Today's Note From a Madman
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
"Brennan has been found. He's in very good condition.
It is excellent news and we are all thrilled,"
-Bob Hawkins, 11-year-old Brennan Hawkins' uncle, from Utah
So are we, Bob
The Obvious Iraq
We know that one of the reasons President Bush okayed the invasion of Iraq was for OIL. The belief of the Texas Republican is that "OIL is power" and "he who controls the OIL controls all". Many of us believe that the need for OIL was the primary, or maybe even the only reason we invaded Iraq.
We know for a fact that President Bush and his Greed Over People Party cohorts planned to invade Iraq well before September 11, 2001. The Downing Street Memos were really just the last straw. As early as 1999, President Bush had his eye on the OIL-rich Iraq. Let's not forget that Iraq is the 2nd largest OIL-producing nation in the world.
The "sacrifices" that "G"lobal "W"arming Bush, Dick "Go <F---> Yourself" Cheney, Donald "There Are Things We Know We Know" Rumsfeld and Condoleezza "Mushroom Cloud" Rice are rhetorical, at best. It is OUR children fighting and making sacrifices, sometimes the Ultimate Sacrifice.
Who are we doing this for? Does "G"lobal "W"arming Bush really believe that there were WMD's in Iraq? Does he still want to go with "We are doing this to liberate the people of Iraq"? The terrorists in Iraq are there because of the failed policies of the Bush administration. Our troops need to be there because of a situation that President Bush created.
We have now lost more than half of the people that were lost on 911 in our troops killed in action. If you include all war related deaths, that count goes up to well over 6000, more than twice the souls lost on 911. That doesn't even include the wounded and dismembered. If we are to believe President Bush,, there is no end in sight.
OIL...OIL...OIL... It was supposed to pay for the war. Just ask the new head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz. OIL was sold and money was stolen. No-bid contract fleece our national treasury. The middle class tax burden increase while the "hyper-rich" top one percent get huge tax breaks.
Congress has to vote, periodically, on how much more money we throw at the war. $23 billion here, $80 billion there...pretty soon you're talking about REAL MONEY!
If you were a big Texas Oil man with no scruples, and you were told that Iraq's oil was there for the taking, and you had the fiercest fighting force man has ever known at your disposal, what would you do?
Personally? I'm Disgusted!
I wonder how the Vietnam Veterans and the families of those who lost fathers or mothers, brothers or sisters, sons or daughters feel about President Bush, a man who used his family's influence to "opt-out" of Vietnam, meeting with Vietnam's Communist Leader, Prime Minister Phan Van Khai at the White house today.
I wonder if the fact that the US has become Vietnam's biggest trading partner (some $6.4 billion) has anything to do with it?
Gotta love all that cheap labor, right GW?
"We have a population of 80 million people, which means a huge market for American businesses, and these people are also very hard-working, creative and dynamic. And they are now working very hard to achieve the goal of building Vietnam into a strong country with wealthy people and a democratic and advanced society."
What exactly is the "huge market" in Vietnam? What are the "goods" we are exporting to those 80 million people?
"We talked about our desire for Vietnam's to join the W.T.O."
Oh boy! More Wal-Mart Slave Labor!
"It's very comforting to many families here in America to understand that the government is providing information to close a sad chapter in their lives,"
"Comforting"? Did you actually ask those families, President Bush? I bet you wouldn't get the "preferred answer."
The unmitigated gall of this guy.
Care to take a guess as to who the major stockholders of Halliburton are and why this administration is so reluctant to give up Gitmo?
And if that were not enough, I heard an interview on NPR yesterday regarding the Gitmo issue and not only did the person being interviewed stated that they were NOT going to close that facility but that this administration feels that they have the right to detain ANY suspect for as along as necessary, even if that mean indefinitely, i.e., years and years, maybe even for life, however long that may last.
As far as I'm concerned Bush, Cheney, and Rumfeld's flat refusal to shut down the Guantanamo facility and their plan to build another one is yet another instance of their not only totally ignoring international law but snubbing the American people as well. It is quite obvious that they don't give a damn what ANYONE thinks about their decisions and actions, that they are going to do whatever they want.
Kellogg, Brown & Root, or KBR of Halliburton fame is going to build a new $30 million detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Even though the US Congress feels that the "Gitmo" and its practices have given the US an International image problem, VP Dick "Go <F---> Yourself" Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald "There Are Things We Know We Know" Rumsfeld aren't fazed by it.
It's "the gulag of our times"
-An Amnesty International Report
I guess to Cheney and Rummy, image isn't everything.
"It is part of a larger contract that could be worth up to $500 million if all options are exercised
-the US Defense Department
And what might THOSE options be? There's a big difference between 30 million and 500 million. Maybe the rest will go for construction of similar facilities for our own citizens within the US? After all, they will need some place to put all those people that will fall under the expanded definition of terrorists in this country!
-Chris Tennant and Noah Greenberg
Are They Finally Getting It?
"In the war on terrorism delay can be a form of failure, the consequences of failure are unthinkable."
-Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Lieberman, (D-CT), in a letter to Andrew Card, The White House Chief of Staff
“To this day, the harbor nuclear detectors are incapable of distinguishing between bombs and kitty litter or bananas, leading frustrated customs officials to simply shut them off. The new $1.2 billion explosives detectors for the Transportation Security Administration, a part of Homeland Security, are equally unreliable."
-DER SPIEGEL June 13, 2005
Seems there is a wave of bi-partisanship developing in calling for President Bush to act to make US more secure in some crucial ways. What a scary thought that nuclear detectors cannot distinguish between bombs, kitty litter or bananas. As Sen. Collins (Rep) and Sen. Lieberman (Dem) say “the consequences of failure are unthinkable.”
In response to Madman's "Then who's hiding (Osama bin-Laden)? I've narrowed it down to 2 countries. It either has to be Iran of Saudi Arabia", Jack Kashinsky writes,
You forgot THE sovereign country: Pakistan.
It is my belief that the US made a deal with Mushareef to the effect that they would cooperate with each other, except in the case of Bin Laden. If the Pakistani government were ever implicated in the capture or death of Bush's nemesis, the country would be embroiled in a rebellion, and the US would find it had two Afghanistan's to deal with. That is except for the fact that one has a formidable army and THE ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
And Eddie Konczal writes:
“I have an excellent idea of where (Osama bin Laden) is,” CIA director Porter Goss tells TIME in his first interview since becoming director of the CIA. When asked when Osama bin Laden will be captured, he says, “That is a question that goes far deeper than you know. In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we’re probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice. We are making very good progress on it. But when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you’re dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play. We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways that are acceptable to the international community.”
So how does Mr. Goss explain Iraq? We had no problem invading that "sovereign state" and dispensing with "international obligation" and "fair play." I thought Bush won the election because he was going to protect us from terrorists like Osama bin Laden and find him "dead or alive," no matter where he was. I thought Bush was going to "fight them there so we don't fight them here" - that became Bush's reason for us being in Iraq, after we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
Can somebody - ANYBODY - explain to me what exactly is going on here?
And Robert Scardapane writes:
First off, Porter Goss is blowing smoke. He is trying to get the heat off of his master's rear by creating the illusion that the administration is on UBL's trail. Let's not buy into the smokescreen.
The most likely location for UBL is the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Pakistan government has stayed out of this area for decades. The local tribes control it and government interference is generally met with violence. Also, I doubt that Mushareef really wants to get him. Sure, he isn't so stupid to give him sanctuary in the palace but he doesn't want to risk the wrath of his own people. There were three assassination attempts against him so catching UBL may be a career shortening action.
I seriously doubt that UBL would be tolerated in Saudi. The House of Saud has many faults - maintaining their wretched survival is not one. UBL was thrown out of Saudi because he is a threat and he won't be allowed back in.
Let's be careful about fostering the theory that UBL is in Iran. That could provide "Bushco" with a reason to wage another war.
We are engaged in two wars with no exit strategy and certainly
don't need a third.
And Lew Warden writes:
You’ve overlooked China, North Korea and Indonesia as “sovereign” states where Osama might be languishing in some degree of hospitality and total security.
In response to Eddie Konczal's view on Pro-Life Democrats, Jack Kashinsky writes:
I personally never had too much love for John Kerry. Liberal Elitists simply rub me the wrong way. However, he never, to my knowledge, advocated for abortion. Being pro choice, as you know, and being simply pro abortion, are two different animals.
The Catholic Church has taken, what I consider to be, hypocritical stands on a number of issues. The two that come to mind are their sponsored bingo games, while they were deploring gambling...until they discovered it was such a money maker, and their endorsement of the "rhythm cycle". Here they were sponsoring pro life, even if the mother had to die, which my wife nearly did, and simultaneously advocate the so called "rhythm cycle, which is birth control in every sense of the word.
I turned away from the Catholic Church because my belief in the right of every individual to free choice was the backbone of a civilized Democracy.
Don't let the Repugs continue to frame us as the party for abortion.
Actually, since the abortion rate has risen during the "Bush 43" years, we can now officially call the GOP the "Abortion Party". -NG
Quotes, Sort Of
"On October 11, 2001, Knight Ridder reported that less than a month after the September 11 attacks senior Pentagon officials who wanted to expand the war against terrorism to Iraq had authorized a trip to Great Britain in September by former CIA director James Woolsey in search of evidence that Saddam Hussein had played a role in the September 11 terrorist attacks."
"Then, on February 13, 2002, nearly six months before the Downing Street memo was written, Knight Ridder reported that President Bush had decided to oust Saddam Hussein and had ordered the CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies to devise a combination of military, diplomatic, and covert steps to achieve that goal. Six days later, former Senator Bob Graham of Florida reports in his book, he was astounded when General Tommy Franks told him during a visit to the US Central Command in Tampa that the administration was shifting resources away from the pursuit of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan to prepare for war in Iraq."
-John Walcott, Washington Bureau Chief, Knight Ridder
Bush was obsessed with Iraq even before the 2000 election. The sad events of 9/11 provided him with a ready made excuse. The British report intense bombing raids six months before Bush went to the UN. There is clear evidence that the air force was hitting ground targets that had nothing to do with enforcing the no-fly zone. The Congress must start formal investigations. This matter has been covered up too long.
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com or firstname.lastname@example.org