Why fund war with debt but insist that health-care reform be deficit-neutral?

The Washington Post responded in today's paper to a reader who pointed out an apparent contradiction: the editors insist that health care reform not increase the debt but call for escalation of the number of our troops in Afghanistan without any plan to pay for it other than borrowing money from China and Japan. "Why fund war with debt but insist that health-care reform be deficit-neutral?" This was part of their answer:

Universal health care, however desirable, is not "fundamental to the defense of our people." Nor is it a "necessity" that it be adopted this year: Mr. Obama chose to propose a massive new entitlement at a time of historic budget deficits. In contrast, Gen. McChrystal believes that if reinforcements are not sent to Afghanistan in the next year, the war may be lost, with catastrophic consequences for U.S. interests in South Asia. U.S. soldiers would continue to die, without the prospect of defeating the Taliban. And, as Mr. Obama put it, "if left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

The disconnect between the interests and priorities of the Washington elite, as exemplified by the editorial board of the Washington Post, and those of most Americans could not have been revealed more clearly. This was obviously written by someone whose health care (and the health care of everyone near and dear to them) is absolutely guaranteed. This is in sharp contrast to the situation of most Americans who worry that they, or someone close to them, have no health insurance or could lose it, perhaps as a result of being laid off, and be unable to obtain an new policy, either because of a "preexisting condition" or because they could not afford it. For most Americans outside the Washington beltway this is much more of a "necessity" than the need to wage unending war in Asia.

Gulf of Tonkin Incident for War with Iran?

According to an AP story by Jim Krane:

Iranian naval vessels on Friday seized 15 British sailors and marines who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf, British and U.S. officials said. Britain immediately protested the detentions, which come at a time of high tension between the West and Iran.

Is this the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident that will be the trigger (excuse) for Britain and the United States to go to war with Iran? The increasingly heated rhetoric from the Bush Administration about Iran has been very similar to the public disinformation campaign about Iraq and Saddam Hussein leading up to the 2003 start of the war with Iraq. It seems clear that some in the Bush Administration are eager to go to war with Iran and it is equally clear that the public would very reluctant to start another war absent some provocation from Iran. Has Iran obliged with that provocation, perhaps in response to an as yet unreported initial provocation from us? Or perhaps as in the original "Gulf of Tonkin incident" this news report is more fiction than fact? Stay tuned. We live in interesting times.

Campaign of half measures

This quote from President Bush printed on the QC Times editorial page this morning caught my eye:

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but victory.

President George W. Bush, March 19, 2003

Four years ago the President promised this war would NOT be a campaign of half measures. Since there are still many Americans among us who lived through World War II we all know what a total national effort to win a war would look like. It would not involve tax cuts for the rich and encouragements to go out shopping. Even the 27% of Americans who still support this war must surely agree that what the President delivered was the exact opposite of what he promised in the above quote.

The President obviously feels no inner moral imperative to say what he means and mean what he says. How did we end up with a president who operates more like a con artist than a statesman?