Wassup!

Colleen's thoughts on writing, directing and coaching, and her unique take on life itself!

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

A general testifies before congress

The same thing that was said in 2004, 2005, 2006 and now 2007. Stay the course.

And makes no mention of:

What a "victory" would be.

What a "victory" would look like.

How a "victory" could be achieved.

Why any sort of "victory" appears to be out of reach, no matter how many Americans and innocent Iraqis are killed.

Why terrorism would be defeated with the obfuscated idea of a "win" in Iraq - which is admittedly unattainable, because the only "win" we can identify is to hold off all the factions fighting between themselves and the US.

As the war in Iraq happens, the number of terrorist attacks around the world continue to increase and the number of Americans and innocent Iraqis continue to be killed there - more this year than last.

I remember when right-wingers warned us that we had to stay and fight in Vietnam (we wanted their natural resources for pennies) because if Vietnam was not "won" by the US, Vietnam and all the surrounding countries would go "commie." Um, didn't happen.

Today we are warned that we have to stay in Iraq because if Iraq isn't "won" by the US, then Iraq and all the surrounding countries would go terrorist/Al Qaeda.

Really. Saudi Arabia - our "ally" just west of Iraq, would go Al Qaeda? Sure, the majority of foreign Iraqi fighters are coming from and financed by Saudi Arabians, and the majority of those who attacked the US Sept. 11, 2001 were Saudi Arabians ... but would the entire nation - a wealthy monarchy headed by King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz - "go" Al Qaeda? Think about it.

Would Iran, already a fundamentalist Muslim state, go Al Qaeda? I don't see that happening, even though president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is meshugenah.

Kuwait is too rich and conservative to go Al Qaeda. Check out the map for all the nations involved.

Jordan? Nope.

Syria already hosts terrorists of all stripes so it doesn't have to go Al Qaeda.

Turkey? Go Al Qaeda? Um, can't see it.

I have to wonder why we are we so afraid of terrorists to begin with.

If we are afraid of them, like any bully, they have already "won."

Their point is to scare us, to put us in a state of terror, and wow, have they been successful in the US, with the help of lots of politicians who have actually not done a whole lot to protect us from them.

After all, what are terrorists going to do? Turn us all into fundamentalist Muslims? Or have *us* go Al Qaeda? I seriously hope you are laughing.

Attack us? The US can handle any attack (well, if there are any soldiers left here to fight) - and thanks to the Bush administration's failure to secure our borders, the failed Department of Homeland Security and sadly incompetent FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), we probably will have to deal with an attack one day.

I'm not saying there is nothing to be concerned about - but I'd prefer us to spend more time actually outwitting the terrorists than being afraid of them; spending more money protecting us from them than fighting a needless war.

Want to know how? Read Thinking Like A Terrorist by Mike German.

Unfortunately, President Bush confused the people who actually did attack us - mostly Saudi Arabian Al Qaeda members - with Iraqis. Not a single Iraqi attacked us Sept. 11, 2001, but he had the US military open fire on the Iraqis more than five years ago and today we are in a warring quagmire the US military is incapable of managing properly because it's a predominantly political problem that needs to be solved by the Iraqis themselves.

More, Osama bin Ladin's Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq until after we attacked and occupied Iraq. Interestingly, I doubt if Iraqis will ultimately fall for the political or religious lines of Al Qaeda - Iraqis just needed their help to fight their enemies.

I hope the souls killed in the attack on New York's Twin Towers, the Pentagon and United Flight 93 six years ago are resting in peace, ignoring how their President has sullied their memories, used them as political fodder to fulfill a personal or religious fantasy that has unnecessarily cost thousands' more American lives in Iraq and by extension Gulf victims of Katrina, and used the date of their deaths as a means to foster his political and - after he leaves office - financial coffers (according to Dead Certain, an interview with President Bush by Robert Draper).

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

ABC's Brian Ross reports suicide bombers coming here

Ross says that a video said to be photographed by a Pakistani journalist (possibly in Afghanistan or Pakistan) showed some of the 300 people, represented as suicide bombers as young as 12 trained by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

According to Ross's story, they are broken into teams supposedly assigned to destroy targets in the US, Canada, UK and Germany.

A man represented as a Taliban military commander, whose brother was killed by US forces, says that the teams are themselves actually citizens of the US, Germany, the UK and Canada.

American Intelligence officials scoff at the report, saying it's just part of an aggressive propaganda campaign by the terrorists; others take the report seriously.

Yep.

See?

The Bush administration has been so adamant - insisting the reason US soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq is to prevent the terrorists from coming over here. Because, you know - we're fighting them over there so they won't come here.

I believe there are actually few terrorists Iraq because the Iraqis are too busy fighting each other and US forces, keeping our military busy and distracted while wearing down our economy, military and national morale.

They know how to manipulate president Bush; it's simple because they know how he thinks, what he thinks and what he can be counted to say and do day after day. No surprises. Bush's answer to everything going on and going wrong in Iraq is to send more soldiers. Which only results in more US military and innocent Iraqi deaths.

His obsession of concentrating so many of our resources in Iraq frees the terrorists to go anywhere they wish to do their deadly, idiotic, hateful work.

The Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan because of a lessened US military presence.

I have to wonder what could have happened if we had maintained a noteable presence in Afghanistan rather than pulled our forces and diverted them to Iraq. The possibility of capturing Al Qaeda's leaders? Decimating their ranks? Crippling the Taliban? Reducing the heroin trade from Afghanistan to the US instead of allowing it to increase (by some estimates) 80%?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Huh?

Six fundamentalist Islamics and would-be terrorists from the Middle East and Yugoslavia .. in the US illegally .. were arrested this month in New Jersey when two of them tried to buy AKC automatic machine guns. They planned to kill as many people as possible at US Army base Fort Dix.

One of the men delivered pizzas to the base and told the group he knows Fort Dix "like the back of my hand."

They had been plotting the attack for some 16 months, according to New Jersey U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie.

Thanks to a local video store employee, the six were identified, followed by law enforcement and two paid informers infiltrated the group. The clerk was asked to transfer a video to DVD showing ten men preparing for the attack and making anti-US statements. The clerk reported them immediately.

The group had been watching tapes of terrorist activities and one of the 9-11 suicide-hijackers speaking to a camera to inspire others to commit themselves to "the jihad."

"Jihad" actually means a holy cause, not war, but terrorists consider killing themselves and all "non-believers" a holy cause, which is why they call their acts of terrorism jihad.

Suicide bombers are treated like rock stars among "believers," and make tapes of themselves to show how dedicated they are to Allah and how they look forward to the good fortune they will enjoy when they die - hooking up with all those virgins, yanga yanga yanga. Families of suicide bombers are frequently given large sums of money for sacrificing their lives to the cause of killing.

While fundamentalist Islamics are among those who entreat followers to kill "non-believers" and themselves in order to do that, mainstream Muslims the world over are starting to speak up, insisting that terrorists have hijacked their religion to carry out their own particular political agendas.

Now, here's my problem with what politicians have said after exposing the plot and arresting the six defendants - who are actually considered "far from hard core" terrorists by law enforcement officials:

Republican presidential wannabe Rudy Giuliani said that, literally, if you vote Democratic, you're going to die from terrorist acts. Republicans will protect us.

Uh-huh.

Other typical ultra right-wing wackos have said the same. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for inviting terrorism in the US, especially if we bring our troops home from Iraq. Riiiiight.

You know, they're using the old illogical argument that we need to fight 'em over there, so we don't have to fight 'em right here at home.

If you read my recent blog about this bizarre assertion, you know that fewer than 4% of those fighting the US in Iraq are associated with al-qaeda.

Terrorists don't need to be in Iraq because the Iraqis and now infiltrating Iranians are doing their work for them: keeping our soldiers busy being caught in the crossfire of a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites (who have been warring for some 1,300 years) and fighting previously peaceful Iraqis who have grown to hate the US because - gosh - more than half a million innocent Iraqis have been killed since the US invaded, and US soldiers are now blamed for destroying their country.

Hmmmmm.

So the question has to be why we're there to begin with, losing nearly 3,400 American lives with tens of thousands of our soldiers injured or maimed. What was the goal to begin with? More and more, the real answer appears to be to get our hands on their oil.

To all those who claim that the Republicans are strong on defense and security?

The six would-be terrorists - and who knows how many others who are not stupid enough to take a video of themselves practicing killing people to a video store for transfer - made their way into this country across who knows which border, port or train - on the Bush/Republican watch.

When they entered the country, Republicans and Bush had complete domination of the White House, Congress and Judicial branches.

Democrats didn't get any clout until the election was held several months after the pizza delivering terrorist had free reign to move around Fort Dix - where they train troops to fight in the Middle East.

Is this even starting to make sense?

The most serious questions:

Why are we not devoting our resources to flushing out Ben Laden and al qaeda -- those actually and vocally (proudly) responsible for killing thousands of people (many of whom were Muslim and non-American) on American soil September 11, 2001 (when Bush and the Republicans again had total control in the White House and congress) instead of fighting in Iraq.

Why do so many security loopholes remain in our borders and ports?

Why have we gone so deeply in debt to fight the war in Iraq - borrowing billions from our "good friend" China - without a specific goal or end to the battles in sight?

Are we sending tens of thousands more American soldiers to Iraq to be cannon fodder?

Three former US generals who were military leaders in Iraq - at least one of whom resigned in protest of what he considers President Bush's misuse of military personnel in Iraq - are featured on television ads now, stating plainly that President Bush has placed our nation at risk, that he is destroying our Army and Marine Corps and is needlessly costing us lives in a war we have no business fighting.

He does not mention to the vast destruction to the nation of Iraq itself and the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed because we are there. He is only talking about his concerns of what he considers the dismantling of our army and marine corps - his area of expertise.

Still, Bush sends more soldiers over - making them work far past their legal commitment and enlistment agreement. Not giving them the proper breaks between being sent to the front lines. It's no wonder so many of our brave women and men are coming home with post traumatic stress disorder - only to find too few resources to help them when they return.

Meanwhile, we don't have enough military personnel in the US to address disasters here in the US - whether it's from the horror in Louisiana, Mississippi and other states from Katrina or recent hurricanes in the Midwest and other domestic disasters.

In case you don't know - I am an Air Force veteran and am astounded at the decisions that have been made about the use of our military, our continuing security loopholes and other problems that appear to be overlooked because we have concentrated so many resources in a nation that was never a threat to our country or borders to begin with.

I'm delighted Saddam Hussein is history - but the "threat" he was to anyone outside Iraq and the Middle East was no greater than other leaders in other Middle Eastern nations and certainly far less than Ben Laden and al qaeda, sitting tightly in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the notorious Taliban, who are working to gain a foothold there again.

Expect the Republican rhetoric to skyrocket the closer we get to the election. I mean it is going to get nasty. I mean you won't know real nasty until you witness this coming election.

Because they don't want Democrats coming into the White House to witness the shambles Bush has made of the US Presidency, and the evidence he will leave behind of all the other *extraordinary* errors of judgement he made during his tenure.

Republicans would come in with a CYA attitude, wanting to clean up Bush's mess without any public notice. And believe me, they will desperately want to be sure they are in a position to take care of the mess left in his wake.

Democrats would definitely - to a degree - expose what they find. They can't afford to expose too much evidence of the Bush travesty because it would make the government and our two- party system appear to be broken.

Now the question is whether the Democrats have the stomach and stamina to stand up to all the right wing bravado, fear mongering, dishonesty and dirty politics. Take special notice of who counts the votes.

And whether Americans care enough to get involved with the election to make sure the nation gets back on track - working for the ideals and promises pledged by our constitution and Bill of Rights.

Labels: , , , , , , ,