The Uncomfortable Truth

As we all know, five years ago today, President Bush spent a boatload of taxpayer dollars to stage his “Mission Accomplished” gig on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln. At the time many people believed this war was over. I did. As cynical as I am, I believed him. Perhaps I only wanted to believe him. On the other hand, he’s got the sincere act down pretty good. (When you can fake sincerity, you can fake anything.) I realized soon enough that it was just another lie in what has turned out to be a bottomless pit of prevarication.
According to the Associated Press, Bush tried several ways to modify this whopper, including a flat-out denial that The White House had anything at all to do with the banner flown right over his head.
Finally, after five years, I saw a story today on the Drudge Report entitled “White House admits fault on 'Mission Accomplished' banner.”
Alas, the headline was misleading—as is usual for the Drudge Report. The story didn’t say the president admitted to any error that day. It seems that the president’s spin meisters have finally settled on the canard that he was referring to the aircraft carrier’s mission in the war.
Oh.
THAT’S what he meant!
Who knew?
I guess this means the war is back on. Which is good in a way.
I mean, it’s ludicrous to think we’ve lost 3,900 soldiers waging peace!
How will it look in the history books that we killed close to a million innocent people after the war had been won?
Who knows? Maybe the Iraqis, realizing the mission is not accomplished yet, will give up their silly demands that we stop killing them and get the Hell out of there. Maybe all those Godless peace mongers will give up their pleas too.
It’s also good that the president realizes what all intelligent Americans have known for some time. (I have had doubts that he ever would.) That means he is now smarter than a dittohead—somewhat like being taller than an midget, but it is an accomplishment of sorts.
Hmmm, another banner, maybe?
Seriously, though.
Last month, Bush said, "While this war is difficult, it is not endless."
I wonder if we’ll have to wait five years to find out what he meant by that?

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 06:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The term “Winter Soldiers” is derived from the writings of Thomas Paine. In his first Crisis paper, he wrote critically of “Sunshine patriots” and “summer soldiers.” The term honors those who stick it out when times are tough.
In more recent times it was used to describe hearings held in 1971 that described atrocities committed by our soldiers. John Kerry testified at those hearings and drew the wrath of the idiots on the Right when he ran for president.
Even more recently—just a few weeks ago—in Silver Spring, Maryland, a summit was hosted by Iraq Veterans Against the War.
(I would like to thank Tom Gascoyne, publisher of The Chico Beat, for enlightening me on this—I sure as hell didn’t catch this on the FAUX news channel.)
According to The Nation magazine, several soldiers testified of atrocities they themselves had committed while bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. Several soldiers were prepared to testify under oath in a Court of Law.
For a link to the summit hearings click HERE
It seems that the difference in the VietNam hearings and the Iraq hearings is only of detail—the horrors recounted are about equal.
Could this be why suicides by returning soldiers are at their highest levels ever?
We’ve destroyed the nation of Iraq, we’ve destroyed close to a million Iraqis.
Now, this war is destroying the very people who have to fight it.
Wouldn't now be a good time to end it?

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 07:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A tip o' the hat to Joe Shaw--From Outside The Box

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 07:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It is not my habit to simply cut and paste articles from the news, But I could not resist this one!
Nothing needs to be added to this.

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines. In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.) The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation. What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated. While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections. Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country? After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America's biggest cities. This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, who has been in the news for comments he made over the last three decades. Since these comments became public we have heard criticisms, condemnations, denouncements and rejections of his comments and him. We've seen on television, in a seemingly endless loop, sound bites of a select few of Rev. Wright's many sermons. Some of the Wright's comments are inexcusable and inappropriate and should be condemned, but in calling him "unpatriotic," let us not forget that this is a man who gave up six of the most productive years of his life to serve his country. How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many. While words do count, so do actions. Let us not forget that, for whatever Rev. Wright may have said over the last 30 years, he has demonstrated his patriotism.
This article appeared in this morning's Chicago Tribune

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 08:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Do you remember what you were doing five years ago today?
I remember I was talking to one of my students about the war that had just started.
I told him that, “We’ll still be there in five years, and you will probably have to go fight it.”
Well, he hasn’t had to go, and we are still there.
I may have only been half-right, but at least the kid isn’t dead like the almost 4,000 other Americans, or the anywhere between 100 and 600 thousand Iraqis.
My student asked how I could possibly know that.
“Simple,” I replied, “I’ve studied history—unlike our President.”
I explained that history has demonstrated what happens when you remove a strongman from power. You get chaos.
I pointed out an example that had occurred in his own lifetime: the Death of Yugoslavia’s dictator, Josep Tito, led to a bloody, years-long war in the Balkans (that continues to this day). Dictators may be SOBs, but they know how to keep the peace.
I further pointed out that Iraq was a “new” country (1922) with arbitrarily drawn borders that did not take into account the ethnic and religious differences of the people that lived there.
He asked me about the differences between Shiites and Sunnis. I replied that I did not understand them, but those differences were serious enough that these guys kill each other over them. I pointed out that neither branch of Islam has too much affection for the Kurds, and that the only solution to insure the peace would be to carve it into three countries.
I still believe that.
Shortly after the war started, it ended, or so we thought.
I mean, Gosh!, there’s the president standing under a big banner saying “Mission Accomplished.”
The troops will be coming home soon, right?

OK, so we redefined the mission. To what I am not sure.
“We’re going to be there until we have victory.”
Oh, OK.
What is victory?
There are no WMDs in Iraq.
That is a victory.
Saddam is dead.
That’s a victory.
Are we going to establish democracy?
Democracy in Palestine has brought Hamas to power. We don’t dare establish democracy.
There have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.
We could call that a victory.
We’ve built the world’s largest embassy complex in Baghdad and we’ve got nineteen brand new military bases over there (plus the two in Afghanistan that most folks haven’t heard about). The US will be there forever.
That’s a victory of sorts. At least the oil is secure.
Listen to Fox news. There’s a victory every day!
I saw on the real news the other day a young Marine down at Camp Pendleton, getting ready to go on his FIFTH deployment. The poor young man looked at the camera and said, “I don’t wanna go.” Can you blame him?
I guess victory for him would be getting home alive.
Until and unless somebody with a pair gets up and defines what victory is, the only answer to the question, “Are we there yet?” has to be:
“We’re not headed there anymore.”

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 07:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Have you received the e-mail? Have you seen the video?
The right is all atwitter over comments made by Barack Obama’s preacher.
These comments were not made by Obama, of course, but those in power will stop at nothing to smear the guy.
The argument goes something like, “This guy married Obama and his wife! My God, what kind of judgment does Obama have?”
I watched the video. HERE is the page with the link.
What did the man say that was untrue?
As a nation, we’re mighty damn lucky we won’t be judged by God! We enslaved an entire race of people—and some of our leaders justified it with the Bible, no less! We’ve allowed the abortion of millions of children. Do you think God might have a problem with a few of our actions against our fellow man?
Does the Trail of Tears ring a bell?
How ‘bout Wounded Knee?
Maybe those on the Christian Right—now there’s an oxymoron—think the wholesale slaughter of innocent Iraqis in the pursuit of American interests would be a pardonable sin. I sure as Hell don’t.
True enough, no man can know the mind of God, but if the Bible is any indication, people who have acted like our nation has, might be in a world of hurt in the next life.
Again, we should be glad America won’t be judged.
The good Reverend also made comments about 9/11. Ah, 9/11. Soon to be the new third rail of political debate.
Yup, the Reverend says that 9/11 was God’s wrath for our brutal imperialism throughout history.
Maybe it was!
It’s just his opinion.
I never agreed politically with my clergymen, but then, I was raised a Catholic.
I don’t agree on a lot of things with the friend that sent me the video.
So?
How is that a reflection on my judgment?
If anything, this tempest-in-a-teapot shows Obama’s tolerance for all views. Something Obama’s opponents are sorely lacking.
Don’t get me wrong.
I wouldn’t vote for Obama at gunpoint. The man is a member of the same anti-Constitutional cartel that the other two belong to. Granted, he has charisma in spades (can I say that?), but a charismatic, good-looking, Black fascist is still a fascist. His election isn’t really going to change anything.
Even as I write this, Obama is playing the political game, condemning his minister’s words but not his ministry. You see? He’s a team player!
Gag.
The man told the truth and expressed his opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
I can’t wait for November 5th!

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 07:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I can't really add to this.

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 12:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I have news for the Republicans.
If they honestly think they can win in November, they are lying to themselves.
We all know somebody who does not vote--maybe someone who doesn’t even bother to register—because either they have no interest in charade at all, or they realize the truth: there is no difference between the two major candidates. It has been said the last time we had an actual choice was in 1964—and we blew it.
According to the Census Bureau, a potential twenty million people would vote if voting were worth it. Personally, I know my vote doesn’t matter but it maintains my right to write this blog. There are untold others who feel as I do, but 20 million is a good number to keep in your head for a moment.
I am quite positive that Hillary will be nominated. This, in spite of Barack’s recent surge. She simply can get her hands on too much money to lose. If I am wrong, and the Republicans do not do something drastic—like setting off a suitcase nuke and declaring martial law—they cannot turn the tide of antipathy the last eight years have generated. Hillary will win.
Accept it.
Ask 100 people if they think there is any real difference between the candidates. How many will tell you there isn’t any? Count how many times you hear, “Yeah right, they’re all owned by somebody.”
I get the same response.
What if the Republicans put up a candidate who actually was different? What if we had an actual choice? Two candidates who were as different as night and day?
Do you think it might persuade those twenty million to get up and vote?
Forty percent of voters vote Republican. Forty percent of the voters vote Democrat. Regardless of who the candidate is (these are the brain-dead). This equates to roughly fifty million votes for each candidate. These people will vote the party line every time, no matter what. It is accepted as a truism in politics. It is persuading the other twenty percent that is the job of the tricksters, er, campaign workers.
Fortunately, for the Republicans, there is a man on their ballot this year who IS different! He is the one man that you don’t hear too much about in the popular media, but he is all over the internet where the younger—and non-poll-taking—crowd abound. What news you might hear is “that he can’t win,” “Unfortunately... it’s over for [him].”
Bull! He can’t win if you don’t vote for him.
The man is Ron Paul.
The precise reason you won’t be fed any information about him is that he is different. You have to find out about him on your own. You have to become involved. You have to make the effort.
Here is a good place to start.
The Republicans know damn well that their core forty percent will vote for him. They know damn well that those twenty million non-voters would also vote for Dr. Paul. (Why they don't want Dr. Paul is the subject of another essay.)
Do the math. That man would start out with seventy million votes against Hillary’s fifty.
If you are a Republican, educate your friends to this simple fact.
If you are a Democrat, pray the Republicans don’t get smart!

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 07:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Are you against abortion?
Forget for the moment that abortion is a “wedge issue” designed to keep us divided. Do you think Roe v Wade should be overturned? There is only one candidate for president who will work towards that end.
Ron Paul.
On the other hand, do you think the federal government has no place telling a woman what she can do with her body? There is only one candidate for president who will work towards that end.
Ron Paul.
Did your job get shipped overseas? Did you know that corporations get tax breaks to do that? Would you like to change the unfair tax codes that allow that? There is only one candidate who will do that.
Ron Paul.
Are you worried how you will weather the upcoming recession? Are you tired of making less money than your parents, while “the rich get richer?” There is only one candidate who has promised to fix our economy PERMANENTLY so we will never again have to worry how to provide for our families.
Ron Paul.
There is no more important long-term crisis facing our country that the National Debt. It is currently around nine trillion dollars and growing at 17,000 dollars per second. Most candidates for president want to borrow even MORE money to salve our current fears. There is only one candidate who will not only reduce and eliminate the debt; he will enact laws to make sure we never have one again!
Ron Paul.
Are you against illegal immigration? All the candidates but one are internationalists. Internationalists—by definition—do not believe in borders. Can you guess which candidate will secure our borders and make America safe?
Ron Paul.
In November, we will have a clear choice. We can vote for more of the same, or we can vote for
Ron Paul.

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 05:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Isn’t it rich?
Wouldn’t you say?
They’re playing games with our health;
The FDA.
Where are the clones?

Isn’t it bliss?
Nothing to lose.
Big biz is taking away
Our right to choose.
Send in the clones.
They’re sending us clones.*

Seriously though.
The FDA announced yesterday that food from cloned animals was safe.
The article I read mentioned that consumer anxiety is serious enough that several producers won’t sell products from cloned animals because people won’t eat them.
But, how can you tell if your food is as God intended?
Worry no more.
Your government—who always has your best interests at heart--has decided that you don’t need to know.
Their scientists have decided that there is no difference in the products of cloned animals, so there is no need to label them.
Uh-huh.
These are the same folks that said giving milk cows bovine somatropic hormone (BST) would have no effect on consumers.
Tell that to the parents of an eight-year old girl who is menstruating.
My point here is not whether the products are safe.
The point is that if we want to choose a different product, we are stymied.
The reason is obvious: If people choose not to buy “frankenfood,” it would hurt sales.
Can’t have that, can we?
It could hurt the bottom line!
This is not the first time that the FDA has put profit before health.
When Tylenol was first introduced, some of the people in the FDA noted that too much—especially when mixed with alcohol--would cause liver failure. They thought that important piece of information ought to be on the label. When the manufacturer noted such a label would “hurt sales,” the FDA relented. And people died. Many people.
One of them was my wife.
The fiasco with Vioxx also comes to mind.
The article also mentioned that the FDA was not alone. The Europeans came to the same conclusion last week.
Small wonder. European consumers have long-opposed frankenfoods.
In the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, (GATT) there are rules that say the signatories may not halt the shipment of foodstuffs without a good reason. In order to keep the wheels rolling, the European version of the FDA had no choice but to acquiesce to the demands of business—at the possible expense of consumer safety.
I wonder how the typical European consumer will react. They are not quite as accepting of their government’s [blather] as we are.
But then, they don’t have FOX news.
I am not opposed to doing everything one can to increase one’s profit. But there ought to be reasonable limits. Not endangering the public’s health is a reasonable limit. The folks who would feed us this stuff make a handsome enough profit already.
How much is enough?
I don’t know if eating cloned foods will hurt me or not.
I do know I cannot trust the FDA.
I also know what won’t hurt me:
Having a label on my food.

*Sorry, Mr. Sondheim. I couldn’t resist

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 06:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)