Bush's Speeches

Bush's speeches as usual just preaching to the choir--this time to Reserve Officers. He strokes them and they return the favor. Whats new is his now trying to say that the Islamist Fundamentalists, or whoever the bad guys are today, are trying to take over the Middle East so that they can attack the U.S. What a bunch of bull. Will the Media pass on this one like they did with Bush's making the case that Saddam was a terrorist because he gave money to the families of suicide bombers who had their homes blown up by the Israelis; all the while kissing and holding hands with the Saudis who were also giving money to families of suicide bombers who had their homes blown up by the Israelis. That one went right over the heads of the Media.
If Bush wanted to make an example out of Afghanistan and Iraq he sure went about it the wrong way. Now the Arabs are saying "who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf now?" All anyone has to do is read the history of the Middle East to know that the only way to win there is to be a total despot. The British and French finally realized their mistake and got out and we eventually will too. There will be no victory. I'd like to see the Bush administration define what they think "victory" is in this case. A shabby consulate in Baghdad?

Oil Prices and Who's Behind Them?

The oil prices start coming down and OPEC then decides to create an oil shortage. Who says the oil companies don't control oil prices? People start cutting back and conserving their consumption and we then have plenty of oil and Chaney has the audacity to say that oil conservation doesn't work? Who are the oil speculators who keep bidding up the price of oil anyway? Who are they as individuals I mean? What are their connections and how do they fit in the scheme of things. The devil is in the details they say and I believe them, whoever the them is. I know we, the People, are getting jacked-up, I just don't have all the facts to make a good case. Bush, the oil man, kissing up to and holding hands with Arabs who on the one hand give money to the families of suicide bombers and on the other hand hold back on oil to keep the prices high, makes me wonder about our sanity, if not our judgement. Bush was making the case about Saddam being a terrorist because Saddam was giving money to the families of suicide bombers, all the while holding hands with Saudis who were also giving money to suicide bomber's families. Am I missing something here? How come our ever watchful media hasn't picked up on that, amongst the many other quirks in this Administration's logic.

Are We a Bunch of Mushrooms?

This National Intelligence Estimate revelation brings to mind growing mushrooms--they (and we) are kept in the dark and fed a bunch of manure. A few real facts would be refreshing regarding Iraq. As it is anything being said about Iraq by this administration is at best a half-truth designed to cover up their incompetence and former propaganda spiels. We have a right to know what is really going on because it is our kids lives and our tax dollars that is being thrown away. Bush makes a big thing about the government spending our money but doesn't seem to mind engaging in same when it comes to his agendas; which amounts to stopping sand down a rat hole.
Is Iraq now an ego game? A delaying of the inevitable? How about a National Intelligence Estimate about the likelihood of the U.S. winning in the Middle East. I can save the government millions of dollars right now by saying we won't win in the Middle East and at best won't lose. The Israelis have been fighting with the Arabs since the late 1920's and it is likely we could be in for a "war" that will last at least as long. Saving Face by staying in Iraq is a no-winning strategy if we try solving the "insurgency" problem by using the half measures we have been using so far. It may be too late now to step up operations that would reduce attacks on U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians. The Iraqis have too much freedom to move about, which allows some to do mischief. Our military might be the best in the world when it comes to engaging in battle but seems to know very little about controlling a population after the battles are over. If we want to win hearts and minds in Iraq give the people some sense of security.

What the Democrats are Doing Wrong

The Dems started out pointing out that the Repubs were using Propaganda but that only lasted a short time and in reality the Repubs have taken over the media. Its a wonder the Media doesn't follow the President into the bathroom they are so aggressive in hanging on his every word and deed. Administration and Republican spokesmen are being interviewed at every opportunity spouting half truths and outright lies in a bid to sway public opinion--and they are succeeding! Al-Qaeda Al-Qaeda Al-Qaeda is heard at every turn and now the President is spouting off about going into Pakistan after Bin Laden!
I still hear Iraq and Terrorism being said in the same breath. If the terrorists are just killing one or two of our soldiers a day what does that say about how efficient the terrorists are? The terrorists in Iraq are low level combatants, not 'weapons of mass destruction' terrorists. Discrimination again! This administration depends on people's inability to discriminate all the fuzzy terms out there being bandied about. This administration creates them as quick as pop corn can be popped. Back to the Dems.
The Dems still can't get away from their idealism and get back to basics, like representing what the people want and need. The Dems are still trying to represent special interest groups and in doing so are no better than the Repubs who try to represent another set of special interest groups.

Are We Fighting WWIII?

Its hard to tell what is going on--do we have a civil war in Iraq or not? Is Iran going for broke and trying to build the bomb? Is our President and Administration the new face of Fascism? Is the U.S. being squeezed by the Third World? Is Islam at war with the West? Is the West at war with Islam? Is Islam violent at heart or benevolent? Or is it, like Christianity, schizoid--both violent and benevolent? Any one or all together of these questions could provide the answer originally asked--are we fighting WWIII? I would make a guess and say we are on the brink, what with our disturbing presence in Iraq and the recent flare-up in Lebanon. There are those who have the means, on both sides of the issue, that are moving us, by rhetoric and deeds, in that direction; towards WWIII. If measures are not taken, like a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East and some diplomatic intervention in the Arab-Israeli problem, the world will soon be in chaos and engaged in WWIII. No one will win, for the Arabs will lose their oil revenues and facilities, and the West will lose their access to oil and much much more. It is now the time for some hard hard thinking and diplomacy.

Is It Torture?

Just a tool to save American lives? Are CIA "professionals" just another name for government sadists? As usual Bush is trying to head debate off at the "pass" and get his way. To my way of thinking it is just another nail in the Fascist coffin that this administration is trying to bury. But is it torture, or in the words of the 3rd Article of the Geneva Convention an "outrage on human dignity". Lets have a test. Let the CIA grab Bush and put him through the program, and a few other ardent supporters of his, and then let them decide whether or not they would be willing to let other countries put our captured troops through the same treatment. After all other countries would have the same arguments we have, that their citizens might be saved if information was gleamed from us. The "saved lives" argument applies in most military operations as captured soldiers might have knowledge of on-going operations; and knowing that information could prevent casualties. So the "sniff" test is, would it be called torture by us if our troops were treated similarly? I don't hear the media asking that question of Bush or his propagandists.

A Most Politically Correct War

Is our mission in Iraq accomplished? Let's see, we went in to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing and using Weapons of Mass Destruction. We did that, by default. We went in to save the Iraqi people from their leader Saddam Hussein. We did that. Then we went in to establish a Democratic government in the Middle East. We did that--the Iraqis voted in a democracy. Now the rationale is, we got to stay some sort of course, win the war against the terrorists, and preserve democracy so it will be a beacon to which all freedom loving Arabs will flock to in years to come. If I didn't know any better I would think we have an administration that is idealistically confused and didn't know why they went into Iraq. They do know that if anyone is against their war they are unpatriotic and trying to help the terrorists win the war. Is it really a war?
A conflict of sorts yes. We are fighting over there to prevent the enemy from coming over here. I'm not so sure the Iraqis are in favor of that strategy however.
Then we have a war that the Pentagon is trying to fight without incurring casualties; almost 2700 troops in 3 plus years? Wonder what Sun Tzu would have to say about that; or about the Iraq war in general?
According to Sun Tzu the Administration violated one of the major tenants of war and that is, "Know your enemy". Obviously we didn't and still don't know. Are we fighting terrorists or insurgents, dead-enders, Bathists? Another violated tenant, "Know yourself". What with all the idealistic claptrap being spouted by the Administration and its supporters, it is obvious the Administration doesn't know its own limitations, or goals. Another tenant: don't engage in long and expensive conflicts. Another tenant: don't take on more than you can chew; in other words don't start a fight where the outcome is in doubt. It would seem that after watching the conflict between the Arabs and Israel that the Administration would have had an idea of what could happen if a Western army took over an Arab country. As far as a Democratic beacon, what about Israel? Wasn't it a shining example of Democracy that the Arabs could aspire to?
So are we fighting a war? Are we winning hears and minds? If the Administration depended on deeds rather than words we might be someplace today. The U.S. had everyone's attention right after 9/11 but that was squandered by this Administration by attacking a scapegoat; which we now are trying to resuscitate. So what should the plan be? What do we want to accomplish?
First of all we can't protect ourselves from every terrorist that wants to do us damage. The good news is terrorists can't take over the country; they can only do relatively minor damage. Israel is a good example of what is possible and what isn't; security wise. If cockpit doors were locked 9/11 wouldn't likely to have happened. Now if our borders were secured and other simple measures were taken we wouln't have much to worry about. What about Iraq?
Nothing can be done about Iraq until the violence is stopped and that can't be done without securing the streets. That means many more troops and measures that will halt the transport of explosives from storage areas to target areas. "Staying the course" will assure our defeat because it is a bunch of half-measures. Deciding on what we want to accomplish, then developing the tactics to achieve the goal is what needs to be done. So far the mishmash of Iraqi and U.S. command and control is a prescription for disaster. Democracy is fine when everyone agrees to play by the rules. Unfortunatley some are not playing by our "rules".

Are We a Nation of Sob-Sisters?

Every year the expression of grief gets more intense, elaborate, and agonizing as the media and politicians wax ever more eloquent. Grief is one of those sacred cows no one wants to tackle because to do so would somehow demean the loss of innocents, or so the panderers would have us believe. There is such a thing as closure and it would seem after a few years most of us would find it.
One point I would like to make is that what we are doing in reality is glorifying those who perpetrated the 9/11 disaster. When we go about mewling about 9/11 we are erecting a monument to the perpetrators of a dastardly crime. A better monument to those that were lost would be closing our borders and going after employers who may be hiring terrorists. To me that would offer some real closure--not going about making fine political speeches.