UNBELIEVABLE BELIEVER

There can be no doubt that Pres. Bush is a true believer. He seemed anxious to convince people of that at a recent press conference held with Tony Blair: "I also believe we are going to succeed," he said. "I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. . . .As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough. But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail." If only he could convince the Iraq Study Group that he's right! And the rest of the country. If only believing could make it so! But I'm afraid he has been listening to some of the "prosperity" preachers! He is no longer any more believable than they are. He's like the poker player who has lost all his chips, and is now ready to bet the ranch. But the chips in this game are G. I.'s lives.

Why is the prez no longer credible? Official dishonesty about Iraq, pervasive and continuing, is the central focus of Bob Woodward's monumental State of Denial (SOD). The closing words of his book, fully supported by a staggering collection of facts and testimony are: "With all Bush's upbeat talk and optimism, he had not told the American public the truth about what Iraq had become." (p. 419)

That task had been left to the Iraq Study Group, who had found the situation "grave and deteriorating." Chaotic and catastrophic would be even more accurate. We have come to this impasse because our gamble in Iraq was based initially on falsehoods, and keeps being maintained the same way. False statements presented to the U. N., the press, and the public as gospel, were later excused as "due to bad intelligence." They became outright lies, however, when repeated over and over after they were widely known and aknowledged to be false. 80% of the viewers of Fox News believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11! Even Bush now says it isn't so. During the run-up to this war, he couldn't mention Saddam without also mentioning 9/11 in the same breath. He now says, with a straight face, that he never said they were connected! Little wonder that folks now can't trust him with the time of day.

Vice Pres. Cheney was on Larry King on May 30, '05. "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency," he told Larry. That was a total twisting of reality. The over-all insurgency attacks in April had been about 1,700, with 52 American dead. In May, the attacks
went to 2,000, with 82 American dead. A May '06 intel report sent to the White House showed that the forces of terrorism in Iraq were not in retreat (as Bush and Cheney had been reporting still). The attacks had been steadily increasing, but the information was strictly classified, and hidden from the public. A 5/26/06 intel report sent to Congress by the White House also presents a false picture of the security situation in Iraq (SOD, p. 477).

Pres. Bush likes to talk about the "unity government" in Iraq. There isn't any. It doesn't exist.
He imagines it. There's no unity in Iraq: how can there be a unity government? And there's precious little government at all, of any kind. Colin Powell made this point in a meeting Bush had with former secretarys of state: "Your strategy is correct in terms of building up the military and police forces and the government, because if you don't have a government that you can connect these forces to, then Mr. President, you are not building up forces, you are building
up militias." (SOD, p. 469).

Woodward documents that both Rice and Powell (as well as Bremer) were convinced early on (in 2003) that more troops were needed in Iraq. But Rumsfeld said "no," and Bush and Cheney backed him. Rumsfeld stalled everything: for over a year he refused to admit there was an insurgency. (As they now refuse to admit there's a civil war going on there.) Rummy refused to set up training for an Iraqi army. Then he refused to equip and supply it (still a big problem). His generals failed to fight him for the additional troops they needed, because they knew he was dead-set against that, and could destroy their careers with a word. Now they don't want more troops, because the time that would be decisive has passed, and adding more troops now will only worsen the situation and step up the violence. But the generals are still not being listened
to. So it's a mess. No relief in sight. The reccomendations of the Iraq Study Group have apparently fallen on deaf ears. Deaf, dumb and blind, I'm afraid. Sorry: I wish as mightily as does the President, that it was different.

Reply if you wish: jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

Is Bush Crazy? (Or Are We?)

Is it Genocide? (In Darfur)

Are We Headed For Recession?

These are questions I want to touch on briefly, before heading off to Arizona for a couple of weeks. As to the emotional and mental state of the Prez, let me just say that I'm worried for him. As Nancy Pelosi said (of his state of denial), "It's sad." He doesn't look well, or sound good. He's under enormous pressure. He has a tiger by the tail, and can't let go. And he gets angry at people who don't understand the situation as he misunderstands it.

There are said to be people who hate the President. I am not one of them. He's a fellow Methodist and, I believe, a decent fellow. I wish him well, but fear the worst.
Rabbi Emanuel Rose wrote recently in The Oregonian: "An overwhelming majority of the common people no longer accept the disparity between the words of the administration and the facts on the ground. The people, who generally prefer to believe and support their president, increasingly have concluded that they have been misled, decieved or denied accurate information." I believe that's the President's situation also. He sounds like he too has been misled and denied accurate information. Or he lacks the background and understanding to properly evaluate what he is being told. Either way, it's a disaster becoming a catastrophe! We don't have any idea how many Iraqis we have killed, because we have never bothered to keep track. This says to the Muslim world that we don't care how many of them we kill: to us it's inconsequential.

Speaking of disaster, and not caring, there is now a big argument raging about whether the killing in Darfur is a genocide. Was it, in Rwanda, when 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutus? What do you think? What would you call it? I call it inconceivable that we stand by wringing our hands, and refusing to supply the money, arms and transport for neighboring African peoples to go in and stop the slaughter. Why haven't we stepped in a long time ago? Our responsibility is proportionate to our ability. From whom much has been given, much will be required. We are watching another holocaust.

Turning now to our economy here at home, with a public debt load now exceeding
$8 trillion, and private debt approaching that amount, and remembering that the Iraq war costs (over one trillion now) are not being counted in these figures, Paul Krugman warns: "Since last summer, when the housing bust became unmistakable, interest rates on long term bonds have fallen sharply. They're now yielding much less than short-term bonds. The fact that investors are willing to buy these long-term bonds anyway tells us that these investors expect interest rates to fall. And that will happen only if the economy weakens, forcing the Federal Reserve to cut rates. So bond buyers are, in effect, betting on a future economic slowdown." Krugman is an
economics professor at Princeton, and writes a regular op-ed column for The New York Times. I've found his opinions highly useful, and usually reliable.

More when we return from Arizona. jgoodwin004@centurytel.net



fellow who is in way, way over his head.