War is peace and also votes. Maybe W's only motivation is to continue sucking off red state morons who are attached to the idea of killing others for the simple power that it shows the US possesses. Who knows for sure? Few are as psychological maladjusted as those who kill others-so how can we explain the actions of those who, we can make pretty phrase about, but can't really comprehend?

::::::::

On "Hardball" Chris Matthews stated, that as a result of his talks with Congressman Jack Murtha--who has ties with all of the Congressman, he was convinced that until their campaigns in 2008 the GOP will stick with the bantam-weight big bro 43 to appeal to their rabid extremist 25% of the US who would support any war ever.
All of the Behavioral Sciences adherents out there could give a series of long worded explanations as to why these losers love the sight of blood and death. Freud talks about the death drive, which others refer to as the Thanatos drive. They identify with the killers, and also our poor youth who are victims of W's crime against humanity, "Operation Iraqi Freedom", and are ecstatic to see others getting the boot to their neck or knife in the back. Why do you think these ghouls are so extremely anti-abortion. Back in the 70s their were many books about this phenomenon with many big words. It could be summed up though as--they don't want the US government paying for welfare mothers to have abortions-even though they also hate welfare mothers getting bigger welfare payments for each child--which illustrates that they want bigger benefits for themselves, but want vengeance more! In their minds forcing kids to live in squalor was more painful to them than allowing them to be aborted. In a like manner, nowadays the suicide rate is at record highs by soldiers who are forced to return to Iraq because our youth in that predicament would prefer a peaceful, quick death rather than living in prolonged misery.
It all goes back to Marxism too. The unskilled, uneducated red stater doesn't want competition for jobs. If some of their youth die then they will have a better chance of getting a job that the illegal immigrants are incapable of grabbing.
To put it bluntly the vile segment of our population with nothing wants to make sure that there is a class even worse off--a US version of the Indian pariah class, and this hatred of the down-trodden by the slightly less down-trodden, filters their perception of ideas.
Also, as Marx posited regarding religion being the "opiate of the masses" TV now is. They like seeing blood and death on TV as it takes their mind off of their own useless existence, a catharsis, and it makes them feel that someone else even has it worse! Their lives are futile wastes and misery loves company! Why do you think the never-ending bloodshed of "Law and Order" saturates TV.
The article "Republicans block measure to give troops a longer break between deployments." at http://www.slate.com/id/2174369/nav/fix/ states "The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead with Senate Republicans blocking a measure that was thought to be the best chance lawmakers had to alter Iraq policy. Sen. Jim Webb's proposal would have mandated that active-duty troops couldn't be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan unless they were given as much time at home as they had spent in the war zone. Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, had a prominent GOP co-sponsor in Sen. Chuck Hagel but the proposal gathered support from only six Republicans, so it fell four votes short of the 60 necessary to prevent a filibuster. It now seems clear Democrats won't be able to get Republicans to support any measure that would affect troop levels in Iraq.... When Webb first proposed his measure in July, it surprised many when it gathered support from seven Republicans. But everyone notes that this time around the proposal clearly lost any chance of passing after Sen. John Warner, the other Virginian who is one of the most respected Republicans when it comes to military issues, dropped his support for the proposal. Despite everything that has happened, the vote "offered the most vivid evidence yet that the Bush administration still controls Iraq war policy," says the Post."
The GOP members are talking one thing and doing another-just as W does! Warner voted for it in July and then attacked Petraeus and then didn't vote for helping the troops! How is that possible? Is there some logic to that sequence of events?
Warner asked Petraeus whether the current strategy in Iraq "will make America safer." To which Petraeus initially replied, "I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq." Warner pumped him again and Petraeus admitted he hadn't thought it out! Of course he said that. Petraeus is concerned solely for the Iraq theatre of GWOT. He is not thinking about how this drag on our military is making the US less safe, and if he had he wouldn't admit that if it meant one less troop for Iraq. The man whose responsible that is, Admiral Fallon, has described Petraeus as a sycophant whose surge plan is doomed to failure and Fallon has stated that the US should be withdrawing huge amounts of troops from Iraq immediately.
"We have learned that the Republican Party is now openly advocating a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq that could continue for at least the next 50 years," Webb said in a statement. Hagel said the White House also "has been very effective at making this a loyalty test for the Republican Party."
The September 19, 2007 "Opening Statement by Chairman Lantos at hearing :Assessment of the Administration's September Report on the Status of U.S. Political and Military Efforts in Iraq" at http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/lantos091907.htm has Chairman Lantos quoting Graham's statement to Petraeus to himself as "So you're saying to Congress that you know that at least 60 soldiers, airmen and Marines are likely to be killed every month from now until July; that we are going to spend $9 billion a month of American taxpayer dollars, and when it's all said and done, we'll still have about 100,000 people there. (Do) you believe that it's worth it in terms of our national security interests to pay that price?"
How does Graham say that to Petraeus and not back a bill that would give our military time to recuperate between tours in Iraq? The Webb, Hagel legislation would only give equal time to recuperate as length of tour. Throughout our history the recommended time off has always been twice as long as the tour of duty.
Lantos' opening statement also stated "General Petraeus is quoted as saying that he anticipates that by June of 2009, Iraq will reach what he calls "sustainable security."
Other military experts think that it will take quite a bit longer -- up to five years, says General John Abizaid, the former commander in Iraq. And how about a, quote, "stable, functioning representative government?" When asked when something like this might appear, Ambassador Crocker said last week that he would not even try to give a time line. And I note, Senator Graham, that in David Broder's column in this past Sunday's Washington Post, you are quoted as observing, "if we don't see progress on two of the three big issues -- oil revenues, de-Baathification, provincial elections -- in the next 90 days.... Iraq could be a failed state."
Graham had no ethical qualms-he lied to the Lantos Committee as other GOP goons have lied to all of us.
The GOP has been saying that this legislation is illegal, but Senator Webb cited numerous other occasions in which the identical legislation has been passed.
Richard Holbrooke also testified before the Lantos Committee and among other accusations he labeled the Petraeus Crocker presentations as being solely theatre and ridiculed the lies that their testimony wasn't choreographed to mimic W's wishes. The harshest words though were for the idea that Petraeus hadn't been concerned about the condition of the US military as a result of stretching them too thin in the Iraq theatre of GWOT.
It is all lies. The article "More delays in shift to Iraqi control" at click here states "In another sign of U.S. struggles in Iraq, the target date for putting Iraqi authorities in charge of security in all 18 provinces has slipped yet again, to at least July...."The goals are the same," Bush said. "Have we achieved them as fast? No, we haven't. But, however, having not achieved them doesn't mean we ought to quit - means we ought to work hard to achieve the goals. Because the end result is the same, whether the goal is done in November or in July."... In this month's report, the Pentagon said its "current projection" was that all 18 provinces would move to Iraqi control "as early as" July; that would be eight months later than Bush's original projection."
Why doesn't "bubble boy" just shut up? He got his goons to give him the pleasure of seeing our US boys and girls, almost exclusively drawn from the bottom 99% of the US, get massacred until the end of his presidency? What more does he want?
Richard Holbrooke also pointed out that the insane policy of arming Sunnis, who earlier had been killing our boys and girls, was just a temporary band-aid. As soon as they get al-queda in Iraq out of their area they will go back to killing US soldiers and the Shiites of Iraq and will never be part of a Shiite controlled central government. The Kurds haven't been part of a unified central government since the early 1990s. The Kurds have already cut an oil deal with the Hunt firm of Texas--one of W's cronies no less, with no involvement from Baghdad. They aren't interested in anything other than a federal government with a weak central government.
Bro 43 and the Iraq Study Group are against a federation for Iraq. Why? Because, for among other reason, W is afraid that other companies like Hunt won't get oil deals unless there is a strong central government. Maybe it is because the Iraq constitution has already signified that they want a loose federation, and the ethnic violence and displacement of Iraqis, both within Iraq and in other countries in the region signifies that these people who have been killing each other since before the Ottoman Empire, shouldn't be forced to have a strong central government. Maybe W just wants to push them to do something they can't possibly do so the next president will be up to eyes in the death and mayhem that W has bequeathed to the US.
War is peace and also votes. Maybe W's only motivation is to continue sucking off red state morons who are attached to the idea of killing others for the simple power that it shows the US possesses. Who knows for sure? Few are as psychological maladjusted as those who kill others-so how can we explain the actions of those who, we can make pretty phrase about, but can't really comprehend?

Authors Bio:
Winston Smith is an ex-Social Worker. I worked in child welfare, and in medical settings and in homeless settings. In the later our facility was geared as a permanent address for people to apply for welfare. Once they received that we could send them to facilities in which their welfare paid the bill and provided enough for a meager existence. We also referred people to vocational rehabilitation services. Many of the people who came to us were people who were clearly emotionally ill, but Reagan's slashing of the services for these people caused them to become homeless. One woman I dealt with-St. Jane, believed she was in direct communication with God, urinated freely without using the facilities and she had 47 bags of trash which were prized possessions. She got welfare and was sent to a facility were she could survive. The rule was that our facility could be used 1 time only as we had too many people who thought that the services that we provided we would lift them from the dire straights that they were in. Well, we provided our services for St. Jane around Thanksgiving. On Christmas Eve she was back with her 47 bags of trash and wanted to stay at our facility. I informed my superior of this situation, but we declined to provide services for St. Jane. She slept in front of our facility in a snowstorm. The local rag took the picture and excoriated us for what we did. The local welfare department asked her where she would like to live. St. Jane said Chicago because she liked the wind. She knew on one there. She and her 47 bags of trash of were carted onto a train for the windy city and never of again. The local welfare department was glad to get shed of her. Social welfare in the mid-1980's was geared to blame the victim. Ill people were sent home from hospitals were no one was going to help them because social welfare budgets were slashed by Reagan. Bush 41's â"thousand points of lightâ" was just another way to shaft the weakest in our society. Bush 43's faith based initiative was just another attempt to reduce social welfare services. Reagan's â"Just say Noâ" was the pinnacle of hypocrisy. No services for those who desperately needed them under the guise of tough love.

Obviously I became burnt out by too much indifference regarding our weak and weary. I couldn't look at desperate people and could not get myself to say that what I could offer them wouldn't really help themâ"?it would only get them out of my office to be another person's problem, until the local welfare department carted them away.

I had little interest in politics until the illegal Iraq War started. Growing up in the 1960's caused me to understand that the GOP used war to attract right-wing extremists to vote for them. When â"Tricky Dick'sâ" secret plan to end the Vietnam War unfolded into elongating our presence there for 8 years I knew that I would never believe a GOP war-monger again. I dislike Obama's plan to escalate our presence in Afghanistan and see it as a craven attempt to placate the GOP. Maybe he'll reduce the GOP's attacks against him, but it will at the expense of alienating his base.