This is an OpEd that is long overdue. Just in case I disappear or meet my unexpected demise, I would like to get a few things off my chest while I have the clarity of mind (my opinion) to do so. I am sure that the following opinions are not unique to this native NY'er of Italian and northern European descent born in the age of the "baby boomer". Here goes;
To all the right wingnuts that believe they have a "lock" on the answers to all the world's problems by blaming everything on the "Liberal Left", let me clue you in on a few things. First of all, patriotism and love of Country is not something that only the right can claim. I was in the military for almost 21 years and I met great many career soldiers that had liberal left wing views. Also, we are not claiming that we are being "defeated" by insurgent's riding in Toyota 4-Runner's shooting 20 year old RPG's. If the United States had truly been attacked by Iraq on 9/11, you can bet your bottom dollar that every left wing "liberal" would be crying for their heads, and we would not leave Iraq until every member of every insurgency were dead or in jail. Yes, you would still have people against the war, but those would be the pacifists that are against war for any reason. The fact is, Iraq was NOT behind 9/11 and Iraq was NOT a threat to this country. Your mentally ill, right wing President caused this War by lies and deceit, and he is now experiencing what happens to leaders that lie and deceive their countrymen. The only people he is still managing to convince are the brainless right-wingnuts that will believe any Republican President. This is because they listen to and unfortunately believe, brainless half-wits such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, and all the rest of the scum that preach lies and hate and anything else that will make their ratings higher.
The left does not, contrary to right wing opinion, believe that this war is not winnable. Do you really believe that the greatest power on Earth could not defeat these insurgents if we had the will to defeat them? Don't be ridiculous. The truth is that this war is not worth the money to continue, or is it worth the loss of life that it would take. The only people that would benefit from a conquered, occupied Iraq are the oil companies of which your President has vested interest in. To fund a never-ending occupation of Iraq is not in the average American's best interests. If we were to bring back the draft, and station one million soldiers in Iraq, and control the movement of every Iraqi, your gas prices at the pump would still be higher. All the profits from this war would go to the shareholders and CEO's of the petroleum companies. We control the flow of oil in Iraq now. How much have your gas prices or heating oil prices dropped? Stop being marks in this national con job your right wing government is playing on you. They look at unquestioning patriotism as stupidity and as a license to steal from you.
As long as we (well, me) are talking about the things I want to say in the event I'm not here tomorrow, let's take religion out of the closet. Contrary to what these born-again, fire and brimstone preachers have been telling you, the founding fathers meant exactly what they said about the separation of church and state. They didn't say one thing and really mean something else like I have heard over and over in South Carolina. They said what they meant, that is why they wrote it down. They were being persecuted in the places that they came from, and that is one of the reasons that people took that dangerous, treacherous trip across the Atlantic to scrape out a new life over here. They did not want religion to be a part of our government because they did not want this country to persecute anyone for their religion, like they had been persecuted. Does that make any sense? This utter crap that the United States was meant to be a Christian country is just crap. This is a secular nation. You have the complete freedom to worship any god that you want, but you don't have the right to shove your particular religion down anyone's throat. That means that if a Congressman wants to take his oath on the Koran, it's just as good as taking it on the Bible. This is the Law of the Land. If you disagree with it, then move to another country!
The United States of America is just one country out of many on this planet. We have no right to tell any other country what government they should have. We have a right to believe that everyone should live under a democracy, but we have no right to demand it of any nation. What they do is their business, just as what we do is our business. We don't rule the world. If you believe that we do...get over it. This President is not hated because he is a right wing conservative. He is hated because he has made this nation contemptible in the eyes of the world. He is hated because he started a war based on lies and deception. He is hated because he has scrapped most of the freedoms that were given to us by our founding fathers and The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. He is hated because he has caused a hundred thousand of our best and brightest to either die or become disabled. He is hated because he is primarily responsible for this war in Iraq that has left upwards of 700,000 Iraqi men, women and children dead. He is hated because he listens only to his own counsel and will not listen to his fellow countrymen.
He is going to ask for more troops to escalate this war this evening. He does not remember the events that took place in Vietnam because he was drunk or on drugs during that time. This is an evil man. He should be removed from office regardless of what anyone says. I believe that he is traitor to what this country stands for, and he should be removed from office. I don't make this stuff up. I only wish I did.
http://liberalpro.blogspot.com
Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.
Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.
Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
I believe when Bush said, " ...even if only Laura and Barney are with me", He was saying, REMOVAL is going to be necessary, logical debate will not suffice with a shrub.
..
.
by
cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 165 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 11:49:38 AM
No one ever said that Iraq was behind 9/11. NO ONE EVER. We did say that Saddam wanted powerful weapons, killed hundreds of thousands of his own people for nothing, and was good buddies with any number of terrorists and their organizations. And we did pass resolution after resolution in the U.N. We were just the only country with the cajones to enforce those resolutions. Oh yeah, and we did put it to a vote in Congress, and it passed because a whole bunch of your Donkey buddies voted for it too.
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 4:32:49 PM
Look Adam Frank, all my Donkey buddies voted for it after Colin Powell went to the UN and lied through his teeth with pictures of truckshe said were "mobile Chemical Weapons factories" which was bullshit. Those Kurds and others Saddam killed? They did it with US munitions supplied by the Dolt's Father, that other Nazi sympathizer. You can watch your boy go to prison pretty soon, that's where he's headed.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 5:00:54 PM
Do you really think that Saddam Hussein had no ties to people with dangerous weapons; chemical, biological, or otherwise destructive? Do you really think that, if what President Bush is what you say he is, Bush would have waged a war that could cost him re-election? I mean, he just wants power and money doesn't he? Why don't you call Saddam back from the dead and have him be your president instead--it seems like you prefer him to Bush. Congress had access to the same exact information Bush did. You're fooling yourself.
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 5:09:08 PM
Hell, Adam, even the History Channel, just the other night, outlined the extensive ties Saddam had with the U.S. during the Iraq/iran war (1980-1988) and how WE, yes WE the United States, supplied munitions and "otherwise destructive" weapons to Saddam.
You are the type of person that gives matches and lighter fluid to an eight year-old and then punishes the child for setting the house on fire!
Adam, before you go any further, you are free to believe anything you like. However, you are not entitled to your own facts or to espouse your fundamentally flawed and bellicose opinion AS facts.
Before you continue making an ass out of yourself, understand that you are dealing with informed, intelligent people who have access to the Lexus Nexus and "The Google" and we can fact-check every one of your lies and silly suppositions and provide undeniable evidence to refute your insipid and flatly false idioms.
You would be wise to turn off Fox News and do a little research before you adopt and promote unqualified statements of pure conjecture and fabrications.
by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 5:51:32 PM
Ok, go ahead and insult my intelligence instead of looking at what I'm saying. You're entitled to gloss over what I'm actually saying and throw out the insults, I guess.
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 5:56:23 PM
"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents to Baghdad...A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department. "
"No one ever said that Iraq was behind 9/11. NO ONE EVER"
Really? Not so fast!
See, Adam is flat wrong. No need to argue with his ilk. Simply present undeniable proof he is a Bush sheeple and espousing a long ago debunked lie. The Bush administration DID claim that Iraq and 9/11 were tied together. Here is a miniature sampling of that proof and why Adam should be dismissed as another propagandist for the Bush Cartel:
----------------------
"Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming." -- Washington Post, June 17, 2004
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," -- George W. Bush, -- June 18, 2004
"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein." -- Dick Cheney, Sept. 16, 2003
"That He[Saddam] had long established ties with al-Qaida." -- Dick Cheney, June 16, 2004
"It's been pretty well confirmed that he [MohamedAtta, an Egyptian and Sept. 11 hijacker] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the [9/11] attack." -- Dick Cheney, Sept. 19, 2003
-----------------------
Obviously, Adam does not have history or his facts straight. I could create page after page of why the rest of Adam's ludicrous statements bear no resemblance to the truth and are utterly and insanely false as well as a display of resounding ignorance of reality. However, Adam has already suffered enough humiliation and been thoroughly discredited to make my point: Adam is a Bush apologist and sycophant who processes things without being sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them.
by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 5:29:11 PM
We know, and we stated, that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, yes. But still, no one ever said that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. You have not provided any evidence to suggest that the president said Saddam Hussein was partially responsible for 9/11, and that's because he never did. The president has linked many countries with Al-Qaeda, but that doesn't mean they had anything to do with 9/11. No one has ever said that anyone other than Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, and you have not convinced me otherwise.
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 5:52:55 PM
I made my point perfectly. Any amount of obfuscation on your part cannot change the facts.
To add insult to your already baseless assertions, here are a few more:
"Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda." -- Sept. 6, 2003, USA Today
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001... We've removed an ally of al Qaeda" – George W. Bush, May 1, 2003
And finally, you make the claim that "not one person" made the accusation that Saddam was implicated with 9/11." Not one? Are you sure?
"Listen, we're going to war because President Bush believes Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Al Qaeda is a front for Iraqi intelligence..." -- Laurie Mylroie, Pentagon Consultant on Canadian Television, February 2003
Maybe you should check with Ms. Mylroie before making that kind of unconditional statement. Hmm......?
by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 6:37:31 PM
No, I cannot recall Bush ever actually saying the exact words, "Iraq was involved in 9-11". That's not even the point. I'll spell it out for you:
What Bush and his cronies did do a masterful job of was blaming 9-11 on "al-Qaeda", repeatedly, until that idea was firmly planted and the American general public (mush-heads) automatically equated 9-11 with al-Qaeda.
From there, Bush & Company mentioned "al-Qaeda" (remember, that means "9-11" now) and "Iraq" together, repeatedly - and that's exactly how they went about tying Iraq to 9-11....without having to actually say, "Iraq was involved in 9-11".
Obviously the psy-ops worked, at least on people like Adam. With the corporate media polluted with things like Fox News, more than happy to thump this psy-ops program to anyone dumb enough to believe it, it's no wonder it worked.
1. Tie al-Qaeda to 9-11 until al-Qaeda means 9-11.
2. Tie al-Qaeda (9-11) to Iraq.
Wow....that sure was hard to figure out.
by
Steven A. Hass (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 11:13:39 PM
This is known as the "Straussian Philosophy" after Leo Strauss. Strauss is often considered the founder of the neoconservative ideology and considered to be, and I quote, "the enemy of democracy."
Hitler used it and Strauss later taught it --this "psychological brainwashing" -- and in psychology terms it is known as,
"Inculcating - To teach and impress by frequent repetitions or admonitions; to urge on the mind;To instill; infuse; implant; engraft; impress."
It is obvious that Adam has fallen prey to a Bush "mindjob!"
by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments)
on Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 1:22:59 AM
but I must add that, as your silly points are being refuted by facts, time and again, you begin to hedge and obfuscate, a sure sign of a very weak position.
The Baathist Party in Iraq were socialists, and were a stated target of AlQaeda and bin Laden's plan to bring a fundamentalist Islamist government to every nation in the Middle East. This is the fact. As is the use, by Cheney and Bush, in almost every campaign sppech after 9/11 of Iraq or Hussein followed or immediately preceeded by the word terrorist or bin Laden. The attempt to obfuscate or outright lie about reality was obvious to those who had the real truth and are much more obvious now, and to many, many more folks.
The real truth is that Hussein, flaws, foibles and mental illness notwithstanding, was a key ally of the neocons within the GOP and was a last bastion in that region against the incursions of fundamentalism and the fascism such beliefs always bring.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 7:07:31 AM
Bush is living on 'borrowed time'; he's done, and he knows it. His superiors
could get rid of him any moment they want to, but obviously, they want him around a little longer, to finish off some business. Is the purpose for this 'ongoing occupation' in the service of distracting the American Public, and most in Government itself? Are they trying to get a little time to clean up, or cover up, or to get more done in this country, or to arrange all, so that the day Bush falls, everything can be blamed on him?
I think Bush would love to be impeached. More so, he would like to stay alive. More so, he knows better, and so does his dad. Whatever Bush has on his mind...I doubt it has anything to do with politics, the US, or what he thinks is right, or smart. i don't even think he is invested in doing evil...he does, what he is told to do. Or what? I've got the idea.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 4:41:15 PM
not Bush, obviously, except in theory. Not Cheney, either. But he is really important, in that he keeps a close eye on Bush, and directs his every move...and reports his every move. (The real President's bodyguard, sort of)
As for Bush, no president in the history of America has ever been as unprotected as he is physically. He doesn't really matter, and he is only used, and can be replaced.
Like the Mafia, they have guys spread all over the country..branches. (with the same DNA...) Everyone knows who his boss is, but most of the bosses don't know who is his boss's boss. The real boss is invisible.
There are many insiders, but most of them are only partial insiders. (There is a delicate balance) Bush was part of the plan; he did not do the planning.
That's what I think!
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 5:03:02 PM
We have discussed, what may happen if Bush were to be impeached. But what would happen, if the 'war, or occupation' ended, and with it, the focus on this subject...any interest in?
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 5:48:38 PM
I don't really give a rats ass what happens to Iraq. Never did, and never will. Like I said before this war, I really don't care if the Iraqi's eat each other. What I believe will happen though, is that it will split up into three pieces after the Shia kick the hell ou of the Sunni's. The Kurds will form a semi autonomous state in the North, and they will unite in a kind of umbrella government for security from Turkey, Iran and Syria. Eventually the fighting will stop, and they will never want anything to do with the US for the next 1000 years. (I can't say I blame them).
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 6:31:25 PM
It almost seems like the war, or whatever is covering up important internal affairs. Like, what should we be talking about that we are not talking about.
When this thing ends, or if it had already ended, how would the picture look here in the US. How do you think would that change our own governmental progression, and investigations, and perhaps thoughts on Impeachment, etc.
I am really sorry to ask again. But I would like to know if you think Iraq, (our involvement with) is in part to keep the focus off more serious, national crimes, and affairs. (or better said...different)
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 7:23:36 PM
Things like Global Warming, Renewable energy sources(I just recieved information from an engineer on recovering hydrogen from the sea published under General News: Estimates on Oil Reserves), Campaign finance Reform (using public money for political campaigns and getting rid or excessive corporate influence on our politicians), National Healthcare, educating our young people with skills that are revelant in the 21st Century, making the United Nations effective. There are so many things that this war has pre-empted besides being a phony pre-emptive war. We have plenty of things to keep us progressives busy. In some ways, it has brought the progressive segment of America to the forefront of political debate and taken America from the radical right. The very first thing we need to do is to restore the Bill of Rights and put our Constitution together again.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 8:00:37 PM
Tim, it's astounding that anyone could possibly argue with that writing.
I think all the right winger dingers like O'Reilly would have to fess up after reading that.
Like I said about Saddam, he wouldn't be happy even if they hang him with a new rope!!!!
Two thumbs up.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 7:51:35 PM
