Sometimes, though not always, a haiku can be as effective as large novel.

Today, I am in haiku mode. I want to bring to point some issues that others wrote, but perhaps you did not see……..

This first one is about our president, and belatedly is a comprehensive explanation for David’s piece proclaiming Bush to be the greatest president ever, or something like that. Forgive me for not re-looking it up on FSP, but I am assuming most of you are already familiar with it………

This one is reproduced from Media Matters.

Iran wins:

If George W. Bush had been The Manchurian Candidate for president, even on his own terms, it’s hard to see how he could have done a better job. He’s weakened the American military, destroyed our prestige abroad, increased the threats against us, exploded any hopes for fiscal discipline at home and done enormous damage to the political prospects of both the Republican Party and the conservative movement, whose tenants are now almost entirely discredited. Among the most dangerous of the nearly perfectly counterproductive policies that Bush has pursued however has been his strengthening of the domestic power and regional influence of Iran’s radical leadership. Just as Western Europe and Japan won the Cold War, Iran (and Al Qaeda) have won the Iraq war. As Peter Galbraith writes in the current New York Review of Books, here:

In short, George W. Bush had from the first facilitated the very event he warned would be a disastrous consequence of a US withdrawal from Iraq: the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia. And while the President contrasts the promise of democracy in Iraq with the tyranny in Iran, there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in southern Iraq.


The United States cannot now undo President Bush’s strategic gift to Iran. But importantly, the most pro-Iranian Shiite political party is the one least hostile to the United States. In the battle now underway between the SIIC and Moqtada al-Sadr for control of southern Iraq and of the central government in Baghdad, the United States and Iran are on the same side. The US has good reason to worry about Iran’s activities in Iraq. But contrary to the Bush administration’s allegations — supported by both General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker in their recent congressional testimony — Iran does not oppose Iraq’s new political order. In fact, Iran is the major beneficiary of the American-induced changes in Iraq since 2003.

If only Ken Burns weren’t a creature of that dagnab liberal media, we might get PBS specials about the actual sacrifice of our servicemen like this one.