Tuesday, April 04, 2006


Today, I received an email from someone who's political view is opposite mine. A person no doubt, who has bought into or should I say was sucked into the
neocon's propaganda machine.

Most of the comments I have received thus far regarding my blog are mainly from bloggers using a form type response that will say something like "Great Blog, now view mine". I enjoy hearing from those who can post a sincere opinion whether it be wid me or agin me.

We are all entitled to our particular opinions; sentiments are like bellybuttons, everybody's got one!

I have to admit though, I am perplexed by those who still believe in Bush and his war. With all the needless horror the Iraq war has caused with no solution and no feasible culmination in sight, how then, can anyone still give positive approval ratings to Bush and his Merry Band of Neocons... Talk about living in a space empty of matter, a void. I've always believed these Bush gung ho-ers, would back Bush even if he threw his own mama from the train, they would still stammer "HE'S A GOOOD KREESS-GEE-AN MAN"

Please read the conservative comment below and my progressive answer and then scroll down to read an article written at the end of 2004 when OUR military casualties were less then 1335, 1007 more have since died in Iraq. thinkingblue

PS: Also please view the Quinn Report series... below, just click on pictures.


Did something happen in the world that requires the United States to seek approval of the UN for all our military actions? I don't remember any votes that our people have had to amend our constitution. Hell did you know that the Geneva conventions don't even allow us to humiliate people that are held as enemies of our country. How more humiliating can it be to lose a war to us! The fact is that our country's citizens have since our inception done what was and is required by the people of our country. Yes this means oil too! So our soldiers sadly die to insure our countries needs. Be honest this is true! I always say thank you for your service when I see members of our military. Do you? Bush Kerry Gore it didn't matter who the president is. They don't make policy those that have influence on them do! You use oil to power your blog and thus you support the war and the companies that profit from it. Well at least 81.2% of electricity is derived from oil. Paul Revere didn't have to jump on his horse and in turn die. He did that which was required.-

Regards, Jason Spalding

Dear Mr. Spalding, Your statements would make the Neocon bullies so proud. You and many others of your ilk bought into their ideology, hook, line and sinker. I call beliefs like yours, scripts, and script-people are, in my estimation, the lucky ones. It takes so much effort to think outside the box of the corporate culture we've been conditioned to acknowledge as reality.

I unequivocally, believe war is not an answer or alternative to any so called problem we face in these modern times. Why has diplomacy become obsolete with Neocons?

How cerebral of you to admit that Bush doesn't make policy... Yes, sir-re-bob, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC generates the course of action the United States of America takes. And nice that you always say "thank you" when you see military personnel. I am sure they appreciate, your shared sentiments from your safe little comfort zone. Whenever, I encounter a person in a military uniform, I feel sadness for them and their families and secretly hope they won't become cannon fodder in the miserable, needless wars the Neocon's wage (and by the way, have been planning for over a decade) to spread and enforce their neoconservative foreign policy, a doctrine of preemption to promote "American global leadership".



I just had to post this little argument between a peacenik and a warmonger... It's Commonsense = Having or exhibiting native good judgment:


Rationalization = To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior). ..thinkingblue

The Cronus Connection
It's what the Internet is all about - Connections!
A Warmonger Educates A Peacenik
Peacenik: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?

Warmonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

Peacenik: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

Warmonger: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

Peacenik: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

Warmonger: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

Peacenik: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

Warmonger: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

Peacenik: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

Warmonger: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

Peacenik: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

Warmonger: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

Peacenik: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

Warmonger: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Usama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

Peacenik: Usama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

Warmonger: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Usama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

Peacenik: Is this the same audio tape where Usama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

Warmonger: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

Peacenik: He did?

Warmonger: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

Peacenik: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

Warmonger: And a British intelligence report...

Peacenik: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

Warmonger: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

Peacenik: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

Warmonger: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

Peacenik: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

Warmonger: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

Peacenik: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Warmonger: The fact that we can't find any weapons of mass distruction proves that he's hiding them from us.

Peacenik: Don't you think if Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction hidden somewhere, the best course of action is to have UN weapons inspectors look for them and destroy them safely and without any loss of human life?

Warmonger: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

Peacenik: So what is the point?

Warmonger: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

Peacenik: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

Warmonger: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

Peacenik: And what if it does rule against us?

Warmonger: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

Peacenik: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

Warmonger: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

Peacenik: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

Warmonger: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

Peacenik: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

Warmonger: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

Peacenik: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

Warmonger: Yes. Of course.

Peacenik: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-

Warmonger: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

Peacenik: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

Warmonger: I never said that.

Peacenik: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

Warmonger: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

Peacenik: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

Warmonger: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

Peacenik: You know this? How?

Warmonger: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

Peacenik: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

Warmonger: Yeah.

Peacenik: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

Warmonger: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

Peacenik: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

Warmonger: Sure.

Peacenik: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

Warmonger: That's a diplomatic issue.

Peacenik: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

Warmonger: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

Peacenik: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

Warmonger: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

Peacenik: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

Warmonger: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

Peacenik: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

Warmonger: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

Peacenik: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

Warmonger: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

Peacenik: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

Warmonger: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

Peacenik: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

Warmonger: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

Peacenik: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

Warmonger: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

Peacenik: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

Warmonger: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

Peacenik: In which case?

Warmonger: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

Peacenik: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

Warmonger: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

Peacenik: That makes no sense.

Warmonger: We have to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictator no matter what anyone says.

Peacenik: You want to liberate the Iraqi people by cluster bombing their country without provocation or international support?

Warmonger: If that's what it takes to liberate these poor, oppressed Iraqi people, then yes, of course.

Peacenik: If we're liberating them, why are they shooting at us? Don't liberators have to be invited by people who want to be liberated?

Warmonger: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender-monkeys. It's time to boycott their fries, wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

Peacenik: I give up!

Warmonger: Typical surrender-monkey.

Peacenik: Typical fascist.

Cronus Connection

Despite Cabinet Shuffle, Neocon Ideology Remains
Peter S. Canellos

Published on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 by the Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- With the departures last week of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, it became clear that President Bush will enter his second term with a sharply different team. But what is different pales in comparison to what will remain the same: Donald Rumsfeld will continue as defense secretary, and as long
as he stays the neoconservatives who dominated the first term will hold sway over foreign policy.

Whither the neocons was the great question of the Bush campaign. And it was, perhaps, the most important question of the entire 2004 election, because it would define Bush's doctrine of preemption. But it was not answered until last weekend, when Rumsfeld confirmed that he was keeping his job.

Bush presented his idea that the United States should destroy terrorist threats before they strike, but his fierce rhetoric never included a standard for judging such threats. Must a threat be immediate or merely potential? Would the country ever be justified in acting against nations
simply to hasten the spread of democracy?

The odd particulars of the Iraq war conspired to muddy the turf: When Bush declared he would have attacked Iraq even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, voters seemed to appreciate his steadfastness. But he never explained why, except to say that he viewed Saddam Hussein as a threat. Some of his supporters thought he was merely putting the best face on
the embarrassing failure to find WMD, but others clearly believed that he was reserving the option to use force against any perceived enemies, WMD or no WMD.

The more hawkish interpretation suits the neocons. Long before September 11, 2001, neoconservatives led by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith advocated the overthrow of Hussein -- and their reasons had little to do with terrorism. During the Clinton years, the neocons believed that Iraq, with its tradition of secular leadership, could become a democratic state and then help spread democracy throughout the
Mideast. Free Arab governments would seek better relations with Israel and the United States, reducing the threat of war.

The neocon vision extended well beyond Iraq, declaring that ''the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein," according to a 2000 report of the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank endorsed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Dick Cheney.

After September 11, Bush, too, seemed to endorse the neocon vision, but based his military interventions on the far narrower grounds of blocking direct threats to the United States. Under harsh election-year questioning, Bush insisted that he had invaded Iraq only because he had read the intelligence reports and ''I saw a threat." His position was like a homeowner who was told a tree was rotting and had to come down; if the tree turned out not to have been rotten, well, no one could quibble with a decision made based on the best evidence. But critics pointed out that Bush's neocon advisers already had a reason for wanting the tree down, and their eagerness surely affected the way they presented the evidence to Bush.

Throughout the campaign, Bush brooked no criticism of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, or other neocons, and he refused to discuss any possible changes in a second term. Clearly, many traditional conservatives supported Bush while hoping that the neocons' miscalculations on Iraq --
starting with the notion that Americans would be greeted as liberators -- would lead to their exclusion from a second administration. Influential conservatives such as George Will, Robert Novak, and Patrick Buchanan argued for more realism and less neocon idealism in Bush's foreign policy.

But the news that Rumsfeld will remain puts that possibility to rest. If the 72-year-old Rumsfeld had quit, there was no neocon successor who could easily have been confirmed, even with 55 Republicans in the Senate: There are too many critics of the Iraq war among Democrats, moderate Republicans, and even Western conservatives skeptical of military entanglements.

Any non-neocon successor -- say, Senator John McCain of Arizona -- would have insisted on appointing his own deputies, meaning Wolfowitz, Feith, and dozens of like-minded ideologues would have departed. With Rumsfeld, the neocons will see their influence spread. Their leading antagonist, Colin Powell, is out, replaced by the less critical Condoleezza Rice. Stephen Hadley,
who will succeed Rice as the president's national security adviser, is considered more sympathetic to neocons than Rice.

There remains the matter of an FBI investigation into whether defense officials shared secrets with Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi or with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. But even if the Justice Department brings indictments, the neocons will almost certainly remain the dominant force in foreign policy.

Last week, Bush took pains to emphasize the doctrine of preemption during a good-will tour of Canada. And a string of warnings about Iran's nuclear capabilities spurred calls for greater action.

Iraq is looking less like the past and more like the prologue.

Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond.

© 2004 the Boston Globe


The Quinn Report

"Knowledge to Burn"

Is it any coincidence that when today's right-wing intellectuals created a lists of "harmful" books, they choose the same books burned by the Nazis prior to World War II? Kevan Quinn
doesn't think so. W
ho's on the hit list? Karl Marx, Darwin, Ralph Nader, Rachel Carson, and many other noted thinkers, environmentalists and educators. As Kevan points out, a party in
power always fears an educated citizen.

See the list of "Harmful" favorites HERE.

Order a copy of one of those books HERE.



Democracy Now's Interview with Kevin Phillips







CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!