on and go along with it, wasn't she?

I was only mildly irritated with this until I woke up and smelled the coffee and learned that Glenn Greenwald was righteously calling Russert out on this carpet.

Russert put Obama through the meat grinder over Farrakhan, even though Obama has never met the Muslim leader. But when was the last opportunity Russert had to ask John McCain about being supported, endorsed, and even introduced by Pastor John Hagee? Well, I'll tell you when. The McCainster was last on Russert's show Meet the Press on 27 Jan 05. Look it up here and you will see there's not a peep about a nexus between the McCainster and the Hatester.

Everyone who knows what Farrakhan has said about Jews, Israelis and Zionists should also know what Hagee says and has said about Catholics, Deists (like myself) and other assorted non-evangelical Christians. A short list:

• All Muslims are programmed to kill and we can thus never negotiate with any of them.
• God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin.
• The End Times -- Rapture -- is imminent and the U.S. Government must do what it can to hasten it, which at minimum requires: (a) a war with Iran and (b) undying, absolute support for a unified Israel, including all Occupied Territories
• Unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it 'The Great Whore,' an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' and a 'false cult system' . . . .

Look up actual quotations here, here, here, here and here. And McCain certainly has had close encounters with the Pastor. Here's where he is introduced by Hagee while the Senator and Mrs. McCain reverently stand by. It is taken from McCain's own site, the so-called "Non-Surrender Tour".

Russert is obviously working on some hidden agenda to swift-boat Obama. Why else is there this crappy litmus test that he's forcing the Illinois Senator to pass through? Hagee is a zillion times more influential than Farrakhan. I conclude that, far from an independent journalist, Russert is a $100 whore for the Reich wing. He should be on Fox News.

I urge a fatwa against Tim Russert ever again 'moderating' a presidential debate featuring Democratic candidates.