... MARK SHIELDS: Jim, what has fascinated me about this whole debate has been how it has shifted each time with the objective. [1] It was defanging Saddam Hussein. And then [2] it was deposing Saddam Hussein. And then [3] it was protecting us against an imminent threat from Iraq. And now [4] it turns out, enforcing U.N. resolutions. Now it turns out that [5] it is to bring democracy to the Middle East. I don't know anybody, anybody, serious, who believes that the way to peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis lies in the invasion and occupation of Baghdad. I really don't. I mean I've talked to people who fought there, who have been there, who spent their lives involved there.

The president did lay it out. Paul is right. And I think it is something he had to do. I think the analogy to Germany after War World II limps. Germany had had democracy prior to Hitler. And they had the Marshal Plan. There is no mention of the Marshal Plan. The administration doesn't want to talk about costs. I mean Paul Wolfowitz basically said no, no, we don't have any figures, which everybody knows is a lie. They have figures. They have been discussing it with the president. But they don't want to talk about it. They will come up with another appropriation request when there are troops in the field and then everybody votes for the $95 billion they have to ask for.

According to the audience analysis company Nielsen NetRatings, US traffic to the UK's biggest news sites, BBC News Online and Guardian Unlimited, has increased dramatically over the past year, reports Journalism.co.uk media news website. Jon Dennis, deputy news editor of the Guardian Unlimited web site said: "We have noticed an upsurge in traffic from America, primarily because we are receiving more e-mails from US visitors thanking us for reporting on worldwide news in a way that is unavailable in the US media. "American visitors are telling us they are unable to find the breadth of opinion we have on our website anywhere else because we report across the political spectrum rather than from just one perspective.

MURHAF JOUEJATI: I wish I could; I wish I could be as optimistic as this. I agree totally that people of Iraq are tired of this tyrannical and militarist regime. Where there is a marked difference with Germany, for example, is that before the fascist days of Mr. Hitler there was a democratic tradition in Germany. There is no such thing in Iraq. Iraq, which is a nation of thousands of years of history, has never had a democratic tradition. So although I wish very much for democracy to occur in Iraq it's going to take a very, very long time, if only to build the very human and physical infrastructure that a democracy requires....
MURHAF JOUEJATI: Democratization is wonderful, but the key to peace in the Middle East is the end of occupation and occupation that engenders and triggers terrorism. If we want to defeat terrorism we are going to have to take away its causes, which is the end of Israeli occupation. And if Mr. Bush is as adamant as he says he is about Iraq abiding by U.N. resolutions, then by God, Israel too must abide by U.N. resolutions.

Creating stability in Iraq - the kind of "nation building" Bush has dismissed in the past - is likely to be much harder. "Those of us who study democracy fulltime often talk about the list of basics you need," says James Walsh, an international-security expert at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government: "a robust middle class, a tradition of democracy, a variety of civil institutions [such as] lawyers' groups, unions, a strong and independent judiciary, a free, strong press - basically, a civil society, a civil structure, the underpinning for democracy."
"None of those are present in Iraq," adds Mr. Walsh.

A career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this week in protest against the country's policies on Iraq. The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, said in his resignation letter, "Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson." Mr. Kiesling, 45, who has been a diplomat for about 20 years, said in a telephone interview tonight that he faxed the letter to Secretary of State Colin L, Powell on Monday after informing Thomas Miller, the ambassador in Athens, of his decision. He said he had acted alone, but "I've been comforted by the expressions of support I've gotten afterward" from colleagues."No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed," he said. "Too much has been invested in the war."

... The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

You can’t say they haven’t tried. The administration has rolled out every possible message and messenger it could to get the American public to join the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld red-blooded hawk team. But, as the latest spate of numbers reveal, the public still leans toward the tough dove team (“yes, we’re willing to support a war, but only as a last resort and once we’ve moved heaven and earth to get UN and allied support”). That’s got to worry the GOP since that means they’ll go into the war—which they seem irrevocably committed to—with a reluctant public, likely to react quickly and negatively to setbacks, casualties, and the inevitable messiness of a post-invasion military occupation. ...

You’ve got to hand it to the Bushies. They’ve got the chutzpah to tout their new tax cut plan as an economic elixir, because, well, the first one worked so well! So well, huh? If that’s the case, why is the public so darn negative about the economy these days?

Check out these numbers. According to Gallup, only 18 percent of the public now rates economic conditions as good or excellent, while 34 percent say they’re poor. That’s the weakest rating for the economy since November, 1993. At the same time, nearly two out of three adults (63 percent) think the economy is getting worse, more than twice as many as think it is getting better (26 percent).

"The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a 'representative' Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources," DeYoung reported.

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, unleashed a tirade today against former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont and other Democrats who oppose a war with Iraq, saying the Democrats were fast becoming "the appeasement party of the future."

Meeting with reporters in his Capitol office, Mr. DeLay said the Democrats were pursuing a "reckless strategy" in fighting the war and singled out Dr. Dean, a presidential candidate who last week accused President Bush of trying to wage a unilateral war.
"I saw his speech on C-Span, and I think it was outrageous," Mr. DeLay said. "He either doesn't know what he's talking about when he says we're going to take unilateral action, or he's seriously uninformed, or he's just misleading the American people and his party."...[There's more]

Q: Ari, in Mexico, the President will continue to call President Fox to pressure him to change his mind against -- and to vote in the
Security Council? What Mexico can get from the United States if it votes yes for the resolution that was presented by this country?

MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, this entire matter will be dealt with in a matter of diplomacy and logic and expressions of our position. And
nations then will be in a position as sovereigns to evaluate that information. This is why the Security Council is set up with 10 members who rotate on to the Council. This is a moment for 10 nations that would not typically be on the Security Council to have their moment, as part of the international community's regimes to enforce peace and to fight proliferation.


Q: But Mexico can get something from the United States, from the President --

MR. FLEISCHER: This is a time -- no, the President is not offering quid pro quos. This is a time for nations to do what they estimate is
the right thing to do to promote the peace.

Q: Ari, just to follow up on Mexico. Is it true that the administration is willing to give Mexico some sort of immigration agreements like amnesty or guest worker program, to assure the Mexican vote, as the French press is pointing out today and is quoting, actually, two different diplomats from the State Department?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's exactly as I indicated, that we have, on this issue, a matter of diplomacy and a matter of the merits. We ask each
nation on the Security Council to weigh the merits and make a decision about war and peace. And if anybody thinks that there are nations like
Mexico, whose vote could be bought on the basis of a trade issue or something else like that, I think you're giving -- doing grave
injustice to the independence and the judgment of the leaders of other nations.
Q: -- the French press is quoting actually two different diplomats from the United States State Department that -- they're highlighting
that the United States is giving some sort of agreements or benefits to Colombia -- and other non-members of the Security Council --

MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't seen the story. And you already have the answer, about what this will be decided on. But think about the
implications of what you're saying. You're saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable. And that is not an acceptable proposition.
(Laughter.)

Thank you.

By setting an end-of-March deadline for Iraqi compliance, the Canadian scenario would give Saddam an extra two weeks beyond the implied date for a possible invasion in a game plan outlined by the U.S. administration.
A March 28th time limit could trigger an invasion three months before the program envisioned by France, Germany, Russia and other countries. "We view the Canadian proposal favourably and are working on this," said a Chilean diplomat at that country's mission to the United Nations, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We think it is better than the French position which allows this situation to continue indefinitely." Chile is one of 10 temporary members of the Security Council and will vote on any resolution on Iraq. Chrétien has discussed the Canadian "middle way" proposal with Chilean President Ricardo Lagos by telephone. He expects similar backing from Mexico after arriving in that country Wednesday for talks with Mexican President Vicente Fox. Representatives from Pakistan and Cameroon were also interested enough in the Canadian ideas to take them back to their respective capitals for discussion.

On the one hand, the US, backed by Britain and Spain, will seek the six countries' support for a new UN resolution introduced Monday that would place an international imprimatur on the use of force to disarm Iraq.
But also on Monday, France, Germany, and Russia began circulating in the 15-member Council their own proposal for enhancing weapons inspections as a way to put off war.

The objective, experts say, is to win the crucial battle for international public opinion. "It's not a United Nations blessing of US action that we need. It's the support of domestic and international opinion, and going through the UN is the way we get that," says Ivo Daalder, a foreign-policy expert at the Brookings Institution here. If the US is to fight a war with any country at its side, it will be only with a new UN resolution, Mr. Daalder adds. "[British Prime Minister] Tony Blair needs it for his domestic audience ... so does Spain, so does Italy," he says - and that means a Council majority of nine must be won over. The White House acknowledges that while the US holds to its view that authorization for war is contained in previous resolutions - including 1441, which passed the Council unanimously last November - the new resolution is a concession to allies such as Britain that face strong antiwar majorities at home.

Judges must be more vigilant in preventing the use of race as a factor in jury selection under a tougher standard established by the US Supreme Court.The new standard emerges in the case of a Texas death-row inmate who said he was denied a fair trial when prosecutors excluded 10 of 11 qualified African-Americans from serving on his jury. In an 8-to-1 decision [Can you believe it! Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter] with implications for capital cases nationwide, the court ruled Tuesday that a federal judge and a federal appeals court panel wrongly denied the defendant an opportunity to raise the issue on appeal....
Some experts consider the decision noteworthy for the court the justices went against. "In addition to the fact that their reversal was so decisive," says University of Houston law professor David Dow, "the fifth circuit being one of the most conservative courts is also extremely important."

...[Powell] knows that our elected leaders lied repeatedly to the American people about Vietnam -- about its risks, about its excesses, about the chances for U.S. victory. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

So why does Powell now mouth the misstatements and distortions -- the lies, really -- that the Bush administration is using to sell the American people on its proposed invasion of Iraq? Why does Powell allow himself to be badly misused by repeating the canard that Saddam Hussein is clearly linked to Osama bin Laden?

If the first casualty of war is truth, then the second casualty of this war is Powell's credibility. (The third casualty may be Tony Blair's political career, but that's another column.)...

...As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in a famous opinion released on Feb. 24, 1803 -- 200 years ago today -- the American republic is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men.
In that opinion, Marbury v. Madison, Marshall also asserted for the first time the power of the federal judiciary to review laws that have been passed by Congress and enacted by the president, and to declare those laws null and void if, in the judge's opinion, they violate the U.S. Constitution. In other words, today is the 200th birthday, the bicentennial, of the modern American judiciary.
So I propose we give it a birthday present. I propose that we bring a little more honesty and a lot less hypocrisy to the process of judicial confirmations by publicly admitting what we all know to be true anyway: Ideology matters in a judge. It matters a lot, and it ought to be fair game in determining whether a judge is confirmed for a lifetime appointment on the bench.
The reason it matters dates back to the Marbury decision. After that case, it would be another half-century before the federal courts would again strike down a law as unconstitutional. Today, with a far more complex government operating in a far more complex world, the courts necessarily play a far more active role in trying to apply the deceptively simple principles of the Constitution.
If we are to remain what Marshall called a nation of laws, not of men, we need moderate, judicious, politically balanced minds to handle the task of applying the Constitution. The good news is, the Constitution provides just the mechanism needed to produce such judges, if only we are willing to use it. It gives the president the power to nominate, and as a check on that power it gives the Senate the power to confirm.

200 years ago... Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court in... Marbury v. Madison.... Marshall and his colleagues established the great principle that judges have the power to declare acts of Congress void because they conflict with the Constitution.
After 200 years Americans are so accustomed to judges having the last word that alternatives seem unthinkable. We rely on the courts to enforce what the Constitution promises us....

The war on terrorism is an especially dangerous occasion for judges to close their eyes to violations of our rights. In every other historical case of the courts yielding to wartime claims, the emergency ended before long and the country regretted the abandonment of constitutional values. It is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court today would follow the Korematsu decision and uphold the internment of hundreds of thousands of Americans of a particular ethnic background.
But no one can imagine this war coming to an end any time soon. So every piece of judicial deference to the power of government in war may crimp the rights of citizens forever.
Aliens, both visitors and permanent residents, were harshly affected by Bush administration measures after 9/11. Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered more than 1,000 aliens detained, keeping their names and places of detention secret. He also ordered many deportation hearings held in secret. He required visitors from 25 countries, predominantly Muslim, to register with the government. Those who failed to do so within 40 days were subject to arrest, detention and deportation.
But the measure that most gravely menaces constitutional rights is the arrest and indefinite detention of Americans without trial and without access to a lawyer. The president has claimed the power to thus seize and hold any American whom he designates an "enemy combatant." And the basis of the designation, administration lawyers argue, is not subject to effective review in any court.
Two American citizens are now held in solitary confinement under this asserted presidential power. One, Yasser Hamdi, was found under unexplained circumstances on a battlefield in Afghanistan. The other, Jose Padilla, was arrested on arrival at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago after spending time in Egypt and Pakistan. Both are totally isolated. They are not allowed to speak to a lawyer. They may not see their families.
Lawyers appointed to act for Mr. Hamdi and Mr. Padilla challenged their detention. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., made the first appellate ruling — against Mr. Hamdi. It held that the constitutional guarantee of the right to counsel "in all criminal prosecutions" did not apply because Mr. Hamdi was not being prosecuted.
That reasoning reduced constitutional law to sleight of hand: The government can impose solitary confinement, perhaps for life, if it simply avoids giving the prisoner a trial. If what was done to Mr. Hamdi did not technically violate the Sixth Amendment, it surely deprived him of liberty without due process of law. James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, would have been astounded at the notion. So would the average American today if told he could be taken off the street and imprisoned forever without being able to call a lawyer.

... The architects of Medicare said the program was created with some fundamental precepts that the Bush proposal would undermine:
that all working Americans pay into the same Medicare system;
that the healthy and the sick, the rich and the poor, end up in the same program; and
that all have the same core benefits when they retire.

The idea that the elderly would be better served by a private, for-profit insurance market is anathema to these veterans of the Great Society.

Before Medicare, they say, the private health insurance market was a failure for the elderly, nearly half of whom had no hospital coverage. They fear that private health plans would be tempted to recruit the healthiest of the elderly, leaving sicker, more costly patients to the original fee-for-service Medicare program.

Critics also argue that "choice," a favorite theme of the Bush administration, is not necessarily what the elderly want or need.

Dr. Philip R. Lee, recruited by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1965, said of the Bush administration:

"They talk about giving people choice; Medicare gives people the choice of their individual practitioner. That's what most people think about when they think about choice."

The issues raised in the Medicaid debate revolve largely around the role of the federal government.

Citing the model of the 1996 welfare law, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson says states can be trusted with far more authority to decide who receives what benefits.

The administration's proposal would offer states vast new power to reduce, eliminate or expand health benefits for low-income people, including many who are elderly or disabled. In return for the flexibility, and a temporary increase in federal assistance, states would eventually have to accept a limit on the federal contribution to the program's cost. The choice would be up to the states; they could stay with the existing program.

Administration officials say the plan would allow states to stretch scarce resources during fiscal crises. Critics assert it would replace the poor's entitlement to health care with a block grant to the states, just when the number of uninsured is rising.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democrat, said the new Medicaid proposal was "extremely risky in an uncertain economy."

There were other critics today among the governors. Janet Napolitano, the new governor of Arizona, a Democrat, expressed deep concern about the Bush administration's Medicaid proposal because, she said, the federal money would not keep pace with the rapid growth of the state's Medicaid program.

Noting that Arizona's population grew 40 percent from 1990 to 2000, a surge reflected in the state's Medicaid rolls, Ms. Napolitano added, "Fast-growing states in the West should be very, very concerned about this."

But Gov. John G. Rowland of Connecticut, a Republican, was enthusiastic about the plan. "It's a great deal," Mr. Rowland said. "I'm very pleased with the prospect of greater state flexibility."

Mr. Thompson argued that the administration proposal would preserve comprehensive insurance for most of the poorest beneficiaries. But states would have "carte blanche," he said, to alter Medicaid coverage for about 15 million recipients."

States are not required to cover these people, but once they are on the Medicaid rolls, they have legally enforceable rights to benefits.

Mr. Bush's proposal for Social Security, first offered in the 2000 campaign, would also break sharply with the past by allowing workers to divert some of their payroll taxes to individual accounts that would be invested in stocks. While its political prospects have been dampened by the declining stock market, Mr. Bush reiterated his support for the idea last month in his State of the Union address.

Both sides agree that the coming debate over these proposals will be a fundamental clash of political philosophies — over the obligations of government, the rights of the individual and the role of the private sector.

Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force on April 29, 1997, the United States has agreed not to develop or use chemical weapons and to destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles. As a party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, entered into force on March 26, 1975, the United States has agreed to prohibit the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and bacteriological methods of warfare.... [We are] focusing our inspection on the Edgewood site because our research reveals that the facility may be developing and stockpiling weapons that contravene the above stated conventions."

All countries that research weapons of mass destruction need to submit to an inspection regime. This symbolic action is particularly poignant because last year in Geneva the Bush administration destroyed a six-year effort involving 140 countries to create a global inspection regime for biological weapons agents. It didn't just pull out, it actually stayed in the process with the explicit purpose of insuring there was no agreement."

While the US officials try to cast the worst light on the UN weapons inspectors' generally favorable reports, they have prepared contingency plans to use nuclear weapons in Iraq. This manifests the Bush administration's increasingly aggressive and unilateral 'national security' policy which tears down the wall between nuclear and conventional weapons, and contemplates nuclear weapons use 'against ... emerging threats before they are fully formed.' While focusing on a speculative and questionable Iraqi 'threat,' the U.S. is actively pursuing 'more useable' nuclear weapons for use against seven named countries, in blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Which country poses a greater threat to global security? Why aren't international weapons inspectors in the U.S.? Who will disarm America?"

Please join me NOW in registering for a Virtual March on Washington for February 26th. We are asking Congress to stop the Bush administration's rush to war, and to Let the Inspections Work. Time is running out.

With your help, on February 26th, every Senate office will receive a call EVERY MINUTE from a constituent, as they receive a simultaneous crush of faxes and email. In New York and Washington D.C., "antiwar rooms" will highlight the progress of the day for national media. Local media will visit the "antiwar room" online, to monitor this constituent march throughout the day.

With your help, every Senate office switchboard will be lit up all day with our antiwar messages. This will be a powerful reminder of the breadth and depth of opposition to a war in Iraq.

Just go to:

http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/

The last two months have taken a heavy toll on the president's popularity, but a modest 52% to 46% majority still gives him positive ratings. Two months ago, almost two-thirds of all U.S. adults (64%) gave the president positive ratings and only just over a third (35%) gave him negative ratings. Other members of President Bush's cabinet, as well as the parties in Congress and Congressional leaders, with one exception, have all seen a huge decline in their popularity since the very high numbers we recorded soon after September 11, 2001. The one exception is Secretary of State Colin Powell. He still enjoys an extraordinarily high degree of popularity, with 76% giving him positive ratings and only 21% giving him negative ratings. These numbers are fractionally better than they were in December 2002, perhaps because of his powerful recent testimony to the United Nations Security Council.

"President Bush said today that he disagreed with the millions of antiwar protesters who turned out in 300 cities worldwide over the weekend, and he promised to press the United Nations Security Council to pass a new resolution intended to authorize war with Iraq.

"'I respectfully disagree' with those who 'don't view Saddam Hussein as a threat,' Mr. Bush said at the White House, after a swearing-in ceremony for William H. Donaldson, the new chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 'We are working with our friends and allies to see if we can get a second resolution.'

"In his first public comments on the protests, Mr. Bush was dismissive, saying 'that democracy is a beautiful thing, and that people are allowed to express their opinions.' But allowing the protesters to influence him, he said, would be 'like saying I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group.'"

In the Egyptian newspaper cartoon, President Bush, framed inside a TV set, shakes a bandaged, obviously overworked index finger. He says, "Well, I thought it was North Korea, but Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told me to say that Iraq is the greatest threat to global peace." In the corner of the sketch in the "Al-Ahali" weekly is a picture of a dove, an olive branch in its beak, shooting itself in the head with a pistol...The sketches reflect some of the many powerful and often negative images of the US leader that resonate in the Arab world two years after his election. Mr. Bush rose to power with Arab tongues wagging about new chances for peace and a US leader who understood the nuances of the oil business.
But that mood has given way to disappointment and, sometimes, sharp recrimination, say Arab analysts...... Much of the Arab optimism about Bush was based on President Bill Clinton's Camp David peace efforts, which made initial, unprecedented strides towards resolving some longstanding territorial issues.

"But there is a now a perception that Bush does not understand the region at all. You will hear leader after leader now talk of the potential catastrophe that looms because of Bush's policies," says Zogby.

Example from Time's article: Do last week's U.N. inspectors' reports mark a turning point in the debate over Iraq? In the preceding two days, I received phone calls from several heads of state, both members and nonmembers of the Security Council, and I came to the conclusion that a majority of world leaders share our determination to search for a peaceful solution to disarming Iraq.

U.S. utilities, automakers, oil refiners, and other industries said Wednesday they will voluntarily trim carbon dioxide emissions, drawing praise from the Bush administration and sighs from environmentalists who say it is not enough to reduce heat-trapping gases.
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-02-13/s_2645.asp

MARK SHIELDS: ... George Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion budget surplus over the next ten years. That was projected, all the numbers. Now, we don't have to argue about whether how much was the tax cut, how much was Sept. 11, how much was the stock market tumble-- it's gone. It's gone. Now, what we have right now, the reality, is that this year the United States of America... the president doesn't have a policy of guns and butter. It's a policy of caviar and missiles. There is absolutely no sense that this is a budget that in any way is going is determined by a sense of emergency or urgency or national purpose. At the same time, we are spending $300 billion in interest on the national debt this year. The national debt that was going to be gone, we weren't going to be worried about it. That is more than the income tax paid by all individuals in 31 states. [The national debt] would be the second single biggest item in the national budget if it stood as a separate department. I mean, second only to defense. It is more than we spend on veterans or education or health or anything else. And to say in the face of that we are going to have a $795 tax cut, you know, it really... it's not selling. It's not selling on Capitol Hill and it's not selling to the Democrats, and it's not selling to the republicans.

JIM LEHRER: You agree it is not selling?

DAVID BROOKS: It's in trouble. There is no question it's in trouble. If the president believes in it, he will have to commit to it. I say, this is one of the major events of our lives, it's worth going into deficit, because if we win, the stakes are tremendous for the world. If we lose, the stakes are cataclysmic. So the deficit would be worth it if we do this right, which is not to defend the tax cut at this moment.

...MARK SHIELDS: But he also talked about scientists... agents being used as scientists and all the rest. Jim, I just contrast this with [the] 1991 [Gulf War] , which I think we all remember. That war did not cost the United States a nickel. I mean, it cost us in bone and blood and obviously in lives, but it did not cost us a nickel. It was 31 nations. I mean, the entire cost was underwritten by Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, other nations. Now, we talk about this is a coalition of the willing, David cites. It's a coalition of the willing to make a deal. I mean, just coming out in drips and drabs now, what Turkey is getting, what the Russian deal is going to be in oil afterwards-- I mean, their stake in Iraq. Turkey is getting loan guarantees, the foreign aid to both Israel and Egypt are going up, and the other side feels this is one we are going to pay for. That ought to be debated.

JIM LEHRER: What about that?

DAVID BROOKS: I don't think it is a coalition of the bribed.

[Frankly, I want to see all the evidence first. Poland, the Czech Republic, as former vassal states in the Communist regime, are not exactly rolling in dough. I'll bet they wouldn't refuse handouts.]

[Brooks continues] The government of Italy, the government of Spain, the government of Poland, the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, they are supporting it not because they're being bribed but because it is the right thing to do. The biggest thing that happened was the letter by the eight European leaders that indicates not only how the coalition is going to shape up in this war-- and I'm convinced France will come on board at the very end-- but how the world is going to look like. And Mark is right. None of us are enthusiastic about going in, but the people, like us who support it, think it is important and we think it will lead to a lot of things like the new Europe.