12 years later

As we mourn another year of the tragedy that took place in New York City, a larger question remains unanswered:

What have we learned?

We have learned that we can be very bitter and have revenge.
We have learned that we still believe we're the center of the universe and that we're better than anyone.
We have learned that it's better to hate than to educate.
We have learned that when it comes to revenge, we have no qualms destroying other countries in retaliation.

Harsh?

Absolutely.

The problem is - we haven't learned one thing from our history.

What we should have learned.

We have a responsibility to other cultures and countries across the marble we all live on.

We should respect one another and thoroughly learn those who disagree with us so that we can better understand their complaints against us.

We have the ability to destroy thousands of lives ... but we don't need to.

We have the ability to look in the mirror.

We have the ability to learn from our mistakes.

We have the ability to learn more about those that have grievances against us.

Contrary to what you may believe, I still deeply feel the loss our nation went through on 9/11.  It was senseless.  It was tragic.  It made me angry.  It made me question a lot about myself.  It made me reconsider how I view our foreign policy and the aftermath that would soon follow in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For when it was all said and done, our vengeance was taken out on a middle eastern country whose leader we had long since despised.  It was a convenient target even though the mission was horribly contrived and concocted.  We got our "blood thirst" temporarily satiated in the countless slaughter of Iraq's own population.  When you consider the loss of their lives - significantly pales in comparison to the loss of our nation's families on 9/11 ... if you can wrap your mind around that notion, then you're beginning to realize that we are equally burdened by our revenge spurt that happened over the last decade.

I was not in favor of our actions in Iraq, but I was in favor of going after the guy that did it - who was in Afghanistan then moved to Pakistan.  I was in favor of putting an end to the regime in Libya and I am not a fan of the despot in Syria.  Civil wars are always going to be the bane of the world around us.  I'm not one of these folks that believes we need to be interfering in the plight of every conflict that happens.  It's deeply tragic what's happening when a nation gases and neutralizes their citizens by way of chemical warfare.  It's abominable.  It's atrocious.

Just because we can do something about it - doesn't mean we always should.  I'm not sure where the line is.  As much as I'd want to put a stop to all the senseless crap in the world - I know we simply can't.  It's impossible.

What we can do is start improving the way we view the world around us.  We can educate ourselves about other cultures, we can teach compassion and sympathy.  We can set a new example of how citizens are supposed to behave - like adults - rather than petulant children who simply aren't getting their way.  Pitching a fit isn't going to resolve anything in the world.

We can stop the war drum beating, the inflaming "journalism" and eliminate the dazzling political punditry that seeks to divide us from the world than unite us.  The United Nations was founded on the principle that we can mutually meet to resolve our differences ... but as long as there are those out there that continually berate the actions of the U.N. without fully understanding the scope and cause of the organization - then the world will continue to be in peril and conflict.

We need clarity when it comes to our resolve ... but we need to be open, understanding and educated participants of the world to make that happen.

"Leave my son alone!"

You'd think the above Title for this rant came from some middle America father who's son just got back from Iraq.. Or maybe it's some mother who is defending their son in the press from an unwarranted criminal charge..

Or in this case, it comes from an ex-President, speaking about his son - also a President who simply can't seem to grasp the idea that the war in Iraq was not the right answer.. It was never the right idea in the first place!! So when Bush 41 stands up to defend his son's foreign policy, it really makes Bush 43 look worse than he ever did before.. It makes him look week, incompetent and unable to defend himself..

The bad thing is: Bush 43 is weak.. Bush 43 is incompetent.. And given every possible opportunity to defend himself, he simply doesn't get the American mentality behind the war.. When the justifications for the continued war in Iraq, Bush floundered and squandered in so many ways -- it's a miracle things have been held together as long as they have already..

It's no wonder that he wants to hand this cluster over to "the next guy" so that he can dust off his jacket and continue writing the legacy he wants so that he gets painted in the most favorable light he can.. After all, when you fail so miserably in a war and by watching the country crumble with a heavily flawed economic policy the next "conflict" to be aware of is the one that's going to write about your Presidency..

So when Bush 41 stands before an audience and adamantly defends his son's myopic, distorted vision of Iraq -- I'm reminded that Saddam was not the only mad man of the world.. And if Bush 41 cared to learn the rest of the world's most atrocious leaders of the world -- he wouldn't have to play the Saddam card.. So as much as I'd like to back off and cut his son some slack -- I look at the photos of Bush's tour of a recovery unit and I shake my head..

Because there never was a viable acceptable mission that would placate the American thirst for finding those responsible for 9/11 -- only to find that Bush 43's acceptable parameters for securing Iraq had: a.) no WMD, b.) no sign of Al Qaeda, c.) no link to 9/11 (to the degree of any other middle eastern country), d.) a blow hard of a leader who liked to kill his own people -- a bad guy, true -- not unlike the slaughter happening in most of Africa or the continued purges that happen in other places like Haiti..

So - don't think that just because you can play the "Saddam is a bad guy" card when that simply doesn't apply in the grand scheme of things.. There's a lot of bad guys in the world -- and some of them a whole lot meaner and a whole lot more dangerous than Saddam could be..

Sorry - I won't leave your son alone, Mr. Bush Sr.. Not when there are over 76k Iraqi reported deaths and over 3,800 American lives -- I don't think I will ease up..

Worried about the message??

Bush is coming out saying that he's worried about the message the port deal sends to the rest of the world??

He has his Treasury Secretary saying that we don't want the US to be isolationists??

And his nephew is speaking out that opposition to the port deal is "ignorant and offensive??"

Wow..

This is blissfully ignorant - agreed young Bushie!! Your uncle, the man you claim has such heralded values - *IS* ignorant my little feeble-minded friend.. If we're so worried about the precedent this sets, if we're trying to avoid being isolationists and if we need to be less ignorant and offensive - then your uncle needs to leave the White House.. Because he has burned every European bridge that we have had since the last World War - and further more, by keeping every contract at home "where it belongs" -- guess what, Mr. Snow -- it's the policies of this administration that has ALREADY made us isolationists...

And what about Bush's continued pledge to protect our country from "the war on terror??" Let's not forget that it was *this* President, this *man* who set forth the irretractable statement on the heels of 9/11:

In his November 11th radio address: "Any government that tries to pick and choose its terrorist friends will be regarded by us as a supporter of terrorism."

He targeted Saddam Hussein..

"Bush admits Saddam did not play a role in 9/11.."

and we're worried about the message??

He recently made an unprecedented, highly irresponsible act by securing a nuclear arms agreement with India.. Why is this of any consequence?? Because India has been held in check without the nuclear option for the last 40 years when they attempted to secretly manufacture nuclear weapons and was punished as a result.. Yes, India has had the bomb for quite sometime now -- but now it's legitimized, accepted by Bush as "welcome to the party - please, have a martini.." A nuclear bomb in that region sends a very CLEAR message to the surrounding nations: that the United States believes that the nuclear non-proliferation agreement is subject to whoever wants to play.. Without any enforcement, eh - who gives a crap.. The UN is trying to piece together some sort of stance on Iran - and Bush's unilateral, irresponsible decision has basically gutted any enforcement option.. He pushed the hand instead of being patient..

Bush never consulted with the world-wide nuclear committees that oversee nations that seek to develop nuclear technology..

Bush never consulted with members of Congress about what the ramifications are for allowing India to do this..

Bush never got anything in return from India.. He never asked for anything.. No assurances.. No agreements.. No moderation, nothing.. He unilaterally recognized India as a valid nuclear partner in the world.. Considering that India has drastically benefited from the outsourcing of American jobs within the last 6 years -- maybe this was the final stake to "insure" that America has an ally in the region.. Because he's done nothing but totally screw up the middle east - and once Iran starts moving forward with their plans -- then the precedent Bush makes with India paves the way for Iran to continue to build their bomb..

For those keeping score - the world just got a LOT more dangerous..

What about that message, George?? Why is Bush peeling back all of the peace accords that Ronald Reagan worked so hard to keep?? Reagan held the peace - Bush is selling it at the highest bidder..

Bush has no foundation to question how the Dubai port fiasco sends whatever message around the world.. His actions since 9/11 is of a maverick cowboy who has no understanding of truth or basis of fact.. He's arrogant.. He's a detriment to the safety and security of the United States because UAE had a strong, a very strong connection to the hijackers of 9/11.. We reward this country by giving them access to our vital ports?? What happened to the line in the sand?? What happened to punishing those nations who had a hand in 9/11?? What happened to all of that -- rhetoric??

Snow has no foundation to presume that the port deal will make us isolationists.. Bush successfully made us completely isolated when he invaded Iraq by shunning all of the major players that *do* have significant parts to play in the role of terrorism.. We shunned France.. We snubbed Germany.. We gave the finger to the Russians and even disavowed ourselves from NATO, the UN and any other organization that was preaching: patience.... Message to Snow: "Don't talk about isolationism when your boss already has isolated us...."

To the little Bushie: take a page from your other relatives and stay out of politics.. Want to talk about "ignorant and offensive.." Think Abu Ghrab, think of ignoring the warnings of the planes hitting the targets, think of not finding WMD, think of giving your uncle some of your classtime so that he can learn how international cooperation *actually* works, think of the best way it is to protect our country and punish those who had significant dealings with the attack of our country on September 11th.. But my biggest advice to nephew Bush: aspire to be better than your Uncle because if you're looking to him to be your role-model, then I'm looking forward to nuclear winter when you're running the country..

It must be so incredibly comfortable living in ignorance and contrived facts...

Like I trust you NOW....

Trust..

It's one of those things that when it's violated - it doesn't grow back the same way again.. We believed Bush and that was our mistake..

Most recently Alberto Gonzales defended Bush's "right" to spy on Americans with the following limitations:

-"He said Bush's authorization requires that at least one of the parties be outside the country and linked to al-Qaida or an affiliated organization." Whoa Nelly.. This administration has come out to say that SADDAM is linked to al-Qaida when in fact there has been no link found between the ousted leader and the terrorist organization and 9/11.. So, Alberto, I have a real hard time believing that anyone contained in your little circle of friends can adequately IDENTIFY someone linked to al-Qaida or not... Especially when you put 8-month old children on a no-fly list because they are suspected terrorists.....

No, I refuse to believe that they have the capability to satisfy their self-imposed condition...

-"But he refused to say how many Americans had been targeted and insisted the eavesdropping was "very limited, targeted" electronic surveillance. "This is not a situation of domestic spying," he said. " Not so fast.. 60 minutes did a piece back in 2000 -- 5 YEARS ago about the Echelon program; detailing exactly how our intelligence agency has monitored virtually ANY electronic signal from cell phones, cordless phones to baby monitors.. Anything - everything - is recorded and stored.. So the very notion that Gonzales, with a straight face, can argue that domestic surveillance does not exist -- is a bold face lie..

Sorry Alberto, you're 0-2 so far.. You better step aside and let someone else take over..

-Let's bring in Republican Senator Cornyn of Texas who proclaimed that the New York Times has endangered America by exposing the domestic spy plot for purposes of selling an upcoming book release.. Oh wow.. Let's back up here a bit Johnny boy.. First of all let's not forget that it was this administration who ousted a undercover operative -- exposing an intelligence stream which may have put countless American lives at stake -- and could have averted future attacks and impeded the capture of those *KNOWN* terrorists that we keep talking about.. That very small insignificant tidbit aside.....

Secondly, the Patriot Act renewal contains greater authority to surveil virtually anyone, anytime without so much of a judicial oversight.. It's a manifested plot to circumvent the governmental process by eliminating the whole checks and balances routine that our founding fathers fought to secure.. Remember, if any one branch of the government has more control over the other, then we risk the balance of our governing capability - usurp the authority as WRITTEN that approval should be sought before wiretaps and any other surveillance is conducted is PARAMOUNT to sustain a balance within the government.. Government 101 here, John -- better take that class over I'm thinking..

However, *if* the argument is being made that we are in a time of WAR - then let's not selectively pick which points that happen to favor your agenda.. Remember, America in WAR-time meant that you couldn't profit because it would be detrimental to the economy of our country.. So, if you want to put the New York Times out on a stake, then let's address those other profiteers that seem to have gone by unscathed: gas price gouging, Haliburton's monopoly on virtually every recovery effort here and abroad not to mention every politican (not just Senator DeLay) who has profited from creative campaigning tactics that are illegal..

Now if it was a ploy for the New York Times to further their publicity for a book that's coming out, then I'd like to remind you that this administration has gone to some pretty elaborate lengths to capitalize on the press too ... Schiavo immediately comes to mind.. So unfortunately Johnny, you're going to have to face up to the fact that you and your party are guilty of doing the exact same thing that you're trying to condemn..

If we're a nation at WAR - then Johnny, you better start acting like it..

This on the heels of the Iraqi propaganda machine churning out "favorable" stories about the United States, and the constant slant companies like Fox puts out .... all of this begs the question of why do we believe these people at all.. I'm lumping everyone in this one because Democrats are notorious for exaggerating or under/over reporting their facts too..

Back in the day, if you lied and held an elected position - it was political suicide.. If you lie today, eh - you're elected for another term.. It reflects a societal change which started well beyond Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter... I can trace back to as early as Nixon when if you lied - that's bad, but we'll forgive you.. Anymore - you can flat out lie without any support or facts and it just rolls into the next news cycle.. Accountability is non-existent and yet we're setting a record for commissions, investigations and other fact-finding missions into the exploits of our elected few..

Business as usual, I suppose..

Speaking in volumes

"Former 9/11 Commissioners: U.S. at risk.."

This article speaks volumes for a number of reasons:
1.) This administration has no clear idea of what the war on terrorism actually is
2.) This administration remains dedicated to the pursuit of Iraq no matter the cost
3.) The administration and Congress have neglected to heed the warnings of the 9/11 commission that set forth an important line of security precautions that reveal several flaws in our infrastructure and our intelligence..
4.) We're further isolated, fragmented and otherwise spread from one end of the globe to the other..

Even if this was not the terrorist's intent from the onset, all the needs to happen is to wait -- wait until we're isolated -- wait until we're vulnerable -- wait for the right time all the while keeping a consistent pressure on the peace in Iraq..

Saddam's trial will likely be a puppet show..

Iraq's ex-Prime Minister claims he was the target of an assassination attempt.. But if you read the story - you should be able to hear what the people are saying: they are fed up, they are frustrated, they are angry.. We're not talking about an uncivilized country, we're talking about an anger fueled by resentment..

All the meanwhile, we seem to have lost track of a chemist who is passionate about the "terrorist cause" and is currently developing chemical warfare to use against the Aghan/US forces.. Yeah - that's a problem..

So I have a really bad time believing Bush, the administration or any Senator or Congressman at this point who believes there are promising, good things happening right now.. It's not that I don't want bad things to happen to the Iraqi people, but no one seems to be listening to the Iraqi people.. Especially after we learn that the military has taken the liberty for planting news stories that favor the American military over there.. This is particularly disturbing because no matter how much we try to hold the country together, it's going to be completely unraveled just as fast as we're putting it together..

I said it once, I'll say it again: we're very presumptuous whenever we say "They want to be just like us..." No, Mr. Bush - they don't..

The country doesn't seem concerned anymore.. We just mosey along with our days - waiting for the next attack to happen.. *shrugs*

I guess all we can do is wait..

Oblivion

Further proof that this administration had no idea what they were getting into:

U.S. concedes ground to Islamists on Iraqi law

This article really tells us a lot of things:

-The US pressured the newly formed Iraqi government to pass a Constitution as quickly as possible ....
-The US wanted to enforce "equal rights" and democracy for the Iraqi people ....
-That the Iraqi people believe their religion is more important than a Constitution....

There's more to this story than is actually understood.. But it clearly outlines that the Bush administration is diving head first into a lame-duck term for their 2nd 4-year excursion.. And this pisses me off to no end..

What upsets me more is the fact that American lives are at stake here.. I'm not oblivious to the fact that the Iraqi people are experiencing hardships under a ruthless dictator.. The problem is - is the fact that there are A LOT of ruthless dictators through out the world -- AND -- their people are a lot worse off than the folks in Iraq were under Saddam..

Yes - the painting is starting to flake off the walls..

But then I heard this week that Americans generally do not care about the press slanted one way or the other.. They buy into the "Fox hype" and paint the rest of the media as being the "liberal bias.." That's why shows like Hannity, Rush, and others are still as popular as ever..

And that's sad really..

Because I don't subscribe to every singular thing that Air America and other liberal outlets crank out.. In fact, I do consider myself to be educated enough to be able to sort through the rhetoric and make an informed decision on a given issue given the fact that the talking heads and liberal bias are in the middle of a major informational war right now..

Unfortunately - our troops, our friends, our family, our spouses are caught in the cross-fire..

........

In other news -- Bush still connects 9/11 to Iraq..

This is another curve ball to try and sway public opinion that the war was just in Iraq.. That we were keeping terrorists at bay by attacking and destroying the infrastructure of Iraq.. Well ... the military just announced that they plan on being in Iraq for another 4 years.. So - when Bush mentions Iraq and 9/11 in the same thought -- Americans will automatically assume that Saddam had a hand in 9/11..

Even though if you examine Bush's statement, he says that by going into Iraq ... we are preventing another 9/11....... Which obviously isn't the same thing -- but the speech is designed to continually mention Iraq and 9/11 within the same thought pattern..

It's almost subliminal..

...and what's scary is that most American's buy into it -- every ..... single ..... time.....

But let's look at the things that have fallen on the wayside:

-Rove
-Roberts
-Bolton
-Ohio
-gas prices

It's convenient to taint the news cycle -- but today's media is hunkered down into some sort of school-yard brawl right now, they've forgotten how to report -- which should be their first job.. They say they are -- except there is an inclusion of bias that satisfies the powers controlling the strings......

...and that's why America remains oblivious...

The DeLay mess / A Deficit Soars

He speaks, and everyone holds their breath..

No, I'm not talking about Bush or Michael Moore..

But whenever the PR machine doesn't go in favor of this administration or the republican party, Karl Rove usually appears at just the right time to quell any anxiety that is going on in the party..

And the press becomes enamored to the point of fear as a result of it..

The whole Tom DeLay thing is actually pretty comical.. He's nothing more than a political cartoon, a caricature of what really exists under the skin of some of the Republican regime.. He's the untamed animal in a zoo that, up until this point, was in clear control of their emotions..

The whole veiled threat things gets me..

Even tho the "talking heads" out there are basically saying that it was taken out of context.. So when Karl Rove emerges from the bunker - all is calm - all is quiet - all is well..

The Damage Control Specialist has spoken..

We can all put this behind us because it's trivial because it has no relevance of the man - even though he clearly violated the laws that govern the conduct of every senator and member of the House of Representatives..

Think of what we've "waived off" during this administration:
- the 9/11 commission findings
- rising gas costs (no investigation)
- the Terri Schiavo case (how this doesn't violate the Constitution is beyond me...)
- and the whole Tom DeLay affair/debacle
- the bankruptcy bill & rising deficits on an astronomical trend

With a soaring deficit, we should take solace that our Vice President has said: "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

Interesting viewpoint of someone who clearly benefits when we're fiscally irresponsible and let the deficits run free.. (ala Haliburton)

...but then again, I guess it's okay to tell everyone what they have to do, to be fiscally responsible, when they justify it in their minds that they don't have to..