Rumsfeld Speech

The Bush Administration has turned loose the dogs of propaganda and all members are giving speeches praising the President’s decision to go to war in Iraq and demonizing anyone who speaks out against his actions. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who has done practically nothing right about Iraq, has taken the lead dog position and become propaganda chief.

Mr. Rumsfeld, in a speech this week, accused anyone who speaks against the war of being “appeasers” and practically the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain in his dealings with Nazi Germany prior to the beginning of World War II. Talk like that is not only insulting to the American public (2/3 do not agree with the handling of the war by “W” and Company,) but also shows a complete lack of, or twisting of, history and truth. Of course that has become standard for this administration.

What Rummy fails to bring out in his diatribe is the fact that when Prime Minister Chamberlain appeased Chancellor Hitler for “peace in our time,” it was after Germany had already taken over Austria, taken over the Sudetenland, and invaded a neighboring country. Of course we all know that was followed by the Nazi war machine invading Poland with the resulting World War II. As bad, vicious, and dictatorial as he was, Saddam Hussein had not invaded another country. (When he did invade Kuwait, Bush’s father, with the blessing of the UN intervened, kicked him out, and destroyed his WMDs.) The present president had no such reason to invade and anyone against the war is not asking for appeasement. (This has nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan, the home base of Osama Bin Laden, who with the cooperation of the Taliban, was responsible for the attack of 9/11.)

Mr. Bush with his “war-time presidency,” has tried to link terrorism with 9/11, with the war in Iraq, with Saddam Hussein, with WMDs that never existed, and with anyone who opposes him.

If the opposition appeased anyone it was the cabal in the White House, when they went along with the president and authorized a war and expenditures, which was based upon false information that was concocted to buttress a reason for attacking Iraq. They did it to fight the “war on terror,” which is the modern version of “peace in our time.”

Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, and even Ms. Rice, can make all the speeches they want, accusing others of endangering America, of “cutting and running,” of being “appeasers,” and giving solace to the enemy, but nothing will cover up their insolence and ineptitude. They, and no one else has hurt America so badly.

Bigotry of Katherine Harris

Dear Editor:

In a story in Sunday’s (Aug. 27th) newspaper on U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris’s (R-FL) statement to the Florida Baptist Witness, the journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, it was reported she said that separation of church and state is “a lie” and that G-d did not intend the country be “a nation of secular laws.” Also, separating religion and politics is “wrong because G-d is the one who chooses our rulers.” She went on to say that “If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.”

The dictionary defines a bigot as: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” Ms. Harris, who oversaw the Florida election of George Bush to the presidency in 2000, evidently is the perfect example of bigotry as defined in the dictionary. Her statements on this subject defy logic, common sense, and are unbecoming of a member of the United State Congress.

Also, I would like to know how Rep. Harris received these words from G-d, since she claims to be knowledgeable of what the Almighty thinks or wants. Did she receive this information via email, a phone call, or in direct communication with the Lord? Can anyone do that? Or is Ms. Harris in a class by herself?

No matter how you cut it, bigotry is bigotry, and making your beliefs and religion the standard, to the exclusion of all others, is unacceptable to any thinking, religious, G-d fearing person, no matter what their personal beliefs.

Unreliable French Are No Surprise

News Story: UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 17 -- France has rebuffed U.N. pleas to make a major contribution to a peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, setting back international efforts to send a credible military force to the region to police a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, according to U.N. and French officials. French President Jacques Chirac instead committed Thursday to send a relatively small military engineering company of 200 soldiers.

The good old French. A country whose military has a wonderful record: French and Indian War, Napoleonic War with Russia, First World War (US saved them), Second World War (US saved them), and French Indo-China. Have they ever won one?

So now, afraid of what their military is incapable of doing, they are backing out of their agreement with the United Nations to lead a peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon. Anyone surprised?

Israel now faces another promise of European “protection,” just like European Jews faced during the Nazi “Jewish Solution.” Lebanon has announced that their army will not disarm Hizbullah and will carry arms only for self protection, and the UN will continue to give lip service to disarming. So who protects Israel? Only Israel does, and whatever it takes they will do.

I guess Bush and Rice are too busy patting themselves on the back for getting a worthless UN resolution passed. Just a bunch of words from them and the head of the UN who backs the Muslims. Thank you US, UN, and the rest of the Western World. Don’t be surprised when things blow up again.

What a waste.

Accomplishing Nothing

Dear editor:

The sign aboard that aircraft carrier said it all: Mission Accomplished. The President and members of his administration have all said it: Stay the course.

But what exactly is that Mission, what has been Accomplished, and what exactly is the Course we are staying? In other words, what is the purpose of our staying in Iraq? Does anyone know?

In a recent New York Times editorial it was pointed out that: Coalition troops are present in parts of Iraq with no achievable mission. No purpose is served by having British troops in Southern Iraq when they are not going to take on the militias or promote democracy. There is no point in having US troops in the middle of civil war when they are not going to do anything serious to stop it. So what are we doing there?

There is no way possible, practical, or militarily for the United States to shove democracy down the throat of extremist Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, or Syria, et al. They are truly content to live in their fourteenth century theocracy with their twenty-first century weapons. Iraq has suffered over 110 deaths per day during the month of July 2006, and the carnage continues. America has lost over 2,600 service members in Iraq since the beginning of this so-called War Against Terror. Casualties are a huge number.

Some say that if we pulled out of Iraq we would dishonor those Americans who lost their lives or were wounded in this pre-emptive war. They are in truth dishonored by allowing more of their buddies and relatives to die for a cause that doesn’t exist, and never did.

So what are we accomplishing?

Nothing, other than showing how stubbornly misguided an administration can be. We talk about giving more and more control and responsibility to the Iraqi army and police that we have “trained.” But as we do, the number of deaths climb and the impotency of the Iraqi government, that our government speaks so glowingly about, becomes increasingly evident. We are not capable of, nor should we be, changing the hearts and minds of a people who prefer a religious view, a way of life, and a government different than ours. We can not and should not force them to have our form of government, our morals, or think as we do, as we don’t understand theirs, and probably never will.

And our “pride?” Why don’t we just do as we did with that other abortive war, Vietnam. We put our tails between our legs, got out, and declared “We won.” Sounds good.

Army Theme Park

The Army has decided not to consider a developer's proposal for a 125-acre amusement park next to a national Army museum at Fort Belvoir, Va., as was reported in the Washington Post.

I guess the US Army already has a theme park given to them by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Rove conglomerate. It's called Iraq. The sad part for American service people is that the price for admission is so often their life