In article <SStsj.217$Ru4.212@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Disinfect The WH" <christofascist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Lets see if i understand this:
>
> John McWar is a crook who admits he doesnt know **** about anything and
> thinks Bush is right on everything and his claim to fame was being shot
down
> while bombing peasants in vietnam: so he should be president........
>
> That's the qualifications of John McCain?
>
> An excerpt (below) from an article in Slate...titled...
>
> Is John McCain a Crook? Chris Suellentrop Posted Friday, Feb. 18,
2000, at
> 2:35 PM ET
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
>
> Yes and lets not forget that good old John was part of the Keating five
> (included Neil Bush) who were a bunch of crooks stealing old ladies
Arizona
> homes in the savings & loan scandals & McCain was also on the take.
> Oh gee, I forgot John went on TV and cried that he was new to the senate
and
> really didn't know what he was doing when he took the money
and;
Bush Calls on France for Help: War Without End
PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Counterpunch
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
"We sup****t the troops!" That's the excuse the Democrats have
given for continuing to fund Bush's aggression against Iraq
and Afghanistan. But, of course, war funding doesn't sup****t
the troops. War funding sup****ts an evil machine that chews up
and spits out the lives and well being of the troops, along
with that of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan, men,
women, and children. War funding sup****ts Bush's aggression in
Iraq and Afghanistan and his continuing efforts to occupy both
countries in order to turn them into puppet states.
Polls show that a majority of the troops and their families do
not sup****t Bush's aggression. The fact that Ron Paul's
campaign for the Republican presidential nomination received
the lion's share of contributions from military families also
underlines the great divide between the troops and those who
would "sup****t" them by keeping them in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What all those ribbon decals on the back of SUVs, which
proclaim "sup****t the troops," really mean is sup****t Bush's
wars of aggression against Muslims.
According to the Wa****ngton Post (Feb. 9, 2008), Bush's $3.1
trillion federal budget provides no funding for his proposal
in his State of the Union address to permit military members
to transfer their unused education benefits to family members.
Bush got applause for his nationally televised words, but the
troops and their families got no money in his budget.
Government analysts calculate the education benefits would
cost in the range of $1-2 billion annually--the cost of
funding the war for two days.
The only money that Bush and Congress want to give the troops
is what is required to keep them at war. Everyone has read the
horror stories of the lack of care for the physically and
emotionally wounded troops who have made it back from Iraq.
In contrast, to fund Bush's war, Bush and Congress have
already spent in out-of-pocket and future costs at least
$1,000 billion. Every American can draw up lists of better
uses of this immense fortune than blowing up a country's
infrastructure and killing hundreds of thousands of its
citizens.
Nothing good whatsoever has been accomplished by Bush's
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was obvious to anyone
with a lick of sense in 2002, six months prior to Bush's
invasion of Iraq on March 18, 2003, that an invasion would be
a strategic blunder. William S. Lind, myself and others made
that prediction in October, 2002. Three years later, Lt. Gen.
William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency,
vindicated us by declaring Bush's invasion of Iraq to be "the
greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history." If the head of
the NSA doesn't know a "strategic disaster" when he sees one,
who does?
Gen. Odom's *****sment is certainly correct. Bush, Cheney, the
neocons, and the sycophant media were completely wrong. Look
at the situation today. Unable to defeat the Sunni insurgency,
the US "superpower" has had to resort to paying tens of
millions of dollars to insurgency leaders to bribe them not to
attack US troops. In addition, Bush is supplying the
insurgents with weapons "to fight al Qaeda." The Sunni leaders
gladly accept the money and weapons, but how long can they
survive being collaborators with the American enemy that has
destroyed their country and the Sunni place in the sun?
It was obvious to everyone but Bush and the neocons that
overthrowing Saddam Hussein in the name of democracy would put
the majority ****'ites, who are allied with Iran, in place as
the new rulers of Iraq. So far the Iraqi ****'ites have bided
their time and have not joined in earnest the insurgency
against the US occupation. Instead, they, like the Sunnis,
have directed most of their attention to cleansing
neighborhoods of one another. The reasons that violence--
although still higher than Americans could live with--is down
are that most of the neighborhoods are now segregated, al Sadr
has ordered his militia to stand down, and the Sunni
insurgents are being paid not to attack US troops.
Bush started a war, and now to avoid losing it Bush pays
Iraqis not to attack US troops!
The Sunnis and ****'ites are stronger than ever, while the US
troops are worn down and demoralized from multiple lengthy
combat tours that violate traditional US military policy.
It was also obvious that Bush's invasions would destabilize
nuclear-armed Pakistan. On February 8, seasoned foreign
correspondent Warren Strobel re****ted for the McClatchy
newspapers that "Pakistan is now the central front in
America's war on terror." On February 9, the Wa****ngton Post
re****ted: "Pakistan faces a growing threat from a new
generation of radicalized, battle-hardened militants who
embrace jihad and have become allied with local and
international terrorists intent on toppling the pro-Western
government [shorthand for paid US puppet], a senior U.S.
intelligence official told re****ters yesterday."
US officials have been pressing Pakistan, to no effect, to
allow US troops to join the Pakistani army's fight against
Pakistani tribes allied with the Taliban. US officials,
"speaking on condition of anonymity," are trying to muster
sup****t for an expanded US military role in Pakistan by
alleging that Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah
Mohammad Omar are in Pakistan with their top commanders. Bush
wants to bomb Pakistan in order to win the war in Afghanistan.
With all available US troops tied down in Iraq, the US is
using NATO soldiers as mercenaries to try to counter a
resurgent Taliban. Europeans are tiring of their role as an
European proxy for America's legions, and the NATO commander
speaks of a NATO defeat in Afghanistan.
NATO was an alliance created to resist a Soviet invasion of
Europe. The US has kept an unnecessary NATO alive for 18 years
as a source of troops for its foreign adventures. Europeans
dislike being mercenaries for American Empire, especially one
that slaughters civilians.
Desperate for troops, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is
trying to scare Europeans with the threat of "international
terrorism," but Europeans know that the best way to bring
terrorism to Europe is to send troops to fight Muslims for the
Americans. Whether Gates will get the German and French
soldiers that he so desperately needs depends on whether the
US can give the German and French leaders, Angela Merkel and
Nicolas Sarkozy, enough billions of dollars to divide among
their parties to embolden them to override public opinion and
send their soldiers to die for US and Israeli hegemony in the
Middle East.
Gates told Europe that NATO's survival is at stake: "We must
not--we cannot--become a two-tiered alliance of those willing
to fight and those who are not." In a rare bit of honesty for
an American government official, Gates admitted at the NATO
conference in Munich last week that Europeans' anger at the US
over Iraq is the reason Europe won't send enough troops to
fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, thus putting what Gates
disingenuously called "the international mission in
Afghanistan" at risk of failure.
The Afghanistan "mission," like the Iraq "mission," was a
mission for US and Israel hegemony. The official reason for
invading Afghanistan was 9/11 and the alleged refusal of the
Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden. It had nothing
whatsoever to do with Europe, NATO, or any "international
mission." The official reason for invading Iraq was alleged,
but nonexistent, weapons of mass destruction that allegedly
threatened America--another, but more deadly, 9/11 in the
making according to the Bush regime.
If the US now needs foreign troops to save its bacon in these
two lost wars, it should demand them from Israel. Israel is
why the US is at war in the Middle East. Let Israel supply the
troops. The neocons who dominated the Bush regime and took
America to illegal wars are allied with the extreme right-wing
government of Israel. The goal of neoconservatism is to remove
all obstacles to Israeli territorial expansion. The Zionist
aim is to grab the entirely of the West Bank and southern
Lebanon, with more to follow later.
Remember "mission accomplished"? Remember all the strutting
neocons with their promises of a "cakewalk war"? Remember all
the ignorant bragging about having "defeated the Taliban"? All
of these lies were designed to tie American down in
interminable wars in the Middle East for Israel's benefit.
There is no other reason for Bush's invasions. We know for
certain that Bush and his entire administration lied through
their teeth about the Taliban and about weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.
What a total crock of ignorance and deception the Bush regime
represents. Bush, defeated in Iraq, defeated in Afghanistan,
with Pakistan crumbling in front of his eyes, is now reduced
to begging the French, whom it was such grand s****t for his
neocon officials to denigrate, to send soldiers to save his
ass in Afghanistan.
What a laughing stock Bush has made of America. What ruination
this utter idiot and his sup****ters have brought to America.
What total traitors the neoconservatives are. Every last one
of them should be immediately arrested for high treason.
Neonconservatives are America's greatest enemies, and they
control our government! All Americans have to show for six
years of Bush's "war on terror" is an incipient police state.
Now standing in the wings is mad John "hundred year war"
McCain. Will the American electorate wipe out the Republican
Party before this insane party wipes out America?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
during President Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic
appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University,
and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford
University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French
President Francois Mitterrand.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02122008.html
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/120208_help.htm
--
A government, of, by, and, for: Rich, Elite, Freemasons.
But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the
light:
for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
The light ****neth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not.
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be
single,
thy whole body shall be full of light.
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of
darkness.
If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great
is that darkness!
Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give thee light.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
problems tend to look like nails.
|
