@#$%'em, Nobody In The White House Gives A Damn!

Hey, after all those tax cuts for millionaires and shooting the National Debt to Mars don't think this President is going to back down from being a cheap slimey bastard when it comes to his party!

Forget Iraq and South Asia, It's Party Time
Margaret Carlson

January 6, 2005

Jeanne Phillips, chairwoman of the 55th Presidential Inaugural Committee, was asked in a recent interview if the $40 million being spent on the festivities might be better spent on the troops in Iraq. No, not really. She and the president instead decided to dedicate the festivities to "honoring service" and throwing, for the first time, a Commander in Chief Ball to which 2,000 servicemen have been invited. That, of course, leaves out the 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq, and countless others around the world. Just how do these events benefit the troops? "I'm not sure that they do," she admitted, but she quickly repeated that "honoring service is what our theme is about."

Let the troops eat a theme. Members of the 101st Airborne Division will no doubt be pleased to learn that partygoers at nine ballrooms will be honoring them. Surely that soldier who asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about a lack of armor won't feel so bad about his unfortified vehicle if 2,000 servicemen are eating canapes in his name, and arms merchants are dancing till dawn in honor of arms-bearers in Mosul.

What's surprising is that the down-to-earth president doesn't get that the world has changed since his extravaganza in 2001. The master of identifying with the common man has blown such an easy opportunity to reinforce the image he's so ardently cultivated, an image that just won him reelection despite four years of policies undertaken on behalf of the uncommon man. It's a mask he must maintain if he's to make tax cuts permanent, dismantle Social Security and pursue an ownership society for the benefit of the people who already own it — without the rest of the country catching on.

Naming the inaugural ball "Patriotic" doesn't make it so. That's especially true now that the war is overlaid with massive human suffering and deprivation in South Asia. If you were looking for the opposite of planting a victory garden, you couldn't do better than to have sitcom star Kelsey Grammer emcee the military ball. If you want to laugh at human suffering then go trip the light fantastic at the Liberty Ball. (Visiting the black hole of devastation in Sumatra, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "I've never seen anything like it." Of course, nothing Powell says will change anything. Powell's involvement in an issue is confirmation that the president doesn't care about it.)

Even the soft-as-a-pillow interviewer Larry King saw the incongruity of all this. In the middle of a joint interview on Monday with Bush 41 and Bill Clinton, just named to spearhead private donations for tsunami victims, King said "some people are saying that maybe some of the inaugural events can be … canceled or tempered down. What do you think?" Bush the elder said: "I think life goes on. I don't think it will help anything in Sri Lanka if the balls were, you know, peeled back. That's a separate question." Any suggestion that his son was slow to respond or chintzy, added Bush, was simply "inside-the-Beltway stuff."

Life goes on; that's a truism. But inside the Beltway there was hardly a peep. This is fully Bushland now. Why is it a separate question? Given that the events are dedicated to the troops, why not give half the $40 million to them (with a chunk to the wounded at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for phone cards so they can call home) and half of it to Sri Lanka?

So why did Bush finally spring into action on the tsunami? It was his slow realization that he looked out of step with ordinary Americans, treating his base as less than they are, simply as a voting bloc. While millions of good-hearted Americans were jamming the websites of Catholic Charities, the American Red Cross and other groups with donations, Bush was still on vacation, clearing brush at the ranch. It took more than a week for him to make a personal donation.

To cancel the balls, one Republican said, would be a cheap gesture. That was like the White House's initial excuse for dragging its feet, that Bush didn't want to jump on tragedies as did his predecessor, Clinton, who Bush has officially appointed to jump on the tragedy.

But the truth is that Bush loves a cheap gesture — landing on an aircraft carrier in a flyboy suit or giving a speech like the one Wednesday on medical malpractice, in which he was surrounded by people in white jackets to signify medical good practice.

The deputy of the inaugural organization said a presidential inaugural has never been canceled, even during the world wars, so the administration isn't going to start now. But that's the inauguration itself, which is a pretty economical affair — a Bible, a platform, some seating. Balls are different. Franklin D. Roosevelt canceled three balls because of the Depression and World War II. It is hard to believe that a president who used life-size pictures of Roosevelt as a backdrop at an international speech wouldn't see the anomaly. Imagine if this were a month after the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

A REALLY BAD NATION, I MEAN, NOVEL...

January 7, 2005

NYT OP-ED COLUMNIST

Worse Than Fiction

By PAUL KRUGMAN

've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction.

In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms.

In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.

The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action.

Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.

How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an environment some liberals summarize with the acronym Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

The public became unwilling to believe bad things about those who claim to be defending the nation against terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force.

Apologists for the administration would like us to forget all about the Kerik affair, but Bernard Kerik perfectly symbolizes the times we live in. Like Rudolph Giuliani and, yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.

Once the New York newspapers began digging, it became clear that Mr. Kerik is, professionally and personally, a real piece of work. But that's not unusual these days among people who successfully pass themselves off as patriots and defenders of moral values. Mr. Kerik must still be wondering why he, unlike so many others, didn't get away with it.

And Alberto Gonzales must be hoping that senators don't bring up the subject.

The principal objection to making Mr. Gonzales attorney general is that doing so will tell the world that America thinks it's acceptable to torture people. But his confirmation will also be a statement about ethics.

As White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales was charged with vetting Mr. Kerik. He must have realized what kind of man he was dealing with - yet he declared Mr. Kerik fit to oversee homeland security.

Did Mr. Gonzales defer to the wishes of a president who wanted Mr. Kerik anyway, or did he decide that his boss wouldn't want to know? (The Nelson Report, a respected newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it clear to his subordinates that he doesn't want to hear bad news about Iraq.)

Either way, when the Senate confirms Mr. Gonzales, it will mean that Iokiyar remains in effect, that the basic rules of ethics don't apply to people aligned with the ruling party. And reality will continue to be worse than any fiction I could write.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

White House illegally paid black commentator to promote law

Like all good conservative commentators Armstrong Williams fought for a Bush program like NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND because it was the right thing to do. Not because he was paid to and all while he concealed to his audience the quarter of a million dollars payment. On top of this it was an illegal use of taxpayer's money (yep, YOU paid for it) by Bush's administration. Well, at least Williams wasn't buying drugs illegally from his housekeeper while ruining his health and hearing.



"Just because I believe in the President's program and was paid for promoting it with your taxpayer's money doesn't mean I'm a, 'Yass sir, Massa' Bush!' black man. Far from it and how dare you suggest such a racist thing! I'm just a good conservative journalist with rock-solid convictions interested in putting the welfare of all Americans first with no interest in personal gain no matter how much they paid me." ---future SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE skit. No wait, they're owned by GE.

White House paid commentator to promote law

By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY

Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.

The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.

Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in."

The top Democrat on the House Education Committee, Rep. George Miller of California, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." He said he will ask his Republican counterpart to join him in requesting an investigation.

The contract, detailed in documents obtained by USA TODAY through a Freedom of Information Act request, also shows that the Education Department, through the Ketchum public relations firm, arranged with Williams to use contacts with America's Black Forum, a group of black broadcast journalists, "to encourage the producers to periodically address" NCLB. He persuaded radio and TV personality Steve Harvey to invite Paige onto his show twice. Harvey's manager, Rushion McDonald, confirmed the appearances.

Williams said he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.

"I respect Mr. Williams' statement that this is something he believes in," said Bob Steele, a media ethics expert at The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "But I would suggest that his commitment to that belief is best exercised through his excellent professional work rather than through contractual obligations with outsiders who are, quite clearly, trying to influence content."

The contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said he couldn't comment because the White House is not involved in departments' contracts.

Ketchum referred questions to the Education Department, whose spokesman, John Gibbons, said the contract followed standard government procedures. He said there are no plans to continue with "similar outreach."

Williams' contract was part of a $1 million deal with Ketchum that produced "video news releases" designed to look like news reports. The Bush administration used similar releases last year to promote its Medicare prescription drug plan, prompting a scolding from the Government Accountability Office, which called them an illegal use of taxpayers' dollars.

Williams, 45, a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of the top black conservative voices in the nation. He hosts The Right Side on TV and radio, and writes op-ed pieces for newspapers, including USA TODAY, while running a public relations firm, Graham Williams Group.

Bush & Congress Show Contempt For Vets By Kicking Out Their Greatest Ally

Our fighting veterans' top GOP congressional friend and a House leader on veterans affairs has been kicked out by a GOP Congress (and Bush's neo-con cabal) that didn't like his standing up for the rights and benefits of our retired military over the tax cuts. This administration and congress is not for vets, it's for their corporate buddies and millionares tax breaks so they can cut veterans benefits AND IN A TIME OF WAR and when they will be needing them the most. If this doesn't turn your stomach then you don't give a fig about the future of America's fighting men.

House Republicans Oust VA Panel Chairman

Wed Jan 5, 7:05 PM ET

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - House Republican leaders decided Wednesday to oust Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher Smith, a lawmaker with strong allies in the veterans' community who has tested his party's demands for loyalty with his stances on funding.

The GOP leaders, in a secret ballot, chose Rep. Steve Buyer (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., a 10-year veteran of the committee, to replace Smith, R-N.J., who has led the panel for the past four years. Smith is expected to lose his committee seat, which he has held for 24 years.

The decision is expected to be ratified when all House Republicans meet on Thursday.

Buyer was the only lawmaker to challenge a sitting chairman as party leaders met to organize for the 109th session of Congress. Removing an incumbent is highly unusual, but Smith has been criticized for not being a team player and threatened with loss of his post for questioning party policies.

Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., talking to reporters after the vote, cited what he said was Smith's unwillingness to accept even those budgets backed by the Veterans Affairs Department.

Blunt said Buyer, a 46-year-old Persian Gulf War (news - web sites) veteran who is a colonel in the Army Reserve, had presented a more forward-looking vision in pressing his case to party leaders.

Smith, in an interview, defended his record, saying the gains he has made for veterans are enduring, and he denied that he has acted in defiance of the party.

"I think I am very much a team player because I think that good public policy is good for the team," he said.

Smith in the past has angered party leaders by saying that stringent GOP-backed budgets undercut veterans' programs, a sensitive subject when the Bush administration and Congress are trying to show their wartime commitment to troops and veterans.

That independence has won Smith strong support among veterans groups. On Monday the heads of eight veterans groups, including the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, wrote House Speaker Dennis Hastert to say it would be a "tragedy" if Smith were removed from his post.

They noted that Smith had shepherded major legislation through Congress, including modernizing the GI bill, strengthening legal protections and expanding health care services and benefits.

Bush & GOP Congress Letting America Down On Homeland Security

Meanwhile our cities, ports and borders are not receiving the financial support required to meet Homeland Security needs. Key cities have been forced to cut back First Responders (police and firemen). This is a travesty concerning leadership under Bush.

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL

Homeland Security Goes Begging

Congress has a critical role in protecting the nation from terrorists by exercising careful scrutiny of homeland security programs. But so far, the House and Senate have been contributing to the problem rather than the solutions, distracting antiterrorism efforts by forcing officials to report to dozens of competing, power-hungry committees. The independent 9/11 commission cried out for an end to this "dysfunctional" system. Its solution was clean and obvious: create a single streamlined homeland security committee in each house, with both budget power and responsibility for oversight. Yet no national priority has been more shamefully subject to evasion by a truculent Congress ensconced in the traditions of turf battles.

Currently, the leaders of the Department of Homeland Security report to more than 80 committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate, each with a zealously guarded slice of the budget for securing the nation against terrorists. There is no one in Congress with the power or the responsibility to make sure the secretary of homeland security has the manpower and money he needs and to hold him accountable for the department's performance. Like the 9/11 panel, any average American could have seen the answer.

But not Congress. In its latest evasion, the House Republican leadership this week announced, with great fanfare, that it was granting "permanent" status to the existing House Select Committee on Homeland Security. All that was lacking was jurisdiction over homeland security budgeting, spending or performance.

Besides leaving the committee squarely in limbo, Speaker Dennis Hastert appeased powerful rival chairmen who were already sniping away at the homeland panel, which has spent the last two years scrambling for survival and office space. The committee's Republican chairman, Christopher Cox of California, can look forward to an inch-by-inch struggle for jurisdiction in arcane debates in the parliamentarian's office as his rivals - the ranking committee "bulls" of the Judiciary, Energy and Transportation Committees - invoke historical precedence over the newcomer.

Even as the new permanent homeland panel was proclaimed, rivals already conspired to deprive it of the jurisdiction for overseeing such basic essentials as the Coast Guard, border entries and cybersecurity threats to the country's electric power grids and other vulnerable infrastructures.

"This is the speaker's committee," says Mr. Cox, expecting help from on high. But even for an old wrestling coach like the speaker, refereeing the looming food fights over oversight and appropriations is no way to see that the people get proper vigilance and protection from their government.

Comparable cosmetic changes have been loftily proclaimed for the Senate committee system, but the same blur of jurisdiction, power jockeying and eventual inertia can be expected to continue. Three years after the 9/11 attacks, House leaders dared to defend their system in Orwellian terms as "purposeful redundancy" and a "competition of ideas." The bulls of Congress should only guard the nation this zealously.

Army Reserve overextended, general says

"Let them eat cake." ---Cheney and generals dig in.


Fact: Bush lied about WMD in Iraq to rush to war. Fact: Bush couldn't convince the world to support his war with Iraq and thus he forced America to bear the brunt of its commitment in troops and money. Fact: Bush ignored pleas before going to war by military leaders asking to send more troops to deal with the occupation. Fact: insurgent attacks increased during the occupation as was originally warned. Fact: Bush sent more troops (increased Reserve troops to fill gaps) and then he recalled them, then he sent them back. Fact: insurgent attacks increased steadily since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." Fact: the Reserves have become a backdoor draft. Fact: Bush taunted the insurgents with "Bring it on!" Fact: Bush extended the tour of duty of troops in Iraq to deal with shortages. Fact: in the meantime the Reserves were not being properly trained and equipped for the war. Fact: the Reserves have begun to break down. Fact: the Pentagon is frantically observing the number of re-enlistments and new enlistments fall drastically below the projected needs in the Reserves. Fact: other branches of the military are beginning to show a drop in enlistment.

Fact: Bush was totally unprepared for the realities of war in Iraq.

Do you have a son coming into draft age in the next ten years as the Pentagon deals with increasing troop shortages while tied to military commitments in Iraq and around the world?


Chicago Tribune
Army Reserve overextended, general says

Wed Jan 5, 9:40 AM ET

By Tom Bowman Tribune Newspapers: The Baltimore Sun

The Army Reserve, a force of some 200,000 part-time soldiers who provide key support in Iraq and Afghanistan with medics, engineers and truck drivers, "is rapidly degenerating into a `broken' force," its top general has told senior Army leaders.

Lt. Gen. James "Ron" Helmly, the chief of the Army Reserve, in a blunt and detailed memo cited the demands of overseas commitments and the unwillingness of Army and Pentagon officials to change "dysfunctional" policies that are hampering the Army Reserve on issues ranging from training and extension of service time to the mobilization of his soldiers.

The Dec. 20 memo, obtained by The Baltimore Sun, said that in meeting the "current demands" of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army Reserve is in "grave danger" of being unable to meet other missions in Pentagon contingency plans or help with domestic emergencies "and is rapidly degenerating into a `broken' force."

"The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of the Army Reserve's inability to meet mission requirements" in Iraq and Afghanistan "and to reset and regenerate its forces for follow-on and future missions," Helmly wrote in the eight-page memo sent through Army channels for the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker. "I do not wish to sound alarmist. I do wish to send a clear, distinctive signal of deepening concern."

Interviewed Tuesday at the Pentagon, Helmly said, "I stand by the memorandum. Is there frustration? Absolutely. Is the frustration beyond control? No."

Policy reform sought

The memo was designed as a frank exchange with Army leaders in advance of upcoming congressional hearings, said Helmly, adding that he planned to press ahead with reforms for the long-term health of the Army Reserve.

Helmly would not discuss the specific officials who declined to support policy changes, though he said in one instance political pressure from Congress led to a roadblock.

A senior Army official who requested anonymity said Tuesday that unexpected troop requirements in Iraq led to the problems outlined by Helmly. The active-duty forces needed there continually rose over the past year, requiring an increased number of Reserve soldiers to provide support.

In May 2003, before the insurgency sharply increased, some 8,000 Army Reserve soldiers in Iraq were sent home, only to be recalled to duty three months later.

The 150,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq include about 30,000 Army Reserve soldiers serving in Iraq and Kuwait.

The senior official said "we were still able to field the forces we needed" and were reluctant to change policies that would burden soldiers and their families. Now with Iraq expected to hold down a sizable number of U.S. soldiers for several years, some of those policies will have to be changed, the official said.

"I think some will be changed. I think some have to be changed," he said, adding that he expected Schoomaker and Army Secretary Francis Harvey to discuss the issues with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The private and unvarnished assessment by Helmly echoes the concerns of other officers, defense analysts and some members of Congress, who have predicted that the burdens of overseas missions could begin to fray the all-volunteer U.S. military. Both the National Guard and Army Reserve are experiencing a recruiting slump, although the Army is meeting its goals.

`Spread too thin'

"The general consensus is the Army's spread too thin," said Charles Moskos, a longtime military sociologist at Northwestern University. He has traveled to Iraq and heard complaints from reservists that included a lack of adequate training and equipment. "The Reserve and Guard are not treated equally with the other services."

Moskos said the problems outlined by Helmly need to be addressed by some type of commission that is independent of the Pentagon.

Helmly is a Vietnam War combat veteran who served two tours and received a Bronze Star for valor. He has earned a reputation as a no-nonsense leader during 2 1/2 years as the top Army Reserve officer. But he has irritated the Pentagon's hierarchy in the past year with pessimistic talk about recruiting and retention at a time when the military's leadership has tried to be more upbeat.

In his memo, Helmly cited the Pentagon's requirement to leave a large amount of Army Reserve equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan for other services and contractors. He also criticized policies that delay training of reservists who have returned home from overseas duty, citing them among "peacetime" personnel policies that need to change.

IT'S STILL TRUE

John Kerry was right in the debate (click to see: QuickTime required) and even more so now with Americans (and the Iraqi people) dying at a greater rate than ever before in Iraq.

Bush lied about the reasons to go to war (and has been proven so).

Bush lied about having an occupation plan (and has been proven so).

Bush lied about having an exit plan (and has been proven so).

It's not getting better in Iraq, it's getting worse. Bush has been forced to send more troops to counter insurgent attacks. Bush can't get more nations involved to help and reduce our troops' involvement. Nations are pulling OUT of Iraq. Under Bush's leadership the Reserves serve as a back-door draft while enlistment in the military has fallen. What does that hold for the future and America's children in the next few years?

THE FAILURE

Click on the link above or below for an analysis of Bush's failures in leading the country.

The debate on the failure of Bush as president.

Bush The Unfeeling Miser

Our president is an idiot. Left on his own over the holiday (his handlers were vacationing) he showed his true colors and concerns. He was thinking of his inauguration! Did you know that his corporate pals are planning to lavash $40,000,000 on the big party? And what was Bush's initial offer to help out with the victims of the tsunami disasters? $15,000,000. Says it all about this "compassionate conservative". But read on. Look how out of the "big picture" he really is.

EDITORIAL L.A. Times
A Marshall Plan for South Asia

January 2, 2005

If a tsunami were to strike Northern Europe, killing more than 100,000 people from Ireland to Sweden, does anybody think it would take President Bush 72 hours to speak up about the tragedy and call leaders of the devastated countries?

In fairness to the vacationing president, the full magnitude of the natural disaster in the Indian Ocean wasn't apparent immediately after the undersea earthquake and the ensuing tsunami struck a week ago today. Still, there is no disputing that the first response of the American president and government, seen as omnipotent in much of the world, was lackadaisical and stingy. When Bush finally spoke Wednesday, Spain's pledge of relief funds was nearly double that of the U.S., and even that U.S. contribution ($35 million) came only after heavy criticism of Washington.

All of this conveyed the impression that Americans don't value the lives of people in poor countries as much as they value their own, or European, lives. Most of us have been guilty of shrugging our shoulders in the past over natural disasters in South Asia. How much attention did we pay in 1991, for instance, when a cyclone claimed nearly 140,000 lives in Bangladesh?

Bush's announcement Friday that the United States will contribute $350 million, 10 times the earlier amount, can go far to show that Washington will act boldly overseas in response to natural calamities, not just military threats. Sending his brother Jeb to the disaster area also symbolizes the U.S. concern. But we also urge Bush to propose a Marshall Plan-like strategy for the region that would commit billions of dollars for long-term programs like water purification and improved sanitation systems.

The president would be wise to travel to the region in coming weeks. There is no need for a grandstanding tour of devastated communities, but a respectful visit to national capitals to express our nation's condolences and to ask how the president could help would go a long way toward rehabilitating the U.S. image in the world.

If conservatives in the president's own party balk at a multibillion-dollar Marshall Plan for South Asia, Bush shouldn't hesitate to employ his favorite marketing ploy: Peg the effort to the war on terror by pointing out the strategic importance of the region. Indonesia, the most severely affected nation, also happens to be the world's largest Muslim country, where most practice a moderate form of the religion but the government battles extremists.

Offering humanitarian assistance could inoculate Indonesians against sympathy for terrorists. An all-out effort by the U.S. to help a Muslim country would also counter those across the Muslim world who preach that the West is out to undermine all Muslim societies.

Beyond Indonesia, Sri Lanka fights Tamil terrorists, Thailand worries about Muslim separatists in the south, and India works hard to maintain peace among its many religious and ethnic communities while seeking to improve ties with Pakistan. All four nations are natural allies of the U.S., democracies of the kind Bush repeatedly says he wants to see flourish.

The U.S. spends a bit over one-tenth of 1% of its national income on aid, less than any other developed nation. A massive American-led Marshall Plan for South Asia would cost only a fraction of the nearly $225 billion requested so far to pay for the Iraq war. And, without a doubt, it would be a far wiser investment in the war on terror.