Uh, Jonathan. The Bush administration has failed to get the governments of the world, barring Great Britain, to join in and help the ” commitment ”
in Iraq . Which means, simply, that the Bush administration suuuuuuuuuuucks at doing the very thing your comment indicates you care about.

For if the consequences of leaving Iraq prematurely are soooooooo troubling, why’s
the American government being soooooo
crappppy at getting the U.S. soldiers some help ?

Because the Bush administration suuuuuucks
at what they do. Fact.

http://www.warisaracket.org

Take care, Jonathan. Timothy R. Anderson

Many on this blog are veterans; and I reitred from the Army after a full career, one that took me to eight conflict areas.

Hyperbole like calling it the greatest humanitrian disasterin history only discredits your argument. First, that’s what they said about Vietnam, and it was dead wrong. Second, there have been worse disasters, and there ar some going on right now, ie, the wrecking then abandonment of sub-Saharan Africa to disease and starvation.

I have but marginal respect for most Dems on the PDA website. Cynthia McKinney is the ONLY Dem I know of who directly confronted Rumsfeld and Myers and/or Eberhard on the 5 War games running on the morning of 9-11. I have it on my website on my third home page extension.

http://home.neo.rr.com/takeoverworld/index-b.html#mckinney

Cynthia McKinney Grills Rumsfeld On Dyncorp Sex Rings, Missing Pentagon Trillions & 9/11 Wargames

However, I also saw a video of McKinney with the 9-11 Truth post-Commission Report meeting which made me suspicious. Cynthia, only slightly suspicious. The two CIA “antiwar” guys with her … grrr. I really wanted to like Ray McGovern and Mel Goodman.

Both McKinney and McGovern emphasized the widows FEELINGS … about being lied to and betrayed by their govt … their husbands murdered, sacrificed over some New Pearl Harbor vision of PNAC neo-con-dom … or even if it were some coverup of gross incompetence, which it’s not.

Who asks a widow about their personal FEELINGS of grief in a PUBLIC meeting about govt secrecy and lies .. and WHY emphasize that twice in 5 minutes?

It just seemed like a bizarre and creepy line of questioning, it looked uncomfortable to the two widows. Everyone who’s not a sociopath knows how they FEEL. It was like Cynthia was trying to be Oprah, in the middle of a fact-finding session about one of the world’s biggest crimes of recent times.

Then, McKinney’s other CIA guest, Mel Goodman, suggested that there was not systemic failure (needing more money and power to correct) (true) but rather personal failure on the part of govt officials in preventing Sept 11 (false). He avoided the evidence of complicity, with which McKinney herself challenged Rumsfeld, and he suggested that the problem would be resolved if some Intelligence experts were on the Commission — like Brent Scowcroft or George Schultz. Sure, substitute skilled criminals for unskilled.

Anyhow, I can’t decide if McKinney’s emphasis on FEELINGS over FACT was just her style or part of the larger flow of psy-op. I don’t mean to sound whacko, but that’s how psy-ops are done. Subtle — like a skilled “passive-aggressive” — so subtle that it’s nearly invisible and if exposed, hard to tell if it’s intentional or not.

I wished that the widows would have just said, “What the FUCK is it YOUR business what my FEELINGS are? Grief. Sadness. Shock. Betrayal. Frustration. Et Cetera. Satisfied?”

SO, Cynthia is one of the strongest and most bold Dems. I don’t know a single one — Conyers, McDermott, Barbara Lee, I don’t think even Kucinich who dared to ask publicly — WHY are we not investigating Sept 11? Is there something to HIDE?

Call me a one-trick pony, but everything Neo-con ultimately boils down to Sept 11. They constantly baited antiwar activists asking if we’d “forgotten” 9-11, starting like 2 weeks after the attacks. NO. THEY have forgotten it, on purpose. I’m NOT.

Since 1978 when the FISA law went into effect in response to the Church/Pike Committees, the special court has approved ~19,000 cases; with only (5)! dismissals. The appeals court part of this, according to James Bamford, has never been used. This illustrates how lax the law is in favor of the feds. Why break the law when you don’t need to break it?

Makes me wonder even more what frequency my filters operate at nowadays–like, how much of my perceptions are still colored by comfortable assumptions?

As always, still so much self-work to be done. *sigh*

Just so people don’t say those who disagree don’t get a chance here, I’ve posted your two bizarre screeds. That’s so people will know why I won’t post any more.

Misogyny and homophobia are plentiful and cheap. That’s why the rules here “just say no.”

Here are the rules, in case you haven’t seen them.

http://feralscholar.org/blog/?p=25

You, sir, are deranged.