|
Pulse of the Twin Cities Login |
|
If you do not have an account yet
Create One.
|
|
|
Twin Town High (vol. 8) |
|
|
|
|
How to win a war on terror...Bush's conflicts of interest
Friday 15 October @ 18:42:53 |
 How to Win the War on Terror?
Who is America frightened by? It's a valid question. Well, I'm afraid of many things, but honestly, the chance of being the victim of a terrorist attack is not one of them. But I'm supposed to be afraid, that's what my president tells me, and he's the only guy who's strong enough to protect me.
If I just listened to his words and accepted what he says at face value, I guess I might believe that, but I have to look at more than that, because George W. Bush has gotten us into a war that is so wrong I no longer have the strength to put it into words.
How has Bush fought the war on terror? Well, I can credit him with identifying it. He was knocked in the head on September 11 and righteously declared that there were terrorists and he was going to get them.
 Did he go after them? Pretty early on Osama Bin Laden was identified as the facilitator of these attacks, and Bush sent a few guys into Afghanistan to look for him, but who can find anyone in all those caves? And who can risk alienating the Bin Laden family? That would destabilize our supply of much needed and much addicted to oil. I don't know where Osama Bin Laden is now, he's obviously more difficult to find than an Iraqi dictator, in a hole in the ground, in the dessert.
I guess if he can't get that terrorist he has to make someone pay. Someone who may, one day have the capability to maybe commit a crime against us. I guess Sadam Hussein was a good choice. He's not a Good Guy, nobody really likes him, and besides, we could get control of all that oil. Bush starts making his case. To the UN and to us folks at home. We feel vulnerable, we don't want anyone to have Weapons of Mass Destruction (never mind all of the ones we have). The UN is not convincible. Maybe they take the effects of war more seriously, maybe they see the thing from a more balanced perspective, a more global perspective. But anyway, Bush doesn't need their approval. When Bush makes up his mind to do something no new information will sway him, never mind a different point of view.
Without UN backing Bush has to get the approval of folks like Senator John Kerry to launch a preemptive strike against Iraq. What's preemptive? It's a declaration of war, it is the first aggressive strike against a nation. I wish someone would ask the Supreme Court if that is constitutional. It seems to me our forefathers gave the right to declare war in our constitution to the Senate. Maybe that was to keep all of that power out of one set of hands.
So, "Shock and Awe." Talk about mass destruction. If you're going to bomb something it may as well be a city of over 4 million people, sleeping in their beds. I guess they're all terrorists anyway, right George? After all, they're not Christians like you.
I can barely go on from here. More than a thousand of our children and citizens add to our loss, and more than 11 thousand innocent Iraqis dead. Thousands more irreparably wounded. Iraq is devastated, they are occupied, insurgencies are breeding more terrorists than Iraq has ever known, and they no longer want us there, but we stay. And we'll even send more troops to kill, and die. Bush got Sadam Hussein, and so we are rid if that guy that nobody liked, and he'll never support another terrorist (but he might inspire them), and we control the oil. If we just listened to George W. Bush and accepted his words at face value, we might believe that we've done more good than harm. I don't think that's the case.
I found this definition of terrorism on a CIA FAQs page:
"How do you define terrorism? The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. "
CIA.gov
Draw your own conclusions. Is our president able to win the war on terror? George W. Bush seems to have concluded that 'If you can't beat 'em...' Even John Kerry promises to "Hunt them down and kill them." Maybe Edwards will give him a few lessons on Due Process.
I like Ralph Nader's plan. Bring our troops home. Restore sovereignty to Iraq. Make reparations.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Vote for Nader.
Peace,
Kristen
[This letter was submitted through this website, and the author neglected her last name and location – ed]
Bush Security Has Conflicts of Interest
I have been following the Bush presidency for some time now from afar and it has become apparent to me that the average American has missed a grave threat to our national security because of George W. Bush being in office. George W. Bush's father was on the board of directors of the Carlyle Group at the same time that members of Osama Bin Laden's family had money invested in this company and contrary to what has been implied in the media Osama still had contact with these family members in the months directly before 9-11. This is a matter of public record and this corporation had made billions of dollars directly after 9-11 and arguably as a DIRECT RESULT of 9-11. This is the single biggest conflict of interest that has ever existed in the history of our country and it is time that this fact be brought out in the open. We owe this to the victim's families of September eleventh.
 I am tired of hearing from people in the media that George Bush will be a better leader for the security of our country. If it was not for the above-mentioned business relationships the events of 9-11 would have NEVER of happened in the first place. People wake up and smell the coffee. Bush has done nothing for the security of our nation. He has made our country less safe with a conflict of interest that the history books will show to be nothing less than criminal. Let me put it to you like this: we are supposedly fighting a war against an enemy whose very leader is connected to our president by, at the minimum, two degrees of separation! Every piece of foreign policy that has been implemented in the past four years can be understood simply from what I just said in the above sentence.
Why did not the September eleventh commission at the very least mention this possible security liability to the public? The only possible reason would be that they intentionally had something to hide for political purposes. Why has not the mainstream media given this story any mention at all? In the weeks after September eleventh we heard from various news sources that investigative news reporting is just about dead. Does it really take a rocket scientist to understand what they were trying to hint at?
To date no one has taken responsibility for September eleventh, Osama Bin laden included. All physical evidence to date suggests that the culprits are anything but Arab terrorists. A plane did not hit the Pentagon, the World Trade Centers did not collapse by burning jet fuel, and the Anthrax attacks had nothing to with Arab terror. All of theses statements are true and all one has to do is objectively look at the physical facts for themselves to find this out. I am not asking you to believe me. All I am asking is that the citizens of this country start asking questions and demand answers and stop getting their news solely from mainstream sources. The laws of physics do not lie! We have been misled by the leaders of our country and if this great nation is going to last in a form that anyway resembles a democracy, we must find out the truth about 9-11.
 The only absolute that has existed throughout history has been corruption. Should this time period of history be under any less scrutiny? Everyone knows that the world is corrupt so why then when presented with facts that suggest that this corruption might currently be going on in the Bush administration is it automatically branded conspiracy theory by the mainstream media? If the fair and balanced Fox network is so quick to point the conspiracy theorist label then why did they like the rest of the establishment media tell the public that a scenario such as planes being flown into the World Trade Center was never considered? Fox themselves had a prime time show about that very same premise almost six months to the day before 9-11! Why were we not told about this?
Why are we not even able to question the official story of 9-11 publicly if there were no truth behind any of this? Are we to trust the people currently in power without question? The only way corruption is able to exist by the people in power is by keeping the general public ignorant. Forget about the greater good of Israel, Forget about "the clash of civilizations", and forget about A New American Century, it is the truth that this country was founded on and without this the United States and indeed the rest of the world will not have a future worth living in. It is the truth that will set us free and when a government no longer has its citizen’s best interest in heart but that of an elite few, that government is no longer legitimate. I ask you to remember these things come Nov. 2 when faced with the question of whether this administration should get another four years.
Sincerely,
Joseph J. Hrevnack
[This letter was submitted through this website, and the author neglected his location – ed]
|
|
 |
|
|
Comments -
Post Comment |
|
The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content.
NO comments yet! Be the first!
|
|
|
