I say let him speak. Not because I support some wanna be dictator's hateful rhetoric. Ahmadinejad is a complete, and total idiot. He should be allowed to speak because it gives American's the opportunity to protest. He gets to see what the people of Iran are unable to do. Watching the news over the past few days, it appears that there are quite a number of groups organizing to protest whatever he has to say. I appreciate those organization having the opportunity to speak out against his rhetoric. He cannot possibly say anything that would be shocking. Prior to his trip to the U.S. he was seen on TV in an old soviet style May Day parade, with military vehicles driving by with "Death to Israel!" and "Death to USA!" written on them.
A good article on Ahmadinejad is here.
Here is another one insinuating that he was involved in the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.
It's pretty obvious that Ahmadinejad is a nut. Let him speak, it gives a medium for his opposition and we are a free society able to offer different views and options. With that in mind, I have to question why Columbia invites Ahmadinejad to speak at their university, promoting different views on things, where the university has shown a severe lack of support for the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC).
"As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969. In 2003, a majority of polled Columbia students supported reinstating ROTC on campus. But in 2005, when the Columbia faculty senate debated the issue, President Bollinger joined the opponents in defeating the effort to invite ROTC back on campus." Source
Also, "Prior to the late 1960s, Columbia’s current anti-US military atmosphere seems to have been almost nonexistent. Indeed, as early as 1916 an ROTC program was instituted on campus, where it matured and grew during the two World Wars, the Cold War, the Korean War, and even part of the Vietnam War era. Producing some of the finest naval officers ever to serve our country, at one point Columbia was actually churning out more Navy ensigns per year than even the US Naval Academy. In 1968, however, the university’s administration expelled all ROTC programs from campus in order to appease the sometimes-violent student protesters who opposed the Vietnam War – one of whom actually decimated Columbia’s ROTC offices with a Molotov cocktail.
The university’s ban on ROTC remained in place until a 1980 decision to not only allow its students to participate in the ROTC program at nearby Fordham University, but also to have a record of ROTC classes displayed on their Columbia transcripts. In 1990 however, this policy came to an end. While Columbia students could still take part in ROTC programs on neighboring college campuses, their transcripts no longer reflected that participation. To this day, ROTC classes are not considered part of the regular curriculum of studies. When the military recently forced Columbia to allow on-campus military recruiting (under the banner of the Solomon Amendment, which allows for the denial of federal funding to colleges that prohibit or prevent ROTC or military recruitment), the university’s president openly urged students not to interview – because of what he called the military’s discrimination against homosexuals." Source
It just seems that Columbia supports anti-American rhetoric, while at the same time doesn't support the military. I have heard talk of the threatening to deny Columbia federal funding. I think that is a fantastic idea. The old 60's radicals who could not get a job other than hidden on a college campus really do not need federal money. If they are so anti-military, I say deny them their public funding. They don't need it.
9/24/2007
9/20/2007
Moveon.org, I used to like you but...
Follow the basic notion that liberalism is a disease, moveon.org’s case has gotten so sickening it’s at the point of being utterly delusional and bat shit crazy. The best way to describe my relationship with moveon.org is like a girlfriend you have. At first she is cool, but after awhile the preliminary niceties are over and one night she is convinced you are cheating on her and gives you a ration of hell for going out with the boys...but she thinks you are going to the other woman's house. For the record I am married, and have never cheated on anyone.
My turning point with moveon.org was with the ad they posted. “It's General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” This link touts their proud message https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html.
Now Bush had a speech the other day...or another episode of lies, BS, and horse s**t. Regardless of what Iraq lies he is touting, he did condemn moveon.org because of what they said about General Petraeus and no democrat has said anything about it. At the core, that is just wrong. General Petraeus is amazing. Bush is not! But General Petraeus is the sh*t. Now the official stance from moveon.org is this:
Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, reacted quickly to Bush's comments.
"What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/20/bush.petraeus/index.html
Slam Bush. Fine. I would expect a liberal response to be that vehement and foul...from an official. Libs are great at 2 things. Crying and yelling. I am saying that because all they do is character assassinate and whine from emotion before logic or fact. Don't get me wrong, what they said about Bush is right on, but what pisses me off is their official response is still evident of disdain towards General Petraeus. Which their official statement follows the logical fallacy of missing the point, which is quite sad when coming from an organization that tries to make itself look important.
So you have the moveon.org printing an ad equating a career military general as a traitor. The president says moveon.org sucks, and their official response bashes the president, but fails to apologize for their slander against of General Petraeus. I'd like to show the background behind the two.
Eli Pariser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Pariser
General Petraeus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Petraeus
Eli Pariser is the person picked out of the lot to represent moveon.org. This is the best of their best. It's Eli Pariser's job stick to their convictions. Their lack of acknowledgment about slamming General Petraeus shows their weakness. A military General who served with distinction (under
It's tough, around 2004 I bought a movie called “Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War”. It was a great documentary! Ex
Now in 2007 you have this organization prints this ad to evoke a reaction based on emotion by slandering and incredible man. They strike right at the military. An organization they only wish they had 1/10 of the integrity and honor that is associated with them. Moveon.org has only showed that they are a bunch of leftist liberal bastards who don't give a crap about making any sense when it comes to their arguments. For that, they fail. As an alternative, I watched a documentary called “Rush to War” that was very good. There was no moveon.org association with it.
In the scheme of things we still have a bunch of democrats offering "change" in 2008, but they cannot condemn the fringe aspects that their own party. Meaning that they cannot squelch their leftist aspects. They do a wonderful job and slamming the military. Just read quotes slamming them from Dick Durbin, Pelosi, John Murtha, etc. by searching the web for details. Where I will call them useless liberal cry babies, I'll still respect them for their general stance. But when they slam the military, that crosses the line. Slam the commander in chief, do not slam those who's job it is to follow orders. It's the act of a cowardice what the libs do.
11/09/2006
Libs and the 2006 mid-term elections
Bush is nowhere near being a conservative. He ran being associated with that guise, but his voting record has proven that he has made Government ever bigger while he has been in office. Take for example the Dept. of Homeland Security. It’s an additional layer of bureaucracy on an already ineffective security design that has been ruined in the 90s and not improved upon since 9/11. The greatest failure of our intelligence gathering was due to
3/21/2006
I heart liberals...
Man Overboard
By Ruth Marcus
“I have a new theory about what's behind everything that's wrong with the Bush administration: manliness.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001416_pf.html
This is a case example of why liberals are morons. In this piece a Washington Post (staffed by people who masturbate to Lenin or Marx books before they write their Op Ed pieces) reporter analyzes a conservative Harvard professor’s book in which it’s described as: “Mansfield's thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as "confidence in the face of risk," is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute.”
As much as I appreciate the women’s studies stuff that was part of my curriculum in school, I have to state some blatantly obvious facts that this idiot reporter fails to factor in that would at least seem important-those where the basis are from common sense compared to some gender studies filter.
First off, think about a conservative professor at Harvard of all places! That has got to be some sort of affirmative action thing for political parties, but he is no Ward Churchill, so he is probably fine. Now “Man Overboard” is nice if I was some professor stuck in the world of academia where I can hide from the real world. I live and work in the real world. The only consistent thing that I can derive truth from is common sense. Any sort of theory is just that. It’s not absolute. Common sense, by it’s nature, proves to be more consistent. Now here are some things that are more realistic and point out why liberals are morons.
“The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield's vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined.” Republicans are not any sort of daddy party. The administration is full of neo-con ***holes who want to push the agenda that has been laid out years ago in The Project for the New American Century publications. The current administration is in no way any sort of fatherly role model. Maybe some daddy who fathers many kids and skips town to avoid child care payments. The Republican Party, save a few, has not showed one ounce of responsibility since the invasion of Iraq.
As for Democrats being called a mommy party? That is giving them too much credit. I would call them the party of indecisive, decentralized Nancy boys. All the democrats do is offer complaints with no solution, and when they are asked to stand up they are total p*ssies. For example, “Oh, I cannot vote to censure the President for violating the Constitution! It’s an election year!” Democrats are utterly useless. They are supposed to provide opposition, but the only thing we see them do is buckle, bitch, and cower. I have way too much respect for mommies to compare any democrat to one.
“Vice President Cheney sounded like a warrior claiming tribute after victory in battle: "We won the midterms. This is our due," Cheney reportedly said.” Sorry, Cheney is not a warrior. That statement is an insult to warriors, those men AND WOMEN serving in our armed forces. The Whitehouse website states that Cheney was a “distinguished career as a businessman and public servant.” He never did any military service, fine…but he is not a warrior either. That is an insult to those men AND WOMEN who defend our country who are the warriors. Cheney is the worst kind of piece of cr*p there is out there. He, and the rest of the chicken hawks in their little committees (such as The Project for the New American Century) think they are warriors, and they know what is best for America. Other sovereign nations, our Constitution, and the American people be damned. I wanted to see justice for 9/11. In March of 2003, with the focus on Iraq, it was a vast change to the focus that united many Americans. We wanted justice and revenge; we gave the government more power to do the right thing. They were irresponsible and screwed us bad. All of these neo-cons are not warriors. They might think they are when they pop their viagra, but they are not warriors. Shooting that poor guy hunting still does not make Cheney are warrior. If I play a soldier in a video game, I know that I am still not a warrior.
“Mansfieldian manliness is present as well in Bush's confident -- overconfident -- response to Hurricane Katrina (insert obligatory "Brownie" quote here). And the administration's claim of almost unfettered executive power is the ultimate in manliness: how manly to conclude that Congress gave the go-ahead to ignore a law without it ever saying so; how even manlier to argue that your inherent authority as commander in chief would permit you to brush aside those bothersome congressional gnats if they tried to stop eavesdropping without a warrant.”
I would never call manliness a reason as to why the Katrina was handled so abysmally or an excuse to for the executive branch to violate the Fourth Amendment of the constitution. I would call it the result of electing a moron as President who fails to handle his job at many different levels. Both home and abroad, the oval office is completely screwing up America. The funny thing is, these people are supposed to be conservatives, but reality shows they practice the total opposite of what the present themselves to be. Manliness not, ignorant power hungry dangerous people, yes.
Manliness, to me, is conviction, integrity, and honorable. The people mentioned in Ruth Marcus’s article are not manly in any way. Not to omit women, it is more important to have conviction, integrity, and honor as a public servant. So manliness as a reason for Bush’s actions is the result of a useless gender specific filter being put on politics. I’d even call Ruth Marcus gender biased, because she is stuck in the rut of seeing things as gender driven, where by its nature you omit women who show conviction, integrity, and honor. Doing that follows the horrible generalizations that liberal elitist idiots do unto themselves. They place labels on things which only hurt themselves.
Liberals are morons, plain and simple.
By Ruth Marcus
“I have a new theory about what's behind everything that's wrong with the Bush administration: manliness.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001416_pf.html
This is a case example of why liberals are morons. In this piece a Washington Post (staffed by people who masturbate to Lenin or Marx books before they write their Op Ed pieces) reporter analyzes a conservative Harvard professor’s book in which it’s described as: “Mansfield's thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as "confidence in the face of risk," is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute.”
As much as I appreciate the women’s studies stuff that was part of my curriculum in school, I have to state some blatantly obvious facts that this idiot reporter fails to factor in that would at least seem important-those where the basis are from common sense compared to some gender studies filter.
First off, think about a conservative professor at Harvard of all places! That has got to be some sort of affirmative action thing for political parties, but he is no Ward Churchill, so he is probably fine. Now “Man Overboard” is nice if I was some professor stuck in the world of academia where I can hide from the real world. I live and work in the real world. The only consistent thing that I can derive truth from is common sense. Any sort of theory is just that. It’s not absolute. Common sense, by it’s nature, proves to be more consistent. Now here are some things that are more realistic and point out why liberals are morons.
“The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield's vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined.” Republicans are not any sort of daddy party. The administration is full of neo-con ***holes who want to push the agenda that has been laid out years ago in The Project for the New American Century publications. The current administration is in no way any sort of fatherly role model. Maybe some daddy who fathers many kids and skips town to avoid child care payments. The Republican Party, save a few, has not showed one ounce of responsibility since the invasion of Iraq.
As for Democrats being called a mommy party? That is giving them too much credit. I would call them the party of indecisive, decentralized Nancy boys. All the democrats do is offer complaints with no solution, and when they are asked to stand up they are total p*ssies. For example, “Oh, I cannot vote to censure the President for violating the Constitution! It’s an election year!” Democrats are utterly useless. They are supposed to provide opposition, but the only thing we see them do is buckle, bitch, and cower. I have way too much respect for mommies to compare any democrat to one.
“Vice President Cheney sounded like a warrior claiming tribute after victory in battle: "We won the midterms. This is our due," Cheney reportedly said.” Sorry, Cheney is not a warrior. That statement is an insult to warriors, those men AND WOMEN serving in our armed forces. The Whitehouse website states that Cheney was a “distinguished career as a businessman and public servant.” He never did any military service, fine…but he is not a warrior either. That is an insult to those men AND WOMEN who defend our country who are the warriors. Cheney is the worst kind of piece of cr*p there is out there. He, and the rest of the chicken hawks in their little committees (such as The Project for the New American Century) think they are warriors, and they know what is best for America. Other sovereign nations, our Constitution, and the American people be damned. I wanted to see justice for 9/11. In March of 2003, with the focus on Iraq, it was a vast change to the focus that united many Americans. We wanted justice and revenge; we gave the government more power to do the right thing. They were irresponsible and screwed us bad. All of these neo-cons are not warriors. They might think they are when they pop their viagra, but they are not warriors. Shooting that poor guy hunting still does not make Cheney are warrior. If I play a soldier in a video game, I know that I am still not a warrior.
“Mansfieldian manliness is present as well in Bush's confident -- overconfident -- response to Hurricane Katrina (insert obligatory "Brownie" quote here). And the administration's claim of almost unfettered executive power is the ultimate in manliness: how manly to conclude that Congress gave the go-ahead to ignore a law without it ever saying so; how even manlier to argue that your inherent authority as commander in chief would permit you to brush aside those bothersome congressional gnats if they tried to stop eavesdropping without a warrant.”
I would never call manliness a reason as to why the Katrina was handled so abysmally or an excuse to for the executive branch to violate the Fourth Amendment of the constitution. I would call it the result of electing a moron as President who fails to handle his job at many different levels. Both home and abroad, the oval office is completely screwing up America. The funny thing is, these people are supposed to be conservatives, but reality shows they practice the total opposite of what the present themselves to be. Manliness not, ignorant power hungry dangerous people, yes.
Manliness, to me, is conviction, integrity, and honorable. The people mentioned in Ruth Marcus’s article are not manly in any way. Not to omit women, it is more important to have conviction, integrity, and honor as a public servant. So manliness as a reason for Bush’s actions is the result of a useless gender specific filter being put on politics. I’d even call Ruth Marcus gender biased, because she is stuck in the rut of seeing things as gender driven, where by its nature you omit women who show conviction, integrity, and honor. Doing that follows the horrible generalizations that liberal elitist idiots do unto themselves. They place labels on things which only hurt themselves.
Liberals are morons, plain and simple.
9/01/2005
Horrible event, bad media angle
The letter says it all. The other two articles will be linked at the bottom, they were really good...
Re: Lost in the Flood
Why no mention of race or class in TV's Katrina coverage?
By Jack Shafer
http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/nav/tap2/
Dear Mr. Shafer,
Please stop acting like a typical liberal egghead and stop focusing on a bogus race/class issue with this hurricane disaster. Along with reading about the damage done, personal stories, and looking into possible charitable contributions, I come across your story. I was rather surprised to see the same liberal ranting about race and class. I'd like to think that it would be Americans supporting other Americans. Who gives a crap about the ethnic background of the people covering the news. Your story is truly a piece of trash. I'd love to see you fired and give another news person the opportunity to take your place.
Since you are part of the "media," please do something useful and mention ways to help people. I found the Josh Levin and Ari Kelman quite good, then I see your filth and realize that liberalism is truly a disease. Everything does NOT have to do with race and class. The problem with you liberals is that you are so down on everything you cannot see any good in anything. Take off your horse blinders, and use the talents as a journalist to do something useful for once. You are missing the point. For example, an English class that focuses more on the ethnicity of famous authors, rather than the quality of the works actually written by those authors, are missing the point.
Please do something useful, I hope that there is some human being left in you. Unfortunately, your liberal views have probably eradicated your sense of decency and common sense.
Regards,
J
VA
Good stories:
Mourning My New Orleans
Our family has lived there for a century. Where will we go now?
By Josh Levin
http://www.slate.com/id/2125352/nav/tap2/
City of Nature
New Orleans' blessing; New Orleans' curse.
By Ari Kelman
http://www.slate.com/id/2125346/nav/tap2/
Re: Lost in the Flood
Why no mention of race or class in TV's Katrina coverage?
By Jack Shafer
http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/nav/tap2/
Dear Mr. Shafer,
Please stop acting like a typical liberal egghead and stop focusing on a bogus race/class issue with this hurricane disaster. Along with reading about the damage done, personal stories, and looking into possible charitable contributions, I come across your story. I was rather surprised to see the same liberal ranting about race and class. I'd like to think that it would be Americans supporting other Americans. Who gives a crap about the ethnic background of the people covering the news. Your story is truly a piece of trash. I'd love to see you fired and give another news person the opportunity to take your place.
Since you are part of the "media," please do something useful and mention ways to help people. I found the Josh Levin and Ari Kelman quite good, then I see your filth and realize that liberalism is truly a disease. Everything does NOT have to do with race and class. The problem with you liberals is that you are so down on everything you cannot see any good in anything. Take off your horse blinders, and use the talents as a journalist to do something useful for once. You are missing the point. For example, an English class that focuses more on the ethnicity of famous authors, rather than the quality of the works actually written by those authors, are missing the point.
Please do something useful, I hope that there is some human being left in you. Unfortunately, your liberal views have probably eradicated your sense of decency and common sense.
Regards,
J
VA
Good stories:
Mourning My New Orleans
Our family has lived there for a century. Where will we go now?
By Josh Levin
http://www.slate.com/id/2125352/nav/tap2/
City of Nature
New Orleans' blessing; New Orleans' curse.
By Ari Kelman
http://www.slate.com/id/2125346/nav/tap2/
8/05/2005
This is amazing...
A View Of Iraq From A Soldier
Speech to the "Out of Iraq" Congressional Caucus on July 19, 2005
By John Bruhns
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9670.htm
08/03/05 "ICH" -- -- I am a concerned veteran of the Iraq War. I am not an expert on the vast and wide range of issues throughout the political spectrum, but I can offer some first hand experience of the war in Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. My view of the situation in Iraq will differ from what the American People are being told by the Bush Administration. The purpose of this message is to voice my concern that we were misled into war and continue to be misled about the situation! in Iraq every day. My opinions on this matter come from what I witnessed in Iraq personally.
George Bush and his political advisors have been successful in presenting a false image to the American people that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent" threat to the security of the United States. We were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed a massive WMD program, and some members of the Bush Administration even hinted that Saddam may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.
We now know most of the information given to us by the current Administration concerning Iraq, if not all the information, was false. This was information given to the American people to justify a war. The information about weapons of mass destruction and a link to Osama Bin Laden scared the American people into supporting the war in Iraq. They presented an atmosphere of intimidation that suggested if we did not act immediately there was the possibility of another ! attack. Bush said himself that we do not want the proof or the smoking gun to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where the weapons are."
After 9/11, comments like this proved to be a successful scare tactic to use on the American People to rally support for the invasion. Members of the Bush Administration created an image of "wine and roses" in terms of the aftermath of the war. Vice-President Dick Cheney said American troops would be greeted as "liberators." And there was a false perception created that we would go into Iraq and implement a democratic government and it would be over more sooner than later. The White House also expressed confidence that the alleged WMD program would be found once we invaded.
I participated in the invasion, stayed in Iraq for a year afterward, and what I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush and his Administration stated to the American People.
The invasion was very confusing, and so was the period of time I spent in Iraq afterward. At first it did seem as if some of the Iraqi people were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was only for a short period of time. Shortly after Saddam's regime fell, the Shiite Muslims in Iraq conducted a pilgrimage to Karbala, a pilgrimage prohibited by Saddam while he was in power. As I witnessed the ! Shiite pilgrimage, which was a new freedom that we provided to them, they used the pilgrimage to protest our presence in their country. I watched as they beat themselves over the head with sticks until they bled, and screamed at us in anger to leave their country. Some even carried signs that stated, "No Saddam, No America." These were people that Saddam oppressed; they were his enemies. To me, it seemed they hated us more than him.
At that moment I knew it was going to be a very long deployment. I realized that I was not being greeted as a liberator. I became overwhelmed with fear because I felt I never would be viewed that way by the Iraqi people. As a soldier this concerned me. Because if they did not view me as a liberator, then what did they view me as? I felt that they viewed me as foreign occupier of their land. That led me to believe very early on that I was going to have a fight on my hands.
During my year in Iraq I had many altercations with the so-called "insurgency." I found the insurgency I saw to be quite different from the insurgency described to the American people by the Bush Administration, the media, and other supporters of the war. There is no doubt in my mind there are foreigners from other surrounding countries in Iraq. Anyone in the Middle East who hates America now has the opportunity to kill Americans because there are roughly 140,000 US troops in Iraq. But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was primarily the people of Iraq who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country.
I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definitely not members of Al Qaeda, left over Baath Party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilian who wanted us out of their country.
On October 31st, 2003, the people of Abu Ghraib organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compound in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, RPGs and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women, and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protesters were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. My battalion fought back with everything we had and eventually shut down the uprising.
So while President Bush speaks of freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people, I find his statements are not credible after witnessing events such as these. During the violence that day I felt so much fear throughout my entire body. I remember going home that night and praying to God, thanking him that I was still alive. A few months earlier President Bush made the statement, "Bring it on" when referring to the attacks on Americans by the insurgency. To me, that felt like a personal invitation to the insurgents to attack me and my friends who desperately wanted to make it home alive.
I did my job well in Iraq. During the deployment, my superiors promoted me to the rank of sergeant. I was made a rifle team leader and was put in charge of other soldiers when we carried out missions.
My time as a Team Leader in Iraq was temporarily interrupted when I was sent to the "Green Zone" in Baghdad to train the Iraqi army. I was more than happy to do it because we were being told that in order for us to get out of Iraq completely the Iraqi military would have to be able to take over all security operations. The training of the Iraqi Army became a huge concern of mine. During the time I trained! them, their basic training was only one week long. We showed them some basic drill and ceremony such as marching and saluting. When it came time for weapons training, we gave each Iraqi recruit an AK-47 and just let them shoot it. They did not even have to qualify by hitting a target. All they had to do was pull the trigger. I was instructed by my superiors to stand directly behind them with caution while they were shooting just in case they tried to turn the weapon on us so we could stop them.
Once they graduated from basic training, the Iraqi soldiers in a way became part of our battalion and we would take them on missions with us. But we never let them know where we were going, because we were afraid some of them might tip off the insurgency that we were coming and we would walk directly into an ambush. When they would get into formation prior to the missions we made them a part of, they would cover their faces so the people of their communities did not identify them as being affiliated with the American troops.
Not that long ago President Bush made a statement at Fort Bragg when he addressed the nation about the war in Iraq. He said we would "stand down" when the Iraqi military is ready to "stand up." My experience with the new Iraqi military tells me we won't be coming home for a long time if that's the case.
I left Iraq on February 27, 2004 and I acknowledge a lot may have changed since then, but I find it hard to believe the Iraqi people are any happier now than they were when was I was there. I remember the day I left there were hundreds of Iraqis in the streets outside the compound that I lived in. They watched as we moved out to the Baghdad Airport to finally go home. The Iraqis cheered, clapped, and shouted with joy as we were le! aving. As a soldier, that hurt me inside because I thought I was supposed to be fighting for their freedom. I saw many people die for that cause, but that is not how the Iraqi people looked at it. They viewed me as a foreign occupier and many of the people of Iraq may have even preferred Saddam to the American soldiers. I feel this way because of the consistent attacks on me and my fellow soldiers by the Iraqi people, who felt they were fighting for their homeland. To us the mission turned into a quest for survival.
I wish I could provide an answer to this mess. I wish I knew of a realistic way to get our troops home. But we are very limited in our options in my opinion. If we pull out immediately, it's likely the Iraqi security forces will not be able to provide stability on their own. In that event, the new Iraqi government could possibly be overthrown. The other option would be to reduce our troop numbers and have a gradual pullout. That is very risky because it seems that even with the current number of troops the violence still continues. With a significant troop reduction, there is a strong possibility the violence and attacks on US and coalition forces could escalate and get even worse. In my opinion, that is more of a certainty.
And then there is the option that President Bush brings to the table which is to "Stay the Course." That means more years of bloodshed and a lot more lives to be lost. Also, it will aggravate the growing opposition to the US presence in Iraq throughout the region and that could very well recruit more extremists to join terror organizations that will infiltrate into Iraq and kill more US troops.
So it does not seem to me we have a realistic solution, and that frightens me. It has become very obvious that we have a serious dilemma that needs to be resolved as soon as possible to end the ongoing violence in Iraq. But how do we end it is the question?
We must always support the troops. If there were a situation in which the United States is attacked again by a legitimate enemy, they are the people who are going to risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. In my opinion, the best way to support them now is to bring them home with the honor and respect they deserve.
In closing, I ask that we never forget why this war started. The Bush Administration cried weapons of mass destruction and a link to Al Queda. We know that this is false and the Bush administration concedes it as well. As a soldier who fought in that war, I feel misled. I feel that I was sent off to fight for a cause that never existed. When I joined the military I did so to defend the United States of America, not to be sent off to a part of the world to fight people who never attacked me or my country. Many have died as a result of this. The people who started this war need to start being honest with t! he American people and take responsibility for their actions. More than anything, they need to stop saying everything is rosy and create a solution to this problem they created.
Thank you for hearing me out. God Bless our great nation, the United States of America.
John Bruhns
Speech to the "Out of Iraq" Congressional Caucus on July 19, 2005
By John Bruhns
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9670.htm
08/03/05 "ICH" -- -- I am a concerned veteran of the Iraq War. I am not an expert on the vast and wide range of issues throughout the political spectrum, but I can offer some first hand experience of the war in Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. My view of the situation in Iraq will differ from what the American People are being told by the Bush Administration. The purpose of this message is to voice my concern that we were misled into war and continue to be misled about the situation! in Iraq every day. My opinions on this matter come from what I witnessed in Iraq personally.
George Bush and his political advisors have been successful in presenting a false image to the American people that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent" threat to the security of the United States. We were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed a massive WMD program, and some members of the Bush Administration even hinted that Saddam may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.
We now know most of the information given to us by the current Administration concerning Iraq, if not all the information, was false. This was information given to the American people to justify a war. The information about weapons of mass destruction and a link to Osama Bin Laden scared the American people into supporting the war in Iraq. They presented an atmosphere of intimidation that suggested if we did not act immediately there was the possibility of another ! attack. Bush said himself that we do not want the proof or the smoking gun to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where the weapons are."
After 9/11, comments like this proved to be a successful scare tactic to use on the American People to rally support for the invasion. Members of the Bush Administration created an image of "wine and roses" in terms of the aftermath of the war. Vice-President Dick Cheney said American troops would be greeted as "liberators." And there was a false perception created that we would go into Iraq and implement a democratic government and it would be over more sooner than later. The White House also expressed confidence that the alleged WMD program would be found once we invaded.
I participated in the invasion, stayed in Iraq for a year afterward, and what I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush and his Administration stated to the American People.
The invasion was very confusing, and so was the period of time I spent in Iraq afterward. At first it did seem as if some of the Iraqi people were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was only for a short period of time. Shortly after Saddam's regime fell, the Shiite Muslims in Iraq conducted a pilgrimage to Karbala, a pilgrimage prohibited by Saddam while he was in power. As I witnessed the ! Shiite pilgrimage, which was a new freedom that we provided to them, they used the pilgrimage to protest our presence in their country. I watched as they beat themselves over the head with sticks until they bled, and screamed at us in anger to leave their country. Some even carried signs that stated, "No Saddam, No America." These were people that Saddam oppressed; they were his enemies. To me, it seemed they hated us more than him.
At that moment I knew it was going to be a very long deployment. I realized that I was not being greeted as a liberator. I became overwhelmed with fear because I felt I never would be viewed that way by the Iraqi people. As a soldier this concerned me. Because if they did not view me as a liberator, then what did they view me as? I felt that they viewed me as foreign occupier of their land. That led me to believe very early on that I was going to have a fight on my hands.
During my year in Iraq I had many altercations with the so-called "insurgency." I found the insurgency I saw to be quite different from the insurgency described to the American people by the Bush Administration, the media, and other supporters of the war. There is no doubt in my mind there are foreigners from other surrounding countries in Iraq. Anyone in the Middle East who hates America now has the opportunity to kill Americans because there are roughly 140,000 US troops in Iraq. But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was primarily the people of Iraq who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country.
I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definitely not members of Al Qaeda, left over Baath Party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilian who wanted us out of their country.
On October 31st, 2003, the people of Abu Ghraib organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compound in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, RPGs and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women, and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protesters were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. My battalion fought back with everything we had and eventually shut down the uprising.
So while President Bush speaks of freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people, I find his statements are not credible after witnessing events such as these. During the violence that day I felt so much fear throughout my entire body. I remember going home that night and praying to God, thanking him that I was still alive. A few months earlier President Bush made the statement, "Bring it on" when referring to the attacks on Americans by the insurgency. To me, that felt like a personal invitation to the insurgents to attack me and my friends who desperately wanted to make it home alive.
I did my job well in Iraq. During the deployment, my superiors promoted me to the rank of sergeant. I was made a rifle team leader and was put in charge of other soldiers when we carried out missions.
My time as a Team Leader in Iraq was temporarily interrupted when I was sent to the "Green Zone" in Baghdad to train the Iraqi army. I was more than happy to do it because we were being told that in order for us to get out of Iraq completely the Iraqi military would have to be able to take over all security operations. The training of the Iraqi Army became a huge concern of mine. During the time I trained! them, their basic training was only one week long. We showed them some basic drill and ceremony such as marching and saluting. When it came time for weapons training, we gave each Iraqi recruit an AK-47 and just let them shoot it. They did not even have to qualify by hitting a target. All they had to do was pull the trigger. I was instructed by my superiors to stand directly behind them with caution while they were shooting just in case they tried to turn the weapon on us so we could stop them.
Once they graduated from basic training, the Iraqi soldiers in a way became part of our battalion and we would take them on missions with us. But we never let them know where we were going, because we were afraid some of them might tip off the insurgency that we were coming and we would walk directly into an ambush. When they would get into formation prior to the missions we made them a part of, they would cover their faces so the people of their communities did not identify them as being affiliated with the American troops.
Not that long ago President Bush made a statement at Fort Bragg when he addressed the nation about the war in Iraq. He said we would "stand down" when the Iraqi military is ready to "stand up." My experience with the new Iraqi military tells me we won't be coming home for a long time if that's the case.
I left Iraq on February 27, 2004 and I acknowledge a lot may have changed since then, but I find it hard to believe the Iraqi people are any happier now than they were when was I was there. I remember the day I left there were hundreds of Iraqis in the streets outside the compound that I lived in. They watched as we moved out to the Baghdad Airport to finally go home. The Iraqis cheered, clapped, and shouted with joy as we were le! aving. As a soldier, that hurt me inside because I thought I was supposed to be fighting for their freedom. I saw many people die for that cause, but that is not how the Iraqi people looked at it. They viewed me as a foreign occupier and many of the people of Iraq may have even preferred Saddam to the American soldiers. I feel this way because of the consistent attacks on me and my fellow soldiers by the Iraqi people, who felt they were fighting for their homeland. To us the mission turned into a quest for survival.
I wish I could provide an answer to this mess. I wish I knew of a realistic way to get our troops home. But we are very limited in our options in my opinion. If we pull out immediately, it's likely the Iraqi security forces will not be able to provide stability on their own. In that event, the new Iraqi government could possibly be overthrown. The other option would be to reduce our troop numbers and have a gradual pullout. That is very risky because it seems that even with the current number of troops the violence still continues. With a significant troop reduction, there is a strong possibility the violence and attacks on US and coalition forces could escalate and get even worse. In my opinion, that is more of a certainty.
And then there is the option that President Bush brings to the table which is to "Stay the Course." That means more years of bloodshed and a lot more lives to be lost. Also, it will aggravate the growing opposition to the US presence in Iraq throughout the region and that could very well recruit more extremists to join terror organizations that will infiltrate into Iraq and kill more US troops.
So it does not seem to me we have a realistic solution, and that frightens me. It has become very obvious that we have a serious dilemma that needs to be resolved as soon as possible to end the ongoing violence in Iraq. But how do we end it is the question?
We must always support the troops. If there were a situation in which the United States is attacked again by a legitimate enemy, they are the people who are going to risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. In my opinion, the best way to support them now is to bring them home with the honor and respect they deserve.
In closing, I ask that we never forget why this war started. The Bush Administration cried weapons of mass destruction and a link to Al Queda. We know that this is false and the Bush administration concedes it as well. As a soldier who fought in that war, I feel misled. I feel that I was sent off to fight for a cause that never existed. When I joined the military I did so to defend the United States of America, not to be sent off to a part of the world to fight people who never attacked me or my country. Many have died as a result of this. The people who started this war need to start being honest with t! he American people and take responsibility for their actions. More than anything, they need to stop saying everything is rosy and create a solution to this problem they created.
Thank you for hearing me out. God Bless our great nation, the United States of America.
John Bruhns
8/03/2005
John Bolton, and why he is the man for the job
Here are a few quotes about the guy. No his record is NOT squeaky clean. Some of his policies and associations actually suck. But as the man for this particular job, I see no better fit.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 1997, Bolton articulated his dismissive view of international treaties. "Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes," he wrote, "In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations." In other words, international treaties signed by the United States should not be considered as a body of law that the United States should respect in its international engagement but rather just political considerations that can be ignored at will.
In early 2001 Bolton observed: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States ."
In 1998, when he was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton described the ICC as "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous."8 Early in the first year of the Bush administration, Bolton prevailed upon Secretary of State Colin Powell to give him the honor of renouncing the Clinton administration's signature of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton called the moment he signed the letter abrogating Clinton 's approval of the ICC "the happiest moment in my government service."
Bolton has long dismissed the legitimacy of the United Nations--a multilateral organization that the United States played a key role in creating--not as a pet organization but as a international organization dedicated to "collective security." A longtime activist with the Federalist Society, Bolton has used this right-wing association of lawyers, judges, and legal experts as a forum to lash out against the United Nations. In a 1994 speech at the liberal World Federalist Association, Bolton declared that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." To underscore his point, Bolton said. "If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
Bolton is a militarist who embraces the "peace through strength" philosophy of international affairs. Praising Bolton in a speech he delivered on January 1, 2001 at the American Enterprise Institute, Sen. Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon."
In mid-2001 Bolton announced at the UN Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons that Washington opposed any initiative to regulate trade in small arms or in non-military rifles--or any effort that would "abrogate the constitutional right to bear arms." Accompanying Bolton to the conference were members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). "It is precisely those weapons that Bolton would exclude from the purview of this conference that are actually killing people and endangering communities around the world," said Tamar Gabelnick, director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists. She charged that the U.S. delegation, led by Arms Control Secretary Bolton, single-handedly destroyed any possibility of consensus around the Small Arms Action Plan.17
Bolton in February 2003 said that once regime change plans in Iraq were completed, "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria , Iran , and North Korea afterwards."21
Bolton is not only one of the administration's leading hawks on China policy, he is also its strongest advocate of Taiwan's independence and of U.S. defense of Taiwan.
John Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, rejects the legitimacy of international law--at least when international conventions, treaties, and norms constrain what he regards as U.S. national interests. Bolton also has a record of questionable legal and ethical dealings at home.
http://www.counterpunch.org/barry03142005.html
Pros:
- Told the UN Criminal Court to shove it up their ass. We do not need an international court bypassing our individual Constitutional rights.
- Told the UN to shove their arms control up their ass, recognizing our second amendment rights as provided in the US (not UN!) Constitution.
- Recognized that International Treaties can be invalid and useless, and we have the right as a sovereign nation to enforce, refuse, or maintain such treaties. For example, after the First World War, Germany was bound to the League of Nations Versailles Treaty. European nations did a great job at enforcing that! See WW 2. In contrast, I know the same can be said about Iraq, but I always say if Bush shoved the UN’s own violated resolutions into their faces and went unilaterally because the UN is a paper tiger, I would have NO complaints about Iraq. Well, maybe a better exit strategy and better nation building.
- Stated the facts about China and North Korea.
Cons:
- PNAC association.
- He can be lumped as a neocon.
You know, and then I think about where this man is going to work. The United Nations, the most corrupt and useless organization that really needs to be sent packing away from US soil. With what issues Bolton has, I think he cares about American policy, sees the UN corruption for what it is, and will kick some ass representing our country. Why do you say, read below.
Demonstrating how disconnected the UN is from reality, Rosett notes that in a recent UN survey Secretary General Kofi Anan frets over ‘tone at the top,’ a reference to the ‘less positive’ opinion most UN staffers have of their senior leaders. The problem isn’t tone, she continues, but ‘accountability at the top’ (emphasis added). In detailed testimony provided to the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Rosett elaborated at length the incredible web of corruption that defined and obscured the UN Oil for Food Program.
Oil for Food was in theory a program whereby Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, though under international UN embargo, could sell limited amounts of oil and in return use the funds generated to purchase needed commodities such as food and medical supplies for its population. It was established by December 1996 and continued under UN supervision until Coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein in last year.
The fraud represented in the Oil for Food program, encouraged and virtually administered by the UN, gave Saddam funds to continue to procure missile technology from North Korea, pursue WMD research and development programs, and funnel money to his own thugs and terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Jihad and suicide bombers. In short, the UN kept in power the very dictator they professed to condemn in the Security Council chambers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14000
In other words, screw the UN except for their fantastic human rights and aid programs. I did not vote for them or Kofi Anan.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 1997, Bolton articulated his dismissive view of international treaties. "Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes," he wrote, "In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations." In other words, international treaties signed by the United States should not be considered as a body of law that the United States should respect in its international engagement but rather just political considerations that can be ignored at will.
In early 2001 Bolton observed: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States ."
In 1998, when he was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton described the ICC as "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous."8 Early in the first year of the Bush administration, Bolton prevailed upon Secretary of State Colin Powell to give him the honor of renouncing the Clinton administration's signature of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton called the moment he signed the letter abrogating Clinton 's approval of the ICC "the happiest moment in my government service."
Bolton has long dismissed the legitimacy of the United Nations--a multilateral organization that the United States played a key role in creating--not as a pet organization but as a international organization dedicated to "collective security." A longtime activist with the Federalist Society, Bolton has used this right-wing association of lawyers, judges, and legal experts as a forum to lash out against the United Nations. In a 1994 speech at the liberal World Federalist Association, Bolton declared that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." To underscore his point, Bolton said. "If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
Bolton is a militarist who embraces the "peace through strength" philosophy of international affairs. Praising Bolton in a speech he delivered on January 1, 2001 at the American Enterprise Institute, Sen. Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon."
In mid-2001 Bolton announced at the UN Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons that Washington opposed any initiative to regulate trade in small arms or in non-military rifles--or any effort that would "abrogate the constitutional right to bear arms." Accompanying Bolton to the conference were members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). "It is precisely those weapons that Bolton would exclude from the purview of this conference that are actually killing people and endangering communities around the world," said Tamar Gabelnick, director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists. She charged that the U.S. delegation, led by Arms Control Secretary Bolton, single-handedly destroyed any possibility of consensus around the Small Arms Action Plan.17
Bolton in February 2003 said that once regime change plans in Iraq were completed, "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria , Iran , and North Korea afterwards."21
Bolton is not only one of the administration's leading hawks on China policy, he is also its strongest advocate of Taiwan's independence and of U.S. defense of Taiwan.
John Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, rejects the legitimacy of international law--at least when international conventions, treaties, and norms constrain what he regards as U.S. national interests. Bolton also has a record of questionable legal and ethical dealings at home.
http://www.counterpunch.org/barry03142005.html
Pros:
- Told the UN Criminal Court to shove it up their ass. We do not need an international court bypassing our individual Constitutional rights.
- Told the UN to shove their arms control up their ass, recognizing our second amendment rights as provided in the US (not UN!) Constitution.
- Recognized that International Treaties can be invalid and useless, and we have the right as a sovereign nation to enforce, refuse, or maintain such treaties. For example, after the First World War, Germany was bound to the League of Nations Versailles Treaty. European nations did a great job at enforcing that! See WW 2. In contrast, I know the same can be said about Iraq, but I always say if Bush shoved the UN’s own violated resolutions into their faces and went unilaterally because the UN is a paper tiger, I would have NO complaints about Iraq. Well, maybe a better exit strategy and better nation building.
- Stated the facts about China and North Korea.
Cons:
- PNAC association.
- He can be lumped as a neocon.
You know, and then I think about where this man is going to work. The United Nations, the most corrupt and useless organization that really needs to be sent packing away from US soil. With what issues Bolton has, I think he cares about American policy, sees the UN corruption for what it is, and will kick some ass representing our country. Why do you say, read below.
Demonstrating how disconnected the UN is from reality, Rosett notes that in a recent UN survey Secretary General Kofi Anan frets over ‘tone at the top,’ a reference to the ‘less positive’ opinion most UN staffers have of their senior leaders. The problem isn’t tone, she continues, but ‘accountability at the top’ (emphasis added). In detailed testimony provided to the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Rosett elaborated at length the incredible web of corruption that defined and obscured the UN Oil for Food Program.
Oil for Food was in theory a program whereby Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, though under international UN embargo, could sell limited amounts of oil and in return use the funds generated to purchase needed commodities such as food and medical supplies for its population. It was established by December 1996 and continued under UN supervision until Coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein in last year.
The fraud represented in the Oil for Food program, encouraged and virtually administered by the UN, gave Saddam funds to continue to procure missile technology from North Korea, pursue WMD research and development programs, and funnel money to his own thugs and terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Jihad and suicide bombers. In short, the UN kept in power the very dictator they professed to condemn in the Security Council chambers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14000
In other words, screw the UN except for their fantastic human rights and aid programs. I did not vote for them or Kofi Anan.
8/01/2005
CAFTA
Brought to you by glorious leader, our true “conservative” president is looking out for the American people and doing a fine job at upholding the constitution that he swore to! Unfortunately, it passed by 2 votes—mainly because of the actions of grass roots organizations did a great job of letting representatives know more detail on what they were voting for. In turn, glorious leader, our true “conservative” president pulled all of his back scratching beltway antics in full steam.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45467
CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=23673
That story is an op-ed piece that explains why it’s screwed up. I am not a fan of the CFR. In addition, the below transcript from Lou Dobbs on CNN gives further detail. I really looked for a video file, but could not find one.
CAFTA's big secret
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2005jun30.html
The actual CNN transcript is here
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
In summary, this quote really explains the overall CAFTA crap…
SYLVESTER: Supporters of CAFTA say it will open up Central American markets to U.S. companies and lead to lower prices for consumers. But critics are urging lawmakers to look at the fine print, because they may be giving away far more than they're getting.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
I wonder what this means for the constitution and the American people. Does our government serve us anymore? Or are we its servants now?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45467
CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=23673
That story is an op-ed piece that explains why it’s screwed up. I am not a fan of the CFR. In addition, the below transcript from Lou Dobbs on CNN gives further detail. I really looked for a video file, but could not find one.
CAFTA's big secret
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2005jun30.html
The actual CNN transcript is here
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
In summary, this quote really explains the overall CAFTA crap…
SYLVESTER: Supporters of CAFTA say it will open up Central American markets to U.S. companies and lead to lower prices for consumers. But critics are urging lawmakers to look at the fine print, because they may be giving away far more than they're getting.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
I wonder what this means for the constitution and the American people. Does our government serve us anymore? Or are we its servants now?
7/21/2005
How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?
I read that in a news story discussing “Lawmakers Focus on Patriot Act Extension”
http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=134058 that really made me think of the Ben Franklin quote I see from time to time: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
In addition, Bush is politicizing the most recent bombings in London as a means to push legislation to extend the Patriot Act. “Bush sees London attacks as reason for Patriot Act”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050720-102536-4094r.htm
I really have a problem with seeing this document passing again. Why? Because the items that violate the Bill of Rights are still there. It’d make sense to pass the portions of the act that gives more money to support state & local jurisdictions. But that damned document still has those laws in place which violate the Bill of Rights. First, read this:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Patriot Act allows the FBI to conduct secret searches without a warrant, access personal information, and jail people without charges. This can be done to regular Americans. I remember that the first Patriot Act was passed without congress even reading it, which was bad enough. I hope that this extension does not pass. It gives one branch of the government too much authority to violate the constitution. When I think about it, the commander in chief was elected to uphold the constitution and swore an oath to it. At the same time the commander in chief passes legislation to stymie the Bill of Rights. I just do not get it. I know the Patriot Act sucks. Why? Read on…
Patriot Act report documents civil rights complaints
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/
Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0721-01.htm
USA Patriot Act, Civil Rights, Privacy Issues
http://usliberals.about.com/od/patriotactcivilrights/
http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=134058 that really made me think of the Ben Franklin quote I see from time to time: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
In addition, Bush is politicizing the most recent bombings in London as a means to push legislation to extend the Patriot Act. “Bush sees London attacks as reason for Patriot Act”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050720-102536-4094r.htm
I really have a problem with seeing this document passing again. Why? Because the items that violate the Bill of Rights are still there. It’d make sense to pass the portions of the act that gives more money to support state & local jurisdictions. But that damned document still has those laws in place which violate the Bill of Rights. First, read this:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Patriot Act allows the FBI to conduct secret searches without a warrant, access personal information, and jail people without charges. This can be done to regular Americans. I remember that the first Patriot Act was passed without congress even reading it, which was bad enough. I hope that this extension does not pass. It gives one branch of the government too much authority to violate the constitution. When I think about it, the commander in chief was elected to uphold the constitution and swore an oath to it. At the same time the commander in chief passes legislation to stymie the Bill of Rights. I just do not get it. I know the Patriot Act sucks. Why? Read on…
Patriot Act report documents civil rights complaints
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/
Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0721-01.htm
USA Patriot Act, Civil Rights, Privacy Issues
http://usliberals.about.com/od/patriotactcivilrights/
7/14/2005
Karl Rove and the neocon weasels
I have been listening to right and left radio and reading various stories about Karl Rove the last few days. I have heard both sides of the story, and can understand the desire to hold this guy on treason charges. One point that his supporters say is that Valerie Plame was not a true operative, therefore nothing was done. It makes sense, to a point. What I really see if that the important part of this whole topic really needs to be considered: Karl Rove and the cabinet, are they capable of such “treasonous” and devious things?
Simple answer, for me, is YES. So I would not put it past Rove to rat out a CIA whatever. The whatever, being the “he said, she said” type of nonsense that the media talking heads are yammering about the specifics of the case. It’s tough to tell really. All I know is that the points that really mattered is that this is the media’s opportunity to get back at an otherwise secretive and “we can do no wrong” administration. It’s going to be a lot of debate and accusations. I guess we’ll see how it plays out. Bush won’t fire Rove and he won’t be help for treason. Crap, I think the entire cabinet should be put up on charges and impeachment hearings to kick Bush out of office are needed. Clinton may have done bad things, but Bush’s bad things are costing lives. In addition, he is doing much worse things to this country. It’s kind of tough to associate Bush as being a ‘conservative’ or ‘Republican’ when we see citizens rights going down the shitter, an open border, the Cheney-Haliburton "exclusive" Iraq contracts (why no competition???), and shady and bogus reasoning to invade Iraq.
One thing to point out is everyone (as in both parties) supported his Afghanistan campaign. When they seek answers to why and what was the reason for Iraq the only thing that really turns up is misleading and bogus lies as justification for going in. Recent information has turned up that would back those claims, but it should have been used then and not after the fact.
Search the web for PNAC, or The Project for the New American Century. There is an excellent website which covers them. Basically, it’s a neocon think tank that has papers, studies, etc. in which people say the agenda of invading Iraq was a priority of PNAC outlined in some of their works. The reason this beltway think tank stands out from the other ones is the fact that people associated with PNAC also hold positions in the oval office. Paul Wolfowitz, who drafted a document in which “US military dominance over Eurasia and preemptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction” is among them. It sure gives me warm fuzzies! The neocon list, plus the above quote, can be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?leftNavInclude
A great analysis website is http://www.pnac.info/. Ok, now I have read these documents and websites for awhile now. A lot of it is good input on ideology of how to spend our resources in defense spending and where new threats or shifts in strategy might be in the future. I support the defense industry wholeheartedly. Heck, many of their developments are great contributions to civilian or medical technological advancements.
In all, PNAC is a good group. But the nefarious part comes from their emphasis on who is in the white house now and their agenda prior to 2003. For example, note this:
“In the Beginning - In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.
The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.”
http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000043.html
It really makes me wonder how much of this was just anticipated. Were the 9/11 attacks and subsequent ousting of the Taliban the perfect excuse for these goons in the oval office to seek to take out Sadam? They just needed the means to their end, and those means are sketchy at best. I call them bogus sexed up BS turned into flat out lies. I saw a DVD called “The Truth About the Iraq War” where ex-CIA and other inside the beltway people were being interviewed. It did a great job of explaining fact vs fiction with the evidence to go to war. I do not trust the current administration at all anymore.
You know, if they were just honest with the American people, I would have a different opinion. I know PNAC, a secretive administration, MANY instances of people saying the Iraq justification was a lie, and creepy-sleazy-silly acts like what Rove might or might not have done. I just do not trust them one damned bit. I am all for a strong defense, retaliation for 9/11, ousting Sadam simply because he is an asshole, and the war on terrorism…it just seems that what we should be doing and what has gone on is completely different. For that, 2008 will be a good year. In addition, for what a demon we paint Sadam now, I tend to remember such things as these…
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
I just don’t see the Constitution giving the Federal Government the right or the power of empirical aspirations. Isn’t what we left in the first place? I am all for a strong defense as stated in what is required in the Constitution, but what do preemptive strikes based on bogus information have to do with anything? These idiots in office need to review that document that they made an oath to serve. They are bound to that contract so long as they hold public office. I commend those who also know the citizenship has the power to remove them from power. Not a revolution, that’s stupid…we are not that bad off. I am thinking along the lines of the free press pointing out the actions of those elected to office. I am talking about those whistle blowers who are demonized at times, and are probably much more patriotic than those accusing them of wrong doing. Those folks are great, and we need more of them. Sorry, I thought “Deep Throat” did a great job. If the status quo sucks, change it.
Simple answer, for me, is YES. So I would not put it past Rove to rat out a CIA whatever. The whatever, being the “he said, she said” type of nonsense that the media talking heads are yammering about the specifics of the case. It’s tough to tell really. All I know is that the points that really mattered is that this is the media’s opportunity to get back at an otherwise secretive and “we can do no wrong” administration. It’s going to be a lot of debate and accusations. I guess we’ll see how it plays out. Bush won’t fire Rove and he won’t be help for treason. Crap, I think the entire cabinet should be put up on charges and impeachment hearings to kick Bush out of office are needed. Clinton may have done bad things, but Bush’s bad things are costing lives. In addition, he is doing much worse things to this country. It’s kind of tough to associate Bush as being a ‘conservative’ or ‘Republican’ when we see citizens rights going down the shitter, an open border, the Cheney-Haliburton "exclusive" Iraq contracts (why no competition???), and shady and bogus reasoning to invade Iraq.
One thing to point out is everyone (as in both parties) supported his Afghanistan campaign. When they seek answers to why and what was the reason for Iraq the only thing that really turns up is misleading and bogus lies as justification for going in. Recent information has turned up that would back those claims, but it should have been used then and not after the fact.
Search the web for PNAC, or The Project for the New American Century. There is an excellent website which covers them. Basically, it’s a neocon think tank that has papers, studies, etc. in which people say the agenda of invading Iraq was a priority of PNAC outlined in some of their works. The reason this beltway think tank stands out from the other ones is the fact that people associated with PNAC also hold positions in the oval office. Paul Wolfowitz, who drafted a document in which “US military dominance over Eurasia and preemptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction” is among them. It sure gives me warm fuzzies! The neocon list, plus the above quote, can be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?leftNavInclude
A great analysis website is http://www.pnac.info/. Ok, now I have read these documents and websites for awhile now. A lot of it is good input on ideology of how to spend our resources in defense spending and where new threats or shifts in strategy might be in the future. I support the defense industry wholeheartedly. Heck, many of their developments are great contributions to civilian or medical technological advancements.
In all, PNAC is a good group. But the nefarious part comes from their emphasis on who is in the white house now and their agenda prior to 2003. For example, note this:
“In the Beginning - In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.
The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.”
http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000043.html
It really makes me wonder how much of this was just anticipated. Were the 9/11 attacks and subsequent ousting of the Taliban the perfect excuse for these goons in the oval office to seek to take out Sadam? They just needed the means to their end, and those means are sketchy at best. I call them bogus sexed up BS turned into flat out lies. I saw a DVD called “The Truth About the Iraq War” where ex-CIA and other inside the beltway people were being interviewed. It did a great job of explaining fact vs fiction with the evidence to go to war. I do not trust the current administration at all anymore.
You know, if they were just honest with the American people, I would have a different opinion. I know PNAC, a secretive administration, MANY instances of people saying the Iraq justification was a lie, and creepy-sleazy-silly acts like what Rove might or might not have done. I just do not trust them one damned bit. I am all for a strong defense, retaliation for 9/11, ousting Sadam simply because he is an asshole, and the war on terrorism…it just seems that what we should be doing and what has gone on is completely different. For that, 2008 will be a good year. In addition, for what a demon we paint Sadam now, I tend to remember such things as these…
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
I just don’t see the Constitution giving the Federal Government the right or the power of empirical aspirations. Isn’t what we left in the first place? I am all for a strong defense as stated in what is required in the Constitution, but what do preemptive strikes based on bogus information have to do with anything? These idiots in office need to review that document that they made an oath to serve. They are bound to that contract so long as they hold public office. I commend those who also know the citizenship has the power to remove them from power. Not a revolution, that’s stupid…we are not that bad off. I am thinking along the lines of the free press pointing out the actions of those elected to office. I am talking about those whistle blowers who are demonized at times, and are probably much more patriotic than those accusing them of wrong doing. Those folks are great, and we need more of them. Sorry, I thought “Deep Throat” did a great job. If the status quo sucks, change it.
7/07/2005
London bombings
I went to Edgware Road station & Kings Cross several times when I was there last October on a visit with my girlfriend. Now that my initial worries of my friends in the UK are fine, I can think about the people who did this horrible act. I hope that they bring those assholes that did this to justice. When I read the website about the claims of the terrorists doing such an act in the name of Allah, it being his will, and the same old horse shit tribute given to the “martyrs” really makes me think what God would approve of this? Also, today it was reported that the Egyptian envoy to Iraq was killed by al-Qaeda in Iraq. So you have an Egyptian Muslim called an infidel and killed by another Muslim in the name of God.
Tough to take in. I realize that there is a separation of degrees. The problem is radical Islam, compounded with little to no voice from the moderates does little to nothing to help them. In comparison, you have rabid abortion clinic bombers who kill in the name of God, so it’s not just “Islam.” It’s tough to distinguish this to some extent because a suicide bomber and Islam (though it is radical in this case) can go hand in hand with many people’s perceptions. My thoughts about it really coincide with what Blair said:
Blair condemns bombers who "act in name of Islam"
LONDON, July 7 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair, condemning the London bombings that killed at least 33 people on Thursday, said: "We know that these people act in the name of Islam."
In a statement from his London residence, a grim-faced Blair thanked The Muslim Council of Britain for roundly condemning the bombers who struck in the early morning rush hour.
"We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do," Blair said.
It’s good to see some Islamic groups condemning the actions of a few who claim to represent the “word of Allah”. I just hope that more Muslims stand up to these people and work towards eliminating these terrorist assholes.
Another thing I hope to see is Blair actually having balls and doing what Bush failed to do—bring those guilty to justice. I hope Blair does not follow the inaction of our moron in chief. We do not have the mastermind of 9/11 in custody, Bush seems to not care. He is not important. I am glad we have that stupid tyrannical despot Sadam in custody, but he did not cause 9/11.
I wish Blair good luck in capturing those guilty. I’d like to thank Bush for continuing to be an idiot and listening to the neo-con assholes that he has in his cabinet or advisors, you have really screwed this country with lies and inaction. Lastly, I hope the best for the victims of the London bombings.
Tough to take in. I realize that there is a separation of degrees. The problem is radical Islam, compounded with little to no voice from the moderates does little to nothing to help them. In comparison, you have rabid abortion clinic bombers who kill in the name of God, so it’s not just “Islam.” It’s tough to distinguish this to some extent because a suicide bomber and Islam (though it is radical in this case) can go hand in hand with many people’s perceptions. My thoughts about it really coincide with what Blair said:
Blair condemns bombers who "act in name of Islam"
LONDON, July 7 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair, condemning the London bombings that killed at least 33 people on Thursday, said: "We know that these people act in the name of Islam."
In a statement from his London residence, a grim-faced Blair thanked The Muslim Council of Britain for roundly condemning the bombers who struck in the early morning rush hour.
"We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do," Blair said.
It’s good to see some Islamic groups condemning the actions of a few who claim to represent the “word of Allah”. I just hope that more Muslims stand up to these people and work towards eliminating these terrorist assholes.
Another thing I hope to see is Blair actually having balls and doing what Bush failed to do—bring those guilty to justice. I hope Blair does not follow the inaction of our moron in chief. We do not have the mastermind of 9/11 in custody, Bush seems to not care. He is not important. I am glad we have that stupid tyrannical despot Sadam in custody, but he did not cause 9/11.
I wish Blair good luck in capturing those guilty. I’d like to thank Bush for continuing to be an idiot and listening to the neo-con assholes that he has in his cabinet or advisors, you have really screwed this country with lies and inaction. Lastly, I hope the best for the victims of the London bombings.
6/30/2005
Why I loathe liberals
Someone I know posted an Ann Coulter link; otherwise I would have never seen it. I respect her views—but I lump her into the category of Rush—windbag on the right. Don’t think I like an idiot like Al Franken or Gerafalo either. They are nitwits as well. I used to like O’Reilly a little when I first heard him, but he grew into a pompous ass. Same goes for Hannity and Combs—I cannot stand them either. So I am not sitting in one camp. I do like Randi Rhodes, G Gordon Liddy, & Mike Reagan. There are others I hear from time to time. Sirius satellite radio has right, left, and patriot stations. I like them all, but if I turn to Air America and hear “The Majority Report” I put on some music. I cannot stand hearing Gerafalo and the other stooges droll on and on.
Her, Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, Alex Baldwin, etc. just need to shut the hell up with their liberal nonsense. I think Penn is an outstanding actor, but his political antics piss me off to no ends. I think they are all stooges. Not to forget, Ann Coulter and other goons in that camp garner about the same amount of respect from me. Having those sides, I am really drawn to independent voting. Both parties have good points of view, but I cannot completely fall into one camp. There are certain core values of each “side” that I can never agree with.
Aside from the Hollywood and talk radio angle of liberal influence, there is something pointed out in Coulter’s article that really stood out from the rest of the stuff because it’s something at the Smithsonian museum(s) in Washington, D.C.—a place to which I hope that a less opinionated and more factual and objective approach was taken in their exhibits.
THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT RELIGION
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
Ok the “NEA-funded performance” items are completely ridiculous. I don’t really know how it’s considered art, but I don’t like my tax money paying for that garbage. I’d rather see $ go into fixing the highway infrastructure or something. But what really stands out is stuff from “Smithsonian exhibit” references. That kind of stuff really stands out to me. I do not like seeing history getting rewritten and presented through the politically correct filter. For example, look at this one…
"For most Americans ... (war with Japan) was a war of vengeance. For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism. ... Some have argued that the United States would never have dropped the bomb on the Germans, because Americans were more reluctant to bomb 'white people' than Asians." — Smithsonian exhibit to commemorate the 50th anniversary of VJ Day, later modified due to protests
That is the most narrow minded statement, and completely false. I am glad that protests changed this. Yes the war was in part a war of vengeance. Perl Harbor got attacked and the nation of Japan was the clear aggressor here. “Defending their unique culture” is the biggest load of PC horse shit that I have ever heard. The Japanese culture had been trying to westernize itself since the beginning of the 20th century. They whooped the Russians in a naval battle, and put many resources into becoming an economic power in Asia.
In doing so, they needed oil. Because of their invasion in parts of China to seize its natural resources, the Japanese committed atrocities and killed many Chinese in the process. Search the net for ‘flying tigers’ for more info on that. Anyway, in protest, the United States placed an oil embargo on Imperial Japan. As a result of the strain on resources to feed their war machine, Japan figured an attack on the US pacific fleet in one fell swoop would end the threat of the American navy, hence Perl Harbor. So a war of vengeance is justified, but be sure to include why we were vengeful to begin with…even prior to Dec 7, 1941. Stop making American’s sound like ravenous blood seekers. Stupid liberals.
Now the atom bomb…of course the liberal mindset is going to include race. With the little amount of space available on the plaque, or whatever is part of the exhibit, it has to be race. Definitely include that information in the internment camp exhibit, I saw it, it was really good. But when you consider the atomic bomb, here are a few facts:
1. VE day was way before VJ day, and the Russians were kicking ass in Berlin, there was no real need to use the bomb if we had it fully developed by then. VE day was in May of ’45. The first successful test of the atom bomb was July of ’45. Considering those dates, how the hell can that race statement seriously be taken? Stupid liberals.
2. The potential cost of US lives in an invasion of the Japanese homeland was 1 million casualties. In turn, the Japanese felt the need to go out fighting tooth and nail in event of Americans landing on their islands. They might have been defeated over time, but the Japanese military planned on making every inch of US progress as costly as possible. See the suicide weapons that Japan was developing. Kamikaze mini-subs and rocket planes. Of course we are going to use whatever weapon minimized American casualties. The Japanese mindset behind this was to have a conditional surrender, where we wanted an unconditional one.
3. “For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism” – total horse shit. Their emperor, who dictated its will to the people, for the most part (to be fair with the statement quoted) were acquiring as much westernized technology and knowledge as possible so that they could become a world power well before 1941. Much of their culture is oriented around serving the emperor at that time. The Japanese culture is amazing to me, but this was the way it was at that time. The emperor was treated as sort of a living deity, so his will was the will of the people. There was no real defending against Western culture. Defending against western military influence in terms of strategic influence and secure resources for Japan, yes. Western culture, no. Stupid liberal.
4. Another aspect of the bomb was to show the Russians what we could do. Factor in that, with the Japanese determination to kill as many American’s as possible, was included in dropping the bomb. There were MANY factors, but the liberals only factored in race. In addition, more lives were lost…”over 100,000 people were killed in the ensuing firestorm--more casualties than in the atomic bombs dropped on either Hiroshima or Nagasaki” during the napalm bombing of Tokyo (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0310-34.htm). If that did not lead to surrender because of the total devastation, other and all means to save US lives were used. The Russians were invading Manchuria. In using the bomb, we showed Stalin what we could do and ended the war quickly. Occupation after VE day by the Russians was causing concern for the rest of the allies. That was also included in consideration to drop the bomb. Of course the liberals won’t include that, just the context of race is used.
That’s what pisses me off about liberals. Obstruction of fact and all points of view. The only one they care about. I can definitely appreciate the racial aspects of historical events being used within their context, like in the civil rights exhibits. That is definitely needed to educate people on what black Americans had do suffer through and deal with. I’d say that is something we should never forget or gloss over with a PC brush or filter. Sean Penn and co. are definitely a bunch of nitwits. But they are harmless compared to a Smithsonian historian (or group of) that decides in this little amount of space that they have called an exhibit, they put the most blatant politically correct liberal garbage that they can possibly think of. It’s rewriting little bits here and there of history, expand that to laws, that liberals do that pisses me off. I consider that train of thought to be a virus, a disease, or a mental disorder.
Her, Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, Alex Baldwin, etc. just need to shut the hell up with their liberal nonsense. I think Penn is an outstanding actor, but his political antics piss me off to no ends. I think they are all stooges. Not to forget, Ann Coulter and other goons in that camp garner about the same amount of respect from me. Having those sides, I am really drawn to independent voting. Both parties have good points of view, but I cannot completely fall into one camp. There are certain core values of each “side” that I can never agree with.
Aside from the Hollywood and talk radio angle of liberal influence, there is something pointed out in Coulter’s article that really stood out from the rest of the stuff because it’s something at the Smithsonian museum(s) in Washington, D.C.—a place to which I hope that a less opinionated and more factual and objective approach was taken in their exhibits.
THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT RELIGION
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
Ok the “NEA-funded performance” items are completely ridiculous. I don’t really know how it’s considered art, but I don’t like my tax money paying for that garbage. I’d rather see $ go into fixing the highway infrastructure or something. But what really stands out is stuff from “Smithsonian exhibit” references. That kind of stuff really stands out to me. I do not like seeing history getting rewritten and presented through the politically correct filter. For example, look at this one…
"For most Americans ... (war with Japan) was a war of vengeance. For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism. ... Some have argued that the United States would never have dropped the bomb on the Germans, because Americans were more reluctant to bomb 'white people' than Asians." — Smithsonian exhibit to commemorate the 50th anniversary of VJ Day, later modified due to protests
That is the most narrow minded statement, and completely false. I am glad that protests changed this. Yes the war was in part a war of vengeance. Perl Harbor got attacked and the nation of Japan was the clear aggressor here. “Defending their unique culture” is the biggest load of PC horse shit that I have ever heard. The Japanese culture had been trying to westernize itself since the beginning of the 20th century. They whooped the Russians in a naval battle, and put many resources into becoming an economic power in Asia.
In doing so, they needed oil. Because of their invasion in parts of China to seize its natural resources, the Japanese committed atrocities and killed many Chinese in the process. Search the net for ‘flying tigers’ for more info on that. Anyway, in protest, the United States placed an oil embargo on Imperial Japan. As a result of the strain on resources to feed their war machine, Japan figured an attack on the US pacific fleet in one fell swoop would end the threat of the American navy, hence Perl Harbor. So a war of vengeance is justified, but be sure to include why we were vengeful to begin with…even prior to Dec 7, 1941. Stop making American’s sound like ravenous blood seekers. Stupid liberals.
Now the atom bomb…of course the liberal mindset is going to include race. With the little amount of space available on the plaque, or whatever is part of the exhibit, it has to be race. Definitely include that information in the internment camp exhibit, I saw it, it was really good. But when you consider the atomic bomb, here are a few facts:
1. VE day was way before VJ day, and the Russians were kicking ass in Berlin, there was no real need to use the bomb if we had it fully developed by then. VE day was in May of ’45. The first successful test of the atom bomb was July of ’45. Considering those dates, how the hell can that race statement seriously be taken? Stupid liberals.
2. The potential cost of US lives in an invasion of the Japanese homeland was 1 million casualties. In turn, the Japanese felt the need to go out fighting tooth and nail in event of Americans landing on their islands. They might have been defeated over time, but the Japanese military planned on making every inch of US progress as costly as possible. See the suicide weapons that Japan was developing. Kamikaze mini-subs and rocket planes. Of course we are going to use whatever weapon minimized American casualties. The Japanese mindset behind this was to have a conditional surrender, where we wanted an unconditional one.
3. “For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism” – total horse shit. Their emperor, who dictated its will to the people, for the most part (to be fair with the statement quoted) were acquiring as much westernized technology and knowledge as possible so that they could become a world power well before 1941. Much of their culture is oriented around serving the emperor at that time. The Japanese culture is amazing to me, but this was the way it was at that time. The emperor was treated as sort of a living deity, so his will was the will of the people. There was no real defending against Western culture. Defending against western military influence in terms of strategic influence and secure resources for Japan, yes. Western culture, no. Stupid liberal.
4. Another aspect of the bomb was to show the Russians what we could do. Factor in that, with the Japanese determination to kill as many American’s as possible, was included in dropping the bomb. There were MANY factors, but the liberals only factored in race. In addition, more lives were lost…”over 100,000 people were killed in the ensuing firestorm--more casualties than in the atomic bombs dropped on either Hiroshima or Nagasaki” during the napalm bombing of Tokyo (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0310-34.htm). If that did not lead to surrender because of the total devastation, other and all means to save US lives were used. The Russians were invading Manchuria. In using the bomb, we showed Stalin what we could do and ended the war quickly. Occupation after VE day by the Russians was causing concern for the rest of the allies. That was also included in consideration to drop the bomb. Of course the liberals won’t include that, just the context of race is used.
That’s what pisses me off about liberals. Obstruction of fact and all points of view. The only one they care about. I can definitely appreciate the racial aspects of historical events being used within their context, like in the civil rights exhibits. That is definitely needed to educate people on what black Americans had do suffer through and deal with. I’d say that is something we should never forget or gloss over with a PC brush or filter. Sean Penn and co. are definitely a bunch of nitwits. But they are harmless compared to a Smithsonian historian (or group of) that decides in this little amount of space that they have called an exhibit, they put the most blatant politically correct liberal garbage that they can possibly think of. It’s rewriting little bits here and there of history, expand that to laws, that liberals do that pisses me off. I consider that train of thought to be a virus, a disease, or a mental disorder.
I am not any accredited historian. The facts I looked up were the dates mentioned and the tally of the
6/29/2005
6/28 Bush speech
I thought it was the same droll that I’d expect from the administration. Of course they are going to use 9/11 to justify the war in
So Bush, last night, gave another ineffective speech that does nothing to give me any warm fuzzies about his policies. It makes me think about the soldiers in the field. I think I am going to www.booksforsoldiers.com now and see what support I can give. It’s not Bush’s words that I care about, it’s that of those soldiers in the service of this great nation whom I support wholeheartedly.
6/28/2005
Virgin post, don't expect anything special
I guess that the biggest thing to make me start this is the Supreme Court ruling about private property. I really see the rights of normal Americans being eroded into nothing, the constitution is just something being whittled away. From liberals to conservatives, it’s all the same really. The Republican Party is supposed to stand for limited government, but things like the Patriot Act contradict that. Liberals are trying to change this country into some silly little Lenin/Trotsky socialist land. The scream and scream but offer no real solutions. Their work can be seen in the public education system. It seems that students cannot do the basic “3r’s” to save their lives, but they will do a fantastic job at telling you how they feel.
On that note, how can we compete with the rest of the world? I am impressed with the value other countries and other cultures place on education. Sometimes it really seems true that the generalization of “fat, lazy Americans” is true. I hope people still give a rat’s ass out there. I just don’t get things sometimes. Then again, I might be getting my information from 24 hour news channels. Fox is right! CNN is left! They both suffer from little content. It seems CNN is just turning into a 24 hour Entertainment Tonight. There is already E!, I hope CNN does better. The reputation they built during Gulf War I is def gone now.
Our information is crap, American’s seem more interested in getting more stuff or be me, me, me…I really wonder where my place is in everything. I read poli/sci and religious books, watch the history channel too much…I think I have a greater understanding of things. That’s why I feel more informed than some other people. I studied media stuff in school and had the opportunity to have a father who moved around a lot because he was in the military. I lived in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)