From the NY Times:
From Dream to Nightmare
By BOB HERBERT

At least 10 more American soldiers died yesterday in George W. Bush's senseless war in Iraq.

They died for a pipe dream, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as a fantastic notion or a vain hope. "Pipe dream" originally referred to the fantasies induced by smoking a pipe of opium. The folks who led us into this hideous madness in Iraq, against the wishes of most of the world, sure seem to have been smoking something.

President Bush and his hyperhawk vice president, Dick Cheney, were busy yesterday lip-syncing their way through an appearance before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. If you want a hint of how much trouble the U.S. is in, consider that these two gentlemen are still clinging to the hope that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq.

Reality was the first casualty of Iraq. This was a war that would be won on the cheap, we were told, with few American casualties. The costs of reconstruction would be more than covered by Iraqi oil revenues. The Iraqi people, giddy with their first taste of freedom, would toss petals in the path of their liberators. And democracy, successfully rooted in Iraq, would soon spread like the flowers of spring throughout the Middle East.

Oh, they must have been passing the pipe around.

My problem with the warrior fantasies emerging from the comfort zones of Washington and Crawford, Tex., is that they are being put to the test in the flaming reality of combat in Iraq, not by the fantasizers but by brave and patriotic men and women who deserve so much more from the country they are willing to defend with their lives.

There is nothing new about this. It seemed to take forever for American leaders to realize that they were lost in a pipe dream in Vietnam. A key government spokesman during a crucial period of that conflict was Barry Zorthian, the public information officer for American forces in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968. In a book published last year, "Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered From All Sides," Mr. Zorthian is quoted as saying:

"We probably could have gotten the deal we ended up with in 1973 as early as 1969. And between 1969 and 1972 we almost doubled our losses. It's easy to second-guess but I've never been convinced that those last 25,000 casualties were justified."

The sad truth about Iraq is that one year after President Bush gaudily proclaimed victory with his "Top Gun" moment aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, we don't know what we're doing in Iraq. We don't know where we're heading. We don't know how many troops it will take to get us there. And we don't know how to get out.

Flower petals strewn in our path? Forget about that. The needle on the hate-America meter in Iraq is buried deep in the bright red danger zone. Even humanitarian aid groups have had to hustle American and other non-Iraqi workers out of the country because of fears that they would be kidnapped, shot or bombed.

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that only a third of Iraqis believe the U.S.-led occupation is doing more good than harm. The poll was taken in late March and early April, and it's a safe bet that if the results have changed at all in the past few weeks, they've only gotten worse.

There is nothing surprising about the poll's findings. The U.S. primed Iraq with a "shock and awe" bombing campaign, then invaded, and is attempting to impose our concept of democracy at the point of a gun.

Why would anybody think that would work?

Since then we've destroyed countless homes and legitimate businesses and killed or maimed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including many women and children. That was a lousy strategy for winning hearts and minds in Vietnam and it's a lousy strategy now.

Equally unsurprising is the erosion of support for the war among Americans. There's no upside. Casualties are mounting daily and so are the financial costs, which have never been honestly acknowledged or budgeted.

Mr. Bush has enmeshed us in a war that we can't win and that we don't know how to end. Each loss of a life in this tragic exercise is a reminder of lessons never learned from history. And the most fundamental of those lessons is that fantasy must always genuflect before reality.

The Silver Bullet for High Gasoline Prices
by Joseph J. Romm

Everybody is now talking about rising gasoline prices, but, to paraphrase Mark Twain, nobody is doing anything about it. Short-term solutions--like begging Saudi Arabia to pump more oil or back-pedaling on clean air requirements--can save us at most a few pennies at the pump. The "silver bullet," however, is the gasoline-electric hybrid, which not only cuts your gasoline bill 40% to 50%, but addresses the longer-term problems of oil imports from the Persian Gulf and greenhouse gas emissions.

The excellent performance of fuel-saving hybrids like the Toyota Prius have lead to back orders of up to six months, clearly showing the American public is ready for these vehicles. And although it was two Japanese firms, Toyota and Honda, that first brought them to our shores, the embrace of hybrids by the two major U.S. automakers--particularly the stunning reversal by General Motors--has the potential to dramatically change the policy and politics of the debate about fuel economy standards.

Only one policy measure can have a significant impact on gasoline consumption and transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions in the medium-term: higher fuel-efficiency requirements for cars and SUVs. Just boosting fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 would save 2 million barrels of oil per day, which is just about the amount of oil we import from the Persian Gulf. It would also dramatically reduce the future climate impact of transportation, which is the sector that has seen the fastest growth in greenhouse gas emissions in recent years. By comparison, opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling would deliver far less oil and serve only to accelerate global warming. A gasoline tax increase to achieve similar savings would have to be so large as to be politically untenable.

Of course, efforts to raise fuel economy standards have also been stuck in political limbo for years. The two most potent arguments against raising them have centered around safety and jobs.

The argument has been that fuel economy standards will inevitably push people into smaller and lighter vehicles. Such vehicles are supposedly less safe--a claim with little analytical support but tremendous political potency. The matching argument has been that Detroit makes most of its profit on bigger vehicles, and a move to smaller vehicles would inevitably come at the expense of profit and hence the jobs of autoworkers.

Hybrids are a game changer for both of those arguments. The best hybrids, like the Prius, allow a 60% to 100% fuel economy gain with no reduction in weight or size. In fact, the Prius has an electronic brake-by-wire system that is arguably safer than traditional brakes, and hybrid electronics hold the promise of far more controllability, instant response, and safety. Also, most manufacturers are using some of the efficiency gain from the hybrids to increase acceleration, yet another performance gain.

Since hybrids actually cost a little more, they represent a source of increased income and jobs for Detroit and for the country as a whole. What a marvelous idea to replace imported oil with hardware manufactured by Americans. Temporary tax credits can help consumers with the price cost for initial models. But once hybrids are in mass commercialization in a variety of models from several automakers, their incremental costs will be less than three years of their gasoline savings-a great payback for all US consumers and businesses. Also one can't simply ascribe a pure cost to hybrids since they deliver performance, safety, engine-downsizing and other benefits beyond their energy savings.

General Motors has, until recently, been very dismissive of hybrids, especially hybrid cars. Indeed, as recently as January, CNN/Money reported: "General Motors Corp. has no plans to try to answer the success of the Toyota Prius, the critically-acclaimed gas/electric hybrid car, said Robert Lutz, GM's vice chairman of product development. It just doesn't make environmental or economic sense to try to put an expensive dual-powertrain system into less expensive cars which already get good mileage, Lutz said at the North American International Auto Show."

Yet by March, GM was taking out full-page ads in major newspapers and magazines, with a paragraph that begins: "HYBRIDS. Powered partly by engines, partly by batteries, hybrids deliver improved fuel economy with uncompromising performance.... Cars, trucks, SUVS and buses you already know and trust, with an extra boost at the fuel pump." (This is an otherwise silly ad touting the hydrogen economy, which, contrary to GM's assertions, is several decades away, as my book, The Hype about Hydrogen explains. In the ad, GM proudly notes, "GM introduced the first fuel cell-powered concept vehicle nearly 40 years ago"--yet 40 years later, they still have only a concept vehicle.)

So GM can no longer argue that fuel economy is incompatible with "uncompromising performance." And you may have seen the two-page ad from Ford Motor in late March about how proud company is with their new hybrid: "As the first and only gas/electric SUV, the Escape Hybrid compromises nothing."

GM's and Ford's ads highlight what is increasingly obvious to everyone else-hybrids are now inevitable winners in the marketplace, delivering improved performance with higher fuel economy. The only sure job loser is if U.S. car companies fail to embrace them quickly enough.

Moreover, hybrids are almost certainly the platform from which all future clean vehicles will evolve. For instance, if we achieve two major scientific breakthroughs-in fuel cell membranes and hydrogen storage-then fuel cells may well be inserted into hybrids.

Also, as battery technology continues to improve in the coming years, we will see hybrids that can be connected to the electric grid, allowing the car to run as a pure "zero emission vehicle" in cities. These advanced hybrids will probably run at least three times as far on a kilowatt-hour of renewable electricity as fuel cell vehicles. The California Energy Commission and Air Resources Board recently analyzed alternatives to gasoline, and their August 2003 report concludes that such grid-connectable hybrids deliver the most net benefits.

So not only do hybrids change the game on efficiency standards today, they hold the promise of even larger benefits tomorrow. And they not only take the sting out of rising gasoline prices today for anyone who owns one, once they achieve widespread use, they will reduce the ability of oil suppliers to harm our economy in the future. Given the remarkable combination of policy benefits from increasing fuel efficiency standards--lower tailpipe pollution, emissions of greenhouse gases, and oil imports coupled with reduced annual gasoline bills for consumers and businesses--it's time to take action. Policymakers, environmentalists, and car companies must all begin to work together to take advantage of this remarkable technology breakthrough.

Joseph Romm is a former acting assistant Secretary of Energy and author of the book "The Hype about Hydrogen."

From the NY Times:
A Sterling Record
By WESLEY K. CLARK

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.

When John Kerry released his military records to the public last week, Americans learned a lot about Mr. Kerry's exceptional service in Vietnam. They also learned a lot about the Republican attack machine.

The evaluations were uniformly glowing. One commander wrote that Mr. Kerry ranked among "the top few" in three categories: initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. Another commander wrote, "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lt. j.g. Kerry was unsurpassed." The citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star praises his "calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire."

In the United States military, there's no ideology — there are no labels, Republican or Democrat — when superiors evaluate a man or woman's service to country. Mr. Kerry's commander for a brief time, Grant Hibbard, now a Republican, gave Mr. Kerry top marks 36 years ago.

Now the standards are those of politics, not the military. Despite his positive evaluations, Mr. Hibbard recently questioned whether Mr. Kerry deserved one of his three Purple Hearts.

In the heat of a political campaign, attacks come from all directions. That's why John Kerry's military records are so compelling; they measure the man before his critics or his supporters saw him through a political lens. These military records show that John Kerry served his country with valor, and that those who served with him and above him held him in high regard. That's honor enough for any veteran.

Yet the Republican attack machine follows a pattern we've seen before, whether the target is Senator John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 or Senator Max Cleland in Georgia in 2002. The latest manifestation of these tactics is the controversy over Mr. Kerry's medals.

John Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for his service in Vietnam. In April 1971, as part of a protest against the war, he threw some ribbons over the fence of the United States Capitol.

Republicans have tried to use this event to question his patriotism and his truthfulness, claiming he has been inconsistent in saying whether he threw away his medals or ribbons. This is no more than a political smear. After risking his life in Vietnam to save others, John Kerry earned the right to speak out against a war he believed was wrong. Make no mistake: it is that bravery these Republicans are now attacking.

Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them. I believe those who didn't serve, or didn't show up for service, should have the decency to respect those who did serve — often under the most dangerous conditions, with bravery and, yes, with undeniable patriotism.

Wesley K. Clark, a former Democratic presidential candidate, was commander of NATO forces from 1997 to 2000.

From the NY Times:
The Wrong War
By BOB HERBERT

Follow me, said the president. And, tragically, we did.

With his misbegotten war in Iraq, his failure to throw everything we had at Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and his fantasy of using military might as a magic wand to "change the world," President Bush has ushered the American people into a bloody and mind-bending theater of the absurd.

Each act is more heartbreaking than the last. Pfc. Keith Maupin, who was kidnapped near Baghdad on April 9, showed up on a videotape broadcast by Al Jazeera last Friday. He was in the custody of masked gunmen and, understandably, frightened.

"My name is Keith Matthew Maupin," he said, looking nervously into the camera. "I am a soldier from the First Division. I am married with a 10-month-old son."

Private Maupin is 20 years old and should never have been sent into the flaming horror of Iraq. Now we don't know how to get him out.

On the same day that Private Maupin was kidnapped, 20-year-old Specialist Michelle Witmer was killed when her Humvee was attacked in Baghdad. Ms. Witmer's two sisters, Charity and Rachel, were also serving in Iraq. All three women were members of the National Guard.

American troops are enduring the deadliest period since the start of the war. And while they continue to fight courageously and sometimes die, they are fighting and dying in the wrong war.

This is the height of absurdity.

One of the things I remember from my time in the service many years ago was the ubiquitous presence of large posters with the phrase, in big block letters: Know Your Enemy.

This is a bit of military wisdom that seems to have escaped President Bush.

The United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by Al Qaeda, not Iraq.

All Americans and most of the world would have united behind President Bush for an all-out war against Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The relatives and friends of any troops who lost their lives in that effort would have known clearly and unmistakably what their loved ones had died for.

But Mr. Bush had other things on his mind. With Osama and the top leadership of Al Qaeda still at large, and with the U.S. still gripped by the trauma of Sept. 11, the president turned his attention to Iraq.

Less than two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to Bob Woodward's account in his new book, "Plan of Attack," President Bush ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to have plans drawn up for a war against Iraq. Mr. Bush insisted that this be done with the greatest of secrecy. The president did not even fully inform his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, or his secretary of state, Colin Powell, about his directive to Mr. Rumsfeld.

Thus began the peeling away of resources crucial to the nation's fight against its most fervent enemy, Al Qaeda.

Gen. Tommy Franks, who at the time was head of the United States Central Command and in charge of the Afghan war, was reported by Mr. Woodward to have uttered a string of obscenities when he was ordered to develop a plan for invading Iraq.

President Bush may truly believe, as he suggested at his press conference last week, that he is carrying out a mission that has been sanctioned by the divine. But he has in fact made the world less safe with his catastrophic decision to wage war in Iraq. At least 700 G.I.'s and thousands of innocent Iraqis, including many women and children, are dead. Untold numbers have been maimed and there is no end to the carnage in sight.

Meanwhile, instead of destroying the terrorists, our real enemies, we've energized them. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has become a rallying cry for Islamic militants. Qaeda-type terror is spreading, not receding. And Osama bin Laden is still at large.

Even as I write this, reporters from The Times and other news outlets are filing stories about marines dying in ambush and other acts of mayhem and anarchy across Iraq. This was not part of the plan. The administration and its apologists spread fantasies of a fresh dawn of freedom emerging in Iraq and spreading across the Arab world. Instead we are spilling the blood of innocents in a nightmare from which many thousands will never awaken.

From the NY Times:
The Mercury Scandal
By PAUL KRUGMAN

If you want a single example that captures why so many people no longer believe in the good intentions of the Bush administration, look at the case of mercury pollution.

Mercury can damage the nervous system, especially in fetuses and infants — which is why the Food and Drug Administration warns pregnant women and nursing mothers against consuming types of fish, like albacore tuna, that often contain high mercury levels. About 8 percent of American women have more mercury in their bloodstreams than the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe.

During the 1990's, government regulation greatly reduced mercury emissions from medical and municipal waste incineration, leaving power plants as the main problem. In 2000, the E.P.A. determined that mercury is a hazardous substance as defined by the Clean Air Act, which requires that such substances be strictly controlled. E.P.A. staff estimated that enforcing this requirement would lead to a 90 percent reduction in power-plant mercury emissions by 2008.

A few months ago, however, the Bush administration reversed this determination and proposed a "cap and trade" system for mercury that it claimed would lead to a 70 percent reduction by 2018. Other estimates suggest that the reduction would be smaller, and take longer.

For some pollutants, setting a cap on total emissions, while letting polluters buy and sell emission rights, is a cost-efficient way to reduce pollution. The cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, has been a big success. But the science clearly shows that cap-and-trade is inappropriate for mercury.

Sulfur dioxide is light, and travels long distances: power plants in the Midwest can cause acid rain in Maine. So a cap on total national emissions makes sense. Mercury is heavy: much of it precipitates to the ground near the source. As a result, coal-fired power plants in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan create "hot spots" — chemical Chernobyls — where the risks of mercury poisoning are severe. Under a cap-and-trade system, these plants are likely to purchase pollution rights rather than cut emissions. In other words, the administration proposal would perpetuate mercury pollution where it does the most harm. That probably means thousands of children born with preventable neurological problems.

So how did the original plan get replaced with a plan so obviously wrong on the science?

The answer is that the foxes have been put in charge of the henhouse. The head of the E.P.A.'s Office of Air and Radiation, like most key environmental appointees in the Bush administration, previously made his living representing polluting industries (which, in case you haven't guessed, are huge Republican donors). On mercury, the administration didn't just take industry views into account, it literally let the polluters write the regulations: much of the language of the administration's proposal came directly from lobbyists' memos.

E.P.A. experts normally study regulations before they are issued, but they were bypassed. According to The Los Angeles Times: "E.P.A. staffers say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order. . . . E.P.A. veterans say they cannot recall another instance where the agency's technical experts were cut out of developing a major regulatory proposal."

Mercury is just a particularly vivid example of what's going on in environmental protection, and public policy in general. As a devastating article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine documented, the administration's rollback of the Clean Air Act has gone beyond the polluters' wildest dreams.

And the corruption of the policy process — in which political appointees come in with a predetermined agenda, and technical experts who might present information their superiors don't want to hear are muzzled — has infected every area I know anything about, from tax cuts to matters of war and peace.

A Yawngate update: CNN called me to insist that despite what it first said, the administration really, truly wasn't responsible for the network's claim that David Letterman's embarrassing video of a Bush speech was a fake. I still don't understand why the network didn't deny White House involvement until it retracted the charge. But the main point of Friday's column was to highlight the way CNN facilitated crude administration smears of Richard Clarke.