The Journal of Pasquino Rockefeller

Happy Dependence Day

2008-07-04T17:09:00.003-05:00

On today, July 4th, our Independence Day, I regretfully find our great nation not only dependent but addicted to the ebony elixir that has congested our once red veins with black. As gas prices across the country rise ever so slowly toward five dollars per gallon, we are shamed into submission by not only the Saudis and other oil-producing nations of the world but by our own elected leaders. If it weren't for the President's close friends whose abilities to mask his failures with patriotic smoke and mirrors, the White House would be nearly painted black with all of the oil left behind from the bottoms of our leaders' shoes. The blatant fact remains that our President prior to his election was not only governor of Texas, a state that holds over two-million oil pumps to her veins, but was a failed oil man in numerous companies. Our Vice-President was CEO of Haliburton which was granted first and unopposed rights to Iraq after its invasion, which happens to contain the world's second largest oil reserve beneath its sand. The man who is in charge of our country's energy policy still holds over half a million shares in the company he once ran. And Iraq, this administration's most public blunder, was invaded on false pretenses and the fact that two oil men ordered the hit on a country with no shortage of that black cocaine cannot be coincidence. Now their answer to our rising oil prices, which is due to peak oil (apparently mother nature has deemed oil a waning fad), is to drill domestically. If profits to this administration are not direct I am confident that lobbyists are filling in the financial void behind our backs. Either way, the criminality of this administration is beyond the obvious and I can only hope that our next will do well to mend the wounds opened by President Bush and his Vice-President Cheney. I highly doubt George Washington saw his presidency as a means for monetary exploits and profit. Have a happy 4th.

I Can't Believe I Have To Write This

2008-04-28T09:32:00.003-05:00

Well, well, well. It has been almost a whole year since my last post. I have tried my best to stay out of the political arena and especially the one in Iraq. I couldn't imagine anything coming from my rants and raves but finally the straw has broke yet again and I am forced to write yet another article. Yesterday, it was revealed that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police were on the payroll who were either dead, injured and thus off duty or ill and off duty. The Iraqi government is corrupt, I knew that, but this is just a blatant slap in the face for all Iraqis and Americans. The Iraqi government is trying to justify it by saying that the money is going to the families of the victims. Cry me an oasis. Not only is the country losing a lot of money (and yes, it has only just been recently mentioned in American government but there is still no oil revenue going to Iraq on the scale of it being the second largest natural oil reserve in the world) but neither the Iraqis nor the American and UN troops know just how many Iraqis are on duty at any given time at any given location. Great way to fight a war, I must say.
Also, the reconstruction effort in Iraq that has cost US taxpayers over $100 BILLION!!!, is coming up short once again in a scam for individual companies to make money. In a recent investigation by the US government, it was found that out of 47,321 contracts to rebuild Iraq, 855 were simply terminated due to hard conditions absolutely no one could possibly predict and out of those, 112 were recorded as completed. One of those contracts was to build a $50 million children's hospital which was only partially finished. I hope those kids over there don't scrape their knees too much playing in their bloody sandbox.
I won't even go into the race for president because its between John McCain (who has pledged to continue the incompetence plague that the Bush Administration has created and even said that we will be in Iraq for 100 years if necessary), Hillary Clinton (who doesn't seem to understand the people-person aspect of the job and only polarizes the country with her strong-woman-hear-me-roar speeches) and Obama (who can only get stressed and grouchy when everyone is questioning his race, religion, patriotism and yes, his name [Obama rhymes with Osama for all you stupid people out there who think they're the same]). I want to move to Canada.
This war is a joke, but sadly, the joke costs hundreds of lives with every chuckle. Iraq is a money train and everyone wants on from the Iraqi government to our own and everyone in between. Is it worth the cost in human lives and suffering anymore? Was it ever?

The Reveal!

2007-05-21T22:20:00.000-05:00

For anyone who cares, my real name is Dylan Emerick-Brown. I figured I'd say that because there's no point in living behind a pseudo name forever. Well, there it is. Bye.

And for my friends in India:
फॉर अन्योने व्हो कारेस, मय रियल नामे इस द्य्लन एमेरिक-ब्रोवं। ई फिगुरेड ई'डी सय ठाट बेकाउसे तेरे'एस नो प्वाइंट इन लिविंग बेहिंद अ प्सयूदो नामे फोरेवेर। वेल्ल, तेरे इत इस। बाय।

Long Live Democracy!

2007-05-17T09:49:00.000-05:00

Congress has set hopes that by Memorial Day weekend they will have a new bill for the funding of the war in Iraq that the president will accept. There can be no argument that this bill needs to get passed and the troops need to get their long-awaited support from the government. The question is whether or not there will be another veto. The Democrats have said that they wish to compromise with the president but they refuse to give him a clean bill with no restraint on the war. Thank God.
Bush cannot continue to run this war like an unchallenged dictator with no concept of the consequences to his actions. He thinks that he and his administration are above the law and above the people but they are subject to the law and subjects of the people! Long Live Democracy!

War Czar? Why Not? Anyone Else With An Opinion?

2007-05-15T21:51:00.000-05:00

Today, Bush has finally chosen a war czar. Or to be more accurate, a person willing to be war czar finally chose Bush. After having the job turned down by several top military officials and criticism already facing the new war czar even before he accepted the position, Bush has found his scapegoat. And the name of that unfortunate victim of a shortened career is Lt. General Douglas Lute.
With an extensive military background, he is just the man the Bush Administration needs to sparkle up his bureaucratic efforts to save his war. While the rest of the world is screaming for diplomacy, Bush has placed a three star general in charge of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there's a catch: the war czar has to be loyal to Bush's plans.
Now that this country has a war czar in place--the one link missing in the victory chain--we can all rest assured that soon we will have total victory in Iraq. As an assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor...wait a minute! An assistant to the who?! This isn't a job that is actually going to provide anything new. It's just a flashy title that all of the blame can fall on when things continue to go sour.
The president and the deputy national security advisor already have assistants. If they want the opinion of a three star general they can just ask. But instead, they've decided that by taking something they already had in the first place, repositioning it within Washington's bureaucracy and giving it a new title everything is going to change. I give up! This country is being led by a bunch of g*d d#&m imbeciles. What else is there to say?

Spiral Dynamics As They Apply To Iraq

2007-05-13T13:26:00.000-05:00

The following is a comment made on my article, "Iraq: The American Tarpit". I feel that it has something valuable hidden within the message that I want to address afterward. Thank you, Anonymous.
mullah cimoc say him warning ameriki people in 2003 when bush the invading iraq.
mullah cimoc then tell all ameriki saying please to reading the books of him chairman mao tse tung on guerilla warfare strategies and tactical.
mullah cimoc say in 2003 him insurgent running the enrage the bear tactical.
bear so ferocious, but running to and fro and the lunging to and fro, finally getting tired and the weaker and finally after the tormenting after the exhaustion him wanting to be killed just for ending the suffering.
this usa now in iraq. so the weaken, now the guerilla more aggressive but still the so careful. the bear still roar but hearing now the weakness.
in this time now all muslim knowing that in new iraq only him who killing so many ameriki soldier having the status and the power.
the collaborator him to die and all the family too, unless so torture by ameriki.
only one kind of the voting to count in new iraq. this ballot him calling the body bag containing the ameirki soldier ballot. if not have the this ballot, not having him vote.
this new man in new iraq him true warrior face every day adversity. him only man with political power in new iraq.
for this reason now the killing for starting so much against ameriki soldier. the wife telling the husband, “Omar, you needing for killing three ameriki now so our children him going the college and have good job in new iraq”. Also, “you not my husband if not killing ameriki soldier.”
this new kind of gold rush, but this rush him calling this the rush for kill ameriki soldier.

This comment uses the analogy of a bear to represent the United States in a clever story reflecting the conflict between the views of the Iraqis and our views. The best way I can explain this is in the terms of spiral dynamics. A good link to go to for more information would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics.
Basically, spiral dynamics is a concept model of how human cognitive development evolves--much like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Using colored levels, we can elevate our cognitive development to new "tiers" of consciousness.
Now, this applies to the above comment in that Iraqis are thinking on a "blue" tier while we are thinking on a "green" tier. What this means is that while we are planning a democracy, which is a pretty complicated and in-depth concept to fully understand and implement, the Iraqis are thinking in more of a tribal sense of sects and power. And it is this gap between where we are, cognitively, and where the Iraqis are that is creating an obstacle for democracy in Iraq.
The blue tier is a more simple level consisting of basic codes and laws, a need to follow a path to right or truth, thinking in a sense of fundamentalism and traditionalism--occasionally extremism. This tier is where the insurgents are thinking on a cognitive level. They are only interested in tradition, authority, morals and the punishments for disobeying them. This is a tier in which many Islamic extremists worldwide are operating. Codes of conduct and tradition as well as purpose, right, wrong and consequences of straying from the set path are all parts of religious teachings such as in the Qur'an. And on this tier, understanding, creating and holding onto a concept such as democracy is beyond their reach. While some Iraqis have moved up to a higher tier, the vast majority are simply not cognitively ready for the responsibilities of sustaining a democracy--a western concept that is mostly unfamiliar in Middle East culture and is only recently starting to prosper in such countries as, ironically, Iran.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is thinking on the green tier which understands the global picture, decisions from the head and not the heart, equality, acceptance and cooperation--all concepts interwoven within democracy. These two tiers, while not that far spaced apart, are still two completely different ways of looking at things. Not just democracy, but these two different cognitive brains would look at everything differently from culture and society to the environment and economics.
What all of this comes down to is another fundamental factor in the many factors of why Iraq is failing to meet U.S. goals. This is something that needs to be much more seriously looked into by the Bush Administration and other politicians worldwide. We simply cannot expect such results from Iraq at the pace we are heading and our military presence in the country is likewise hindering the process by creating a "competing tribe" for power in the minds of the Iraqi citizens.

A Civil War By Any Other Name...

2007-05-13T13:06:00.000-05:00

First of all, I would like to address that I made some changes to a previous post: Saddam's Iraq Will Not Become Our America. I felt that parts of it were unclear and so I found better ways of explaining my view. I understand that this is a journal and I am not really supposed to do that but...who cares?
This journal entry has to do with the civil war controversy over Iraq. Many Americans feel that Iraq is in a civil war while some still feel that they are not. Well, for anyone who cares--they are in a civil war.
One argument I've heard is that only 10-20% or so of the country is actually fighting and so it isn't really a civil war. But our civil war in the 1860s only killed 3% of the population. Not many more could have been actually fighting. A civil war doesn't bring all of the population to arms. Everyone is enveloped in the civil war but only a few are physically fighting it.
Some people who think Iraq is in a civil war, even suggest that we continue to remain there. No one got involved in our civil war. And if someone did, then it wouldn't have remained civil. The point of a civil war is that it is domestic. A foreign entity has no place militarily in another nation's civil war.
And it is too easy for historians to judge past civil wars and determine whether or not someone should have intervened. But policies aren't made in retrospect. No one can play fortune-teller and assume who is going to take power and if that is going to be a good thing for the U.S. And if it is good for the U.S. does that mean that it is good for Iraq? It is unfair to involve oneself militarily in the domestic matter of another nation.
In the end, it doesn't really matter what you call IT as long as IT is acknowledged. I think that people don't like to admit that it is a civil war because that implies that the war is out of U.S. control and that is an unsettling thought. But that is the reality of it like it or not. You can call it a "civil war" or you can call it, "a whimsically violent parade of explosive sectarian balloons" for all I care. Just don't pretend that nothing is happening over there.

Iraq: The American Tarpit

2007-05-12T21:29:00.000-05:00

In an ambush about 12 miles west of Mahmoudiya this morning, five were left dead and three missing among a patrol of U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter. Despite the military's best efforts, the three missing soldiers' whereabouts are still unknown. This is yet another tragedy in the ongoing larger-scale tragedy that is the war in Iraq.

In other news today, Vice President Dick Cheney visited the Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in an effort to gain support for the war. The king, who gave Bush much support in the beginning of the war has now declared the U.S. troops in Iraq as being an "illegal foreign occupation".

Also, Abdullah has criticized Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq and refused to see him on his tour for support around the Middle East. Prime Minister al-Maliki is a Shiite leader while King Abdullah is Sunni. There has been much tension over these differences throughout the Middle East and it has turned one of Bush's strongest allies against the war.

King Abdullah is the leader of the most oil-rich nation in the world and also head of a primarily Sunni culture. Iraq is led by a Shiite leader and holds possibly the second largest natural reserves of oil in the world. It is no wonder that Abdullah's support has dwindled to criticism when it looks like an economic competitor is run by a Shiite leader. And the thought of Iraq siding with Iran is too much to bear.

Despite the highly unlikely possibility that Iraq will somehow form a vigilante alliance against the west in oil exportation, one thing remains certain; that oil is a primary factor in the Iraq equation as well as the sectarian differences between Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunnis, who control most of the Middle East (Saddam was Sunni), would like to see Iraq stay ethnically allied with them against neighboring Shiite Iran. The Shiites in Iraq believe that now is their time to represent themselves from the ashes of oppression but face overwhelming challenges ahead.

The real question here is whether or not the Middle East is willing to compromise and allow both sects to rule democratically in the new nation of Iraq? More importantly--are the Iraqis? In such a sensitive geopolitical and religious environment, that Utopian democracy Bush envisioned might be a little too far out of reach. The best strategy for Iraq at this point is to pull the U.S. troops out of the country, assist diplomatically and allow Iraq to be run by Iraqis. Foreign policy should not become domestic policy. But do our leaders have what it takes to bring our troops home and let Iraq go or are we trapped in the oil?

Iraq: An American Frankenstein!

2007-05-11T15:35:00.000-05:00

With poll ratings incredibly low for both Congress and the president, things are looking dismal for the direction the United States is headed. The Democrats in Congress have nothing to show for their time in power except a veto by the president while many other issues need to be addressed. And in the same boat is the president, who despite the concern of the American people, has continued his stubbornness and led this country further into the war with no hope of getting out soon.
The president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, has said that Iraq needs about two to three more years before he is confident that Iraqi forces will be able to take over for the U.S. troops. Whether this is true or simply a made-up figure, it may be too little too late. In Congress's latest bill, Congress will fund the war in installments in order to view progress made in Iraq and vote on whether or not or how much to spend in the next installment of funds.
This scenario seems to be quite fair even by Talabani's standards. As long as the Iraqis continue to make scheduled progress, the funding will continue until the country can stand on its own feet. But Bush has continued his vow to veto this bill because it shows a glimpse of U.S. forces at some point leaving Iraq.
Congress, as unsuccessful as it may be, merely wants Iraqis to be held accountable for Iraq. They have had over four years to do it. There seems to be no logical reason for funding the war indefinitely without setting up goals to be reached. And if the funding continues despite the scenario if the Iraqis fail to meet those goals is downright irresponsible of U.S. policy makers.
The Bush Administration's lack of concern for the consequences of this war show that they have been leading this country down the wrong path for far too long. Unfortunately, due to the terrible handling of the war in its early phases there is the chance that even after we leave what may appear to be a healthy Iraq, the Iraqi people could face another genocide. All we are doing is delaying an inevitable civil war for who will control Iraq. This is not our decision to make and the sooner we realize that the better. These harsh facts of life--that terrible things will happen despite all efforts--are facts that need to be accepted. We cannot successfully police the world on our own.
If the Iraqis fought their civil war and forged their own government, it would be the first step they've made on their own towards a sovereign nation. It is a simple inevitability that the Iraqis will only be content when they have created a country of their own without the influence of a foreign entity.
It is not fair for the U.S. to dictate how another country should be run and the American people are seeing that. We need to focus on our own domestic issues and leave the Iraqis with a country post-Saddam. There are more important things than intimidating Iran, which is one of the most democratic nations in the Middle East if only Republicans could look beyond the leadership and at the actual culture, society and base of Iranian government. If you don't believe me, look it up. And there are more important things than rebuilding Iraq in America's image.
War is not an acceptable result of adequate foreign policy. And no matter how much we may want it, Iraq will never survive as an American experiment; it will fall into a violent socio-political void unless it is allowed to grow into the nation it was always meant to be, like it or not--Iraq.

Another Bill, Another Veto

2007-05-10T21:06:00.000-05:00

The president is once again on a a stubborn mission to veto any bill that doesn't bear his hallmark short-sighted failure stamp on it. A new bill passed by Congress willing to compromise with the White House allows $42.8 billion to be spent on the war until August 1. Then, over summer Congress will vote whether or not to end the fiscal year with another $52.8 billion to last until September 30.
President Bush said, "We reject that idea. It won't work."
Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress, Bush has stubbornly defied every idea that has come to his desk and has shown an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate with Congress on a spending bill for the war. If Bush truly wanted to help our troops he would fund them. The caution in Congress's bill is to allow the Iraqi forces to take over and relieve some of the stress from U.S. troops. This would be the first step in the United States' acceptance of a sovereign Iraq without U.S. occupation. But Bush will not allow any bill to pass into law that does not go along with his totalitarian view of complete and absolute compliance. He is showing the signs of a dictator and not the president of a democratic nation.
Even the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, compared Bush to Hitler in a recent speech given in Red Square. Putin criticized the U.S. for " disrespect for human life, claims to global exclusiveness and dictate, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich.”
I do not understand how people can support the president. I support the troops but this war is unjustifiable and our president is a spoiled little child who cannot agree to share power with the Democrats who happen to be supported by the majority of the American people.
Our troops need to be supported through action and not just through words. Bush's words are cheap and he throws them out over the airwaves with no regard to the consequences they forge; the neglect of our troops to salvage what's left of a miserable presidential legacy.

Saddam's Iraq Will Not Become Our America

2007-05-10T12:04:00.000-05:00

We, as Americans, are in danger of being subjected to the same sort of law that the Iraqis were held under during the regime of Saddam Hussein. If we are not careful, our own politicians may turn our Constitution against us and give the government more unrestrained power than was ever intended.
U.S. citizens have the Sixth Amendment right which states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall been committed..."
But in a senate hearing in January of 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said to Senator Arlen Specter, "...the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas."
As found on Wikipedia, habeas corpus is the "legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment." In other words, U.S. citizens can NOT be unlawfully imprisoned.
The only exceptions to that are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution in Section 9 of Article One: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
To simplify things, look at the Sixth Amendment as a positive and habeas corpus as a double-negative. They both state the same thing but in inverse statements. The Sixth Amendment says that U.S. citizens have the right to be lawfully imprisoned if they are to be imprisoned at all. While habeas corpus says that U.S. citizens are not to be unlawfully imprisoned.
So, by Gonzales saying that U.S. citizens do not have the right of habeas corpus, he is inversely saying that U.S. citizens do not have the right of the Sixth Amendment. If, per Gonzales, I can be unlawfully imprisoned then I can't invoke my sixth amendment right. And that is illegal.
But there can be arguments that the "detainees" referred to in the definition of habeas corpus are not defined as the same as the "accused" in the Sixth Amendment, thus rendering my argument insufficient. These definitions were gathered from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Detainee--"a person who is detained; especially: a person held in custody prior to trial or hearing." Accused--"a person who has been arrested for or formally charged with a crime: the defendant in a criminal case."
Both definitions refer to a trial for the individual in question which prevents "unlawful imprisonment". And if that person is not charged, then they must be released within 24-hours as stated by law. If they are charged, which would allow the person to be held as long as the investigation is run, then that implies a trial will be held. And holding someone charged for a crime indefinitely is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" by the Eighth Amendment and is illegal.
All people of the United States are considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Taking away habeas corpus from the American people because the Constitution never fully grants it to U.S. citizens and not for reasons listed in the Constitution is illegal as proven above. The state of the nation is not in rebellion and the U.S. is not under invasion and so our government cannot suspend habeas corpus to U.S. citizens.
And though the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 may be considered an invasion--it is not. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines invasion as "the act of or an instance of invading". The United States is not under the act of invasion and the instance of the attack occurred over 5-years prior to the attorney general's statement rendering the instance of the attack void in today's view. In addition, a terrorist attack is by no means an invasion by definition; rather it is a violent means of political and/or religious coercion through the act of harming innocent civilians. Let us not be confused.
Do not allow habeas corpus to be suspended or eliminated all together as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has implied that it can. This is America, we are Americans and we will not be abused by our own politicians--not now nor ever!

Debit? Credit? Or National Debt?

2007-05-08T16:50:00.000-05:00

One of the reasons the war in Iraq is still going on has to do with perception. But not only perception; most notably the perception of the majority populace. The power of the people is evident not only in a democracy but every form of government because in the end, they outnumber the politicians and run the nation. So what perceptions are fueling this war?
One of the perceptions deals with why the terrorists are attacking innocent civilians all over Iraq. In today's car bombing in Kufa that killed sixteen people left many wondering why they had to be targets. “We are poor people looking for anything to secure our livelihood and we have nothing to do with politics. Why do they do this to us?" said Firas Abdul-Karim, a wounded man from the explosion.
Unfortunately, he and everyone else around him have everything to do with politics. In his case, the terrorists would call them collateral damage. It is the theory of the terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, that if they attack the people, they will feel like the path they are on is not leading them anywhere safer. It is a strategy to turn the people against their government for not providing adequate protection. And in a nation rebuilding itself, that is not easy to do.
But the perception of the people from the Iraqis' perspective is one of two factors keeping this war in motion. They feel the pain on a daily basis and thus the healing can never fully begin. The fear is always in the back of their minds thus life cannot return to normal. They don't believe that their government is strong enough to protect them. And they continue getting blown back to square one, diminishing hope and moral.
The second factor here is the perception of the American people. America is no doubt the prime nation involved in the Iraq war other than Iraq itself. The reason the war is still going on is in part due to the fact that the American people have not voiced themselves loud enough to get the politicians, especially on the Republican side, to react. The polls will only go so far in convincing politicians.
Congress has approved over $609 billion since September 11, 2001 for the war on terror. And yet no one feels a tug on their pocket. This is because of the tax cuts of the Bush Administration and the no-spending limit on America's credit card a.k.a. our national debt. We don't feel the economic effects of war like we used to. There is no rationing going on or food stamps.
But the problem lies in future generations. Bush said in a speech, "This war started on my watch, but it's going to end on your watch." And that is more true than most things he's said during his presidency.
The fact is, when America needs to worry about social security, medicare, support for war veterans and so on, we are going to need to stick our hands into the cookie jar but this war will have drained everything out of it. This war was not meant to be paid for during this generation as a means of gaining support. If the American people's quality of life is not affected, then the war will go on mostly unnoticed. And so our children and our children's children will be paying out of their pockets for a war they never even lived through in the form of government program and funding cuts.
It was a sly move on the Bush Administration but they understood that ever since the Crimean War when the first reporters came back home with news from the front lines, that wars are fought only with the support of the people behind them. And the best way to keep up support for a war is to adjust the people's perception so that it doesn't even feel like a war is even going on at all. Unfortunately for the Iraqis, they're reminded every day at the cost of human lives.

Peace Was Outbid Again

2007-05-07T16:17:00.000-05:00

For those people who are under the impression that the violence in Iraq occurs only in Baghdad (and there are those people out there), take a look at the map provided. Today, two suicide bombers killed around twenty people on the outskirts of Ramadi. Yesterday, roadside bombs killed eight American soldiers in the province of Diyala. An ambush by ground forces and accompanied bombing in Baqouba killed two U.S. soldiers and two policemen. And the tortured and shot body of an Iraqi policeman was found in Kirkuk. Here are three locations in two days where violence occurred that are not Baghdad.

In a more interesting story of how war is a business and profits are being made off of this one, NBC News is looking into why last September an Israeli-made weapon for destroying rocket-propelled grenades in mid-flight, dubbed Trophy, was denied by the U.S. Army for production. Our troops have been plagued by constant attacks by these weapons and here is a device that can put an end to that. The Trophy was tested nearly 400 times successfully with no failures on almost every type of RPG and anti-tank guided missile known. And the Pentagon even tested it and said it was 30 for 30. And yet with these astounding figures, the U.S. Army chose to give the contract to Raytheon so that they could build one from scratch. Even in the summer of 2005, the Pentagon Office of Force Transportation did a test of six systems and found that Trophy was the best of all of them.

Adam Ciralsky, Lisa Myers and the NBC News Investigative Unit had this to say, "Pentagon sources tell NBC News--and internal Army documents seem to confirm--that Army officials came to see Trophy as a threat to the Army's effort to field an RPG defense as part of the biggest procurement program in Army history, the $200 billion Future Combat System (FCS)."

This is just another pathetic example of how people are making money off of war and business comes before our own troops. U.S. soldiers are being killed by RPGs when a device that can save them already exists but the military would rather give the contract to a company that doesn't even have one yet.

Let's learn a little more about Raytheon. William H. Swanson is the Chairman and CEO of Raytheon. And despite Raytheon's values of ethics as stated on their website, Swanson was found by The New York Times to have plagiarized his booklet, "Swanson's Unwritten Rules of Management". First of all, if it is in a booklet it is written. Second of all, I found it ironic that one of the sources he plagiarized his work from was, "...from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld..." said Wikipedia. Ah, Donald Rumsfeld and ethics. He was forced to resign not too long ago for his mishandling of the war in Iraq!

Also, Swanson is a trustee of the Association of the United States Army or AUSA. As stated in another Wikipedia article, "...(AUSA) is a private, non-profit organization which primarily acts as an advocacy group for the United States Army."

Well, it seems like Raytheon is certainly making a profit from having their CEO as a trustee of a group that influences the Army. This is war profiteering and it is wrong. How can the government condone such an action when American lives are on the line? A congressionally-mandated review is looking into the situation and I hope that someone goes to prison for making such a greedy and deadly decision.

America is not a corporation that uses politics and foreign relations as instruments to make money. And yet I continue to see blatant abuses of power and influence where corruption and profit triumph over common sense and right. It looks like the American eagle on the back of the dollar bill has found its olive branch too heavy to hold and now its just arrows and money.

We're Not Gonna Take It?

2007-05-06T16:17:00.000-05:00

When it comes to the war in Iraq there are three things that I know: 1) the reason for going to war given to the American people and the international community (WMDs) was proven to be false. Despite the Republicans who are sick of people mentioning this factor, it is the key deceit that led to this war and should not be ignored. 2) The link to terrorism with Iraq is sketchy at best with the main thrust of terrorists flowing into Iraq after we invaded. Iraq was not a vital player in the war on terror and leaving Afghanistan has lifted the pressure off al-Qaeda and placed it on our stretched out troops. And 3) the profits from this war have been directly linked to White House officials such as Dick Cheney who still holds onto hundreds of thousands of shares in Halliburton despite claiming that he has severed all ties to his former company. Whether Halliburton has an instrumental role in going to war, I don't know. But what I do know is that there is a financial bias for the Vice President to lead this country into thinking that a war with Iraq was necessary. Again, this connection cannot be ignored. This is a direct example of war-profiteering and I suggest anyone interested in this matter read my article on Halliburton published earlier titled, "Bush: CEO Of America".
The media has the job of providing the people with the dots. It is up to the people to connect them. All of these factors show that not only is the war unjustifiable (as is the view of most Americans based on recent polls) but that our very own politicians who got us into this war are making money off of it. The Vice President should not have a personal financial gain in war.
I am trying to work on ways of getting this information out to the people but I fear that not enough people read my blog. And while my articles on Zimbio have received some comments, I don't believe that it is enough. Those responsible for this war and profiting from it when their interests should be in American security should be brought to justice. Bill Clinton nearly got impeached for getting "pleasure" from someone other than his wife but Bush and Cheney are directly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives and are showing that they have been making money from it. Is America really that f%#ked up?! How can they be allowed to get away with this and leave it up to us and future generations to clean up their mess?
The American people need to demand justice be served and not stand for anything less. This is our country and we deserve to have a say in how it is run. We need to come together and see to it that the Bush Administration doesn't get away with this so that it sends a message to future would-be presidents that the American people will not accept needless wars. Patriotism is not a shield to be used by politicians to disguise their true intentions. Patriotism is a sword that should be wielded in the face of all those who oppose this nation's security, even if that means pointing it at our own presidential administration. No longer should Americans feel scared into believing that this war is for our security and anyone who opposes it is less of an American. Stand up and demand your country back!

Bush Running This War Alone

2007-05-05T22:10:00.000-05:00

With the president's approval ratings in a recent Newsweek poll dipping to an all-time low at 28%, there is little for him to be happy about these days, much less the war in Iraq. But I am sure the president is seeing the glass as half full and thinking about how nice it is that his disapproval ratings are at 72%. But the problems go further than simply the military failures of this war and even the treatment of the soldiers as stated in my last article. The problems have surfaced as a question of whether or not the strain and heavy burden placed on our troops overseas is creating a moral handicap in their judgment.
In a recent study, over 40% of soldiers supported the concept of torture on civilians in the hope that it would provide valuable information. Even more shocking was that less than half of Marines said that they would report a fellow Marine if they wounded an innocent civilian. And 10% admitted that they had been responsible for personally abusing innocent Iraqis.
An article by the Associated Press said, "The military has seen a number of high-profile incidents of alleged abuse in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the killings of 24 civilians by Marines in Haditha, the rape and killing of a 14-year-old girl and the slaying of her family in Iraq and the sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison."
Our troops are stretched out too thin on the battlefields and the immense pressure placed on the soldiers is blurring the lines between defense and offense; ethical decisions and unethical decisions; right and wrong. It is understandable that under these high-pressured and violent conditions where life and death hang in the balance, decisions can become split-second and difficult. But our troops are beginning to show signs of mental fatigue. The scale of sanity is losing its balance and tipping to an unethical sense of preemptive defense and indiscriminate persecution. What our troops need is to come home and remember what peace feels like. Because while we like to believe that our troops are these invincible, perfect machines of justice and elitism--they're not. They are human beings just like everyone else and no training can prepare the mind for the things they face. No soldier is infallible but all are accountable. And so let's take our soldiers out of these hellish environments where some of our children as young as 18-years-old are forced to play judge, jury and executioner with real lives.
All the meanwhile, Bush is ridiculed at home for his handling of the war. Though many Republicans feel that he is brave in standing up for his beliefs, many Americans simply do not share that view. In a recent Newsweek poll of 1,000 American adults the conclusion by Marcus Mabry of Newsweek was, "A majority of Americans believe Bush is not politically courageous: 55 percent vs. 40 percent. And nearly two out of three Americans (62 percent) believe his recent actions in Iraq show he is 'stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes,' compared to 30 percent who say Bush's actions demonstrate that he is 'willing to take political risks to do what's right.'"
It is about time that Americans start seeing the truth behind this war and begin taking steps to end it. This war is not healthy for anyone. I can only hope that soon the horrors of war will be stopped and those accountable will be brought to justice so that peace can grow where violence has reigned for far too long.

A Mind Wasted: A War Mishandled

2007-05-04T16:27:00.000-05:00

When "musical artist" Kanye West was on television in 2005 concerning Hurricane Katrina and the poor response by the government in New Orleans he said that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." He was way off. Our president doesn't care about ALL people. This even goes toward the troops he claims to be supporting in every speech he makes.
A fourteen-member panel created by the Pentagon found that 38% of soldiers and 31% of marines coming back from Iraq have either traumatic brain injury and/or post-traumatic stress disorder. The figures are 49% in members of the National Guard and all of these numbers are expected to increase over time. These task force members of the Pentagon want more adequate screening processes in the military instead of relying on the soldiers to come forward. This is because soldiers are often afraid of being singled out and having their professional or personal lives negatively affected.
An article by the Associated Press stated, "In recent weeks, several U.S. senators have pointed to problems in the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs' mental health care, citing the Army's Fort Carson in Colorado where some troops have said their pleas for mental health care went unanswered or were met with ridicule."
This follows the Walter Reed scandal and further shows the government's neglect of its own troops who are possibly of no more use in the field. A Veterans Affairs director of education, Jan Kemp, estimated that nearly 1,000 veterans within the system commit suicide every year.
Another quote from an Associated Press article said that, "A recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that just 22 percent of U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who showed signs of PTSD were being referred by Pentagon health care providers for mental health evaluation..."
It is absolutely disgraceful and unacceptable that our troops who are fighting overseas are being neglected of the mental disorders they obtain from the violence they're exposed to. I, as all Americans should be, find this to be appalling and unacceptable that our patriots are faced with such a lack of support from the government that sent them overseas in the first place. Our soldiers, Marines, Airmen, sailors and National Guard members are more than just bodies that fight wars. They are people--regular American citizens--when they return home and should never be considered second class citizens as our government is treating them. Their mental health is as, if not more, important than their physical health and should be treated with concern and care. Though the president may no nothing of post-traumatic stress disorder other than what the photo-ops with grieving families will allow, he certainly has shown that he has the judgement of someone with failing mental capabilities.

Send The Gears Turning

2007-05-03T14:21:00.000-05:00

With so many Americans thinking with their hearts patriotically and not with their heads sensibly, not enough people are listening to the facts and considering the realistic global consequences of this war. And in addition to the ridiculous nature of U.S. politics these days, our foreign policy concerning Syria is nothing short of hypocritical. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to meet with Foreign Minister Walid Moallem of Syria in the near future to discuss diplomacy between our two nations. But not even a month ago, Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Damascus and faced harsh criticism from the Bush Administration. It took a risky move by Pelosi to open Bush's eyes to the fact that diplomatic isolation is no long term solution. And now, the Bush Administration is going to take credit for re-opening the doors between Washington and Damascus.

Back to Iraq: in a recent speech by President Bush, he said, "For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11."

This seems to be the first time since the war in Iraq started that Bush is concerned about defeating al-Qaeda. And I would like to point out to a few Republican war hawks that even Bush has admitted to this being a "civil war". If al-Qaeda is really our prime enemy in the war on terror, then what are we doing in Iraq--a country with no proven links to terrorism until we invaded?

Bush also had this to say in an April 21, 2007 speech, "...we are trying to help a young democracy survive in the heart of the Middle East, and at the same time prevent our stated enemies [al-Qaeda] from establishing safe havens from which to attack us again."

As reported by CNN, "Terrorist organizations behind the violence [in Iraq] are setting up along Pakistan's northwest frontier in safe havens...this has led to more fighters pouring into Afghanistan..."

If eliminating al-Qaeda's safe havens is our goal then why did we leave our mission in Afghanistan? The United States' disorganized micromanaging and split loyalty agendas cannot compete with al-Qaeda's dedicated, single-minded and goal-orientated structure. With a new base in the mountains of Pakistan, world-wide publicity gaining followers (U.S.'s mishandling of war is no help), investments in Iraq and prospects in a looming war with Iran al-Qaeda is in a much better position than before we went to war with Iraq. This is not a very good realization.

What makes war-hawk Republicans think that invading Iran is defeating terrorism? al-Qaeda, has been supporting a U.S.-led war with Iran for some time now. Think about it: the U.S. goes to war again, Iran is a Shiite nation, al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group. It is a win-win for al-Qaeda if we go to war with a Shiite country that has even been expressing interest in meeting with Secretary Rice for a while now in attempts for a diplomatic solution to our differences.

CNN wrote on April 30, 2007 that, "Iraq's sectarian warfare fueled a sharp increase in global terrorism in 2006, the U.S. State Department reported...The total number of terrorist attacks was up more than 25% from the previous year..."

If anyone thinks that this war has made the world a safer place, they are very wrong. War is what our enemies want and that is what we are giving them. While al-Qaeda formulates another 9/11-scale plot in the caves of Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are bickering in Washington about sending more troops into Iraq! It was America's legacy as the precedent of representative democracies to reason and see above the needless violence through diplomacy that placed us at the head of the pack. But now, we are nipping at the heels like all the rest and have given in to a far much simpler and undignified method of dealing with foreign policy.

The American People Have Been Vetoed But Not Silenced!

2007-05-02T10:49:00.000-05:00

President George W. Bush has officially vetoed the bill funding U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq that was also attached to a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. The Democrats in Congress do not have the 2/3 majority vote to overturn that veto. The president has made it official that he is going solo on his plans for the war in Iraq without the support of the majority of Americans. Our very own leader has purposefully and stubbornly neglected the will of the American people to bring an end to this war. By now you know how I feel about this. What happens next...

The Oval Office Held Together With Heart: Heart In The Wrong Place

2007-05-01T21:32:00.000-05:00

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been asked to step down from his position in the Israeli government due to his handling of the war with Lebanon last year. The war started after a constant barrage of rockets from Hezbollah killed numerous Israeli civilians and topped off with the killing of three soldiers and capture of two others in a cross-border guerrilla attack on July 12. The war began with overwhelming support by the Israeli people. A government probe investigation, though, revealed that, "The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one. All of these add up to a series of failure in exercising judgement, responsibility and prudence."
Soldiers often returned from the front lines with news that they weren't even given enough water or ammunition. There were other reports of a disgraceful mishandling of the war which finally brought a fellow Labor Party minister, Eitan Cabel, to resign. In addition, the vast majority of Israelis, horrified at the way Prime Minister Olmert rushed into the war and neglected key factors, have demanded his resignation. Despite the overwhelming number of protesters, Olmert has no plan on resigning.
Let's see: an elected leader rushing into war with falsified support, mishandling of the war and a stubborn defiance amidst the voices of his own people. Sounds a lot like a parallel to Bush if I may be so bold. Too bad we aren't demanding his resignation as diligently as the Israelis are of their prime minister.
And bad news for those that believe terrorism and the insurgency in Iraq are the same thing. I have heard so many times people saying that the terrorists are taking over Iraq but here is an example of what I have been saying for quite some time: the Iraqis do not want the terrorists in their country just as much as us. In a battle today, al-Qaeda leader in Iraq Abu Ayyub al-Masri was killed in a gun fight. But the gunfight wasn't between al-Qaeda and the U.S. troops. The battle was fought between al-Qaeda and the insurgents!
"This was not an operation by the security forces, it was an internal battle that led to his death," said Brigadier General Abdul Kareem Khalaf.
An MSNBC article wrote, "There has been increasing friction between Sunni Islamist al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni Arab insurgent groups, particularly over al-Qaida in Iraq’s indiscriminate killing of civilians."
This is a sure sign of progress in that the Iraqis are willing to take back their own country not only from the U.S. occupiers but from the terrorists gaining foot holes in Iraq. They are more than just one people against the U.S. They are a complex group of differing sects all joined in Iraqi unification. And while many Sunnis and Shiites are still fighting for dominant control of the country, they all agree that it is an Iraqi fight and not one for foreigners. And while the death of al-Masri has been denied by al-Qaeda, it is in the best interest of peace that they are lying for propaganda purposes. If anything this event goes to show that Iraq is multi-layered and this war must be seen from more than just the black-and-white perspective the Bush Administration has been looking at it with. It is about time the Iraqis have shown signs of stepping up to the plate. Now all we have to do is get off the field and let them swing away.
And on a side note: I have found in my personal debates with people on the war in Iraq that one thing always remains a constant variable. For those supporting the war, I have noticed that their judgement is often clouded by a sense of patriotism and passion. They think with their hearts more so than with their heads. I am yet to find sufficient evidence justifying this war but everyone I meet who is in favor of it only meets my facts with words of patriotic pride. It is a shame that something like 9/11 could bring so many Americans together only to have something like this war in Iraq divide them so zealously.

Does Peace Feel Lucky...Well, Does It?

2007-04-30T08:27:00.000-05:00

As the death toll for American soldiers passes 100 for this month, there is word from Iraqi as well as U.S. officials that sectarian loyalties have been interfering with military operations within Iraq. It is a scandal reminiscent of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys for their lack of cooperation in republican party loyalties. This administration seems to be rubbing off a little too much on Maliki's government in Iraq.

"Although some of the officers appear to have been fired for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or corruption, several were considered to be among the better Iraqi officers in the field. The dismissals have angered U.S. and Iraqi leaders who say the Shiite-led government is sabotaging the military to achieve sectarian goals," said Joshua Partlow of the Washington Post.

Even American Colonel Ehrich Rose, the chief of the Military Transition Team who has trained multiple foreign armies including Iraq's was appalled by the sectarian loyalties of some of the Iraqi officers. "The Iraqi army, as far as capability goes, I'd stack them up against just about any Latin American army I've dealt with. However, the politicization of their officer corps is the worst I've ever seen," he said.

This sectarian loyalty is not much different than the party loyalty President Bush has demanded since taking office in 2000. I suppose the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Meanwhile, I have read in the newspaper a continuous flow of editorials about how the Democrats want the U.S. to lose in Iraq or how the Democrats will fail America if we pull out now. Okay, I've heard enough of this overly simplistic crap for too long. If we are going to lose in Iraq by pulling out, then how can we win in Iraq? I have only heard the one negative side of the argument on how we will lose. Well, if the Republicans are so smart, then how are we going to win? Are we going to remain in the country until every Iraqi citizen raises an American flag and sings our National Anthem? Are we going to wait until the insurgents get tired of fighting and decide to put down their guns, kiss and make up? Or are we waiting for a conventional peace treaty from some unconventional enemy lurking in the shadows of Baghdad? I have listened to people say how we can "lose" this war but since the beginning no one has had half a clue on how to "win" it. At least the Democrats are trying to support the troops by bringing them home so that they can stop being killed or maimed in a country we have no reason being in nor any plan for what to do tomorrow.

Republicans, and now apparently Bush's brain child--the Iraqi government, has put peace up against the wall until their blood-thirst is satisfied. President-pretender Bush and Prime-example-of-what-not-to-do Minister Maliki feel that not until all opposition is eliminated will there be peace and consensus among the people. Saddam's iron fist did command stability even though it harbored mounting tensions between the two sects. And that is the direction both of these governments are headed toward--the iron fist. But that is no way to support a democracy and that is no way to help a people.

Bush: CEO Of America

2007-04-29T09:14:00.000-05:00

It is getting increasingly difficult to take our government seriously amidst the constant barrage of scandals and leaks but one thing remains consistent--American government never turns its back on the green.

Inspectors recently reviewed multiple facilities throughout Iraq to determine if the buildings were operating at their full capacity. At a recruiting center, sewage was backed up because the holding tanks were on the other side of a concrete barrier wall. At a maternity and pediatric hospital more sewage backups were found. And at one police station razor wire was held down by sand bags and other signs of poor work by contractors was found. A $79,000 generator wasn't being used because no one knew how to use it. And with further information coming to light about poor contracting work, I turn my head toward Halliburton, the single winner in a noncompetitive bid for contracting in Iraq by the U.S. government. Halliburton is known for mismanagement of their operations in Iraq, citing its most well-known: "We now know Halliburton paid $25,000 per month per truck to haul fuel into Iraq and got paid even when those trucks sat idle in Kuwait [due to high-risk security issues]," said a director of the Postconflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Fredrick D. Burton, "For this cost you probably could have flown the fuel in."

Another scandal was in September of 2005 when members of Congress found out that Halliburton was continually feeding spoiled food and contaminated water from the Euphrates River to our troops in Iraq as testified by former KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) employees Rory Mayberry, Ben Carter and Ken May.

And in the monopoly Halliburton holds over contracts in Iraq, it was discovered in October of 2006 by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) that Halliburton was hiding contract details from the public. SIGIR said Halliburton, "marks almost all of the information it provides to the government as...proprietary data." This data marked "proprietary" allows the military to keep this information from the public. The only problem is that that is not allowed to be done after the bidding for contracts is over. As a result of Halliburton gaining and holding onto the only contract for Iraq there have been about $108 million in overcharges. And to drill in the fact that war equals money, Halliburton contracts between 2000 and 2005 increased by over 600 percent.

And who is in charge of Halliburton? Currently, David J. Lesar is the CEO of the company after taking over the reins from none other than Dick Cheney, our current vice president. As found on the Halliburton Watch website, there are many interesting parallels between what Vice President Cheney said and what he did. "We [Halliburton] have not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that," said Cheney. Between 1997 and 2000, while Cheney was still head of Halliburton, his company sold over $73 million in "oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq," as found out by Halliburton Watch.

"And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years," said Cheney.

Halliburton Watch reported that, "As vice president, Cheney continues to receive a salary of over $150,000 each year from Halliburton while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexcersised stock options in the company."

While many republicans may consider Halliburton Watch merely a Cheney-bashing website, I stress that the facts speak loudest and should not be overlooked. For those who claim that this war has nothing to do with oil, consider that Halliburton's own description of itself is, "Halliburton adds value through the entire lifecycle of oil and gas reservoirs, starting with exploration and development, moving through production, operations, maintenance, conversion and refining, to infrastructure and abandonment."

Oil has been the backbone of this entire war and if the American people cannot see the parallels between oil profits and the Bush Administration by now then there is no hope.

Either Step Up Or Sit Down: Enough Name Calling

2007-04-27T17:45:00.000-05:00

As a result of the debates I have been having with various people on the war in Iraq, I feel that it is important to mention that I do understand there are reasons for and against this issue. I have heard many emotional arguments for the war in Iraq filled with passion and patriotism. But I have also heard many arguments against the war filled with the same passion and patriotism. From all of the information that I have gathered--all of the facts, data, statistics and witness accounts--I have come to the conclusion that this war is unjust and wrong. All the while, I accept other people's opinions that differ from mine and take as much into consideration as possible. There have been many individuals who have been insulting and disrespectful for lack of a better argument and it is a shame that so many people cannot be civil in their debates. We are all Americans and we all love this country. It hurts me to see so many Americans fighting each other over this war when we are all on the same side. But in the end, I will stand by my beliefs and defend them to my last breath. Because while my views may change over time in light of a constant flow of new information, my unwavering stance by them will not. I refuse to be threatened or intimidated into believing that we should be in Iraq. And it sounds like many people are frightened by this administration's scare tactics that compel people to believe that if we do not have total victory in Iraq, Osama will be hiding under our beds in those quiet suburban slices of Americana. Throughout all of my debates with people, I have never heard any clear justification for the war in Iraq. I have heard a lot of slander about the treason of Democrats. I have heard a lot about al-Qaeda taking over the world starting with Iraq. I have even heard that Iraqis wanted to hurt American citizens long before the war even took place. But I am yet to hear a single fact emerge from the pile of war-hawk crap that truly justifies our presence in Iraq from the beginning. If you've got one, let me hear it. Because what it all comes down to in the end is that anyone can insult someone else for their beliefs, but no one can justify this war in Iraq.

Burqa Of Iraq: The Truth Concealed

2007-04-27T15:50:00.000-05:00

The war in Iraq has become shrouded beneath a veil of lies and corruption since the beginning and while the cost of human life is clear, the reason for us being there is not. In the war on terror, which includes Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. was once again reminded about that little country they left behind. Taliban fighters seized control of a province in eastern Afghanistan after killing the district mayor and four policemen including the police chief. Women were forced to don their burqas (Muslim garment to cover women's bodies) in fear of strict Taliban rule. The town was later retaken by Afghan troops but this sort of temporary take-over by the Taliban is not uncommon throughout Afghanistan. While our forces are concentrated heavily in Iraq, we have forgotten that the war on terror started in Afghanistan. We left the country just as they were starting to get onto their own two feet leaving them with the means for a Taliban revival as seen here. Also, because we have poorly chosen to invade Iraq, al-Qaeda has received less pressure from U.S. forces in Afghanistan, found more recruits in Iraq and have all around benefited from the war in Iraq as they have taken the offensive against U.S. troops on the ground. Why then, are we in Iraq?
Well, if you read my last article, "George Puts The Oil Back In Toil" you would see my views on how oil is the prime factor here. But one thing is for sure, it wasn't weapons of mass destruction like the Bush Administration had claimed. And to further back that up, former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in his new book, "At the Center of the Storm" that the meeting he attended with the president was to simply find out what information could be used publicly to get Americans behind the coming war.
Tenet said, "I'll never believe that what happened that day informed the president's view or belief of the legitimacy or the timing of the war. Never!"
Tenet felt that there was overwhelming pressure on him prior to the meeting to push the country into war. And most of this pressure came from who else but Beelzebub himself, Vice President Dick Cheney. The White House has dismissed these criticisms brought on by Tenet but in the end, it is just one more nail in the coffin for George W. Bush's war in Iraq.
I would imagine that if the real reason we went to war was because we honestly felt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to national security, then Bush would have made an apology to the American people when the WMDs were found to be nonexistent. After all, it was a noble enough cause that could have been the mistake of anyone lower in the chain of command. But the president's insistence that the war is still justifiable even after the prime reason for going to war was proven to be false tells me that WMDs were just a convenient cover over his hidden agendas.
The real victims here are the Iraqis who have suffered under Saddam's regime and must now suffer from the mediocre planning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And while we continue to occupy the country in the middle of their civil war, we only stall the peace process and make needless victims of our troops. This war has seen some ugly atrocities but none as despicable as the lies told by the Bush Administration that led to such unnecessary death.

George Puts The Oil Back In Toil

2007-04-25T19:40:00.000-05:00

I am becoming increasingly fatigued by this war in Iraq. In a recent poll by NBC News and Wall Street Journal it was found that 56% of Americans polled agree with the Democrats in Congress about placing a deadline on the bill and only 37% of Americans sided with Bush. And in the same poll 55% of Americans said that they do not believe that victory is possible in Iraq and only 37% said there was still a chance. While the president continues to ignore the American people, construction of a wall in the Sunni populated Baghdad neighborhood, Azamiyah, was stopped due to overwhelming protests by the residents. When confronted about the situation, Brigadier General Qasim al-Moussawi said, "We expected this reaction by some weak-minded people."
The only weak-minded people I have been listening to are people like Brigadier General al-Moussawi and our president. I would venture a guess that the average height of the war hawk republican in the White House is about three and a half feet tall because they all have their heads up their asses. We need politicians who can set aside their agendas and represent their people. After all, that is what a democracy is for.
Also, I know that I have been saying that oil is the main reason for this war in Iraq and while many people agree that oil has something to do with it, I feel like I haven't really explained the details. So here it goes. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration Iraq holds "the world's second largest proven reserves [of oil]." In December of 2002, there were 2,000 oil wells in Iraq. In December of 2002, there were nearly 1 million oil wells in...where else...Bush Country (Texas). Interestingly, the Bush family including our president, are good friends with the Saudi royal family. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producing nation. I don't want to come off as a conspiracy buff for lack of evidence but the coincidences here are clearly suspect. War in oil-rich regions raise the price of oil across the board. No doubt, the Saudis have made a lot of money from the risen prices.
On a side note, there is the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and yet we have invaded two Middle Eastern countries not Saudi Arabia; one of which really had nothing to do with al-Qaeda until we invaded--Iraq. It is strange that we are friends with the nation that bred the terrorists but enemies to adjacent nations in the war on terror. But I am sure that George W. Bush, who was involved in the Texas oil industry prior to becoming president, has good reasons to remain close friends to the largest producer of oil in the world despite that nation's direct link to al-Qaeda. And I am sure it has nothing to do with oil.
And while Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, it is barely a contender for exports because of the poor condition of the production and refinement systems in the country. And where did our troops head for first once touching ground in Iraq? The oil fields. Securing the oil is clearly an extremely valuable factor that was taken into consideration for the war plan far much more seriously than an exit strategy. At this point, we are merely trying to protect our oil interests so that Iran cannot have any influence in Iraq's economy.
And in February, the Iraqi Cabinet met and passed a draft law backed by the U.S. to place the nation's oil fields under control of the central government. The Kurds in the north have objected to this saying that it is unconstitutional and unfair. They fear that the revenue from the oil will not be distributed fairly citing that the Iraqi government is already behind in payments for various endeavors. Also, the Kurds, who hold the northern oil fields in the country, do not want to be neglected nor abused as was such during Saddam's regime. So much for capitalism. It seems that if the central government controls the oil reserves, the U.S., which still has an overwhelming presence in Iraq, can have a much more influential say in how that oil is used.
While I do not feel that oil was the only reason we went to war with Iraq, due to a lack of WMDs, solid links to al-Qaeda as a strong ally to Saddam and other weak or downright false arguments, oil seems to be one of the strongest motivators for this war. Perhaps George W. should look into creating an engine that runs on human blood. Based on his lack of consideration for human life it would probably be cheaper for him to drive around his ranch that way.

Building A Wall With Nonbinding Mortar

2007-04-23T18:29:00.000-05:00

After forty-six people were killed throughout Iraq today, the day closes on an equally somber note: the proposed solution. The wall that the U.S. military is building around Azamiyah is continuing to be built despite orders from the Prime Minister to halt construction. The wall is being built to protect the Sunni minority in a Baghdad neighborhood but protests by hundreds of citizens showed that the residents felt like they were being walled in and not that the terrorists were being walled out. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said that the purpose of the wall was “to try and identify where the fault lines are and where avenues of attack lie and set up the barriers literally to prevent those attacks.”

I don't know too much about suicide bombers but I am pretty sure that they are in no way related to earthquakes. Violence due to suicide bombing doesn't have "fault lines". You cannot simply build walls to keep out the suicide bombers. They are mobile people who have penetrated even the Green Zone within Baghdad. All a wall will do is represent a target of U.S. occupation to be blown up. Building a wall to thwart suicide bombers from attacking civilians is like building a dam out of coffee filters.

Also, I understand that in politics there is a certain gift from...well, somewhere...called a nonbinding resolution. The only question I have is: what is that term doing in a bill that can not only fund our troops abroad but bring them back home thus ending our occupation in a country which despises our presence in the middle of their civil war. By having the timetable for troop withdrawal as a goal and not a deadline, Bush could sign the bill into law and then ignore the pullout date. The beauty of a nonbinding resolution is that in addition to being an oxymoron, it is a way of achieving political success without really accomplishing anything. The republicans get to have their war and the democrats can say they tried to end it. The only people suffering are our soldiers and the Iraqi civilians unable to move forward.

With politics getting in the way of diplomacy, everyone is worried about their images and the legacies they will leave behind. This war is about politics and power and if you believe anything else, you have been misled along the way by the propaganda forged by the politicians. The only way real progress is going to come about if politicians do the unthinkable and put aside their own agendas and focus on the people. Nonbinding resolutions and 3-mile long walls are merely illusions in the political theater meant to misdirect the public while the real trick is played on us. The sad truth: in a democracy who is to be blamed for those ignoring the will of the people but the people themselves who ignore their responsibilities to that democracy.

Iraq's Reality: Viewer Discretion Advised

2007-04-22T11:27:00.000-05:00

photo: www.prisonplanet.com/
Quote from Associated Press on 4/22/07 obtained by msn.com

"Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, on a tour abroad to ask the mostly Sunni-led governments of the Arab world to help his struggling government stop the violence in Iraq, said he told Egypt’s president that Iraq’s reality is 'not a civil or sectarian war.'"

Then what is it--a bicycle ride through the park? I don't think so. Only when we can admit that there is a problem can we solve it. And while this image is extremely graphic, this is what war looks like. Perhaps if people realized how real war truly was, they would be less likely to start them.

The Grass Grows Greener Where People Water It

2007-04-22T08:19:00.000-05:00

The new environment that scientists are looking to discover life in is Iraq--political scientists, that is. While the president offers the job of War Czar to probably anyone with self-esteem low enough to handle being Bush's new Iraq scapegoat, the rest of the country is thinking what all of a sudden made the president think that his current strategy wasn't working? Could it have been the climbing death toll of American soldiers, the even higher death toll of Iraqi civilians, the increase in suicide bombings in Iraq, the fact that none of his previous strategies have worked or that even his top generals whom he relies on in Iraq are even losing optimism over the war? Either way, the job of War Czar has been turned down by four U.S. generals so far and if that tells you anything it's that the president's new strategy is just a little short of brilliant.
Even the U.S. top commander in Iraq, General David H. Petraeus takes solace in even the slightest signs of normality in Baghdad. While flying in his helicopter over a Baghdad neighborhood, Patraeus was filled with glee when he saw a man taking care of a soccer field. "He's actually watering the grass!"
I find it incredibly sad when a man watering grass is a sign of progress. Meanwhile, suicide bombs killed 13 people today at an Iraqi police station. One survivor had this to say: "All our belongings and money were smashed and are gone. What kind of life is this? Where is the government? There are no jobs, and things are very bad. Is this fair?”
The situation in Iraq has not improved and the top generals on the ground wonder if a troop surge would even work. While they all agree that it could bring down the sectarian violence somewhat in Baghdad, signs of increased violence have risen elsewhere throughout the country. Even our own top soldiers in the military are doubting whether or not their presence in Iraq is helping. And now, once the Bush Administration has exhausted every other means of bringing about peace through war are they beginning to see that diplomacy is how stability in the region will be reached. But I wonder if even now, Bush will do as he has done in the past and ignore all advisers with differing views than his while he blunders through the war led by false hopes of absolute victory. His overly simplistic view on this war and his incapacity to understand its repercussions in the global theater has cost tens of thousands of people their lives and lost this government its credibility to both foreign nations as well as his own people. When the peace returns to Iraq, so will the trust to the U.S.

The New Symbol Of Oppression

2007-04-21T15:33:00.000-05:00

In the community of Azamiyah in Baghdad, the U.S. military has begun implementing their new strategy to protect the minority Sunnis in that area: building a three-mile wall around it. That's right. The Bush Administration seems to think that building a wall will solve anything. I suggest you read my other article published sometime earlier called, "Masonry Of The Mind". I can't even think of where to begin on how stupid of an idea this is. If anything it will symbolize U.S. occupation and authority thus becoming yet another target of bombings.
In addition, the wall has begun construction and much to the surprise of the neighbors being walled in. Without even asking the residents how they feel about the dramatic new plan, the U.S. military decided that it had the authority to do whatever it wanted and started building anyway. Dawood al-Azami, head of the council in Azamiyah did say that the military asked him to sign a document allowing the construction of the wall but according to him, “I told the soldiers that I would not sign it unless I could talk to residents first. We told residents at Friday prayers, but our local council hasn’t signed onto the project yet, and construction is already under way.”
Many Sunnis in the neighborhood see this wall as a prison and even further separates their support from the U.S. military. If they didn't feel like we were enough of an occupation force in their country, they sure as hell do now. I just wonder if George W. can tell the difference between Iraqis and Mexicans?

Revelation Of A Revolution

2007-04-20T16:46:00.000-05:00

A word rarely heard among Americans, except when conversing about the birth of the nation, is revolution. A revolution is the means to a swift change in society as well as government. And while I feel that there is no need to overthrow our form of representative democracy, I do feel that there is a need to make a swift change. Our government has become too comfortable in its way of thinking that they can do whatever they want once elected to power. We, Americans, have become too comfortable in our way of thinking that once they are elected, our government officials can do whatever they want. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it?"

Americans who defend the war in Iraq claim that freedom is not free. And while I argue that this war was never about freedom from the beginning, the price of freedom here in America has been reduced to nearly zilch. We have forgotten that the price of freedom and democracy is not in terms of money or loss of life of our soldiers; the price of having a democracy is the willingness to use it. Because when democracy is no longer used by the people for the people, it will devour itself in the form of tyranny.

From the Patriot Act to the mild voter turnouts across the country, our democratic rights given to us by the Constitution that remain the rock of this nation are slowly being taken away from us because we are too lazy to open our eyes and protest. And if this country continues down this path of idle democracy while politicians quietly edit out the parts of the Constitution they don't like, revolution may be a word used more often in this society. Without participating in a democratic government the people make themselves obsolete and then open to direct abuses. And who will speak for the people once the people have something to say and yet their voices have become numb from lack of use?

We are not at that point yet, but I urge all Americans to get involved in government; if not directly, at least vote and speak out. A protest every now and then is healthy if a democracy is going to survive. And how can we say that we are fighting for democracy in Iraq when we are amateurs ourselves? It won't be until the situation is at its most dire hour when the word "revolution" spills from the people's tongues and dampen their lips like Pavlov's dogs reacting toward freedom from the other side of the cage. With the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq already at 3,311 and climbing, one day Americans will have had enough of the death brought about by this war. Unfortunately, though, the seeds of revolution grow only in well fertilized soil.

Iraq: A Self-Devour

2007-04-19T18:19:00.000-05:00

Iraq is a lone fighter, who

blinded by His light,

with his sword

cuts his own wrists while hacking away

at his most potent enemy.

A War Without A Reason

2007-04-19T17:48:00.000-05:00

Today, the death toll in Iraq again has peaked in the three digits and so I asked myself what is going on? And as I thought of this three things came to mind. One of them was that this entire war on terror started with our focus on al-Qaeda--a Sunni terrorist organization. And we were doing a good job in Afghanistan. But then, for some unknown reason, Bush decided that Iraq needed to be invaded. So, he made up some bullshit, got the country behind him and went to war. Now our focus has shifted from our original enemies to the new ones we created in Iraq. And as if irony wasn't enough of a bitch, now we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq because since we stretched out our forces and put all of our energy into Saddam, the terrorist organization gained in strength and followed us.
Also, I have realized that we have our military--the strongest and most well-trained in the world--in a country without a war. What the hell are they going to do? There is no war. Armies are trained to fight wars and now that the war is over, they remain in Iraq with nothing more to do than defend themselves from the insurgents who want them to leave.
And one of the biggest problems is that because we have in office a thick-headed authoritarian Billy Bob Hitler, our government has been cursed with the inability to adapt to the changing scenarios in Iraq. Thanks to Bush's tunnel-vision tactics, our military is fighting a war that doesn't exist and we are waiting for a victory that will never come. It would have also been great if this administration had planned for more than a few days when it came to preparing for war.
If I sound a little...I don't know...distraught over the war in Iraq, perhaps it is because it was the brain child of a brainless man who had no concept of action and consequences and even less regard for human life! When are we going to leave? If George is waiting for Judgement Day, it may very well come sooner than later the way he's running things. I can't...no, I refuse to imagine a world that is more screwed up than the one Bush created when he bumbled into the White House. Why don't we give every psychopath with delusions of violence without repercussion a job in U.S. politics? I can't seem to stress how wrong this war is. I apologize if I'm simply ranting on at this point but I need some sort of pressure valve to release my frustrations at this administration and its worthless foreign policies or else I'll blow up. Hey, maybe that's why there's so many people exploding in Iraq?

Blind Man Lead Thyself

2007-04-18T11:15:00.000-05:00

It was announced that religious leaders from the Shiite and Sunni sects within Iraq have met with each other and have agreed that they need to band together as one nation in the name of peace. One religious leader, though, who has been very controversial since the beginning of the war has been neglected in the talks for peace--Muqtada al-Sadr. Now, I may seem by now to be an advocate of his but in fact I am an advocate of peace and I do not see why someone with such religious importance as well as political has been left out of the equation. And to prove that this situation in Iraq is not as black and white as most people think, here are some of the facts I learned from picking up a Time Magazine and reading it.
I wonder if our soldiers, some of whom have not even graduated high school and are yet given the responsibility of pulling a trigger, even know the differences between the Shiites and the Sunnis. Other than the historical differences they have certain names that appear in only one of the two sects, they pray in different mosques, they pray in different fashions, depending on a predominantly one-sect region they can have differing accents and also their cars can give away signs. One such sign would be a picture of a holy figure belonging to one of the sects or a license plate from a region with a large Shiite or Sunni population. This can be helpful at security checkpoints.
Also, there is validity to the Shiite grudge that they have been oppressed. The predominantly Sunni Middle East has treated the Shiites as a lower class with what Time said as being, "institutionalized prejudice". And Iraq is right in the middle of some of these grievances. Ali ibn Abi Talib, the person Shiites believed to be the next to follow in the prophet Muhammad's footsteps and later became the fourth Caliph of the Muslim faith was killed in 661 in none other than what is today, Iraq. It is time now for a change to the unequal distribution of power and rights and time for Muslims to come together in Iraq as nothing less than Iraqi citizens.
And even in 1991, after the Gulf War, Shiites attempted to rebel against Saddam but without any backing from outside forces the rebellion was quickly stopped and nearly 300,000 Shiites were killed. Another factor in this current scenario is that Iran is a Shiite nation and coincidentally an enemy of the United States. It is also worth mentioning that though many organizations such as Hezbollah and other terrorist groups may praise those such as the Madhi Army in Iraq, they are two separate people fighting for two separate causes and should not be confused. And in case anyone was wondering, al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group.
When al-Sadr's Mahdi Army of Shiites fought the U.S. early in the war they were celebrated by even the Sunni insurgents. al-Sadr himself was praised as a hero for Iraqis and not just Shiites. But in the end, the current government in Iraq chose to side with the U.S. who helped them gain power and hold onto it. This created a common enemy in al-Sadr. And it is this choosing of U.S. support over the people of Iraq that has fueled the ongoing fighting in violence. This is why six ministers of the Cabinet resigned yesterday who were followers of al-Sadr.
Originally the fighting was between Sunnis and Shiites to fill in the newly formed power vacuum. But because of the U.S.'s poor planning for the war and stubborn leadership in the White House, the common enemy between Iraqis became the U.S. occupation itself. And now the sectarian violence is more between Iraqis and government supporters of U.S. occupation than it is Sunni vs Shiite. And while both sects continue their violent acts against each other throughout Iraq, it is clear that one thing they all agree on is that this is their fight and we are merely getting in the way.
And while those who may suggest that Time Magazine, the source of most of this information, may be a liberal magazine I will not suggest alternative sources for other people. This was a source I decided to use and none of the facts were incorrect though you might disagree with my ideology concerning their nature. For those who wish to learn more about this intricately complex issue, I suggest that you do your own research. Do not listen to people who say that this source is unbiased or that source is right. Only you can make up your own mind and educating yourself is a monumental step in being an individual voice and not just another follower.

Mr. al-Sadr Leaves Baghdad

2007-04-17T15:05:00.000-05:00

If I sound like I am repeating myself in these articles at times it is for two reasons: 1) the information being repeated needs to be emphasized and 2) the same stupid shit keeps happening. So today, six ministers of the Iraqi Cabinet who are loyal followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr resigned in protest to the government's refusal to support a pull-out date for the U.S. With tens of thousands of Iraqis marching only a couple of weeks ago in protest to the U.S. occupation and now the resignation of six ministers of the Cabinet, the Iraqi people are getting fed up with us being there. And the majority of Americans recently feel the same way. The U.S. military has become yet another road block in Iraq's progress toward peace.
With the resignation of those six ministers, al-Sadr has shown he still has a firm grip on the Shiite community as a powerful leader. The U.S. has brushed this off suggesting that it will go fairly unnoticed and the government will remain intact. Meanwhile, Iraqis within the government fear that this is a huge setback. As al-Sadr continues to defy the U.S. and Iraqi government for supporting the occupation, he has been slandered more now by these two governments than ever before. The Associated Press wrote that "Forty-two victims of sectarian murders were found in Baghdad the past two days...U.S. and Iraqi officials have blamed much sectarian violence on Shiite death squads associated with the Mahdi Army [of al-Sadr]." But also, "The brazen nature of the targets of the attacks are similar to previous assaults that blamed on al-Qaida fighters..." With so much violence in Iraq, it is difficult to determine who is to be blamed for what.
I hope that al-Sadr is not merely blamed for the violence because he defies the "powers that be". After all, al-Sadr helped Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki get to power and now that he is in that position he has turned his loyalties from his people and toward the U.S. which is helping him keep that power. We should all hope that bias on politics does not promote slanderous propaganda on al-Sadr and that focus aim more toward diplomacy. Though al-Sadr is an enemy of the U.S. occupation he is a pivotal ally in peace within Iraq.

Iraq's Bridges Burning Down

2007-04-16T19:16:00.000-05:00

Americans have become detached from the realities of war. Instead of listening to the news or reading the paper, many people have given in to listening to our politicians give their opinions on how the war is going. John McCain has said that there are streets in Baghdad that are safe to walk on. Meanwhile, the citizens of Baghdad have been begging him to tell them where this safe street is because no one seems to be living on it. Our politicians have their own agendas and make the war to be something that it is not. It is a smoke and mirrors trick in a whole show of illusions to influence voters that this party or that has the right stuff to become our next White House administration. The republicans want to convince people that they are succeeding and that Iraq is becoming freer, safer and an all around better place to be since the fall of Saddam. The democrats are making this out to be the war that puts them into the White House. But no one is actually considering that this is a civil war in which people are dying each day because we continue to bicker here in America all the while neglecting those affected most by this war: the Iraqis. This war has shifted its concern from them and onto the soldiers fighting it in an increasing effort to show which American political party cares most about our troops. The prize for the winner--a comfortable seat in the White House.

But we still can't get a bill passed into law. The president has continued to flank himself with family members of war veterans as his new sheep's clothing and has made repeated statements that he wishes to discuss the differences between republicans and democrats but at the same time is unflinchingly stubborn in his stance on the bill. And the democrats continue to stand their ground, barely, demanding that the troops come home. The only difference between these two stubbornly defiant stances is that Congress is representing the majority of Americans (democracy) while the president is representing his own image invested heavily in this war (tyranny). But if diplomacy can't even work here in America how the hell is it going to work in Iraq which has come to depend on us for its very survival?

And as this stalemate rages on in Washington, vice president and part-time grim reaper Dick Cheney said in a recent interview about the democrats, "They will not leave the troops in the field without the resources they need." He said this after making a prediction that soon the democrats in Congress will give in and accept the president's terms. Bull S*&t! This is more word spinning on the vice president's part. By cutting off the funding for the war, the troops will not be left in Iraq with stones and sticks to defend themselves. If the funding is stopped, then the war itself ends and the troops come back home. And if anyone should be blamed for this delay in funding it is President Bush for remaining stubborn on this issue and not even considering other options in his failed war.

It is not Congress's job to get involved in war but when the war is begun and fought with no exit strategy in sight, someone needs to pull our soldiers from the wreckage this war has become. And so far, the only people willing to put an end to this bloodshed are the democrats in Congress. Bush burned his bridges early in the war so that there was no turning back without victory. But now that the victory he imagined turns out to be exactly that--imagined--we need to start constructing a way out.

A Ranting In Response

2007-04-16T09:07:00.000-05:00

Today's post is simply a let-out of some built up pressure created when I read an editorial published in Monday's Florida Today titled, "Standing with Bush in funding battle". Our author makes the first point that the democrats' strategy in Congress is "gutless". He cites that they won't vote on a bill to cease funding of the war in Iraq but instead want to ride this out until the veto, leaving Bush to "hang in the wind". This is crap to begin with. This government is far too bureaucratic for two bills on the same issue to be floating around at the same time.
Also, our author makes the point that, "If he [Bush] uses money to fight the war that is not approved, they impeach him." As noble as this person is making Bush appear to be, I question where our president is going to cough up over $100 billion to fund this war. Face the facts, whether he likes it or not, our president needs Congress to fund the war.
Another point our budding White House aid came up with was that a time table for troop withdrawal is a war-tactic and because it is not within Congress's power to "fight a war" the Supreme Court would rule in the president's favor that such a bill is unconstitutional. A time table is not a war tactic! It is within Congress's power to decide how the government will spend its money and if they say they want to stop the funding at this point, then obviously the troops would need to come home. Leaving the funding of the war in the president's hands is like handing someone else's credit card to your spoiled teenage girl who wants to go on a shopping spree. After all, it is the money of the American people.
And the way our author summed up his editorial was, "The Democrats will not budge, and I hope Bush stands firm." Well, I hope this person is a big fan of making no progress then. Congress has repeatedly asked the president to negotiate with them on this bill (after all, they're not terrorists). Bush has stood firm this whole time and if you can't see that it has led to nothing, then you are blind. This president is stunned and left confused after seeing for the first time that in a democracy, facing overwhelming change with a totalitarian resolve is met with utter defiance. He can't rule America with an iron fist forever, thank God.
Within Iraq, we can see a perfect example of what happens when the leader of a government acts out of sync with the pulse of the rest of the country. Six members of Iraq's Cabinet loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr will give in their resignations later today in response to the Prime Minister's lack of care toward the Iraqi people. They feel that because the majority of Iraqis wish to see U.S. troops leave their country and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports the motion of keeping the troops in Iraq, the only thing left to do is step away from such a government. It is a shame that power-related loyalties are coming between diplomacy but that is the reality of what is happening in Iraq now. The people are ignored and left to be blown up in the markets of Baghdad while those made powerful by the U.S. occupation neglect diplomacy.
For our budding writer to the Florida Today: when you go back to the fuhrer bunker, say hello to Ann Coulter for me.

Masonry Of The Mind

2007-04-15T15:09:00.000-05:00

From Hadrian’s Wall in England to the Great Wall of China, human beings have had a history of building walls. But what is it about a wall that is so comforting to the human psyche that people around the world obsessed over them. In some cases it was to separate civilizations from nature or civilizations from other civilizations. But walls are more than just a tangible form of separation; they are the embodiment of a subconscious concept that has thrust mankind from the pits of primordial ooze to the present.
Within our very own minds we build and bear the weight of walls every single day. One of the most “monu-mental” walls built by the subconscious is that of faith. The experiences that we encounter from early childhood to now dictate the path we all follow in terms of faith. And walls are constructed to keep one’s beliefs in and others’ beliefs out. For some, these walls have many gaps or doors built within them. These doors represent a person’s ability to be open-minded about something. Then you have those who have no doors—only brick and mortar built higher and thicker. These people you hear about in the news after they’ve blown themselves up on a crowded bus in Iraq. For these people, faith is an unflinching principle in their lives that is to be taken to the grave. There is no room for interpretation and no welcome guests allowed in who wish to change these strict beliefs. And when someone has built a wall of this nature without doors something unique happens: the wall encloses the rest of the mind, coming full circle, and in essence traps that person within their own inability to escape. This is why suicide bombers resort to killing themselves and others. This is why people flagellate themselves in the streets. This is what drives crusades, jihads and witch hunts.
When it comes to a person’s faith, by very definition of the word regarding a lack of evidence, doors should be constructed if for no other reason than to act as an air hole in a coal mine. Without some form of a release for the free exchange of ideas which is healthy for the mind, the pressure of one’s own incapacity to understand something as vague, personal and unknown as faith and yet totally commit to something so intangible, a collapse of the mind is the only certainty.
Another wall that the mind constructs is one of racial separation. One of the issues in Iraq can be connected to the majority of Iraqis and the Kurdish population to the north. Even the Iranians who consider themselves Persian have a racial agenda in the Middle East in conflict with Arabs. And yet, only .01% of the genetic code represents salient traits. Race itself is a wall constructed to unite a certain group of people with similar physical features and exclude all others who do not match. These walls, too, have serious consequences much like that of religion. If the wall one builds becomes too massive then race will be the only thing that person sees and will consume their thoughts.
This unhealthy obsession with racial differences has led to ethnic cleansing and genocide on astounding levels from the Holocaust to the Sudan. Most people have doors within these walls that allow them to see other human beings as more than just a color or physical trait. But there are many who still believe that those differences mean something more than an evolutionary history of that person’s geographic origins. It is when their actions become violent in the form of hate crimes that their walls have enclosed upon itself leaving nowhere for the emotional pressure within to vent. This lack of ideas being exchanged between what the person believes and what others believe is what makes that person incapable of living in an ethnically diverse society.
There are many walls we build. They are prejudices that are inescapable because all around us we encounter experiences that change our ways of thinking on a daily basis. It is how we survive in that we are able to mentally adapt to new situations. And so these walls do have a constructive purpose. But it is when these prejudices are built brick by brick to the point where they are no longer able to adapt that the wall becomes fixed and will only devour itself in the end. There is no way to fully deconstruct a wall; it will always remain within the subconscious to serve as a helpful variable in the decision-making processes of our lives. But we can always build more doors.

What Comes Of War

2007-04-15T12:57:00.000-05:00

www.villainouscompany.com/.../2005/05/index.html

Fighting The War On War

2007-04-15T09:58:00.000-05:00

So far today, four bombs were detonated in Baghdad amidst what many White House republicans would call a successful security crackdown. The number of dead is now at 37 and the injuries including severe burns are much higher. Many women and children are suspected to be victims in these attacks while further violence in Iraq targets their own people in this bloody civil war. Meanwhile, diplomacy towards peace goes mostly ignored.

One of the witnesses of a car bombing, an owner of a glass shop, said that a man merely parked his minibus and walked away. It was nothing out of the ordinary until, "Five minutes later, the bus blew up — damaging the surrounded area and burning more than eight civilian cars that were passing by."

First of all, I am aware of the pure irony in a man owning a glass shop in Baghdad. Second of all, it seems as though the vast majority of these attacks are not targeted against U.S. troops but against the people in an effort to both terrorize Iraqis into believing that they cannot be protected by the U.S. and their own U.S.-installed government and also to push the American people into seeing that our military strategies are simply failing.

Is one tyranny worth trading for another? What the Iraqi people are faced with is a complete political and sociological reversal. It is: oppression by fear of one's government and inactivity of the people vs oppression by the fear of the people and inactivity of one's government.

The Motive V.S. The Crime

2007-04-14T15:12:00.000-05:00

Today in Baghdad, 56 people were killed in a deadly suicide bombing at a busy bus stop. A 72-year-old woman ran through the hospital searching for her 6-year-old grandson and daughter. "They were near the bomb. They went to buy something for our lunch. What did they do to deserve this? To whom should I complain? There is no government to protect us," she said, sobbing.
Also happening in Iraq, mainly around Baghdad, was a car bomb that killed 10 people on the Jadriyah bridge. Gunmen attacked the home of Adnan al-Dulaimi who is the head of the largest Sunni bloc of parliament. In the attack five guards were injured and al-Dulaimi was not at home. Three bodyguards of Mohammed Abdul Jabar, the deputy minister of industry, were injured in a drive-by shooting. Three civilians and one policeman were killed in another drive-by shooting. Two policemen and one civilian were killed by a roadside bomb. Another roadside bomb killed one civilian. And a bomb missed by Iraqi security patrols injured three electricity workers.
This exhaustive list of atrocities finally poured over the edge with Iraqis and so a mob rioted around the Karbala governor's office demanding resignations for the poor security they have been offering their people. Police cars were burned and buildings were damaged by rocks being thrown at them.
The situation in Iraq has reached a dire point in need of serious help. This is the product of war. The only thing that comes from war is death and destruction by its own definition. Is this what the U.S. had in mind for a better Iraq? Is this what the terrorists and insurgents want for their own people? They have been killing more innocent Iraqis than the occupying troops have been killing insurgents. The future of Iraq is looking bleak and everyday people are suffering more than the last. As the grandmother in the above quote was saying; there is no government protecting the people. But it is more difficult than that because it is the people who are hurting each other. Only when these issues that are making people hurt each other are confronted diplomatically will the violence end.
For every bomb that goes off and every life that is lost, there is a voice crying for something they feel is worth killing for or even dying for. And it is far too easy to brush it off as pure evil as President Bush has done. The killing and violence is happening for a reason and until people start asking why and begin trying to solve these problems no end will be in sight for those endless droves of men, women and children searching for their families in crowded hospitals. No one should have to live with the sort of terror, anguish and sorrow that the Iraqi people have been living with since being "liberated".

The Sinking Ship Of Martyrs

2007-04-13T20:51:00.000-05:00

In response to the suicide bombing that took place in the cafeteria of the Iraqi parliament building yesterday, many Iraqi lawmakers spoke out against the atrocities. Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said in a speech, "The more they act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we offer more martyrs."
To further emphasize this sense of unity between all Iraqis, Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said, "We feel today that we are stronger than yesterday. The parliament, government and the people are all the same--they are all in the same ship which, if it sinks, will make everyone sink."
This unity is something that every country needs before it can fully succeed and it is called nationalism. Only when people stop thinking of themselves as Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and begin thinking of themselves as Iraqis will that brotherhood seep into the patriotic psyche and band the nation together.
Meanwhile, the Islamic State issued on its website commonly used by insurgents, "A knight from the state of Islam...reached the heart of the Green Zone...the temporary headquarters of the mice of the infidel parliament and blew himself up among a gathering of the infidel masters."
If Iraq is a sinking ship and the Iraqi politicians are mice, then it would be wise for the Iraqi people to do what all maritime victims do when their ships are sinking: follow the mice to higher ground. The people of Iraq have two options. They can stay aboard the sinking ship and accept the chaos that has gripped their nation or they can follow diplomacy to the higher ground and avoid the violence and bloodshed. If the Iraqis wish to survive, it is better to follow the mice to peace than to sink with the martyrs of war.

A Mammoth Problem In The Iraqi Tar Pits

2007-04-12T20:49:00.000-05:00

The secret ingredient in Thursday's lunch meat at the Iraqi parliament building cafeteria was explosive. A suicide bomber detonated in the cafeteria killing two lawmakers and injuring ten others. Forgive me for sounding a little unsympathetic but this is just another attack within the protected green zone that republicans such as our president and Senator John McCain have raved about in terms of safety.
"I am standing now at the site of the explosion and looking at the severed legs of the person who carried out the operation. If this tells us anything, it tells us that security is lax," said Mohammed al-Dayni, a member of the National Dialogue Front.
Also, another suicide bomber destroyed the al-Sarafiya bridge in Baghdad killing 10 people and injuring 26 others as cars drove into the river amidst the explosion. And with all of this violence continuing in Iraq, who do we blame? Certainly not ourselves. No. We blame Iran.
"We know that there are [EFPs-explosively formed penetrators] being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country [Iraq], and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to assemble them and how to employ them. We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees' debriefs," said Major General William Caldwell, the U.S. military spokesman.
If these detainees' reports are even accurate, citing previous methods by the military to extract information from prisoners (Abu Ghraib), then what exactly is the issue here? I wish that I could simply believe the intelligence but our government's intelligence gathering sources have been--how should I say--completely inaccurate and biased to the administration's agendas up to this point.
The spokesman of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, General Ramazan Sharif said in response to Caldwell's accusations, "This sort of news and information is planned by occupier [U.S.] forces in Iraq as part of their psychological operations against Iran."
Now, for starters, Bush has been the boy who cried war since 9/11. We had sketchy intelligence pushed by the Bush Administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and so we went to war where we found nothing. Oops. Speed up to today and we have once again more intelligence coming in that now Iran is supporting the insurgency within Iraq.
This is where I play the devil's advocate for just a moment. What is Iran doing that the U.S. is not? Assuming that the intelligence (if that's what it is) is correct, Iran is interested in training and arming the Shiite Iraqis because Iran itself is a Shiite nation surrounded by Sunnis. If the armed and trained Shiites succeed in taking the country and kicking out all memories of the U.S. in a traditional Iranian fashion then Iran will have a new neighboring ally in the Middle East which can prove most useful with the growing tensions between them and the west. The U.S. is arming and training Iraqis as well with the hopes of protecting their interests that they have invested so heavily in. If Iraq's oil fields are open to the U.S. then having Iraqis in power who are friends (in debt?) to the United States will prove very useful as well.
Either way, oil is at the base here. The U.S. doesn't want Iraq befriending Iran because then the majority of the world's oil supply is in the hands of our enemies and let's be real--the U.S. needs its oil. Gobble, gobble, gobble. This is all about power and money and who will be the ones reaping the benefits. Unfortunately, neither of these wolves in sheep's' clothing care about the Iraqis themselves. To whom the oil fields are open to and to whom this new nation will ally itself with in the coming conflicts brewing in the sands of the Middle East are the only issues on the tables of Iran and the U.S. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq are suffering as these two powers fight over the right to abuse and exploit these people once stability is restored.
The innocent people of Iraq are drowning in the oil the rest of the world so desperately covets and I'm afraid that despite whoever wins over Iraq, the nation will very soon become nothing more than a tar pit filled with the remains of those who fought for a better life and in return found themselves in over their heads.

Spinning Wheels In The Sand

2007-04-11T15:06:00.000-05:00

With the U.S. spending so much time and energy into arming and training the Iraqi soldiers who support the current government and Iran apparently spending so much time and energy arming and training the Iraqi insurgents to oppose the current government, it is obvious that Iraq has definitely become the victim child in a custody hearing; being pulled between two countries highly invested in the future of the born-again nation. And to further show signs of either unflinching commitment or pure stubbornness, the Pentagon has extended the Army's tours of duty for soldiers from 12 months to 15 months and is planning to divert about $1.6 billion of its military budget to fund the troops until mid-summer while Congress and Bush duke out a bill.
And meanwhile, the president invited Democrats to the White House yesterday to discuss a bill funding the war but was clear that he was not going to negotiate a time table for withdrawing troops. With the president vowing to veto a bill attached to a time table and Congress pledging to cut funding for the war altogether if Bush does so, this move on the president's part seems to be yet another backwards step in his continuing dance of shame in this unsuccessful and abusive war. The president should to realize that he needs Congress to fund this war whether he likes it or not. Congress has many times pleaded with the president to negotiate and talk with an open-mind about a bill that would satisfy everyone but Bush has stayed the course and is costing our troops valuable necessities.
With around $120 billion on the table from Congress, Bush has been a fool to turn it down simply because it offers the only logical exit strategy since the war began. If he vetoes that bill, then he better start either reaching into his pockets to come up with some money or pick up a gun and march over to Iraq himself. His arrogance and stubbornness has already cost this country a great deal of suffering and has made few efforts to making our nation safer. He has created more enemies than we can fight and is now undermining the troops by pledging to veto a bill that prevents more young Americans from being into the furnace to try and salvage his presidential legacy.
Seeing as impeachment is beyond the reach of our simple-minded politicians, I can only hope that President Bush realizes that he is staying the course alone and needs the support of the American people before he can support the American troops.

Zimbio Debate Part II

2007-04-10T14:04:00.000-05:00

If you are reading this you should first look at the first part of the debate as this whole article would make much more sense.

4-8-07
Jason: Yes, yes it is very hard to sway a person who holds very firms beliefs one way or another. And while I agree that this debate has been productive my endstate is always to win...that is let the other person say "you're right" it happens to my wife all the time. I generally take offense to those who say they support the troops but not the war although I think you are sincere and that your anti-war stance is taken more from a compassion for us than a hatred for them viewpoint. In the end I do not want a warmonger in charge either (I don't think Bush is one), but I want someone with enough guts to stand up to the likes of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and especially al-Queada. This era of blogs and internet postings has certainly given a voice to those of us long silenced by big media. The problem with big media is that you can fill volumes with what they don't report. By the way, I do respect other opinions and ideology. I just can't accept them as having any influence on the direction our country should go.Jason
4-8-07
P.R.: As much as I would like to let you "win" this debate, I am not your wife. Although, I feel that we have a mutual respect for each others' opinions and that is what matters in the end. I too want a president who will be tough against threats to America. I can only hope that our next one creates fewer. And like it or not, other people's opinions and ideologies do have an influence in the direction our country will go. That's a democracy. Good luck in Iraq and I wish you the best for a safe return home and the same goes for all of your fellow soldiers. America and I are proud of you.P.R.

This concludes the zimbio debate. I hope that it helps clarify the views of some Americans today and gives a new perspective to the war in Iraq.

Zimbio Debate Part I

2007-04-10T13:45:00.000-05:00

On a seperate website called "zimbio" under the category "war in Iraq" I have been posting my most recent articles as a means of reaching more people. One of my articles, "Bush: The Boy In The Political Bubble" recieved some feedback from a very conservative blogger. I will include our humble debate here on my blog because I think it is valuable in the sense that it reveals a little bit about some of the conservative views in America today and how I respond to them. I would suggest reading the article posted on my blog before reading the following debate.
4-5-07
Jason: Didn't anybody tell you not to drink the Kool-Aid? Wake up and face the facts. President Bush did not lie. If he did so did numerous members of the now anti-war left. Just to break it down for the slow among us, Saddam and his regime had nothing to do with September 11th, 2001. But that is not the point, the point is that we realized who we were up against and we began to take action 1 regime at a time. Remember, Germany never attacked us either.
4-6-07
P.R.: First of all, for the slow among us, Germany did not attack us but Japan did which was part of an alliance known as the axis of evil. Sound familiar in modern times? Second of all, what gives the United States the right to "take action 1 regime at a time"? That must be some kind of prick with his hand on the red button. Also, President Bush did lie and it is a poor defense to say, "well if he did so did the anti-war left". This war is a joke and those who support it need to wake up and face the facts. And the Kool-Aid pun was a flop.
4-7-07
Jason: PR, Just listen to what you are saying. Yes, of course we all know about the tripartrite treaty and the flow of world events there after. Also, it is not a poor defense to say that President Bush along with the leaders of 6 other major, industrialized countries and numerous members of the US Congress all saw the same intel reports. Great Britian was the largest contributor with dossier that was over 200 pages in length with intel as recent as FEB 2003. Now, I will assume that you have not been to Iraq and are thus blissfully ignorant as to what is really happening there. I have been twice and will be returning in mid-2008 so I have just a bit of first hand knowledge. What was the lie, specifically? WMD? Ties to terror groups? Paying the families of suicide bombers? All facts and all true. Wait, wait, wait, you say we found no WMD. All that I can speak to is what has been declassified. Abu-massab Al-zarquawi was operating a terror camp in northeast Iraq before the war SF troops took it out in the opening minutes of the war. Terror group ties? Proven. Saddam paid the equivalent of $25,000 to the families of every suicide bomber to pull the cord in Isreal. Proven fact. Now as for the WMD. No, we did not find it. But in the last several weeks, there have been at least 4 attacks using...gasp...chlorine gas. Also, I was a part of a special security mission in which we had to wear all of chemical defense gear to secure a certain site in a remote area of Iraq. So far as what is declassified there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Check with Syria, they should know more. In fact maybe Speaker Pelosi could have asked while she was consorting with our enemies. So you can read what you will in whatever left wing rag you choose, or as I said before, get actual factual information before making such inflamatory remarks. Also, some new lines of criticism would be nice the "Bush lied and soldiers died" crap is pretty old.
4-7-07
P.R.: First, I would like to address that I am proud of your service to this country. Second of all, I never used the term, "Bush lied and soldiers died" so pin that line on someone else with limited rhyming capability. Yes, there have been ties to Saddam and suicide bombers in Israel. But that wasn't what this administration and others used to as the main point for going to war, was it? The chlorine gas wasn't used in Iraq until we invaded. WMD's, the reason we went to war, were never found. The intel wasn't what was bad unfortunately. The way it was interpreted by those with war agendas in the White House, though, was bad. As for being blissfully ignorant, I wish I had that luxury...but I don't. And though I haven't been to Iraq it does not mean that I am wrong. My opinion is as valid as yours and the only difference is ideology and not facts. And to answer your question, "What was the lie, specifically?" the answer is WMDs. Whether other reasons for invading Iraq are noble or not, what remains undisputed is that this administration used WMDs to convince America to go to war...not links to Palestinian suicide bombers...WMDs. I do not believe that we have the right to play political God and decide who holds power and who does not. The entire argument for war with Iraq has holes in it and I don't think that we should be there. Saddam was an ass, yes. But was he a threat to America as Bush claimed, no. Perhaps the reason Bush lied was because he knew it wouldn't strike a patriotic cord with Americans to have brave soldiers like you dying for oil profits? Either way, if you feel that being in Iraq is where we belong then I am glad you are there fighting for America and I wish you the best of luck and a safe return.P.R.
5-8-07
Jason: I appriciate the fact that you find my service to our country noble. I have decided that no matter what proven facts I write here or which clear inferences should be drawn, there will always be those on the left whose ideology differs a great deal from mine and is therfore used to spin inaccurate and even made up information into "truth". Try as I may I can never convince such people that what they are saying and thinking is actually wrong and even damaging to our country. Those who think being blissfully ignorant is a luxury. So having said that I need to go talk to my accountant about the obscene profits I am making from this "oil war" thanks to a President who "lied for me" and his gang of co-conspiritors who also "misinterpreted" very clear intel reports. In all seriousness though, I truly hope that those on the left see the light before it is too late and terrorist pacification leads to destruction of our country. I will pray that those who will defend us are eventually elected to all governmental offices. Let's not repeat history by not learning from it. I love my country and I want it around for several thousand more years.
4-8-07
P.R.: It is true that convincing people of something they do not believe in is difficult and sometimes even impossible. I have remained as open as I can for some time and I am yet to find information persuasive enough to deter me from my beliefs. I am sorry that you feel that any ideology that does not match yours is used to "spin inaccurate and even made up information into 'truth'". And unfortunately for you, your accountant will have some bad news because those in power making the profits care little for those giving their lives for them. I, too pray that people will soon see the light but with so many differing views, I'm afraid they will be blinded from all the bull crap floating around. And if we are not to repeat history, perhaps we should not elect those with war in their veins to "all governmental offices". I believe we have already seen what that can accomplish. If America is to survive for several thousand more years then we should focus less on making distant enemies and more on waging peace. Either way, this debate has been productive as far as I'm concerned and I wish to thank you again for your service to our country and while I may not support this war, I support you.P.R.

Continued...

Biting The Hand And Freeing The Heart

2007-04-10T13:02:00.000-05:00

Tuesday was a productive day for insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. A female suicide bomber killed 16 people and injured 33 in a town northeast of Baghdad. Six people were killed and 21 wounded in a gun battle in some of the neighborhoods within Baghdad. A car bomb exploded at the University of Baghdad killing 6 and wounding 11. And a Katysusha rocket killed a six-year-old boy and injured 17 others. This all came one day after Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr told his people to double their efforts in pushing the Americans out of Iraq but at the same time not killing each other. No American soldiers were reported as being killed in today's fighting.
Now I feel the need to explain the difference exactly between the insurgency in Iraq and the terrorism. While many of the tactics are the same, the ideology behind them are certainly not. The terrorists such as al-Qaeda wish to attack the U.S. and other coalition forces from western civilizations because they feel that their religious beliefs conflict with the west's sociological values. The insurgents in Iraq fight the occupation forces to drive them out so that Iraqis can govern themselves as a sovereign, independent nation. Muqtada al-Sadr leads the insurgency in Iraq and for the sake of progress in a war that is already confusing enough, should not be confused or linked to al-Qaeda.
If anything, today's violence has shown us that the security crackdown in Baghdad is only somewhat working with stiff resistance and the Iraqis have more at stake in this than we do and are thus far more willing to go to extremes if necessary to expel the "American occupiers". Diplomacy requires an open mind and that is something this administration has lacked in.
One of the main issues dividing al-Sadr from the Iraqi government is that he opposes the presidential administrations because they were forged from American hands and then voted on by Iraqis. The Bush Administration opposes al-Sadr because he opposes the government that they have backed. This Iraqi presidential administration is more closely allied with Bush than he is with Iraqi leaders. Iraq has adopted a Bushonian Democracy in which democracy is based on all parties supporting the presidential administration being accepted while anyone who disagrees with certain policies set forth by the administration is considered a threat to national security. Someone with al-Sadr's credentials and public backing has every right to be a part of Iraqi government and could probably be a valuable if not fundamental figure in stabilizing peace within the country.
But the Iraqi presidential administration will not allow this because he threatens their power that has been backed by the U.S. military. The system seems to be that the Iraqi government controls the use of its oil and so the U.S. protects those interests via the military so that that doors to the oil fields remain wide open. And why would the Iraqi government bite the hand that feeds it by allowing an opposing view to enter the political ring? In Iraq, they are enjoying the same sort of democratically-veiled dictatorship that the Bush Administration enjoys here in America.

Iraq: More Than A Shiite Hole

2007-04-09T19:40:00.000-05:00

On Easter Sunday, six U.S. soldiers were killed and nothing about it was in Monday's newspaper. I don't know if the news simply didn't reach the Florida Today or if that just wasn't as important as little Johnny finding colored eggs in his front lawn. And meanwhile, marking the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad (coincidentally the same day as the fourth anniversary that Baghdad was still a violent s#*t hole), tens of thousands of Iraqis including members of Iraq's very own police and military participated in a mass demonstration demanding that the U.S. leave Iraq. Amazingly, no violence ensued during the peaceful protest. And what kind of man could organize such a successful sign of progress? Not George W. Bush but his arch nemesis Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Oppressed severely by the regime of Saddam Hussein, al-Sadr grew up in an Iraq where survival meant protesting tyranny underground. The reason Bush has declared him a menace to success in Iraq is because al-Sadr has denounced the government set up by America in his country and wishes that the Iraqis had more of a choice in who was nominated for power. In a way, Iraq is becoming a mini-state of the U.S. with Bush appointing public officials even in other countries. And while the Iraqi people did vote for their president, they had no choice in who the candidates were. It seems as though al-Sadr wants the people to have more of a say in their government. And with Iraq split between Shiites and Sunnis predominantly, why shouldn't al-Sadr have a political seat?
He has proven that he can rally tens of thousands of followers to protest peacefully in a country riddled with bullet holes. And in April of 2003, al-Sadr filled in the public service vacuum in Sadr City that the government could not by providing health care, food and clean water to his people. And sometime later, on August 30, a peaceful disarmament of al-Sadr's men was reached between him and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. But only a day later, the prime minister backed out and the fighting continued. In his most recent speeches he has told his people not to harm other Iraqis and focus on pushing the Americans out.
Now I rigidly disapprove of any encouragement of violence especially to my own American soldiers. But if for a moment we could look aside the threats and at the bigger picture we may see something valuable. This is a man with immense political potential who has been yearning for stability, peace and unification within his country since the beginning. And only when his voice goes unheard and doors are kicked down while gun barrels are pointed in the faces of his people does he fight back. So ask yourself whether or not you would do the same in his position? We have no right to be occupying Iraq any further. He has no connections to terrorism although insurgency would be a more appropriate word (focusing not on al-Qaeda but anti-occupation fighters) . He has shown that he has what it takes to lead his people and I think he should be given a chance to speak in the Iraqi government.
If this administration truly wanted peace and stability in Iraq, they would look aside American loyalty, as they have here in America shown party loyalty, and see that if the people are going to stop the violence they need a leader of the people in power and not someone chosen from halfway around the world. But perhaps with these views in mind I might find myself an enemy of the Bush Administration. I simply want what is best for America and Iraq and only when we let them be a sovereign nation of their own people will peace and stability reach the country. And I believe that if pro-Bush agendas were set aside and the people of Iraq were taken into consideration, maybe Muqtada al-Sadr could be seen as an asset to peace instead of a catalyst to war. But hell, who am I kidding...Bush doesn't even put his people first in his own country.

Life Imitating Art Or Art Imitating Life?

2007-04-08T21:20:00.000-05:00

This was a little collage I did that acts like a slide-out image from a pop-up book. Rated for

children 17 or older seeing as that is the minimum enlisting age for the U.S. military with parental consent.

If The Streets Of Baghdad Could Talk

2007-04-08T12:57:00.000-05:00

When it comes to the reason we're in Iraq right now, it doesn't take a top notch detective to figure out that the motives our government has given us are all wrong. Even if by some incredibly small chance this administration did in fact receive faulty intelligence from the CIA and went to war with the best intentions of relieving Saddam from his weapons of mass destruction, Bush's actions speak louder than words. Even after it was proven that there were no WMDs in Iraq, we are still there fighting harder and longer than ever before. If the previous scenario were true, wouldn't this administration have realized the intelligence was wrong and shifted strategies? But because we are still there for the same reasons it makes me think that this war was going to happen on any terms and the lie of WMDs was merely a smokescreen. Now that we're there, Bush figures who cares now...we're there and we need to focus on victory and nothing else. But whether we leave is partly determined by why we came. That we may never truthfully know. And while I may not have Bush's account number the Saudi royal family is depositing money into, that scenario seems more likely than the one saying that oil has nothing to do with why we're in Iraq. Our military is merely protecting big oil interests at this point.
Also, I find that the only real experts on Iraq are the Iraqi civilians. They have no political agenda or warped perception of patriotism. Their only agenda is to survive. And what is best for the minority is clearly not always best for the majority. Perhaps we should listen to what they have to say about how the war is really going. Perhaps they know better than anyone we could send because they live among the violence everyday while their own friends and families are put into jeopardy. In my opinion, their voices speak the loudest; not the soldiers, not John McCain and not the Bush Administration--the voices of victims...the voices nobody are listening to.

Good War Business (G.W.B) What Else Shares Those Initials?

2007-04-07T20:51:00.000-05:00

After reading Time Magazine today, I found out that "the Army is once again getting the smallest share of Pentagon funds", recruits include high school dropouts and convicted felons, mid-level officer positions and military intelligence officers are in high demand with little supply and suicides among soldiers is increasing. With facts like this reaching me, little is left to the imagination as to why I feel that this war is a total bust. And with 13,000 National Guard troops scheduled for deployment to Iraq by next year, Americans are getting tired of the death tolls. And as this administration provokes even further conflict in the Middle East with Iran from sending in carrier groups to run "drills" in the Persian Gulf, making threats against Iran's policies and pointing blame at Tehran for the roadside bombs in Iraq, it seems as though war is the only word on President Bush's lips these days. How did the insurgents get their automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other weapons? Why doesn't the government look into that? Why are they so interested in Iran? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Iran produces the world's largest supply of oil. Hey, if war with Iran comes about prices will skyrocket and Bush's pals, the Saudis, will make a fortune. And I'm sure none of that "luck" will rub off on George W.
Hell, even John McCain who has taken a beating from his stance on the war in Iraq, jeopardizing his rise to presidency, has been seeing benefits to playing the right hand of the devil. "And McCain's top finance officials say the senator's position on the war has, if anything, helped him with many of his wealthy donors," reported Michael D. Shear of the Washington Post. No one can argue that there is money to be made in war. I only wish that our very own presidential administration didn't have their hands stuck in the cookie jar. The Saudi-Bush connections have been made and oil is the binding factor here between the Middle East and why we give a damn about Iraq.
And with polls showing numbers scattered all over the place, it is difficult to see where many Americans stand these days unless you can cut through all of that political grime. In the Washington Post-ABC News' most recent poll, 64% of those polled said "it [war in Iraq] was not worth fighting." But then in the same poll, "70% of republicans said the Iraq war has been worth fighting." The only thing to figure out is how many Americans consider themselves republican. What this poll tells me is that republicans need to pull their heads out of their chair warmers and let go of their violent blood lust. If they want to fight our "enemies" so badly, then why don't they join the Army and fight? I'm sure they'll be accepted. With the Army taking even convicted felons I can't imagine that war hawk republicans would be denied. Maybe they would shoot better, though, if they could see straight!
Also in the news was John McCain's speech trying to convince Americans to give General David H. Patraeus more time. "This gives him an opportunity to put a marker down on what his foreign policy vision will be and how important it is to win the war in Iraq..." said McCain.
Of course his foreign policy vision will be coming from the standpoint of a military general and so I doubt it will involve the Army leaving any time soon. Job security is on the line, you know. And as far as I'm concerned the war is over and won. Saddam is out and now all that is left is a civil war we have no business being in militarily.
And to finish up probably one of my longest articles; if I hear a sharp-nosed republican saying "if we leave Iraq now the terrorists will follow us home" one more time I am going to vomit. Does anyone honestly think they need a bread crumb trail left behind the U.S. Army to tell where America is? They can look on a f**king map! Having our troops home will ensure a better defense instead of having them thinned out halfway around the world making more enemies.
I hope people try to see the signs everywhere that change needs to be made soon and it needs to be dramatic. The world is becoming impatient with this administration's stubbornness and the only progress being made right now is that the hole we're digging ourselves into is becoming deep enough to fit George W.'s ego.

Overhead Luggage In Over Head

2007-04-06T22:18:00.000-05:00

It has recently come to my attention that for much of the war in Iraq, the bodies of our fallen soldiers were being handled by the same undergraduates who lose my luggage at the airport every year. Unloaded by civilian personnel from a commercial jet by either a mechanical belt or forklift, the bodies of sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives were presented to their families in a disgraceful act that objectified those who gave their lives for this country.
It wasn't until a father of a son who fell in Iraq lobbied for change that in January the bodies of our soldiers began coming home via charter jets and met by the honor guard for a proper and respectful return home. The main reason for this dishonorable treatment was because of--what other--money. It cost nearly $1.2 million last year to transport the bodies of our soldiers home via commercial jets whereas now the winning contract for six months for a more appropriate return costs about $11 million (according to the associated press). But with billions of dollars floating around from the war funds, who cares about soldiers who aren't able to go back into the fight, right? That seemed to be the opinion of the Pentagon. Whether it be conditions at Walter Reed or simply the treatment of the deceased upon arriving home to loved ones, it has become evident that this administration only values those who can fight their war.
"Regardless of what the reality was, there was a perception there that the proper respect was not being provided to those who made the ultimate sacrifice," said Pentagon spokesman Maj. Stewart Upton.
It is sad that this issue was seen as merely an misperception and not a real problem. It may be an unsettling concept for war strategists and politicians but Americans do in fact care about their soldiers before, during and even after they return from war.
I can only hope that the number of our brave soldiers who fly third class home dwindles to zero soon. in this pathetic administration's war And if this administration continues to wage war perhaps they should begin making it a habit to tag their luggage so that it doesn't get confused with my suitcase at the airport. And if finance becomes a problem, maybe the president can make room on Air Force One right next to his golf clubs.

He Never Learns

2007-04-05T17:43:00.000-05:00

Today it was announced that nearly 12,000 National Guardsmen were to be deployed to Iraq for involuntary service with a one-year commitment. This was due to the regular army troops being thinned out in a poorly planned war. These additional troops will help relieve the already fatigued soldiers on the ground in Iraq. It seems that if the government cannot get funding to the troops through the president's unwillingness to pass into law a bill attached to a pull-out date they use their reserve troops as the solution. Now this administration is defying the American people by sending more of our American heroes into the hostility of a civil war we have no business in militarily across the Atlantic Ocean. The solution to putting out a fire, Mr. Bush is not to throw more wood on the flames. Bringing peace to Iraq has nothing to do with soldiers trained for war.
But if any of the soldiers being sent to Iraq are worried about their service and have well-connected fathers then fear not; drink up, lay back and when you get out early run for president.

Bush: The Boy In The Political Bubble

2007-04-05T12:58:00.000-05:00

Once again it seems as though the White House is within its own little bubble while the president continues to speak about imaginary problems that, when he tries to solve them, become real problems. In a recent visit to Fort Irwin, the president continued his quest to convince the American people to push forward in this war. Britain, our strongest ally, has already begun putting into motion the removal of 1,600 troops and plans to remove more by summer. In his speech, the president cited an incident when Iraqi insurgents used children in the backseat of a car rigged with explosives to get through security checkpoints as a main point in his attempt of persuasion.
"It makes me realize the nature of the enemy we face, which hardens my resolve to protect the American people...People who do that are not--it's not a civil war, it is pure evil. And I believe we have an obligation to protect ourselves from that evil," Bush said in his speech.
The nature of the enemy we face is complete devotion to their cause--a devotion we have never seen before and have trouble understanding. And are our soldiers not "American people"? Protect them by bringing them back home and stop sending American people in uniform to Iraq to die in a war America is not in favor of. And for the president to boldly say that this is not a civil war proves how detached he truly is from reality. Iraq had not harmed American people before we invaded. There were no Iraqis on the planes of 9/11 and Iraq was found to have no connections to the terrorists. All the meanwhile, Bush wants to protect Americans? He is creating the enemies we have to fight. Before our enemy was al-Qaeda and now it's these Iraqi insurgents we spawned.
Evil is a relative term. Though it was evil to use children as pawns in their insurgency, this chess game of objectifying human beings is a game the Bush Administration is all too familiar with. Is it evil of us to continue occupying Iraq long after the original war was won? Is it evil of us to continue using military force when diplomacy is what they need? Is it evil of us to use WMDs as a false pretense for war and then use democracy and freedom as a false pretense for continuing the fight? The president's hidden agendas involving Iraq's oil fields and his Saudi friends are the engines driving these violent acts against humanity. By the way, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Hmmm. If our president wants to truly protect the American people from evil perhaps he should resign as president so the world can move forward in healing from the wounds this administration has caused international relations. After all, we nearly impeached Clinton for lying about his sex life but it is acceptable that this president's lies have killed over 3,000 American soldiers and tens of thousands more Iraqi civilians. If anything, impeach Bush for using the "missionary accomplished" position.

Attention Baghdad Shoppers...

2007-04-04T08:04:00.000-05:00

Victory has come at last for all of those late night shoppers in Baghdad who want to get the best close-out sales. The curfew that has been held over Baghdad has been shortened by two hours so that people can be out until 10 p.m. And what, might you ask, could be the reason for such a promising sign of stability? There are actually two reasons: one is that only 18 people were found to be dead in Baghdad on Tuesday. This one-day plummet in sectarian violence prompted officials to lift the curfew a little but that wasn't all. If having one day of less than twenty people dying wasn't cause enough to celebrate, Iraqi Brigadier General Qassim al-Moussawi said also that the two hour lift was "because the security situation has improved and people needed more time to go shopping." Despite that the economy of the Baghdad marketplaces have plummeted due to a ban on vehicles and fear from insurgents, still marketplaces are the ideal location for suicide bombers to go out with a bang. And Iraqi officials say that what their people need is more time to go shopping.
And meanwhile, presidential candidate John McCain continues to rave about the safe conditions of Baghdad. And though violence within the city itself has dropped slightly, though the citizens are wary of how long the lull will last, violence outside of Baghdad has risen by 20%. John McCain has his statistic-twisting political swagger down pat. And why wouldn't he? He learned from the best: the administration that used the same sort of twisting of information that led to this war. The fact is that violence in Baghdad has dropped a little but it has been pushed elsewhere in Iraq. The killing hasn't stopped; it has merely spread out.
The security crackdown that has republicans wetting themselves is hardly worth grinning about. As was reported by Sudarsan Raghavan of the Washington Post today, "In the first three weeks of the security plan, from Feb. 14 to March 7, 125 unidentified bodies were reported. But in the next three weeks, ending March 31, they nearly doubled to 230, according to the morgue data."
Mr. McCain has his statistics and I have mine. Either way you look at it, the situation in Iraq is not really improving and signs of progress are shadowed by body count numbers. I will celebrate when people stop getting excited about less deaths and start getting excited by no deaths. In the political theater, death tolls seem to be so trivial when you can't put a face to each digit.

Don't Fence Me In

2007-04-03T16:55:00.000-05:00

In Qubah, Iraq U.S. soldiers have begun using permanent markers to keep track of residents during curfew hours. They have written numbers on the back of men's necks and on the top of the hands of women and each number corresponds to where that resident lives so that after curfew hours U.S. soldiers can tell whether or not they are where they should be. I don't know about you but this parallels eerily close to what the Nazis did to Jews in concentration camps during WWII. We are the liberators? This illegal occupation of Iraq has taken a new and unsettling turn in tactics used for maintaining control of the local populace.

Also, in today's Florida Today, there was an article subtitled, "U.S. soldier, baby among 15 casualties". Within that article there was a section about a girl who had just finished taking a test at school when a gate fell on her breaking her leg due to an explosion. This article by the way was printed on page 8. I suppose the Gators winning their third national championship this year was a more emotional story.

And just a day after John McCain visited Baghdad reveling in how safe it had become and how the number of terrorist-led executions had dropped, this was said in the same article above: "Baghdad police said they found the bodies of 14 people, most tortured and killed execution-style..." I hope John McCain is getting the full picture now.

And in the continuing news about the president vowing to veto the bill that will fund his war but set a timetable for exiting Iraq, George W. said, "That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it's unacceptable to the American people."

The truth is that this war is unacceptable to the American people and what else is unacceptable to the American people is the president allowing his own personal agenda on the war to interfere with passing the bill into law that would support our troops. I also find that our troops having to use markers to brand Iraqi civilians in a Naziesque manner to be unacceptable. Maybe if the president listened to his people he would know how we felt. But I am sure that he wouldn't like what he'd hear. So while the leader of the free world covers his ears to the screams of human rights violations the world is not becoming a safer place and America is not becoming more secure. Heil Bush and screw peace. This administration is turning the whole world into a new Auschwitz and don't think that we are necessarily on the free side of the fence.

The White House Of The Apocalypse

2007-04-02T20:45:00.000-05:00

Seeing The Full Picture Behind Bullet-Proof Glass

2007-04-02T09:00:00.000-05:00

Under heavy guard and in armored vehicles, presidential candidate John McCain traveled with U.S. commander General David Petraeus to Baghdad's largest marketplace. Afterward, John McCain criticized the American media for not portraying Iraq's successes accurately citing that the security crackdown was working and claiming the American people did not have the "full picture". He also reminded people that execution style killings have dropped in Iraq and that Sunni tribes were fighting against al-Qaida in the Anbar province.
Now, to give all you Americans the "full picture": John McCain's trip cannot be considered consistent with everyday life in Iraq seeing as he spent little time there and traveled under very heavy guard on a scheduled visit. I doubt the security in the marketplace was ever as high as when an American presidential candidate traveled there with the U.S. top commander. In addition, that same day six American soldiers were killed in roadside bombings outside of Baghdad.
Which brings us to our next point. While Baghdad is becoming slightly more safe (remembering that despite security checkpoints last week was the bloodiest since the war began) the rest of Iraq is seeing an increase in violence as the insurgents are merely pushed elsewhere. And wow, "execution-style sectarian killings"(Florida Today) are dropping? Recently nearly 70 people were executed in the streets by a shot in the back of the head by off-duty Iraqi policemen and others were kidnapped.
And if I have to hear about John McCain being a prisoner of war in Vietnam one more time I am going to vomit. For Christ's sake, give the man a medal and move on. Nobody likes a bleeding heart. Being a prisoner of war is not such a great accomplishment and while it is great that he survived, it is a shame for him to work it to death getting him votes. And how can anyone in his position still be loyal to an administration that was responsible for the torture scandals at Abu Ghraib? Why would a former prisoner of war support war? And Rudy Giuliani, don't dig too deeply into the 9/11 trench either.
Great obstacles have been overcome but new ones face us just ahead. John McCain needs to stop pretending that this war is working and focus on what needs to change for Iraqi success. Maybe if he had gone on a non-scheduled visit to the marketplace and been out from his bullet-proof armor and guards he might have seen the real Iraq and not the Bush Iraq. To see the full picture, Mr. McCain, you need to open your eyes.

War Victims Exit Stage Right...Permanently

2007-04-01T08:27:00.000-05:00

In a recent article by the associated press, statistics were released that showed the U.S. military death toll was nearly twice as high for the month of March as the death toll of the Iraqi military proving yet again this administration's views that the Iraqi military is taking back control of the country (yeah, right). There were about 44 Iraqi military deaths and 80 U.S. military deaths related to combat. But there was good news buried within the grim statistics of March: only 1,872 Iraqi civilians were killed. Despite that number being about 300 more deaths than last month, this shows how the security crackdown in Iraq is really working: not so good. Nearly 1/3 of the deaths in March were from the last week in the most deadly string of bomb attacks since the war began. Hey, Bush...mission accomplished asshole.
While the British begin considering diplomatic talks with Iran to recover the 15 Britons captured in disputed Iranian/Iraqi waters, Transport Minister Douglas Alexander revealed why diplomacy has taken the sideline for so long in foreign policy. "The responsible way forward is to continue the often unglamorous, but important and quiet diplomatic work to get our personnel home.” To say that the diplomatic way is unglamorous shows how the films of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood have glorified war. While war tactics and maneuvers appeal to the masses as clever and exciting, peaceful negotiations are seen as boring and "unglamorous". This just makes me sick. Peaceful diplomacy is glamorous in that there are no body counts attached to it and no mothers crying because their sons or daughters never came home.
And then on top of that, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the world powers of being "arrogant" for not apologizing for Britain's trespassing. First of all, the accusation of trespassing is dubious at best and second of all if anyone should not be throwing around the word arrogant it would be President Ahmadinejad. Between hosting Holocaust denial conventions to continually defying the UN in neither stopping their uranium enrichment programs or allowing inspectors full access to those plants, Ahmadinejad has become the poster boy of political arrogance.
We need to militarily pull out of Iraq, quit pretending that war is glamorous and stop throwing playground insults at each other in order to begin progressing in the right direction. To our politicians: wake up and grow up! Your people want progressive results not body bags.

Beauty Is Skin Deep...Emotion Is Not

2007-03-31T14:55:00.000-05:00

photo obtained from xinhuanet: "An Iraqi man cries outside a hospital following a suicide attack."

September 4, 2005

They say that a photo can speak a thousand words. How many does this one say to you? On Saturday a truck bombing in the Iraqi town of Tal Afar killed around 152 people. About 500 people were killed in Iraq this week. On Tuesday's attack around 347 people were injured and 100 homes destroyed in the blast of another attack. Also on Saturday, car bombs killed 9 people. And then 70 people were killed earlier this week by revenge killings led by off-duty police officers. Meanwhile, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said, "We've seen encouraging signals of progress but we have to keep moving forward." I don't know what Ryan Crocker has been looking at but progress is something rarely mentioned in the Iraqi marketplaces by fearful citizens and the move forward is without foresight nor is it with concern for the lives of the Iraqi people.

There is a neurological condition known as synesthesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia) in which some people are tuned for cross-sensory relationships between everyday things involuntarily. From seeing colored letters to hearing a work of art to words with certain tastes, people with synesthesia perceive their world differently than most other people. Now, I understand that most of the people (if any) reading this article do not have synesthesia but I want you to look at that picture posted at the top of this article and "feel" that photograph. I don't want you to "look" at it..."feel" it. This is what many people throughout Iraq feel everyday and it is a good exercise to feel that with them. By stepping out of your comfort zone and diving beneath social and cultural layers we can be on the same level--the human level. This person in the photo may or may not be from Iraq. This person may or may not be black or white or Hispanic or Asian. This person may or may not be a man or woman. This person may or may not be republican or democrat. But what this person is feeling is real and that is what this is all about. That is what ending this war...this conflict...is all about.

P.R.

Driving Ms. Lazy To Walter Reed

2007-03-30T17:56:00.000-05:00

Ah, the president took a break from the White House rose gardens and decided to stroll through the Walter Reed Army Medical Center today. Although he bypassed areas where there was mold in the walls, rat infestations and the scene of long lines of soldiers waiting to be processed (sounds like the DMV), the president still had a heart-warming visit to those soldiers he sent to be injured in Iraq. Although, not everyone felt that he was as sincere as he was hoping to come off.
Retired Major General Paul Eaton said of the president, "I'm convinced he would honor them more if he would refrain from using soldiers as props in political theater." Ooh, that was the taste of words thrown right back at the president after he accused democrats of political theater when they made up a bill to bring our troops home.
Despite the president's visit being cut an hour shorter than scheduled, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino had some noble things to say about the president in an article by the associated press. "She said it took some time to clear enough room on the president's schedule to spend an afternoon with patients and staff at Walter Reed." Gosh, I can imagine it would be tough penciling that in seeing as they're only our brave troops he so often publicly "supports". It's a real shame that after giving all they had to the president's war, it is still difficult for him to bear the grim realities his administration is responsible for.
But for all those democrats out there claiming that Bush doesn't support our troops in Iraq, don't sell yourself short...he doesn't care about them here too.

Problem...What Problem?

2007-03-30T17:34:00.000-05:00

Yesterday at least 125 people were killed in Baghdad by suicide bombers and about 181 people were killed throughout Iraq by similar suicide bombers. An Iraqi man named Salam Hussein was nearby when two of the suicide bombers detonated themselves in a crowded marketplace killing two of his relatives and injuring others.

“I saw headless children and body parts everywhere. I brought four wounded to the hospital. But resources there are very limited. The refrigerators at the morgue are full. It’s a disaster,” he said.

Meanwhile, on his first day on the job, new ambassador Ryan Crocker said that "President Bush's policy is the right one." Great...another loyal minion of Bush in Iraq. In addition, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told his citizens that he was determined to bring the bombers to justice. Hello! They're suicide bombers! They're already dead! And according to their faith, they are already having intimate relations with seventy-something virgins.

I am sick to death of high officials in this government and Iraq's being incredibly stupid. This is a serious problem and these people keep on thinking that the path they're taking is the right one. Iraq has plunged into a bottomless pit and while it falls, republicans and other morons continue to say, "Hey, support the troops...stay the course...security forces are succeeding." Wake the hell up and pull us out of this mess. That's you're job isn't it? Nearly 200 people were killed yesterday and it seems like no one in this administration or the one it forged in Iraq thinks that we need to make any changes other than add more wood to the fire...I mean more troops to Iraq.

When are things going to improve in Iraq? My best guess is when politicians start addressing the real problem with real solutions. But what the hell do I know? I voted democrat and all I got was this stinking war.

When Asses Grow Lips And Use Them...

2007-03-29T11:03:00.000-05:00

I am all for allowing freedom of speech. Hell, if it wasn't for my freedom of speech I probably would be in the Bastille by now. But I do have a problem with people talking out of their asses. After all, that is what mouths are for. I prefer people educate themselves on what they are talking about before they spew their infectious stupidity to the rest of us. In a recent editorial in my local paper a person whom shall remain nameless published his views for the world to see and the introduction was as follows: "The recent FLORIDA TODAY editorial headlined 'Abuses of power,' which advocates the removal of Attorney General Roberto Gonzales, is ridiculous and would only help the terrorists."
First of all, his name is Alberto Gonzales not Roberto. I find it ridiculous that this person can't even get the name right. Second of all, how do you connect the resignation of a party loyal attorney general to the helping the terrorists? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other and the idea that this person believes that the terrorists even know who ALBERTO Gonzales is is astounding. This person has to work for the Bush Administration to come up with that kind of crap.
Our concerned and equally opinionated citizen here probably doesn't even know the difference between potassium and uranium let alone anything about politics and terrorism. But I'll give our budding writer some advice: that's not a turban on Lady Chiquita's head.

Houston...Come In...This Is Baghdad

2007-03-29T10:02:00.000-05:00

By now with all of the killings and explosions in Baghdad, the Iraqi capitol must look like the dark side of the moon. After the damage was assessed more accurately, authorities have determined that the death toll from last night's revenge killings led by off-duty Shiite police officers left 70 people executed in the streets and 40 kidnapped. All the meanwhile, the president has been praising the success in Iraq's lull in violence and the police's ability to stem the bloodshed. We are talking about the same country aren't we?

Also, the president has continued to vow that if a bill comes to his desk with a timetable for removing U.S. troops in Iraq he will not sign it into law. He told reporters, "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

Congress has already approved of a bill to fund about $90 billion to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the president who is now refusing to send that money to our troops because he doesn't like that Congress isn't simply giving away billions of dollars to fund his unpopular war. God forbid the American people want our troops home and Congress actually listen to us. There is a reason why the president's approval ratings are as low as his IQ: he doesn't give a crap about the American people. It is a shame that he cannot put aside his pride and acknowledge that despite being the most powerful man in the world he is still a servant of the American people.

And while the president tries to salvage his legacy, all the American people can think about is salvaging what is left of Iraq after a bitter and violent conflict that has turned into a civil war. I will admit that Iraq is all the American people can think about after Brittany Spears' breakdown, the latest cell phone and the weather...but it is on our mind (right?). Either way, whether Baghdad really looks like the dark side of the moon or not it seems like the bureaucratic pigs in the White House have seen as much of Baghdad as they have seen of the dark side of the moon.

I Want You To Vote!

2007-03-28T19:53:00.000-05:00

So we're fighting for democracy in Iraq are we? We have sacrificed over 3,200 of our brave soldiers' lives so that Iraqis can finally have the chance to vote for their political future and have an actual stake in how their country is run. It sounds like a great idea. Why don't we use it here?
In the presidential election years between 1960 to 2004, the average voter turnout in the U.S. for those eligible to vote was about 55.1%. That may seem like an optimistic figure being a slight majority but consider the fact that we are the founders of democracy and its most vocal advocate. And in the non-presidential election years in between when Americans are voting for their representatives and senators, the average voter turnout for those eligible to vote between the years 1962 to 2002 was about 40.2%. Now, I understand that we're not voting for that good looking, sharp talking maverick who will become the leader of the free world but these elections are just as important if not more than the presidential one. And this couldn't be emphasized more than the examples we're facing right now in Congress.
With the president facing increasing opposition by the American people as well as Congress in terms of the Iraq war, we are now witnessing the power Congress has on government policy. Part of Congress's powers are to confirm presidential nominations, ratify treaties, make up bills for government funding and budgets as well as oversee impeachment proceedings (hmm...I'd like to see that one play out). Congress is vital in its role within the checks and balance system that keeps this government democratic and not authoritarian. So the point here is that Americans should take more notice to every election and not just the popular ones with the multi-million dollar campaigns. Because when backed by the voters who empower them, our politicians can become more powerful than the president. And isn't that the way it should be; a government where representatives of the people are more powerful than any one elected official?
If we are really fighting for democracy in Iraq (and not oil) then shouldn't we lead by example? Voting is the most basic and fundamental part of a democracy and without it the people have no power. If our politicians saw that their actions were truly being judged by the American people and their jobs heavily depended on their representation of us then they would certainly pay more attention to us. In a democracy the people have the power but only if we use it. And if you don't use it, you'll lose it. And then who cares what you have to say because the Constitution that backed you up before will have been "amended" by the very people you didn't vote for to protect your rights. So vote; if not for yourself, do it for those who gave their lives for you to have that right if you so choose to use it. Any time soon would be nice.
P.R.

The Dice Have Landed: No Winners...Leave The Table

2007-03-28T09:46:00.000-05:00

Never before has the situation in Iraq become so in need of real help. I'm not talking about more troops. I'm talking about more "help". The Marine Corps is asking the government for emergency funding to supply them with new armored military vehicles that General James Conway says "can reduce casualties by 80 percent." I am not going to even ask why they didn't have this armor already because throughout this entire war the military has been undermined by the government with appropriate supplies. In addition, while the military fights diplomacy is ignored. Those soldiers will be on the ground until Judgement Day unless diplomacy is given an honest try.
On Tuesday, two truck bombs killed at least 63 people and this morning revenge killings led by off-duty Shiite police officers killed nearly 50 people; some as young as 15. And this administration wants to convince me that we are having military success? I don't think so. Only when the issues behind the triggers are addressed and solved will the bloodshed cease. We need to focus less on military strength and more on solving these political and religious differences and if even that fails, perhaps it will be time to leave Iraq to its own devices. Some may see it as cutting and running but let's be real about this: this administration has dragged us into a situation WE cannot solve. Unfortunately, only the hands of Iraqis hold the fate of their country. I wish we never invaded in the first place so that profiteers in the White House could get even more wealthy but here we are. For better or worse, natural selection is the only course that can resolve Iraq's power struggle.
This is not a matter of winning or losing, staying the course or cutting and running; everyone has already lost. This is a matter of salvaging what is left of a country plagued by sectarian violence and supporting them diplomatically in their time of need. They have enough guns over there as it is, they don't need ours to solve their problems.

America: Those The No Child Left Behind Act Left Behind

2007-03-27T16:08:00.000-05:00

In the global conflict sparked by the war on terror and continued through what is now the civil war in Iraq, some victims may become lost amidst the death toll: us. And by "us" I refer to all of those who lead normal innocent lives yet forced to live with the consequences we allow to pass before our very eyes. While America and Iran flex their muscles at each other in a show of a complete lack of diplomacy and international relations, the youth of today continue to be mentally victimized by the authoritarian propaganda and fear of this administration as well as physically victimized by the wars it has created. After all, it is the young who go off to fight wars, isn't it?

And also, this generation is being led down the toilet by Bush and his loyal legions through his No Child Left Behind Act. I am not sure if it was purposely designed to fail the American populace in dumbing us down to the IQ of some of its leaders but it is quickly on its way to doing just that.(The reason I'm not worried about offending anyone with these puns is because the people they're directed toward wouldn't get them anyway.)

In the NCLB funds have not been accumulated to the amount required and its budget seems to be another sparkling promise made by the Bush Administration that they aren't planning on keeping. I suppose the issue of directing government funds came down to either education or the war in Iraq and Bush figured he got to be president so what's wrong with the education system? Not to mention all of the corruption taking places in schools across the country where test results and the number of minority students are manipulated so that by the legislation of the NCLB those schools get more $.

And a neat piece of trivia that not many people know about is Section 9528 in the NCLB which states basically that public secondary schools are required to provide military recruiters access to students. In addition, if the recruiters want any contact information on students the school is required to give it to them. And if that wasn't shady enough, the schools are not required to tell the students or their parents that this information was given to the U.S. military.

So give the government your tired, your poor, your huddled masses of children so that they can be taught the mere necessities a good soldier should know and then shipped off to the wars that profit the government. This cycle of producing a complacent, docile and obedient America is what is crippling us. While the rest of the world passes us by in education, we have become dependent--yes, dependent--on foreign imports and technical as well as medical advancements. And unless we break this cycle we or even our children will be the ones not smart enough to make it in this competitive world but just smart enough to fire a gun. Because you know we can't all afford the same education.

So protests the No Child Left Behind Act and force our legislators whom we elected to either abolish it or make radical changes to it. This document after all can be torn apart--only if they'd take a break from tearing up the Constitution. Bam! And that's how I see it.

--P.R.

The War Factory

2007-03-26T19:04:00.000-05:00

Once again I find the Bush Administration calling part of the democrats' plan to bring our troops home an "artificial timetable". The only reason the timetable is artificial is because the Bush Administration refuses to follow it despite the sentiment of the American people. And all the meanwhile, five U.S. troops were killed on Sunday from bombs. So much for victory. If the president wants to accuse the democrats of staging a political theater perhaps he should recall the time when he was flown onto the flight deck of an aircraft carrier with a huge banner reading "mission accomplished" spread out for all of the news cameras. If by mission accomplished he means more money and lives lost in an unfavorable war then George passed with flying colors.
In an article from the associated press, the departing U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad said, "American and Iraqi officials are seeking to persuade so-called 'reconcilable insurgents' to join forces against al-Qaida as the terror network steps up attacks on both Islamic sects in Iraq..."
I'm confused. In the beginning of the war on terror al-Qaida was our enemy. Then, for some unknown reason, insurgents in Iraq became our enemy. And now, we are calling the insurgents "reconcilable" and seeking them as allies against the first enemy? So now are we going to train and arm these insurgents to battle al-Qaida? Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't that how al-Qaida was started? I could have sworn we trained and armed a small group of people led by Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. And now some people feel that we should do the same with the insurgents in Iraq. We certainly are doomed to repeat the past. I never realized until now what a profitable business war really is? And when it comes to creating a demand to the supply that is our military, no one makes enemies quite like the bureaucratic pigs in Washington.

Priorities In A Tangle?

2007-03-25T10:19:00.000-05:00

I found this clipping from an article by the associated press published Thursday, September 30, 2004 and I think it speaks for itself: What the hell? Add this one to the long list of crap this war has produced.

--P.R.

I'll take Waziristan for 3,234, Alex

2007-03-25T09:48:00.000-05:00

On Saturday, 47 people were killed when a suicide bomber got through Baghdad security checkpoints and exploded. The current U.S. military death toll is at 3,234. And all the meanwhile, al-Qaeda continues to operate and thrive in a little-known country called Afghanistan. You might be asking yourself, "why does that name ring a bell?" and the answer is because that was the first country we invaded in the war on terror. That was the country with proven ties to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden but now we find ourselves entrenched in a country with absolutely nothing to do with terrorism except that it wasn't there before we invaded. The Taliban are still around and spreading their tactics of fear in a region that we should all be familiar with--Waziristan. Yes, Waziristan is an actual place. Sandwiched in the mountains of northwest Pakistan and bordering Afghanistan, Waziristan is where we should be focusing diplomacy and military forces. The Taliban continues to exist because we have diverted our troops and funding to Iraq and so this world is no safer now than before because where the terrorists of al-Qaeda go we do not follow. President Bush claims that all those who oppose the war in Iraq are undermining the troops. Well, how about the president undermining national security when he purposely used Afghanistan as a mere stepping stone to get to Iraq--a country with no ties to terrorism. War on terror? Meanwhile, Afghanistan continues to produce the vast majority of the world's supply of opium. War on drugs? How about a war on stupid decisions, George? Unfortunately in that one, our president would be the first prisoner.

What A Mess

2007-03-24T20:46:00.000-05:00

When the democrats proposed about $100 billion for our troops in Iraq in a bill, the president said it was undermining the troops because it was on the condition that those same troops would have to be back home with their friends and families by Christmas of next year. Also, the president said in a speech recently that "we need to put partisan politics aside to come together to enact important legislation for the American people." And also he said, "Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business."
These accusations of partisanship are complete bullshit. It seems like the president doesn't enjoy the American democratic political system when his party isn't controlling the entire country. God forbid there be checks and balances within our government where the people checking on the other branches aren't party loyal. Why should the democrats "join" the cause for war? What makes this political system great is that there are differences of opinion and no one party controls everything. It looks like George doesn't like his first taste of democracy when it isn't spoon-fed to him by the Republican Dynasty. But then again, it is good that he has become well-acquainted with democracy seeing as that is what we are fighting for in Iraq isn't it? Or was it oil? Oh well, I can't remember. And as for that last part of his quote; since when was the Bush Administration concerned with "the people's business"? Enough said about that.
Now I feel that it is important to note the capture of 15 Britons from the HMS Cornwall in disputed Iranian waters. Because the waters these members of the British Royal Navy were captured in by Iranian boarder patrols is still disputed as to whether it is Iraqi territory or Iranian, I can't say that their capture was justified or not. Though, even an Iraqi military commander has said that the location of the 15 Britons was in Iranian waters when taken prisoner. Since then, Iran has made their usual threats against all those who would threaten them. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that if the U.S. and/or our allies "treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."
Okay, okay...enough of the big bad tough guy crap. I can only hope that the leaders of Iran and Western nations will not act too rash and keep the safety of those 15 Britons in mind at all times. Conflict is something that can easily be avoided if both parties behave to the standards expected of those elected to positions of their political stature. In closing, conflict is something that has plagued that region of the world for far too long and if peace is ever going to take root in the sands of the middle east, it must begin now.

That's Not Toilet Paper, George!

2007-03-23T16:22:00.000-05:00

Today, the House passed a bill forcing the president to bring troops home by 2008. Of course, our president has vowed to veto that bill. And in a shameless act of "theater"(which he claimed the democrats had been conducting in the passing of this bill), the president made his speech flanked by war veterans and their families. He continued to use the term "war on terror" when in fact this is a war in Iraq that has become over the months a civil war. The real war on terror is being waged by this administration against its own people to frighten us into supporting its radical ideals. And again, he claimed throughout the speech that this bill bringing troops home is undermining them and not supporting their cause. We do support the troops and that is why we don't want to waste their valor and lives in a war that is strictly for profit and was mismanaged by this administration. The undermining of our troops is when our president sends them to fight simply to try to save face in a war that was based on lies and deceit to the American people.
I will say that the show the president put on today was very entertaining. He himself was guilty of putting on a spectacle for the people with his veteran guests and his twists of words to make it seem like he is trying to supply our troops with vital resources and the democrats are slowly suffocating them. These resources are in the form of soldiers--not weapons, food, equipment all up to the standards they should be. I hope people do not believe the bullshit that spews out of his mouth and actually research what this bill is and what it is the president is doing. This whole, "If you're not with me then you're not a patriot" crap is getting old and people are starting to open their eyes to what is really happening in Iraq and what this administration has done to corrupt American politics.
Bush even said that, "if congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April 15, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions and so will their families." Now if this isn't seen as an indirect threat on our troops then you aren't opening your eyes. These disruptions they will face are the fault of this administration in their lack of care toward our troops in the early phases of the war including the very basis for going to war that was a deceit to the people from the very beginning. He is placing the blame of this war on the democrats and that is plane bullshit. I do, however, wish the democrats would grow a pair of balls and fight back these accusations and slanderous remarks that undermine their just cause. Stop playing dead when the Bush Administration is constantly bashing you!
I suspect that Bush will wipe his ass with this bill just as he has done with our Bill of Rights. Our politicians need to cut their party alliances and look out for the interests of the American people and not their own. This war needs diplomacy, not a military. Guns don't solve problems, people solve problems!

Thinking Outside The Traditional Democratic Model

2007-03-22T17:41:00.000-05:00

Iraq is facing an interesting problem that the world has never come across: a need for a new breed of democracy. Now this is just my opinion but hear me out (after all, this whole blog is my opinion). The Kurds in the northern region of Iraq make up about 20% of the total population. The Sunnis make up another 20% in the west. And the Shiites make up about 60% of the population toward the southeast. With oil only in the Kurdish region and the Shiite region, if the country were to break up into their religious factions, the Sunnis would have no access to waterways nor oil--only sand. And with the Sunni countries bordering on the west and the Shiite nation of Iran bordering on the east, no one religious group will be allowed total domination of the government. So this is not simply religion but geography playing a role in Iraq. And here we are stuck in the middle of this mess with our finger in the dike so to speak.
What might need to happen is that a new form of democracy emerges from the ashes of this highly theocratic civil war. This new form of democracy must take into account the importance of faith intertwined with power; something we did not have a problem with when this country was founded. The Iraqis don't even see political parties; they see religious sects and differences of faith. If any one faith dominated the political power scene in Iraq, the other group would use their violent tactics they are displaying now to win back that power. I believe that what needs to happen in the democratic government of Iraq is that each group of people--the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites--have an equal number of seats within their government. The people can vote on which representatives they wish to have a seat but no one group will outnumber the other. With this system, or one similar, no group can dominate over another, all voices will be weighed the same and decisions will have to be made for the better of Iraq and not any one group.
A government like this one would ensure a checks-and-balances system stays intact. We have seen to our dismay what can happen when one group controls all branches of government and polarizes politics to where party loyalty is valued over the interests of the majority. A democratic system along these principles is what is needed in Iraq if Iraq is ever going to leave this civil war behind and progress. This war was not conventional and neither will be the rebuilding of it. Precedents have been made thus far and will continue to be made in Iraq's future. And only when taking into account the uniquely different situation Iraq poses to the democratic process will a democracy flourish in that country. The military has served its purpose, for better or worse, and now diplomacy must be given a chance. It is time to end the war and begin the rebuilding.

The Lead Lemmings

2007-03-21T20:54:00.000-05:00

Who Wants To Play Follow The Leader?

You Can't Spell Toil Without Oil

2007-03-21T08:03:00.000-05:00

With absolute corruption plaguing the Bush Administration, new tactics are being used by the Democrats to battle the White House. Many Democrats are calling for more prosecutions in the cases of Iraq contractors misusing government funds. Contractors have taken around $10 billion in suspect charges and some contractors are being found to have been given contracts in exchange for either cash or luxury items from corrupt U.S. officials. Dick Cheney's Halliburton comes to mind when I think of corrupt contractors and alternative motives within politics for personal profit. This entire war has been mismanaged to a point where war profiteering has seeped into the cracks that this administration has left wide open.
As if more corruption within the Bush Administration was unfathomable, the latest subpoenas planned on being issued to key White House officials for their testimony under oath have been threatened by the president as a "partisan fishing expedition". Bush said that allowing this testimony "would harm the presidency as an institution." Sorry, George, you took care of that long ago. The presidency now is nothing more than the CEO position of the world's most powerful corporation filled with corruption and shame. It will take a lot to get the American people to place their trust in the government again thanks to this presidency which has led this country down the same hole Bush led all of his pre-political endeavors.
Bush was also very regrettable against the decision of Democrats to issue subpoenas even though he had allowed for key officials to speak off the record. Let's face it...nearly everyone in the Bush Administration has been found to have lied at one point or another. If there is really nothing to hide, then why fight putting it on the record under oath? Or are they afraid of another obstruction of justice trial in the wake of the Scooter Libby case?
Meanwhile, back in that little corner of the world we call Iraq, it is being reported that children are being used as a means of getting suicide bombers through checkpoints and then killed. If this is true and not just pro-war propaganda, then these atrocities show plainly how desperately and to what ends these people want us out of their country. If we really wish to end these horrific crimes, perhaps we should listen to their pleas for independence and leave. I am not condoning using children in these attacks at all. I am simply saying, what would drive people to do such things? We don't belong in this civil war and our presence is only giving the Iraqis a common enemy to fight and that is us.
End the corruption and we can end this war. The real war on terrorism in Afghanistan has been forged, fought and forgotten while we fight for profit in Iraq under the false pretenses that the terrorists were there first. We are the terrorists in Iraq when you consider how we invaded and attempted to reform their country in our image for no other reason in the end than to be an economic ally for oil consumption. I for one have trouble filling up my gas tank with the blood of our soldiers. We pay at the pump with our patriotism. Please insert card, swipe and remove.

The Cliff Is Nearing

2007-03-20T15:51:00.000-05:00

In the latest poll taken in Iraq, the number of people who say that their lives are going well are 39%, 18% feel no confidence in U.S. and coalition troops and 51% (a majority) feel that the violence against U.S. troops is acceptable. Does this sound like a country that wants our military presence within its boarders? There is little I can say about this poll because it pretty much speaks for itself. And anyone who looks at these statistics and can twist them into a rally for more troops is insane and probably somewhere in the White House right now.
In a recent quote from George W. Bush, he addressed the growing concern about Iraq and our presence there, "The terrorists could emerge from the chaos with a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they had in Afghanistan which they used to plan the attacks of September 11, 2001."
The terrorists wouldn't be emerging from the chaos in Iraq, George, if we had stayed in Afghanistan! Even now, the president cannot see the disastrous error he made in taking this country to war with Iraq. He lead the terrorists to a new stronghold with new recruits and new reasons to hate America. This country is not a safer place now. In fact, we are more at risk of an attack because of this war. If we spent half of the money going into the war in Iraq on security at home, then we would be safer.
Even when asked if "Mr. Bush was still 'optimistic'," reported NBC's David Gregory. "he suggested that 'determined' might be a better term to use." Is this the man who this country should be following? Someone who isn't even optimistic about the war in Iraq but admitting to being rather determined? Are we to be lemmings over a fucking cliff? This is ridiculous! How can people confidently stand behind the president when he has finally even admitted to the fact that this war is being run into the ground through sheer determination. I could push on a brick wall for the rest of my life through sheer determination and that doesn't make it any more noble nor any more possible that the outcome will be anything other than going nowhere!
The time has long since passed when we must break off from the course before it leads us into an even harder hole to climb out of. If you are still in support of the president and the war in Iraq at this point, just jump off the cliff on your own and leave America out of your suicidal agenda.

The Bush Administration Has Gone Green!

2007-03-19T09:15:00.000-05:00

Benjamin Franklin may be the only person on the face of our U.S. currency who has never been a U.S. president, but he is more powerful in his wallet-sized form than any of our presidents were in the flesh.

Walk The Talk Of Our Forefathers! (A Must Read)

2007-03-18T14:07:00.000-05:00

Our government has become the laughing stock of democracy and yet the reason few people are laughing is because few people realize what democracy really is. The Bush Administration has proven through its hard-right politics and unjustified war in Iraq that the government has gone too far! When our very own Bill of Rights is stepped on we do nothing. How can this be? Our basic rights as free Americans are defended in the first ten amendments of the Constitution and now even they are being either limited or taken away by the government under the false pretense of "national security". I feel that no body of government--not the President, Congress, Senate nor the Supreme Court has the authority to take away our rights as Americans. The U.S. Bill of Rights is our rock as a nation that is unwavering despite the changing policies in American government. The ideals that this country was founded on are infallible; unfortunately, people are not. And so our rights as free Americans should be made intangible to change by politicians with hidden alternative loyalties. From the Patriot Act all the way to the direct and unpunished lies of the Bush Administration that led to this war, we are slowly enslaving ourselves. The current administration had and used the rights appointed to it to install the Attorney General, Supreme Court judges and others but to allow them to interpret, nay, neglect our basic rights they were sworn to protect all in the name of party loyalty, that is treason against the American ideal.
Our patriotism is being put to the test, America! Are we going to let a minority control a majority? Are we going to allow our rights to be taken away in the name of national security? It is that very national security that should be protecting our rights, not taking them away! Are we going to let this administration spread more war and violence in an already increasing rift between us and the rest of the world? If there is anything this war has taught us it is that our government has gotten too comfortable in their Washington beds with pillow cases stuffed with shreds of our Bill of Rights. As Americans we must fight for America at home as well as abroad. We must take back America from the corruption and hold high our Bill of Rights...our Constitution...and in the face of those who would tear them apart and defend them. For nearly 230 years ago, our forefathers gave their lives so that they could give these rights to the people and within two centuries later, our very own government is seeking to become that tyranny in which we fought so passionately against in the Revolution.
Will we stand up for our rights as Americans and fight to reclaim them, protect them and fight all those who oppose them? As an American I say by God we will! The first step, though, in heading in any direction is to open your eyes. The second step is to commit to that direction you have chosen. And the third step is to walk it.

The Democratic Mutation!

2007-03-18T08:45:00.000-05:00

While most of the country was drinking green beer and passing out drunk at other people's homes, Iraq was plagued with a different kind of substance abuse. Chlorine, a chemical typically used for water purification, was used in three truck bombings that resulted in two deaths and 350 made ill including six U.S. soldiers. Also, a roadside bomb killed one U.S. soldier and injured three others. All the meanwhile Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a strong supporter of the Bush Administration said, "Great progress has been achieved, but there is still work to be done," and "As you know, I don't set speculative dates. There is nothing achieved by that."
Perhaps the problem here is that people aren't facing up to the reality that great progress is an unfamiliar term to those living in Baghdad and politicians need to stop seeing dates as speculative and more as declarative. This war is real and yet politicians continue to skew the facts and pull incoherent babble out of their asses to avoid answering or even acknowledging the serious questions. I have heard many war-hawks declare that if the Iraqi government wanted us out, we would leave. Every poll and survey of the Iraqi people I have ever read asking them this question has resulted in the majority of people wanting the U.S. presence out of Iraq. And it is a shame that the government there is as responsive to the people as our government is here.
Democracy has become an ideal not a reality across the board. The people, it seems, had the power but once elected, those officials put into effect their own agendas and this applies everywhere. Corruption has seeped its way into the very foundation of American democracy and is spreading throughout the world like a virus. Wherever we infest our corrupt version of democracy, problems arise. This current administration is a mutation of democracy and it must be stopped before the damage becomes fatal to the ideals that once made this country so great.

Democracy Is A Participation Kind Of Thing

2007-03-17T16:24:00.000-05:00

Today I was part of an anti-war protest. The very same protest that inspired me to create this blog. It was certainly an interesting experience. There was a lot of positive vibes and the turnout was great but as we stood on the side of the road, I couldn't help hear some derogatory comments being shouted. None of them were creative and I was not impressed by the maturity nor intelligence of those shouting the pro-war slander. The term "fucking hippies" caught my attention a few times. I suppose it's better than being a brain-washed neo-nazi. And then at the end when I was walking toward my car, a girl shouted something vague about someone killing me for protesting. Well, if that is a pro-war extremist I don't know why we don't have more of them? Kind words from kind people.
I would venture to guess that 85% of the cars honked and supported us, 10% just drove by and 5% shouted things that didn't do their pro-war cause any justice. I would say those are pretty good odds in our favor. It inspired me, though, that some people took so much energy to try and put us down because it showed that ideas are more powerful than guns. Anyone can fire one. It's usually the aiming that is controversial. Honestly, I had a great time at the protest and wish that more people take part in their country's affairs. Though I may have been standing on the side of the road, at least I can say that I stood for something! Whether you support the war or denounce it, get involved peacefully and be a voice of the people to the people. That is what this country is all about and that is what true patriotism is. Class dismissed.

Make The Choice!

2007-03-17T07:14:00.000-05:00

With tensions growing in Sadr City, the U.S. may be in for quite a setback in the security crackdown they have been taking credit for in the past weeks. The crackdown that has been hailed by the Bush Administration as a major step in a victorious direction is mostly the responsibility of al-Sadr. After all, it was he who told his militia to not fight the U.S. troops when they entered the city and he has kept the violence at bay. Meanwhile, Bush claims that the crackdown is the work of our troops on the ground when in reality they are getting comfortable in what could be a trap if the U.S. does not pull out soon.
Patience is thinning out in Sadr City streets as al-Sadr issued a statement yesterday to a large crowd of supporters, "Raise your voices in love and brotherhood and unity against your enemy and shout 'No, no America." This is the sound of a group of people who have tried everything to expel us from their country and are now finding that a peaceful resistance is not working. This news comes after two truck bombs with chlorine tanks killed eight people and injured 85. I am not saying that al-Sadr is good or bad. I am just saying that as a firm leader in the Shiite community, he has a pivotal role to play in the rebuilding of Iraq and it is up to Iraqis if they wish to follow him. All of the violence he has brought has been in an effort to expel U.S. troops from Iraq so how do we know he is truly a bad man. He could simply be patriotic. But what would the Bush Administration know about patriotism when they abuse their rights as a government in more ways than I can fit in this post to send our soldiers to fight in a war that had nothing to do with freedom in the first place.
There are plenty of countries around the world with dictators as their leaders and millions of people are oppressed elsewhere. But did we help them? No! We went after the country with no ties to al-Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction and made no threats to the United States. Why don't people realize this? It is because people don't care. Well, you better start caring because the decisions we make today will have repercussions that will be remembered for generations.
War is already an ugly thing but this war is a vile disregard for the responsibilities given to a powerful nation. When will Americans stand up to this tyranny? When will Americans say, 'This is enough!'? When will we take back our rights that this administration has tried so desperately to deprive us of? NOW! Now is the time to stand up for what is truly right. Break away from what the politicians tell you. They will always have their hidden agendas. Research and think for yourself and when you see the truth behind what is happening to this country you will see that the problems we face are not just overseas in Iraq but within our own boarders as well! While the government distracts us with a war on the other side of the globe, we ignore the carpet being pulled from right below our feet. Making the choice to be a patriot means preserving the Constitution and all that America stands for and not allowing someone behind a veil of stars and stripes to kill everything that makes this country great!

2007-03-16T14:59:00.000-05:00

Irony seems to be the new ingredient added to today's newspapers. In one headline it reads, "Bomb kills 4 soldiers" and directly beneath it is another headline reading "U.S.: Crackdown working". I don't know if the U.S. government is reading the same paper the rest of the world is? Yesterday, four U.S. soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb and at least fourteen people were killed in a car bombing elsewhere in Baghdad. Meanwhile, Major General Joseph Fil Jr. told reporters, "There's a sense of suspicion in the air. A sense of anticipation and expectation (of decreased violence) with the Iraqi people,". I don't know about you but the first sentence doesn't really match the second one. If there is suspicion in the air, I doubt it is because Iraqis are anticipating a "decrease" in violence. Fil Jr. must have also been in charge of the placement of the two headlines above.
Also, in a predominantly Sunni region of the world, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has proven himself to be a valuable ally in stablizing peace in Iraq. Previously, the Bush Administration felt that he would be irrelevant and even detrimental to peace in Iraq. Oops, I guess they were wrong (again). It seems now that not only does Sadr have firm control over many of the Shiites in Baghdad including his Mahdi Army, but he has the ability to wage peace as well as war. When U.S. troops went into Sadr City they met no resistence and Sadr has become a vital player in installing peace in Iraq. Let's just see if Bush will "stay the course" or reevaluate his diplomatic relations with those willing to work for peace.
Regardless of Sadr's willingness to wage peace, many of his loyal Shiites still dissaprove of the U.S. presence in Iraq. "They are an occupation force. We refuse their presence totally." said Mohammad Abu Haider--a Mahdi Army commander. (This was a quote from msn.com.)
It would be nice if we could only send peacefull diplomatic advisors to Iraq to help rebuild peace in the region but we all know even they would have their own hidden agendas slipped into their pockets by the Bush Administration.
It is really sad that Bush took all of the patriotism and national pride built up post-9/11 and used it to his twisted advantage. Young Americans signed up for the armed services all over the country to fight for America in its time of need and how does Bush use them? He sends them to Iraq to be killed fighting for oil and profit. Bush has clearly shown utter disregard for the U.S. Constitution, American patriotism, foreign relations and human life. The next time he or Cheney want to make a speech to the American people perhaps they would be more careful about what they said if they spoke in a Baghdad marketplace at noon.

Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Listen To Your Leaders...

2007-03-15T13:51:00.000-05:00

Iran, in a ridiculous new twist on hypocrisy, has banned Zack Snyder's film "300". How this relates to the war in Iraq is that this pathetic display of internal control is just another way President Ahmadinejad has promoted his own version of reality and discarded the authentic one. While we work on ending an already unpopular war in Iraq, Ahmadinejad continues trying to rally support against America to fuel his ideologies involving Iraq and how it should be run. But more importantly, he is very similar to the Middle Eastern version of George W. Bush.
Both are finding increasing opposition within their own government and both have rallied support for their radical views blurring the line between religion and politics creating controlling autonomous administrations. Also, both presidents are immersed in the outcome of the Iraqi struggle. Bush is interested in preserving a shred of dignity in a war that proved to be a costly lie to the American people and Ahmadinejad is interested in influencing a weakened neighboring country to ally itself with Iran. Either way, Iran has inspired me to make one hell of a post on my blog.
Iran has accused this film of humiliating its ancestors who were the Persians. The film has been deemed a "fabrication of history" as reported on msn.com. A fabrication of history? This is coming from a government that initiated a two-day Holocaust denial conference on Dec. 11, 2006. And then, they even say that it is a form of "psychological warfare". Not that the strategies implemented by the terrorists in Iraq that are finding many of their weaponry on the Iranian boarder. I am not saying that Tehran is responsible for funding the insurgents in Iraq but I find it damning that they aren't controlling their boarders as well as they insist (hmmm). "Psychological warfare" is a term I would expect being used about a government publicizing in its country's newspapers, "Hollywood Declares War On Iran". Oh wait, that would be Ahmadinejad's government.
If we are ever going to end this war and focus on peace, we need to stop listening to the skewed bullshit that comes out of our politicians' mouths and start thinking for ourselves. Or who knows...maybe Grauman's Chinese Theater may be the next terrorist target.

War Has Become A Load Of Holy Crap

2007-03-15T13:29:00.000-05:00

War is such an ugly thing. Who really holds the authority to declare it on another people? Even when the majority of a nation declare that a war is wrong, those few elected have the power to combine devastating action with their beliefs. To deem it right to killing others whom you may have never met and pose no danger to is insane. War itself should be considered illegal but when written on fancy paper by people with over-inflated views of themselves declare it, laws and morals take a backseat to politics. This war in Iraq has been illegal since the first mention of it by George W. Bush. And little did he know (or still) that this war would not be like the ones he saw on TV with John Wayne. This would become a holy war to some.
The belief by the insurgents and terrorists that this is a holy war is the one factor that changes everything. The Bush Administration thought that they could oust Saddam, replace the government and everything would be great. But despite the advice of others, George invaded and created this "holy" war. He himself has even brought his religious beliefs into politics further outraging Muslim extremists. Now, even after a new government has been installed, the Iraqis are fighting over who claims power. And in the background are those insurgents who still believe that they will be rewarded in Heaven for killing the infidels. That's us by the way, George. They won't sign a treaty. They can't all be arrested or killed. They have taken this fight to a different level--a spiritual one. And despite my view that a holy war is ridiculous, my opinion doesn't matter because they believe it and that propels them to fight and kill.
Not only has Bush thrown the world into a war that should have never been started but he has given the most violent killers seventy-something virgins to look forward to when they die. George's religion needs to get out of international politics and our troops need to get out of Iraq! In my opinion, when we all die (with the exception of Dick Cheney who is Satan incarnate) we all get seventy-something worms. If the extremists want to kill infidels, don't make it so easy for them by sending our troops to Iraq in a waste-of-time war.

What Works For Them

2007-03-14T08:21:00.000-05:00

My blood ran cold this morning as I read through the newspaper to find that there were absolutely no articles on Iraq. Could this really be the end? Did the violence truly stop? Well...no. Actually this morning a suicide bomber killed at least ten people in a crowded marketplace. And while the violence in Baghdad is slowing down, it only seems to grow elsewhere. American troops, it's sad to say, appear to be only relocating the insurgents. And continually I hear debate over the issue of Iraq being caught in the midst of a civil war.
Let's be honest, this war is anything but civil, but yes--the sectarian violence has reached a point where the country is divided and fighting over power. I turned to msn.com for some news because apparently none happened in my local newspaper. And I read an article about Sadr City--the stronghold of the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr--I found out that the people there have been living in filth since the war broke out. Sewage backup pours into the streets. People throw their waste and excrement in piles in front of their homes. Torn power lines may give the people there enough electricity for only four hours.Hundreds of thousands out of the 2.5 million people who live there are without jobs as an effect of Saddam Hussein's reign. And as much as I support our troops over there, I cringed when I read this quote from Marine Captain Seth Crawford, "This is their lifestyle. This is how they've been doing it for hundreds of years. And they're not going to change overnight...That's what works for them right now." I really hope that this quote was taken out of context before I read it.
I shudder at the thought that our troops who are in Sadr City and are supposed to be working to build a better Iraq can simply say, "That's what works for them right now." How the hell can that "work" for anyone? Do you really think that they have chosen to live like that and are content with the current state of things? I for one think that we are doing a lousy job over there when you consider that the Mahdi Army not only protected these people but also provided some health care as well as other amenities.
If anything, I think the lessons we have learned from Sadr City are that the country is ready to heal itself if we would only stop wounding it. If we left, at least we know that one faction seeking power is willing to help its people. Before we kicked down doors and pointed guns in the faces of ordinary people, things were better. A civil war is fought by the people, not a foreign army. The only thing we are doing over there is slowing progress.
Our alternative motives, personal agendas and corporate interests have taken a noble concept and tainted it with corruption. Our ambassadors of freedom and democracy have only led to mistrust and violence. In a place where we don't belong we should leave. The American government can and should monitor the Iraqi's progress and assist them but we cannot involve ourselves simply to install a government of our choosing. That will never work! We should diplomatically (not militarily) endorse a government that can work internally in Iraq as well as internationally but that is as far as we should go. Give them a chance, George. I know you'll feel that empty nest syndrome but you have to let this war go!

Pasquino Rockefeller--In The Stone

2007-03-13T13:48:00.000-05:00

Pasquino Rockefeller

Party Like It's 1984

2007-03-13T13:11:00.000-05:00

In today's paper, Dick Cheney (arguably the most scary person in the world), once again focused his attention on undermining all those who do not support his administration's views. He said, "When members speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines and other arbitrary measures, they are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out." First of all, how the hell can we talk about victory when we are losing? As I recall, the President already declared, "mission accomplished" so let's get the hell out of Iraq. If we stay any longer, the Army might as well start opening time-shares. Also, to use the word "arbitrary" was a smooth move, Dick. I understand that in your crooked world, death tolls can be seen as arbitrary but give me a break! The Iraqis want us out. Americans want us out. What more do you need? The vice-president probably wouldn't know what was best for Iraq if it hit him in the face like an accidental shotgun blast on a hunting trip.
The other quote that really set me off was, "When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called 'slow bleed,' they are not supporting the troops, they are undermining them." That is unbelievable! I especially like the "slow bleed" touch--very moving, Dick. How is it that bringing our troops home to safety and out of harm's way in a country that doesn't want us there nor can truly benefit from our "occupation" be considered "not supporting the troops"? I wish the Democrats would stop twiddling their thumbs and jump on these accusations already and stand up for themselves. So far, the Republicans have been running all over them with their "cut-and-run" and "slow bleed" crap. Why is supporting our troops limited to putting them in danger? Why don't we support this administration and send them to Iraq seeing as we are doing so well over there?
Another thing I have heard from people is that if the Democrats "cut the funding" for the war, our troops will be stranded in Iraq without a plane ticket home much less a gun. That is the largest heap of crap I have heard in a long time. Cutting funding for the war includes bringing our soldiers home! It isn't like a father cutting his son's allowance but still making him mow the lawn. Wars are waged with money and without the funding, the war will end--thus bringing our troops home. Are we clear?
In another Dick interview, he claimed that terrorists chose Iraq and that is why we are there. The truth is that no link to al-Qaida was ever made to Iraq until we invaded. We chose Iraq and of course the terrorists followed. The promise of easy oil must have been just too much for George W. to ignore. Now, he has run Iraq into the ground just like all of his pre-presidential oil endeavors. Could anyone have seen this coming?
Either way, the Bush Administration has, is and always will be spinning intelligence to meet their agendas. Also, they continue to use fear and patriotic guilt trips to pressure Americans into following them off the cliff. Americans need to do their own research, look at the facts, think for themselves and then get the politicians in Washington who work for us to do what is best for us! Dick Cheney and his "1984"-style terror is not as scary, though, as our willingness to allow him to treat us this way. I for one am not a political sadist and refuse to be coerced into believing that this war is right! Fear is an ugly four-letter word that I won't let run my life...will you?

Hope Mine Doesn't Smell Bad So Far...

2007-03-12T18:00:00.002-05:00

Wow! In today’s paper, March 12, 2007, I read that Bush wants to send an additional 4,700 troops on top of the ones already proposed to Iraq. He claims that these additional troops will be support roles only and not combat. But let’s be real about this for a minute. A soldier is a soldier and one is just as mortal as the next. An additional 4,700 troops are just more body bags that will be sent back home for medals and tears. Bush also wants Congress to authorize this funding “without any strings attached.” No strings attached on Congress’ end at least. When it comes to the Bush Administration’s previous proposals and legislations (Patriot Act comes to mind), they have always been devised with alternative motives and strings attached. These strings are usually held by the government on one end and attached to the limbs of the American people on the other. Perhaps we should start calling President Bush the Godfather from now on?
My grandfather always said, “Opinions are like assholes…everyone’s got one.” I know if you’re reading this up to here you probably know how it smells by now. I read today in the same newspaper an opinion that I thought was ridiculous and without merit. I have no problem with people who tell others their opinions, but please for the sake of everyone, be able to back it up. I hate it when opinions literally come from people’s asses. This will probably be one of very few opinions that I comment on because otherwise I would be here all day responding to assholes.
The opinion’s title was, “Nation should unite behind president”. I know from having my own opinion published in the same paper that the writer does not choose the title but you can get the main idea of the article. The writer, who shall remain nameless, claims that democrats who propose to withdraw troops do “not consider the threats such a move would place on this country.” I don’t know of any Iraqis who were on those planes that flew into the World Trade Center and I certainly know that this country has never been attacked by Iraq unless WE went to war with THEM. I won’t go into the Gulf War but the point I’m making is that our country has never been, is not and very well may never be threatened by the nation of Iraq.
Then this prick…I’m sorry—asshole…quotes the Gettysburg Address to rally Americans to “come together and fight the common enemy.” I can tell you that the common enemy we have are the suits and ties in the White House who are wiping themselves with the Constitution. But as for the Gettysburg Address…please. Regardless that this came from a president who declared martial law and dissembled the free press, the Gettysburg Address can hardly be used in this context. In the Civil War, the nation was really divided and tens of thousands of Americans were killing each other with every passing battle. To compare the Civil War to the war in Iraq is a joke and this person should pull his head out of his opinion.

The Reveal

2007-03-12T18:00:00.001-05:00

By now I am sure you are wondering who is Pasquino Rockefeller. Pasquino is the name of a roman statue unearthed in 1501 that was the focus of a ceremony held on St. Mark’s Day, created by Cardinal Oliviero Carafa. The ceremony took on a more democratic than religious tone when those wishing to criticize the Catholic Church or the pope would attach satirical letters to the statue. Thus the term pasquinade came about to define a satirical attack written in roman dialect. As for Rockefeller, well that is derived from none other than John D. who founded Standard Oil in 1870 which made him the world’s first billionaire and tycoon of a substance that would later throw the United States into a war with Iraq. So you can see by now that the name Pasquino Rockefeller is a pseudo name designed in its satirical nature to embody the attitudes of the authentic author of this journal. Why do I choose to go by a pseudo name? I suppose it is the adult politically disgruntled version of dress-up. Regardless, I want all who read this to know that the crime I have committed in lying to you is no different than and should go as unpunished as those told by the Bush Administration that got us into this war.
—P.R.

Hungry Hungry Hipocrisy

2007-03-12T17:59:00.000-05:00

It has been only a few hours since my last entry and I felt compelled to add this small section. I read in an article for NBC that as of March 5, 2007, “Brian Williams learned from Army officers that Iraqis want U.S. forces to remain in their country…” It is safe to say that my personal opinion is that this is just another example of pro-war propaganda from a source with its own selfish bias toward staying in Iraq. To the army, war is a business. So why would they advocate otherwise? Now another survey from June 16, 2004, also from NBC, stated in a poll surveying Iraqis on their opinions that “most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have ‘no confidence’ in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.” Granted, this poll was taken earlier and after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the source is more credible.
But regardless of polls and surveys which can be strewed to meet a certain ideal conclusion, the quotes of everyday people in Iraq speak for themselves. Daily, innocent people are being killed by suicide bombers and attacks and the trust in American troops as well as the Iraqi government have all but faded. “I blame the government. They didn’t provide a safe route for us even though they knew we were targets for attack.” said Mustafa Moussawi—a pilgrim traveling in Iraq who was a victim of a terrorist attack killing 31 people on March 11, 2007.
I understand that some people in Iraq want U.S. troops to stay and I realize that many want us to leave. It all depends on who you ask. Surveys can be rigged and personal reports can be biased. But look at it this way: Suppose America was invaded by a foreign entity and the dictatorial government was ousted. This foreign entity installed a new government without a true consent of the people. Naturally, we would want to install the government ourselves much like we did in the American Revolution where the people made the people’s government. I am sure otherwise, we would feel like the product of this foreign entity and the national pride and independence that is at the heart of any country would be lacking. So, perhaps from this example you can see that if we were in their shoes, we would want the foreign entity out and allow us to form our own country. Foreign relations should only go so far. It is one thing to support another country; it is another to go around making mini-USAs. This is where the international criticism of the U.S. being imperialistic comes into play.
We forget how we achieved our own independence. Did the French who played a vital role in us winning the war stay afterward and model our government after their own? No! I believe I mentioned it before so I’ll say it again for symmetry: Hypocrisy!

George W. III

2007-03-12T17:57:00.002-05:00

A look at the death toll for coalition soldiers today on Sunday March 11, 2007 is at least 134 British soldiers, 33-Italy, 18-Ukraine, 19-Poland, 13-Bulgaria, 11-Spain, 6-Denmark, 5-El Salvador, 4-Slovakia, 3-Latvia, 2-Estonia, 2-Netherlands, 2-Thailand,1-Australia, 1-Hungary, 1-Kazakhstan, 1-Romania, 3,190-United States, over 35,000 Iraqi civilians—and counting.
Now, I am trying to keep this journal more or less focused on the war in Iraq and I know that I could go on forever on how Bush has ruined this country and worsened the condition of international relationships everywhere…but I will try not to. I do, however, feel it necessary to include here a small blurb of information I read in today’s paper on the issue because after all you can’t talk about this war without at least mentioning President George W. Bush. The article was a survey of 1,001 adults on what people look for in a presidential candidate. It was left open-ended to prevent any misguided answers. The results were that 55% “consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities…One-third look first to candidates’ stances on issues…” So far I agree with this. Stances on issues can change but character needs to be the rock of a president. But how did our beloved President Bush get elected? Ah, here we go: “…fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.” I suppose those latter qualities were overlooked in the past two elections.
Either way, more people died yesterday as a result of another suicide car bomber killing twenty people, six of which were soldiers. Meanwhile, as the ashes of Donald Rumsfeld’s early retirement begin to cool down, “Scooter” Libby was found guilty on four out of five of the charges in the case against him for leaking the identity of a CIA operative who just so happened to be the wife of a former U.S. ambassador who spoke ill of the Bush Administration. Plus, in the latest of the administration’s scandals, the Department of Justice found that the FBI was illegally using the Patriot Act to spy on American citizens! Oh, my God! Who saw that coming? I am surprised that that anyone is surprised. Even further, I am astonished that anyone thinks that the Patriot Act isn’t illegal in the eyes of the Constitution to begin with. But hey, what do I know—right? I’m just part of the know-nothing do-nothing generation. Yeah, and we’re supposed to be bad for the American image. Nothing like holding up a mirror to yourself, eh?
A recent quote from the president making the rounds on TV is, “This war started on my watch, but it’s going to end on your watch.” If that isn’t the biggest load of crap being dumped on a generation, then I don’t know what is. Bush intentionally lied to the American people and began his democratic crusade before I could even drive a car by myself let alone vote. And now, we’re responsible for cleaning up his mess? But then again, every generation suffers as well as benefits from the previous generation. I still think, though, we got the short end of the stick.
One other gripe: I have a problem with Bush traveling around the world as an ambassador of the American people when the majority of Americans find him to be a man with poor leadership traits, no experience managing a successful oil company let alone a country and…well, the intelligence thing goes without saying. But hey, who’s looking at these qualities when voting for a president anyway?
This should hopefully be the last bitching I do in this journal about Bush and I hope to focus again on the war in Iraq. Perhaps in the next entry I will have something good to say. But I doubt it. “Patriotism comes not without a sense of pessimism.”
—me

Spinning Wheels

2007-03-12T17:57:00.001-05:00

I read today on msn.com’s news page an article about how the democrats are planning to pass legislation on ending the war in Iraq. Now, for someone like me this would normally sound great…except I read on. Apparently, our elected politicians aren’t exactly doing what we elected them to do and once again I find myself screwed over by those bureaucratic pigs in Washington. The democrats, who won the House majority this past election based on promises to end an overwhelmingly unpopular war, have begun to spin their political wheels—going nowhere. Though the democrats hold 233 seats to the republicans’ 201 seats with one vacancy, there are only fifteen defections allowed. In other words, if sixteen democrats vote against the plan proposed by House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, then the legislation will not pass. Her plan is to allow funding for the war continue but have all troops pulled out by March 2008. Some democrats feel that this is not enough and some feel that it is even too much saying that March 2008 should be a goal, not a deadline.
This entire fucking war has been a series of failed deadlines! Deadlines are just what they sound like—lines that seem to be going somewhere, then die along the way before they reach their goal. This is just another political scheme so that the pigs in Washington feel like they’re really doing something when in fact, they’re all useless. Between all of the moderate republicans, far-right republicans, moderate democrats and far-left democrats it is nearly impossible for anything to get accomplished. And even if by some miracle, the legislation is passed, the White House has already said that it will veto it. The White House, ha—the dirtiest pig pen in Washington! It would take a two-thirds majority to override the veto and that ain’t happening. Until we can get someone into the White House who gives a damn about ending this war, legislation will be as valuable (with the same uses, too) as toilet paper.
But of course, people have to wake up and see that their politicians are helpless and stand by them. This is a democracy after all. We need to rally together and make a stand that this is what the American people want and we need to remind the President that even he is subject to the will of the people. There is no reason why we should represent democracy in such a poor way. Why would other countries want to consider democracy when they see that American politicians at the highest level ignore the people and do as they wish? I don’t know what is worse; that our President has gone rogue and is acting in his party’s own interests or that we the people have failed to put an end to it as stated in our rights? We have the power—but only if we use it. If we don’t use it—it will be taken away from us. And then America will no longer be a democracy. How can we fight for democracy overseas and misuse it so effortlessly here within our own country? We, as Americans, have fallen into a pit of hypocrisy and as a result of our laziness within our very own political system we have become an international joke. The sad clown comes to mind.

March On!

2007-03-12T17:55:00.000-05:00

This morning on the television I realized what this protest was truly all about and I have to say, I am a bit saddened. On MTV News, as I was flipping through some music to dress to, I saw an interview with anti-war protesters in Washington D.C. and one of them was asked that despite the similar disapproval ratings of the war why haven’t more people protested like during the Vietnam War? The man simply shrugged his shoulders and said in an “as a matter of fact” attitude, “There is no draft.”
I would hate to think that the only reason we wanted to end the war was to end the killing of Americans but I had to accept the possibility that even war protesters can have selfish agendas. It dawned on me at this morning we were protesting the war ONLY to bring our troops home. That was a noble cause, of course. But what about the dozens of people being killed everyday? I read in the newspaper yesterday that suicide bombes throughout Iraq had killed over 130 people and that children were using long-handled squeegees to clear the roads of pools of blood. If that isn’t what we are fighting to stop, then what does it matter? The ideals remain and soon enough it will be another place, another time with the same bullshit. I thought (naively) that we were protesting the end of the war as a means of ending the suffering of ALL the people in Iraq. Let’s face it—no people are going to allow a foreign force come into their country, oust their government and replace it overnight; we wouldn’t. This mess is going to take a lot of time to fix and unfortunately a lot of lives. But I suppose there is no reason to throw American lives in the inevitable crossfire. We need to understand that only Iraqis can ultimately fix their problem and we—like the punished bullies that we are—will have to sit in the corner and watch whether we like it or not. What kind of fucked up philosophy has the Bush Administration developed that says it is good to use the same actions and beliefs to start a war to end a war? We need to shift our thinking—now!
It makes me sick to see the effects this war is having on people physically and psychologically. The violence and complete lack of competency has thrown me into a spin. I won’t sit here and preach that I have a plan for ending the war and the hate. No one does. I have a good idea on what it would take but the probability that anyone would choose total peace over self-interest is too much to ask. I suppose the first step is justice and from there we work out the rest of the problems. But I’m not talking about America’s version of justice—hell no! I mean true, unbiased, incorruptible (this is beginning to seem unrealistic already) justice! I remember only one question on the Meyers-Briggs Test I took earlier this year and it was, “Would you rather be unjust or merciless?” My reply was, “merciless.” Because at least then, I was being just. That is the attitude that needs to be reversed in today’s world. No more suicide bombs and cowardice inhumane slaughter from either side—we need justice. In a world where all it takes is one person to screw up a good thing, we can’t hope for total peace—it just isn’t realistic given human nature. But justice is tangible!
And it you need a little motivation, listen to this quote taken from MSN News and Reuters Limited on March 8, 2007. It is a girl reflecting on what used to be one of her favorite TV cartoons, “I see kids playing in beautiful gardens and parks and I wish I could play and have fun like them, but I know I can’t because we have bombs and bad guys hurt children,”
I am still going to protest and do it with the same message I had in mind. Pro-war is not pro-freedom. If we want to spread democracy, freedom and peace then we need to solve our international issues democratically, show the world what freedom can accomplish and wage peace. If we can’t get out of our sectarian mindset and begin thinking globally, then there will always be war. I read in, I think it was Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut, that stopping war was like stopping a glacier. Everything—EVERYTHING—ultimately deduces to how we think! As long as boarders exist and people of one country see themselves as different from people of another country, we will never escape that sectarian view and always value some lives over others. So I say to you, patriots of partisanship—throw down your flags and pick up your long-handled squeegees! Patriots of peace—march on!

St. Patrick's Day Decision

2007-03-12T17:48:00.000-05:00

Before I tell you what I finally chose to say on my poster for the protest coming up, let me clarify something. I emailed the person “in charge” of the rally and found out that the flyer I had picked up at school was a year old. This rally was going to take place on St. Patrick’s Day—Guinness…protest, Guinness…protest…hmm. Anyway, I am going to write on the sign, “Is Pro-War Pro-Freedom?” Perhaps you are having the same reaction to this as my mother did but let me explain why I don’t care. She told me that it was too “deep” and “confusing” and people would not take the time to think about what it meant and consequently, my point would be lost. Well I guess it’s time to start thinking, America. I am not really worried about getting into trouble over this because let’s face it; if deep thinking is the problem, I am not concerned that anyone from the Bush Administration is going to be upset. And as for the rest of the commuters on the road reading it as they pass; wake up! Why the hell should I make it easy on them when the real problem behind this war is that nobody thought to begin with? I understand that our education system is sub-par but that’s no excuse for a short attention span. People are being killed right now overseas because we did not think deeply so would it kill anyone now if they started? I want people to think about the issue and if they don’t, then nothing would have been accomplished anyways.

Thinking Outside The Blog

2007-03-12T17:44:00.000-05:00

I want to make an impromptu update to my sporadic journal, here. I’ve been busy writing in my opinion to the local newspaper recently. I had written an article for their editorial page once before but I don’t really remember what it was about and truthfully I don’t care. But I did have one published on Sunday February 25, 2007 that I particularly enjoyed. I even received a call from a woman congratulating me on the article. The article was as follows but the italicized part was edited out of the publication:
“Sometimes in war, we can be as guilty through our inaction as those who act too rashly. On a daily basis the newspapers report on car bombings, suicide bombings and gunfights killing people in Iraq, yet what impact do they have anymore on the early morning commuters on their way to work? The story remains nearly the same but the death toll changes. Human lives have become mere numbers in a war becoming increasingly violent and unpopular. In the beginning of the war, these numbers shocked us as we read intently but now we graze to more fertile articles with more “relevance” such as Brittany Spears shaving her head. This war has grown mainly in part to our reluctancy to open our eyes to the horrors it produces. There’s something wrong when these stories of suffering have become so common that they get buried on page 4 dwarfed by the 4-legged duckling article. If we saw what was happening with open minds, I could only hope that the war and its victims would become more than segues between who won the Daytona 500 and the weather. If you really want to help our troops, bring them home where they belong.”
Now, to clarify a few things: 1) Brittany Spears—ex-pop star—did shave her head in a mental breakdown and it was plastered all over the news for weeks (who cares?). 2) The Daytona 500—a car race in which a few dozen engines on steroids are driven around in an oval for hours and hours—was the cover of the front page (you can tell by now that I am losing my patience). 3) And yes—there was an article about a four-legged duckling that was of equal size and adjacent to the article on a bombing in Iraq that ruined the lives of innocent people forever (perhaps I am sounding a little cynical…but what the F@#K?!).
Also, I wrote another editorial to the same newspaper on another issue I feel is important but as of yet has not been published and may never be so here it is:
“This nation was founded on principles commonly taken for granted by today’s generations. If you are reading this article then you are already stepping in the right direction. Our founding fathers forged ideals from challenging the state of politics and standing up for radical views of democracy that were widely unpopular around the world for that time. Today, we rarely question why our standing of superiority in the global spotlight is dimming from international favor and we accept our political faults without realizing that they could have only occurred because we let them. In a democracy, we have the power—the power to think for ourselves, question our leaders’ judgment and involve ourselves in the political process. It is a heavy responsibility placed on the people of a democracy but I feel that we as Americans are up to the challenge. It takes more than a vote on a slip of paper to change the world. We have to educate ourselves and stand up for our rights or they will be taken away from us. And only when things reach a dire and despondent state will we realize that our voices have been silenced.”
In case you haven’t noticed, all editorials must be no more than two-hundred words which is difficult to do considering I could write a novel from all of my political beliefs and satire—which is what I am trying to do. Keep in mind that I am only twenty years old and I am sure I will regret most of what I say now because as my parents tell me, “I will get wiser as I get older.” So, in case I do join the hive in my later years, this is a chronicle of my opinions when I was still sane.

Welcome...Beware of Opinion

2007-03-12T17:23:00.000-05:00

This is the journal of Pasquino Rockefeller. It is a critical look at the war in Iraq with a dash of satire. None of the entries will be formally dated because...well...who cares? The first entry is basically going to introduce you to me and the reason I am writing this. Everything else will be a therapeutic release of satirical pessimism that will hopefully entertain as well as inform. And if you don't like what I have to say then it's probably because you're part of the problem--not trying to be rude but hey, it is what it is. In addition, I would like to make this an open forum where anyone can post a response or question to any of my entries. I will, however, insist that the comments be on-topic and be held to a high standard of maturity. I will try to respond to as many comments as possible. Feel free to speak your minds. After all, this is a democracy and before you can stand up for a belief you have to have one. Enjoy.

February 13, 2007—the day before Valentine’s Day—I discovered a flyer at my college describing a protest against the war in Iraq that will be taking place in a month. I have to say this is my first protest and I am quite excited about it. And it is this sudden surge of patriotism that has inspired me to create this journal reflecting my feelings on this war. I realize it has been going on for a few years even without my support so this journal is more or less a therapeutic way of getting my frustrations out. Anyway, to better explain my enthusiasm I would have to delve into my own beliefs about the war in Iraq. Now I understand that everyone has their own opinion and so I will keep this short and to the point. I never supported the invasion of Iraq. Though its President, Saddam Hussein, was no doubt out of his mind, I strongly felt that the lack of evidence supporting the gut feeling of George W. Bush that Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda was insufficient for going to war. There were probably many hidden agendas within the Bush Administration we may never know about but it was clear that the pretences for war on the belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction were false. It was a combination of the reason for war along with Bush’s continuous lack of interest in solving problems intelligently that ended up pushing me to the far left.
Now returning back to the actual anti-war rally, I am convinced that it is time for me to put words into action and take a stand for what I believed in. It is time to bring our troops home and end the chaos we are in the middle of in a country that doesn’t want us there anymore. Unfortunately, we have abused our privilege of being one of the most powerful nations in the world and are now occupying a country that wishes to be left to sort out its own issues. After all, we gave them freedom and now it’s time to let them use it. Immediately after reading about the protest I began formulating possible picket sign mottoes in between note taking during the lesson. None of the ideas that came to mind were any good, I’ll admit.
Later, I thought of the Vietnam War and the social impact it had on the America. It was a time when the people really cared and became so passionately unified in a single cause that it ended an entire war. And today we’re fighting a war so that a nation previously held under an iron fist could cast free elections and in our own country we can barely get people to vote. I hope that one day soon we could once again stand together for a common goal but it seems like 1970 is so far away and people are more interested in their ipods than war. The war has truly begun to taste foul on my lips and so the time has come for action and I choose to protest.
I had been told that the FBI would probably be taking photos and making up files on me. I am well aware of the Bush Administration’s “1984” totalitarianism ideals and the Patriot Act. Surveillance is no longer a word used lightly. I’m sure if I checked out Mien Kampf, the FBI would have my favorite food recorded by the time my library card was swiped. But none of that bothers me. I am not prepared to do anything illegal so I am content with the FBI showing a little attention my way. Hey, you haven’t really lived until your on the FBI’s watch list…remember that.