19TML>
MAIN
"What I heard the President say also disturbed me. It may make for grand theater to describe Saddam Hussein as an ally of al Qaeda or to characterize the fall of Baghdad as a victory in the war on terror, but stirring rhetoric does not necessarily reflect sobering reality. Not one of the 19 September 11th hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence to link the September 11 attack on the United States to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, and there is no doubt in my mind that he encouraged and rewarded acts of terrorism against Israel. But his crimes are not those of Osama bin Laden, and bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not bring justice to the victims of 9-11. The United States has made great progress in its efforts to disrupt and destroy the al Qaeda terror network. We can take solace and satisfaction in that fact. We should not risk tarnishing those very real accomplishments by trumpeting victory in Iraq as a victory over Osama bin Laden. "-Senator Bird
Last of my opinions...
Currently it appears to most everyone in the world that in the Middle East this technique of playing sides has finally backfired on the United States on a grand scale. The difference in applying this technique of manipulation in the Middle East and when it is applied in Latin America, is best exemplified by the degree in which both groups have lashed out at us for it in the past. It also explains why we got away with it so long in Latin America without life altering reprisals.
Pancho Villa the great Mexican revolutionary leader, hero to most Latin Americans, and one of only a few foreign people to strike the mainland of the United States in an attack, the others being from the Middle East. General Villa did what he could do in 1916 by riding his Division del Norte into Columbus, New Mexico, and shooting the town up after he fell victim to this double-dealing technique, killing a handful of Americans. It’s interesting to note that prior to this he was described by a General Grant of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the "George Washington of Mexico". I cant imagine a greater compliment from a military man. That was as long as he appeared complacent to US demands. The very reasons that the United States backed Pancho Villa and led General Grant to compliment him, ultimately proved his downfall. After realizing just how powerful and charismatic a leader Villa was becoming the United States decided that after many months of supporting him it would be in America’s interest to support his rival, Venustiano Carranza, the weaker of the two men. Villa, who was known to fly into blinded rages, did at the betrayal from whom he considered friends and allies. Who do you think paid the price for this betrayal? The American citizens of Columbus, New Mexico.
More recently, Osama Bin Laden in 2001 did what he could do by attacking New York City. It is my belief that to Bin Laden, New York City in a sense, almost certainly represents the capital of Israel. Israel, a country that has since it’s creation in 1948, has been on a campaign of expansion through military aggression. It has repeatedly inflicted this upon everyone of it’s Arab neighbors. Here I would like to point out that one of the founding precepts of the American constitution is the separation of church and state. If history has taught us anything it is that politics and religion don’t mix. President Bush even used the seperation of church and state as an excuse to reject the demand of representation in the new Iraqi government by the more extreme muslim elements in that country. A country boasting of a single official state religion has through the years always been regarded as an oppressor. Ask yourself this, why would President Bush oppose a country run by Shi'ites, but caters to the pro-israel lobby like he owes them a huge favor.
Back to Bin Laden though, if you ask where’s the double dealing I talked of, you have to look no further than the Iran/contra affair. Although not directly related to Bin Laden, it most definitely effected his world. While the US spent years supporting Sadam Hussein and Iraq as he was knowingly gassing the Iranians with the Communist backing (the American Government thought in this case the ends justified the means), the Reagan administration covertly and illegally sold arms to the Ayatollah Khomeni of Iran so that American hostages in Lebanon would be released, the Ayatollah , Sadam Hussien’s arch enemy. Knowing that at the same time that President Carter was in negotiations for the hostages, while trying a little to campaign to be reelected, future Vice President elect George Bush was making secret agreements with Khomeni to get the hostages released. Bush told Khomeni that if you keep the hostages until the election that would certainly cause President Carter’s downfall, then you can have your weapons. One could argue that the hostages were secondary to the election results. Was I the only one who thought it strange that the hostages were released 30 minutes after President Carter left office. Khomeni, Sadam Hussein and the United Nations have something in common, as long as they worked with the US, they were supported but when the US had no use for them we threw them away.
As I’ve said, while the Iran\contra affair was not directly related to Bin Laden, it definitely effected his world and his country, his country being Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family being viewed by many in the Arab world as pawns to America. Bin Laden, like Villa, being at one time supported by the US, and then being viewed as a threat to American interests by the US, was sent into exile by the royal family. Thence began his plotting revenge on the United States. Given the truth about our track record, of which I wouldn’t guarantee most Americans know better than most Arabs. Who is to say when we will finish with Saudi’s Crown Prince Faud and expose him to the light of justice as the dictatorial despot that all monarchies through out time have always been considered.
An ignorant supporter of the enemy is no less an enemy than a willing supporter, and that goes for the American citizen as well. That’s why any way you look at it New York City was and still is as viable and honest a target as any other city in the United States or Israel to people who consider us a threat to their interests. Consider this, if we were at war with say, Iraq, this should be easy enough to imagine, and we find out that say, Syria is supplying them with military aid. Would not Syria then become a prime legitimate target? If Syria didn’t know we knew, would it be any less of a target. If you understand this idea then there is hope that you might understand that on Sept 10th 2001, the United States was no less at war then on Sept. 12th, 2001. The only difference is on the 11th the veil was forcibly removed and we were made abundantly clear of this fact. We have been at war for decades with these anti-American factions in one form or another, it has only recently pierced the shroud of ignorance that we as American’s have been living under. Long after every nation in the world has been forced, coerced and bribed into alignment with the United States, we will still be at war. Thanks to our manipulating foreign policy there will always be a fresh supply of enemy combatants. Like I said earlier human nature can not be subdued by mere force, and I still thank god for this.
The major difference between the events of 1916 and 2001 is not the time frame. The major difference is that America is now meddling and manipulating a region with vast financial resources and can and will afford the major strikes at the US. One similarity in these events that one can not argue with is the response of the US government to send an overwhelming force into the regions to root out the corresponding leaders. Neither of these expeditions to this date has yet succeeded. Woodrow Wilson saved face only because WWI broke out and stole the headlines allowing him to withdraw the "punitive expedition" under the command of General Pershing and send them to Europe to fight the Kaiser. Likewise George W Bush sent an overwhelming force into Afghanistan under General Tommy Franks to root out Bin Laden. Unlike Wilson though, Bush was not lucky enough to have WWIII break out at the desired moment to distract the headlines so he could slip out of this mess he’s created. So Bush has done the next best thing?
He knows as most know that this will not end until an outcome that will secure his re-election has been attained. An outcome that will justify the loss of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that every American knowingly or not has underwent. As school children we are reminded repeatedly that ‘those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it’. Name one instance when this mantra was adhered to by "grown-ups". If we’re lucky history will repeat itself to the point when Wilson had a massive cerebral hemorrhage. Take a look at a time line chart and notice how the marks that represent events get progressively more congested the closer to present day you get. It will not be 85 years before the next assault on America takes place so we should start addressing the issues now! The issue that created these terrorist’s attitudes, as well as millions and millions of others around the globe and back, is directly related to our biased, unjust foreign policy decisions.
I say that the pro-Israeli media coverage of the Middle East has knowingly pushed its own biased view of the situation onto the American public for literally decades. So long in fact that the specter of the holocaust has become as much ingrained into our society as the belief that we own the patent on free speech and the right to bear arms. The Jews that were deported and exterminated from the Warsaw ghetto and the Jews that are on the campaign to deport and exterminate the Palestinians are different beings. It looks as though Americans are not the only ones who’ve forgotten their history. Take this as an example of the media bias. The act of televising Hanukkah celebrations for instance, would have been unthinkable a generation or two ago, not that I believe there’s anything wrong with this, in fact I revel in diversity, but my point is in contrast Ramadan has only became know to the general public thanks to terrorism!
I believe that it has been known for years in other countries that the "fanatical" supporters of Israel in America have been pushing and dragging American foreign policy into a war in the Middle East, as an example to the enemies of Israel, of the danger of American military support for Israel. At least I know this is what the Arab world believes. How do I know this? Any news source outside this country discusses these concerns of Arabs thoroughly. I say that European countries have been aware of this "final solution" to their problems that Israel has been pushing, with the aid from the American pro-Israeli lobby, in the Middle East. I believe that it is proved in the fact that the European Union was formed, and switched from a dollar based economy to one that is based on the Euro. The media in this country glossed over this topic by saying that it was a matter of convenience for tourists on the Eurorail traveling throughout Europe no doubt a benefit, but to say that such a monumental change, not to mention a show of unity at the exclusion of the US, and which has no precedent to my knowledge in the course of human history is based on tourism is ludicrous beyond conception to me.
Israel is conducting what I call self-fulfilling support from America. American taxpayers are giving Israel billions and billions of dollars in aid a year, way more than any other country. Now of course foreign governments are forbidden to funnel money into American politics. I ask why should it be any different with Americans that possess dual citizenship? Would we elect a president with dual citizenship? Saying a person has dual citizenship is the same as saying they have dual interests or divided allegiance. Should America have persons with divided loyalties influencing the government? It doesn’t sound like a good idea to me, nor did it sound like a good idea to General Washington for that matter.
Israeli-Americans take a small percentage of this aid from the United States taxpayer and re-invests it back into the American government. It’s a fact, so much so, that politicians have used finance reform as platforms for running on. The last one was Senator McCain who ran against Bush in the republican primary. One could easily view this as a last ditch effort by "Real Patriots" in government to thwart this plan. I’ve read were this concept is not so strange to people in the "know", including more moderates in Israel. American Jews have been described by these more moderate voices in Israel as "more Israeli than most Israelis".
Granted these financial aid reform candidates don’t get far because the average American of which 50 percent never vote are not informed by there community leaders (the media) that it is not necessarily to combat big business but foreign interest lobbies. Where as the Israeli-American of which 90 percent always vote are told by their community leaders (the media owners) of the specific relevance. I’ve heard that it has been estimated that Israel has at least 300 Political Action Committees (PAC)working in Washington. The exact number is difficult to say because many PACs have misleading names. Dr. Thomas Stauffer was quoted in the Christian Science Monitor in December of 2002 as saying that he estimates this aid has cost American taxpayers 1.7 trillion dollars. That’s a third of the national debt!
How many foreign governments have PACs working with American politicians and hosting photo opportunities with them where they have for example Colin Powell, the Sec. of State of the United States standing in front of the flag of their nation? Not many if any at all, but with Israel…or should I say with the PAC with pro-Israeli interests…they host photo ops so much that it is not even noticed by most Americans. Its gotten to the point in the last few years that the PACs don’t even make the slightest attempt to conceal the fact that they are lobbying the United States government on behalf of Israel. This is absolutely wrong in every way but the American people are conditioned just like Pavlov’s dogs to accept this as completely normal without the slightest contemplation of what this means to their Government, of which need I remind you, is the entire concept behind President Washington’s great rule. I find it very difficult to spell it out much more plainly than that!
Through the eyes of the Arab world it must appear as it has been repeatedly stated in everything from Arabic media to Bin Laden’s Fatwa that America is a country run by Jews, and with the knowledge of what really is happening in the government, how could you argue with this. We’re conditioned to believe this idea of Jews running our government is somehow anti-Semitic, but if you say Israel’s government is run by Jews, is that anti-Semitic? These images of our Government catering to the pro-Israel lobby are replayed over and over again around the world. With other countries they contact the American Government through their diplomat in the United States, but Israel’s diplomat in many instances knows that he is expected to contact the American Government via the Jewish community and these PACs.
If you want more than my opinion, and you definitely should. Find a copy of "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley, a congressman from Illinois for 22 years. One review said that "there’s no denying Findley’s premise-that pro-Israel interest throughout this country are pervasive, incredibly dogged, well moneyed and, unfortunately, often unfair in their tactics and targets. This book is an eye opener." How does a congressman of 22 years lose his seat? Mr. Findley states without hesitation it was because he was critical of U.S. policy toward Israel. I’m sure in some book somewhere Mr. Findley is a Nazi. This book has innumerable quotes from leading politicians. After you read this, you will see my ideas are not just my own.
Let’s get off this subject and go back to the 70’s,so that you might see this is not just the rambling manifesto of a drunken, unemployed history professor (or maybe not). Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Brown, when questioned at Duke University about curbing the support America sends Israel replied, "When we get tough minded enough to break the Jewish lobby. It is so strong you wouldn’t believe it. We have Israelis coming up to us for equipment. We say we can’t get congress to support a program like this. They say don’t worry about congress, we’ll take care of it" General Brown goes on to say in disbelief that "this is someone from another country telling me this and they can do it".
Well of course when General Brown was labeled an anti-Semitic by the press the commander of the US Air Force General Twining stepped up to defend Brown by saying, " A group of American Jews have grotesquely distorted US foreign policy by their blind fanatic support of Israel (this reflects the sentiment of those moderate voices from Israel). As head of our nations armed forces, he sees a nation of 200 million being dragooned into a disastrous war". General Twining goes on to say that, "General Brown deserves our praise for saying so". And again an Admiral Thomas Moorer, also of the Joint Chiefs of Staff repeats this sentiment, "I’ve never seen an American President, I don’t care who he is, stand up to Israel. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. If the American people understood what kind of grip those people had on our government, they would rise up in arms". Remember this is in the 70’s pro-Israeli control of our government, it goes to reason, could only have multiplied exponentially since these statements were made. Hence the now blatant displays of lobbying.
Was it anti-Semitism that motivated these individuals? Possibly but its dangerous to accuse people of something that most Americans don’t even know the definition of. In all the dictionaries I have consulted nowhere is politics included in the definition of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a personal, I repeat, personal attack on someone for their Jewish religion…not their politics, and politics is what this is all about. Don’t let the issues be confused, because as the sun rises and sets, the powers that be will as they always have in the past, attempt just this. Why have these sort of pro-American statements apparently ceased since the 70’s? Remember this question, I’ll propose a possible answer shortly, but first I believe we should stay with the70’s and look at the actions of the Presidents since then. Not that we couldn’t go back to Truman and Eisenhower for the same type of information. I don’t mean to say this started in the 70’s, but it appears to me that things changed somehow in the 70’s
Consider this that in 70’s when some of the last pro-American ideas had a voice Jimmy Carter(Dem) was President of the United States. If you read his memoirs Keeping Faith you will learn of the Camp David accords from President Carter’s viewpoint as mediator. A job he continues to do for other countries around the globe and that he has as of late been honored with the Nobel Prize for. In his Memoirs of the historic meeting between Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat President Carter describes the two men repeatedly. Sadat he describes as a good man and as someone willing to compromise. Others have said of Sadat that he appeared "ready to bend over backwards" for peace. From the moment Anwar Sadat came to power, until the day his life was taken he fought tirelessly for peace. It’s just this willingness that later led to his assassination. Begin on the other hand is described by President Carter as very uncooperative and unwilling to compromise on the smallest issue. It is interesting to note Begin was described by a fellow Israeli, journalist Simha Flapan, that when Begin as leader of Irgun in the early days of Israeli statehood was responsible for establishing "the pattern of terror used by Al Fatah 30 years later". The willingness of these two men to compromise is directly related to the difference in the amount of "pull" the two countries had in the United States. By no means do I mean to say Sadat was anything but a true humanitarian, but this "pull" continues to be the reason that Israel feels it doesn’t have to compromise. The resulting peace treaty, although "historic" was a farce, as all peace treaties in the Middle East have been. I think everyone involved became so warn down after 13 days of unrelenting negotiations, that they all just wanted to present something and leave. Anyway, perhaps coincidentally, after his attempts to force Israel to inhale from the peace pipe, President Carter is voted out of office. I think it’s worth noting here that from my research Jews in the US appeared prior to the 70’s more likely to vote Democrat but from President Carter on there seems to be a significant shift to the Republican party. Jimmy Carter, a man that has almost without question proven himself morally and ethically superior to any man that has held that office since, or all of them combined, was voted out of office in favor of Ronald Reagan(Rep).
Reagan , an expert politician, a better politician than Jimmy Carter to be sure, but also a man who allowed one of the worst crimes to be perpetrated by the American government in the history of the United States. Ask a school age child about the Iran\contra affair and you’ll get a blank stare, but ask them about Watergate(and god forbid you mention Monica Lewinsky) and most at least know it happened during Nixon’s watch. Do you have any idea how minor an affair Watergate was compared to the Iran\contra affair, or the Lewinsky scandal for that matter. Other countries didn’t have the slightest concern for Monica Lewinsky and Watergate. Those were internal problems. The Iran\contra affair effected the entire Middle East AND South America! In all of those countries, trust in America, and America’s reputation and was severely damaged, or at least exposed for what it is. What scandal will forever be truncheoned into our children’s mind. The least important one, no doubt! Sexual scandals will always make for more memorable scandals by selling more media. Think about that fact alone! When George the first ran against Gary Hart(Dem), what was Mr. Hart’s downfall, A SEX SCANDAL! It was splashed across every front page for weeks before the election. The timing alone made it impossible to get another candidate, and sealed the election of another known criminal.
Now continue on. After Reagan we elect perhaps the only man more responsible for the aforementioned crime than Reagan himself George Bush(Rep). I wonder if George W. knows that if his Father would have prolonged the Gulf War things might have been different. Regardless, President Bush does such a dissatisfying job that no amount of support can salvage his presidency and he loses out to Bill Clinton(Dem).
I believe it is important to look at how the press was used against Clinton from his campaign against Bush, through the end of his second term. It all started during his runaway campaign successes. First, the scandal that involved Jennifer Flowers. Clinton was fist allowed to deny it, then Flowers produced a tape recording of a phone conversation they had. Regardless if it sounded like she was setting him up…She recorded it what more proof do you need! Once this smoothed over and he was back to campaigning, then he had a draft dodging scandal. Then after his election the "Whitewater" scandal that involved Hillary Clinton was broke. Hillary’s refusal to cooperate with investigators led to constant headlines and other scandals.
After the "Whitewater" scandal broke, a scandal developed about his appointment to Attorney General, Zoe Baird, not paying taxes on her housekeeper. All this coupled with President Bush’s misleading statements about the deficit during the campaign proved to negate all of the campaign promises about the budget. He looked like a liar basically. About this time Vince Foster, Hillary’s law partner committed suicide. He left a note saying the press in Washington makes sport out of ruining people. The Arkansas paper-American Spectator then published the State Trooper scandal. Were it was reported Clinton used the Troopers to get dates. After this smoothed out, then Paula Jones accusations of sexual harassment.
Then because Newt Gingrich and the Republican congress was getting nothing but good press it was said President Clinton had to "Shout and wave" to get the press’ attention. Then the Oklahoma city bombing actually boosted his rating much like the Challenger explosion did for Reagan, but as soon as his numbers were up Hilary was brought before Ken Starr and the Special investigation over "Whitewater". A fact is that in no time before this was the First lady of the United States ever attacked like this and demonized by the press. Then President Clinton’s "Shadow Advisor" Dick Morris, a traitor Republican had his own sex scandal. Then believe it or not President Clinton was reelected.
Then Ken Starr the head prosecutor of the "Whitewater" case, which had nothing to do with Bill Clinton as President, dug up Monica Lewinsky. Ken Starr funded by the U.S. to investigate Hillary Clinton managed to turn his assault on the President. President Clinton was again allowed enough time to deny it and Linda Tripp turned up with a stained dress and her own incriminating audio tapes. Then, in retrospect, Clinton does something I was personally totally against at the time, struck Afganistan looking for Bin Laden. The press as well as everyone else, including me, said that was to distract the bloodthirsty wolves, but after Sept. 11th I changed my mind. The rest of the U.S has forgotten though. The strike into Afghanistan I wasn’t against so much as the destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that has never been admitted by the government was a mistake. Then Clinton’s numbers went up again then the Starr report came out. Also Clinton’s grand jury testimony was aired on TV, where he repeatedly answer humiliating questions. This actually caused his numbers to go up.
Then he was finally impeached. HE STILL HAD TWO YEARS TO GO! No more scandals could be uncovered…honestly after the Starr report and the impeachment which cost us millions and millions and accomplished nothing. I think Clinton’s enemies gave up with 6 months of his last term I’m sure they counted him out. The last things Clinton was allowed to do, once his enemies backed off was the one thing he was elected 8 years earlier to do and that was fix the economy that Ronald Reagan and George Bush left in shambles. The only thing you could count on was that if President Clinton’s popularity was up a scandal was around the corner. After 8 huge scandals, 4 of them sexual, of which only one or two could be linked to him, President Clinton left the Economy as Alan Greenspan put it "He had never seen such a strong economy". Imagine what might have been if the press would have let him do his job, in 6 month he did what the last two republicans Reagan and Bush were unable to do, balance the budget.
In fact the Republicans drove the economy into the hole so far with military spending, and the ridiculous "trickle down" concept that we may never fully recover. Americans typically want as much as they can get for nothing. The current administration has just told the people what they want to here. Clinton fixed what these two destroyed, but thanks to the media portrayal of Clinton, we elect another destroyer of the economy who has his own "trickle down" scheme in the form of dividend tax breaks, and small tax rebates that equal trillion dollar tax cuts. Meanwhile our economy sinks lower and lower into depression unemployment jumps way up, our state governors have to raise every tax they can think of and cut funding for things like libraries, schools and roads. While President Bush becomes the tax cut hero the governors take the heat. The government is run on taxes they will get it from somewhere. What more needs to be said, but if talking to a Bush supporter you always here "I suppose you thought Clinton did a good job"?
Well that brings us to the current chapter in American History, or what I fear is quite possibly the last chapter in American History (At least we should start a new volume out of respect for the civil rights movement) George W. Bush(Rep). Who strangely enough has under him many of the same players that the Reagan\Bush Iran\Contra era produced. John Poindexter for instance, a man who was perhaps one of the only people convicted of the Iran\contra affair, was later suspiciously acquitted after the heat and press coverage subsided. George W. Bush , a man who arguably by not winning the popular vote (votes from the individual American) stole the election in what some call a bloodless coup.
America is to understand that the election of the President is the people’s "unalienable right". It is my understanding though (for I’m not a political science major) that our popular votes are then given to a group called the electorate, to what seems to me, for the purpose of interpretation. Is the term "popular vote" not another way of saying who America favors? . A stranger chapter George Orwell himself could not have penned. Again, apparently the electorate knows more specifically what the term popular vote means, and with that knowledge they are blessed with their "alienable right" to help the ignorant masses to understand what we want…or at least what we meant! The only point, from my admittedly ignorant standpoint, of an electorate would be to have a smaller, more easily influenced group to cater to. That is if you were a group that needed to cater to politicians to secure aid for you cause.
Well anyway, with the election of George W. Bush, we come to the current chapter of the Middle East also. Where the United States in opposition to the UN has begun what Muslim countries refer to as a crusade against Israel’s enemies. On one side you have the extremist Arabs, which to me is best represented by the apparently bloodthirsty Al Qaeda faction. The other side I am sorry to say, is represented by the United States of America, thanks to Sept. 11th ,no less bloodthirsty. A war entirely based on "American Intelligence" apparently. The same American Intelligence that overlooked blatant facts that in retrospect would have alerted even the most distracted CIA or FBI agent to a planned attack involving airplanes, known terrorist training in flight schools and did might I point out, but as we are told to believe the memo was ignored by the higher ups. These higher ups probably gave the terrorists the benefit of the doubt, everyone can change. Plus this was prior to the implementation of the doctrine of preemptive strike.
This lack of attentiveness ,or as we have heard it explained, a failure of the FBI and CIA to cooperate with each other and share puzzle pieces has caused some in the government, including President Bush, to draw the conclusion after many minutes of deliberation no doubt, that the bureaucracy of the Government was to small. Bush didn’t actually say it himself, but I do recall someone on his team trying to place the blame with President Clinton for this by pointing out that President Clinton was responsible for budget cuts that reduced the number of…phone lines or something between the two departments, I cant remember exactly what it was and its irrelevant at this point anyway. This painful conclusion, that there was a shortage of policing departments in the US, has forced President Bush, against all his wisdom and desire (he’ll tell you it’s not in the Republican’s nature) to contradict his campaign platform of "Small Government". I’m sure he realizes its been over 24 hours since he last said that so America has almost certainly forgotten. So he has to implement the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States and most certainly the world (also against the Republican’s nature). Not to mention that it also forced him to renege and contradict his exhausting enunciation’s on how he "trusts the people". So you see his hand was forced, and President Bush is no dummy and he knows his history. To prove it he turned the pages of American history back to one of the most shameful chapters and return with updated versions of the Alien and Sedition Acts, but we as the segment that he still trusts have nothing to worry about. For you see the only reason he had to do this was to thwart the enemy within. I can’t pass this issue without being reminded of the "no new taxes" comment his Father used to get elected, that of course combined with the scandalizing of his opponent by the media. When Bush ran against Gore, another part of Bushes platform was "freedom to bear arms". This in my opinion lost Gore the election cause he came out honestly and said that it is something that needs to be considered. Bush, with his claims of "trusting the people", won the support of the NRA and a huge majority of trade unions who typically vote Democratic. I know without a doubt the first chance Bush gets to sign some law limiting guns, he will jump on it! He's a republican! He's supported by law enforcement...think about it! This is what that teacher meant saying, "If you don't know...stay out of it". I think that Democrats need to take a lesson from the Republicans and realize that to be the President you just have to use all your good lies before the election.
Now seriously for a moment, back to the issue of reliance on American Intelligence to justify our aggression. This intelligence in conjunction with the propaganda machine led the American public to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Weapons which a multitude of United Nations inspectors led by Hans Blix, or as President Bush so UN-diplomatically referred to him as "the so called inspector" Hans Blix, failed to produce. Weapons that even "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has failed to produce. The press has reported several times on chemical agents that were discovered, but had to be "sent off" for analysis. They said this even after the press bragged for weeks before America forced the UN back into Iraq, about the various pieces of state-of-the-art equipment that the inspectors would possess that would sniff minuscule amounts of chemicals out of thin air. But lo!, sniffing imaginary chemicals, no matter how thick the air is, has still proven to difficult! Did the media publicize the fact that some of the banned chemical agents were also used to produce life saving medication for Iraqi children dying of an intestinal parasite? Anyway the particular chemical agents repeatedly mentioned in the media as discovered always had to be sent off to be analyzed, coincidentally never to be mentioned again.
There are many stories reported in the press that plant these seeds in the American minds. For instance that Iraq had a hand in Sept. 11th. Polls show that prior to the invasion of Iraq a percentage of Americans equivalent to the percentage of Americans that supported the invasion believed that Iraq was in some direct way responsible for the Sept.11th attack on New York, an allegation that has been forgotten along with all the other allegations because they are completely unsubstantiated rumors that are willingly propagated and disseminated by the media to boost the war frenzy. This is all fact! Arguably open to interpretation yes, but never the less fact.
We attacked the government of Afghanistan, I thought, because they were responsible for Sept. 11th. If we can then connect it to Iraq, we can certainly connect it with Syria, Iran, North Korea, the Philippines or anywhere these anti-American attitudes reside.
I’d like to mention here also, that the media willingly let the pro-war and anti-war people go at each others throats. Anti-war people would say "bring our troops home", this offended the blinded patriot into a two minute hate and they would denounce the anti-war people and say, "We gotta support our boys"! The media, knowing that the anti-war people never said "Don’t support our boys", knowing many veterans with children fighting were among the anti-war protesters, let the misunderstanding continue. This was no accident. Think of this conditioned response given by the pro-war people. If supporting the troops means not saying "bring them home", then would the greatest support we could offer be permanent occupation? But I ramble…
The news of the capture of Bhagdad and the liberation of Iraq wasn’t even two days old and American intelligence and the propaganda machine had already started pointing to Syria with a carbon copy of all the same unsubstantiated allegations that President Bush accused Iraq and Sadam Hussein of prior to invasion. If the conquest of Iraq had turned up these chemicals then these same allegation that they are starting to repeat at Syria wouldn’t be unsubstantiated, and in this respect legitimate. As of yet they are unsubstantiated, yet we are supposed to be willingly "dragooned" into another war, with yet another country if necessary to possibly locate them. If these WMD do exist, and they have been sent to Syria, long before we ever invade they will be sent out of the country. Then we will replay the duplicate demands with Iran or whom ever. To save time and money let’s get it on with the whole region. Locate those damned WMD, so we can return to our regular programming!
If the Syrian well turns up dry President Bush or his handlers will undoubtedly point the finger at Iran or North Korea, or any of the growing list of countries with anti-American sentiment. Countries that Bush and the rest of the possible "usurpers" want you to believe are countries of oppressed citizens yearning for liberation and longing for a taste of American democracy. No matter what any of the future wars bring, it will not justify the gross injustice perpetrated on Iraq in the name of the American people.
This unjust war can not help but remind the student of history of the 1840’s invasions of Mexican territory and the dishonor done to that countries sovereignty by the American government under Presidents Tyler and Polk. Sovereignty, a concept far more hallowed and venerated by the founding fathers of this country than even, yes the right to bare arms, but as with most of the concepts from that generation, forgotten in an stupefying miasma of modernity. "Operation Mexican Freedom " which a young officer named Ulysses S. Grant later recalled in his memoirs, described America’s policy toward Mexico as one designed to bring about conflict (familiar sounding). This particular chapter of American history that he was intimately familiar with also had something he chose to describe as an "army of occupation" and to his dying day he describe the War with Mexico "as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger on a weaker nation", and an example "of a republic not considering justice when acquiring territory". Mexico was not under a decade of sanctions designed to cripple it!
I fear with certainty that as a people we have learned nothing from our great leaders.
I believe that our government has a couple major flaws in it. One is that every four years the mostly ignorant population is lured away from their TelePrompTers and into the hallowed cattle stalls of democracy to have the honor of electing either a person our country can look up to, or a person our country can relate to, we invariably choose the latter. Someone who is capable of playing host to the royalty of foreign nations and then offering up BBQ. How can a President that can relate to a general population raised on "Ricki Lake" and "reality television" be the best choice to govern our nation? I sincerely apologize if I have offended but you are given the choice daily to live in ignorant bliss or to accept the sometimes crushing headaches and heart murmuring stress that accompanies the knowledge of the truth of what your country regards as policy.
One quote from President Grant that he left for future generations to contemplate(this means you!) echoes of terrifying repercussions and some might say applies to certain current events, "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions". An eloquent and more appropriate quote I can not recall.
Another major flaw I believe our country suffers from is also related to the four year term of the president. Our foreign policy is effected in that it can drastically change every four years according to the whims of the fortunate boob that gets elected. How exhausting could it be for a foreign leader who sees President after President come and go. Plenty of foreign leaders serve decades and longer in power. Every four years they have to take time out of their busy schedule to come press the flesh of the President and spend their valuable time just trying to figure out if this is the one who will open trade or label us a member of the axis of evil and set the stage for invasion. If it wasn’t for the fact that we are financially well off, which has changed dramatically since Bush took over, we wouldn’t get these meetings with leaders. That is until they needed to form a coalition, as propaganda, to justify setting about some selfish business.
Well my answer to this would be to have a board established. The members of this board would serve for life, like the supreme court, and would be subject to impeachment. I think the board might be made up of a cross section of the various ethnic groups in the country easily enough so that all would find representation according to the population numbers. Religion would have no place on the board. Nor would partisan politics. Catering to PACs would be severely punished, as would receiving gifts or donations. They could not be allowed to benefit from there position in any way other than their salaries. The object of this board would be to decide all foreign policy issues. They could, as a board, hear testimony from concerned groups, foreign and domestic, on various sides of the issues being addressed, but closed door session would be strictly forbidden. I think this would be an excellent start to addressing our current problems with our foreign policy decisions. To the opponents of such an idea who would say it would be to difficult to accomplish, all I have to say to them is…Dept. of Homeland Security! At the current rate, with the current policies of established norms, long after the Bush administration is out of office the growing pro-Israeli lobby and pro-Israeli media conglomerates will still be out there, working in conjunction with each other, acting as a svengali to control the American public sentiment and influence the politicians in this country, and we as "real patriots" who are looked upon as "suspect and odious" will still be in the back seat right beside our interests.
I believe the hold up until now in our display of military prowess in the Middle East has been determined by two main factors. The first and quite possibly the largest reason for our hesitance to get "to" involved was the Soviet Union. During the cold war there was a perceived balance of power in the world. Now with the collapse of the Soviet Union that perception has vanished. I believe this has led to a false sense of security in our government and has aided in, along with the support of the media, the feeling of American military invincibility. The fear of the cold war was actually a blessing in disguise. Is it not the fear of reprisals and incarceration, we are told, that keeps most criminals at bay?
The other reason I believe is in the leadership of the United States itself. The Reagan/Bush dynasty for all its many faults had experience in the dealings of politics and were themselves better and more knowledgeable politicians, having spent their lives submerged in all facets of political endeavor. Criminal…yes, but not humiliating in their behavior. George W Bush has tried his hand at several vocations including, but not limited to, taxi driver, lawn care technician, goat herder, and ranchero. His most successful endeavor, besides being the son of a multi-billionaire oil man however, was in managing the baseball team the Texas Rangers. A job that coincidentally gained him the popularity to become governor of Texas and started his brief rise to the presidency.
In the White House, he has adopted the Texan attitudes of "one riot, one ranger" and "Don’t tread on me", which makes him easier to relate to for the average firearm hoarding American. These attitudes are an embarrassing disgrace to a modern civilized society, and they should be regarded only for their historical contributions like the Confederate Battle Flag, viewed as symbols of our past ignorance. Instead, there viewed as symbols of our country’s current ignorance. I don’t believe there is any proof existing that President Bush ever stepped outside of Texas before campaigning for the Presidency. Of course this is an exaggeration but you get my point. Again I would like to apologize for insulting the President, and I would that is, if every pore and twitch of his evil, gremlin-like body didn’t demand to be insulted! God Bless America!!
Now finally back to the question I raised earlier: Why have the pro-American statements from the 70’s apparently stopped? There could be a number of possibilities, but the one that pre-dates most of them is a single term. A term that emerged in the media during the eighties as President Reagan took office. A term that any child born in that decade is thoroughly conditioned with. That term or should I say the conditioning concept the term represents is "politically correct". Where did that term come from…I don’t know and I don’t care. But I do know that this simple idea has silenced those voices from the 70’s and conditioned America to reject the very term "pro-American" as something to be avoided and ashamed of. "Politically Correct" immediately makes any discussion of Israel other than to sympathize for the holocaust (which I do) impossible to discuss in an open forum without raising eyebrows, or without attracting the attention of the thought police with their denunciations of "nazi-ism".
Why would our society, a "free" society question ,or I would go as far as to say fear the use of the word Jew. A term that all people have used through out time and continue to use to this day. I have used the term "Jew" in causal conversation as I would use any word be it Arab, Jew, or Christian and I have then asked if it was offensive. 100 percent of the time the answer is yes and 100 percent of the time the listener is unable to put his finger on it, or at least they fail to explain themselves to my satisfaction. Why is this perceived as offensive to most people? I say, with certainty, that the ‘gut feelings" that people in this country experience when these issues are publicly discussed have been brought about by decades of conditioning. Conditioning by the media for this very response. I can only imagine that certain people must have misunderstood that the novel "1984" was not an attempt at blueprinting responsible government.
This is the very important point when I must remind you of President Washington’s words, "The real patriot who resists the intrigues of the favorite is liable to become suspected and odious". President Washington meant this quote to cross the centuries and fall upon your ears…your ears! Not the ears of the electorate to interpret for you, not the Ministry of Truth! He meant this for your ears to hear, your mind to absorb. He has sent this "for YOUR contemplation, and YOUR frequent review"!
True that these radical ideas I’ve penned could easily be called a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies require a number of people acting in unison, and I don’t…cant believe for a minute that certain lobby groups, Hollywood and most newspaper and TV stations all met in a secret meeting and decided on this plan years ago to manipulate the American Government. That is a ridiculous idea and easily dismissed. Even if this is an impossibility, which I agree it is, the result appears to be the same as if they would have.
Radical ideas like these, we are told, are inherently developed by crazy recluses that set out to justify preconceived notions. I can assure you I’m neither a recluse nor did I have any preconceived notion as to this situation. Rather I am just an American who is troubled by current events, and who started writing in an attempt to alleviate the built up stress( I hope this explains the rambling nature of this). I might also add this has not help me in the slightest! Not to mention, writing this has added a thousand more questions to the problem. After I came across coincidence upon coincidence and listed them chronologically these radical ideas formed themselves. It was not formed by my manipulation, and that is a fact you must remember. I have not put words in people’s mouths. General Washington, in the 1790’s had the same motivation as General Brown in the 1970’s! That was simply a fidelity to duty and country that every American, we are told, is said to possess. We are not told that the diversity of this country lends itself to diversifying the duty that we perceive is ours.
A coincidence is only that until accompanied by many other coincidences, once this happens interpretation is no longer needed, because they become blatant patterns. Would it be just another coincidence if the people who were involved in the scandals that led to the impeachment of President Clinton and the resignation of President Nixon shown to be some of these people with divided loyalties? Would it be coincidence if the reason that President Reagan and Vice President Bush suffered absolutely nothing because of the Iran\contra affair could be linked to people of the divided loyalties? Is it a coincidence that Democrats always fair worse in the media? Would it be just another coincident if Bush’s handlers, speech makers and that little voice in his ear were these people with divided loyalties? I tell you this conspiracy idea was not my point, in fact I wanted to avoid it for reasons I’ve already stated.
Take some of these questions with you, if you find out anything interesting come tell me. Then "me" will be "we" and that’s a start. Remember "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step". Consider these ideas people and don’t let them be forced back into the closet of political taboo. We must remain loyal to the idea that we, as a free people, control our destiny. To quote from "1984", "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious", because war is NOT peace, freedom is NOT slavery, and ignorance is NOT strength! After all this is why we as a nation are here. The disastrous war that General Twining warned us of in the 70’s has finally been sprung upon us.
Humor me a moment longer as I leave you with one more quote, this time from Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". As god as my witness, allow me the honor of being the first to step forward and offer the first drops. No…I must be allowed the honor of offering the second drops. I can only hope that as my moment of truth arrives that the same fortitude that was granted Rachel Corrie strengthens my resolve so that I may unwaveringly assume my place in history by her side. I only hope future generations are granted the wisdom to know in which of the two groups President Jefferson referred to, we would belong. For now I must rest I have a splitting headache….
TOP
Email: markwynn01@yahoo.com
