EXXONMOBIL BREAKS RECORD--AND BACKS OF AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

So ExxonMobil has now broken its previous record, which was the all-time high for any company in history in quarterly profits:

By any measure, Exxon Mobil’s performance last year was a blowout.

The company reported Friday that it beat its own record for the highest profits ever recorded by any company, with net income rising 3 percent to $40.6 billion, thanks to surging oil prices. The company’s sales, more than $404 billion, exceeded the gross domestic product of 120 countries.

Exxon Mobil earned more than $1,287 of profit for every second of 2007.

The company also had its most profitable quarter ever. It said net income rose 14 percent, to $11.7 billion, or $2.13 a share, in the last three months of the year. The company handily beat analysts’ expectations of $1.95 a share, after missing targets in the last two quarters.

Like most oil companies, Exxon benefited from a near doubling of oil prices, as well as higher demand for gasoline last year. Crude oil prices rose from a low of around $50 a barrel in early 2007 to almost $100 by the end of the year — the biggest jump in oil prices in any one year.

It's simple, really. They made more because they charged us more for something we have to have. They didn't make the gas any better, they didn't serve us any better or anything. They just charged us more.

Why are we upset about this? I'll tell you why...

At the Hattiesburg American forum, a poster asked "Why are we upset that the big oil company makes record profits?" Here's my reply:

"Why are we upset that the big oil company makes record profits?"

1. We're upset because they charged us more for the same exact product and the same exact service.

2. We're upset because gas is something we must have.

3. We're upset because higher gas prices mean higher prices for everything. ("Diesel price rise has ripple effect on goods," LA Times)

4 We're upset because the value of the dollar keeps dropping while prices keep rising.

5. We're upset because of record credit card debt, negative savings, and declining wages. (An earlier post about all that can be found here)

6. We're upset because of record debts and unnecessary wars that threaten to collapse our economy.

7. We're upset because we're about to borrow from ourselves (or the Chinese) to "help" ourselves buy some more over-priced gas or goods made in China, which only fuels (no pun intended) #6 (and #5).

8. We're upset because we know the world is nowhere near to running out of oil--the supply is being suppressed while demand only increases, jacking up the price.

9. We're upset because the president makes out with oil-rich dictators who won't cut us a break on oil prices, so we agree to sell a dictatorial regime that maintains a state of war with Israel a bunch of weapons because we love democracy so much (which only fattens the bottom line of defense contractors who then have that much more money to lobby with, allowing the whole sick cycle to continue ad infinitum).

10. We're upset because we have very few alternatives to get us out of this mess--even if we buy hybrids, we still have to pay inflated prices for all the goods that are trucked to market because of high gas/oil prices.

11. We're upset because the "free market" has allowed many industries, including the oil industry, to consolidate in fewer and fewer hands (now only 6 "supermajor" oil companies), whiich reduces competition and the incentive to fix any of the problems mentioned above.

12. We're upset that none of the American oil companies, including ExxonMobil, would help out with discounted home heating oil for Americans. Luckily, Venezuela's Citgo stepped up to the plate to help out.

If I left anything out--and I'm sure I did--please add your reason we're upset to the list.

LOSING THE "WAR ON TERROR"


Happy "Mission Accomplished" Anniversary!

If the goal of the so-called "war on terror" is to REDUCE terrorism, then the U.S. is losing that war.

Compared to 2005, terrorist attacks were UP 25% in 2006, and 40% more people were killed by extremists in 2006. This is coming from the Bush administration's own State Department, which said there were around 14,000 terror attacks in 2006.

Just under half of those were in Iraq!

If on the other hand, the publicly unstated but actual goal of the "war on terror" is to reduce the civil liberties of Americans and give their tax money away in the form of fat government contracts to the military-industrial complex, we're winning the "war on terror" big-time! Go USA!

GWOT: INTERESTING COINCIDENCES...

Isn't it veeeerrry interesting that the day after the Senate passes an Iraq spending bill that contains a timetable, suddenly we're capturing (also killing) insurgents, taking back cities from the Taliban, and the Saudis are foiling "terror plots" to get this--fly planes into oil refineries?

What a series of convenient coincidences to help neocons make the case that we're succeeding in the war on our freedom...I mean, the war on "terror"...I mean, terror (no quotes)...

Here's what the AP had to say about the foiled "terror plot":

"They had reached an advance stage of readiness, and what remained only was to set the zero hour for their attacks," the ministry's spokesman, Brig. Mansour al-Turki, told The Associated Press in a phone call. "They had the personnel, the money, the arms. Almost all the elements for terror attacks were complete except for setting the zero hour for the attacks."

No "zero hour?"

So this supposed attack could have theoretically taken place any time between today and the end of time?

Huh...I guess that's why they had to move on it, then. Surely the U.S. Senate having passed their Iraq sort-of-but-not-really withdrawal bill the day before the arrests had nothing to do with it...

NO PRE-WAR LINKS TO AL QAEDA; MORE ON SAUDI ARABIA

I've been doing a lot of writing on the forum this week...

No al Qaeda links

Here's an article published today that indicates Saddam had no links to al Qaeda:

Coincidentally (or perhaps not), Dick Cheney was on Rush Limbaugh yesterday contradicting these Defense Department findings, which were:

"(AP) Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides."

This was something I had hoped would be done before Saddam's execution--simply ask him whether he had ties with al Qaeda and if he had WMD. Now we see that they asked him about al Qaeda; I wonder if a Defense Department report will be released any time in the near future indicating that they asked Saddam about WMD.

More on Saudi Arabia

I found out something the other day that I was not aware of, namely that Saudi Arabia maintains a state of war with Israel. The Saudis are also known funders of Hamas and Hezbollah, and if one believes the official 9/11 story, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None of the hijackers were from Iraq or Afghanistan.

I am not advocating that we go to war with Saudi Arabia, but I am curious why Bush chose to invade Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. I am curious why Bush holds hands with Saudi princes when they come to his villa in Crawford for cordial visits. After all, there is no doubt that Saudi Arabia had/has "al Qaeda connections" (Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, after all) and that they fund groups that are at odds with Israel and that they consider themselves to be in a state of war with Israel. Also, Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist Islamic monarchy that tramples on the rights of women.

These are all arguments used to justify invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but somehow Bush is willing to overlook them in Saudi Arabia's case. What I'm trying to say is that, in light of these facts, Bush's claim to be fighting a "global war on terror" while simultaneously considering Saudi Arabia an ally is completely absurd.

Now I can think of a couple reasons why it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war with Saudi Arabia--namely, Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities in Islam. Arguing that we are not at war with Islam would be very difficult while bombing and/or occupying Mecca.
But also, the Bush family has been very cozy with the Saudis for decades now. Saudis helped George W. out of a couple jams in his business dealings. Also, the price of oil would be even more outrageous than it is now if we were to attack Saudi Arabia.

Consequences of not playing the game by our rules

But I think the real reason we don't attack Saudi Arabia is because they have bought into our system. They have invested heavily in the U.S., they've let the U.S. have military bases there, they aren't threatening the hegemony of the petrodollar, etc.

In other words, they're playing our game and they benefit from it. The U.S. has never liked countries that don't play our game, i.e., Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, Iraq, etc. We don't mind dictators as long as they know and remain in their place in the international system over which we rule--Saudi Arabia being a prime example of that principle. China is another example--they're a Communist country that violates human rights but since our biggest retailer Wal-Mart benefits so greatly from trade with China, we give them a pass.
However, we maintain a crippling embargo against Cuba supposedly because it is a Communist country. The real reason, however, is that Castro doesn't play our game.

WHY THEY REALLY HATE US

Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit (now dismantled) and author of "Imperial Hubris", has been lauded by Justin Raimondo for a long time. I had read a few pieces of his and a few interviews with him, but what he said yesterday on the Sam Seder show was absolutely right on. He laid out what was wrong with American intertwining foreign and domestic policy with a clarity and succintness that one doesn't hear very often.

I'm going to transcribe a few of his comments below...

SS: How does, as a whole, the Iraq endeavor [i.e., the war] affect our safety in this regard? I mean, is this genuinely the central front in the "war on terror?" If we weren't "there" [in Iraq] would that free them up to attack us in the United States?

MS: No, I think that's kind of a canard that's been used by a lot of people...What Iraq has done to make it more dangerous for us is to accelerate the transition of bin Laden and al Qaeda into "bin Laden-ism" and "al Qaeda-ism." Instead of a man and an organization, we now have a philosophy and a movement...

...What we did by invading Iraq was to successfully accomplish the definition for a defensive jihad in Islam--an infidel power invading a Muslim country without provocation and then occupying it. It is something that lifts the onus from bin Laden in the sense of him calling the jihad because so many now well-credentialed clerics have said "Yes, we have to fight a jihad against the Americans because of Iraq...

SS: So it's almost as if he [bin Laden] no longer has to make the case, we're making the case for him...

MS:We've very much validated his argument, sir.

If anyone asks what we're doing wasting, yes wasting, American lives in Iraq, you can say that we are validating bin Laden's argument--we are proving his point. The "sleeping giant" is also very clumsy and slow-witted, as it turns out.

How to "embolden terrorists"

In other words, we are "emboldening terrorists" by continuing to occupy Iraq, not the other way around. The Boehners and the Liebermans of the War Party have it exactly backwards. But the pro-war crowd has really turned that truth on its head by continuously repeating that if we leave, we will look weak and like losers and terrorists will be heartened.

And the Boehners and Liebermans have it exactly backward on purpose--war is business and war is the health of the state, and right now business is the state and vice versa. Whatever the pro-war crowd warns will happen, the opposite will be true--and that's why they issue such warnings. They know that the insurgency is caused by our presence and would have no reason to exist if we left, so they say we can't leave because if we do, the insurgency will get worse.

And such pronouncements make sense on the surface, especially to Fox News watchers who don't have a clear understanding of the way we were lied into war in the first place.

Anyway, back to Scheuer and Seder, because the best is yet to come...

MS: ...When you claim you've killed 2/3 of the leadership of al Qaeda, it's both true and irrelevant. Al Qaeda is an insurgent organization that grew up in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. It always makes plans to replace its leadership. That's one of the main activities they engage in is preparing for leadership losses. And so every time we kill or capture a senior leader, whoever replaces him has been an understudy...

I'm not sure that what any of what we're fighting is "terrorism." I can tell you, at least from the intelligence officer's perspective, if al Qaeda was a terrorist group, the CIA would have destroyed it before 9/11. It's an insurgent organization that's spread worldwide and the president keeps saying "We're gonna arrest them one person at a time"--we're never gonna get the job done that way. They're really more insurgents than they are terrorists and by calling them "terrorists" I'm afraid the American people have not gotten a clear view of the danger that threatens our country.

Insurgents, not terrorists

Exactly, al Qaeda are insurgents, not terrorists. That means if we don't fuck with them, they don't fuck with us. But as has always been the case, the label of "terrorist" is misused on purpose to conceal the racket of war. To call someone a terrorist is to try to de-legitimize, marginalize, and de-sympathize (and de-empathize) with the person or group so labeled.

OK, a little more, and saving the best for last:

SS: What does it mean that [al Qaeda] is a worldwide insurgency as opposed to being a terrorist organization?

MS: A terrorist organization by definition has to be a small organization that's very tightly compartmented...what we're looking at is, from southern Thailand to Chechnya to Afghanistan to Kashmir to the Philippines are a number of localized Islamist insurgencies, most of them driven by local grievances. But, bin Laden has been, by the impact of our foreign policy in the Islamic world, able to focus some section of each of those insurgencies against the Americans. And so we're facing threats on virtually every continent and ones we're just not equipped over the long run to defeat.

The Crux of The Biscuit

MS: Partially we're in a hole of our own making because for the last 15 years--at least--our presidents and policymakers in both parties have told the American people that "they hate us because of our freedoms and liberties and gender equality and R-rated movies" and that has almost nothing to do with this war.

The reason bin Laden has been able to focus these Islamist insurgents on the United States is because of the impact of what our government does in the Muslim world.

SS: Specifically...

MS: Our ability to keep oil prices low, our support for Israel, our military presence on the Arabian peninsula, our presence now in Iraq and Yemen and Afghanistan. Probably most painful for the United States is our support for tyranny across the Arab world. The really spectacular hypocrisy between urging democracy in one place and supporting the al-Saud tyranny in Saudia Arabia is not lost, even on illiterate people.

SS: So what needs to be done at this point?

MS: Well, we're slowly turning into Israel at the moment. Because our leaders have lied about the motivation of the enemy, we are left with military and intelligence operations to defend ourselves. Once--if they ever get to the point, and I don't think it will occur until we get attacked again inside of this country--once they get to the point and say, "Well listen, these people are motivated not by the nonsense of R-rate movies and draft beer but by the fact that we're doing things in their part of the world," we can begin to discuss whether the policies we have and have had for the past thirty years are protecting America.

MS: Especially energy--everything is tied to energy. As long as we are dependent, and our allies are dependent on oil that comes out of the Persian Gulf, we are gonna have to support tyranny across the Arab world. And that keeps us locked--it leaves us with no options.

...We are not the main target of these people [al Qaeda and the worldwide insurgency]. What they've decided is that the tyrannies that rule the Arab world and Israel surive only because of the support of the United States. Whether or not that's true, that's their strategy. They believe that we're so much softer than the Israelis or the Egyptians or the Saudis, that they can drive us out of the area through economic damage to our country. And so we're not even the main target--we're just simply in the way of what they want to accomplish.

He said a few more things, but above are the things that just really caught my ear when I was listening to the podcast today. I'm exhausted...good night!

P.C. ROBERTS IS RIGHT: THE DOLLAR IS OUR WEAKNESS

Great piece by Roberts. I'm not sure that the average American is hip to this--I say that because I wasn't until recently. But he makes great points, in this piece called "How The World Can Stop Bush: Dump The Dollar!:

The US is totally dependent upon foreigners to finance its budget and trade deficits. By financing these deficits, foreign governments are complicit in the Bush Regime's military aggressions and war crimes. The Bush Regime's two largest lenders are China and Japan. It is ironic that Japan, the only nation to experience nuclear attack by the US, is banker to the Bush Regime as it prepares a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

If the rest of the world would simply stop purchasing US Treasuries, and instead dump their surplus dollars into the foreign exchange market, the Bush Regime would be overwhelmed with economic crisis and unable to wage war. The arrogant hubris associated with the "sole superpower" myth would burst like the bubble it is.

The collapse of the dollar would also end the US government's ability to subvert other countries by purchasing their leaders to do America's will.

The demise of the US dollar is only a question of time. It would save the world from war and devastation if the dollar is brought to its demise before the Bush Regime launches its planned attack on Iran.

And the first part of the piece is really informative as well...

THAT GUY GOT NAILED...(or, what the hell does Tokyo Rose have to with Iraq?)

There was a plagiarized right-wing letter printed in the Hattiesburg American this week. I of course had no idea it was plagiarized until I got to looking up info that the letter referred to. I'd give you a link to the letter, written by Dick Przybelski, headlined "Words of WWII Still Ring True", but the paper removed it from their website, leaving this message:

"A question was raised about the authenticity of this letter to the editor. Until the issue is resolved, this letter has been removed from the online edition of the Hattiesburg American."

The Przybelski letter had to do with Tokyo Rose supposedly demoralizing GIs in WWII and basically saying that the left is doing the same thing now to soldiers in Iraq. It was originally posted by and plagiarized from OneBigDog, an extremely conservative blogger. So extreme that I'd rather not link to his site (even though it will appear below). But I was happy that the paper reacted the way they did, and I was glad to find out about Tokyo Rose, who I'd heard of but really didn't know anything about.

So here're my posts to the forum:

Post 1:

"Tokyo Rose" was not a single person, but a name given by U.S. soldiers to a group of 12 women who broadcast Japanese propaganda. An American named Iva Ikuko Toguri was convicted of being Tokyo Rose (on only one of 8 treason charges against her), but she was not given a fair trial and was pardoned by Gerald Ford in 1977.

This letter purports to be anti-propaganda but in fact it is itself propaganda. It's interesting how Przybelski represents the message of supposed traitor "Tokyo Rose" as being three of the main (true) arguments against the Iraq war. And he seems to have gotten this info from this site: http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=2413

Przybelski not only "seems" to have gotten this info from the above website, it's copied verbatim in places. Check out the plagiarism for yourself. And yes, it's plagiarism because Przybelski doesn't use quotation marks or give his sources for this material. He tries to pass it off as his own.

Post 2:

Here are the rather striking "similarities" between the onebigdog post from 1-16-07 (http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=2413) and today's Przybelski letter:

onebigdog:"Through Tokyo Rose during World War II the Japanese attempted to develop a way to demoralize American forces."

Przybelski: "During World War II, the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces."
------------------------------
onebigdog: "It was intended that Japanese psychological warfare experts could formulate a message that would work..."

Przybelski: "Psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work."
--------------------------
onebigdog: "And they gave their script to the famous broadcaster “Tokyo Rose,” and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on the morale and fighting spirit of American GI’s."

Przybelski: "They gave the script to their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose," and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on American GI's morale."
-------------------------------------------
onebigdog: "What was the message? It had three main points: 1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal. 3. You cannot win the war."

Przybelski: "What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:
1. Your president is lying to you. 2. This war is illegal. 3. You cannot win the war."
-----------------------------------
onebigdog: "Does this sound familiar?"
Przybelski: "Does this sound familiar?"
---------------------------------
onebigdog: "The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they demoralize them. Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose told the troops she was on their side, too!"

Przybelski: "The only difference is that the people saying this now claim to support our troops before they demoralize them. Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose told the troops she was on their side, too."

Post 3:

And just so you'll know, onebigdog is an "occupational health nurse consultant" who blogs anonymously from Maryland. So Przybelski and onebigdog are not the same person. Przybelski is from Petal.

http://blogcritics.org/writer/big_dog

Post 4:

I have gone to great lengths to show that Przybelski's letter was in fact plagiarized from onebigdog. I'm not crying wolf over plagiarism--the letter was clearly plagiarized from onebigdog.

I have also done a lot of reading up on "Tokyo Rose" today. I learned that the woman that was eventually convicted of being Tokyo Rose was not only an American, she was literally born on the fourth of July. And I also learned that American GIs actually enjoyed listening to "Zero Hour"--the show she was on--because she played popular tunes of the day.

If the purpose of the "Zero Hour" show was to demoralize U.S. troops, it didn't work very well.

I have not been able to corroborate the claim of onebigdog (and by extension, Przybelski) that "Tokyo Rose" ever said or implied that the U.S. president was lying, or that the war was illegal, or that the U.S. would lose the war. I'm not saying that the collective "Tokyo Rose" didn't say those things, I'm just saying that in the research I've done today, I haven't run across accounts of any broadcasters saying such things.

Here, from the LA Times, is an account of the type of things she did say:
----------
Calling herself "Orphan Ann," she came on the air with: "Hiya, keeds. I mean all you poor abandoned soldiers, sailors and Marines vacationing on those lovely tropical islands. Gets a little hot now and then, doesn't it? Well, remember, fellas, while you're sweating it out on the islands, your sweet little patootie back home is having a hotcha time with some friendly defense worker. They're probably dancing right now to this number...it used to be your song...remember?"
-------------------

The LA Times article goes to say this:
"For war-weary soldiers and sailors, the broadcasts were a break in the boredom of war, and not to be taken seriously. *Many officers believed Tokyo Rose strengthened the morale of the armed forces in the Pacific*. In jest, they even gave her a citation after the war."

Here's another description of the broadcasts of "Tokyo Rose," from a book review of )"Tokyo Rose, Orphan of the Pacific":
---------------------
" When the Japanese ordered the program expanded, the Australian POW selected Iva to read some scripts, but her voice was very coarse and low and he spent much time with Iva to get her to use a cheerful, lively voice. The POW, whose name was Major Cousins, assured Iva that he screened all scripts and that she would never be asked to say anything that was damaging to the USA. Iva was to call herself "Ann: and when Cousins heard that American broadcasters were referring to their troops as "Orphans of the Pacific", he asked Iva to call herself "Orphan Ann".

The "Zero Hour" program lasted only one hour..from 6 to 7 p.m. Tokyo time. It began with a theme song, "Strike Up The Band", played by Arthur Fielder and the Boston Pops Orchestra. The POW messages were read by Cousins for 5 to 10 minutes. Next came Iva's "Orphan Ann" disc jockey segment. She read a few pert comments written by Cousins. The records played were mainly classical or semi-classical with a few dance tunes. Her voice was only on the air for two or three minutes, followed by news from the US, followed by a "Juke Box" segment of popular or jazz music played by the Filipino POW. More news and commentary followed by male voices and a military march or song was played. The American POW signed off. " ------------

None of this sounds even remotely similar to what onebigdog or Przybelski intimated.

Post 5: The Point Of All This

Now, why is all that important?

Because onebigdog and Przybelski are trying to conflate WWII with Iraq. WWII is remembered as the last good war, the time of the "Greatest Generation," and so forth, while Iraq is rightly seen by the majority of the country as a regrettable quagmire that has more in common with Vietnam than WWII. Onebigdog and Przybelski are seeking to transfer the public's generally good feelings toward and general approval of WWII onto Iraq.

And they're doing so by trying to compare Iraq war critics to "Tokyo Rose," who is wrongly remembered as a propagandist and a traitor. Onebigdog and Przybelski are trying to play on the public's ignorance of the real story (or more accurately, the real *myth*) of "Tokyo Rose"--I must confess that I was largely ignorant of the whole story--to get them to believe that anyone who criticizes the Iraq war is also a propagandist and a traitor.

The thing is, the way onebigdog portrayed the effect of so-called Tokyo Rose broadcasts on American soldiers is just as wrong as his implication that critics of the Iraq war are traitorous anti-Americans.

Post 6: The Media Implications

And the Hattiesburg American isn't helping matters by titling Przybelski's letter "Words of WWII *still ring true.*"

For one thing, that headline implies that the HA thinks what Przybelski's letter says is true when in fact it isn't. Przybelski never said anything about anything "still ringing true," so the headline is not merely reflecting what Przybelski said, it's the HA's interpretation of what he said, which is demonstrably inaccurate.

But to the majority of people who will read only the letter and the headline and not this forum,
the publication of Przybelski's letter under that headline will be just one more tiny piece of the puzzle that will confirm for them that Iraq war critics are traitorous troop-haters if they are already inclined to think such a thing.

A more accurate and impartial headline for the letter might have been "Does this sound familiar?" That would have the advantage of being a quote from the letter as well as an indication of its content. That way, the HA's opinion wouldn't have been injected into it and they could reasonably and correctly claim that they're merely a conduit for opinion, however misguided it may or may not be.

Post 7: Wrap up

Furthermore, these types of appeals to mythology instead of reality should be more closely examined by journalists and by the public so that they can be seen for what they are.

A recent example is the story that the young Barack Hussein Obama supposedly attended a madrassa in Indonesia. It was reported on the Fox and Friends program, and they said they got the information from Insight Magazine.

On its face, this story should sound suspicious to any curious, ethical journalist and would have been independently verified by such a person. But that's not how Fox News operates. They just repeated what someone else (Insight magazine, in this case) said as fact.

It wasn't until CNN sent a reporter to the school in Indonesia that the madrassa myth was revealed. And Fox's John Gibson mocked CNN for sending a reporter to find out the truth, which is what actual journalists are supposed to do.

Here's a link that lays out the whole thing...

And what onebigdog and Przybelski are doing is very similar.

UPDATE: Here's the Przybelski letter, from the Google cache:

Words of WWII still ring true

During World War II, the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces. Psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work.

They gave the script to their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose," and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on American GI's morale.

What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:

1. Your president is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.

Does this sound familiar? The only difference is that the people saying this now claim to support our troops before they demoralize them. Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose told the troops she was on their side, too.

IRAN SO FAR AWAY, PART THE...SECOND? TENTH?

I'm going to crosspost my response to this post on the Hattiesburg American forum:

Okay, let's cover this again:

- Clinton doesn't capture OBL. This is the same OBL who attacked the USS Cole, many think the Hezbollah acted in cohort with Iran/Al Queda/OBL in the Beirut bombing and OBL's forces planned the original attack on the WTC. OBL made it clear he planned to attack America and he did. See 9-11.

- Geography lesson: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, et al, are all located in the middle east.

- Sadaam Hussein [former dictator of Iraq, whose address is now in Hell ---- and good riddance], supported, harbored, protected and consorted with all terrorist, OBL included.

- The world's largest oil supplies are located in the middle east. Again, see above geography lesson --- these countries are all contiguous and all harbor (or have harbored) terrorists.

- The US is a staunch ally of Israel, and if you're a christian (and I am), my Bible tells me the Jews are God's chosen people and we are to ally with them and protect them. I have no choice.

- The US must protect her interests abroad [See oil] and our allies abroad.

- Side note: If environmentalists would allow more drilling on US soil and more refineries built, we wouldn't be so dependant on their oil.

- I could continue this list, ad nauseum, but you get the point.

We have to take the fight to them and ensure a stable middle east [something about Iran and nukes]. Did that clear it up for you?

Response

In the August 2, 2005 issue of the Washington Post a story was printed that was headlined "Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb." This was part of the National Intelligence Estimate, which represents the overall consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies.

It is now January 13, 2007. According to our own intelligence agencies, then, Iran is still over 8 1/2 years from having a nuclear bomb, if in fact that's what they're working on. They of course deny that they're working toward a nuclear weapon. But Bush of course, insists that they are, so he can try to convince the public to let him attack Iran.

In 2003, Iran sent word to Washington that they wanted improved relations with the U.S. and according to the Washington Post story, everything was on the table--"including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups."

But the Bush administration rejected the offer of talks with Iran. Now why would Bush have done something like that when Iran wanted to come to some sort of agreement on every issue we differ with them over?

Operation Ajax--how soon we forget

I've never said that terrorism has only been around since the days of George W. Bush. We've been killing and exploiting people around the world for over a century now. Why, a prime example of that happened in Iran in 1953 when Kermit Roosevelt worked with the British on Operation Ajax and overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh to install the pro-Western but decidedly undemocratic Shah (another major player in Operation Ajax was Miles Copeland, father of Stewart Copeland, the drummer for The Police).

Dissatisfaction with the autocratic Shah led to the Islamic Revolution, during which the Iranians took over the U.S. embassy, which is all most Americans remember.

Eisenhower and 9/11

Since some on the forum like to blame things on past presidents on the basis of historical "what ifs" or "if onlys", try this one on:

9/11 was Eisenhower's fault. Eisenhower, you may remember, was a Republican.

Truman (a Democrat) refused to participate in Operation Ajax. Eisenhower was up for it and so the year he took office, we and the British overthrew Mossadegh. Dissatisfaction with this state of affairs leads to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the taking of the U.S. embassy.

That in turn causes the U.S. to side with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, with us supporting Saddam Hussein. We then tell our buddy Saddam in 1990 that we have "no opinion" on "Arab-Arab conflicts." So Saddam invades Kuwait.

Suddenly we have a very strong opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts and to dislodge Saddam from Kuwait, we set up military bases in Saudi Arabia, massing some 500,000 troops there. This upsets Osama bin Laden.

An upset Osama bin Laden works in conjunction with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on the 9/11 plot, which kills 3,000 Americans.

Therefore, in the logic of some posters on this forum, Eisenhower is responsible for 9/11.

I DEBUNK RIGHT WING BS

Here are excerpts from two different posts at the forum of my local paper (my response follows the right-wing posts):

Post 1:

"The irrefutable fact remains: If Clinton takes OBL when he had the chance, then 9-11 doesn't happen. Then we don't go to Iraq."

Post 2:

".........and I do know this: without regard to a donkey or an elephant ---- radical Muslim extremists wish to kill us. They wish to kill us without regard to who gets mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They wish us obliterated from this universe. Anybody remember 9-11? I do. If they could do it again today and the next day and the next day and the next day, they would. I know we've not had another attack since then and we must take the fight to them, or they'll bring it over here."

My response

I posted the following at the forum:

They want to kill us for two reasons:

1) we kill them
2) we exploit them

If we stopped doing those things, voila, no terrorism.

Also, Manny had this to say: "The irrefutable fact remains: If Clinton takes OBL when he had the chance, then 9-11 doesn't happen. Then we don't go to Iraq."

This piece of fiction is easily refutable. Here's how:

1) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, not Osama bin Laden, is considered the "mastermind of 9/11." If KSM hadn't had OBL, he could've worked with some other rich fundamentalist. 9/11 was KSM's idea.

2) Even the FBI doesn't think they have enough evidence to charge bin Laden with 9/11. Check out his wanted poster at the FBI's website.

3) Osama bin Laden was involved in the planning and financing of 9/11, but he didn't actually carry out the mission.

Therefore, we see that 9/11 was possible independent of bin Laden. Clinton could have personally beheaded bin Laden and 9/11 could have still happened.


The other part of Manny's assertion is more troublesome in that it assumes that because 9/11 happened, we had to invade Iraq. In fact, George W. Bush and the people he chose to serve in his administration wanted to topple Saddam Hussein long before 9/11.

-Rumsfeld was told by Richard Clarke that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, even though Rumsfeld made it clear that he wanted Clarke to tell him otherwise.

-We know from the Downing Street memos that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. "

-However, Bush was saying publicly at the time that war was not inevitable and the inspectors would do their work and we'd work with the U.N. and so forth. And by this time, Bush had already been repeatedly told that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

-A new article in Playboy about Lockheed quotes then-deputy (and now current) national security advisor Stephen Hadley telling a Lockheed official in November 2002 that we were going to go to war but “they were going to war and were struggling with a rationale” and “still working out” a cause. If the Iraq war were really a necessity because of 9/11 in the minds of Bush and his national security people, they wouldn't have had to "work out a cause" or "struggle" with a rationale.

-Bush himself said in 2004 as all this was coming to light that "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda."

So in no way, even by Bush's own admission, does 9/11 necessitate an attack on Iraq. In fact, Iraq was a distraction of resources from the hunt for bin Laden, who is now alive and well in Pakistan, and supposedly free as long as he is a "peaceful citizen." Because Bush didn't get bin Laden when he had the chance.

BUSH IS FULL OF IT

I decided to have some fun with his speech and pretend I'm Mike Malloy or Sam Seder and injecting commentary while playing a recording of this speech (I'm in italics):

Good evening and fuck you. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. But mostly the safety of my failed presidency. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror. Because it makes perfect sense to fight a war against a tactic, don't it--heh, heh.


When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. Purple fingers, purple fingers! You remember those carefully staged propaganda photos, right? The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops. And continue to build our giant-ass embassy in Baghdad because we're never going to leave.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. That are totally different than our outrageous acts of murder--don'tcha know they're terrorists? They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran (that's who we're attacking next, by the way--heh, heh), formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today. That's right, I'm still not gonna call it a civil war--I make my own reality.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Even though I'm the one responsible for it. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me. I'm a war criminal, what can I say?

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. No shit, Sherlock. A better idea would be to have a strategy to begin with. So my national security team, military commanders (that I just replaced because they didn't agree with me), and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. You know, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell--just uninterested, totally neutral outside elements. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Fuck you Daddy--I'm a gooder President than you! I got two terms--so there! In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. Because if we don't maintain unfettered access to the oil, how will ExxonMobil continue to make record profits?

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. Kinda like the safe haven I allowed them to have in America. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. I never get tired of trying to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Never! Never! For the safety of our people (and for the wealth of our corporations), America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it. Remember free fire zones? Turns out that wasn't such a bad idea. Sometimes you have to destroy a country in order to save it. Or somethin' like that--heh, heh.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. I don't have time or energy to secure neighborhoods in both Iraq and America, so I think I'll just concentrate on securing neighborhoods in Iraq. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. They haven't been ordered to kill indiscriminately. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort - along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations - conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents. Because checkpoints and door-to-door midnight searches are so dearly loved by people around the world and make them so inclined to trust the people who are doing those things.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence - and bring security to the people of Baghdad. We'll help the Iraqis carry out a campaign to kill more people, but we won't help with a campaign to rebuild New Orleans or the Gulf Coast. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them - five brigades - will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs. We're gonna get to kill more people and give more no-bid contracts to defense contractors! Oh, and spend more taxpayer money! And borrow more from China! It's gonna be awesome!

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous
operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier
operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists
and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers
returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas
that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian
interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods
that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and
American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods - and Prime
Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be
tolerated. Some people's gonna die!!! The gloves are coming off!!

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that
America's commitment is not open-ended. And by "not open-ended" I mean
"we're gonna stay forever because we are building this kickass embassy. We gotta get some use outta that thing!! If the Iraqi government does not follow
through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people - and
it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime
Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The
Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless
of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. I just said that for shits and giggles--everybody knows that American news organizations are too chickenshit to show images of death and suffering. Even when it's a bastard like Saddam Hussein! Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the
breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Like for
instance, making my oil buddies lotsa money! Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia
want to live together in peace - and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help
make reconciliation possible. Yes, that's right, my stupid plan to have more
people killed for no reason is going to resolve a religious argument that's been
raging for centuries! Because I create reality and am awesome!

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi
citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible
improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the
Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced. Notice I haven't said
"civil war" or "timetable." But I did use the word "mistake." Throw me a
frickin' bone!

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. But we can't leave then--because it won't be 2009. That's when I get to pass this bullshit off to some other asshole. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. Yeah, they'll share the 25% of profits that
will be left over after my oil buddies take the rest. Which is only right--we
did liberate their oil. I mean, their nation. Heh, heh. To show that it is
committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10
billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects
that will create new jobs. Now I would never do communist bullshit like this
in America--but if these chumps wanna do it, whatever... To empower local
leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow
more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will
reform de-Baathification laws - and establish a fair process for considering
amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it
works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq
Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army
units - and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will
help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army - and we will accelerate
the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission
in Iraq. We have to build up an army that they can use to try to kick us out
with. Then we can have an excuse to stay there even longer to fight off the
Iraqi army we just trained. We will give our commanders and civilians
greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the
number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. And we'll halve the
reconstruction teams here at home. These teams bring together military and
civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation,
strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And
Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to
ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has
helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured
al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control
of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down
Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks
on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders - and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. By which
I mean--we'll kill a lot more people. Oh, and probably throw a lot more under
the jail for life and torture them the entire time. Because they might be
terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe
haven in Afghanistan - and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity -
and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins
with addressing Iran and Syria. Sleep with one eye open, Ahmadinejad!
These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory
to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on
American troops. And that's why we should start the third war of my
presidency posthaste. Don't you think that cause is worth it? We will
disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from
Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced
weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and
protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment
of an additional carrier strike group to the region. That's for attacking
Iran--oh wait, I've said too much... We will expand intelligence sharing -
and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. Of which we have very few left. We will work with the governments of
Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will
work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the
region. That's the point I really wanted to make--when you think of Iran,
think of mushroom clouds. Iran=mushroom clouds. Fuck Iraq, let's bomb Iran.
It'll be awesome!

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for
Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in
Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists - (unlike say, Saudi Arabia
where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from)and a strategic threat to their
survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with
its neighbors - and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. Or else. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an
International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for
greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region
- to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help
bring peace to the Middle East. Because I'm all about some peace--that's why
you gotta have more war!

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a
military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. I
usually like to wait for history's judgment, but I'll go ahead and jumpstart the
history nerds on this one. Hey, history assholes in 2057? The decisive
ideological struggle of our time is as follows: On one side are those who
believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the
innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. Guess which side I'm on? Heh, heh. In the long run, the most realistic
way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the
hateful ideology of the enemy - by advancing liberty across a troubled region. And by kicking much ass and taking their oil and their money. It is in
the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are
risking their lives to claim their freedom - and help them as they work to raise
up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East. Now, we're not gonna
do this shit in Darfur or anywhere else--those brave men and women standing up
for freedom can kiss my ass.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of
ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and
opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know:
Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists -
or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young
democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous
importance to American security. And corporate profits--let's not forget
about those, heh heh. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in
Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and
violent. And I'm gonna do my part to make sure that happens. Even if
our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue
- and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. So don't come
crying to me when your mommy or daddy or whatever gets killed, OK? I told ya
they were gonna die. But I have no control over whether they go to war or not.
I'm just a regular guy like you, remember? The kinda guy you'd like to have a
beer with, remember? So when your husband gets killed, just remember that we'll
never have a beer together and I won't come to any funerals or anything, OK?
OK. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to
success. I believe that it will. But then again, you gotta remember that I'm
batshit insane.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers
achieved. Because the war will never end and therefore neither will my
power. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. Ditto what I just said. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in
the Arab world - a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the
rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. I mean, that shit is for pussies if you ask me, but whatever...everybody's
always trying to say that ya gotta follow the Constitution and shit, and I'm
just like, yeah, whatever. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it
will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them - and it will
help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren. After all, Rome wasn't built in your lifetime, you know what I'm saying,
dickhead? Don't expect any results for a couple years at least--then I'm gone
and you guys can do whatever the fuck you want. Cause I'll be clearin' brush and
ridin' bikes. I can't fucking wait, dude!

Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. And I told the Democrats they could suck my dick. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States - and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad - or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered
these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse
of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on
an unimaginable scale. I mean, the killing so far used to be unimaginable,
but since it's happened now we can imagine it, you see what I mean?Such a
scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer,
and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at
this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we
can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress
on our new strategy. And they better not say shit about it. If members
have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change,
we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their
criticisms. I mean, there's no such thing as an honorable Democrat, but they
told me I had to say that. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And
all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be
more likely to succeed. Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman
and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group
that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror.
This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help
strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to
increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the
Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to
mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas - where they can help
build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and
tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have
extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. And I am willing to extend their tours and cut their benefits and send them
into harm's way for my own insane political advantage. These young
Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that
the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. I mean, like ending
slavery? That had nothing on this. They serve far from their families, who
make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner
table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty.
We mourn the loss of every fallen American - and we owe it to them to build a
future worthy of their sacrifice. So we have to send more of them to die.
Because the death of 3,000 won't be validated until at least that many more have
died. You see how it works? No? Well, I am batshit insane.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice,
and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens
of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And
throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our
faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will
set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night. Author of Liberty--that's code for God, ya
Christian wackos! Don't impeach me! Or I'll detain ya! Just kidding, heh heh. Or
am I?

CAPITALISM'S GANGSTERS

The following two posts of mine are in response to these posts--

"Russ,

I don't owe you or anyone else one damn thing. I am currently in military and most of us, and I mean over 95% agree with the mission. You're just an angry hippie. It's ok man, we're fighting for you too."

"Remember, peace through strength. Just look at what is happening in Somalia, and I'm not talking about the strike we just carried out either..."

--in this thread at the Hattiesburg American forum.


Left-Handed Leftist Post 1

Not only that, troops in Iraq are not fighting for Russ or me or any other regular citizens. They're fighting for Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. Didja see this--"Western companies may get 75% of Iraqi oil profits":

"Iraq's massive oil reserves may be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies - which could end up grabbing up to 75% of the beleagured nation's oil profits - under a law seen coming before the Iraqi parliament within days, the Independent reported on its Web site Monday."

War is a racket. So said General Butler, who at the time of his death was the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

If anything, this Iraq war is being used as an excuse to TAKE AWAY our freedoms. In the latest example, Bush just added a signing statement to a bill in which he claimed the right to open mail without a warrant.

I like the chant Cindy Sheehan and others shouted at the Democrats the other day "De-escalate, investigate--Troops home now!" Not one more American soldier should have to die or be wounded to protect George Bush's failed policies or to make money for corporations.

THAT'S what you call "supporting the troops," not calling for even more of them to be taken away from their newborns to kill or be killed so that Western oil companies--one of which recently had the highest quarterly profit of any corporation in the history of the world--can make even MORE money.

Left-Handed Leftist Post 2

Forget peace through strength. That's a load of malarkey that we've been sold for years. We were told all through the Cold War that we had to have all this firepower at the expense of everything else so we wouldn't be beaten by the Soviets.

Turns out the Soviet threat was greatly exaggerated and they collapsed under their own weight. But now we're stuck with the bill for the arms race and we still spend more than any other country on "defense".

We are the mightiest country on earth in terms of sheer firepower. So where's the peace?

As far as 95% of troops supporting the war, that's not true either. In February 2005, 72% wanted to come home by 2006. Then there was the recent Military Times Poll which showed that 42% of the troops don't support the President's Iraq policy compared with 35% who do support it.

The time for BS is over. We won the war but we're losing the occupation (and theoretically that shouldn't be possible). The American people have finally caught on to the fact that Bush lied about our reasons for going into Iraq and the "surge" will be his undoing.

WHO SAYS NO ONE KNEW IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE WMD?

Janeane Garofalo knew, and she also predicted the mess we'd make for ourselves if we invaded and told Fox News that back in February 2003:

SNOW: Do you think he is eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction?

GAROFALO: Yes, I think lots of people are eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction. But there's no evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction. There's been no evidence of him testing nuclear weapons.

We have people that are in our face with nuclear weapons. We've got Iran and North Korea. We've got a problem with Pakistan. You know, I don't know what to say about that.

There's a whole lot of people that are going nuclear. And I think that Saddam Hussein is actually, with the evidence, the least able to use nuclear weapons and the least obvious offender in that area at this moment....


SNOW: I'm happy I've been able to get you so passionate about this.

GAROFALO: You've gotten me all flumoxed.

But I also resent Rick -- you know, Senator Santorum's assertions that this won't be particularly costly or lengthy. This is going to be economically devastating for us.

And also, the assertion that inaction breeds terrorist strikes, that is ridiculous. Action in Iraq will make us decidedly less safer.

I didn't find this own my own, of course--her former radio partner Sam Seder pointed this out on his show two days ago. And he made an excellent point, i.e., how come an actress/comedienne can have this much prescience and this much knowledge about foreign affairs and the PNAC guys and the rest of the dirty neocons couldn't?

Ah, but there's the rub--of course they knew what Janeane knew. Their idea was to get in there, somehow, some way. And now they argue that we can never leave, because we have to help fix what we broke. That was their point--just get our foot in the door--that's all we need for hegemony, for profit, for power.

The neocons knew all of what Janeane knew, but they didn't care...they wanted that money. Because war is a racket!

How She Knew

Here's Janeane on how she was able to figure out that the neocons were lying (from the same link as above):

GAROFALO: What are you -- I know as much for a fact as you guys know for a fact. I know as much as anybody who has access to information on the Internet, a library, satellite dish, international news.

GOP Senate: No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link

Here's a link to the report done by Republican chairman Pat Roberts' committee(the conclusions about Iraq and al Qaeda start on p. 108 of 151)

I found it curious that the report kept referring to the "postwar" period. So even though Bush reminded us just a day or two ago that we're still "at war," the Senate acknowledges the truth--that we are now in an occupation, not a war.

We won the war. Yay! Now let's quit the occupation. There is no shame or dishonor in the end of an occupation.

Something to think about as we come to the fifth anniversary of 9/11...