Following the daily news concerning Iraq and seeing the polemics that characterize the comments I'm struck with how complex, and difficult to understand, the whole situation is.
There are new books coming out on a daily basis purporting to tell the REAL story.
The President is currently attacking the media for not telling about the good things that are happening over there. In effect he is saying that the opening of hospitals, schools, and businesses should counter the grim images of bombings and sectarian killings, that many consider civil war.
While the military is preparing for withdrawals in the near future Bush intimates that the next president, or presidents, will probably have to deal with the problem. His apparent strategy for victory is more of the same. His once perceived bold leadership is now looked upon as stubborn stupidity, denial, and incompetance.

Panels of "experts" compare Iraq with Vietnam. The parallels are striking. A flawed premise, a bogus claim of national danger, and a stampeded Congress. Former White House staff chief, Alexander Haig and former White House speech writer, Ted Sorensen related how former Whiz Kid, MacNamara was deluded for many years during and after Vietnam before realizing what a horrible mistake it had been. His book is a mea culpa of the sad saga. General Abrams stated that ten years in Vietnam didn't teach us anything. We repeated the first year's mistakes ten times.

Finally the legislators have put together a blue ribbon committee to review the situation and assess means and methods of exticating ourselves from the current mess. The likelihood of there being any useful policies forthcoming is slim indeed. Yes, that is cynicism. Having been around eighty years one can be excused for that. Sen. Feingold has introduced a motion to censure the President. Another suggestion, likening it to recent business deals, suggests we buy out Bush's contract. If we had a Parlimentary government it is a cinch there would be a "no confidence" vote and we'd get a new set of leaders. The problem there is--where would they come from? Cynicism again!

Hey, the good news is that this winter has been mild enough to allows those of us who don't mind the cold to play golf fairly frequently. Like today was absolutely beautiful. Three birdies and one bogey. Didn't win though. Maybe next time.

Now the wheels are coming off!!! All the news programs are jumping on the low ratings for the Pres. All sorts of questions and specualation are being entertained. In the Senate, Sen Feingold is submitting a resolution to "censure " the Pres. That is a desperation move by a potential presidential candidate to get his name in the press without "McCain" preceeding it.

The Congress is wrestling with the necessity of, once again, raising the debt limit. It now exceeds 8 Trillion.(?) True, Bush has never vetoed a spending bill, despite wailing continually about getting the debt under control,(his favorite pitch is for more tax cuts for the upper brackets). In the Senate, while many decried "ear marking", which has, over the past number of years, steadily increased, at least one Senator said "It isn't the Pres. that makes the laws, it's the Congress", if we don't have the backbone and common sense to limit spending on pet programs then we have no one to blame but ourselves" Obviously the first law of politics is "get reelected".
One does that most effectively by "bringing home the bacon". So now where does the fault lie? It is in the home districts that reward "bacon bringing" by reelecting. "Tip" O'Neil profoundly stated that all politics is local. That is exactly what he was referring to.

One thing keeping the administration's boat afloat is the burgeoning economy. Despite the out sourcing job losses there is an improvement in the unemploymet figures. Nonetheless real income continues to decline. The gap betwee the "haves" and the "have nots" continues to increase. This is an increasingly bad sign for the country as a whole.

Having been opposed to the administration's policies from the beginning I must admit taking some satisfaction in seeing the failure of those policies. "Second term burnout" is a frequent phrase now used. The administration needs new blood, many say. The rejoinder is --Not. Bush
does not admit mistakes or even shortcomings. He is not likely to bring in someone new to the team. What standing would that person have?. Can anyone imagine Cheney or Rove, not to mention Rumsfeld, letting someone tell them they were wrong? Bush would feel naked and out of his element having his "inate sense" questioned. The whole scenario regarding Iraq, which is the keystone of this administration, is the big gamble to change the world and validate the neo-con premises. Unfortunately the basic premises, the assumptions, were wrong. Sound reasoning was supplanted by wishful thinking. Ideology replaced rationality. Bold objectives shown so brightly that the details were dismissed. disregarded, or argued to be inconsequential.
The latest book to recap the successive mistakes that have accumulated is called "Cobra II".
Written by a jounalist who closely followed the war from inside Iraq, and a retired military officer who recognized the errors that were being made all along. Poor generalmanship, together with poorer Defense Dept. leadership developed into the over all fiasco we see today.

To get off the topic of Bush I want to comment on what has been my life experience. Being born in 1925, my early years were influenced by the recent WW I. As a kid playing we frequently would refer to "how it was done in the Army", as we demonstrated some activity or other. In 1939 I was 15 and just about to enter High School. By the time I was 17 I was thinking about what branch of service to go into. To avoid being drafted I enlisted in the Navy while 17. I spent two and a half years in the Navy. Getting out in '46 I enrolled in college, in 1950 I graduated from college as the Korean "police action" heated up.

I was married in 1955 and even then the Viet Nam situation was brewing. That horrible, unnecessary war consumed the 60s. Then there was Grenada and Haiti spats. Regime changes were engineerd in Iran, Panama, and a number of South American countries. We took a shot at Libya to emphasize our displeasure at bombing airplanes. We supported Saddam in his war with Iran and led him to believe invading Kuwait was OK too. The Gulf War was our way of saying "No". That is not OK, but we still wanted him as a buffer against Iran so we betrayed the Shiites in Iraq who thought they would get help in overturning Saddam. Not! We apparently were in a muddle even then as to what to do about Iraq. Along comes the junior Bush and says,"someone told me that since the 9/11 tradgedy we can now blame Hussein and have an excuse to grab the oil patch. Every effort was then bent to create a war frenzy--"we'd fight them over there so we didn't have to fight them here". As if the guys who engineered the plane hijackings and destruction of the Trade Towers couldn't find a way to get here as well as fight in Iraq. It is a catchy phrase but irrational. Despite millions of dollars and super hype about "Homeland security" we are now more vulnerable than we have ever been. The current bouhaha over Port management is at last bring ing into the open how poor our port security has been and is.
It appears that "Homeland Security" played a large part in the Katrina debacle.
Bush not only formulates lousey policies that have left us practically friendless in the world, he finds ways to select inept people to carry them out.

So now the current crisis is Iran. My fear is that the beleagered Pres will once again pull a pre-empt to wrap himself in the flag and claim he is saving the US from another mushroom cloud.
Can we possibly survive another three years of this mismanagement?

Well !, as Jack Benny used to say. Things are not going very well in Iraq. How come? Our esteemed President and his trigger happy V. P. have repeatedly assurred us that things are getting better. It seems the insurgency is getting better at what it does certainly. My concern that sectarian rivalry would lead to civil war is coming closer to reality.

The missteps of the administration multiply day by day. Everyone agrees that surrveilance in all regards is essential for intelligence gathering. Why can't Bush do it legally? Why can't his crew handle the Ports management in an open manner? How can a presidency be so inept at governance? It is difficult to know what Condoleeza is doing in the realm of diplomacy. Sending Karen Hughes abroad had disastrous results. Is Rice doing any better? Diplomacy is not this administration's long suit. Their notion of how to deal internationally is to shake the mailed fist under everyone's nose. When cautioned about possible insurgency in Iraq Bush responded-"bring it on". Not very couth. Besides, it seems impossible for Bush to express even the simplest ideas in sentences of more than five words

The Katina debacle is not going away. Just released tapes show Bush being briefed on the possible consequences of flooding and levee failure. His assurance that all possible aid would be available has been tragically proven wrong -- and still is continuing. All levels of government have been shown to be inadequate to the task at hand. The debacle of the stranded trailers in a muddy field, worth $300,000,000, exemplifies the ineptitude of the administraition's functionaries.

Bush has been great at rhetoric and miserable at action. To help slow the growth of the deficit cuts have been made in Veteran's Health Care availability. Cuts have been made in Education, Pell Grants, No child Left Behind Program, Student Loan Guarantees. Medicare and Medicaid Programs are cut. The prescription drug bill has proven mind boggling for most seniors but a bonanza to the pharmacuetical giants. Those greedy gougers inserted provisions in the law preventing "shopping by the government for lower cost drugs".

A recent poll of nearly 1,000 GIs in Iraq indicate 75% want to go home, some right away, some within 6 months, some in

Dear Editor,

It is not amnesia that Democrats suffer from. They simply have no effective leadership or a program to be lead.
However Marvin Hoovis claims Democrats accuse the administration of "concocted false information to justify going to war with Iraq" which is both "incorrect and inappropriate". The "facts" to be looked at are that both Democrats and Republicans realize that it has been well established, documented and accepted by persons seeking objective information that Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, etc. all lied, stretched the truth, and/or misinformed.

Back in the 70s Wolfowitz was advocating pre-emption of the oil patch to prevent the Russians from getting it. 9/11 was pounced upon as a reason to not only crush Bin Laden in Afghanistan but to mislead the country into thinking Saddam was in cahoots with him and a real threat to our well being. In fact Saddam and Iraq was in terrible shape.and, being a secular state, was threatened by Bin Laden also.

The entire article is a Karl Rove scenario of "talking points" that have been amplified by Rush Limbaugh, et al to keep the "base" mollified. the Bush lovers also get their spin on events from the Fox News. It is interesting to watch and listen to that crew talk each other into condoning the ruinous policies of the present administration.

Thus we are stuck with both major political parties in trouble. One leaderless and the other mislead.

Don B