Bush is still in the defence.

Well once again I’m discussing the intelligence report that’s got everybody stirred up. The report that has our ‘beloved” president and the rest of the White House cornered with accusations and I’m lapping it up. The White House argues that only a portion of the report was declassified and reported on. I would have sympathy for them if there wasn’t a second intelligence report that dealt fully with the war in Iraq but will not be declassified until after the November elections, so basically they’re saying “Were not going to show you this report because I may make you mad at us… but vote for us anyway, please?” So I’m still laughing at it.
In response to Mr. Kennedy’s comment on my last post, I believe that the war in was unnecessary and a mistake and the administration needs to acknowledge that. Though I also believe that the war now is an obligation we promised these people something better and all we’ve given them is violence, and unless we change the direction that seems to be the events that will keep unfolding. We are treading on areas that we should not be treading on; I think that we are going to fix this we need to start here at home. I say this because I hear people still use terms like “towel head” and say things like “we should have just nuked them to begin with”; the amount of ignorance in this country is phenomenal, and the main reason is lack of education, its no more complicated than that. Maybe it’s a represented culture that this country has that if you aren’t Christian you don’t belong here, I say this because we live under an administration that uses the Bible as a moral guide for a multi-cultural country. Yeah, it sucks. The only thing I can think of is an obese woman sitting in a lawn chair in front of a Chevy Astro holding a little American flag while repeatedly asking “ Have you found Jesus?” and I just want to say “ No, is he in the van?”
Oh well, back to the intelligence report. Bush stated in his defense *"I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offensive against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe," Wait, when, prior to the war, did the “republic” of Iraq ever want to do harm to the American people. Once again, oh well.

I’m going to quit rambling for today but tell me your side of the story.


Information and Bush quote from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5384366.stm

Citizens open their eyes to intelligence report

The New York Times wrote that a US intelligence report that the war in Iraq is only prompting more violence from Muslim extremists worldwide. A White House spokesman said in the defense of the Bush administration that the report was “not representative of the entire document”. This makes sense because that the Bush administration is once again defending themselves from accusations, and with people in Washington walking around with shirts that say “20 January 2009” (that’s the date Mr. Bush has to give up his power) I really don’t blame them. But when they call a war the front for the War on Terror fighting there should make the situation better in the long run, to put it bluntly. Maybe they think that with enough suicidal jihads that the extremists will just run out of people but it would only be at the cost of hundreds, maybe thousands of innocent lives. So I don’t see the point in choosing a front (because WE DID choose that front) that only inspires more extremists and makes the situation worse, but once again, it brings the question back to “Are we just protecting our oil interests?” The situation is becoming ridiculous, with the illegal wire-tapping, Illegal “secret” prisons overseas, and corrupt big-business/government relations, and a frankly fascist agenda (toward homosexuals), why is this administration still in office. The only politician with the balls to stand up to them was Rush Feingold and the rest of his party buried their heads in the dirt when he did, it was infuriating. I need some coffee.


Tell me your side.

Bush, his back, and a wall

President Bush is once again defending himself in a UN meeting against allegations that his methods in the middle were only making the situation worse. He defended himself by saying “This argument rests on a false assumption- that the Middle East was stable to begin with.” Wait, what? Just because a situation isn’t perfect doesn’t mean you can’t make it worse, which he has. An Iraqi public poll stated that the quality for an average citizen was better under Hussein then under the occupation. People, we need to wake up, how can a country who would rather watch American Idol than the news and only about 30% of us participate in the democratic process preach democracy to the rest of the world? It’s a shame.
Mr. Bush also spoke of the Iran nuclear situation, saying, “Iran must abandon its nuclear weapon ambitions.” Now wait again, who said anything about “weapons”, Iran said and still says that their nuclear intentions are peaceful. Russia and China have been quick to put sanctions on their neighbors and it seems that the rest of the UN is complying (except for France) who seems to be the only sane one out of the bunch. Not that Iran isn’t dangerous its just that while their intentions are peaceful we should focus on the problems we already have.

Is the Pope really infallible?

In recent controversy the pope apologized for insults to Muslims, the concept of jihad, and the prophet Muhammad in a quote. Although I think the apologies were needed questions rise about the pope’s infallibility, if the pope is never wrong then how could he make a mistake? Well, the truth of the situation is that the pope was not deemed truly infallible until 1870, not by God, but by the First Vatican Council but only if he was speaking ex cathedra and is addressing the morals, beliefs, and the church itself. Catholic historian Michael Walsh says that the pope has to make a dogmatic statement in ex cathedra while sitting in the chair of St. Peter for a statement to be infallible, while many pope also (I believe) pat their head and rub their belly at the same time, but that’s just to show of.
The Catholic Church works like a federation, bishops control their diocese, and the bishops answer to the pope who is the bishop of Rome. When a bishop has a moral question or bishops argue over church decisions the as the pope for a judgment who is “infallible” and is prevent from straying from the faith by the Holy Spirit. There’s five years of Catholic school and british news for you, believe me, I know.
*information from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5355758.stm

France and the Iran nuclear situation

Well, French president Jacques Chirac believes that the nuclear sanctions imposed on Iran are not going to work. Unfortunately, I’m afraid I agree. The nuclear sanctions will not help because Iran will not comply somewhat like a rebelling teenager. Lets face it, Iran would have just as much to lose from a war as we do and there would be no chance for a victory, and I think they realize this. In addition, if Iran states that their intentions are peaceful we should comply because you could see that there’s a difference between peaceful and violent nuclear actions such as the mining of plutonium and the test firing of missiles, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have them under a microscope because despite their stated peaceful intentions they have a very violent past. I guess what I’m saying is let’s not be quick to add another war to our campaign, lets wrap thing up in Iraq, focus on the recent violence in Afghanistan, and keep our eyes on Iran and North Korea

* Information from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5355334.stm

WooHooo, Go Poland!

In a recent NATO meeting our good friends in, surprise, Poland decided that they would be the ones to help fill the troop deficit. Of the already 100 polish ground troops, 1,000 more will be sent in but unfortunately not until February. Yet still its nice to see someone step up to help, which only makes me appreciate our friends over seas all the more because, face it, we do take them for granted and without our NATO friends we wouldn’t quite be the country we are today. Our allies do suffer a lot for our little campaigns if you recall that the first casualties of Iraqi Freedom were British troops in a helicopter that was hit with friendly fire (one our tomahawk missiles).
Although the 1,000 Polish troops will help a great deal, NATO still needs an estimated 1,500 more troops in southern Afghanistan. I guess it’s just important that we get a decision made by February, don’t ask me why that’s just what I think.

*Information from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5344596.stm

Afganistan: the center of attention once again.

For a few years now we’ve kept our eyes fixed on the war in Iraq and turned a blind one to Afghanistan. Is that because we wanted to draw attention away from the fact that we could find Osama Bin-Ladin? Well, once again our eyes are drawn to this region because of escalated violence and screams for reinforcements, but who will provide them? There are 18,500 of foreign, mainly NATO troops and about the same number of American troops. Canadian and British forces reside in the south with American aircraft support and Special Forces ground troops.
The violence has indeed escalated, not from Bin-Ladin’s Al Qeada but from local Taliban militant groups. The latest violence resulted in the death on of 16 Taliban fighter during a gunfight with Afghani police overnight.
Here are the current statistics on the ISAF troops stationed in Afghanistan. Even though the only countries that suffered attacks are the U.S. and the U.K. (subway bombings) still our brothers and allies aid us in the fighting and I say this because I think that we wrongly take our allies for granted. Even the French whom criticized our policies (with good reason) and yet they are still aiding us. So just remember when you start to get pompous remember that although our foreign policy isn’t the best, we still have friends that aren’t just fair-weather so lets not screw it up (remember Freedom Fries?).

Imformation and graphic from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5341654.stm

5 years and still looking for answers

Its been five tedious years since that day that two planes hit the World Trade Center buildings, one hit the Pentagon, and another, Flight 93, believed inteaded for the capitol was brought down by its passangers in a Pennsylvania. Five years of speaches, memorials, and searching for the man held responsible. Five years of being grabbed by the throat in fear of another attack. Five years, one day, four planes, 2,749 dead in New York, 179 at the pentagon, and the 40 passangers of Flight 93. An event that still rings in your mind like it happened yesterday. An event that sparked two wars and unfortunatly much discrimination against the Muslim community. I still remember that day five years ago, I was going to St. Patricks Catholic school and I came up from music class and our math teacher had the television on she explained what happened in shady detail because even she wasn't sure. The school day passed as we watched these events unfold on CNN. I didn't know how to act or what to think/ feel about the situation because never seen anything like this short of the Oklahoma City bombing and even then I didn't understand. When I finally got home my mom was sitting on the couch crying and i remember not understanding why. I don't remember what she said to me but whatever it was it didn't help, i was still confused, almost emotionless, everyone just kept talking as if it would make me understand; but i think it really just made them feel better but i'm still not sure. It was almost like when a friend or loved one dies. The confusion, trying to convince yourself it didn't happen, while others try to convince that everything will get better. The intelegence report prior to the attack warning the President of the attack was ignored. We started a world-wide manhunt of somebody we still cant find. Used it as a staple for political decisions. And used it to start another war in a different reason. Five years and still no real answers.

War on Terror lost its direction a long time ago.

The War on Terror has been a staple on elections and congressional decisions for nearly six years. In the 2004 election the Bush administration used there own form of terrorism (the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.)* to scare swing-states into voting red. So if you were told that this large influence on your loyalties was "misguided" where would your loyalties lie now? BBC World News stated today a U.S. senate report said that there are or were no connections between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussien and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now with no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction and no ties with Al Qeada it brings the issue back to an oil war and with a vice-president that has 31 million dollars of haliburton oil money in his back pocket (in case you didnt know Mr. Cheney is the former CEO of Haliburton), and that wouldn't be soo bad if Haliburton wasn't the first company to sign a contract dealing with oil lost in Iraq. So is $3/gallon worth aproximently 4,000 civilian lives lost?

* definition from www.dictionary.refrences.com