In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush alleged that Iraq was concealing the following Weapons of Mass Destruction:
       500 tons of chemical weapons
       25,000 litres of Anthrax
       38,000 litres of botulim toxin

       To date, we have found:
       0 tons of chemical weapons
       0 litres of Anthrax and
0 litres of botulim toxin

I feel so much safer now.







       

Still no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) found in Iraq and no trace of Saddam either. The Arab media has been speculating that the fall of Baghdad happened so quickly because a secret deal was struck between the Bush administration and the ruling Baath Party and brokered by Saudi Arabia. The collapse was so sudden and the Iraqi leaders vanished in such a coordinated fashion that it makes you wonder whether something wasn't up, whether or not it was done with U.S. involvement.

We supposedly went into Iraq to deal with the WMDs, but once the fighting got started the propaganda quickly changed to "liberating" the Iraqi people. Now that we've won, that seems to be all that matters to most people. It all bears a striking resemblance to a quote credited to Adolph Hitler in William Shirer's book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

"I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war. Nevermind whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory."

Now that the war is essentially over, many of its proponents have been scolding those of us who opposed it for not being compassionate enough to want to bring freedom and liberation to the Iraqi people. But while we like to say we promote democracy in other nations, the truth of the matter is we just want a government that takes our side and does what we tell it to do. Whether that means a democracy, a theocracy or a dictatorship does not matter.

The Dixie Chicks latest album "Home" is back at No. 1 on the Country sales charts and their upcoming U.S. tour is sold out most everywhere, all in spite of this so-called "boycott" of the band by conservatives.
This is all good. I'm sure there will still be organized protests at some of the concerts, but that will just highlight the intolerance and vindictiveness of the protesters. I understood the initial outcry over Natalie Maines' remarks about being embarrassed that Bush is from Texas, but she apologized and that should have been that. It's unfortunate that some folks can be so obstinately unforgiving.
But that aside, the boycott was bound to fall flat mostly because the Dixie Chicks are just too good to be ignored. Maines' is an incredible singer who makes most other country performers today sound bland by comparison.

Why is it that so many far-right wingnuts prefer to vent their anger and frustration at women anyway? First there was Jane Fonda, and then it was Barbara Streistand and Hillary Clinton, and now its Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks. Is it because they have a tendency to want to bully folks who are less likely to fight back? Maybe that is why the rightwing is venting so much of its wrath against France - when Germany, China, Russia, and just about every other nation on the planet was equally critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Bush recently snubbed Canada by canceling a trip there and then entertained the president of Australia at the same time. But Bush is going to have a difficult time playing those petty games for long because there just aren't that many countries he can count in his "good" list.

The more I read about the looting of the museum and archive library in Baghdad the more disheartening it is. Most disturbing now are the reports that our civilian leaders were repeatedly forewarned about the possibility of looting and destruction of these historical treasures and still they chose to do nothing to protect it. I don't blame our military forces who were simply following their orders and doing their best to keep from being blown away by snipers and suicide bombers. But it would not have taken much to secure the museum the same way that the Bush folks had the Oil Ministry building secured.
I remember reading about the tragic torching of the ancient Greek library in Alexandria many thousands of years ago and of all the original works by Plato, Aristotle and others that were lost forever. I remember being disgusted by the ignorance of the invading armies that destroyed these priceless treasures. Of course, I never thought that such a tragedy would be repeated today.

There was one piece of good news I saw today in the Wall Street Journal - a report that some of the museum's most valuable artifacts had been hidden away in vaults for safekeeping before the bombing started. But the did not expect the rampant looting that occurred, and the damage that was done cannot be overstated. Some comentators have referred to it as a lobotomy of our worldwide cultural heritage.

But then the Bush administration's overriding concern has always been about how to secure money, oil and power and keep it for the privileged few. We are currently undergoing our own "looting" right here in the U.S. with the Bush adminstration trying to give away millions of acres of nationally protected parklands to oil, timber and mining interests and the slashing of federal and state programs for the poor and elderly to pay for massive tax cuts for the rich.

Some good news today! Republican Sen. Pete Fitzgerald of Illinois announced that he is not going to seek re-election in 2004. That should give Democrats a clear shot at another seat and put them a step closer to reclaiming control of the upper body of Congress. Fitzgerald, who is independently wealthy, said he was dissuaded by the amount of money he would need to raise for the race. No doubt he saw the writing on the wall and realized that few people would be willing to invest a great deal in a losing proposition. Illinois has been trending more Democratic lately and Fitzgerald was already at the top of the hit list.

Al Franken has a new book coming out this summer titled "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," which he describes as "a fair and balanced look at the right," I can't wait.
Some other books on my wish list include:

"What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman;
"The Clinton Wars" by Sidney Blumenthal;
"Big Lies: The Right Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth" by Joe Conason;
"Down and Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency" by Jake Tapper.

The Bush administration has just accused Syria of developing "Weapons of Mass Destruction." In Bushspeak that means "prepare to be liberated." We still haven't found those elusive WMDs in Iraq, but it no longer matters. American's now support pre-emptive invasions of other countries by more than 70 percent as long as we can whup up on them real good and declare victory in less than a month. So Iraq wasn't really as big of a threat as we were led to believe, we can still feel good about ourselves for liberating the people from a horrible dictator.
Now that Saddam Hussein has vanished (just like Osama Bin Laden) we have to have a new enemy to focus on so everyone repeat after me --- "Bashar Assad the Demon of Damascus" Hey, that is kind of catchy. Pretty soon more than half the people in the U.S. will be convinced that the very survival of our way of life depends on our taking out Assad.

I see from this article in the Wall Street Journal today that the Bush team has figured out how it will pay for the war in Iraq:

"The U.S. has diverted more than a half billion dollars from relief efforts for famines, epidemics and civil wars around the world to prepare for the aftermath of the war in Iraq, delaying aid to displaced Sudanese and homeless Afghans, among others."

So that's how you pay for a war while cutting taxes at the same time! Brilliant!!

The article goes on to say that the White House is planning to repay most of the money from other accounts in the State Department's foreign aid budget. (Yeah, right!) But adds that Bush is already planning to dip into other foreign aid accounts to free more than $100 million in additional funds for Iraq relief efforts.

All of this shuffling of aid dollars has left places such as the Ivory Coast, which has been wracked by a brutal civil war, unable to protect children from a measles outbreak, the article states. An appeal by the United Nations Children's Fund for $5.7 million to vaccinate 8 million children in the Ivory Coast has so far raised only enough to supply 400,000 vaccinations. Donor nations have been withholding funding for other regions to preserve their ability to fund Iraq relief.

"The U.S., the world's largest supplier of foreign aid, also has diverted the largest amount to Iraq. Since the Bush administration didn't request - and (the Republican) Congress didn't approve - any money for the war in this year's regular budget, the State Department 'scrubbed' $556.4 million from disaster and development accounts for Africa, Asia, Latin America and elsewhere."

Idiots!!

While we are on this subject, here is a blistering critique of U.S. foreign policy (or the lack thereof) under Bush by Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of economics at Columbia University.

Many people woke up this morning happy in the belief that the war in Iraq is essentially over. I hope that it is and perhaps the worst is over, but the nasty aftermath is possibly just beginning. Since the big statue of Saddam was pulled down in the center of Baghdad, there have been more military casualties in a firefight near a mosque, another suicide bombing that injured at least four soldiers and the assassination of a pro-Western Shiite cleric who had just returned from exhile.
The stock market welcomed the news of the fall of Saddam's empire by plummeting another 100 points. Does this bode ill for the big bull market that the administration is counting on to rejuvenate the economy after the war is over?
Michael Kinsley (my favorite columnist) has another excellent article today titled Unsettled - Victory in the war is not victory in the argument about the war. A sentiment with which I fully agree.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article today comparing George W.'s presidency at this stage with that of his father.
At this point in Bush the Elder's presidency his job approval was at 81 percent.
George W. is at 66 percent.

George the Elder could take credit for the creation of 1.3 million jobs at that point in his presidency.
George W. has so far presided over the loss of 2 million jobs.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 28.5 percent during the first 26 months of Bush the Elder.
The Dow is down 22.6 percent so far under George W.'s stewardship.

George the Elder saw an increase of 2 million Americans without health insurance.
George W. has seen an increase of 1.4 million Americans without health insurance.

Oh, and they had both claimed big victories in Middle Eastern war campaigns.
I can't help but think that Bush Jr. is in a pretty poor position at this point to ever get elected. Good thing he still has the Supreme Court on his side. Maybe they will just cancel the elections altogether.

The NYTimes is reporting that 11 journalists have been killed so far in 21 days of war. Also, there have been about 90 U.S. military casualties to date. During the first Gulf War there were no journalists among the casualties. Is this an indication that the glut of media coverage that we have come to expect today is forcing more journalists to continuously stick their necks out in order to get the story first and constantly up the ante with more and better graphic coverage? Perhaps this is the inevitable result of the "reality TV" fad right now where we expect to see all aspects of the war live as it happens. And unfortunately, this has not sated our appetite for more and more "reality" no matter how bloody and horrifying, not anymore than the Roman's lust for blood was sated by the gladiator fights in the coliseums.

Even with as much news coverage as we are getting, it is still almost impossible to know for sure what is really happening at any given moment. Is Saddam Hussein dead now? Didn't they report that he was dead several weeks ago? And if he wasn't killed by the latest bombing, who was? Was our intelligence wrong again? Who is feeding us this information and why? Pretty disturbing to think that there is someone over there who has the power to direct our bombers to let loose with 2,000 pound bunker busters on 12-minutes notice at their whim. Are they taking out rival factions or getting pay back on their enemies by manipulating our desire to get Saddam?

Then there are the supposed chemical weapons discovered yesterday. Or were they just old cannisters of pesticides? Whatever was in the containers, it reportedly was not "weaponized" so does that still mean it would be illegal under the U.N. inspections program? And what happens if we never do find any "weapons of mass destruction"? Won't that make it that much harder to win back the trust and support of the rest of the world opposed to this pre-emptive military action?

From the New York Times Magazine this week:

"At times, deficits are necessary to stimulate economic growth, and their dampening impact on private investment is occasionally exaggerated. But because of the Bush administration's policies and a weak economy, deficits are now approaching unmanageable levels, as they did in the 1980's. In fact, the federal government's fiscal health has deteriorated at a pace so stunning that few have yet caught up with the facts.

"Here are some of those facts. Even without a war, the budget deficit would have exceeded $300 billion this year -- just three years after the budget experienced a surplus of nearly $240 billion. (This was in the midst of a four-year run of substantial surpluses.) But with war costs escalating and revenues falling as a result of the flat economy, this year's deficit could rise to $400 billion. In fiscal year 2004, it is likely to be higher.

"The president has asked Congress for $75 billion to finance war-related costs, but many think a more realistic estimate of the combined costs of war and reconstruction will be closer to $200 billion. More alarming is the decline of government revenues over the long run. Instead of generating $5 trillion to $6 trillion in surpluses over 10 years from rising tax revenues on growing incomes, the government will now probably come up nearly $2 trillion short through 2013. That recession and slower growth have shrunk tax revenues is predictable enough. But the sinking stock market has taken more of a toll than expected: there are no more outsize capital gains to tax. These yielded fat revenues in the late 1990's, when stocks were soaring, exaggerating the fiscal health of the nation. Now the train is running in reverse.

"Finally, the Bush tax cuts have made long-term financial prospects significantly worse. Occasionally, tax cuts make sense. But the $1.4 trillion tax-cut package passed in 2001 would have been more productive if it had been temporary and applicable to more taxpayers. Instead, it was skewed to the rich (who are prone to save rather than spend) and will be permanent -- far from disappearing should the economy improve, the tax cut will grow larger. The administration proposed a second major tax cut in early January, estimated to cost $726 billion over 10 years, and it appears to be even less effective as a near-term stimulus: more than half of the total results from the elimination of taxes on dividends, an idea raised at Bush's economic summit in Waco, Tex., last August by a stockbroker, Charles Schwab. In addition, the Bush administration followed up this tax plan with a new budget that would extend the 2001 cuts three years past their expiration, costing another $600 billion.

"The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that reductions in mandatory programs for the elderly, veterans and the poor would come to $265 billion over 10 years. Another $210 billion would be lopped off of discretionary programs. The total of $475 billion is about equal to the tax reduction the president is requesting for the top 1 percent of earners in America."

OK, I'm back! Did you miss me?!? Pardon the extended absence but I took a few days off for a trip to California to visit friends and family and then was swamped with work for the next several days upon my return. I have to say that California was a nice place to visit, but I'm not sure I could afford to live there. Good grief! We looked at some houses that were selling for $1.5 million that weren't much bigger than where I'm living now. You could buy a monstrosity with a huge ranch thrown in for that much green stuff here in these parts. But I guess it is like they always say.... location, location, location. And by that they must mean beachfront property.

It was surprisingly easy to travel on the airlines what with a war going on and the terror alert up at the burnt orange level (but not maroon yet). Going through LAX I assumed we would all be strip searched and forced to provide blood and urine samples, but it was not much different than any other flight I've been on. Got to fly a jumbo jet for the first time. I'd never been on a plane where you get on and see a staircase going up to a second floor.

Unfortunately, the war is still going on. Today I was shocked to find out that the first U.S. journalist to die over there was Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly, also editor of The Altlantic monthly. I guess you never expect a celebrity journalist to be the first to go. Apparently, he was killed in some bizarre humvee accident of which the details are still sketchy. I am sad to see Kelly go, although I was no fan of his writing. His columns were always very conservative and bitter attacks on first Clinton and later Gore. I guess I have to admire his determination in getting out in the field to cover this war which he so stridently pushed for in his columns. I've known and know lots of people whose political views I strongly disagree with but who are nevertheless wonderful, upstanding and decent human beings. From the little I've read about Kelly since his death I get the feeling that he fell into that category.

Today the Senate voted to slash Bush's $726 billion tax cut in half. That means we are halfway back to some fiscal sanity. A $350 billion tax cut is still outrageous when we are in the middle of a war and are already in debt up to our ears.

The Academy Awards were more unpredictable than I had imagined and thus more entertaining. I am still upset that The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers took just two measly technical awards - Visual Effects and Sound Editing - but at least that was better than Gangs of New York which was completely shut out after receiving 10 nominations. I guess Peter Jackson will just have to console himself for now with his $335 million domestic box office take.
I was getting just a bit tired of hearing the theme music to ‘Chicago’ being played over and over, but the film topped out at six awards which - while respectable- is far short of a complete sweep. The film, which I still have not seen, took just one acting award for Catherine Zeta-Jones for best supporting actress. The big surprise turned out to be the Holocaust drama The Pianist which took three really big awards - adapted screenplay, best actor and best director. I’m not sure what to think about the directing award going to Roman Polanski the fugitive child molester who is living in exile in France. But I am happy for Best Actor Adrien Brody after first being upset when his name was called. I was pulling for Michael Caine or Daniel Day-Lewis, but after hearing Brody’s poignant and touching acceptance speech I was somewhat mollified.
I expected Nicole Kidman and her prosthetic nose to win Best Actress - the only award for The Hours. And Chris Cooper’s best supporting actor win was also expected, although I would have preferred to see Paul Newman or Christopher Walken win. Walken’s excellent performance in ‘Catch Me If You Can’ was the only one I have seen so far.
I thought that Steve Martin did an excellent job hosting under the strained circumstances. I was actually afraid that they would just do away with the host altogether like they did at the Grammys this year. But Martin was able to be funny and entertaining without offending the tender sensibilities of a nation in war-mode.
I was happy to see the Japanese animated film ‘Spirited Away’ win in that category and I hope to actually see the film some day too. The American offerings this year just weren’t up to the same level if ‘Ice Age’ is any indication - haven’t seen the others yet. I was also glad to see Eminem win Best Song for Lose Yourself from Eight Mile even though it meant that U2 did not win and Bono was not allowed to make an anti-war statement on the stage.
Documentary film maker Michael Moore’s anti-Bush speech was to have been expected. He clearly deserved to win this year for “Bowling For Columbine” and there was no way he was going to accept the award without saying something that would rattle peoples’ cages. I thought what he had to say was clever - contrasting non-fiction film making with ‘fictitious election results’ in Florida and ‘fictitious reasons for going to war in Iraq.’ We still have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (and fortunately none have been used against our troops). So if it turns out that Iraq wasn’t really an immediate threat to our national security, then what? Oh, well? He was a bad man and needed to be toppled anyway? At what cost? We are still finding out, unfortunately.
But back to Moore’s rant - even though what he said was clever, if he truly intended to win people over to his side I don’t think that standing up on stage and shouting “Shame on you, Mr. Bush!” was the way to go about it. But of course, Moore has never been very good at actually achieving the results that he espouses. After all, his support for Ralph Nader in the last election just helped to pull down Al Gore and hand the keys to the White House to runner-up George W.

The complete list of Oscar winners is here.

The behavior of the stock market never ceases to disgust me. Typically, you can count on the stock market to react favorably whenever big companies announce mass layoffs or shut down factories to move jobs overseas. Last week when Bush finally announced the long-anticipated start to his war against Iraq, the markets reacted boisterously with back-to-back-to-back rallies for the highest one week gain in years. The more bombs that burst around Baghdad, the higher stock prices would go. But now, after a weekend with more than a few setbacks and U.S. and British casualties climbing upward, the stock market has plunged nearly 300 points. It didn't take long for Wall Street to lose its enthusiasm for the war. Did they really expect it to all be over in a matter of days?
There is a good op-ed piece in the NYTimes today explaining why the war won't help our dreary economy.

It is almost scary how accurate this satirical news story from The Onion ( 1/18/01) has turned out: Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

Sales of Dixie Chicks albums have not suffered too much despite boycott attempts after lead singer and Lubbock native Natalie Maines dissed President Bush during the group's current European tour.

"Although radio airplay subsided about 20 percent, Home's sales remained strong relative to other current releases. Overall, the album finished the week ended Sunday by selling 124,000 copies, down 21,000 copies from the prior week, according to SoundScan data. However, when compared to the other top-selling albums, the Chicks fared pretty well. Home experienced about a 15 percent drop-off, while the top 5 holdovers from the previous week's charts averaged nearly a 26 percent decline.
With Home holding up better than its competition, the Grammy-winning disc actually climbed two spots to number four and remained number one on the country sales chart. (Of course, the fairly stable sales stats could be attributed to those fire-loving yokels stocking up on Home for the next burning.) "

While I think that Maine's comment was ill advised (She said she was embarrassed that George Bush is from Texas), I also think the whole issue is being blown far out of proportion by our nation's right-wing propaganda machine -- talk radio yakkers, Faux News, etc. There were a lot of other ways she could have made her point without fanning so much controversy, but that's what happens every once in a while to people who have microphones stuck in the faces everyday as part of their job without the benefit of professional handlers to tell them what to say and how to say it. At least Maines issued a sincere apology and I think that should be the end of it. Unfortunately, forgiveness is not one of the strong points of the right wingers here in the U.S. And many on the far-right love nothing better than the opportunity to work themselves up in a fit of self-righteouss indignation.

My jaw dropped the other night when Bush spoke about the "broad coalition" that is supporting his war in Iraq. Now the State Dept. has come out with a list of 30 countries that they say are backing the war effort:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. The State Department listed Japan as available for "post-conflict" support.

Of course, the only ones backing up their stated support with actual troop deployments is the UK along with a "token 2,000 troops" from Australia. It is kind of a stretch to include Turkey on the list as well, since they are not allowing U.S. troops to use bases in that country and is also sending its own troops into the Northern Iraq/Kurdish territory in in spite of repeated U.S. requests that they stay out.

The real story, however, is how world opinion of the U.S. has fallen sharply in recent months. The NYTimes is reporting today that opinion polls by the Pew Charitable Trust show "a serious disconnect" between Americans and their traditional allies. While 59 percent of Americans say they support a war against Iraq, only 39 percent of Britons and 13 percent of the Spanish favor military actions. Gee, aren't those our two biggest allies and they don't seem to have anywhere close to majority support of their home populations. The survey also showed that favorable opinions of the U.S. have fallen sharply in many countries including Germany where just 25 percent had a favorable opinion of the U.S. compared to 61 percent last June. In France, the numbers have fallen from 63 percent a year ago to 31 percent today, and in Italy it fell from 70 percent a year ago to 34 percent today. Wow! Just imagine what they will think if things don't go exactly as planned during the next several days.

From the resignation speech of Robin Cook, who stepped down as leader of the House of Commons in the UK to protest the Iraq situation.

"The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a seri ous threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors?"

On the one hand, Saddam is so weak that we are predicting a quick and easy military victory. On the other hand, we are being told that Saddam is an imminent threat to U.S. security and therefore we must embark on a pre-emptive attack with or without the support of international allies.

Last night in his speech, Bush spoke of a "broad coalition" that will use military force to disarm Saddam. But that coalition includes just two nations - the U.S. and Great Britain - Spain is not even providing any troops, just diplomatic cover such that it is. Bush went on to criticize France for its opposition to the war, but Cook makes it clear that France is not alone in its opposition.

"In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.
The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. "

I think that "diplomatic miscalculations" is putting it rather mildly.

The United States has ordered the U.N. inspectors to leave Iraq. It is the first clear signal that the diplomatic charade that the Bush administration has been trying to orchestrate is over and the war is set to begin. It now occurs to me that the rightness or wrongness of this war will now be judged on two factors -- the number of U.S. casualties (Iraqi casulaties are irrelevant) and whether or not the U.S. economy will bounce back after it is all over. The stock market already shot up 200 points today in eager anticipation of a quick war. I can only hope that the war does go well, that Iraq's army scatters at the first hint of confrontation and that Saddam either flees or is quickly dispatched. But even if that is the case, the aftermath is still likely to be an ugly, drawn-out and expensive affair.
I have never been convinced that this war is necessary. Perhaps if Bush were capable of defending his position in a one-on-one interview with an aggresive reporter the way that Britain's Tony Blair does here, then I would feel a little better. But I can't even imagine a U.S. TV reporter being that tough and/or knowlegeable in any case, so maybe it is not entirely Bush's fault.

Consumer confidence has plunged to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to a Reuters report. That means it hasn't been this bad since, well, since the last time there was a President Bush in the White House.
War fears continue to drive gasoline prices higher. Unemployment continues to hover at the highest level in more than a decade. The Economic Policy Institute has reported that we are experiencing "the longest continuous stretch of job decline since 1944-46." Since March 2001, the economy has lost 2.5 million private-sector jobs.
Let's face it. Bush has been in office for more than two years, over half his term, and there are no bright spots to point to on the domestic front. The driving obsession of this administration for the past six months - at least since it became clear that Bush's tax cuts were not having the desired effect on the economy - has been in prosecuting an unprovoked conflict in Iraq. As a diversionay tactic it has worked like a charm. It largely responsible for the Republican victories in the November election fueled by "rally round the flag" sentiments. But the question that remains is what effect will the war have on the economy? I'm sure Bush's folks are hoping - betting the farm - that a quick victory in Iraq will be followed by a rebound in U.S. consumer confidence which will then drive the economy back into the black just in time for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004. Then, with a fresh mandate (who knows, maybe he will even win the election this time) and possibly a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and continued control of the House, the Republicans can finally push through their entire agenda on tax cuts, education vouchers, repealing Roe vs. Wade, filling up the federal courts with movement conservatives, elimination of environmental regulations preventing oil drilling and logging efforts, etc. A rightwinger's paradise.
Unfortunately, when this whole loopy fantasy comes crashing down, it's not going to be the wealthy Bush supporters who suffer the most. The vast majority of the Bush team never served in the military, and their children are not serving there now. They did not attend public schools and neither do their children. They live in a different world where you make a fortune by investing big piles of other people's money and then looking for ways to keep from paying taxes on it.