Today's "incomparable" Albuquerque Journal, buried this AP story inside today's first section:
"This year's Iraq troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago."
The J edited the story to soften the impact and did not run the accompanying pictures. It can be found at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070825/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_counting_the_dead
What does it take to make today's front page? Answer: a major league fluff story (with expensive graphics), about a virtual world website. Yes, I am not kidding--a website. The story was noteworthy only for its lack of organization, failed transition and elementary grammar errors.
Iraqi casualties have DOUBLED since the surge! And, this is a conservative estimate. So much for Cheney's argument that if we left or cut and run or whatever today's PR term for surrender is, there would be a "bloodbath." How much worse than 62 deaths a DAY can Iraq get? Heaven forbid that the J might point out the astounding death toll in a meaninful way, rather than advertise a website. Please, Mr. Cheney, define bloodbath.
I wonder what the Journal would do if daily U.S. casualties doubled . . . probably put it in the second section. Heaven forbid that readers realize the level of slaughter in this endless war . . . Sigh.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Call Ripleys: A Positive Richardson Article
For the first time in recorded history, the Journal (J) ran a positive article about Bill Richardson. In the front page, above the fold article, Jeff Jones put a surprisingly human, friendly and confident face upon the Governor’s campaign for the Presidency, including a large and warm picture. One wonders if T. H. Lang was on vacation and if Jones will still have a job after Lang reads it.
Worst Iraq Day: Worst Journal Reporting
Yesterday was the worst casualty day in Iraq this year, both for U.S. troops and Iraqis. When all things are considered, the sophistication of five separate attacks, involving stolen tank trucks, the use of stolen uniforms, destruction of a major bridge and NINE U.S. dead, it was probably the worst day in the Iraq conflict since Bush declared, “Mission Accomplished.”
This story should have been on the FRONT PAGE, but the Journal (J) felt like the possible return of radio shock jock, Don Imus, was more worthwhile . . . sigh.
This story should have been on the FRONT PAGE, but the Journal (J) felt like the possible return of radio shock jock, Don Imus, was more worthwhile . . . sigh.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Jounal Continues Skewed Priorities
In a perfect storm of tabloid excess, this weekend’s Journal (J), solidified its lead as New Mexico’s number one newspaper impersonator. It spent its front page on Friday and Saturday pillorying Bill Richardson, Sunday hysterically fear-mongering a white supremacist prison gang, and Monday lauding one of its most publicized projects—no, not health care for children, not the ruinous cost of our misguided war on terror, nor the botched Republican economic policies, but, yes, what the J sees as Albuquerque’s number one problem—THE LANDSCAPING OF ALBUQUERQUE’S INTERSATE HIGHWAYS. . . sigh.
On Saturday, one of the J’s most slippery propagandists, Leslie Linthicum, who previously wrote a four part “biography” of Bill Richardson, took off the gloves and blasted the Governor for the second day in a row on the front page for his mistaken comment in the gay and lesbian debate on Thursday. Despite the governor’s immediate statement that he had misheard the question and the debate moderators concession that he had done a great deal for their cause, Linthicum poured it on, citing every possible source of criticism and giving Richardson little credit for his considerable efforts in this area. Could it be that Linthicum and her co-writer, Michael Coleman, reflect the homophobic bias typical of the right wing, religious, Republican tabloid (Can you say Fox?) and radio nut cases that the J seeks to emulate? Surely, Rush Limbaugh liked it.
On Sunday the Journal used a large headline and rare red print to inform New Mexico that the Aryan Brotherhood IS COMING! In a lurid style reminiscent of the recently defunct “Weekly World News” (which gave us Bat Boy and space alien abductions galore), the J scraped up sketchy details about a gang which MAY be a threat, MIGHT have committed crimes in NM and MIGHT threaten you if you live to be a million years old.
But, the J’s Pulitzer moment was today’s, above the fold, color photo of bulldozers beautifying the big I interchange. What a heart warming cause for a major metropolitan newspaper! Early this year, the J devoted one of its rare multi-issue, front page stories to the interchange’s insufficient and boring landscaping. Never mind that the state legislature was debating far-reaching cuts to Medicare, the J alerted us to the inadequate esthetics of our concrete, asphalt and . . . yes, worst of all . . . gray gravel! Surely the J staff is walking a little taller today at this fruition of its efforts to beautify our environment. Undoubtedly, this is money well spent.
On Saturday, one of the J’s most slippery propagandists, Leslie Linthicum, who previously wrote a four part “biography” of Bill Richardson, took off the gloves and blasted the Governor for the second day in a row on the front page for his mistaken comment in the gay and lesbian debate on Thursday. Despite the governor’s immediate statement that he had misheard the question and the debate moderators concession that he had done a great deal for their cause, Linthicum poured it on, citing every possible source of criticism and giving Richardson little credit for his considerable efforts in this area. Could it be that Linthicum and her co-writer, Michael Coleman, reflect the homophobic bias typical of the right wing, religious, Republican tabloid (Can you say Fox?) and radio nut cases that the J seeks to emulate? Surely, Rush Limbaugh liked it.
On Sunday the Journal used a large headline and rare red print to inform New Mexico that the Aryan Brotherhood IS COMING! In a lurid style reminiscent of the recently defunct “Weekly World News” (which gave us Bat Boy and space alien abductions galore), the J scraped up sketchy details about a gang which MAY be a threat, MIGHT have committed crimes in NM and MIGHT threaten you if you live to be a million years old.
But, the J’s Pulitzer moment was today’s, above the fold, color photo of bulldozers beautifying the big I interchange. What a heart warming cause for a major metropolitan newspaper! Early this year, the J devoted one of its rare multi-issue, front page stories to the interchange’s insufficient and boring landscaping. Never mind that the state legislature was debating far-reaching cuts to Medicare, the J alerted us to the inadequate esthetics of our concrete, asphalt and . . . yes, worst of all . . . gray gravel! Surely the J staff is walking a little taller today at this fruition of its efforts to beautify our environment. Undoubtedly, this is money well spent.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
The Non-Human Costs of the Iraq War
The Non-Human Cost of the Iraq War
Most horrified Americans recently discovered that 80,000 of our bridges are in as bad a shape as the one that collapsed in Minneapolis. Those who pay careful attention know that our whole infrastructure: education, energy, aviation, roads, railroads, anti-terror, drinking water, dams, waste disposal, health, pension and retirement systems are in desperate need of investment. Where has our money gone? One place is Iraq.
The Journal’s recent article, “War Funds Request At $147 Billion: Operations Estimated to Cost $1 Trillion by 2017” attempted to convey the magnitude of this war’s costs, but underestimated and left out essential information in the confusing subject of analyzing the cost of our several current wars.
This is critical knowledge for a public that must choose between candidates that represent a range of options for how to end the Iraq war.
Currently, we are actually fighting three wars, the general war on terror, the Afghan conflict, and the Iraq war. The latter should be considered as distinct from the others, both of which seem more justified than the occupation of Iraq.
The Iraq invasion of such a divided and volatile region has little prospect for long run success and, according to many experts, is actively harming our other attempts to fight terror. It is logical, therefore, to assume that money spent in Iraq is wasted.
Two rarely told stories emerge at this point: 1) this money is being borrowed and, therefore, added to the massive burden of debt going to our children; and 2) this money could be invested in the projects mentioned above that would improve our competitive advantage in the world economy and increase our quality of life.
The Journal’s article quoted the July 31, 2007, CBO report which stated that Congress has appropriated $421 Billion, just for the Iraq war, and it estimated that the White House will ask for $119 Billion for next year, totaling $540 Billion for Iraq.
Acceptance of these numbers should be tempered by the fact that all White House estimates to this moment have been unreliable. This week, when Congress asked Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, whether he agreed with the CBO estimates, he maintained that "we don't have that degree of certainty."
Indeed not, when Congress gave President Bush the authority to launch the invasion in March 2003, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted a quick victory and said Iraqi oil would pay for the war. When Lawrence Lindsey, a Bush adviser, estimated in 2003 that the war might cost $200 billion, he was fired!
The fact remains that even under the rosiest scenario -- an immediate and substantial reduction of troops – the war will cost a trillion dollars and, most likely, it will be more than two trillion.
One thing is certain; U.S. citizens will feel the fiscal pain of the Iraq war for many decades.
An enormous shell game obscures the war’s costs. How? It starts with the Fed's “cash” accounting system. “Accrual” accounting would force the government to carefully estimate all the future costs of the war that have already occurred, but as U.S. Representative Jim Cooper notes, “The budget of the United States uses cash accounting BECAUSE it gives you a very distorted picture.”
Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz notes, “The distortion is particularly acute in the case of the Iraq war. The cash costs of feeding, housing, transporting and equipping U.S. troops, paying for reconstruction costs, repairs and replacements and training Iraqi forces are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Costs incurred, but not yet paid, dwarf what is being spent now.”
The CBO estimates, reported by the Journal, are somewhat limited by these distorted accounting parameters. CBO can only do straight line estimates based upon past wars. It does not take into account the tremendous increases in severe wounds, brain injuries and the tenfold increase in post-traumatic stress-related conditions that are just beginning to be seen in huge numbers. At this time, the Veterans Administration has a backlog of 400,000 veterans claims.
For example, inprovements in body armor have resulted in over 7,000 veterans with severe brain, spinal, amputation and other serious injuries. They will require a lifetime of round-the-clock care. No one foresaw this.
The CBO puts a dollar figure on equipment that must be immediately replaced, but does not estimate the more difficult costs of the incredible of wear and tear received by durable military hardware such as ships, planes, trucks, hospitals, etc. As the Journal reported in May, our Air Force is wearing out.
The CBO does not take into account the costs to the taxpayer of increased oil prices that result from not only our increased military-related uses, but also the loss of supplies, high prices deriving from instability in the Middle East, and failed development of new wells in the Iraq region. Think about it, we are airlifting every one of 6,400 new mine resistant vehicles all the way to Iraq, burning oil and wearing out planes.
Higher priced oil is a direct and huge macroeconomic cost that is spread throughout the economy, everything from price of gasoline to higher cost food. Fears of oil-induced inflation also causes the Fed to raise interest rates. How many of the current epidemic of mortgage foreclosures would have been avoided if the Fed did not have to boost interest rates?
The CBO does not include increased costs of gaining new recruits to an already unpopular military (which is trying to expand) and increased interest payments on the war debt, especially if interest rates continue to rise. Remember, the prime rate hit 18% after the Vietnam war. Similarly, the difference between military wages and civilian wages for reservists and National Guard troops represents more lost income for the government.
And this does not include the intangible losses associated with lost service. For example, how much would have been saved if the 7,000 Louisiana and Mississippi Guard troops had been available to help after Katrina? Half the police forces in the U.S. now have people in Iraq. This costs taxpayers.
Lastly, it is sad to note, but the CBO does not account for the economic costs of lost productive capacity of the war’s dead and wounded, not to mention the lost tax income from those who would be working and paying taxes, but, instead, require payments from the general fund. And, this does not count the 600,000 dead Iraqis.
So, what could $2 Trillion buy? Almost anything. One example, according to Stiglitz, for somewhere around a quarter of the cost of the war in Iraq, we could have fixed all the problems associated with Social Security for the next 75 years and still have had a lot left over. One quarter.
Most horrified Americans recently discovered that 80,000 of our bridges are in as bad a shape as the one that collapsed in Minneapolis. Those who pay careful attention know that our whole infrastructure: education, energy, aviation, roads, railroads, anti-terror, drinking water, dams, waste disposal, health, pension and retirement systems are in desperate need of investment. Where has our money gone? One place is Iraq.
The Journal’s recent article, “War Funds Request At $147 Billion: Operations Estimated to Cost $1 Trillion by 2017” attempted to convey the magnitude of this war’s costs, but underestimated and left out essential information in the confusing subject of analyzing the cost of our several current wars.
This is critical knowledge for a public that must choose between candidates that represent a range of options for how to end the Iraq war.
Currently, we are actually fighting three wars, the general war on terror, the Afghan conflict, and the Iraq war. The latter should be considered as distinct from the others, both of which seem more justified than the occupation of Iraq.
The Iraq invasion of such a divided and volatile region has little prospect for long run success and, according to many experts, is actively harming our other attempts to fight terror. It is logical, therefore, to assume that money spent in Iraq is wasted.
Two rarely told stories emerge at this point: 1) this money is being borrowed and, therefore, added to the massive burden of debt going to our children; and 2) this money could be invested in the projects mentioned above that would improve our competitive advantage in the world economy and increase our quality of life.
The Journal’s article quoted the July 31, 2007, CBO report which stated that Congress has appropriated $421 Billion, just for the Iraq war, and it estimated that the White House will ask for $119 Billion for next year, totaling $540 Billion for Iraq.
Acceptance of these numbers should be tempered by the fact that all White House estimates to this moment have been unreliable. This week, when Congress asked Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, whether he agreed with the CBO estimates, he maintained that "we don't have that degree of certainty."
Indeed not, when Congress gave President Bush the authority to launch the invasion in March 2003, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted a quick victory and said Iraqi oil would pay for the war. When Lawrence Lindsey, a Bush adviser, estimated in 2003 that the war might cost $200 billion, he was fired!
The fact remains that even under the rosiest scenario -- an immediate and substantial reduction of troops – the war will cost a trillion dollars and, most likely, it will be more than two trillion.
One thing is certain; U.S. citizens will feel the fiscal pain of the Iraq war for many decades.
An enormous shell game obscures the war’s costs. How? It starts with the Fed's “cash” accounting system. “Accrual” accounting would force the government to carefully estimate all the future costs of the war that have already occurred, but as U.S. Representative Jim Cooper notes, “The budget of the United States uses cash accounting BECAUSE it gives you a very distorted picture.”
Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz notes, “The distortion is particularly acute in the case of the Iraq war. The cash costs of feeding, housing, transporting and equipping U.S. troops, paying for reconstruction costs, repairs and replacements and training Iraqi forces are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Costs incurred, but not yet paid, dwarf what is being spent now.”
The CBO estimates, reported by the Journal, are somewhat limited by these distorted accounting parameters. CBO can only do straight line estimates based upon past wars. It does not take into account the tremendous increases in severe wounds, brain injuries and the tenfold increase in post-traumatic stress-related conditions that are just beginning to be seen in huge numbers. At this time, the Veterans Administration has a backlog of 400,000 veterans claims.
For example, inprovements in body armor have resulted in over 7,000 veterans with severe brain, spinal, amputation and other serious injuries. They will require a lifetime of round-the-clock care. No one foresaw this.
The CBO puts a dollar figure on equipment that must be immediately replaced, but does not estimate the more difficult costs of the incredible of wear and tear received by durable military hardware such as ships, planes, trucks, hospitals, etc. As the Journal reported in May, our Air Force is wearing out.
The CBO does not take into account the costs to the taxpayer of increased oil prices that result from not only our increased military-related uses, but also the loss of supplies, high prices deriving from instability in the Middle East, and failed development of new wells in the Iraq region. Think about it, we are airlifting every one of 6,400 new mine resistant vehicles all the way to Iraq, burning oil and wearing out planes.
Higher priced oil is a direct and huge macroeconomic cost that is spread throughout the economy, everything from price of gasoline to higher cost food. Fears of oil-induced inflation also causes the Fed to raise interest rates. How many of the current epidemic of mortgage foreclosures would have been avoided if the Fed did not have to boost interest rates?
The CBO does not include increased costs of gaining new recruits to an already unpopular military (which is trying to expand) and increased interest payments on the war debt, especially if interest rates continue to rise. Remember, the prime rate hit 18% after the Vietnam war. Similarly, the difference between military wages and civilian wages for reservists and National Guard troops represents more lost income for the government.
And this does not include the intangible losses associated with lost service. For example, how much would have been saved if the 7,000 Louisiana and Mississippi Guard troops had been available to help after Katrina? Half the police forces in the U.S. now have people in Iraq. This costs taxpayers.
Lastly, it is sad to note, but the CBO does not account for the economic costs of lost productive capacity of the war’s dead and wounded, not to mention the lost tax income from those who would be working and paying taxes, but, instead, require payments from the general fund. And, this does not count the 600,000 dead Iraqis.
So, what could $2 Trillion buy? Almost anything. One example, according to Stiglitz, for somewhere around a quarter of the cost of the war in Iraq, we could have fixed all the problems associated with Social Security for the next 75 years and still have had a lot left over. One quarter.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Aug 2: Ludicrous Estimate of War’s Cost
In printing “Operations [for the whole war on terror] Estimated to Cost $1 Trillion by 2017” on the front page, the J deliberately misled its readers with an estimate that is ABSURD.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that Congress has ALREADY appropriated more than $ 600 Billion.
In January two Nobel Prize winning economists estimated the “real” cost of the war (including future veteran benefits, replacing worn out equipment, etc.) at $2 Trillion. With the Surge’s additional costs, those estimates would certainly be higher today.
Back to the J fantasy, the White House estimates we will spend $ 150-170 Billion next year. That is three quarters of a trillion ALREADY.
Would anyone in their right mind believe that the next TEN years would only cost another $ 250 Billion? Obvously, we must leave the J out of the “right mind” category.
Also, one must wonder why the article has no background . . . like the White House original estimate that the war would cost $50 Billion. Or, how about Wolfowitz’s statement that Iraq’s oil would pay for the war??
The Congressional Budget Office reports that Congress has ALREADY appropriated more than $ 600 Billion.
In January two Nobel Prize winning economists estimated the “real” cost of the war (including future veteran benefits, replacing worn out equipment, etc.) at $2 Trillion. With the Surge’s additional costs, those estimates would certainly be higher today.
Back to the J fantasy, the White House estimates we will spend $ 150-170 Billion next year. That is three quarters of a trillion ALREADY.
Would anyone in their right mind believe that the next TEN years would only cost another $ 250 Billion? Obvously, we must leave the J out of the “right mind” category.
Also, one must wonder why the article has no background . . . like the White House original estimate that the war would cost $50 Billion. Or, how about Wolfowitz’s statement that Iraq’s oil would pay for the war??
Aug 1: New Standard for Incompetence
The J article, “U.S. Troop Deaths Decline,” set a new standard for journalistic duplicity and incompetence. And for the Journal, that is a high bar to surpass.
While Wednesday’s Journal COMPLETELY IGNORED the six U.S. troops which died in Iraq on Tuesday, it ran another irresponsible story which continued the J’s attempt to promote the war as “improving.”
Yes, it is true that less U.S. troops died in Iraq in July than in the previous seven months, however, more of our soldiers died in this July than in ANY PREVIOUS JULY in five years of Cheney and Bush’s tragic war.
How misleading can the Journal get?
While Wednesday’s Journal COMPLETELY IGNORED the six U.S. troops which died in Iraq on Tuesday, it ran another irresponsible story which continued the J’s attempt to promote the war as “improving.”
Yes, it is true that less U.S. troops died in Iraq in July than in the previous seven months, however, more of our soldiers died in this July than in ANY PREVIOUS JULY in five years of Cheney and Bush’s tragic war.
How misleading can the Journal get?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)