Posts Tagged ‘John McCain’

image

Nothing annoys me more than a chicken-hawk war fighter. You know, the people that have never served a day of their lives in the military, and yet, they believe that they have the clout to say which country we should invade.

What was it? Last week the Obama administration hammered home a deal with Iran to ensure that Iran would never seek nuclear weapons, and Republicans decried it as Israel’s doom? Or, at the very least, anti-Israel. Our entire foreign policy in the Middle East is anti-Israel.

But then you have the idiot Donald Trump. After questioning whether or not John McCain was a war hero, he had this to say to ABC News:

People that fought hard and weren’t captured and went through a lot, they get no credit. Nobody even talks about them. They’re like forgotten. And I think that’s a shame, if you want to know the truth.

He went on to say:

People that were not captured that went in and fought, nobody talks about them. Those are heroes also.

Nobody says anything about them? What was the Vietnam wall built for? Or the Wounded Warriors Project? Granted, I think a lot of veterans have succumbed to the belief that they can’t rely on the government to aid them properly and in a timely manner, but have you seen Congress in the last eight years? Its a do-nothing government.

President Obama can’t even sneeze without generating a scathing remark from the opposite side.

But if we want to be honest about something, Bill Clinton didn’t help veterans affairs. George W. Bush didn’t. And neither has Barack Obama. And at any rate, is John McCain even running for President? And if he isn’t, why in the hell is Trump picking on him? Oh, that’s right. Bad publicity is better than none.

I liken Donald Trump to Sean Hannity. Poured from the same mold, these men sit back snipe of issues they know nothing about. Like Hannity, Trump has never served a single day in the service of his country. He’s never dodged a bullet or worried about whether or not he’s gonna make it home. He’s never seen his home life erode underneath his feet. He’s never been served divorce papers when he’s on the other side of the planet because his wife can’t take the strain. Neither one has felt the clutches of PTSD.

Back in March of 2010, Sean Hannity said that if we catch an enemy combatant in the field, he had no problem with taking their heads, sticking them underwater and scaring the living daylights out of them. He punctuated this with: “and I’m a Christian!”

Meghan McCain was on his show when he said this. This was her response:

I think it’s what separates us from the terrorists. My father could never left me up as a child because he can’t move his arm. He can’t ride a bike because he can’t bend his knee because he was tortured. I think he knows better.

In a segment with Charles Grodin, Hannity was asked whether or not he’d ever been water boarded (because, you know, Hannity had no problem with it), and he said he hadn’t. “But Oli North has and I’ve talked to him about it,” he commented rather weakly. Grodin offered to water board him, which Keith Olbermann seized upon, putting up a thousand dollars to charity for every second Hannity lasted. To my knowledge, Hannity has never put his money where his mouth is.

But that’s the major crux of the matter, isn’t it? For Hannity-a man who has never served in the military-and Trump-who received four deferments between 1964 and 1968, have no bragging rights. When it comes to military service, there are no second-hand experiences.

image

If Donald Trump wanted to bring the issue of veterans affairs to the forefront of the political spectrum, by all means. But outline a plan instead of sniping at man who spent five years in a POW camp, while Trump, himself, was safe and secure in a freedom service men have died for.

But hopefully, Trump is a fading star, headed for oblivion.

As if it weren’t bad enough that political morons said before the American people that the President has the right to order the assassination of  American citizens.  And as if it weren’t bad enough that Newt Gingrich thinks the Patriot Act should be expanded, this comes about.

Does any other American see this?  This whole war is fed off of fear!  And not just by militants in the Middle East, by our own government!  While our soldiers are “fighting for our freedoms”, we’re losing them here at home!  Ron Paul said it best that once you subvert rights of the people, the true crime is against the American people!

Mark my words – this legislation, if passed, will be used on Christians.

Now to the news.

NDAA detention provision would turn America into a “battlefield”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Saturday, November 26, 2011

Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial   1402565016 705d95495b

The Senate is set to vote on a bill next week that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor Monday, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

The bill was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

“I would also point out that these provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech last week. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.”

This means Americans could be declared domestic terrorists and thrown in a military brig with no recourse whatsoever. Given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism, such a provision would be wide open to abuse.

“American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?” asks Anders.

The ACLU is urging citizens to call their Senator and demand that the Udall Amendment be added to the bill, a change that would at least act as a check to prevent Americans being snatched off the streets without some form of Congressional oversight.

We have been warning for over a decade that Americans would become the target of laws supposedly aimed at terrorists and enemy combatants. Alex Jones personally documented how U.S. troops were being trained to arrest U.S. citizens in the event of martial law during urban warfare training drills back in the 90′s. Under the the National Defense Authorization Act bill, no declaration of martial law is necessary since Americans would now be subject to the same treatment as suspected insurgents in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you thought that the executive assassination of American citizens abroad was bad enough, now similar powers will be extended to the “homeland,” in other words, your town, your community, your back yard.

Imagine how we feel when someone does this to us – especially if it were supposed to be an “ally”.

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, June 21, 2011

John Kerry, the Democrat Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, and John McCain, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, will introduce a resolution today in an attempt to legitimize Obama’s invasion of Libya.

June 19 marked 90 days since Obama called for U.S. intervention under a humanitarian pretense. According to the War Powers Act, the president must wait on Congress to pass a resolution after 90 days.

McCain took to the Senate floor and said the measure would authorize Obama to advance U.S. “national security interests” as part of an international coalition attempting to unseat and even assassinate Gaddafi. The authority would be limited to a year, according to the Associated Press.

Kerry and McCain introduced the resolution in order to head off an attempt by the House to defund the operation. The effort began after Obama ignored Congress and did not seek a formal declaration of war, as stated under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.

Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since the Second World War. The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the president. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities began.

During the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase “make war” was changed to “declare war” in order to allow the executive branch to respond promptly to sudden attacks without approval of Congress or a formal declaration of war.

Resolutions have been ignored and violated in the past. For instance, in 1971 when Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, then president Nixon ignored the will of the people and continued to wage war in Vietnam. In response, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over a Nixon veto.

“The Constitution does not permit any president to decide unilaterally to overthrow foreign governments, redraw the world’s map, and put the national survival of the United States in jeopardy by committing us to a potential fight to the death with another sovereign nation,” writes Ken Klukowski. “Only Congress can make that decision, authorizing the president to use our military to wage war. Once authorized, only the president can actually order the military to attack. This is a two-step safeguard; both steps must be met before America goes to war.”

McCain and Kerry are introducing a resolution that will attempt continue Obama’s unilateral effort to overthrow the regime of Gaddafi. Instead of a formal declaration of war, they are attempting to pass a resolution that will eventually be ignored.

“I would be the first to admit that this authorization is not perfect, and it will not make everyone happy. It does not fully make me happy,” McCain said on the Senate floor, adding that he preferred that the resolution called the U.S. to commit more air power to the effort.

“That said, this authorization has been a bipartisan effort,” he added. “My Republican colleagues and I have had to make compromises, just as the Senator from Massachusetts and his Democratic colleagues have had to do. The end result, I believe, is an authorization that deserves the support of my colleagues in the Senate, on both side of the aisle. And I am confident they will support it.”

The elections are over and now we don’t have to endure those pesky smear campaign ads interrupting our Sunday football.  But what we seem to have not missed is Sarah Palin.  When asked whether or not a woman would run for President in 2012; Sarah Palin just sat up straighter and licked her lips.

Let’s be clear on this: Sarah, being some sort of celebrity politician in Alaska, running with one of the most corrupt politicians in 2008, quitting your state in the middle of your first term as Governor of Alaska, and being something of a political hitman, does not give you the “qualifications” to be President of the United States.  If President Obama doesn’t have enough “qualifications” to hold the office, you have less.

Sarah Palin is both beautiful and polarizing.  But sometimes the looks don’t match the brains. 

Since about fifteen (give or take a few) Teapublicans won election to the Congress; at least I have heard of repealing “parts of healthcare reform”.  Now that the Teapublican’s have a message of Washington, will they stand up to that promise? 

In his article A Tea Party to Nowhere; Philip Giraldi points out that unless the Tea Partiers abandon the interventionist foreign policy (which Sarah Palin supports), the change will be done for naught.

Or pay close attention to what he also says in the Tea Party Disconnect:

Some have expressed hopes that the tea partiers, many of whom grew out of the Ron Paul movement, will bring about a shift away from American imperialism through their demands for smaller, cheaper, less intrusive, and more accountable government. But it ain’t necessarily so. The tea partiers generally fail to understand that the indispensable element in the explosive growth of big government over the past ten years has been Washington’s failure to craft a foreign and security policy that is commensurate with the nation’s resources and proportional to the actual level of threat that exists in the world. This results in the tea partiers overwhelmingly supporting an aggressive security policy even though they must know that leaving the Pentagon budget untouched and untouchable guarantees deficit spending and continued growth of the parts of government that are allegedly committed to “keeping us free.”

The Republican Party has clearly understood that tea partiers are more-or-less fallen away Republicans based on their dislike of government coupled with unthinking chauvinism and are currently crafting their message to entice them back into the fold prior to November 2 nd. It is amusing to watch John Boehner with a straight face decry government growth and deficits when it was George W. Bush, aided and abetted by the selfsame Republican Party, who started down that road. Boehner is careful not to mention the two wars started by Bush that the nation continues to be embroiled in, nor is he interested in the oceans of red ink that global conflict inevitably produces. Discussion of foreign policy and war has been a no-no for both parties in the congressional elections campaign since both are complicit, and from the tea parties one hears nothing about Washington’s unbridled foreign interventionism. What America does overseas is a matter of little concern to most Americans as long as taxes do not rise to pay for it and one’s children are not drafted to hump a rifle through the Khyber Pass.

Nowhere is this blindness towards the foreign policy roots of the current political and economic disaster more evident than in two national political figures who are widely regarded favorably by many of the tea parties, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. Gingrichis an exceedingly clever and devious man whose foreign policy views are completely compatible with those of most neocons. He has also been close to Israel for some time. When he was speaker of the house, an Israeli company hired his second wife Marianne Gingrich for $2,500 a month plus commissions in September 1994 after he announced congressional support for construction of a free trade zone in Israel. Her work for Israel Export Development Co. was to find tenants for the trade zone. Gingrich claimed that since her job did not involve working with the US government, there was no conflict of interest. Gingrich, a champion of family values, divorced second wife Marianne in 2000 and is now on wife number three, who is 23 years his junior.

Gingrich believes that Iran as a “nuclear state” presents a “serious problem” for the United States that must be addressed by President Obama. “The president needs to say to the world that it is unacceptable to have a vicious dictatorship seeking to gain nuclear weapons with the direct goal of genocide.” He worries that Iran policy is stuck in an appeasement mindset. “It’s like the 1930s. The Iranian regime is dedicated to creating a second Holocaust, in terms of wanting to annihilate Israel. For 31 years, it has been trying to tell us through every method they know – through terrorism, killing Americans, and developing nuclear weapons – that they are trying to defeat us. Yet, while the regime is explicitly dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and the defeat of the United States, there remains an absolute refusal in the Western world to be honest about it. At what point do we decide that what we need is a calm and methodological regime-change policy…”

Gingrich also believes that waterboarding is not torture and that George W. Bush’s policies “blocked a number of planned attacks.” But the intention to use civil courts to combat terrorism means that “The Obama team is even more pro-terrorist rights and anti-national security than the Clinton team was.” Gingrich was also the first major US politician to assert that Islamic law – sharia – is a threat to American freedom. In a July 29 th, 2010 speech he stated: “The fight against sharia and the madrassas and mosques which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth. … One of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.”

Palin is something quite different, and a good deal more dangerous than the lumpish and frequently strident Gingrich. She knows nothing of foreign policy and even less of security and defense related issues and is basically a neocon creation being promoted by them as a national candidate. Palin was discovered by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol in 2007 while he and a group of National Review stalwarts were on an Alaska cruise. Kristol assiduously pushed the right buttons to get her on the Republican ticket with John McCain. Palin returned the favor, describing how she had an Israeli flag on display in her governor’s office and describing her love for Israel during the debate with Joe Biden, but her ignorance of foreign policy issues was palpable during the campaign. Palin continues to be in contact with Kristol and has benefited from a recent hagiography The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star by Matthew Continetti, who bears the title of “opinion editor” at the Kristol’s Weekly Standard. Continetti’s critique of Obama administration policies appears to include all Muslims, “Since 2005, Americans have been worrying about Iran’s ambitions for regional hegemony. Maybe it’s time we started worrying about Turkey’s regional ambitions as well. The Turks ruled the region from 1453 to 1922, after all. A renascence of Turkish power, in an Islamist guise, would cause all sorts of troubles no one can anticipate.”

Palin’s closest foreign policy adviser appears to be hardliner Randy Scheunemann, who advised John McCain and is perhaps most famous for his working as a lobbyist for Georgia, likely motivating his boss to declare “We are all Georgians” in a war that Tbilisi initiated against its neighbor Russia. So much for getting things wrong, but that has never in any way slowed down the neoconservatives. Another close adviser on foreign policy is Michael Goldfarb, who is the partner of Scheunemann at lobbying firm Orion Strategies, also worked for Kristol at the Weekly Standard, is an adviser for the Emergency Committee for Israel, and has also been associated with Liz Cheney’s Keep America Safe.

Palin’s boasts of being the mother of a combat veteran – her son with the somewhat unusual name Track – and has repeatedly asserted fatuously that American soldiers overseas are fighting to preserve freedoms in the US. Her simplistic bumper sticker analysis is perhaps not too atypical of the political chattering class, but even by their standards she is sometimes overly adept at reducing complicated issues to neocon crafted soundbites. In what was billed as a major foreign policy speech, delivered to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in April 2010, she staked out her basic position vis-à-vis the Democrats: “In foreign policy, we’ve got the makings of the Obama Doctrine: coddling our enemies while alienating allies.”

In another speech on June 27 th during a celebration called Freedom Fest in Norfolk Virginia, she also discussed foreign and defense policy. She said “This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.” Oddly, she added that “it takes a lot of resources to maintain the best fighting force in the world – especially at a time when we face financial uncertainty and a mountain of debt that threatens all of our futures” without apparently understanding that the two are related. Clearly failing to appreciate that military spending is money wasted, she asked “Did you know the US actually only ranks 25th worldwide on defense spending as a percentage of GDP? We spend three times more on entitlements and debt services than we do on defense.”

Concerning the War on Terror she insists on the use of the term “Islamic” to describe terrorists, opposes the proposal to close Guantanamo, rejects any deadline date for remaining in Afghanistan, and denounces any attempt to try terrorists in civilian courts. And she is not surprisingly particularly outspoken on Israel, stating “Folks, someone needs to remind the President: Jerusalem is not a settlement. Israel is our friend.” At Freedom Fest she elaborated “They escalated a minor zoning issue in Jerusalem into a major dispute with our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel. They treated the Israeli Prime Minister shabbily in Washington. When a Turkish sponsored flotilla threatened to violate a legal Israeli blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama Administration was silent. When Israeli commandos were assaulted as they sought to prevent unmonitored cargoes from being delivered to Hamas terrorists, the Obama Administration sent signals it might allow a UN investigation into the matter – an investigation that would be sure to condemn our ally Israel and bemoan the plight of Hamas.”

Tea partiers must begin to understand that accepting the calls of leaders like Palin and Gingrich for smaller and more sensible government and a return to constitutionalism without also understanding that they stand for an incoherent foreign policy, perpetual war, and ballooning deficits is self defeating. They are both traditional Republicans who want nothing more than to return the GOP to power. Only when you begin to question the raison d’etre for the wars and put an end to the American empire can you stop writing a blank check every year for the Pentagon, stop borrowing money to fund the fighting, and take sensible steps to reduce the size of government, making it again answerable to the people. As the memory of the overhyped terrorist threat fades, you might even begin to restore some of those civil liberties that have been stripped away by the Patriot Acts, the Military Commissions Act, and the increasingly frequent assertion of state secrets privilege.

Is it imaginable that the Tea Parties might turn in that direction? Perhaps not, though much depends on the extent to which the Republican Party and people like Palin, Gingrich, and Boehner are able to co-opt the movement. If they do, the revolt will fizzle out and turn into George W. Bush lite, or perhaps not so lite, with complete adherence to the consensus politics that created the current mess in the first place. Hard to imagine, but if the tea parties take a large share of the vote and align behind policies embraced by the likes of Gingrich and Palin, things could actually get worse.

Now Karl Rove – who was once critical of Sarah Palin, apologizes, and didn’t mean to hurt her feelings.

And here Karl Rove is trying to rewrite history…

Chuck Norris said that we should go to Congress, pull all the politicians out, and the ones that have been proven to be corrupt; throw them out.  Wasn’t it John McCain who said that “Washington changed them”?

Now Jesse Ventura has come out against parties.  Even third parties?

“I believe the system is so corrupt, the two parties have corrupted it so bad, that any thirty party, in which to be successful, will likewise have to corrupt itself. If you already have a two-headed monster, why would you need three?”

 “Do not put a name of a party below the person’s name on the ballot. It’s too easy to say, I’m a Republican. And you walk in: Republican, Republican, Republican. You’re voting the party, not the person. And that’s the way it’s all set up.”

It astounded me to find that John McCain won primary re-election.  Furthermore, I couldn’t figure out why the voters of Arizona would cast their freedom for a guy who hates freedom.  I highly doubt that those in the state of Arizona bothered to do much looking.  And, yes, the cause for Freedom is steeply stacked against the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) globalist.

As early as this year ‘The Maverick’ placed a bill into Congress that would authorize the indefinate detention of American citizens.  I am talking about S. 3081, the Enemy Belligerent, Detention, Interrogation, and Prosecution Act.  A giant step in the fight against liberty that is so bad, it would make Franklin D. Roosevelt proud.

ViaExaminer.com: “John McCain introduced a bill into the U.S. Senate which, if passed, would actually allow U.S. citizens to be arrested and detained indefinitely, all without Miranda rights or ever being charged with a crime.”

The report goes onto say:

“This bill, introduced by McCain, who despite overwhelming evidence, claims to be a ‘conservative,’ would not only take away our right to a trial, but would also allow the federal government to arrest and imprison anyone the current administration deems hostile.

“Of course, that would be the same administration whose Homeland Security Secretary has classified veterans, retired law enforcement, Ron Paul [and Chuck Baldwin] supporters, and conservatives as ‘terrorists.'”

John McCain is about as pro-Constitution and Liberty as Adolph Hitler was peaceful.

John McCain supported the banker bailouts and in 2008 made this statement: [McCain would] “order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America.”  Such an action would cost the American taxpayer $300 billion.

If we hadn’t bailed out the banks through the Federal Reserve and had not allowed the Fed to gain their power grab, then the money monopoly would have lost their authority.  Hence, why Ron Paul has tried to audit the Federal Reserve in Congress before.

One more example why John McCain is by the true definition “un-American” and “un-Patriotic”.

On May 1, 2007 before the Hoover Institution, John McCain said if he were elected President he would work to create a “new” international organization called the “League of Democracies”. 

“We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies.” He then added, “The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order . . .”

In 2008 five members of McCain’s campaign resigned because of ties to lobbying groups.  This is a serious question, because it asks, “just where does John McCain alleigance lie?”

Arizona voters would do this country a great service if they wouldn’t vote for him in November.  He is about as conservative as an elephant is small.

 

President George W. Bush addresses sailors dur...

Image via Wikipedia

In President Obama’s address to the nation on Tuesday night, he offered little in the way of anything different from the interventionist foreign policy.  I am still hesitant to believe that troops in Iraq will be begin withdraw at the beginning of next year.

It is doubtless that talking heads and neoconservatives will see this as a vindication and justification for the invasion of Iraq and the rebuild that followed.  But on the same token, however, neocons like big government John McCain (R) Arizona will denounce any set date for withdraw, and will claim that withdraw will need to be “condition based”.

John McCain has called this a “historic moment”.  But can the same be said of George Bush, while at the height of his glory, standing on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with the banner proudly displaying “Mission Accomplished” announcing “major combat operations” had ended.  As we all know, they did not.

As most Americans can freely admit, Iraq, from the beginning, was, is, and will continue to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in the history of our nation.  Consider for a moment:

  • Despite insistence from his intelligence agencies to the contrary, George Bush constantly tried to make the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda connection.  He would later admit that there was none.
  • More that 4,500 soldiers lost their lives and more than 30,000 have been wounded.
  • More than 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives.
  • The inevitable cost of Iraq will rise above $1 trillion.
  • Attacks for three years after invasion went up sevenfold by Jihadists.

Now excluding attacks on our men in Iraq and Afghanistan, the amount of attacks increased by one-third around the world.  The un-Constitutional, unprovoked invasion of Iraq did nothing to stem terrorism, if anything, if encouraged it.  As stated before, there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before September 11, 2001.  They went there because we are there.

The promise to the American people that the invasion, liberation, and capture of Saddam Hussein would create some sort of “trickle-down theory” for democracies in the Middle East never materialized.

Pentagon official and Project for the New American Century member Paul Wolfowitz told Congress that oil revenues would pay to rebuild Iraq.  Pertaining to reconstruction, he said…”could bring between 50 to 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years.  We’re dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

This was the furthest from the truth.  Iraq has never paid for itself, nor will it ever.  The failed foreign policy has yielded a gigantic black hole of which to throw our money into.  No weapons of mass destruction – of which images of mushroom clouds were conveniently placed into the minds of the American people found there were none.

Evidence to support the Bush administrations claims were fabricated and exaggerated to suit the need to mislead the American people.  Issues of torture which were conjured up and ordered by the Bush administration permanently tarnished the name of the United States and the flag of which we pledge allegiance to.

George Bush deserves no credit for any kind of “success” in Iraq.  In fact, he deserves a swift kick in the ass.  He was a bastard of a President and his administration was a cover-up from the beginning to end.

Tuesday night was not a historical moment in our nation.  It was an overplayed lie.  Freedom and liberty is not brought by the blood, sweat and tears by that of a foreign army, rather, it is forced by the sheer will of the people.

The inability of the new Iraqi government to form some sort of cohesive attitude leaves many of us feeling nervous.  In the wake of the topple of Hussein a vacuum has been created only to be filled by the power plays of greedy politicians.

Iraq is no success.  True success will come when our troops are brought home and Iraq for the first time since invasion will be forced to stand on its own.