Here's an excerpt from Paul Krugman's July 20th column:
"Remember, Mr. Bush was confident six years ago when he promised to bring in Osama, dead or alive. He was confident four years ago, when he told the insurgents to bring it on. He was confident two years ago, when he told Brownie that he was doing a heckuva job.
.
"Now Iraq is a bloody quagmire, Afghanistan is deteriorating and the Bush administration's own National Intelligence Estimate admits, in effect, that thanks to Mr. Bush's poor leadership America is losing the struggle with Al Qaeda. Yet Mr. Bush remains confident.
.
"Sorry, but that's not reassuring; it's terrifying. It doesn't demonstrate Mr. Bush's strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality." (Truthout)
Krugman gave two "enablers" honorable mention: Sen. Richard Lugar and Gen. David Petraeus. Krugman's take on Petraeus unnerved me, as we await Petraeus' September report on Iraq, which is perceived as the key to determining our nation's course in the questionable war.
.
Petraeus has reached oracle status, with most of us expecting his report to be accurate and non-politically-motivated. Krugman raises doubts about Petraeus' objectivity, citing a September 2004 op-ed by Petraeus, in which:
"Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed the totally misleading impression, highly convenient for his political masters, that victory was just around the corner."
Petraeus' optimistic op-ed was printed about 6 weeks before Election 2004, in which his boss was a candidate. Given all we've learned, it seems that we weren't near victory three years ago, so why did Petraeus tell us that we were?
.
As Damozel pointed out (after reading an report by the British government, which is desperate to get out of Iraq), there may be no easy way to leave Iraq without grave consequences for that nation we invaded. If Petraeus' report indicates that we need more time in Iraq, he may actually be painting an accurate picture.
.
Here's the problem: the public may not believe Petraeus, not only because of his dubiously optimistic 2004 op-ed, but also because he works for an Administration that has repeatedly ignored, twisted, or made up facts to persuade us taxpayers to support the Iraq war.
.
Even when the young lad legitimately cried "Wolf," nobody believed him. Such is the nature of repeatedly manipulating the truth (and repeatedly getting caught).
Comments