Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

"Why pretend ?"
Because it works.
So the question becomes:
Why is 45% of America made up of gullible fools (that's the core of Bush support).

Imagine that, the military tells us they're going to run out of money, and they in fact do.

The question is why the media (and the public) let them get away with this. Why do they let Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz say shit in press conferences like "the future cost is unknowable". The Pentagon probably has 500 people working every day forecasting the cost of this war/occupation under various scenarios an over various time frames. This is not a secret. Why do we let them pretend it is.

Look-over there-gays getting married! Shameful!
I feel like I owe my daughters an apology for everyday these guys control the budget.

"I feel like I owe my daughters an apology for everyday these guys control the budget."

It's like seeing a bank heist committed by Dumb and Dumber and they're getting away with it, while the caricature of a cop sits oblivious in his car eating a donut and drinking coffee. I'm glad my kids are still too young to understand.

I agree with ch2. The question should be, "Why oh why do these liars stand a chance of being re-elected?"

It's an old trick:

"The defense secretary always assumed, for budgeting purposes, that the war would end on 30 June of the following year (the end of the fiscal year at that time), which meant that the defense budget included no provisions for additional military funding for Vietnam and that the administration had planned for no alterations in its monetary and fiscal policies.

"When, inevitably, the funds appropriated for Vietnam proved too limited, the administration would return to Congress with requests for supplemental expenditures for the war, an essentially political device ...

"By underfunding the military in Vietnam in his budgets and using supplemental requests to make up for the shortfalls, the defense secretary was providing political cover for the administration, which wanted to avoid debate on the costs of the war..."

Robert Buzzanco
Masters of War: Military Dissent and Politics in the Vietnam Era
1996

It's the American equivalent of a parliamentary PM calling a snap election.

Now all the Dems have to vote for the supplemental, which will be taken for supporting the war tout court, or vote against it, which will be used ad nauseam in campaigns against them.

All subtlety -- amendments, procedural votes -- will be washed away in the press, leaving a paper trail for Rove & Co to employ in the elections.

Bush doesn't want the money -- he wants the recorded vote.

Damn, Davis X, I didn't think of that. I believe you are right.

Well, he wants the money too. But it's also a political ploy. Republicans will unanimously vote yes. Dems will split among cut-and-runners who vote no, those who give a straight yes to dodge the political trap, and those who either vote no on principle because Bush has no plan or grudgingly vote yes, but not before complaining that Bush has no plan.
This will work, I think, on two fronts. First, it's going to make the Democratic party as a whole look 'weak on defense' and 'not committed to our troops.' Second, I expect Kerry will be one of the Democrats who votes yes while hemming and hawing and calling for a tax increase to pay for it. Not that he'd be wrong, but it will of course be portrayed as indecision and pandering even if it's not. While it would be awesome for Kerry to come out really strong on this and call for even more funding, full disclosure of what things are expected to cost next year, etc, I doubt he'll do something that bold.

They can demand that cuts be made elsewhere, like missile defense. They can vote in a surtax to pay for it. In no way is this good news for Bush. The public has tired of this war and wants to know when the show will be over. At the very least, this should halt future unaffordable tax cuts. Too bad Snowe and Bayh did not get the triggers.

I agree with bakho.

I think Bush's credibility on Iraq is so seriously eroded at this point that the argument that we shouldn't be fighting a credit-card war, funded by Japanese and Chinese bankers whom we will have to repay with interest, will play sufficiently strongly to pick up 51 votes in the Senate.

Adult republicans like mccain, lugar, hegel, and several others may insist that there be an offset for this cost.

Remember, it doesn't matter how badly Kerry loses Texas. It doesn't matter how badly he loses Mississippi. It doesn't matter how badly he loses Alabama. What matters is what the swing, independent voters do in the "battleground" states, and i believe that the polls are telling us that these independent voters are increasingly disgusted by Bush.

Just saying no to a credit-card war will play well with these voters, who are not tax-cut fanatics....

DXM may very well be correct about the political calculation; but, if so, I think bakho is correct that it's a miscalculation. First, with the recent news (and without it, but with it, well...), I guarantee things are going to get worse in Iraq. Americans already are getting impatient, they want out. But they won't want to leave in defeat. Bush springing a 25B request on them right as we approach the hand-off that most Americans probably naively thought would mean a forthcoming withdrawal will shake their confidence. They're not going to be nearly so distrustful of Democrats hemming-and-hawing on this because that's basically how *they* feel about it. But with this, and when the realize a withdrawal isn't going to happen anytime in the forseeable future, they're going to be pissed at the Bush admin.

This is another example of the admin digging itself into a hole that it can't get itself out of (assuming it would even try, which it never really does since it never acknowledges that it's in a hole in the first place).

The correct Dem response is one of solidarity. *Any* response that is nearly unanimous among Dems will resonate with the public. A 25B blank check? "Well, I guess that it's what has to be done." A 25B strings-attached check? "That's probably a good idea at this point." A flat refusal and a call to withdraw? "We don't want to do that, but maybe they're right."

The Bush admin's floundering is now finally becoming evident to the public. The Dems can exploit this by at least giving the appearance that they, in contrast, have a plan and know what they're doing.

Remember, humvees are *supposed* to have thin armor that anyone with a powerful rifle can pierce, killing American troops! Everything's going according to plan.

Keith Ellis is right. The Administration gets away with this stuff because no Dem has articulated a convincing alternative. And thus there is nothing for the rest of the party to rally around. But when someone does, the game may change quicky.

There must be some public opinion "tipping point" where such a sudden shift becomes feasible. Are we there yet? If we were, would Kerry have the instincts to sense it and capitalize? I hope so.

Kevin Drum's take on this sounds right on the money:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003852.php

While we teach our students the by-gones are by-gones, in our heart we know they never are. The Dems should publicize the total cost of the war so far (lives plus dollars), and urge the public to consider what they've got for their money, and point out that if they like what they got, that's good, because they have only made the down payment. The key here is sticker shock; $250 billion gives a lot bigger jolt than $25 billion. Ask people if they think it's worth giving up $250 billion so that Saddam can have a free picture of G. Bush Jr. in his bedroom.

I've been waiting for the grown-up Republicans to step up for about six months. I have no confidence at all that they will. I've been waiting for the Democrats to show some spine for years. Ditto on the confidence level.

The Democrats should fight hard to pay for the extra Iraq costs. If Democrats cannot convince the public and enough GOP that supporting our troops is worth a tax increase or loss of a tax break, what will? Quite frankly, I think they have the necessary votes in the Senate. If the Dems + Jeffords are united, they could be joined by Snowe, Collins, McCain, Chafee and maybe Voinovich and Lugar and even Specter who is running away from Bush as fast as he can. There are still deficit hawks among the Senate GOP.

A vocal fight over how to pay for the war is in the Democrats best interest. Number one, it is in the best interest of the country to focus on the deficit. Number two it reminds the public to continue asking the question, "What is it we are doing in Iraq that is worth $25 BILLION?" After all the $25 Billion is not free. It has to come from somewhere. Driving the costs home is a good idea.

****
As the Iraqi prisoner scandal sinks in, the damage to Bush will be enormous. His chief positive is his image as commander in chief. The new image is commander in chief who is not in control of his out of control soldiers. A few rogues could limit the damage. However, as it sinks in that the problem is systemic, the fingers will invariably point to those responsible for oversight. Making Rummy walk the plank would raise questions about the guy who hired him. They have set up a circular firing squad of soldiers versus politicians. We all know what happens to the frat boy president when the hazing goes terribly wrong and the brothers end up killing a pledge.

To Bubba:

Your question:
"why do we let them..."

do what?

When the fixed the election with a Florida partisan official, and Bush and co filed law-suit after law-suit to disenfranchise votes and have votes not counted...what did that tell you about their thinking of fairness and democracy?

When America "let them" steal and fix the election, and did not take to the streets, as "Americans" did 320 years ago...
that did not happen, so why would any Americans care that the future is being bankrupted...

YOU let them, and you are still letting them...and they persuade you not to fight the same way the editors persuade the news reportes to continue Stasi-style news work.

BY FEAR!!!!!!

sorry, truth hurts, Joe sixpack wants his six-pack after work, all sales final. Mary Vodka wants her drink after work, better leave them alone because the Kobe Bryant case is where it is at, life is soap opera - enjoy it!

Dave S,
Despite the truth at the heart of your analysis, I have a hard time "enjoying" the shameful spectacle that the civic life of this country has become. Ever since the Republicans went medieval on Clinton for reasons having nothing to do with his governance of the country, the media and the masses have been pulled around on a leash by right-wing spinmeisters. Why has this persisted, even through a stolen election and three years of blatant lies? Becuase there is an institutional bias towards stablity, and Republican politicians have shown a repeated willingness to literally throw the country into chaos if they do not get their way. It has come time to openly challenge this political blackmail. How can we succeed? Hey, c'mon, you didn't really expect me to have an answer, did you? But I am open to suggestions other than "enjoying the soap opera."

"Why is 45% of America made up of gullible fools (that's the core of Bush support)."

The politics of distraction. Invent a boogeyman and it becomes your scapegoat. No WMDs? BLAME GAY MARRIAGE! No clue how to get out of the Iraq mess? BLAME JOHN KERRY'S ALLEGED ACTIONS IN 1971!

The Dems try it too but they're not as good at it. Blaming gays (read: "liberal elite") is always going to score more demagoguery points than the strategic oil reserve.

"The Administration gets away with this stuff because no Dem has articulated a convincing alternative."

This is absolutely right. Human beings generally hate vacuums. As a result, someone with bad ideas will generally triumph over someone with no ideas because the person with bad ideas is able to convince people of his decisiveness.

That's why Dems have been silly to worry about the cost of the war. The war was wrong because it was a bad idea; it was made worse because it was a bad idea poorly executed.

If the war is necessary, then the cost shouldn't be an issue. But it wasn't necessary; cost has nothing to do with it.

Aquila non captat muscas - The eagle doesn't capture flies (don't sweat the small things)

Nihil est ab omni parte beatum - Nothing is good in every part. (Horace)

In aere aedificare - Build (castles) in the air. (St. Augustine)

Non est ei similis - There is no one like him

Iniqua nunquam regna perpetuo manent - Stern masters do not reign long. (Seneca Philosophus)