NAFTA Reform Just the Start - U.S. Trade Critics

U.S. trade policies have been catastrophic for America for decades. We need a dramatic reversal that probably won't come with the next administration:

The next U.S. president needs to fundamentally redirect U.S. trade policy to preserve manufacturing jobs and reduce the huge trade deficit -- not just tinker with the North American Free Trade Agreement, critics of U.S. trade deals said on Wednesday.

"We need to change the whole discussion about investment, about subsidies, about enforcement of trade laws," said Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers union. "How does any country continue to prosper when it's accumulating an average annual trade deficit of about $700 billion per year?"

But Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said it was more important in the short term to change the agreement's investment provisions because they encourage U.S. companies to move jobs to Mexico.

Similar reforms are needed in other trade agreements, including the one that set the terms of China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, she said.

Wallach blamed NAFTA, China's WTO accession and other trade agreements for many of the roughly 3 million manufacturing jobs the United States has lost since 2000.

Seized Laptop Shows Chavez-Rebel Ties

Chavez is a big problem in Latin America:

A single laptop can reveal much, and so it is with the digital treasure chest that Colombian commandos found in the jungle quarters of slain rebel leader Raul Reyes.

Files in the computer seized in Saturday's raid into Ecuador that claimed the lives of Reyes and 23 of his comrades offer an intimate portrait of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's desire to undermine Colombia's U.S.-allied government.

If authentic, the documents show that sympathies Chavez first aired publicly in January grew out of a relationship that dates back more than a decade. But Chavez is not one of the correspondents, and his sentiments mentioned in these documents are relayed solely through the rebels.

Venezuela says the documents are lies and fabrications. If they are, they are expertly done.

Its a dangerous situation:

Ecuador broke off diplomatic ties with Colombia on Monday, after Colombian government commandos conducted a weekend strike against communist rebels inside Ecuador's borders.

Venezuela has also announced that it will be expelling Colombia's ambassador as a war of words erupted in South America over the raid that killed Raul Reyes, a prominent member of FARC -- the guerrilla army that is considered the world's richest insurgency.

Don't be surprised if warmonger Bush is inciting the hostilities:

Ecuador and Venezuela say they are moving thousands of troops to Colombia's borders, a day after Colombian forces killed a leftist rebel leader in Ecuadorean territory. Colombia later charged that high-ranking Ecuadorean officials met recently with the slain rebel, Raúl Reyes, to accommodate the guerrillas' presence there.

The developments raised tensions in a region that has been on edge in the several months since Colombian President Álvaro Uribe and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez had a bitter falling-out. Mr. Reyes was the second-ranking commander of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

Obama, Clinton Speech Transcripts 3-4-08

Hillary lives to fight another day. In the process she will destroy the Democrats chances of winning in November (Read Entire Transcript here):

This is your campaign and your moment, and I need your support. For more than a year, I've been listening to the voices of people across our country, you know, the single mom who told me she works two jobs, neither provides health care for her kids. She just can't work any harder.

The little girl who asked how I'd help people without homes? It turns out her family was about to lose their own.

The young man in a Marine Corps shirt who said he waited months for medical care, he said to me, "Take care of my buddies. A lot of them are still over there. And then will you please help take care of me?"

Americans don't need more promises. They've heard plenty of speeches. They deserve solutions, and they deserve them now.

(APPLAUSE)

America needs a president who's ready to lead, ready to stand up for what's right even when it's hard. And after seven long years of George W. Bush...

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

... we sure are ready for a president who will be a fighter, a doer, and a champion for the American people again.

(APPLAUSE)

Oh, I think we're ready for health care, not just for some people or most people, but for every American.

(APPLAUSE)

I think we're ready for an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top, but every single hard-working American who deserves a shot at the American dream. I think we're ready to declare energy independence and create millions of green-collar jobs.

(APPLAUSE)

We're ready to reach out to our allies and confront our shared challenges. We're ready to end the war in Iraq and win the war in Afghanistan.

(APPLAUSE)

And we're past ready to serve our veterans with the same devotion that they served us.

Barack Obama is undaunted. But he faces hard times ahead (Read Entire Transcript here):

You know, decades ago, as a community organizer, I learned that the real work of democracy begins far from the closed doors and marbled halls of Washington.

It begins on street corners and front porches; in living rooms and meeting halls with ordinary Americans who see the world as it is and realize that we have it within our power to remake the world as it should be.

It is with that hope that we began this unlikely journey – the hope that if we could go block by block, city by city, state by state and build a movement that spanned race and region; party and gender; if we could give young people a reason to vote and the young at heart a reason to believe again; if we could inspire a nation to come together again, then we could turn the page on the politics that’s shut us out, let us down, and told us to settle. We could write a new chapter in the American story.

We were told this wasn’t possible. We were told the climb was too steep. We were told our country was too cynical – that we were just being naïve; that we couldn’t really change the world as it is.

But then a few people in Iowa stood up to say, “Yes we can.” And then a few more of you stood up from the hills of New Hampshire to the coast of South Carolina. And then a few million of you stood up from Savannah to Seattle; from Boise to Baton Rouge. And tonight, because of you – because of a movement you built that stretches from Vermont’s Green Mountains to the streets of San Antonio, we can stand up with confidence and clarity to say that we are turning the page, and we are ready to write the next great chapter in America’s story.

In the coming weeks, we will begin a great debate about the future of this country with a man who has served it bravely and loves it dearly. And tonight, I called John McCain and congratulated him on winning the Republican nomination.

But 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.

John McCain Victory Speech Transcript 3-4-08

McCain wins the nomination (Read entire transcript):

I understand the responsibilities I incur with this nomination, and I give you my word, I will not evade or slight a single one. Our campaign must be, and will be more than another tired debate of false promises, empty sound-bites, or useless arguments from the past that address not a single American's concerns for their family's security. Presidential candidates are judged on their records, their character and the whole of their life experiences. But we are also expected to concentrate our efforts on the challenges that will confront America on our watch and explain how we intend to address them.

America is at war in two countries, and involved in a long and difficult fight with violent extremists who despise us, our values and modernity itself. It is of little use to Americans for their candidates to avoid the many complex challenges of these struggles by re-litigating decisions of the past. I will defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime as I criticized the failed tactics that were employed for too long to establish the conditions that will allow us to leave that country with our country's interests secure and our honor intact. But Americans know that the next President doesn't get to re-make that decision. We are in Iraq and our most vital security interests are clearly involved there. The next President must explain how he or she intends to bring that war to the swiftest possible conclusion without exacerbating a sectarian conflict that could quickly descend into genocide; destabilizing the entire Middle East; enabling our adversaries in the region to extend their influence and undermine our security there; and emboldening terrorists to attack us elsewhere with weapons we dare not allow them to possess.

The next President must encourage the greater participation and cooperation of our allies in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Huckabee finally conceded (read entire transcript):

Ladies and gentlemen, I called Senator McCain a few moments ago. It looks pretty apparent tonight that he will, in fact, achieve 1,191 delegates to become the Republican nominee for our party.

I extended to him not only my congratulations, but my commitment to him and to the party to do everything possible to unite our party, but more importantly to unite our country, so that we can be the best nation we can be, not for ourselves, but for the future generations to whom we owe everything, just as we owe previous generations all that they have done for us.

Senator McCain has run an honorable campaign because he's an honorable man. One of the things I'm proudest of is that the two campaigns that I believe have been run in the most civil manner are the two in the Republican Party that have lasted on their feet to the final. And I'm grateful for the manner in which he has conducted his campaign.

And, quite frankly, with your great help, I'm very proud of the way that you have insisted that we conduct our campaign. And it's been one that we will always be able to say was done with honor.

Pro-Clinton Video Calls Obama a "Muslim" Jihadist

This is pure vile filth put out by someone who claims to be a Hillary Clinton supporter. It shouldn't surprise you that a Clinton campaign worker was behind this garbage. The person who posted has been a member for only 7 hours. Meaning its a hit-and-run video. My account was canceled for doing much less. I've already complained about this video to Youtube:

It Looks Like Hillary Clinton will Survive Today's Results

The results in Ohio and Texas look like they will be very close for the Democrats. This means the Clinton campaign will interpret it as a victory and will fight on. Dan Rather said today on the Morning Show that Ms.Clinton will stay in the race regardless of the harm done to the party and their chances of winning in November. If she can't win Hillary will make sure that Obama does not come the Fall. She wants to be able to run in 2012.

Apparently her appearances on comedy programs the last 3 days have benefited her. In addition, the negative publicity surrounding the claims that Obama and the government of Canada have some understanding on NAFTA, along with the Rezko scandal, have had an impact. Polls show late movement in favor of Hillary. Even if the results are close this could mean Obama gets more delegates from all of Tuesday's primaries. Nevertheless, the press hype will translate it as a victory for Clinton and dub her the comeback kid. This will give Hillary the excuse to fight on despite the unlikeliness that she will win the nomination. This in turn will mean that Obama will be too bloodied come the general election. Bottomline: Obama loses to McCain in November. The Clintons are good at damaging the Democratic Party.

UPDATE:

• Chuck Todd, MSNBC's top political analyst, said this morning that Hillary has no statistical chance of winning regardless of what happens tonight.
• A Washington Post poll gives hope to Hillary. It showed almost a majority of the public thinks the former First Lady should remain in the race regardless of today's results.
  

China's Defense Budget up 17.6 Percent

China continues to build up their military and threaten America without a wimper from our so-called leadership in Washington. It is the same kind of indifference that existed prior to 9-11. It will continue to be ignored until there is a conflict between our two sides, probably over Taiwan:

China's defense budget for 2008 will be up 17.6 percent from last year to more than $58 billion, a parliamentary spokesman announced Tuesday.

Jiang Enzhu, spokesman for the National People's Congress, whose session opens Wednesday, told reporters in Beijing the budget represents an increase of nearly $8.8 billion from last year's actual military spending, Xinhua reported.

Then there is the highly provocative hacking the Chinese are engaging in:

China rejected a U.S. report concluding that the Chinese military is secretly increasing spending to break into U.S. military computer systems, expand its Navy, and invest in intercontinental nuclear missiles and weapons to destroy satellites.

Speaking of Taiwan:

China warned Tuesday that Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian will "pay a dear price" if he continues with current pro-independence plans.

Texas Gets B+ Rating, Runs a $3.3 Billion Shortfall

So much for ratings of State governments:

Texas' state government got a B-plus in a report card released Monday by The Pew Center on the States. The center ranked the states based on how well they manage their budgets, staffs, infrastructure and information. A closer look:Texas' grade: B+. The state made a B in 2005, when the last report card was issued.

Here's the reality that really matters, not some worthless rating system:

Texas would lose more than $3.3 billion in Medicaid funding if Congress doesn't stop new rules designed to arrest the growth of federal health care spending, according to a congressional report issued Monday.

The new rules target hospitals and other organizations that use Medicaid to provide health care to the uninsured. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimated that the changes to hospital reimbursements would create a shortfall that could imperil health care for 185,000 patients.

Hillary Still Hiding her First Lady Phone Logs

The Clintons have been trying to stall any and all releasing of records that might derail and candidacy that is on the verge of collapsing anyway:

Hillary Clinton has taken heat throughout her presidential campaign for not forcing the release of documents detailing her activities during her time as first lady. Conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch and rival Barack Obama, among others, have called on Clinton to intervene to expedite the release of the documents.

Obama had this to say on the matter: "We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history. And not releasing, I think, these records — at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience — I think, is a problem."

Now the Associated Press reports that the National Archives said today that "it expects to release Hillary Rodham Clinton's schedules as first lady later this month, but has asked a judge to delay the release of thousands of her telephone logs for one to two years."

Clinton critics suggest that the Clintons are intervening to keep the papers secret[...]

Obama Must Build a Movement Beyond Winning White House

This is an excellent article on how its not enough to just win the White House. Obamamania must get beyond just winning the White House. We need a movement that will sweep out the old guard that has run this country on behalf of the few for so long:

For her win was the product not just of electoral momentum but a political movement. For several years now online activists have been building a progressive counterweight to rightward drift within the Democratic party. In general elections, they attack Republicans. In primaries, they support progressives. And in between time they light a fire under Democrats lest they forget why they were elected.

Edwards was, among other things, a product of that movement. It made her candidacy viable and sustained it after her narrow defeat in 2006. If she goes to Congress and sells out, they will turn on her. If she delivers progressive policies and comes under fire, they will support her. The interests of her candidacy and their priorities coincided. But they are not identical.

As the primary race reaches its denouement, Obama needs to reflect on how he can nurture a similar relationship with his base - not just to sustain his candidacy but to bolster his prospects of actually delivering on his promises. Obama has been described as running a grassroots movement. This is only half true. It is certainly grassroots. In the various states that I have seen it operate there are plenty of local volunteers and local staff. At web-driven meet-ups people get together, independent of the campaign. On Facebook his candidacy has a life of its own. One of the reasons he has won every caucus state is because his supporters are far more dedicated and far better organised at a local level than Clinton's.

But it is not a movement. It has no purpose or meaning beyond getting him elected. Once he wins or loses it will cease to exist. It operates not from the bottom up but the top down. The change he refers to is principally a change in leadership. The chant "Yes we can", in essence, means yes he can.

[...]What Obama does have is a highly professional electoral campaign that has proved itself adept at getting people involved at every level and harnessing new technologies to that end. So far so good. It is perfectly possible (although by no means inevitable) that by the end of tomorrow night Obama will effectively be the nominee. His team could be forgiven for dwelling on making that immediate prospect a reality.

But then what? If Obama is serious about his desire to fundamentally change the way America operates at home and abroad then he will have take on entrenched, vested interests to beat John McCain and deliver on his promises.

[...]An electoral coalition of independents, wealthy progressives, African Americans, white men and the young have come together to vote for him, but has yet to mobilise itself into a political movement that can support him. A movement sparked by the issues his candidacy has raised that moves beyond his personality as a candidate.

Were he to win, he would need to tap their outrage at the pharmaceutical companies, Halliburton, lobbyists, Pentagon torturers and corporate tax-dodgers. He would need them sufficiently empowered to confront the banks over their lending practices, multinationals over outsourcing, and universities over rising fees. And in his negotiations with Congress and other powerbrokers he would need to know the limits to what he can concede without antagonising his base.

Obama cannot turn this around on his own any more than Bush got America into this mess on his own. Enough of the public had to be actively complicit in the Bush agenda for it to be possible to make things this bad. Indeed, the right has been extraordinarily adept in this regard. When Bush nominated Harriet Miers or sought to pass immigration reform, they blocked him. When he cut taxes and started war, they backed him. Without them his presidency would have crumbled sooner, and even more dramatically. Enough of the public would have to be equally complicit in Obama's agenda for him to right Bush's wrongs.

Obama: Hillary Clinton Getting a "Little Desperate"

This is an excerpt from a Nightline interview to be shown on Monday:

The Obama campaign accused the Clinton campaign of "fear-mongering."

"I think she has got a little desperate toward the end of this campaign," Obama told "Nightline's" Terry Moran, while campaigning in Ohio. "[She] has been a lot more aggressive in her negative attacks.

"As I've pointed out, we've actually had a pretty significant moment in the last several years, that called people's judgment into question. And that was the war in Iraq."

On the war:

Regarding the Iraq War, this weekend, Clinton told reporters that if she runs against McCain, she will "put forth my lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Obama disagrees with that characterization. "I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate race," he said. "It wasn't simply a speech. It was an ongoing opposition."

On experience:

On the question of experience, Obama welcomes the contrast between him and Clinton, who has repeatedly described herself as someone who is "tested" and "ready."

"I think the question is, how do you know any president is ready?" Obama said. "[Until] you're president, you haven't made these decisions."

"What people can take a look at is how I exercised judgment on key foreign policy questions over the last several years," he said. "And I think they can have confidence. ... More often than not, I have shown judgment that was superior to some of these people who are claiming much lengthier experience."

As part of her proven experience, Clinton has highlighted her visits to more than 80 countries, her time spent in the White House and her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Look, I've lived overseas," said Obama. "I have family overseas. I have served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

As for Clinton's experience in the White House, Obama is dubious. "It is true that I've not lived in the White House," he said. "Although, one of the tough things about Sen. Clinton's campaign has been the degree to which she takes credit for good things that happened and doesn't take credit for bad things that happened."

And what about temperament:

Obama believes that his "matter of temperament" best prepares him for the White House.

"One of the things that I've known about myself for a long time," he said, "is that, in difficult or stressful moments, I don't get rattled And I don't get rattled during campaigns. I don't get rattled when things are up ... and I don't get too low when things are down."

Why Hillary Lost: "Mrs Clinton Tries Hard to Fake Sincerity"

It took a British newspaper columnist to expose the real Hillary Clinton:

When Texas and Ohio vote in Tuesday’s Democratic primaries, they may bring Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency to an end. If she loses either of those states, her bid is over barring the formalities. This is a position few expected her to be in. Not long ago, success in the primaries and victory in the general election were regarded as almost inevitable. What went wrong?

For the answer, one should turn (as always) to the teachings of Marx. “The secret of success in life is sincerity,” Groucho once famously observed. “If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

This truth about the human condition applies with particular force to politics. Mrs Clinton tries hard to fake sincerity – so hard it is painful to watch. Sometimes, in fact, I suspect that she really is sincere and only looks as though she is faking. Barack Obama, on the other hand, may actually be sincere – and if he is not, he fakes it so well it makes no difference. Elections are won and lost formany reasons, but if I had to point to just one in the present case, this would be it.

It is surely telling that the most effective moments in Mrs Clinton’s campaign have been those rare times when a real person has appeared to break through: the tears in New Hampshire, the moving and seemingly unaffected tribute to wounded soldiers at the end of the Houston debate the other day. But for most of the time she has veered from one false personality to another, often during the course of a single debate or interview. One moment she would be acting tough, the next warm; now aloof, now approachable; now a fun person, fond of a joke (that was the worst), now stern and serious. In every moment of repose came that scary rictus smile, to emphasise the lack of authenticity and remind one irresistibly of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

Meet The Press Transcript 3-2-08: Looks Grim for Hillary

Clintonista, James Carville, was forced to admit that if Hillary Clinton doesn't win Tuesday she is toast (read the entire transcript here):

MR. SHRUM: Do you agree with me that if Obama carries one state, it's effectively over?

MR. CARVILLE: It is very, very, very difficult. And I've--and, and I said that earlier; President Clinton has said it. It becomes exceedingly difficult if she, if she loses either Ohio or Texas. That's, that's evident. You got to...

MR. RUSSERT: It's over.

MR. CARVILLE: It's very, very, very difficult.

MR. RUSSERT: Oh, you're...

MR. CARVILLE: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Two weeks ago, you said it was over.

MR. CARVILLE: It--I don't know what the difference is. It sounds good to me.

MR. MURPHY: It's one sentence he'd like to have back.

MR. CARVILLE: It's--I don't have this reject...

MR. RUSSERT: I think he got a phone call this morning, "Don't say it's over." Right?

MR. CARVILLE: No, I--in, in effect, I, I agree with President Clinton.

MR. MURPHY: There you go.

MR. CARVILLE: And I--I'll leave it at that.

Then Carville tries to explain away Hillary's position on NAFTA by making an unverified claim that she sort of opposed it when Bill was President:

MR. CARVILLE: I can--something I can attest to personally, and I, I have checked, she--in, in 1992, she was decidedly cool toward NAFTA. Came up with--we came out for NAFTA during the campaign. And I--the reason I remember it so well is it's one of the few times that I actually disagreed with, with Hillary Clinton on anything. I made it my business to try to agree with her on, on most things. Now, I don't know what happened in between 1992 and this campaign, but I do know that she was decidedly cool on, on the idea of us endorsing NAFTA during that campaign.

MR. MURPHY: But she has a theory about what happened...

MR. RUSSERT: But in 2004, she did say, "On balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and for America."

MR. MURPHY: Right.

MR. CARVILLE: I, I--again, I, I do know that--what it was in 1992. I can't attest other...

Bottomline: if she doesn't win big on Tuesday she won't win the nomination:

MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me show you, though, there's a map, and this is a map of the remaining 12 states, 611 delegates starting with this Saturday--next Saturday be Wyoming and in Mississippi, our calculation is, even if Senator Clinton wins Ohio and Texas say 52-48, she'd have to win 70 percent of the vote in each of those states in order to get enough delegates to surpass Obama among selected delegates. If she didn't, James Carville, I understand--I'm hearing you, that even if she was behind amongst elected delegates...

MR. CARVILLE: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...she could say "I finished strong.

MR. CARVILLE: Yeah. Of course.

MR. RUSSERT: I won Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, I should be the nominee."

MR. CARVILLE: And, and, and we're also forgetting they have to do something about Florida and Michigan. Now, you can say we, we discount the, the previous election, they have to go to like what they call a firehouse caucus or something. But part of her calculation would be that she's showing strength...

MR. SHRUM: Right.

MR. CARVILLE: ...and then she does--you got to put the--they're not going to not seat something from Florida and Michigan. It may not be based on the previous...

MR. RUSSERT: But what you're saying is that she would go to a convention and say, "I did not win elected delegates, I did not win as many states, primaries, caucuses as Obama, I did not win as much popular vote, but I should be the nominee because you should seat Michigan and Florida."

MR. CARVILLE: Well, well, well, we may not--wait, I mean, look...

MR. RUSSERT: What would happen inside that convention?

MR. CARVILLE: Well, first of all, I'd say now many Idahos does it take to count as California? I mean, come on, that's a little bit of a...

MS. MATALIN: Wait...

MR. SHRUM: That would be...

MR. CARVILLE: But it would be...

MR. MURPHY: That's the beauty of it.

MR. SHRUM: Someone from the Clinton campaign is a fraud.

MR. CARVILLE: What...

MR. SHRUM: Barack Obama is going to carry California if he's the nominee, he's going to carry New York, he's going to carry New Jersey.

MS. MATALIN: I...

MR. SHRUM:

That's not the issue. The issue here--the issue here is you cannot go into this convention and not have some moral claim to this nomination.

MS. MATALIN: I...

I think she can acquire one in the next few weeks, but she's got to acquire it by winning these two states, then winning Pennsylvania, and doing better.

MS. MATALIN: I agree.

MR. SHRUM: But she cannot in the end, "By the way, nominate me by giving me the delegates out of the Soviet-style primary in Michigan where we only had one person's name on the ballot."

Report: UK energy Firms told to Surrender Profits

Maybe it could be solution in the U.S. also:

British gas and electricity companies are being ordered by the government to hand over part of their bumper profits or face a new windfall tax, according to a newspaper report on Sunday.

Chief executives of utility firms have been told that, unless they agree to subsidise a new nationwide "fuel poverty" scheme aimed at the 4.5 million poorest households, a levy will be put on their profits, the Sunday Telegraph said.

Finance minister Alistair Darling plans to unveil the fuel poverty programme in his budget on March 12, it added.

The move follows widespread protests at ballooning gas and electricity bills. Five of the six big suppliers to British homes and small businesses have announced big price increases this year, blaming soaring wholesale energy costs.

The Britain's energy watchdog Ofgem launched an investigation into power and gas supply markets because of growing public concern on Feb. 21.

Iraq War Hurts Economy: Economics Nobel Winner

Now we have an important voice making an economic argument against the Iraq War:

The Iraq war has contributed to the U.S. economic slowdown and is impeding an economic recovery, Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is severely underestimating the cost of the war, Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes write in their book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War" (W.W. Norton), due to be published on Monday.

The nearly 5-year-old war, once billed as virtually paying for itself through increased Iraqi oil exports, has cost the U.S. Treasury $845 billion directly.

"It used to be thought that wars are good for the economy. No economist really believes that anymore," Stiglitz said in an interview.

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.

In addition, there are costs not accounted for in the budget such as rising oil prices and social and macroeconomic costs, which the book details.

Doctor: 40 Dead in Pakistan Attack

The new Iraq. Will we end up fighting in Pakistan too? If things continue at this pace the issue will fall on the lap of the next President:

A suicide bomber blew himself up Sunday at a large meeting called by tribal elders pushing for peace in northwestern Pakistan, killing at least 40 people and injuring more than 100, witnesses and officials said.

It was the third suicide bombing in as many days in the volatile northwest, where security forces were battling pro-Taliban Islamic militants.

Thousands of people were at the meeting in Darra Adam Khel in North West Frontier Province about 25 miles south of the provincial capital, Peshawar. The five tribes involved wanted to finalize a resolution calling for punishing anyone who sheltered or helped militants, including those of al-Qaida and the Taliban, Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said on state-run Pakistan Television.

Dead Pet Pig Gets Registered to Vote

This says something about our voting system and how overzealous voter groups can lead to unintended results. I've heard of dead people voting; but dead pigs? If animals could be registered to vote can you imagine how many illegal aliens are registered?

Ricin Suspect had Anarchist Handbook, Guns

This story gets more and more mysterious as the authorities insist that the suspect who had ricin in his Las Vegas hotel room, along with guns and an anarchist handbook, was not involved in any terrorist activity. Then what were his plans?

Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

This article asks a fair question: will Obama make the changes he promises and are necessary. I don't believe he would. Having said that, I believe he would make a better President than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Nevertheless, It won't be real change. The kind of change we need. We will still have a nation on the decline. We need a revolution. Barack Obama is one man. If he becomes President he will still be part of a two-party system that is the problem in the first place:

Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

This is the real "Where's the beef?" about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Obama's argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that "yes, we can" break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.

What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.

Read the entire Washington Post op-ed by David Ignatius

Congressman Fights Nuclear Waste Imports

This is what we've come to. America is a dumping ground. At least one American politician hasn't been bought off:

A Utah congressman is fighting against a proposed project that he says could turn the United States into a nuclear waste dump for the world.

The Christian Science Monitor reported Friday that U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, a Democrat, is battling efforts to allow the Utah firm EnergySolutions to import large amounts of low-level radioactive waste from Italy.

"I recognize that small amounts of waste have been permitted entry into the U.S. in the past; however, encouraging other nations to actively pursue disposal options in the U.S. seems shortsighted at best," the Utah Democrat wrote in a letter this week to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Environmentalists too are opposed to the project that would allow the company to ship up to 20,000 tons of mildly radioactive material from Italian nuclear-power plants to Tennessee to process it, then dispose of the waste in Utah.