Who Needs Rights When Terrorists Would Strike?

We need our Security above all else. Let our politicians do our worrying for us, after all they know what is best. Rights of citizens just allow terrorists a place to hide and do their dirty work. With certain rights gone we don't have to worry about being blown up in airplanes, subways, or taxis; we will be certain that anyone capable of making bombs will be found out. Rubber hoses, fire hoses, torture will get to the truth of the matter. After all our security is what really counts. Never mind if people get snatched off the street or out of their beds in the middle of the night; our security is at stake and our politicians knows what is best for us. Hold them till they talk, make them stand for hours on one foot or with ropes on their wrists keeping them on their toes. No we don't need rights when our security is at stake. Put electric wires to their gonads, that will teach them to plan terrorist attacks. Fighting terror is the patriotic thing to do--our Democracy is at stake; it is being threatened, throw the flag burners in jail! Our politicians know what is best for us, we can trust their judgment and good intentions. After all, look how compassionate they are about immigrants who wander across our borders looking for work. They will even ignore their own laws in order to allow humanitarian employers to give them jobs no American wants. Such compassion! That shows beyond doubt how well meaning our legislators are, how trustworthy, omniscient! Nah, who needs rights when we are so well looked after by our politicians.

How Long Are People's Attention Spans?

How long are people's attention spans? About the length of time that passes between terrorist alerts. You can be sure that the Republicans will keep the public "fluffed up" until this next election is over. Confusing the issue about supporting the war in Iraq and wars in general is the main theme to trounce the Democrats with. The Democrats are confused about the issue themselves as some are against wars for any reason; but the antiwar advocates are a small minority. Democrats over the years have been "hawkish" about war when there is good reason. Unfortunately this Republican administration gambled that they would be able to trump up "evidence" to support their reasons for going to war against Iraq--Surprise, surprise Saddam was clean; so the Administration had to come up with other justifications for the war--"The War on Terror" and to "Plant Democracy in the Middle East" seems to be the main themes. The Media seems to have bought it for little criticism about the shuffle has taken place. Why haven't the Democrats pointed out there is a difference between necessary wars and the ones that are not only unnecessary but unwinnable. The war in Iraq is unwinnable, not because we don't have the means to flatten the whole country, but because we don't have a right to be there; Saddam and ruthless dictators aside. At least Saddam kept the country united and relatively stable. We talk about all the deaths he caused--how about all the deaths and destruction we have caused? Is there an end to it in sight? The next few months should be really interesting--about as much fun as watching the scramble of rats on a sinking ship. This election there is going to be a lot of history revisions take place, fables in place of facts, scare tactics, everything except reason, honesty, and sincerity.

What Lieberman's Defeat Really Means

The voters are getting the message that encumbent politicians are arrogant and are dedicated to their own agendas rather than doing their job, which is supposed to be representing the interests of their constituents, and the people in general. Lieberman's "screw you" attitude shows clearly with his decision to forge ahead as an Independent. Who is Lieberman really representing? Not Americans that is for sure. For how can you support a war that was forged from lies and agendas? If he would have said, I supported the war because I was given faulty information, that could be forgiven, up to a point. I know there are some who are against war in general, any war not matter how necessary it might be to most rational people. Lieberman does not fit this category. There are those who would only support a war because of an attack, such as Japan did in WWII. Such is not the case regarding Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 nor did it in anyway have the means to threaten the destruction of the U.S.. Iraq was impotent, as illustrated by it's inability to shoot down even one of the planes that were flying over its country everyday for years. Iraq was only a threat to Israel, and even in this case could not have done much damage, being limited by U.S. and British flyovers. But due to the paranoia of the Bush Administration that was sufficient grounds to attack Iraq. After all fellow Democracies must stick together against Arab dictatorships.
There is Lieberman, and others, who continue to support the war because they still believe the lies that were told to them, and they were lies because the "facts" were not possible. Drones do not fly 6-7 thousand miles; nor do aluminum tubes by themselves make centrifuges. Then there is the "Israel is an ally in the region" justification.
What is the U.S. getting in return for the hundreds of billions of dollars and all the lives lost that it has spent helping and defending Israel. Israel's existence in the region is of little strategic significance to the U.S. if every other country in the region wants it's destruction and blames the U.S. for not allowing them to do so. We might not have enemies in that region, or elsewhere, if it were not for the U.S. defending and supporting Israel. We had friendly relations with the Arabs before 1948, so why today's hostility? In order to solve a problem the reasons for the problem need to be recognized and brought out into the open. Solutions require honesty. So far all anyone hears is propaganda; from both sides.

Bush's Vision of Democracy

George W. should have read his history books when he was in school, he might have learned that Democracy did not automatically mean Peace and Freedom. The Greeks, the first to embrace Democracy, warred amongst themselves and didn't like Free Thought--look what happened to poor old Socrates. The Romans had representative government then opted for Dictatorship, and certainly weren't a peaceful lot. So where does he get his Simple Simon version of Democracy? Then there is his own brand of governance--continually flanking the democratic process by so-called "Presidential Dictates", powers that don't exist and aren't being challenged by the other branches of government. Of course, he knows better than anyone else what needs to be done. Hail Caesar!

Roots of the Problem in the Mid East?

Simple Simon Bush believes the root to the present Middle East problem is Hezbollah. Apparently Hezbollah, like the Universe, was created out of nothing. Our diplomatic approach, solving the problem by solving the problem, is typical of this administration's Simple Simon approach to every possible solution. The root of the problem is the non-acceptance of the Arabs worldwide to the existence of Israel, a State created by a movement and "legitimized" by the UN. Israel did not come into being out of a vacuum and if the problem of Israel is to be solved its origins needs to be included in the general category of "Roots of the Problem".
Another part of the "roots to the problem" not being discussed by the U.S. is all those settlements in the West Bank. That is another "root of the problem" . I'm not siding with the Arabs to the extent of eliminating Israel but some consensus is necessary for any problem to be solved and speaking in a vacuum is not going to get the job done and our long term security is at stake here. That is as long as we need Arab oil. By the way the Arabs weren't the first ones to use bombs to inspire terror--the Israelis were the first to use bombs as a terror weapon in order to get back at the Arabs for attacking their Kibutzes. The conflict did not begin in 1948 but in 1929 and even before.
Writing up resolutions may establish legitimacy for military or diplomatic actions but are just words on paper without substance if there is no resolve and might to back them up.
Bush's continuing to use Democracy to legimitimize military actions has worn thin around the world and frankly his use of it is a propaganda slogan like so many other words he has used--freedom for instance. Everytime he can't think of something to say he will interject Democracy, freedom, terrorists etc. Has anyone thought to summarize what he managed to say into English? It is gibberish--and this is our Great Leader? Another person in his administration who uses slogans is Condi Rice. She is a little more clever at appearing to say something without really saying anything--and the Media fawns all over her thinking she has answered their questions, which in actuality she has spoken a bunch of "glittering generalities". Come on people, wake up!

We Got Spasms in the Middle East

Condo Rice has a way with words--we don't want anymore "spasms" in the Middle East, that's the reason for not having a cease-fire right away. We got two fanatical positions in the Middle East--obliterate Israel on the one hand and keep the settlements in the West Bank on the other, along with keeping Jerusalem etc. With both sides entrenched as they are and the questioned legitimacy of Israel in Palestine there is no real solution to the Middle East problem. The Arabs aren't going to accept Israel no matter what, and how long can the Israelis bleed? There aren't enough Israelis to hold all the ground in the ME even if they could take it all. The U.S. unquestionable siding with the Israelis just makes the situation worse because all it does is polarize any moderates we might hope to win over to a peaceable solution. The big culprit in the ME is oil. It is what gives the Arabs the backbone and means to implement and spread terror in the ME and around the world. Without oil money the Arabs would be back to selling fruit and camels and sitting under tents in the sand. The solution should be clear--develop alternatives to oil. If we had some real representative government in this country we could do it in short order--as it is we get propaganda and more power to the oil companies--spasms indeed!

Oil Conspiracy Theory

What with record oil profits one wonders if there isn't some conspiracy going on to manipulate something so as to increase profits. How about this? Back oil men so that they take control of the government. Then those politicians kill legislation that would put conservation out front--like making car companies make vehicles that get good gas mileage, like they did in the 70's and 80's. Then the politicians cause havoc in the Middle East so that oil goes up in price, big time. Wasn't oil at its lowest when the Democrats, non-oilmen, were in power? All this keeps the oil companies hands clean yet they can reap in huge profits. That's not all folks, the prices will keep on going up as oil reserves go down and who do you think will end up controlling alternative energy? How is that for a conspiracy theory?