There isn't much connection between "war" and the economy, true. (it's not a real war until Congress says so--it's an executive action right now) In fact, in many cases, war is good for business. But has anyone else noticed that economic slumps tend to coincide with election years? Suspicious? I think so.

It goes like this: presidential campaigns tease out every little problem (real or imagined) and inflate it in the eyes of the public by increasing awareness. Economic recessions are self-perpetuating, and campaigns are very good at being agents of this self-perpetuation. They talk on and on about how terrible things are and how much things need to change--scaring consumers and driving down their confidence. It's not really as bad as people say it is, but it will become exactly as bad as people say it is because the economy is made up of the actions of every individual, which are based on the opinions of every individual.

Furthermore, the campaigns themselves actually cause economic slowdown, regardless of what they say. A typical presidental campaign can now spend as much as a million dollars a day, give or take. That's a lot of money, considering that campaigns start excessively early now (how is it we have candidates who haven't yet been officially nominated?). Campaigns buy up advertising space and time. An advertisement is a company's investment. Your typical advertisement seeks to persuade a consumer to buy something--economically beneficial activity. A successful advertising campaign produces capital many times what was invested in it, and that in turn gets paid to employees who in turn spend it, and that's healthy economic activity. But a successful political campaign has exactly one goal in mind--to get a vote. A vote has absolutely no economic value. Money spent by political campaigns is money thrown to the wind, rather than sensibly invested. Furthermore, people are more likely to donate money to campaigns during a presidential election year. All of that money is money that consumers do not use to stimulate the economy, either with immediate spending or investment toward future spending. And as already mentioned, it's money simply thrown to the wind.

So yes, we can blame politics for the economic slump. But it's not Bush's politics (he's already done his damage, four and eight years ago, with the aid of our friends Gore and Kerry). It's Clinton and Obama and McCain at fault right now. (although when we consider the delayed effects of economy, maybe this is just the fallout from the last election. I'm not an economist. I'm just a consumer.)

War spending is consumption, governemnt consumption, but still consumption.
Consumption is SOMETIMES good for teh economy.
Keynes pointed out that when private persons save more than businesses are willing to invest, then government borrowing overcomes recessions. This isn't the case today, so the massive deficit hasn't helped the economy.
Long-term, of course, repairing bridges and sewers is much better tor the economy than bombing some otehr country.

War spending is consumption, governemnt consumption, but still consumption.
Consumption is SOMETIMES good for teh economy.
Keynes pointed out that when private persons save more than businesses are willing to invest, then government borrowing overcomes recessions. This isn't the case today, so the massive deficit hasn't helped the economy.
Long-term, of course, repairing bridges and sewers is much better tor the economy than bombing some otehr country.

This would be one of the first times I would disagree with Paul Krugman if that was his statement about the war being good for the economy. Somehow I think those words were manipulated out of context. If not, I expect a retraction from him at any time.

As Eisenhower said money invested in war is money not invested in the real wealth building of a nation. War is of course necessary at times, but as president, Eisenhower was always cautious about employing it.

We are borrowing from foreign sources for this war. Much of that cost is off budget and hidden. The money we spend on Iraq will not be used in the USA to rebuild our infrastructure. We build hospitals, roads, bridges, schools etc in Iraq with foreign labor hired by Haliburton etc. In some cases not even using Iraqi labor. How does that improve our economy?

Wrong., the housing bubble was started in the mid-to-late 1990's when the idiotic lenders were getting rich. They thought b lending anyone money was okay and the builders were building, building, building. The people who bought with idiotic loans thinking they'd triple their money along twith their Yahoo stock would go to 4000 from 1800 in a few years (doesn't the past, even if one year predict the future after all?) Guess they figured old Uncle Sam would bail them out, both lenders and buyers if something went wrong. Well I did buy a bit of stock,no dot.com stocks, no house at inflated prices., but I didn't soak everything in it to make a quick buck. That was speculation. Now people are whining about oil speculation. Very few speculators, especially amateur ones, make money. They lose and they lose big. A lot of businesses have to do it. You can't run an airline or any business without contracting your supplies ahead of time. At uncertain times like now, its not easy. Seattle, where I lived, was being plastered with new houses the and is now with Condiminiums in many areas, unbelievably. At least until Boeing gets hit with the fuel cost. Insane. Why, interest rates are too low, its cheap to build.

But the housing crash occured after 9/11/2001. It should crash. The thing was a scam from the start. Regulation? No let the lenders figure it out or file bankruptcy. Its not in their interest to foreclose. They don't like maintaing empty houses. They are not in the rental business or real estate marketing business. Obviously, Americans, being the sheep they are, bought houses (first stocks) and as with booms, they go bust and they go bust fast usually. If you put little down on a suprime loan, you have little in value in your house. sign it over to the lender. I guess if you still owe and can't cover it or sell it, I'm afraid bankruptcy court is your best option.
Intelligent people don't live in fantasyland and think mommie will take care of everything like Children do.

People not knowing anything caused the Internet bubble and bust followed by the housing bust from people buying homes based on their paper wealth. Well sh*t does happen. Frankly, I think this recession is mild if at all, if you don't live in a place that was consumed by the phoney housing boom, you are OK so far. If your smart and didn't get hooked into it you can get a better house with a good loan, now if your credit isn't bad.

Middle aged people getting laid off as the giant sucking sound of jobs moves to China, I do feel for. Stop buying junk at Walmart, the biggest corporation in the World now. Exxon actually fell to third place this year, unbelievably.

The currant demonization of the Republications reminds me of what happened in Gremany in the 30's. The systematic and total blame of all problems on one group Jews in the case of Hitler, Republications in the case of us. When do we start the "Final Solution"?

Every penny that we borrow to fund the illegal occupation of Iraq, is money that could be used more productively in the US. military spending is the least efficient way to provide job creation or economic stimulus, because it is so capital intensive, providing few jobs per dollar spent. That 3% going to the occupation is compounded because we have to pay interest on that money because it is all borrowed. When will the American people wake up? Think of how much better things would be if we were still running billion dollar surpluses, as we were during the Clinton administration. Lower interest rates, more capital for infrastructure improvement (see Iowa levees), paying down the national debt, investing in clean energy research. the list is endless. Plus there would be the added advantage of 4000+ fewer dead americans and (let us not forget) 40,000 fewer permanently injured americans.

SRW

The 1st statement is true; but if the problem is the dollar's devaluation and is caused largely by lax monetary policy (borrowing) then any single contributor which is borrowing 3% of the total GDP would be highly suspect and is likely the largest single contributor to the problem. If borrowing is the problem, then you need to look at government expenditures in relation to all borrowing, NOT try to minimize the impact by comparing it to GDP. A MUCH more useful number would be to see what % of the government's annual expenditures are bought "on credit". I don't have that number, but I bet it would be high. Since the government is getting its credit largely from foreign sources, this directly affects the dollars devaluation. So the 2nd statement is somewhat misleading.

GDP is not a particularly useful number for determining the effect of policy these days, especially war One reason is that the cost of war is equated to have the same benefit as any other expenditure. In other words, in terms of GDP, there is no difference between dropping a bomb and building a road. Even worse - re-building a road you bomb is also applied to GDP. And if that road you are re-building is in another country and will have no lasting benefit to your country, but still shows up on your books as part of a reconstruction project, that's clearly not going to have the same benefit as building a road in your own country - but its all the same to the GDP calculation. GDP also does not take into account the quality of the road, or any other item that appears as part of GDP, such as the cheap disposable products we now buy (and re-buy and re-buy) from WalMart.
With that in mind, one could envision a rapidly declining nation which has savings in the form of assets that could have declining productivity, wages and wealth yet totally masked the declining economy by living off of credit, so that their expenditures remain high, thus propping up GDP. The only trick here would be to make sure that imports are disguised so that they don't get subtracted from the equation. No problem - a domestic company outsourcing production could easily accomplish that.

Thus, an increase in GDP is an artifact - a data point that is neither inherently good or bad. It can not be used effectively to judge the impact of policy - only to determine the scale of that policy.

W

"Extraordinary rendition happened on Bill Clinton's watch. Anyone want to indict him for war crimes?"

...aside from the fact that this is the first that I've heard of it, is ER a war-crime in and of itself? Or is the war crime in the subsequent indefinite detention and torture combined with the denial of legal representation, heck, even admitting that we have the guy?

"The war has actually been good for the economy because the government has spent billions of dollars to fund the war."

....that would be nice if all the money were spent here and if it were spent on items with the potential to contribute to the economy over the long-term, not immediate consumables, health-care costs, the costs of shipping divisions back and forth between the US and Iraq and transportation, housing and rebuilding costs in Iraq, maintenance costs, paying Iraqis to defend themselves, etc.

Not to mention the purchase of kerosene, diesel and gasoline for our war machine in Iraq.

It's just like any other form of domestic spending. There's good spending and there's bad spending. Iraq is bad spending. Iraq is bad spending that not only has been going on for 8 years, it is going on without an end in sight at this point, and we still have all the rebuilding and rearming costs that are coming out of grinding our armed forces into dust in Iraq. We have not yet begun to actually pay the lions' share of the cost of the Iraq war, and when that happens it'll probably be financed. This is an economic disaster that is still in the making.

Total world oil demand and supply are very close together. World demand is 86.5 million barrels/day and supply is 85 million barrels/day. The net result is that prices rise. In this context, the war in Iraq is very serious. Add to that, the USA/Israel threats against Iran and the substantial USA troop presence in the Middle East Region, and you must conclude we have created a very serious situation that is causing the oil price run-up. Oil is headed for $200 a barrel and it cannot be stopped. And yes, world oil demand is a factor, but that's all the more reason why the Iraq war has been a tipping point in the oil run-up. Bottom line, the behavior and policies of nation-states (such as the USA) matter far more then dribble-drabble about GDP percentages. Such percentages are only concerned about total and aggregate economic outputs anyway, what is much more important is how nations integrate and function within the world economy. On this score, Mr. Bush has led us into deep, deep trouble.

Total world oil demand and supply are very close together. World demand is 86.5 million barrels/day and supply is 85 million barrels/day. The net result is that prices rise. In this context, the war in Iraq is very serious. Add to that, the USA/Israel threats against Iran and the substantial USA troop presence in the Middle East Region, and you must conclude we have created a very serious situation that is causing the oil price run-up. Oil is headed for $200 a barrel and it cannot be stopped. And yes, world oil demand is a factor, but that's all the more reason why the Iraq war has been a tipping point in the oil run-up. Bottom line, the behavior and policies of nation-states (such as the USA) matter far more then dribble-drabble about GDP percentages. Such percentages are only concerned about total and aggregate economic outputs anyway, what is much more important is how nations integrate and function within the world economy. On this score, Mr. Bush has led us into deep, deep trouble.

You can probably find economists who could build an argument supporting "connecting the dots" and many who might say "not so fast Bush bashers!" Yet any reasonable person would have to acknowledge the cost of the war, has certainly resulted in a huge federal deficit. What economist would advise undertaking a foreign war and simultaneously cutting taxes for the wealthy class? Most economists are fiscally conservative when it comes to huge expenses and tax revenues necessary to pay for the war. The federal government is well known for defying normal business decision making by spending money they do not have (deficit spending). Simply put, a balanced budget could not sustain a costly war, and reduce tax revenues. This policy is the "poster child" for mismanagement.

Bush never asked the american taxpayer to help pay for his war. There was no war bond. There was no invest in america's future. There was no "let's work together to make america strong". There was only "cut domestic spending" and "cut taxes for the wealthy class". His mantra for "fighting terrorists" never invited any discussion of the cost for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The total cost of war (especially with no additional tax revenues) has become a "hidden tax" thru inflation and our failing economy.

The failure to "connect the dots" is indeed bewildering, but perhaps not unexpected from the people who sold the war to the american voters through lies, dishonesty, deceit, and yes illegal torture.

Remember Marie Antoinette allowed her subjects, "let them eat cake", because the French economy tanked. When Frenchmen woke up to her outrageous spending, she was found quilty of treason and hanged.

Extraordinary rendition happened on Bill Clinton's watch. Anyone want to indict him for war crimes?

Didn't think so.

Wow, Bush is to blame for EVERYTHING! Thanks guys, now I know who to blame for all my problems.

Bob & all who really want to know how the war in Iraq has impacted our US fading economy should read "The Three Trillion Dollar War" by Joseph E. Stiglitz (Nobel Prize Winner in Economics) and Linda J. Bilmes.

"attributing just half of the price increase (of oil) in the post-Iraq world to Iraq over the period for which we have futures markets (2015) brings the DIRECT costs of the oil price increase alone to somwhat in excess of $1.6 trillion."

Ah, another bait and switch scam! Look, Move-on and the majority of European economists and writers will tell you that our economic mess, the looming collapse can be blamed on three factors, all of them Bush-Cheney policies: (1) "globalization" (which is nothing more than old fashioned Soviet style communism, retreaded and trotted out under Republican guise) (2) corporations and Wall Street run amuck with little or no government oversight, (3) an obscene national debt due to tax give-aways to corporations, Wall Street traitors, and the wealthy vermin that prey on this country.

Of course, the "conservatives" (actually neo-Marxists, fuzzy minded one worlders) will scream that I am somehow twisting what they really mean by "globalization". Nonsense. Of course the are communists. The Neocons are bent on world domination, creating revolutions to remake governments in their insane image (which, in a another twist of ordinary language usage, Bush calls "democracy"), a global economy, a "new world order", and all of the other neomarxist claptrap that was sounded by Lenin and the Bolshevik's. The new communism o the Republican Party is just as wrong headed and delussional as anything the old Soviet's came up with. It wrecked Russia and it's empire and it will just as surely wreck us.

The war has actually been good for the economy because the government has spent billions of dollars to fund the war.

The D.C. economy will take a major hit should Obama reign in increased spending by the DoD.

But its high time the federal government, Congress, the White House, and all of the agencies became transparent in their spending.

If the federal government were a company, its business practices would make Enron look honest.

Let's work toward a balanced budget, reign in entitlement spending, and stop pork-barrel projects by the Congress.

p.s. - FYI, we're not actually in a recession yet. A recession is two consecutive quarters with negative growth. The U.S. has not had negative growth since Bush's first term. Things are not as rosy as they were during the housing boom. But the recession is still coming.

Yeah, I've seen that red herring before. You can talk about fiscal policies and statistics and whatnot all you want. When you get down to it, a few billion here and a few billion there, and eventually you're talking about real money. When you make projections based on other projections and estimates based on other estimates, eventually your numbers don't mean crap - unless you're a cost accountant, in which case they mean exactly what you want them to mean, no matter how many times you have to cook the input.

and I mean let's get serious we can't keep running a massive trade deficit AND have the US government pick up the tab for the housing mess. That's just more of the same nonsense. "Sure, we'll buy Bear Stearns if you pick-up the $30B worth of worthless financial papers that are on their books". "Sure, we'll solve the housing crisis by letting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pick up all these worthless subprime mortgages in a decreasing market".

You keep this up, you're literally going to have half of this country on some form of welfare. Blue-collar, white-collar, Soccer Mom whatever, it's still going to be welfare. The BA is now prosecuting two Bear Stearns traders while at the same time doing what is effectively the same thing that they are accusing these traders of doing. Telling everyone that everything is fine while they get their own money out of the system. Except instead of using the name and reputation of Bear Stearns to mollify the run on the account, they're using the good name and reputation of the Federal Government.

The housing market is turning into a national Ponzi scheme with the Republicans and specifically the BA in charge of it.

...our country is not going to get *better* by continue to let people run it who have practically wrecked it, or by replacing them with those with the same philosophy an outlook on how to run the government. You don't get anywhere good by letting people who wreck your car continue to drive.

The problem is that they keep promising us that they are going to fix problems...that they create, or stand by, watch and let happen. Actually a mixture of both. We can't get to square #2 if we are constantly hopping back and forth between square 1 and square 0. And each hop is a waste of time, energy, money, resources and human life. We just cannot afford to keep this party in power. It's killing us as a country to continue to line the pockets of its supporters.

Here is the real problem, the war did not cause the slow down, but it will make worse cause the goverment has a finite limit it can borrow. Funding a 1 Trillion dollar debt to invade and occupaction of Iraq is clearly going to cause more problems with the slowing economy if the goverment needs money to bailout the financal system.

....here's the real issue with the economy now. The cloak of secrecy behind which our government operates. We don't really know what is going on with Iraq other than what they tell us and what they allow us to see. How much is being spent in the black? We have no idea. What are the true budget numbers? Again we have no idea. The main reason that the Iraq war is not over is that the President does not want the American people to see the bottom-line that would result. Who is to say that this philosophy would not, does not extend into other activities of the BA? He can keep saying "it's going to get better" all the way until the next administration! Meanwhile everything is getting worse. And the problem is that the BA and the republican party are happy to find people who will happily take their money to sit in their ivory towers and tell us that the BA is not responsible. They ARE responsible. If the government is responsible for *anything* than those in government are responsible. they can say all day long that the recession isn't due to this or that the fact is that we are IN a recession and if they were so smart about what is not causing it then they should easily have figured out what WOULD have caused it and done something about it to keep it from happening. 20/20 hindsight at best says that you should have bought glasses a while ago and you chose not to. How can you take these people credibly now? In my opinion Bush lost all credibility on the morning of 9/11, not to menton 6 years later after all that has happened and not happened, that either should not have happened or should have happened. The only question now is will it get worse or better. And it's not going to get better by listening to the people who got us where we are today like a bunch of grinning fools. Unless...you believe that failure breeds success?

"If we don't prosecute these corporate fascists, *any* president in the future can get away with subverting the Constitution."

....well, if they are not prosecuted for it like the current administration.

Reading powers into the Constitution or into the efforts or lack of efforts to prosecute a previous alleged offense is still the purview of those in power at the moment. For example there's nothing that literally says that the CnC has unfettered command and control of the US military and does not have to answer to Congress in his execution of his responsibilities. Congressional oversight only goes as far as Congres wishes to take it. Not even the Supreme Court can interfere with this.

"I think every new administration should appoint a special prosecutor, who can spend four years investigating potential criminal misdeeds committed in the preceding four years. Now that would be a deterrent of future misconduct.

Can you tell I'm joking? Do you see my point?"

I think that you are trying to make a joke but you have no sense of humor. What is an AG supposed to do but prosecute alleged violations of the law?

You would have him or her ignore anything that happened before they became AG? So the election washes all the sins away of the previous administration?

That's not funny. That's not even remotely funny.

Once again, simplistic thinking is being passed off as clear analysis.

Simply because it's not JUST do to the war, doesn't mean it's not ALSO do to the war.

"The dollar's devaluation, however, has little to do with the war -- and a lot to do with our massive trade deficits and lax monetary policy"

...but that's the point. Instead of taking care of our economic issues, we've been busy fighting a needless war in Iraq for 8 years. It has been a massive distraction both in terms of defense spending and domestic prioritization.

We haven't even rung up the total cost of the war...the war is not yet over. We're not even sure that it is going to end soon.

This is like sitting on your butt watching Saturday Night Live while outside the house the river is rising but you feel that you can't attend to that until after SNL is over.

Crimes in politics? You're kidding, right! This adminisration has played the old shell game with the American people. It actually comes off as arrogance. But wait!!! Why are commodities trader's pushing the cost of oil so high? Go to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission's website-www.cftc.gov. The person running this Commission is none other than the lawyer who worked for Sen.Lugar and, accoring to his own bio, helped develope,draft and get passed into law the Commidities Modernization Act of 2000 which is what has caused the unregulated markets that have inflated our oil & other commodities prices so high. One better: The site is now asking for public opinion to let ICE Clear Europe follow the UK Financial Services rules and not ours for reporting of who, what, when and how much the futures purchases are being traded. In affect - they are asking to allow this company to circumvent the law Congress passed with the Farm Bill to plug the "so called Enron Loophole". This ICE (Intercontinental Exchange)is one of the biggest trading platforms. The email dd not work for the request of opinion when I tried to say "no". I called the office of the Commission and spoke to an agent. I started to tell him what I was calling about - he said put it in writing - and hung up on me. Seems the CFTC is working to help the traders circumvent the law and not to support the law. Why is Lukken anywhere near this regulatory commission considering his background? Pure arrogance!!!

Tax cuts will pump almost $2.5 trillion dollars into the ecomomy. The unprecedented military and intelligence spending plus the cost of war has added over $1 trillion in increased spending to the economy--and counting. Yet, we are still entering a recession.

The party should be over, we're grown-ups. Our economy is resting on smoke and mirrors right now. Unprecedented Fed sleight of hand only adds to the picture.

The American standard of living is incrdibly higher than much of the world. Given our economy, crumbling infrastructure, the effect of climate change and/or attempts to reduce greenhouse emissins we are going to have to prepare for SACRIFICE.

But none of our leaders are discussing it much less calling for it. Heaven help us when we fall.

There must be accountability.

Criminals must pay for their crimes.

It's totally unacceptable to Americans that there's a ceiling beyond which high officials, including presiden and vice presdient, are immune from prosecution.

Giving corrupt president a free pass is an insult to the Constitution.

We spend 12 billion a month in IRAQ, all that is borrowed, we have no money left for the infrastructure, the levees, did you see the news lately ? did you see the Midwest under water ?
who do you thin is going to pay for that ?
common you poeple in the right, have some little shame on what you are defending, you ruined this country.

I think Americans need to come to terms with the fact that the US legal system is not the only one in the world, with jurisdiction over war crimes. Every signatory to the Geneva Conventions has such jurisdiction.

Everyone, from Bush down to the lowly Gitmo guard, will spend the rest of their lives in jeopardy of prosecution. US power might protect them in the short term - but, how long will that power last?

Stumped is an ostrich mouthing his Republican party lines. To say that our spending on the war in Iraq has nothing to do with our stagnant economy is the hight of stupidity. Any layman even without Econ 101 knows that our present and future is being mortgaged by the Bush-Cheney-Republican axis of evils!

Stumped should have the brains to think of all the good our 3 trillion dollar commitment would have made to this country's present and future where we are witnessing massive breakdown of our infrastructure and devastation of communities mostly due to man-made alterations of our environment.

I do not see your point. There is mounting, credible evidence that this administration has committed war crimes--and you joke about it. Ha ha, it's hilarious.

Are a idiot.

The economists you cited should do a little reading - Johnson's failure to raise taxes during the Viet Nam directly contributed to inflation that led to price controls under Nixon, high inflation under Carter and Reagan. Volcher employed high interest rates to smother inflation that brought on 9.6 & 9.7 unemployment rates. Unfortunately, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr's huge deficits have taken high interest rates off the table. If Paul Klugman doesn't understand this then he longer has my esteem. Increased consumption without increased productivity = inflation eventually.

The huge mistake Bush made was lowering saving rates. In 2000 he was told by a bi-partisan commission that he had to raise savings rates in order to protect the dollar from a growing trade deficit. No disagreed except Bush. His tax cuts effectively cut savings rates depressing economic growth, hollowing out the manufacturing sector in the US and lowering the standard of living.

If you have any more questions about this Andres try reading Lester Thurow's (of MIT) book "Fortune Favors the Bold" he documents the process pages 153 to 172 quite thoroughly.

Uh, what about the adage "Guns or butter?" Sure, short term stimulus can be assigned to the war but we are past that point. Funding of infrastructure has declined as well as other long range internal stimulus spending. Our dollar is bottoming out partly due to the war. Future uncertainty of oil supply is partly to blame for the increase in oil. The evidence is there but you choose to ignore it. I find that unless someone else prints an analysis first WaPo doesn't have the stones to trust their own research. This is not surprising from a WaPo columist, you guys haven't got enything right for years now.

Stumped is such a GOP toadie. I mean have you ever read such trite drivel? Make you wonder which barrell they scraped the bottom of to get our "pundit Class".

[Stands and applauds SteveCO]

[Stands and applauds SteveCO]

Proving the spooks at the CIA altered the WMD analysis is nearly impossible. Proving the conspiracy to out an intelligence asset in Valerie Plame is just a matter of conducting an investigation. What most people thought has been bolstered by McClennan's book. Pelosi has tabled the investigation making this American POed at the Democratic congressional leadership for still having her as speaker. Wexler gave her a 3 million signature petition which she put into the trash bin. No Budget in 06, the Armenian resolution, no tax nor healthcare reform, no windfall profits tax on oil, just what does it take to change the ineptness at the top.

Not only the hugely expensive & desatabilzing Iraq war in the heart of the oil producing middle east but the regular threats by the neocons to attack Iran are DIRECTLY responsible for the high oil price

Add the stupidity of the mortgage fiasco to the long list of republican regulationgate disasters dating back to the Reagan era. Is it any wonder that sober financial authorities are looking for alternatives to the dollar. Among other republican icons it appears that the wizard Greenspan was actually a dunce and Friedman (Milton that is) led us up the road to a dead end.

Regarding the war in Iraq, torture, civilian deaths and our massive, yes massive, war debt has tarnished perhaps irreversibly our reputation for fiscal probity and responsibility. Bush has behaved like a used car salesman working for a bankrupt dealership--selling a war with negative equity loans.

Yes, the war has contributed to our economic weakness.

"Let's not distract the new attorney general. Instead, I think every new administration should appoint a special prosecutor, who can spend four years investigating potential criminal misdeeds committed in the preceding four years. Now that would be a deterrent of future misconduct.

Can you tell I'm joking? Do you see my point?"

What's the joke? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Let's see. China and others competing for energy (read oil)resources is Far moreimportant" reason than`the war for our slump.
OK. Now,IF we had put the past and future cost of the iraq war ino a Project Manhattan`type effort to develop new energy resources (fuel cells et al) we would have solved our oil crisis and have a product to sell the rest of the world which would have restored our balance of payments and strengthened the dollar. We would still be the grestest power, our military would be intact, and our international prestige would be at an all time high.
The problem is that we had oil guys running the country with a vested interest in oil.
And they blew it. They let the housing market run amuk to paper over the holes. Any student of recent (1930) history could see the housing bubble going nuts. Bush was told. Like most pols, he simply closed his eyes to patch over a sagging economy- robbing peter to pay paul.

this isn't rocket science. When you throw away the sums we did and divert our energies into a lose-lose caper, you pay the price.

Dear RightWingCrackpot,

Let's not prosecute crimes committed by the previous administration. In fact, let's not prosecute any crimes at all. They're very distracting from other things, like killing Iraqis by the thousands and passing trillions of dollars of new debt to our children. Instead, I think every president should fee free to break any law that he wants to. That way, there would be no deterrent of future misconduct.

Can you tell I'm joking? Do you see my point?

Dear Stumped - Are you completely stupid? (Don't link the economy to the Iraq War).

Clearly, the reason the war hasn't crushed the economy-yet- is that bush & Cheney arranged for our unborn grandchildren to pay for it. & in answer to Steve, if you read the WAPO you know that ignorance & wingnuttery are bliss. With the exception of Ricks, Priest, & Froomkin they are all a bunch of old men w/ the vapors. Remember: oral sex is impeachable, selling the country down the drain to Halliburton, Chilabi & Iran is patriotic.

"But most economists and political advisers are pretty cautious about connecting the dots."

Yes cautious, but they don't eliminate it. Do they?

"The dollar's devaluation, however, has little to do with the war -- and a lot to do with our massive trade deficits and lax monetary policy."

Hello, can you tell us why we're having massive trade deficits? Could they be caused by reduced oil production inflating the cost of oil, because of the uncertainty of the worlds oil reserves, due to Bush's saber rattling, and because of the Iraq War, and monetary policy due to borrowing to fund the Iraq War (And not necessarily military funding, but all the other ancillary spending as a result of the Iraq War. i.e. Blackwater, etc.)

"The war in Iraq certainly has contributed to higher oil prices, but it is far too simplistic to attribute the huge spike of recent years entirely to the war, overlooking far more important factors like growing energy demands in China and India."

Excuse me, it was 1973, do you remember the oil crisis? What is believed to be the cause of "stagflation" at that time?

Now, click your heals together three times and repeat after me "the Iraq War is good for our economy, the Iraq War is good for our economy, the Iraq War is...

Gosh it's not working is it? I guess you really don't believe in this tripe either, do you?

Your answer wasn't a joke, it was flippant. The question basically boils down to if a president commits high crimes and misdameanors while in office and Congress, for whatever reason, choses to not impeach does that mean these possible crimes go unpunished in the future? It is a very legitimate question that deserves a legitimate answer.

The assumption that such an action would start a precedent that all future new administrations would follow is a quantum leap in logic. I, for one, have been opposed to impeaching Bush/Cheney on the grounds that the country doesn't need another debacle of an impeachment for the world to witness. However, unless Bush gives blanket immunity to himself and his administration before he leaves office why shouldn't they be fair game once he has left office? There is at least sufficient public knowledge today to argue Bush and his administration possibly broke various laws while in over the issues of torture, illegal wire taps and extra-ordinary renditions. In the "free democratic society" Bush is so well known for touting why shouldn't transparency over this issue be made available to the American people and let the chips fall where they may?

With all due respect the only bad precedent being set here was your non-answer that it would set a bad precedent.

Haha. Good joke. Torture ok. Warrantless wiretaps (spying on Americans) ok. Etc. Haahaa.

Dear Andres, nooo, I don't get your point or the joke in your reply to "Perplexed". I'm stumped by your [dis]missing a legitimate question.

"[new admin] ...a special prosecutor, who can spend four years investigating potential criminal misdeeds committed in the preceding four years. Now that would be a deterrent of future misconduct.
Can you tell I'm joking? Do you see my point?"

You have no point. The Republicans spent 3 years trying to remove Bill Clinton from office over an act of fellatio with a consenting adult.

Bush/Cheney have murdered Iraqi civilians and American soldiers based on their lies about WMD and Saddam Hussein, all the while *not* capturing Bush family friend Osama bin Laden. They've turned off key portions of the Constitution, sanctioned torture of war prisoners, and held people at Guantanamo for six f------ years with no charges or access to the outside.

Cheney, still paid monthly by Halliburton (look it up), has allowed that criminal corporation and subsidiary Kellogg=Brown no-bid contracts, repeatedly, while Halliburton makes tens of billions of taxpayer money disappear and supplying no or shoddy equipment to our fighting people.
Cheney outed a CIA agent. Cheney made "energy policy" in secret, meeting only with...oil companies. Cheney forced the CIA to lie about intelligence, giving the war criminal Bush administration a cheap excuse to start a brainless war for oil.

Do you get MY point, you dimwit, far right apologist?

If we don't prosecute these corporate fascists, *any* president in the future can get away with subverting the Constitution.

How the hell can you get a job at the Washington Post and be this ignorant?