Laugh at Liberals Archive for July, 2005
The Truth About The Mid East
Why are we in Iraq exactly? At first it was because Sudam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but no evidence has been found to support that statement. More recently it’s because we want to spread democracy and freedom to the Middle East. This seems highly unlikely given our track record of support. The United States has consistently supported Tyrants in the past in order to protect our own interests.
For one, the very man that orchestrated the horrific attacks of 9/11, tha’s right, we’re responsible for the formation of al-Quida. We armed Bin Laden, supported his afghan Jihad against the Soviet Union in the 1970’s. By 1984 he had established an organization named Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Order in English), which funneled money, arms and Muslim fighters from around the world into the Afghan war.
The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamic and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. By 1988, bin Laden had split from the MAK and established a new militant group, later dubbed al-Quida by the U.S. government, which included many of the more militant MAK members he had met in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 and bin Laden was lauded as a mujahideen hero in Saudi Arabia. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered to help defend Saudi Arabia (with 12,000 armed men) but was rebuffed by the Saudi government.
Bin Laden was officially wanted by the United States in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, that killed 225 people and injured more than 4000. Since June 1999, bin Laden has been listed as one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and FBI Most Wanted Terrorists. Al-Quida was allegedly involved in several unsuccessful conspiracies, including the 2000 millennium attack plots to bomb Los Angeles airport, several tourist sites in Jordan and the USS The Sullivan’s, and well as the subsequent Paris embassy terrorist attack plot. The al-Quida organization was allegedly responsible for the successful USS Cole bombing in October 2000. now, you can add 9/11 to that list.
In response to these attacks, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order authorizing bin Laden’s arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. military launched an assassination attempt using cruise missiles. The attack failed to harm bin Laden but killed 19 other people. The U.S. offered a US$25 million reward for information leading to bin Laden’s apprehension or conviction and, in 1999, convinced the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in an attempt to force the Taliban to extradite him. So don’t blame Clinton for the strength of Al-Quida.
We even supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, when he worked in our interests. The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with military support (in secret and contrary to this country’s official neutrality)
The United States had been wary of the Tehran regime since the Iranian Revolution, not least because of the detention of its Tehran embassy staff in the 1979 - 81 Iran hostage crises. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, and weapons normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War),
From 1983 to 1990, the US government approved around $200 million in arms sales to Iraq, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI). These sales amounted to less than 1% of the total arms sold to Iraq in the relevant period, though the US also sold helicopters, which, although designated for civilian use, were immediately deployed by Iraq in its war with Iran.
Now, on to the argument that Iraq was a threat to the United States, lets look at the history of the Gulf war, and how Iraq was crippled.
Widespread infrastructure destruction hurt the Iraqi population. Years after the war electricity production was less than a quarter its pre-war level. The destruction of water treatment facilities caused sewage to flow directly into the Tigris River, from which civilians drew drinking water, resulting in widespread disease.
Economic sanctions were kept in place following the war, pending a weapons inspection regime with which Iraq never fully cooperated. Iraq was later allowed to import certain products under the UN’s Oil for Food program. A 1998 UNICEF report found that the sanctions resulted in an increase in 90,000 deaths per year. Many argue that the sanctions on Iraq and the American military presence in Saudi Arabia contributed to an increasingly negative image of the United States in the Arab world.
A United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on weapons was established, to monitor Iraq’s compliance with restrictions on weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. Iraq accepted some and refused other weapons inspections. The team found some evidence of biological weapons programs at one site and non-compliance at many other sites. These sites were destroyed during the 1996 Desert Fox campaign
So, really Iraq was of absolutely no threat to the United States. And as for Iraq harboring Terrorists, Saddam had no interest in fighting a holy war, he hated religion, he saw it as getting in his way. Bin Laden on the other hand is fueled purely by religion, driven to madness by it. It’d be extremely hard for these two to work together.
It’s been demonstrated time and again that we can win wars, but can we win peace? Supporting tyrants when they work on our terms and to our benefit, then Wage war on them when they don’t and claim we’re doing it for democracy does little to solve the problem of terrorism. The best way to stop terror is to work with other nations to bring peace, and cut the source of funding for these fanatic groups, as well as cut arms shipments to them. Killing them does little to solve the problem because they can recruit at a faster rate then we can kill them. It’s become obvious that the Presidents “Bring em’ on” stratagy, is not going to work. While I agree, what we’re doing for the people of Iraq is good, it may only worsen the situation in the long-term.
Mr. Jack
__________________________________________________________________
References To This Post
1. National Security Archive “The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984″ July 25, 2005,
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
2. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, ” Arms transfers to Iraq” July 25, 2005, Http://web.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html
3. Wikipedia.Org “Afghan Jihad” July 25, 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Afghan_Jihad
4. Wikipedia.Org “200 melenium terror plots” July 26,2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_millennium_attack_plots
5. Wikipedia.org “Al-Qaeda” Aug 19, 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quida
6. The Atlantic Online “Inside Al-Qaeda’s Hard Drive ” 19 august 2005
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200409/cullison
7. Fas.org “al-Qa’ida (The Base)” 19 august 2005.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
(Wikipedia also containes many other links, references, video, Interviews, etc about this topic.)
A Look at Bush’s Nominee
Well, we all know that Sandra Day O’Connor retired, and her absence will leave a gaping black hole in the judicial world. As of today, July 19, 2005, President George W. Bush has selected a nominee for the Supreme Court to fill O’Connor’s place.
Lets take a look at this new judge who will most likely take over in O’Connor’s footsteps.
Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress’ ability to protect the environment. As Acting Solicitor General, Roberts was the government’s lead counsel before the Supreme Court in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, a 1990 case brought by citizens seeking to enforce environmental protections in response to the Bush’s move to open 4,500 acres of public land to mining activity. Plaintiffs asserted that they would be injured by the government’s decision to open the land to mining, citing recreational activities in which they had engaged and planned to engage in the future in that area.
Despite express statutory authorization for such suits, however, Roberts argued that plaintiffs, members of the National Wildlife Federation, had no right to file the claims, because they had not presented sufficient proof of the impact of the government’s actions on them to give them standing. He asserted that the D.C. Circuit, which had granted standing, had “presume[ed] facts that the parties did not, and perhaps cannot - allege on their own.” The Supreme Court adopted Roberts’ argument, tightening standing requirements for federal cases in one of a line of cases making it harder for plaintiffs to challenge governmental actions detrimental to the environment. Roberts voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to “consider alternative grounds” for protecting the toad that are “more consistent with Supreme Court precedent.” (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)
Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General’s office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.
Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration’s effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court’s action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.
Oh, and the next one will be every ones favorite, Abortion.
Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.
OK. that’s all the Info I could find on this guy, I’m sure more will pop up soon, but that’s irrelevant at this point. And yes, to all those reading, I copied and pasted the above information from the websites referenced at the bottom of this post. Now, on to an opinion. This guy is perfect fitting Image of the Bush Administration. He has a terrible record on the environment, hates abortion, and supports religion in schools.
Very strong conservative, who would put the Supreme Court now at a perfect partisan Balance, 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and one swing vote. which will make the future of abortion very interesting.
Mr. Jack
_________________________________________________________________
References For This Post
1. air.fjc.gov “Roberts, John G. Jr. ” 19 July 2005,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4642275.stm
2. independentjudiciary.com, “John Roberts ” 19 july 2005
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=5
3. dkosopedia.com “John G. Roberts Jr” 19 July 2005,
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.
ROVE MUST GO BEFORE 2008
By Buck Evinger
It’s amazing how the mainstream media and the Democratic Party are working together to prepare for the 2008 election. That’s what the revival of this Joe Wilson/Karl Rove story is all about.
Here is what the liberal media is not telling you.
1. Joe Wilson is a Democratic Party operative with an axe to grind.
2. His “verbal” report to the CIA after his return from Niger supported the Bush position that Iraq had attempted to buy nuclear bomb making materials from Niger.
3. His wife was not a covert operative.
4. Karl Rove did not reveal her name to any journalist.
5. Journalist Bob Novak told Karl Rove who Valerie Plame was.
6. No crime has been commited, by anyone.
7. Many of the same newspapers that are calling for Karl Rove to resign have also filed briefs with the courts saying no crime was commited.
So why is this still a story? Because Karl Rove is going to be a key figure in the next presidential election and since he has kicked the Democrats collective asses for about 20 years now, they need to do anything they can to discredit him.
I love the old line that Harry Truman once said on the election trail. When a support shouted out, “Give ‘em hell, Harry!” He responded, “I don’t give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.”
That’s what Rove does to the Democrats and why he is so effective at fighting them in the political arena. That is also why the Democrats must do what they can to demonize him.
I don’t know who Karl Rove will help guide to the White House in 2008, but whoever it is, you can be sure Democrats are worried that another Rove led campaign will keep them from the White House for another 4 years.
A Bit of Humor
Q: What’s the difference between a Democrat on a Harley and a vacuum cleaner?
A: The vacuum has the dirt bag on the inside.
Q: What’s the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead Democrat in the road?
A: Vultures will eat the skunk.
Q: What’s the difference between a Democrat and a catfish?
A: One is an ugly, scum sucking bottom-feeder and the other is a fish.
Q: What happens when you cross a pig with a Democrat?
A: Nothing. There are some things a pig won’t do.
Nationalism/Patriotism
Dear Mr. Jack. I apparently made a mistake with my last post. If you noticed at the beginning it plainly said “Story in a Tampa Newspaper”. I received it in a email and just posted it because it seemed fitting at the time, because of some other post I had read, in other forums. Some true imbeciles.
Mr. Jack I also should rectify my perceived opinions, according to my post. I am not a xenophobic by a long stretch. I have very good friends all over the world, many in several countries of Europe, also in Australia, New Zealand, South America, Mexico, Canada. I earn my living online in Global Communications and I relish in learning of the wide range of cultures and also sharing the cultures of Americans. I also greatly enjoy sharing opinions about world issues with others around the world. For the most part, all respect my opinions as I do theirs.
Another reason I should not have posted that article from the Tampa paper is because of the bias towards religion. Although I am Christian and believe in God, I also respect freedom of religion to all, including those that practice no religion. I respect any man in America, no matter of nationality, color or language they speak, with one HUGE exception. They must abide by the laws of this country as all Americans are required to. If you break the laws of America, and convicted in a court of law, then the piper will be paid, same as if I am convicted.
And lastly Mr.Jack, I do agree that it takes time for a foreigner to adapt to our ways and often our language. As Americans we should embrace those that imigrate to our soil, unless they are here for the purpose of ill-will. To those, may their next breath be their last.
Nationalism/Patriotism
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Story in Tampa Newspaper
———————–
Will we still be the Country of choice and still be America if we continue
to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries that came
to live in America because it is the Country of Choice??????
Think about it
All I have to say is, when will they do something about MY RIGHTS? I
celebrate Christmas, but because it isn’t celebrated by everyone, we can no longer
say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season’s Greetings. It’s not Christmas
vacation, it’s Winter Break Isn’t it amazing how this winter break ALWAYS
occurs over the Christmas holiday? We’ve gone so far the other way, bent over
backwards to not offend anyone, that I am now being offended. But it seems that
no one has a problem with that.
This says it all!
This is an editorial written by an
American citizen, published in a
Tampa
newspaper He did quite a job; didn’t he? Read on, please!
IMMIGRANTS,
NOT AMERICANS,
MUST ADAPT.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we
are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks
on Sept. 11,
we have experienced a surge
in patriotism by the majority
of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had
barely settled when the “politically correct! ” crowd began complaining about
the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.
I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is
seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost
entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things
that those who have recently come to
our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of
America being a
multicultural community
has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As
Americans, we have our own culture, our
own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been
developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of
men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,
Russian, or any other language.
Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
“In God We Trust” is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right
wing, political slogan.. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women,
on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly
documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it
on the walls of our schools. If God
offends you, then I suggest you
consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of
our culture.
If Stars and Stripes offend you, or
you don’t like Uncle Sam, then you
should seriously consider a move
to another part of this planet. We
are happy with our culture and have
no desire to change, and we really
don’t care how you did things where
you came from. This is
OUR COUNTRY,
our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the
right to express his opinion and we
will allow you every opportunity! to do so. But once you are done
complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our
way of life, I highly encourage you
take advantage of one other great American freedom,
THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
It is Time for America to Speak up
If you agree — pass this along;
if you don’t agree — delete it!
AMEN
Don’t Mess With Old Ladies
Don’t Mess With Old Ladies
Don’t Mess With Old Ladies!
An older lady gets pulled over for speeding…
Older Woman: Is there a problem, Officer?
Officer: Ma’am, you were speeding.
Older Woman: Oh, I see.
Officer: Can I see your license please?
Older Woman: I’d give it to you but I don’t have one.
Officer: Don’t have one?
Older Woman: Lost it, 4 years ago for drunk driving.
Officer: I see…Can I see your vehicle registration papers please.
Older Woman: I can’t do that.
Officer: Why not?
Older Woman: I stole this car.
Officer: Stole it?
Older Woman: Yes, and I killed and hacked up the owner.
Officer: You what?
Older Woman: His body parts are in plastic bags in the trunk if you want to see.
The Officer looks at the woman and slowly backs away to his car and calls for back up. Within minutes 5 police cars circle the car. A senior officer slowly approaches the car, clasping his half drawn gun.
Officer 2: Ma’am, could you step out of your vehicle please! The woman steps out of her vehicle.
Older woman: Is there a problem sir?
Officer 2: One of my officers told me that you have stolen this car and murdered the owner.
Older Woman: Murdered the owner?
Officer 2: Yes, could you please open the trunk of your car, please.
The woman opens the trunk, revealing nothing but an empty trunk.
Officer 2: Is this your car, ma’am?
Older Woman: Yes, here are the registration papers. The officer is quite stunned.
Officer 2: One of my officers claims that you do not have a driving license.
The woman digs into her handbag and pulls out a clutch purse and hands it to the officer.
The officer examines the license. He looks quite puzzled.
Officer 2: Thank you ma’am, one of my officers told me you didn’t have a license, that you stole this car, and that you murdered and hacked up the owner.
Older Woman: Bet the liar told you I was speeding, too.
Don’t Mess With Old Ladies!
Don’t Mess With Old Ladies
Don’t Mess With Old Ladies!
An older lady gets pulled over for speeding…
Older Woman: Is there a problem, Officer?
Officer: Ma’am, you were speeding.
Older Woman: Oh, I see.
Officer: Can I see your license please?
Older Woman: I’d give it to you but I don’t have one.
Officer: Don’t have one?
Older Woman: Lost it, 4 years ago for drunk driving.
Officer: I see…Can I see your vehicle registration papers please.
Older Woman: I can’t do that.
Officer: Why not?
Older Woman: I stole this car.
Officer: Stole it?
Older Woman: Yes, and I killed and hacked up the owner.
Officer: You what?
Older Woman: His body parts are in plastic bags in the trunk if you want to see.
The Officer looks at the woman and slowly backs away to his car and calls for back up. Within minutes 5 police cars circle the car. A senior officer slowly approaches the car, clasping his half drawn gun.
Officer 2: Ma’am, could you step out of your vehicle please! The woman steps out of her vehicle.
Older woman: Is there a problem sir?
Officer 2: One of my officers told me that you have stolen this car and murdered the owner.
Older Woman: Murdered the owner?
Officer 2: Yes, could you please open the trunk of your car, please.
The woman opens the trunk, revealing nothing but an empty trunk.
Officer 2: Is this your car, ma’am?
Older Woman: Yes, here are the registration papers. The officer is quite stunned.
Officer 2: One of my officers claims that you do not have a driving license.
The woman digs into her handbag and pulls out a clutch purse and hands it to the officer.
The officer examines the license. He looks quite puzzled.
Officer 2: Thank you ma’am, one of my officers told me you didn’t have a license, that you stole this car, and that you murdered and hacked up the owner.
Older Woman: Bet the liar told you I was speeding, too.
Don’t Mess With Old Ladies!
SOLDIERS DESERVE SUPPORT
First time here and first I would like to thank Buck and all for providing this sound-off page.
I have read with extreme interest the above post from many.I agree with many points of opinions and likewise,laugh at others that talk of things that they really have little knowledge of. First I must say I will not intend to be left/right/dem/rep/ind.It is true that the war/wars that our troops are currently engaged in, breaches new ground,compared to past wars,from WW1,2,Korea,Vietnam,etc.We have that awesome technology by air to put any size bomb we choose(hot-water bottle size to multi ton)onto a targeted area the size of most peoples bedroom.We have tanks(A1A-Abrams)that can do basically the same on the ground from 5-6 miles away. And most importantly we have the best equipped,high tech soldiers on the planet(night vision/gps/etc. We have a awesome array of special forces,that most could not comprehend their abilities(Navy Seals/Green Berets/Snipers/Airborne Rangers/Air Force Combat Control/Marine Corp.Recon/and much more.We can fight any kind of war be it ground/air or sea.It may seem to many that our wheels are spinning in Iraq but fighting insurgents is task difficult task to put it mildly. Many walk among the civilians in sheeps cloth and they are really a wolf 5 minutes later.Unless we surprise them, they do not come out and fight bravely,because they know that they stand 0 chance against our troops.They like to set booby traps with explosives,sniper a soldier from afar.
We will continue to lose soldiers(sadly)but our soldiers are doing what this country ask of them,for what ever reason.Whether we agree or disagree with whether we should or should not be there,bottom line is our men and women in the armed forces (past& present) deserve our unyielding support because they are the ones that give us freedom and liberty.
Live Healthy and Love Life!!
A Look into the Mirror
A look in the mirror for America
by Derrick Z. Jackson
Boston Globe
July 8, 2005
IN HIS INITIAL reaction yesterday to the London transit bombings, President Bush decried ”people killing innocent people.” He said: ”The contrast couldn’t be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty and those who kill — those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.”
This came a week and a half after Bush invoked the innocent in his Fort Bragg, N.C., speech in an attempt to shore up sagging American support for his invasion and occupation of Iraq. Doggedly tying 9/11 to Saddam Hussein even though no tie existed, Bush said of global terrorists: ”There is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.”
Bush also said the enemy will fail. ”The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom,” he said. Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair said the ‘’slaughter of innocent people” will fail to cower the British people, and Canada’s Prime Minister Paul Martin called the attack an ”unspeakable attack on the innocent.”
It was all appropriate in the moment. In a greater context, there is a tragic hollowness. The world, of course, shares the sympathies of Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, who said the London bombings were a ”despicable, cowardly act.” Yet every invoking of the innocents also reminds us of our despicable, cowardly killing of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Or perhaps you forgot about them. That was by design. We have rightfully mourned the loss of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. We have begun mourning the loss of about 40 people in London. We have mourned the loss of 1,751 US soldiers, who, bless them, were following orders of their commander in chief. But to this day, there has been no major acknowledgement, let alone apology, by Bush or Blair for the massive amounts of carnage we created in a war waged over what turned out to be a lie, the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
These innocents never existed, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. ”We don’t do body counts,” said both General Tommy Franks, former Iraqi commander, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt was asked about the images of American soldiers killing innocent civilians on Arab television, Kimmitt said: ”My solution is quite simple: Change the channel. Change the channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest news station. The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda. And that is lies.”
The United States waged its own war of propaganda by refusing to conduct a legitimate, authoritative, honest accounting of the deaths of innocent civilians. As it urged people to change the channel, the Bush administration cut off all channels to finding out what we did to women, men, and children who were shopping, working, or leaving their mosques. In an invasion based on falsehoods, the truth of the civilian carnage might have been too hard for Americans to take, and support for the war might have ended in the first few weeks.
The propaganda of an invasion with invisible innocents surely allowed Bush to seamlessly switch his stated reason from the unique horrors of WMD to liberating an oppressed people. It is a lot easier to tell the world you are their great liberator if you do not have to own up to the thousands of dead people who will never get the chance to vote in that free election. It sounds a little bit like people who say African-Americans should be thankful for slavery because they are no longer in Africa.
Worse, this denial of death, in a war that did not have to happen, is sure to fuel the very terrorism we say we will defeat. The innocents in the so-called war on terror are always ”our” citizens or the citizens of our allies. The only innocent Iraqis are those killed by ”insurgents.” Our soldiers clearly did not intend to kill innocents. But this posturing of America as the great innocent, when everyone knows we kill innocents ourselves, is likely only to make us look more like the devil in the eyes of a suicide bomber.
To end this commentary I wish to put the following as afoot note
if you follow the link I pray to God you are as outraged as I am,
We are idiots! I’m not even going to be “diplomatic”
or “politically correct” about it.
Hell, anything we can give terrorists, to make their job easier,
you can bet we wlll!!!!!
Don’t worry, though….I’m sure the government will also take some
more of our Constitutional rights, to make up for it.
http://www.visualit.co.uk/Tube2-london.htm
Before you judge my comments go follow the link
do we as Americans think we are the only people who feel pain?
Have any of you taken the time to look at the images of the people in
London after the bombings? The same broken faces as in America
after 9/11 the same photos with the words “have you seen this person?”
The same flowers all over the street, the same pain, Have we as Americans
become so hardened that we think only us have the right to feel pain.
I shall never forget the words one person wrote on this site about me
after I published the Reply from Europe. When I wrote I had a friend
In the United Kingdom tThis person wrote that I was a traitor to my country.
I say, that person is a trator to God, to the entire Earth.
I have become sick of the events of the world
My heart cries for all the pain we as a country have caused
all around the world
I am not a Moderate Wordy Wacko Drama Queen,
Sorry, I am a human with a heart with feelings and with a soul
I do not any more understand this world, it has gone mad.
I care not what any of you think about me.
It is only myself that must live with me, and I can look into
my eyes and know I am clean of all of the evil
Suzanne
A citizen of the world
A child of God
who visited Laugh at Liberals but only For a Reason and For a Season
but not For a Lifetime
