Another Sign

One of the themes of this blog is the changing position of the U.S. in the world economy. Clearly, competition is catching up to us. Equally clearly, our leaders are ignoring the matter.

The recent issue of the NY Federal Reserve Bank's newsletter points out our loss of market share in the corporate bond market. In 1995 our bond market was double the size of that of Europe. Now, our market is smaller than theirs.

Our stock markets are also under siege as more and more countries join the 21st century economy.

Some more quotations

This time from some comments by Charles Freeman, formerly Assistant Secretary of Defense and ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

To many now in power in Washington and in much of the country, it is perilously unpatriotic to ask why we were struck on 9/11 or who we're fighting or whether attempting forcibly to pacify various parts of the realm of Islam will reduce the number of our enemies or increase them.

How can we win a war with an enemy so ill-understood that we must invent a nonexistent ideology of "Islamofascism" for it? And how can a war with no clear objectives ever accomplish its mission and end?

As force protection becomes our major preoccupation, we find we must pacify the countries we occupy so that we can continue to station troops in them to fight the terrorists our occupation is creating.

Rather than consider the possibility that the witless application to foreign societies of military pressure, no matter how immense and irresistible it may be, is more likely to generate resistance than to make states of them, we prefer to blame the inhabitants of these societies for their ingratitude and internal divisions. So we threaten to withdraw our political and economic support from them, while piling on more American troops. Asked when our soldiers may be able to declare their mission accomplished and to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, our Commander-in-Chief replies that this is a policy question that the generals in the field should decide, and that he's not going to decide for them. Think about that for a minute. Since when are generals responsible for making policy decisions? They are conditioned to focus on implementing policy and to avoid making it. Whatever happened to civilian control of the military or "the buck stops here?" Why should our military be left to hold the bag in this way?

In most countries, politicians now see public spats with the United States as the easiest way to rally their people and enhance their prestige. The result is the progressive displacement of our previously indispensable influence and leadership in more and more areas of the world.

Sagging demand for our leadership may be a good thing to the extent it relieves us of the burdens of our much-proclaimed status as the sole remaining superpower. But we're clearly bothered by being seen as less relevant. Our answer to this seems to be to build an even more powerful military. Some of you will recall newspaper reports that our defense spending is only about 3.6 percent of GDP, reflecting a defense budget of only – I emphasize – only $499.4 billion. But a lot of defense-related spending is outside the Defense Department's budget. This fiscal year we will actually spend at least $934.9 billion (or about 6.8 percent of our GDP) on our military. Outside DoD, the Department of Energy will spend $16.6 billion on nuclear weapons. The State Department will disburse $25.3 billion in foreign military assistance. We will spend $69.1 billion on defense-related homeland security programs and $69.8 billion for treatment of wounded veterans. The Treasury will spend $38.5 billion on unfunded military retirements. We will pay $206.7 billion in interest on war debt. Other bits and pieces, including satellite launches, will add another $8.5 billion. Altogether, I repeat, that's about $935 billion. But there's no sign that all this military spending – though it is vastly more than the rest of the world combined – and the power projection capabilities it buys are regaining international leadership for us.

These regional powers distrust our purposes, fear our militarism, and reject our leadership. Distrust drives them to reaffirm the principles of international law we have now abandoned. Fear drives them to pursue the development or acquisition of weapons with which to deter the policies of preemptive attack and forcible regime change we now espouse.

But what are we for? Whatever happened to American optimism and idealism? To be able to lead the world again we must once again exemplify aspirations for a higher standard of freedom and justice at home and abroad. We cannot compel – but must persuade – others to work with us. And to lead a team, we must rediscover how to be a team player.

We face perplexing choices in every region of the world. But the policies that have brought discredit upon us center on one region – the Middle East. To restore our reputation we must correct these policies. And the problem of terrorism that now bedevils us has its origins in one region – the Middle East. To end this terrorism we must address the issues in the region that give rise to it.

Principal among these is the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation that is about to mark its fortieth anniversary and shows no sign of ending. Arab identification with Palestinian suffering, once variable in its intensity, is now total. American identification with Israeli policy has also become total. Those in the region and beyond it who detest Israeli behavior, which is to say almost everyone, now naturally extend their loathing to Americans. This has had the effect of universalizing anti-Americanism, legitimizing radical Islamism, and gaining Iran a foothold among Sunni as well as Shiite Arabs. For its part, Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them. Palestinian retaliation against this policy is as likely to be directed against Israel's American backers as against Israel itself. Under the circumstances, such retaliation – whatever form it takes – will have the support or at least the sympathy of most people in the region and many outside it. This makes the long-term escalation of terrorism against the United States a certainty, not a matter of conjecture.

The Palestine problem cannot be solved by the use of force; it requires much more than the diplomacy-free foreign policy we have practiced since 9/11. Israel is not only not managing this problem; it is severely aggravating it. Denial born of political correctness will not cure this fact. Israel has shown – not surprisingly – that, if we offer nothing but unquestioning support and political protection for whatever it does, it will feel no incentive to pay attention to either our interests or our advice. Hamas is showing that if we offer it nothing but unreasoning hostility and condemnation, it will only stiffen its position and seek allies among our enemies. In both cases, we forfeit our influence for no gain.

There will be no negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians, no peace, and no reconciliation between them – and there will be no reduction in anti-American terrorism – until we have the courage to act on our interests. These are not the same as those of any party in the region, including Israel, and we must talk with all parties, whatever we think of them or their means of struggle. Refusal to reason with those whose actions threaten injury to oneself, one's friends, and one's interests is foolish, feckless, and self-defeating. That is why we it is past time for an active and honest discussion with both Israel and the government Palestinians have elected, which – in an irony that escapes few abroad – is the only democratically elected government in the Arab world.

But to restore our reputation in the region and the world, given all that has happened, and to eliminate terrorism against Americans, it is no longer enough just to go through the motions of trying to make peace between Israelis and Arabs. We must succeed in actually doing so. Nothing should be a more urgent task for American diplomacy.

Maybe it's a Boston thing

In the '90s the Wang Center was busy most nights. This pattern has not repeated in the 21st century. In fact, the organization has run at a deficit for the past five years. Yet, the CEO got a bonus of $1.2 million on top of a $409,000 salary and a job for his wife. The CEO, Josiah Spaulding, an erstwhile political candidate, was paid more than arts organizations many times larger than his. His compensation alone is 6% of the organization's budget. It helps to know people and have a compliant board.

Don't worry

The Invincible America Assembly has everything under control. Within one year the Dow will be over 17,000, there will be fewer hurricanes and we will be buddy-buddy with North Korea. The Assembly attributes all these wonders to their twice daily meditations. There are 1800 meditators today. When their number reaches 2500, the number of major crimes will drop sharply and most of our social and political woes will be gone. Reach 8000 and there will be world peace. Let's sign up today.

Right hand. Left hand.

FP Passport doesn't say anything about the latest arms deal with the Saudis. It just quotes excerpts from the NY Times.

Does our right hand know what our left hand is doing?

Another example of arrogance

Today the House of Representatives will vote on whether to tell Japan that it has to apologize for its use of sex slaves during WWII. Will the Japanese parliament tell us to apologize for incarcerating U.S. citizens of Japanese descent during WWII?

Doesn't Congress have more important things to do?

Do we have a workable missile defense system?

Our announced intention to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe has worsened our relations with Russia. The media has been silent on this issue for a while, but when it was the story du jour there was never a mention that I could find which questioned the reliability of our current missile defense system deployed in Alaska and California. The system has failed in half of the tests performed on it; it does not have a satellite tracking system, a trusted radar network nor a working command and control system. Yet, we feel confident that we can build a new system in Eastern Europe by 2011. Another dream of our leaders! But, it's a dream that, like most of their dreams, will likely end in catastrophe.

I'm indebted to Victoria Samson of the Center for Defense Information for this insight.

The Businessman Governor

Mitt Romney has done very well in business, but he did not do so well as governor of Massachusetts. This study by a couple of Northeastern University researchers demonstrates that the state's economic performance under Romney was close to the worst in the nation.

Now it's pigeons from the USA

China seems to be trying to prove that other nations also export contaminated food products. In May, they banned food from France and Australia. This past week they banned homing pigeons from the U.S.

Making the world safe

Word from the BBC is that the U.S. will be selling $20 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia. Of course, if such a deal comes to pass, then we'll have to sell a lot of weapons to Israel to keep things even. And, maybe we'll have to sell more weapons to our other friends in the area.

Update: The BBC reports that Israel will get $30 billion in arms.

We get our kicks in different ways

Maybe the pursuit of O.J. Simpson was the catalyst. But, apparently, there are some of us who are willing to pay to be paged every time a police chase is on. Seems pretty weird to me.

But is it any weirder than the fact that helicopters from five - that's right, 5 - TV stations were following a chase in Phoenix? This was the chase that resulted in the deaths of those aboard two helicopters which crashed into each other.

China and the U.S.

The Nautilus Institute is a think-tank that appears to focus on Asia. One of their recent papers is "Transforming the U.S. Relationship with China" by Donald Gross of the Atlantic Council.

Gross feel that we can continue on the same path of acting as though we will eventually be at war with China. Or, we can use our power - military, economic, political and diplomatic - to negotiate a Framework Agreement with China in a bid to fundamentally change things. Is Gross dreaming?

There can be little doubt that we are superior militarily. Nor has China reached our economic status. But, how superior are we in the political and diplomatic arenas? Are we moving towards the status of enemy as we become more and more protectionist? Would improved relations lower the risk of a future war? Gross makes some interesting comments on these issues. It's too bad that few seem to be listening.

It's a family day

The Manchester Republican Committee is sponsoring a day of shooting serious weapons, from Uzis to M-16s. You plunk down your $25 and start firing automatic weapons. They hope it is a big fundraiser.

It's on Schedule A, Allan

Allan Hubbard, Bush's assistant for economic policy, wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that "those who have to buy coverage (he's talking about health insurance) on their own get no tax break at all." I pay for my own health insurance and Schedule A of Form 1040 allows me to deduct some of this cost. See here for additional insightful observations of Mr. Hubbard.

On the same page Robert McDowell, FCC commissioner, takes off on the recent OECD survey of broadband usage. He attacks the survey because the methodology re usage was based on per capita. He ignores the real issues of the survey - we pay more for slower service.

Where does Bush get these guys?

Mmm, Good

This is a meal served to contract laborers in Iraq.



For more information on contract laborers in Iraq, click here.

We are a nation of fat people

Philip Carter of Intel-Dump has some interesting comments based on a CNN map which charts the percent of obese people by state in the period 1985 to 2004. In most states the percentage of obese people is ?????

The rating services share the blame

Joshua Rosner, managing director of an investment research firm, has some interesting observations with regards to the sub-prime problem and the rating services, Standard & Poors, Moody's and Fitch.

Perhaps his most interesting observation:

Only slightly more than a handful of American non-financial corporations get the highest AAA rating, but almost 90 percent of collateralized debt obligations that receive a rating are bestowed such a title. The willingness of Fitch, Moody’s and S.&P. to rate as investment grade many assets that are apparently not has made structured securities ratings their fastest-growing line of business. Are we to believe that these securities are as safe as those of our most honored corporations?

Rosner further implies that these ratings are given largely as the result of the rating agencies advice to the issuer as to how the debt should be structured, for rating structured securities is now the agencies' fastest growing business.

Royals are different

Princess Martha Louise of Norway will teach you how to talk to your angels. A horse taught her how.

Mixed Signs

At the May meeting between Iran and the U.S., Iran proposed the establishment of a joint committee on security in Iraq. The committee would consist of representatives from Iran, Iraq and the U.S. Yesterday we agreed to the establishment of the committee. Nothing may come of it but it is a step in the right direction. And in another hopeful sign the Arab League is sending a delegation to Israel to propose a Mid-East peace plan.

But don't get carried away. The largest Sunni Arab bloc has decided to suspend its membership in the Iraqi parliament and may withdraw altogether. And former ambassador, Peter Galbraith, discusses his view of the current situation in Iraq. Once more, I got the sense that the division of Iraq into three separate entities is the way to go.

PKK - Al Qaeda for Turkey

The PKK has been an active terrorist/guerrilla organization exacerbating Turkey for quite a while. The PKK attacks in Turkey and then jumps over the border to Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey has started bombing the PKK, but will matters escalate?

Something good can come out of a war

Because our soldiers' bodies are better protected, fewer are dying. Many of the wounded have lost a limb, so the VA has devoted a fair amount of resources to improving the lot of amputees. The latest is a motorized, computer-driven ankle and foot.



It's a hell of a price to pay but it's truly amazing the advances in prostheses that have taken place in my lifetime.

Why not declare war against the world?

Now, we've issued another threat to invade Pakistan - oops, I mean help Pakistan defeat Al Qaeda. Not only has Townsend made the threat, but Reid has backed her up.

Germany and Russia had it all wrong in the 20th century if Bush, Reid, Pelosi and company were in charge then. They didn't have to have an army in the millions, spend billions on weapons, actually attack a country with battalions. They just had to let a suicide bomber loose every so often.

How stupid can our @$%%^ leaders (???) be?

Impeach the bastards today and recall the idiots that are working very hard to create a nation ruled by fear and seemingly determined to attack anybody any time.

OnLine Learning is everywhere

Even soldiers use it to get promoted; sometimes a soldier's spouse takes the exam for the soldier. The problem is that some sites provide both questions and answers to many promotion exams. The Boston Globe found copies of 1200+ different promotion exams on the web.

Many of these exams are used to find out whether soldiers know things that can save their lives and the lives of their comrades. Yet, for the sake of getting a promotion some are willing to take the risk of not really knowing these matters.

Would an army of draftees cheat as much as an army of professionals?

More retreating from Space

For the past couple of years NASA has been gradually moving away from studying deep space to determine its impact on our planet. They've cancelled major programs, such as Deep Space Climate Observatory. They've had a hard time managing whatever money they receive, which is less each year.

Now they've decided to scrap another satellite, QuickScat, which monitors the wind's speed and direction. It's very useful in forecasting hurricanes that begin far out at sea and it can gather information that will help us in analyzing our climate change situation.

Apparently, our leaders have decided we're better off spending a couple of hundred million on sexual abstinence programs than on learning more about our universe.

Moving towards fairness

An appeals court ruled that the government must share the information it has on the Guantanamo detainees with those detainees, much like the prosecution is supposed to do in our normal court system. However, the ruling allows the government to control what the defense attorneys talk about with their clients and the feds can read the lawyers' mail and delete 'unauthorized' comments. Overall, it's a step in the right direction. Surprisingly, the decision was written by Douglas Ginsburg, who was once nominated for the Supreme Court.

Another good article from McClatchy Newspapers

and another instance where FEMA performance was less than stellar. When confronted with the possibilities that trailers used for temporary housing for Katrina victims might contain formaldehyde (aka embalming fluid), a toxic chemical, it's response was "Do not initiate any testing until we give the okay. The clock is running on our duty to respond to them."

Wow!

I really find it hard to believe that Paul Craig Roberts, a member of the Reagan administration, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and contributing editor of National Review, would write this. This being an old-fashioned, emotional tirade asserting that Bush and company are trying to convert us into a dictatorship. He wants the group impeached now.

Roberts is convinced that 'they' are trying to foment a false terrorist attack here and he believes that we have done so in the past. He is also no friend of Israel.

Part of his argument rests on the question: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda? He does have a point.

Making the Sacrifice

An Iraqi Guantanamo?

It's more crowded but how else does this detention area differ from Guantanamo?

Another day, another suicide attack.

This time it's in Pakistan, not Iraq, but the number of suicide attacks in Pakistan are clearly on the rise. More than 100 have been killed in the past week.

Will we attack and bring peace to Pakistan? Tony Snow does not rule that out, "We certainly do not rule out options, and we retain the option especially of striking actionable targets. But it is clearly of the utmost importance to go in there and deal with the problem in the tribal areas."

Imran Khan, former cricket star, and now a leading politician disagrees, "Extremism is rising, because you don't fight extremism with a man perceived as an American stooge, you don't fight extremism with suppression — you fight it with a genuine democratic process. The tribal areas are out of his control, whatever leverage he had is gone now."

Tit for Tat

Russia has expelled four staff members from the English embassy in Moscow. Is that because England has done the same with the Russian embassy in London?

The Second Coming

Jesus has returned to earth. Sergei Torop realized his divine nature in 1990. Now he has a following of 5,000. Can the last days be far away?

Disgusting!

How Colin Powell could allow himself to be associated with this crap is beyond me? I suppose the check cleared, but talk about tacky!

50% more

That's what we in the U.S. are paying for entry level broadband per month vis-a-vis Sweden, the lowest cost country. But, as you know, the issue is about more than absolute dollars. How many megabits per second does your dollar buy? In Japan it costs you $.22 per megabit per second. In the U.S. the number is $3.18.

Playing Ping Pong

It sounds as though Russia and England are escalating the Litvinenko affair. England has decided to deport four Russian intelligence officers because Russia won't turn over the person England feels murdered Litvinenko. Russia is starting to appear in the news as often as China.

The Bionic Runner

Oscar Pistorius finished second in a time of 46.9 seconds in a 400 meter race in Rome. Not quite enough to qualify for the World Athletic Championships in August, but not bad time for someone with no legs.

Impeachment?

Last night’s Bill Moyers’ show should have been watched by everybody who, like me, does not think Bush should be impeached as it’s just too late in the game. I don’t think that way now, but, thus far, I have been unable to find a group that does not couple impeachment with ending the war. His guests were Bruce Fein, a member of Reagan’s administration and author of one of the articles of impeachment against Clinton, and John Nichols of The Nation. Fein, in particular, was eloquent.

If you want to read the full transcript, click here. Below you’ll find some excerpts that I found interesting.

BRUCE FEIN: More worrisome than Clinton's-- because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don't have any right to know what he's doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He's claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law.

________________________________

JOHN NICHOLS: I think that the war on terror, as defined by our president, is perpetual war. And I think that he has acted precisely as Madison feared. He has taken powers unto himself that were never intended to be in the executive. And, frankly, that when an executive uses them, in the way that this president has, you actually undermine the process of uniting the country and really focusing the country on the issues that need to be dealt with. Let's be clear. If we had a president who was seeking to inspire us to take seriously the issues that are in play and to bring all the government together, he'd be consulting with Congress. He'd be working with Congress. And, frankly, Congress, through the system of checks and balances, would be preventing him from doing insane things like invading Iraq.

________________________________

BRUCE FEIN: In the past, presidents like Abe Lincoln, who confronted a far dire emergency in the Civil War than today, sought congressional ratification approval of his emergency measures. He didn't seek to hide them from the people and from Congress and to prevent there to be accountability. And, of course, Congress did ratify what he had done. Secondly, sure, times can be terrifying. But that also should alert us to the fact that we can make mistakes. The executive can make mistakes.

Take World War II. We locked up 120,000 Japanese Americans, said they were all disloyal. Well, we got 120,000 mistakes. They lost their property. They lost their liberty for years and years because we made a huge mistake. And that can be true after 9/11 as well. No one wants other downgrade the fact that we have abominations out there and people want to kill us. But we should not inflate the danger and we should not cast aside what we are as a people. We can fight and defeat these individuals, these criminals, based upon our system of law and justice. It's not a-- we have a fighting constitution. It's always worked in the past. But it still remains the constitution of checks of balances.

________________________________

BRUCE FEIN: --exactly right. And Bill, this could not happen if we had a Congress that was aggressive, if we had a Congress the likes of Watergate when Nixon was president and he tried to-- obstruct justice and defeat the course of law. We have a Congress that basically is an invertebrate.

BILL MOYERS: But why is Congress supine?

JOHN NICHOLS: They are supine for two reasons. One, they are politicians who do not-- quite know how to handle the moment. And they know that something very bad happened on September 11th, 2001, now five years ago, six years ago. And they don't know how to respond to it. Whereas Bush and Karl Rove have responded in a supremely political manner to it and, frankly, jumped around them. That's one part of the problem.

BILL MOYERS: Jumped around Congress?

JOHN NICHOLS: Jumped around Congress at every turn. I mean, they don't even tell them, they don't consult with them. They clearly have no regard for the checks and balances. But the other thing that's-- in play here-- and I think this is a-- much deeper problem. I think the members of our Congress have no understanding of the Constitution. And as a result, they-- don't understand their critical role in the governance of the country.

They-- it-- when the Republicans are in charge, they see their job as challenging-- or as supporting the president in whatever he does, defending him, making it possible for him to do whatever he wants. When the Democrats are in charge, they seem to see their role as trying to score political points as opposed to what ought to be sort of a-- common ground of--

BILL MOYERS: --because the fact of the matter is approaching an-- election year, you don't really think, do you, that the Democrats want to experience a backlash by taking on a Republican president in an election-

BRUCE FEIN: There's always going to be a political element, Bill. But in the past, there's always been a few statesmen who have said, "You know, the political fallout doesn't concern me as much as the Constitution of the United States." We have to keep that undefiled throughout posterity 'cause if it's not us, it will corrode. It will disappear on the installment plan. And that has been true in the past. When we had during Watergate Republicans and remember Barry Goldwater, Mr. Republican, who approached the president and said, "You've got to resign." There have always been that cream who said the country is more important than my party. We don't have that anymore.

________________________________

JOHN NICHOLS: People don't want to let this go. They do not accept Nancy Pelosi's argument that impeachment is, quote/unquote, off the table. Because I guess maybe they're glad she didn't take some other part of the Constitution off the table like freedom of speech. But they also don't accept the argument that, oh, well, there's a presidential campaign going on. So let's just hold our breath till Bush and Cheney get done.

When I go out across America, what I hear is something that's really very refreshing and very hopeful about this country. An awfully lot of Americans understand what Thomas Jefferson understood. And that is that the election of a president does not make him a king for four years. That if a president sins against the Constitution-- and does damage to the republic, the people have a right in an organic process to demand of their House of Representatives, the branch of government closest to the people, that it act to remove that president. And I think that sentiment is afoot in the land.

________________________________

BILL MOYERS: Bruce, you talk about overreaching. What, in practical terms, do you mean by that?

BRUCE FEIN: It means asserting powers and claiming that there are no other branches that have the authority to question it. Take, for instance, the assertion that he's made that when he is out to collect foreign intelligence, no other branch can tell him what to do. That means he can intercept your e-mails, your phone calls, open your regular mail, he can break and enter your home. He can even kidnap you, claiming I am seeking foreign intelligence and there's no other branch Congress can't say it's illegal--judges can't say this is illegal. I can do anything I want. That is overreaching. When he says that all of the world, all of the United States is a military battlefield because Osama bin Laden says he wants to kill us there, and I can then use the military to go into your homes and kill anyone there who I think is al-Qaeda or drop a rocket, that is overreaching. That is a claim even King George III didn't make--

BILL MOYERS: I served a president who went to war on his own initiative, and it was a mess, Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson. There wasn't serious talk about impeaching Lyndon Johnson or Hubert Humphrey. Something is different today.

BRUCE FEIN: Yeah, of course, the-- difference is one thing to claim that, you know, Gulf of Tonkin resolution, was too broadly drafted. But we're talking about assertions of power that affect the individual liberties of every American citizen. Opening your mail, your e-mails, your phone calls. Breaking and entering your homes. Creating a pall of fear and intimidation if you say anything against the president you may find retaliation very quickly. We're claiming he's setting precedents that will lie around like loaded weapons anytime there's another 9/11.

Right now the victims are people whose names most Americans can't pronounce. And that's why they're not so concerned. They will start being Browns and Jones and Smiths. And that precedent is being set right now. And one of the dangers that I see is it's not just President Bush but the presidential candidates for 2008 aren't standing up and saying—

________________________________

BRUCE FEIN: Well, that's accurate but also we do find this peculiarity that Congress is giving up powers voluntarily. because there's nothing right now, Bill, that would prevent Congress from the immediate shutting down all of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's illegal programs. Simply saying there's no money to collect foreign intelligence-

BILL MOYERS: The power of the purse-

BRUCE FEIN: --the power of the purse. That is an absolute power. And yet Congress shies from it. It was utilized during the Vietnam War, you may recall, in 1973. Congress said there's no money to go and extend the war into Laos and Cambodia. And even President Nixon said okay. This was a president who at one time said, "If I do it, it's legal." So that it we do find Congress yielding the power to the executive branch. It's the very puzzle that the founding fathers would have been stunned at. They worried most over the legislative branch in, you know, usurping powers of the other branches. And--

BILL MOYERS: Well, what you just said indicts the Congress more than you're indicting George Bush and Dick Cheney.

BRUCE FEIN: In some sense, yes, because the founding fathers expected an executive to try to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch. And you're right. They have basically renounced-- walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check. It's not an option. It's an obligation when they take that oath to faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And I think the reason why this is. They do not have convictions about the importance of the Constitution. It's what in politics you would call the scientific method of discovering political truths and of preventing excesses because you require through the processes of review and vetting one individual's perception to be checked and-- counterbalanced by another's. And when you abandon that process, you abandon the ship of state basically and it's going to capsize.

________________________________

JOHN NICHOLS: Let me mention the unspoken branch of government, which is the fourth estate: The media. The fact of the matter is the founders anticipated that presidents would overreach. And they anticipated that at times politics would cause Congress to be a weaker player or a dysfunctional player. But they always assumed that the press would alert the people, that the press would tell the people. And the fact of the matter is I think that our media in the last few years has done an absolutely miserable job of highlighting the constitutional issues that are in play. You know, you can't have torture and extraordinary rendition. You cannot have spying. You cannot have a-- lying to Congress. You cannot have what happened to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, you know?

________________________________

BILL MOYERS: That was a great moment when Sara Taylor said, "I took an oath to uphold the president." Did you see that?

BRUCE FEIN: Yes. And that was like the military in Germany saying, "My oath is to the Fuhrer, not to the country." She took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I did, too, when I was in the government. There's no oath that says, "I'm loyal to a president even if he defiles the Constitution."

BRUCE FEIN: Certainly with regard to the one example of the abuse of presidential authority, seeking to obstruct a legitimate congressional investigation by a preposterous assertion of executive privilege. Remember, in a democracy, in-- under the Constitution, transparency and sunshine is the rule. The exception is only for matters of grave national security secrets. That certainly doesn't apply here.

________________________________

BRUCE FEIN: I think the spark against the Libby commutation is a little bit different focus. I think it's less on the idea he's covering up for Cheney or Bush than the indication that Bush is totally heedless of any honor for law and accountability. That he has special rules for him and his cabinet. You may recall at the outset of the investigation he said, "Anybody in my office who is responsible for this leak will not work for me." Karl Rove was shown to leak and Karl Rove was still sitting in the White House. And he says, "Well, he will issue a commutation here." But he's not issued commutations in similar circumstances to anybody else.

Moreover, the perjury of the obstruction of justice of Libby is a carbon copy of Clinton, which Republicans, including me, supported. That's why I said you've got to give a stiff sentence here. How can you say that Clinton's deserves impeachment and here you're communing someone who did the same thing. And it's that sort of outrage that this is now a sneering attitude towards everybody else. "I am king. You play by other people's rules, but as long as I am in the White House, I get to play by my rules." That is something that-

________________________________

JOHN NICHOLS: I think that what Bush and Cheney have done makes a very good case that the public and the future would be well served if it did go all the way to the end. But there is absolutely a good that comes of this if the process begins, if we take it seriously. And the founders would have told you that, -- that impeachment is a dialogue. It is a discourse. And it is an educational process. If Congress were to get serious about the impeachment discussions, to hold the hearings, to begin that dialogue, they would begin to educate the American people and perhaps themselves about the system of checks and balances, about the powers of the presidency, about, you know, what we can expect and what we should expect of our government.

And so I think that when Jefferson spoke about this wonderful notion of his that said the tree of liberty must be watered every 20 years with the blood of patriots, I don't know that he was necessarily talked about warfare. I think he was saying that at a pretty regular basis we ought to seek to hold our-- highest officials to account and that process, the seeking to hold them to account, wherever it holds up, is-- a necessary function of the republic. If we don't do it, we move further and further toward an imperial presidency.

BRUCE FEIN: The great genius of the founding fathers, their revolutionary idea, with the chief mission of the state is to make you and them free to pursue their ambitions and faculties. Not to build empires, not to aggrandize government. That's the mission of the state, to make them free, to think, to chart their own destiny. And the burden is on government to give really good explanations as to why they're taking these extraordinary measures. And on that score, Bush has flunked on every single occasion. And we need to get the American people to think. Every time that there's an incursion on freedom, they have to demand why. What is the explanation? Give me a good reason before I give up my freedom.

________________________________

BRUCE FEIN: They're trying to create the appearance that they're tougher than all of their opponents 'cause they're willing to violate the law, even though the violations have nothing to do with actually defeating the terrorism. And we have instances where the president now for years has flouted the Foreign Intelligence Act. He's never said why the act has ever inhibited anybody. Remember, this act has been around for over a quarter of a century, and no president ever said it impaired his gathering of foreign intelligence. And suddenly the president's, "No, we have to violate it and flout it because it doesn't work." Well, why? He's never explained it. He's never explained why this act stopped gathering of all the intelligence that was needed to fight the terrorists.

________________________________

BRUCE FEIN: And, in fact, without the dialogue you continue the folly like in Vietnam when you shut off debate. And that's what's happened in Iraq, why we continue to persist. Like the 88th charge of the Light Brigade that keeps failing. You think it'll work on the 89th time. But I want to go to a more important point that John mentioned, with specifics as to how-- what the president has done, has made us less safe. We have now indictments in both Italy and Germany against CIA operatives because they abducted and threw into dungeons and tortured people abroad. We need their cooperation if we're going to defeat al-Qaeda.

________________________________

BRUCE FEIN: I go back to the real vulnerability and weakness of Congress, that they don't have anybody who can, as a chairman or even asking a question like John or me say, "Mr. Attorney General, you answer that question. This is the United States of America. Transparency is the rule here. We don't have secret government. That's what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about in the Gulag. That's not the United States of America. We pay your salary. We have a right to know 'cause it's our duty to decide whether what you're doing is legal and wise, not yours. Answer that question or you're held in contempt right now." And that's-- and all you need is that tone of voice. But what happens up there? "Well, would you please answer?" Well, are you sure? When-- could you get John Ashcroft? I mean, it's just staggering.

JOHN NICHOLS: And you know what?

BRUCE FEIN: All you would need a lecture like that and they'd answer. They'd be embarrassed--And you have to have a certain vision, Bill. You have-- you have to have a certain depth of conviction about philosophy and what the Constitution means, why those people died. They reached that last full measure of devotion, Cemetery Hill, Guatel Canal, Iwo Jima, the Battle of the Bulge, because there was something higher. You have to feel that in your body and your stomach cause you've mastered all those people who have sacrificed in the past and you know the danger of unchecked power 'cause you read history. You're not a novice. There isn't anybody in the Congress who's able to do that because they don't have that background. But they don't have that temperament.

JOHN NICHOLS: --there may be such people but their first step, their first step must be something that is very hard in these days of extreme partisanship and these days in money and politics and a media that doesn't cover politics very well. Their first step has to be to say, "I cherish my country more than my party and more than the next election." And so-- probably. We're talking about a Democrat.

BILL MOYERS: --to take the lead?

JOHN NICHOLS: And that Democrat's first responsibility is to go to Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, the person who decides what committee assignments they may have and even how nice an office they may get, and say, "You know, Nancy, I respect you. I respect you greatly, Mrs. Speaker. But the country's more important. So you can-- you can get mad at me. You can, you know, push back internally and whatever. But I'm going to the American people and I'm going to talk to them like Bruce Fein just did. Now, my sense is the response to the American people and, frankly, the response of a lot of other members of Congress would be to stand up and applaud. But you have to have that initial courage to do so.

BRUCE FEIN: I think that you have to have not only the courage but you have to have that conviction because it's part of your being.

BILL MOYERS: But the--

BRUCE FEIN: You understand what the United States is about.

BILL MOYERS: But by your-- by what you're saying, you're admitting that nobody has that conviction because it's not happening.

BRUCE FEIN: I agree. And it's hard to know how to just make it happen by spontaneous combustion, Bill. And that's the frustrating element here. Because without that those intellectual and temperamental ingredients, it just isn't going to happen. You do need a leadership element in there. And I don't see it either in the House or the Senate now.

JOHN NICHOLS: But also we would have hit that educational moment, that rare moment where a president of the United States has been forced to-- go before the American people and say, "Oh, yeah, I just remembered, you're the boss. You are the bosses. Not me. And that I am not a king." Again, this is why raising impeachment at this point, it's a very late point, is so important. Because we are defining what the presidency will be in the future today because we do know the high crimes and misdemeanors of George Bush and Dick Cheney. They have been well illustrated even by a-- rather lax media. They have been discussed in Congress

. If we know these things and we do not hold them to account, then we are saying, as a people and as a Congress, we are saying that we can find out that you have violated the rule of law. We can find out that you have disregarded the Constitution. You-- we can find out that you've done harm to the republic. But there will still be no penalty for that. If that's the standard that we've set, it will hold. It will not be erased in the future.

Summer Flowers

It's a global problem

Or is it retaliation? I'm referring to China's suspension of the importing of chicken and other meats from US suppliers, such as Tyson and Cargill.

Did he look into his heart?

Less than two weeks after the meeting between Bush and Putin in Maine, Putin has decided to suspend the application of the 1990 arms control treaty. Now there are two major issues currently in dispute between Russia and the West - arms control and missile defense.

How much is good will worth?

It's spelled as one word in the world of finance and in one case is worth $3.7 billion. That case is Blackstone Group, where a $4.5 billion valuation was placed on its IPO. Goodwill was 84% of the total value.

It appears as though a new legal entity was formed as part of the IPO. That entity, since it bought a company including its goodwill, can deduct the value of that goodwill from its tax bill over the next fifteen years. It's legal and in many cases a realistic way to recognize the value of some businesses. In this case it looks as though they are simply taking advantage of the law and, since the Blackstone founders retain 85% of the new company, the new investors. Basically, they found a way to make a tax-free killing.

Moving in on Pakistan

Who is now the largest supplier of military equipment to Pakistan? China is. China has started to fill contracts for planes, ships and tanks for the Pakistani military. The contracts call for joint production and development. Pakistan has already produced four fighter jets.

This news was released on the same day that we delivered two of a planned dozen (maybe as many as 28) fighter jets to Pakistan. I wonder how much Pakistan is paying for all this military equipment and where does all this leave India.

Warnings?

Moody's may cut the ratings of 91 CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations).
Fitch claims that more loans backing CMOs (Collateralized Mortgage Obligations) will enter default this year.
The margin debt for stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange is at a record $353 billion.

$282,000,000

That's a lot of money. But it was made in a few minutes, as it appears that bank guards robbed the Dar al-Salam Bank in Baghdad earlier this week. It may go to funding the insurgents or it may just be a 'normal' robbery. Time will tell.

United they stand

A poor Indian farmer decided to marry off his 13-year-old daughter to a 23-year-old neighbor. This was illegal, but the dutiful daughter did not fight her father's decision. She did, however, tell her classmates, who staged a protest and petitioned the police to stop the marriage. Surprisingly, they succeeded.

Form and Content

When I was quite young, I used to think that content was all important, form was inconsequential. When I started reading serious stuff, I realized I had been wrong. Form was almost as important as content in some areas. One area where this is especially true is in public speaking. It is very difficult to get your ideas across if you read your speech unless you are an actor or someone versed in the art of public speaking.

I'm prompted to write this because of my activities last night. I and 50 others sat through the reading of twenty-four pages of dry-as-dust commentary about county government, a change in or abolition of which is under consideration here on the Vineyard. Not a good way to spend a half-hour on a July night.

The bus company that couldn't shoot straight

Fung Wah, a discount bus line that travels between Boston and New York, seems to make the news every couple of months. Usually, the news is that one of their buses has had an accident. Today's news is that they violated the state's anti-discrimination laws by refusing to sell tickets to a blind couple, one of whom needed to be accompanied by his seeing-eye dog. The dog was a violation of the company's animal policy. But was that the real reason?

When the other half of the couple, who did not need a dog, tried to buy a ticket, she was refused even after the police told the ticket seller that she was entitled to buy a ticket. This all happened on a typical New England winter day and the couple was left on the street in 15-degree weather before the police drove them to the train station. Yesterday, Fung Wah had to listen to the law and pony up $70,000, $60,000 for the couple and a $10,000 fine.

It's summer

How else can one explain the raft of reality shows on television? Even India has joined the fray. They are producing a show to find the best bathroom singer in India. Who knows but Fox may have a similar show in the fall?

They didn't know but probably should have known

An independent examiner has issued his report on the Refco scandal. His conclusion:

• Refco's lawyers, Mayer Brown, should have known that the documents they were preparing were false.
• Refco's auditors did not appear to follow GAAP.

As you would expect, both the lawyers and auditors claim they are innocent of any wrongdoing.

Blame Everybody

That's what the National Transportation Safety Board did with its report on The Big Dig ceiling collapse. They blamed the designer of the ceiling, the company that supplied the bolts for the ceiling, the Turnpike and the contractors for not really investigating the cause of loose bolt when the tunnel was being built.

Leave the science to the non-scientists

The first Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, chosen by Bush was quite candid yesterday about what he saw as the administration's attempt to have him promote the administration's political views rather than his scientific views.

He was not allowed to speak or issue reports on stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental health and global health issues. Nor could he attend the Special Olympics, a favorite of the Kennedys. He was discouraged from testifying at the government's trial of racketeering in the tobacco industry, yet the lead government lawyer says "he was one of the most powerful witnesses". The weirdest thing he said was that he was ordered to mention Bush's name three times on every page of every speech he gave.

But, political interference re the Surgeon General is not new. Clinton did it, Reagan did it. The problem is that Bush has done it a hell of a lot more.

What have we come to?

The mother's live-in boyfriend mutilates her three-year-old daughter by biting her lip so severely that it can never be properly fixed and by banging her about so hard that she may lose her hearing in one ear. What does the mother do? Cover for the evil - truly evil as he has bitten people before - bastard. Sometimes the death penalty is the right penalty.

Update
From a doctor who treated the child

Newton said the girl's face is permanently disfigured. "Basically, the middle of her upper lip is completely missing," Newton said. "She will never have a normal- appearing lip. There has been too much destruction."

The girl's ears were battered so frequently and with such force that the child now has the "cauliflower ears" of a boxer or a wrestler, she said.

"There is no way to repair the damage to the ears," she said. "Both ears were completely missing the normal anatomical structure."

Toilet Culture

China is a modern country. Now they have built the largest public toilet in the world. It has 1000 toilets.

Yeah, you're okay but we're better

It looks like Pope Benedict is returning to his conservative ways, assuming he ever left them. Last week it was the espousal of the Latin Mass. This week it's a redefinition of 'church'.

You never know

Freeman Dyson is a world-class scientist and a good writer. His latest essay in the NY Review of Books is entitled "Our Biotech Future". Reading it, I know how an individual reasonably aware of the world in 1907 must have felt when listening to the futurologists of the early 20th century.

From the essay title, one gets the impression (which is confirmed) that Dyson believes that biology is this century's 'plastic' (to quote The Graduate). One of his visions which I really don't understand is the belief that there will be biotechnology games (like computer games) that will create a race of people that will really understand biology.

Dyson is a fan of Carl Woese, who seems to have believed that the world was a better place before Darwin 'discovered' evolution. In this pre-Darwinian world separate species did not exist. But now this Darwinian interlude is over. Apparently, Woese believed that organization was everything.

Dyson sees biotechnology as the savior of the world - sustainable economic development, elimination of poverty, etc. He postulates earthworms that extract metals from clay and seaweed that extracts gold from seawater.

Probably some of what he says will happen. But I think he's being overly optimistic.

Setting an example

The former head of China's FDA was executed for taking bribes in exchange for approvals of untested medicine. That's one way to let bureaucrats know that you're serious.

Off the record is good enough

Why is it okay for Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor to testify before Congress off the record, but not on the record where their testimony may be the subject of a law suit? Didn't we the people pay their salaries?

Maybe 54 years is enough

The U.S. and North Korea have yet to agree to end the Korean war. I think they are waiting until there are no veterans alive.

The Future

The number seems to be increasing

I may be confused but doesn't it seem that the suicide bombers are killing more people with each attack? Here's one where 108 died and 240 were wounded. The following chart is courtesy of AFP:

7 July: 105 killed in Amirli market bombing

19 June: 87 die in Baghdad mosque blast

18 April: 190 killed in car bombings in Baghdad

29 March: 82 killed in double suicide bombing in Baghdad market

6 March: 90 killed in double suicide bombing in Hilla

3 Feb: 130 die in suicide truck bombing in Baghdad

22 Jan: 88 killed in Baghdad car bombings

Becoming a lawyer

Stephen Dunne is starting off on the right foot. He flunked the Massachusetts bar exam and is now suing the Mass. Bar Examiners for $9,700,000. He claims that he flunked because he refused to answer a question on the exam. He argues that the state is "purposely-advancing Secular Humanism's homosexual agenda" by including on the exam a question about the property rights of a lesbian couple.

Lesbian and homosexual couples are covered by some of the laws of the commonwealth. Shouldn't Dunne at least be able to discuss these laws? He does not have to agree with them.

I suspect that Dunne has initiated this suit mainly to get publicity and maybe a job offer.

Is the Air Force helping fight insurgents?

Philip Carter at Intel Dump has some choice comments on the role of the Air Force in battling insurgents. It may very well be that use of the Air Force may be counterproductive.

Where are they now

Think Progress tells us where many of people who started this war with Iraq are now. Unsurprisingly, many are still in government and in higher positions. Some are at the American Enterprise Institute. Some are shopping their memoirs. And, surprising to me, a couple are at Georgetown, which I did not think was a bastion of neo-conservatism.

How high?

Oil hit $76.01 today due, the experts say, to problems in Nigeria.

What a difference six weeks makes

On May 21 I commented on our new embassy in Iraq and reported that it was one of the few projects that was supposed to be on time and on budget. I spoke too soon. Today's Washington Post speaks of a cable from the current embassy which reports that the first major building, the base for the guards, was not habitable - some appliances did not work, workers got electrical shocks, wiring melted, rooms in trailers were filled with formaldehyde fumes

How the situation could change so rapidly is the question.

We draw our own conclusions

Lynne Olson wrote a book, "Troublesome Young Men", about the group of British Conservatives who eventually forced Chamberlain to resign and be replaced with Churchill. In Sunday's Washington Post she had a piece about the similarities between Bush and Chamberlain, keying off the assumption that Bush believes himself to be another Churchill. Consider these similarities between Chamberlain and Bush:

• Both came to office with little, if any, foreign affairs knowledge or experience dealing with international leaders, yet believed that he alone could bring tyrants to heel.
• Both were unilateralists, believing alliances would only hamper them.
• Both claimed to be the 'decider' and did not have to discuss things with the legislature.
• Both authorized wiretapping of their citizens.

When the shoe is on the other foot

When Victor Rita was convicted of perjury, Bush's Justice Department urged that he serve 33 months in jail. Rita had been involved in government work for years, served with distinction in the army for 25 years and had no criminal history. Other than his military service, how does Rita's situation differ from Libby's?

Bush's Justice Department asked for 24+years for a Dynegy executive who was convicted of fraud. Is this a worse crime than outing a CIA agent and lying about it?

Gonzales has been pushing for tougher federal sentences. I guess they would only apply to you and me.

Another example of why cynicism is rampant

"The punishment is excessive," says Mr. Bush with regards to Mr. Libby's conviction by a jury of his peers. Of course, in Bush's world there are no peers. Those who decide can run roughshod over our judicial system. A fine of $250,000 would be impossible for most of us to pay. Do you think Libby will have a problem writing a check? If he does, his friends will help him out. Disbarment would normally mean a tougher life for most lawyers. Will Libby have a hard time getting a well-paying job?

Meanwhile, there are those guys in Guantanamo who have yet to have any sort of a trial in the years they have been there. Is their punishment 'excessive'?

Greed

"The more we pay people, the less they want to pay for anything," Nell Minow.

Vide

• Alan Mullaly was paid $28,200,000 by Ford last year. His wife, children and guests can fly on the company planes even though Alan is not with them.
• AIG paid Martin Sullian $21,200,000 last year. His pay included $257,498 for personal use of company aircraft.
• Dell provides medical checkups for senior officers and spouses. The checkups are worth $5,000.
• Rockwell Automations paid for 'leisure activities' for spouses of officers and directors at board retreats.
• Occidental paid Ray Irani $416,300,000 in 2006. $61000 of that was to cover the cost of bringing his wife along on trips.
• Of course, all of these expenses are reimbursed plus the tax gross-ups.

The Price of Gas

I think $3.95 is a lot for a gallon of gas here on the Vineyard, but I know it's quite a bit more expensive in Europe. Surprisingly, most expensive place to buy gas is Turkey; it is triple the price in the States.

For more information than you want to know about the price of gas around the world, read this.

The latest from Richardson

Just Security

Foreign Policy in Focus has published a very interesting piece on an alternative foreign policy. The policy is based on these principles:

The United States must advance rather than undermine international mechanisms and institutions. We should move from a unipolar system presided over by the United States to a secure, multipolar system that is held in place by a latticework of international institutions and laws.

We must support the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle. The United States should spend less time talking about the rule of law and more time practicing the rule of law—by upholding international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions, ratifying the core labor standards of the International Labor Organization, and supporting new international institutions such as the International Criminal Court.

We must lead by example, not by force. The United States is No. 1 in several dubious categories—most powerful nuclear arsenal, largest greenhouse gas emitter, leading arms exporter—so if we want to change the world we have to start by changing ourselves.

Global problems call for global solutions, but one size does not fit all. The world is a varied place and what works in one place for one problem may not work the same elsewhere.

We should support just policies abroad because they also encourage just policies at home. Global inequality, unregulated arms sales, and weakened international agreements and institutions are not just foreign policy issues. They have tremendous impact on the U.S. economy and the security of the population.

We need more public involvement in global affairs not less. We can't leave it to the experts to solve the world's problems because, in many cases, the experts got us into the jam in the first place. As those who live in this country, we must use democratic means to close the gap between what the polls say and what our leaders are doing.

Security is not just about the military. When we speak of security, we are talking about freedom from military conflicts and terrorist attacks. But we also believe that security involves access to sufficient food and shelter, good health care and good jobs, a clean environment and well-functioning, accountable political structures.

The policy calls for

• A reduction of $213 billion in U.S. military spending, or one-third of the total "defense" budget.
• Dramatic cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals as a first step toward nuclear disarmament.
• An international process under the auspices of the UN to secure a viable peace between Israel and Palestine.
• A global carbon fee to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate funds to help countries transition to sustainable sources of energy.
• A large-scale, global plan to train four million new health workers.

From the NY Times of December 17, 1990

Op-Ed: War in the Gulf: Counsel of Ignorance

By ARTHUR SCHLESINGER JR.

any factors shape foreign policy -- interest, information, judgment, vision, prejudice, fatigue, fear, panic, stupidity -- but there is one we tend to forget. That factor is ignorance -- ignorance of the challenge, of the context, of how ignorant we may be.

Take the Persian Gulf crisis. Do we really know enough about the Mideast to act with confidence? The U.S. has not had serious historic experience in this region. A few missionaries went there in the 19th century, a few oilmen in the 20th and that is about it. We have no strong tradition of Arabist studies in our universities. Most of the time we don't know what we are doing in the Mideast.

Recall our policy toward Saddam Hussein: support when he committed "naked aggression" against Iran; unconcern when he gassed Iranians, massacred Kurds and murdered his own opposition; agricultural credits amounting to a billion dollars; opposition to economic sanctions against Iraq until the very eve of more "naked aggression," against Kuwait.

One year, Saddam Hussein is our pal; the next, he is Hitler. One year, Hafez al-Assad of Syria is the king of terrorists; the next, he is our pal: we will repent that, too. When we got so much wrong about the Mideast yesterday, the day before yesterday and the day before that, why do we suppose we have suddenly got it right today? Right enough to send thousands of Americans to their deaths?

Years after the Vietnam War, I asked a high official of the Johnson Administration why they had ever supposed, as they said at the time, that North Vietnam was the spearhead of planned Chinese expansion into South Asia. Historians, I noted, could have told them that the Chinese and Vietnamese had hated each other for a thousand years.

My friend replied: When it came to Soviet questions, policymakers could turn to Government experts like Charles Bohlen, George Kennan and Llewellyn Thompson for informed counsel. In the case of China, John Foster Dulles had purged the State Department of the old China hands in the 50's. Our Far Eastern policy in the 60's thus plunged blindly ahead without benefit of expertise on China. So we got things wrong.

Alas, no Middle Eastern Bohlens and Kennans advise the Government at high levels today. In consequence, we are used, exploited and manipulated by wily locals in flowing robes who live in air-conditioned hotels and expect us to do their fighting for them.

If our ignorance of today's Middle East is considerable, our ignorance of the future there is total. Yet the case for war is increasingly based on the conviction that we have divine foreknowledge and know the shape of things to come. Those who claim the gift of prophecy say that unless we destroy Iraq's nuclear program, 5, 10 or 15 years from now Saddam Hussein, armed with the bomb, will terrorize the world. We have heard such prophecies before. It is the old -- I thought discredited -- argument for preventive war.

It requires particular presumption in 1990 to claim accurate foreknowledge of the future. Over the last four years, the world -- from the Soviet Union to Eastern Europe to South Africa to China to the Middle East -- has undergone extraordinary changes. What is equally extraordinary is that no one foresaw them: All the statesmen, sages, experts, all those bearded chaps on "Nightline" were caught unaware.

Some Americans were once so sure they could foretell the future that they called for preventive war against the Soviet Union and China. Does anyone regret that our Government declined to drop the bomb? And if great powers like the Soviet Union and China did not rate preventive war, why should we contemplate it against a third-rate power like Iraq?

Let us not sacrifice lives today because of a guess about what Iraq may be up to 10 or 15 years from now. Don't forget the warning of the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr about "the depth of evil to which individuals and communities may sink . . . when they try to play the role of God to history." Ignorance of the present, ignorance of the future -- these are pardonable. No statesman, no nation, can expect to know everything. But ignorance of how ignorant we are is unpardonable.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. is professor in the humanities at the City University of New York.

Mickey has passed on

The Palestinian version of Mickey Mouse has been killed by an Israeli agent.

Is it cursed?

The Thomas P. O'Neill Tunnel, aka "The Big Dig", will likely go down in history as not only one of the largest construction projects in America but also the one plagued with many, many problems.

A couple of years ago water began to seep into the tunnel. The contractors vowed to stop the seepage. They did make some strides, but, it looks as though the strides have come up short. Today, 2,000,000 gallons of water are pumped from the tunnel every month. This is 18% above last year's monthly pumping.