History repeats itself, which was made evident by the rise of the social conservative George Bush to power, and his subsequent actions. In the 1920’s there was a situation in Ireland which some of you may or may not know about. The IRA, or Irish Republic Army fought off the semi-invasion of the British onto their soil. The soldiers ran around their country side, invading their villages, searching homes, killing men, raping women, and brutally beating children. The Irish banned together and fought the soldiers with ambushes and sneak attacks. Eventually, the British tried to declare peace by drawing up a treaty.

In 2003, U.S. soldiers semi-invaded Iraq, ran around their country side, invaded their villages, searched homes, killed men, and raped women. For some reason, less intelligent citizens of the United States believed that the Iraqi people would welcome such treatment on their land. Much to their surprise, the Iraqis fought back, and the Americans just pushed harder eventually killing 650,000 innocent lives.

People died, Bush went on vacation, and nothing has changed. In fact, our invasions has brought about more violence and terror in the region than ever before, and we have no one really to blame except the persons responsible.

Who’s side would you be on if you lived in a crappy apartment in the Bronx, and some Russian soldiers landed, unloaded their troops, launched helicopters into your streets, and killed your neighbors. They claimed that they were there to save you from president Bush, or from Gulliani or whatever… but it was kind of hard to believe as they stuck a barrel in your mouth and felt up your daughters.

What would you do?

There are some things in this country that are so stupid it makes you wonder how we even exist as a country. For example: You can’t drink until you are 21, but you can go to Iraq and kill humans beings for the government when you are 18. You can’t drink until you are 21, but you can operate a huge, very dangerous machine capable of reaching extreme speeds and causing huge amounts of damage… at 16. You can kill human beings for your government, but you can’t have sex with your girlfriend who is 17.

Strange rules for strange people I say. But guess what, if you are gay you can’t kill people for the government. Why? Who knows.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fort Campbell last year kicked out 49 soldiers under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against gays, putting the Kentucky post second on the list for most discharges.

That number grew from 19 in 2004 and represented the single biggest increase in discharges anywhere, according to Defense Department documents shared with The Associated Press by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

“The numbers at Fort Campbell remain disturbing because of the history there,” said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “The discharge numbers had gone significantly down. This seems to be a rebound. It’s not clear why.”

It was at Fort Campbell that Pfc. Barry Winchell was bludgeoned to death in 1999 by a fellow soldier who believed Winchell was gay. Gay discharges from the post went up sharply on the heels of that murder, but later subsided.

We’ve went around the world with this subject once before. I’m not sure what I think, but I do find the consequence odd… gay people can’t kill people for the government. Its strange, and its discrimination. If they allow women into the military why can’t they allow gays into the military? I believe that was one of the arguments somebody made, might have been me, maybe Gab… can’t remember.

Now be careful, I know someone wants to say "But gays don’t want to kill people!". You can’t say that, thats like saying all blacks love rap music. Its wrong. You can’t assume a group of people will do or like anything based on the way they are born.

If gays didn’t want to kill people, there would not have been 49 of them in the military to be expelled.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

I’m getting sick of this. When I was a kid, getting on an airplane and flying somewhere was not a big deal. It was just something that you do and it was convenient. Now, I feel like taking the BAR exam is probably easier than flying.

Its pretty convenient that a terrorist plot was uncovered, right around election time. This reminds me of the years 2001-2003 when fear drove our daily lives. Bush created a massive amount of fear in this country so that he could garner support for his atrocious plans. We fell for it because the conservative in us is much dumber than the liberal in us.

I think its happening again. I’m not going to say the whole thing is a conspiracy, but I do imagine that there have been other terrorist plots foiled, so why does this end the media coverage of the Israeli conflict?

This new no liquids thing is just… stupid.

Indianapolis – New restrictions greet passengers at the doors of Indianapolis International Airport, but 13 Investigates discovered that it’s easy enough to thwart them.

To test security, Eyewitness News brought along a bottle of water. At the security checkpoint, the Transportation Security Administration asked if we had any lotions or gels and informed us all shoes were being screened.

Our tickets were purchased a few hours before travel time, and they were coded with a security alert for extra screening. It’s a post-9/11 safety precaution. We stepped through the airport’s explosive-detecting puffer machine. After checking our carry-on baggage and seeing the bottle of water, the TSA workers gave us the option of throwing it out or asking someone to retrieve it for us. In the latter case, passengers can leave the security area and deal with the restricted items themselves – perhaps this would involve putting them back in the car or sending them ahead – but a further security check would be required. Another option is simply checking in the restricted items in a box.

Passengers endured another search before getting on their flight. One cup of milk was all one mom got to take on her journey west with her little boy.

For our storm-delayed flight to Chicago, there was no additional screening and no problem carrying in full view a cup of coffee – more than six ounces of liquid would make the flight.

At O’Hare, we asked about the restrictions for the coffee. "You can carry it through here; you just can’t go through security," one flight attendant said. "You won’t be able to board the airplane with coffee," said the pilot. "Well, she boarded this one with coffee," pointed out the flight attendant. "Nobody stopped her, so enjoy, ma’am."

On the return flight, the liquid of choice was a bottle of iced tea. Like Indianapolis, TSA at O’Hare issued warnings before we ever reached the checkpoint. Again, our last-minute tickets raised suspicion and resulted in extra screening. But this time, we were the ones surprised. TSA confiscated six lipsticks that made it through the checkpoint in Indianapolis. In our case, American Airlines was very helpful in providing a box for lipstick and other cosmetics, which we had to check in just like a regular suitcase.

For the home stretch, we purchased a fountain drink and a bottle of water for our souvenir bag. This time, access was denied based on the drink in hand. But with no additional screenings, a sealed bottle of water made the trip from Chicago to Indianapolis, no questions asked.

Whats next? No carry-ons at all? At what point is fear going to affect everything we do? This is heading in a very dangerous direction. Soon, walls could be erected around dangerous neighborhoods, international travel could be prohibited, all homosexuals could be jailed! Anyone see V for Vendetta? A perfect commentary on the Bush administration.

Flying now is such a freaking pain in the ass that I almost feel like never doing it again. If I have to go to France? Fuck it, I’m swimming.

The airlines are going bankrupt, and they wonder why? They have nobody but Bush and the like to blame. Flying is and has been the safest mode of travel for a long time, yet people are still afraid, or people are just too fed up with all the security and the bullshit. Last time I flew, they had installed this new machine that looked like it came directly from the 27th century. People would stand it in, and the glass enclosure would surround them, then they would be blasted by air and then step out. I have no idea what the hell it is all about, but it was ominous.

Man, we need to get this administration out.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

I posted last week about the military and its atrocious behavior, both in the past and present. I quoted some article about the U.S. military guys who were already on trial for murder, and were about to be charged with another atrocity. My point in the post was that our horrible international policy is what creates these situations… taking more than likely normal law abiding children and turning them into xenophobic murderers.

Not every soldier was bad, but I wouldn’t trust them to be careful about who they shoot and hurt. The idea that thousands of innocent lives have been taken in the most recent Iraq occupation should deter your support for this Iraq war. I think it was Adam or Terp who says that sometimes causalities of war were necessary to accomplish our goals.

I just don’t think people should die for our president’s greed anymore. But my point in THIS post is that this problem goes beyond our current  president. Its a function of our nosey imperialistic attitude. "Well, that country isn’t doing things the way we like, and we’re not going to make any money off of them, so lets invade their country, occupy their government and who cares if a few thousand innocent civilians are killed… they aren’t human because they aren’t American".

Vietnam atrocities come to light

By NICK TURSE and DEBORAH NELSON

Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES TIMES/DAMON WINTER

The men of B Company were in a dangerous state of mind. They had lost five men in a firefight the day before. The morning of Feb. 8, 1968, brought unwelcome orders to resume their sweep of the countryside, a green patchwork of rice paddies along Vietnam’s central coast.

They met no resistance as they entered a settlement in Quang Nam province. So Jamie Henry, a 20-year-old medic, set down his rifle in a hut, unfastened his bandoliers and lighted a cigarette.

Just then, the voice of a lieutenant crackled across the radio. He reported that he had rounded up 19 civilians and wanted to know what to do with them. Henry recalled the company commander’s response: "Kill anything that moves."

Henry stepped outside the hut and saw a small crowd of women and children. Then the shooting began.

Moments later, the 19 villagers lay dead or dying.

This sort of thing happened way too many times, and continues to happen today. This is the American military, not better than the worst scum of the universe. The United States has stooped to incredibly low levels before, and does so again today. Why? Because thats what war and violence breeds. Its sad that in this day and age we still have people willing to do this, we still have people willing to execute people they don’t like, willing to take control away from women of their own bodies, willing to discriminate against people based on the way they were born…

You see, a lot of people don’t think its linked but it is. Its all about control and domination, and it plagues almost half of all Americans. A lot of that half don’t even really believe in what they support, or support anything at all… rather they were raised that way, brainwashed from early on. But what makes these soldiers act like this? I don’t know really know, but its definitely not from a humanistic ideology, more of a conservative ideology. Thats what is so harmful.

Anyway, I await your furious comments.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

Tragedies occur in war, on both sides, despite which side claims to be fighting for good. This is why our propaganda is so stupid. We invaded a country for no reason, and call those defending their home evil. What the shit would you do if someone invaded Manhattan? You’d fight, wouldn’t you? I would also bet you 40 silk cloths that you would be called an evil terrorist by the other side’s government as well.

This is all besides the point. Whats the point you ask? Well, you’ll see:

In the vietnam war, way too many U.S. soldiers acted despicably. Massacring innocent villages, abusing Vietnamese women… I’ve seen the footage, its awful. Have we changed? Probably not. When we go to war, we see the other side as inhuman, including the innocents. Just because they live in a country with which we are at war, they are evil and bad and it doesn’t matter if they die.

Our soldiers have been accused of committing some of these heinous acts on several occasions, and I am disappointed that they would repeat history. There was the story about the house of innocent families being gunned down, the strike on the house from the air that killed women and children, and not to mention Abu Ghraib! I’m surprised that these soldiers would do this. And of course, there is the following story:

SAN DIEGO — Six Marines accused of injuring civilians in the Iraqi village of Hamdania in April were charged Thursday with assault.

Half of the men were already being held on murder charges in an unrelated case. Military officials said that the assaults were uncovered during an investigation into that slaying.

Investigators say that without provocation they went into Hamdania, took Awad from his home, tied him up, put him in a hole and shot him.

After the killing, according to investigators, the troops placed an AK-47 assault rifle in Awad’s hands and put a shovel in the hole to make it appear he was an insurgent planting explosives.

Already being help on separate murder charges? These guys sound like stand up gentlemen. This is the problem with war, especially absurd evil wars like this one… war does this to people. It takes people who probably would have never done anything this bad, and puts them in overly stressful extremely dangerous life threatening conditions… and then we see what happens. Like putting a cat in a microwave almost… which I have never done and would like to think is never done…

These atrocities are a big part of an occupation, and we wonder why they fight back so hard. We’re supposed to be supporting the people, but American soldiers, when they first got there, ran around Iraq, rounded up farmers and anybody at random and threw them into Abu Ghraib, abused them, beat them, then randomly released them at varying times. Now that is evil.

Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

I of course don’t support the war in Iraq for a number of reasons, one of which is that I don’t want people to die. I know exactly negative a billion people who have died in this war, or any war for that matter. My grand father survived the D-day invasion somehow, my dad was honorably discharged as a captain from the military and I played a Border Patrol agent in a movie once… but thats it, thats my connection. Yet I still don’t support this war at all.

Let us contrast that to the Cindy Sheehan types who have tragically lost family members in the war. Not sure if they were against the war until their family members were killed in it. Some were, some weren’t. Remember that woman who was all for it in Fahrenheit 9/11 and then started protesting against it when her son was killed?

Is that what it takes to be against a war? To have someone in your family be killed? Is that what is needed to wake up some Americans? I don’t mean to be insensitive, and of course the more people against the war the better, but I’m concerned about selfish reasoning, and its place in America.

Sometimes I fear people are too apathetic towards death, war, and violence… maybe desensitized by our media, who knows. What is the solution? Think. That’s the solution. There is a lot of time to think, when you’re waiting for the subway, when you’re taking a crap, when you’re spacing out at work… just think about human beings, violence, motives, life… focus on it, and then see what you think. What would you do if you saw someone murdered in front of you? Are you religious? What do you think god thinks of you and your attitude towards death?

This war in Iraq is wrong for a number of reasons, but I am not sure harassing the president is going to help.

CRAWFORD, Tx. — Bay Area native Cindy Sheehan announced she has purchased land in Crawford, Texas. Sheehan said she bought a 5-acre plot in the town where President George W. Bush lives.NBC11 news is reporting Sheehan purchased the land with insurance money she received from the death of her son Casey, who died in Iraq. The group Sheehan leads, Gold Star Families For Peace, plans to return to Crawford next month to protest the war in Iraq.Bush is scheduled to visit his ranch during the first two weeks of August and Sheehan said her group will be joining him in the neighborhood.

You see, that is just going to annoy Bush, getting his little brain angry, probably send more troops in. Well that is an exaggeration, but I still thing that the solution to reversing this travesty is to getting a new administration in place, actually one we vote for. I don’t thing storming the white house like the whig party did over 100 years ago is the answer, but metaphorically it may be the right idea. We need to storm the white house with our decisions and our compassion for the fellow human being. Do we tolerate the gay bashing, the racism, and the greedy resource stealing actions of the white house? Ass sphincter says "no".

Protesting is one thing, but harassing a government official is another, and I really think it just makes things worse. I am all for her cause, but when I see her making an ass of herself I get embarrassed. However… I can’t deny the anger she must feel, after being lied to by the president, having her son killed by the government, a tragic casualty of this terrible atrocity that Bush has committed… in that capacity I can understand. And maybe that is the difference between me and Cindy Sheehan. We are both against the war, but I have lost no one to it, and therefor have not the anger she has. Anger is very difficult to control sometimes, and I know from personal experience, so I tend to be more lenient when judging people based on their outrage.

What is happening in this country right now is an outrage, and it makes me angry, but in order to set things right we’ve got to be constructive and efficient. Protesting sort of helps, shows the number of those who are aware… but it also pushes people who belief the opposite to only support their own side even more. Its a level of stubbornness. What I’m hoping is that those who support the violence and death in Iraq don’t eventually need to have a family member die in the fighting to want the troops to come home.

When I was very young, one of my step brothers once said "I don’t understand wars, why don’t they just get the leaders of the nations into a boxing ring and solve it that way". He didn’t say it so eloquently, but that was the gist. And I remember thinking how every leader of every nation would probably kick the ass of our presidents, so I didn’t think that that was such a great idea.

Anyway, in true MisterE fashion, I’ve gone all over the place, touched on too many subjects, and typed too much… so I shall resign for an hour or so, and await your responses and comments… L’CHIAM!

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

Terp continues our discussion regarding war and world wide aid. To briefly recap, I wrote a post about world refugee day, and made a case that the U.S.’s priorities are skewed and flawed. I argued that there are other countries that have worse situations than Iraq, yet we felt the need to force democracy in Iraq because of the "bad" things that occur in that country, yet we ignore tons of other countries with similar or worse problems because they have nothing we want.

Terp countered by arguing that the U.S. needs to also look out for its own interests, justifying putting Iraq on top of the "invade these countries" list. Then he asked me if I supported the troops, or moreover, what do I think about "supporting our troops". I answered saying that I don’t support the war or violence in general, but I want them to be as safe as possible.

AND WE CONTINUE!!!!!!

We are, though, capturing and killing terrorists. Invading Iraq has brought recruitment levels in Al-Qaeda to rise to proportions we have never seen before. Americans in Iraq has given Al-Qaeda new life. They are flooding Iraq, which is why it  seems that there is an endless supply of enemy – in a country that we would likely have cleared in no time if it weren’t for these foreign fighters.

Terp said this in response to me pointing out that the terrorists were in Afghanistan, not Iraq, yet we invaded Iraq on the basis that they harbored terrorists. Terp makes the point here that there wasn’t a terrorist threat coming from Iraq. We did miss the target, well… Bush lied. I’m sure Terp is right, there are plenty of Al-Qaeda flooding into Iraq no, but that is exactly the problem. Our invasion is bringing more violence into the country, more fighting, more murder and deaths.

We wanted to combat Al-Qaeda but all we are doing is fueling their fire, and making it worse. Was this a mistake?

Oil is a tougher issue – but you can you imagine our lives without it? I don’t know a single person who has changed their habits due to the rising costs of oil.  Does that mean that Americans are willing to go to war to secure it?  Let me know what you think…

I personally have gotten rid of my car, so my dependency on oil is pretty damn low as a result, and I’m glad, I couldn’t afford gas! But I understand Terp’s point, and its true, we are like drug addicts. We have built our entire system around oil, which is why it was so easy to justify attacking Iraq for their oil, because we need it! It would be like a drug lord justifying to all the addicts the attack of a warehouse of drugs. I don’t think its right just parading around the world taking up resources, or only helping nations who have something to offer us in return. This isn’t the christian way! Thats whats wrong with christianity in this government, its extremely selfish. Anyway, thats another discussion.

I do think Americans are willing to go to war to take over other resources, and I think its terrible. That makes us no better than the conquerers of past. We can’t just run around the world taking what we want. I don’t think we should be having hidden agendas and selfish methods of getting what we want.

It shows me that we have no interest in peace, but rather, an interest in making us the world’s leader. I think we can solve the oil problem internally. I personally know very viable technology that would solve our problems, the only reason it is resisted is because lots of billionaires would lose all their money. You’d be surprised how much truth is hidden because of greed. There were students at my college who built a van that ran on vegetable oil. We can derive energy from almost anything these days.

We have developed amazing new technologies for energy derivation, that can be applied to cars. Again, this would put everyone in oil out of business, and since they are the wealthiest people around, they get to decide that thats not what they want, therefor, thats not what America wants.

I’m not sure I understand. It wasn’t Bush’s true concern, or it ought not be OUR concern?  If the latter is true, what do suggest we do? Continue efforts to free nations that harbor terrorists and oil, thereby securing our needs – or focus on countries, with humanitarian assistance, that give us nothing (economically) in return?  All countries work in their self-interest? In whose interest do you think America ought to work?

Actually, I was saying that it wasn’t Bush’s true concern. That the suffering of Iraqi people had nothing or very little to do with Bush’s agenda in Iraq, because if ti did, then why pick Iraq out of all the nations with terrible suffering.

Here is my point, there are significantly more terrible atrocities occurring in Africa, children dying. Why do we need that country to pay us in order for us to help them? Thats not our mission, thats now what we say we are all about. Again, that makes us nothing more than mercenaries for hire. Why would anyone want to deny starving children food? Please tell me what we won’t help the night commuters, or the terrible genocide occurring in Sudan. What the hell, why do we have to get something in return?

I just don’t thing America ought to work in its own self interest when parading around pretending to bring freedom to people of other nations. Its all bullshit!

So, in effect, you’ve taken a pacifist stance. This is nearly impossible to argue. You really don’t care about soliders in particularly, you apparently, care for everyone.  So saying you "support the troops" is kind of silly.  If you have any friends in Iraq, you ought to ask them how they feel about being there. I have several, and actually one more, a girl, who was supposed to be part of our bridal party, who will be leaving a few days before our wedding to deploy for Iraq.  And she is looking forward to it. Her husband returned last year, and is looking to go again.  

I met a group of soldiers, just returned from Iraq, in a bar in Georgetown (DC) a few weeks ago. One had had his leg blown off by an IED. They said that, while being there was horrible at times, and they could care less about the Iraqis themselves, they took pride in knowing that they may some day be able to return to a free Iraq. They said that they were more grateful than ever for being American and being able to return to such a great country. Most were looking forward to fulifilling another tour… 

Most soldiers have been literally brainwashed. They have to be, otherwise, why would they fight? They aren’t fighting for our freedom, so who’s freedom are they fighting for? Iraq? Fine, if they want to believe that that is the reason they are there, then why wouldn’t they be interesting in fighting for the freedom of children in Sudan or fighting the LRA?
I’m not a pacifist in the sense that I’m not the type to get knocked down only to stand up and get knocked down again. I’ve been taking Tae Kwan Do and other forms of martial arts since I was 5. I’ve fought thousand upon thousands of times, competed in tournaments, and defending myself on more than one occasion. If someone broke into my home I would kick the shit out of them. But I wouldn’t kill them unless I was given no other choice. And the soldiers are probably in the same situation. I don’t blame them, they are Bush’s pawns, poor folks who just got fooled. I support the troops in t he sense that I want them to be safe, want them to go home, and to stop fighting. I wish no harm upon them. Whats wrong with that? What is the only alternative? To wish harm upon them? Yu can either wish no harm upon them or harm upon them, there’s no ‘maybe’ category.

I don’t see how these soldiers can take pride in someday returning to a free Iraq. Why would they? Terp said that they didn’t care about the Iraqi people, but they care about their freedom? I don’t get it. They sound awfully confused. Now I know the feeling of being glad to be an American. When spending as much time overseas as I have, there is a great feeling when you walk though American customs to come home. But thats just because its home. Soldiers from other countries I’m sure say the exact same thing about their own country. Very rarely would someone not be relieved to return home, no matter how shitty it looks in comparison to America.

I fear that Bush’s lies have penetrated deeper than I thought, its planted seeds of deceit into the minds of our soldiers, our middle Americans, and many others. But to those of us able to reject it, this war is pretty transparent, and few of us approve.

Very little that is occurring in Iraq is just, and I only wish that Bush hadn’t taken over the presidency after losing the election all those years ago, for I believe that our two tours would still be standing, and the world would have been a much better place.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]
• [open thread]

And I don’t necessarily blame them, but it the department of homeland security necessary at all? I’m not sure. I mean, we’ve had terrorist attacks before, and we’ve seemed to handle it. This fact of the matter is, does homeland security actually protect us anymore against terrorist attacks than if we were to not have it?

To me, it almost seems like just another money system, something that the government can throw money at, but let it have hidden agendas under the guise of ‘national security;. The government isn’t going to tell you how they spend their money, its top secret, it involves national security, this may just be another way to do that.

I think the terror alert system is one of the dumbest things since a bicycle with no seat, and I’m not sure if police searching brown skinned people is helping us secure our homeland.

Terrorists can come in any shape or size, and when they do strike again, its going to be from an angel that we over looked. Something simple like a white business man looking person with a briefcase, or trained cats… who knows?!

A Democratic lawmaker seized on a reported plot by al-Qaida terrorists to kill thousands in the city’s subways to renew his call for the Homeland Security Department to restore New York’s anti-terrorism funds.

I don’t know what these means, this plot took place in 2003, that was even before we attacked Iraq I think, I’m not sure referencing this in defense for increasing our budget NOW is the right tactic. If you want to increase the sketchy homeland security money coming to New York, stage an attack, or allow one to happen to prove that we need the money.

Of course I’m offering that option in jest, and I don’t know why the took the money, or how we would ever get it back. My point is that I’m not sure we needed it in the first place. A lot of people in NYC are still on edge, and I think a lot more cautious and aware than before, almost making NYC a self regulating place, safer for the people.

It was the largest government reorganization in 50 years, since the D.O.D. Does that seem a little crazy? I don’t know for sure. Its all about how you measure the importance of 9/11. I have no doubt that it was the most devastating attack on our soil in a long time (I don’t know that for sure, so please prove me wrong if I am wrong), and maybe that warrants some concern. But the DHS is the third largest organization in the government, with a budget of 37 billion, where was that money before, and what was it being used for, and now what is the consequence of it not being there anymore?

whereIstand Tags

• Is the Department of Homeland Security necessary?

At this point, supporting the war in Iraq is like supporting racism or the ban on gays, its looked at as pretty much wrong and unacceptable by the general public. Yes, I love to speak for the general public.

Honestly, I don’t even think anyone here at WIS fully supports the war in Iraq, the reason for going in, and Bush’s claims all at the same time.

The obvious blunder and atrocity that is the war in Iraq is so bad, and so… well… obvious, that the pentagon had to create a book outlining rebuttals for politicians to use. Its a sad state of affairs.

WASHINGTON Jun 15, 2006 (AP)— The Pentagon armed congressional supporters of the Iraq war with an unusual "debate prep book" on Thursday, packed with ready-made rebuttals to criticism of a conflict that has now claimed the lives of 2,500 U.S. troops.

Hilarious. It reminds me of a scene in the glorious movie (Demolition Man) where cops in the future where there is no more crime/violence, have you read from a manual when trying to arrest somebody violent. I don’t know the history of this, but you would think that this day in age, this sort of thing wouldn’t be necessary unless it was clear even to dumb ass social conservatives that this war is ridiculous affair.

There are so many holes, so many errors, so many lies, and atrocities committed by the president regarding this war that I’m honestly not that surprised that supporters need to be briefed on how to support.

Here is a thought: After nearly completing Skunk Works the book, I’ve come to realize at this moment, we could be or have in our works the creation of incredible technologies, so extremely secret, and so intelligence sensitive, that on the public level, it could make the president look foolish. Back in the day, Carter (I think it was Carter) took huge political blows because the public accused him of not filling a bombing gap in capabilities against the Russians. The truth was that we had a super amazing bomber that filled the gap nicely, but it was so secret that he just had to take the heat because he couldn’t disclose any information about it.

Its possible that something similar is going on here with the Iraq war. But I doubt it. I am more inclined to believe that Bush had a hidden agenda that was far more sinister and greedy that we know, and since republicanism is the waste of space that it is, he slipped up, didn’t cover his tracks, and now he’s sort of paying the price.

The fact the that D.O.D. had to release these handbooks should turn any supported of this war into a believer in the truth. Oeuvrez tes yeux
Enjoy.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]