Monday, July 31, 2006


Looks like somebody pissed off the warmongers...whoops...

We shouldn't be at war (7-24-06)

B.J. Mathias recently extolled the virtues of war and warriors in these pages ("No payment great enough for those who serve in war," July 17.) Her piece seemed innocent, patriotic and heartwarming enough, recounting her conversation with a homebound Iraq veteran. She chose to focus on the "good side" of the story of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, of hospitals and schools built for the newly "freed" Iraqis.

She conveniently left out the stories of our boys killing pregnant Iraqi women on the way to the hospital to give birth. She forgot to mention the torture and detainment of innocent civilians in Abu Ghraib. She failed to recognize the tens of thousands of civilian deaths brought about by our military might. She gave no consideration to the billions of dollars being drained out of our own hospitals and schools and communities to finance these horrors.

Mathias expresses dismay that Americans don't "see beyond political views and bias right to the heart of it all." I agree with her on that point, and the "heart of it all" is that we are killing people for no good reason. Our own sons and daughters are being killed for no good reason.

All this killing, however, is being done for a very bad reason - in order to give the neocons and the theocons here at home an excuse to take away our freedoms because after all, they tell us, "we are at war."

But what they won't say (and don't want us to think about) is that we don't have to be at war and we shouldn't be at war.

Clinton Kirby



Kirby insulted troops in letter (7-26-06)

I would like to thank Mr. Kirby for getting me off of my can with his letter of July 24th ("We shouldn't be at war). In his analysis of B.J. Mathias' tribute, he conveniently did not comprehend what he read.

Though I am not in support of the "war," I am behind our troops 100 percent. Supporting, admiring and being thankful for our young women and men who are risking all in the service of their country can be done without consideration of politics and religious persuasion.

As an Army veteran, with family members who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, with lifelong friends who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, and with lifelong friends who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country, I am deeply insulted by his letter with its characterizations of our fighting men and women.

Mr. Kirby, please don't spit on those who serve while you rest comfortably at home. Either keep your feelings centered on politics, or volunteer your family and friends to join the services to raise it to your moral high ground.

Douglas Wick


Mathias has her supporters(7-28-06)

Clinton Kirby's letter, "We Shouldn't Be At War," July 24, lambasting B.J. Mathias for "extolling the virtues of war and warriors in these pages," reeks of the obvious terror inflicted upon the writer by the terrorist enemy, a terrorist goal achieved in his case for which they can be proud.

If anyone sees Clinton Kirby, tell him that "war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things."

Tell Kirby that "the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."

Also, explain to Kirby that "the person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Folks sort of like B.J. Mathias , please tell Kirby.

John Stuart Mill, noted philosopher, arrived at this answer in 1865.

Armond "Si" Simmons

Pell City, Ala.


We have reason to be at war (7-29-06)

I would like to respond to the letter from Clinton Kirby. ("We shouldn't be at war," July 24) Once again we see a liberal attempting to spin untruth into truth. The truth is that we would all like not to be at war.

Now we have Mr. Kirby who follows along with the far left and their assumption that when you throw manure surely it will stick; unfortunately, most of the time they throw it into a fan because most of it lands on their own face.

Case-in-point, when you can't think of anything else to say, attack the U.S. military. He invented the most vile thing his brain could come up with: U.S. soldiers killing pregnant women on the way to the hospital.

I suppose he wants us to believe that this is what U.S. soldiers do when they are not killing puppies or eating babies.

His statement that we shouldn't be at war and we are wasting billions of dollars is far from thought-provoking and fails to acknowledge the fact that we didn't start this war.

This is World War III (recall 9/11) and until terrorism is dealt with, and ruthless animals like Saddam and his blood-thirsty, sub-human sons are dead and gone, we can either spend the resources fighting on their soil or ours.

The fact is they started this war and they won't stop until we have killed them all. Sounds crazy but these are their rules not ours.

Gray Nichols


Support troops, bring them home (7-31-06)

Douglas Wick recently accused me of "insulting" our troops. However, I am not the one that is insulting our troops.

Rather, it is the Bush administration that has insulted them by: sending them to kill and die in an immoral, illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that was no threat to us; not providing them with proper body armor or vehicle armor; essentially drafting what were initially volunteers through the "stop loss" policy; refusing to withdraw them even though it is now clear to a majority of Americans and the rest of the world that what is happening in Iraq is a complete fiasco.

But all that is really beside the point. The point is that our illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq must end. We must stop killing and being killed, and the only way to do that is to leave the Middle East right now. We must not allow ourselves to be fooled into believing that Iraq will descend into chaos if we leave - the country is already in a state of chaos because we are there.

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home now so no more of them will die.

And ultimately that is what I am in favor of, and if Wick or anyone reading this can truly convince themselves that somehow that is the equivalent of "spitting" on American soldiers, then may God have mercy on us all.

Clinton Kirby


Monday, July 17, 2006


Saw the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. on Hardball tonight, where they showed much footage from targeting devices and the resulting explosions in Lebanon. He, like John Bolton, Bush and others like to make a big deal about Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah financially and militarily.

Don't you imagine there's an Islamic Chris Matthews on al Jazeera or something being told by a spokesman for Hezbollah that the U.S. is supporting Israel financially and militarily?

Of course there is...and it's not clear to me who wins this argument, but I'm sure of who loses...

Monday, July 10, 2006


Reading "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii To Iraq" by Stephen Kinzer. It's amazing to see how everything old is new again--namely, we torture prisoners and go to war for business interests but say it's for liberation. According to Kinzer, it's what we did the early 1900s in the Philippines and it's what we're doing now in Iraq.

Here's a passage that proves the old adage that the more things change, the more they stay the same (substitute "Iraq" for "Philippines" and maybe "Washington Times" and "Weekly Standard" for the two newspaper names):

A second theme that echoed through the press was that any atrocities committed in the Philippines had been aberrations. They were 'deplorable,' the St. Paul Pioneer Press conceded, but had "no bearing on fundamental questions of national policy." The New York Tribune said only a few soldiers were guilty and "the penalty must fall not upon the policy, but upon those men."(p. 54)

This is fascinating and tragic in and of itself, but it resonates with me on a whole other level given that I recently found out that my great-grandfather served in the Philippines during that time--circa 1903 or so. I always remember my parents and grandparents telling me that the round, spyglass-looking objects on display were "Moro cannons" and that they were from the Philippines, but they never elaborated any further.

I guess now I know why...

Treaty Of Tripoli

Also heard about this for the first time (or the first time in a long time) from a caller to the Al Franken show (Sam Seder subbing). It's as good an argument as any that the U.S. was never intended to be a "Christian nation," and was passed by the Senate with many of the Founding Fathers serving in the Senate at that time. The relevant quote:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Iran says they're not going to accept or decline the infamous "offer" tomorrow, they only want to clear up the ambiguities in it:

"Tomorrow, we will not give a definite answer. We will only discuss questions and ambiguities regarding the offer," the official said.

Remember, only the details that make this look like a reasonable offer are public. The details that will cause the Iranians to either reject the offer or just avoid answering altogether are still secret.

It's interesting how news stories acknowledge that there are ambiguities in the offer, but they don't seem to ever try to find out what those ambiguities are. The stories only say that Iran was offered a "package of incentives" and leave it at that.

It's a trap designed to make Iran look "unreasonable"...


The headline from screams "Iran Ahmadinejad calls for annihilation of Israel ." Then the article quotes Ahmadinejad:

"The basic problem in the Islamic world is the existence of the Zionist regime.
The Islamic world and the region must mobilize to remove this problem," said
Ahmadinejad at the opening of a two-day regional conference on security in

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Ahmadinejad is saying that the "Zionist regime" is the "problem." Is the "Zionist regime" the same as, or synonymous with, Israel? Of course not--not anymore than the "Bush regime" is the same as or synonymous with the United States.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Middle East, but it seems to me that Ahmadinejad is correct in this case: the Zionist regime (as distinct from "Israel") is seen as the problem by the Muslim world. That's not inflammatory or irresponsible, it's just a statement of fact.

I hope Operation Demonize Iran fails...

Sunday, July 02, 2006


Why, that would be in February, 2001. You know when the president takes the oath of office? January 20th. So that means trying to establish this "call monitoring" program was one of the Bush administration's first orders of business. Bush wouldn't even have been in office for an entire month before he wanted to start undermining civil liberties, without even waiting to have 9/11 as an excuse to do so.

But having said that, it now occurs to me that this revelation actually strengthens the case for 9/11 being an inside job. After all, would any administration do something so dictatorial (i.e., start spying on phone records--or at least try to figure out how to spy on phone records) if it didn't think it had some sort of political cover, like say, a new Pearl Harbor coming down the pike?

That is to say, if you had no idea that a new Pearl Harbor attack was gonna go down, but, like Bush, you had just lost the popular vote and yet still been installed in office by the "activist judges" of the Supreme Court, you might not want to start such a program because discovery of it would be devastating politically.

But on the other hand, maybe you wouldn't worry about political devastation even if you were unelected given that you knew a new Pearl Harbor attack was gonna go down which would give you "political capital" for years and years.

Hmmmm...either way, Bush is destroying America and must be stopped...the war on "terror" is a war on our freedom....

Saturday, July 01, 2006


Saw "Superman Returns" with my wife and son this weekend. I got to thinking, if I were an editorial or political cartoonist, I'd draw Superman saving the Constitution from George Bush. Or I'd draw him saving people from massacres like this.

The wife and I have been going to the July 4th Crab Festival in Bay St. Louis, MS for a few years now. We were glad to hear that they were going to have it this year, in spite of the destruction from Katrina.

It was the first time that she or I have gone down to Bay St. Louis since the storm, and we really wanted to see it, having seen a CNN special about the town some months back.

I took a few pics with the cell phone. They aren't great, but they give you some idea of the wasteland that downtown Bay St. Louis still is over ten months after the hurricane. For example, you'll notice a lot of dirt everywhere--that's where the streets and the restaurants and businesses on the bay side of the streets used to be.

Here are the pix:

Spray painted on the boards: "Do Not Enter--Not Safe"

Fire Dog Saloon still there, but gutted

Old theater still there--just barely

Giant stump and root system in the road

We saw this from a mile away, that's who...

LONDON, July 1 (IranMania) - Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tehran will continue its uranium enrichment program despite international calls to halt the sensitive project, Iran's state television reported Saturday.

"The Iranian government and the people have decided, and without any doubt with dignity and glory we will pass this phase," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying from Gambia after explaining Iran's fuel cycle program, which has enriching uranium as its focus, to Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo, AFP added.

Here's what we said on June 6/7 about this very topic:

However, the Iranians are not going to accept the deal and Bush and Rice and everyone involved knows they aren’t going to accept it. The whole point of this–the con job I referred to earlier–is that when the Iranians inevitably do refuse the deal, that will be the next anti-Iran talking point. We’re reasonable and they aren’t. The security council offered them this sweet deal and they refused it. So we have to bomb and/or invade.

Not that I'm trying to say I'm clairvoyant or anything, quite the contrary. I'm just trying to point out how transparent Bush's plans really are. Hell, if I could figure this out, anyone could. It's called "railroading." And the last stop on this line is bombing and/or invasion.

Iran and Midterms

So by this November, we'll be threatening or possibly already attacking Iran and that will be the divisive issue that the Democrats will be made to look weak on and all the attack ads will feature Democrats morphing into ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein, Osama--whoever. And the Republicans will talk about how very important it is to not let Iran get a nuclear weapon, even though it's obvious that they would never and could never pose a threat to the United States with any nuclear weapons they managed to cobble together. The main thing is that this dog and pony show is being put on so that the enabling act mentioned below can be joined by other such laws on the books and the neo/theocons can finally dismantle the democracy they hate so much.

Bush Needs Wars

Bush needs wars to do the unpopular, unconstitutional things he wants to do. The Iraq war is terribly unpopular, so Bush wants to try again. He knows that when wars are first begun, all the press are along for the ride and they film everything and talk about a tank crossing the desert in breathless, reverent tones.

That's what Bush wants for the November mid-terms--that first week of war rush. He wants reporters to point out how easily and swiftly the Iranian regime will be toppled and how organized and skillful the army is. And then Bush will want to make another dramatic announcement, maybe from the top of a minaret or something, with an even bigger codpiece on.

And everyone will swoon and vote for Repukes, who will steal the election anyway just in case (hello DRE voting machines almost everywhere). Oh, it'll be a hell of a time.

Described here by our anti-friends Bill Frist and particularly Lindsey Graham:

"The court said that military commissions would be proper if Congress blessed those commissions -- that the president by himself could not do this, that he had to come to Congress and get the Congress to bless the military tribunal." Graham said.

"I agree with that. I think it would be better off if the Congress and the White House work together to pass a statute that would allow these terrorists to be tried in a military court."

That's the Bush/neo-theocon plan: don't dismantle the Congress or the Supreme Court or anything. Leave them all in place, but make sure they're filled with collaborators that will do what you want. And since the constitutional institutions won't be done away with to the untrained eye, it will sound crazy to most people when people point out how the Supreme Court or the Congress have basically been wiped away. The unwashed will think "No, we still a Court and a Congress--they pass laws and decide cases." It's beginning to happen...