WHY WE'RE STAYING

There has always been just one reason, and one
reason only why we we are in Iraq: it's oil (to
put it crudely). It's also why we are staying,
come hell (it already has) or high water. It's
why we are spending $9 bill. each month, and
losing 100 (give or take) American lives. There
is no other reason. They have all been stripped
away and left in tatters: we were given the
"Saddam has dangerous weapons" reason
because, said Wolfowitz, that was the one that
would sell.

Then it was "Iraqi freedom." For two years
that's all we heard from the President: "Iraqis
want their freedom. They should have their
freedom. Everyone wants and should have
freedom. Freedom is a wonderful thing", and
so on. We don't hear that anymore, because
Iraqis have the freedom to kill each other and
our G. I.s in unlimited numbers, and that is
exactly what they are doing, while we referee.

Now our reason is "terrorism." We have to
fight 'em there or they'll come after us here!
They already came after us here, remember?
That's the reason we went after them there.
It was the wrong "them," but no matter. We
chose to go after the "them" where the oil is.

If we were really serious about fighting
terrorism, we would have stayed in Afghanistan
in sufficient numbers to finish that job right.
But there was no oil there to get! Now that
one's in danger of coming unglued as well
and bringing down Musharraf next door in
Pakistan. That is a much more dangerous
situation for our national security than Iraq
ever was. Musharraf has been so weakened
by his cooperation with the U. S. that he is
being forced to welcome political enemies
into his coalition. It may well be the beginning
of the end for him. Pakistan has nukes. Who
will access those if Musharraf falls? Some of
the terrorists enjoying sactuary in western
Pakistan?

Since Iraq is an expensive degression from the
main fight against terrorism, and actually a
help to the terrorists (according to numerous
national intelligence advisorys) in many ways,
the only possible reason we are still bleeding
there so massively is for the oil we expect to
get. Mr. Bush will be right if we succeed in
that quest, and Mr. Cheney is right that we
have not lost in that respect! History will
vindicate Bush (if he gets the oil), as he has
predicted. If you understand their real
agenda, you understand their stubborness
and seeming denial of facts on the ground.
Without that oil, gas here will soon be $5
a gal., as it is in Europe and Japan. But that
would throw us into a severe depression.
It's a no-limit poker game, and our reckless
"decider" has put us all in: double or nothing.

Have a nice day!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

OBAMA TIME!

"It seems to me that the strongest case one
could make for an Obama presidency right
now is rarely articulated: it is his potential
to repair the broken relationship between
America and the world." So wrote Tom
Friedman in the NYT yesterday. He had
returned recently from Kenya, where Mr.
O. has extended family, and is a national
hero, with his picture taken by newspapers
posted widely in homes and offices.

Mr. Friedman added: ". . . I believe that what
has propelled his candidacy up to now --
more than anything -- is that many Americans
have projected onto him their hunger for
community, their hunger for a president
with the voice, instincts and moral authority
to make it so much harder for foreigners to
be anti-American or for Americans to be
anti-one-another."

If Friedman is right, that community is
what we are now seeking, then Obama is
our man. Community, local and world-
wide is what he is seeking too. And he
has specialized in it for years. He writes
about it in his new book: The Audacity of
Hope. Right out of college he went to
work as an organizer on Chicago's South
Side. David Moberg reports in The Nation
(4/16/07): "Interviews with people who
worked with him during that time found
few complaints --- virtually everyone
described him in glowing terms, such as
dedicated, hard-working, dependable,
intelligent, inspiring, a good listener,
confident but self-effacing. They admired
him as an organizer who trained strong
community leaders while keeping himself
in the background and as a strategist who
could turn general problems into specific,
winnable issues. Loretta Augustine-
Herron, a member of the DCP board that
hired him, remembers him as someone
who always followed the high road. 'You've
got to do it right,' she recalls him insisting.
'Be open with the issues. Include the
community instead of going behind the
community's back -- and he would
include people we didn't like sometimes.
You've got to bring people together. If you
exclude people, you're only weakening
yourself. If you meet behind closed doors
and make decisions for them, they'll never
take ownership of the issue.'"

Bringing people together. That's the over-
all theme of his new book. What comes
across is very much the person described
above. Plus he is intellectually gifted --
erudite, in fact. His chapter on the
Constitution should be standard reading
in every civics class. Obama taught
constitutional law at the University of
Chicago law school for six years, and
knows and loves his subject.

His chapter on politics is brilliant. It is
also fair and balanced. He refuses to
demonize the other side. His treatment
of the opposition is full of humanity and
humility. He reminds one of Lincoln in
this respect. He is mindful of human
frailty -- his own as well as that of others.

He has a great chapter on opportunity,
and another one on faith. Both are clear
and inspirational. As is the one on race.
I am reminded that Obama has M. L.
King's vision, idealism and eloquence,
and J. F. K.'s smarts and charisma!

His erudition and weath of life experience
really come into prominence in his
chapter on the "The World Beyond our
Borders." He lived in Indonesia for four
years as a child, and frequently visits
family in Kenya. He's an internationlist,
and studied international relations at
Columbia University. Before our excursion
into Iraq, he spoke prophetically (in Oct.,
2002): "I know that even a successful war
against Iraq will require a U. S. occupation
of undetermined length, at undetermined
cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a
clear rationale and without strong
international support will only fan the
flames of the Middle East, and encourage
the worst, rather than the best, impulses
of the Arab world, and strengthen the
recruitment arm of al Qaeda."

In this new book he writes: "Osama bin
Laden understands that he cannot defeat
or even incapacitate the United States in a
conventional war. What he and his allies
can do is inflict enough pain to provoke a
reaction of the sort we've seen in Iraq ---
a botched and ill-advised U. S. military
incursion into a Muslim country, which in
turn spurs on insurgencies based on
religious sentiment and nationalist pride,
which in turn necessitates a lengthy and
difficult U. S. occupation, which in turn
leads to an escalating death toll on the part
of U. S. troops and the local civilian
population. All of this fans anti-American
sentiment among the Muslims, increases
the pool of potential terrorist recruits, and
prompts the Amercan public to question
not only the war but also those policies
that project us into the Islamic world in the
first place."

Mr. Bush took office with the most
"experienced" crew he could find: the
Powells, the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds,
Wolfowitz, etc. Experience plus arrogance
and ignorance still add up to disaster!
Maybe it's time to try wisdom, knowlege,
common sense, humanity and humility,
in word affairs. Just for a change?

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

FINAL THROWS

It's like crying "wolf" in reverse: it's falsely crying
"success" at every turn. You only get so many
triumphant "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
moments and "resurgency in its last throes"
claims before the public tunes you out finally.

Sen. Mc Cain's storied stroll in Baghdad has
fallen on deaf ears at home not only because
he was heavily guarded before and behind
and from above, but because we have been
there and done that too much to take these
staged happy times seriously.

Of course we all wish this continued sacrifice
of lives will accomplish something meaningful
and hopeful. But we are assailed with doubts.
The pres. continues to repeat like mantras
the same lies used for years: that Saddam
was involved in 9/11, that if we don't fight 'em
there they'll come after us here, and that
leaving now would leave a safe haven there
for al Qaeda.

To take the last one first, if and when the Shia
majority control the country, al Qaeda (which
is Sunni) will be gone completely and totally!
They, after all, started the sectarian violence
by bombing Shia mosques and Shia shopping
areas. They are the main targets of Shia rage,
and will not be allowed any rest or refuge. That
whole idea is ignorant, and in fact, presposterous.
If we want to get rid of Qaeda in Iraq, all we have
to do is help the Shia gain complete control of
the whole country! That, of course, is what
Iran wants too. It hates al Qaeda (and the
Taliban) just as much as we do.

As far as "fighting them there instead of here,"
that also is patent nonsense. Ninety-five per
cent of the insurgents are Iraqis interested ony in
getting us out of there and settling their own
conflicts with fellow Iraqis. They don't have a
navy, and aren't going to swim over here, even
if they want to, which they don't. Qaeda
continues to spread around the world. That has
nothing to do with Iraq. Yes, our withdrawal
from Iraq, whenever that happens will
encourage our enemies everywhere, as our
continued losses there encourage them as well.
So they are encouraged whatever stupid things
we do. We're going to let that determine our
policy, Mr. Cheney?

Our military leaders have been telling us for
some time now that a military solution of Iraq's
problems is not achievable. Mr. Bush has not
understood or faced that basic fact. He's still
looking for a military victory which is not in the
cards. So he's in denial: out of reality. And we
just go along enabling him! Let him do his
thing. He's crazy as hell, but he's the pres!

The current Iraqi leadership shows neither
the will nor the wit to achieve political
reconciliation on any level. That's why
congress wants time limits on our military
involvement there. So does the majority
of the American public. The president turns
a deaf ear on such demands, just as the
public turns a deaf ear to his phony claims
of progress and dire consequences for
withdrawal. It's an impasse that keeps on
costing!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net