Torn Between Two Liars and Feeling Like a Tool

By Kanrei There are all kinds of games that are played in all kinds of ways. Most games are fun and enjoyable for at least some people and some games even make the world a better place. There are other games that are more about making sure another person loses regardless of what it takes to win. This is the type of game politics is and we must play whether we want to or not. It is not that we are active players in the game of politics. No, we are the pieces of the game that are used by those who actually play it and the way for them to keep score. We are the beads moved around the board, the chips gambled on a hand, and the battleship that just got sunk. The more of us they collect and the more they win. We are valued to them as points and nothing more. The gaming season has just begun and the players are all out in force. We had Bill Clinton on Sunday yelling at Chris Wallace. We had ABC show a partisan movie blaming Clinton for 9/11. We now have Rice saying they have done at least as much as Clinton did to stop terrorism. "What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years" My first reaction to this statement by Rice was “I thought Clinton did nothing so are you now saying Bush did nothing” until I thought about the statement more. It was a brilliant statement designed to bring that reaction out of people. Condi Rice is better at “doublespeak” than I first thought. The value of words are very important and no word is just thrown into a sentence. This is even more true of political speak than it is of daily speak. Politicians know that every word will be analyzed and dissected by the opposition so they pick their words very carefully. Think about what exactly Rice said and you will see she is not saying Clinton did anything, nor is she admitting Bush did nothing. The most important words in what she said are “at least”. She never said that Bush was as aggressive as Clinton. She never claimed Clinton did anything to be honest. She said Bush was “at least” as aggressive. Think about it like this: if you do nothing at all and I do something, anything, I have been at least as active as you, if not more. We must be on guard for these little verbal tricks that are being played on us right now. Chris Wallace asked a simple question surrounded by accusatory rhetoric and wonders why Clinton got mad. Rice has, in kind, just planted the latest seed for the left to be distracted on and I can see from the blogs today that it is working. They are thinking Condi just claimed Clinton did something and she did nothing of the sort. Clinton claims that the 9/11 Report clears him and Bush claims the same thing, yet 9/11 happened. We have a duty as Americans to read this report and I doubt we will fulfill this duty. The right and the left are both hiding behind it and claiming that it proves their side right and the other anti-American. They know most people have not read it and will rely on their summaries. What I propose is that every American planning to vote in November must take the next 40-something days to read this important report and learn for themselves. The security of this country is too important to be left up to partisan squabbles. Time for us to stop being game pieces and points in the game and to become the players we were intended to be. They work for us, not the other way around. They are liars and power hungry and will lie, cheat, and steal for the power they crave and “they” have no political party. “They” exist on both sides and get the most press. Learn the game instead of trusting “they” to tell you how it is played and who is winning. Remember that we are the only ones who can truly lose.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

The Fox and a Slick Willie (Not a Porn Story)

By Kanrei There is a huge deal being made about Clinton’s behavior on Fox last Sunday by the partisans and they are discussing it in a vacuum. They are talking about things Clinton says in a context free clip montage. The interviewer’s question is not even given in its entirety. No, this clip fest being shown on news shows around the world is custom designed to show Clinton as a raving madman. Even Chris Wallace is playing the part of the innocent interviewer being ambushed by an insane guest. He told the AP today in an interview that "All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job."  He is surprised a “legitimate news question” would bring up an angry response. A quick examination of the question in question should reveal exactly what the fuss is all about. “Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?” I will say that the above would be a fair question if asked like that and the question did start off as Chris Wallace asserts, but it was not the innocent question he alludes to.  His question started off with a reference to The Looming Tower which is a book placing much of the blame for 9/11 at Clinton's feet.  It is also the book that ABC based parts of its Path to 9/11 miniseries that Clinton so protested.  His question then wandered and meandered from bin Laden and Al Qaeda to Somalia in 1993 to the Cole and the embassy bombings in Africa. Now the question is no longer about Clinton not doing enough to get Bin Laden. No, now the question is “why did you do nothing to get Bin Laden?” He is asking Clinton about the book “The Looming Tower” and its claims that Clinton is responsible for 9/11, and not the innocent question he claims to have asked about why Clinton did not do more. It was a brilliant ploy by Wallace and Clinton took the bait. I mean think about how Clinton first began his response and you see who he is talking to and what he is talking about quite clearly. He says “I'm being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little 'Pathway to 9/11,' falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.” The three things (Somalia withdraw, the Africa Embassy bombings, and the Cole) were just put in the question asked of him as well. It is Fox backing up assertions made by ABC. Clinton is defending himself against two right wing networks in the interview. This is not something he is good at. I have always said that Clinton was not impeached for the affair or even lying about it; he was impeached for being a bad lawyer. Everyone knows you do not answer those questions when asked in court, or you plead the fifth, but you never lie. Clinton picked the third option which showed how well he handles pressure. He folds, panics, and reacts. That is what got him impeached and that is what got him in the Chris Wallace interview. Chris Wallace knew exactly what he was doing bringing up “The Looming Tower” so early in the interview and knew the reaction he would get. Most of all, he knew Fox was going to control the footage and would be releasing the clips. They had all the control over how this would look. It was a Sunday morning interview after all. 90% of the public will only see the montage of Clinton yelling without ever hearing Chris Wallace’s question. Who watches the Sunday morning talking head shows anyway? With Chris Wallace proclaiming it was such an innocent question however, I wonder where is the news reporting the full question and not just the “Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida” part. Liberal media, where are you? I am not exonerating Clinton at all. He should have known what he was getting into. If he really believes what he said about Fox, then he should have been on his guard and not surprised by the switch. It takes two to tango and Clinton is a willing partner once again in a mess. In context his anger is justified and it appears his opinion of Fox News is justified as well. Too bad the story will never be told fully. Besides, montages are more fun to watch.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Incoherent & Confused Ramblings (on the Torture Issue)

By Kanrei Torture is a popular topic these days. It could be the “Mel Gibson Effect” on society I suppose. I mean we could have seen “Passions of the Christ” or any Mel Gibson flick for that matter. As we sat in the theater or on our couches watching the two plus hours of nonstop torture, we could have grown accustomed to it. You never know. If porn is credited with serial killers than I can give “Passions” credit for the recent rise in torture. Sorry, I am losing myself on tangents early this time. I think "before I start" is a new record for losing the subject for me. I wanted to speak about torture from the logical libertarian’s perspective. Yes, we do exist, there just are not many of us and none of us are members of the actual Libertarian party. Torture is not new at all and Mel Gibson has nothing to do with its popularity. I think he may have something to do with the public’s recent acceptance of it, but torture has been used for as long as people have had issues with one another. We only get better at it as time goes on, but torture, like terrorism is here to stay because it has always been here. That only leaves the option of how to deal with it. Ignoring it is not going to change anything. It would be like ignoring the lump forming on your neck. Torture is a symptom, not a disease. It is a symptom of the powerful suddenly feeling weak and exposed. Much like terrorism is the symptom of the weak suddenly feeling exposed and abused. We are torturing suspected terrorists not because we think it is fun or funny, but because we fear what they are capable of doing. It is a sign of fear pure and simple. Since we know torture is a sign of fear, then we must think if fear is an image we wish to project to those who wish to destroy us. If we claim that signs of weakness are what encouraged them in the first place, then what does showing fear do? There is a pattern to the attacks against us and you do not need to torture someone to see it. They hit us with every new President for the most part. Here is the pattern. Iran took the hostages in 1979 and Carter failed to get them out. Reagan negotiated and got them released, but then retreated when the Marine barracks were hit in Beirut in ‘83. Since Reagan fought hard in South America, the terrorist never gained a foothold there, but we showed nothing but weakness in the Middle East and that trend continued with Bush and Clinton. I was proud of Bush for not going into Baghdad in 91, but I am thinking I was wrong. The Arab world saw that as another sign of U.S. weakness. They tested the new President in ‘93 with the WTC, but Clinton did not give them the response they wanted. They spent the next eight years laying low with sporadic hits and planning the next big attack for the next President. Clinton's response in Somalia was the final nail in the Arab world's view of us. We tried to out the warlords and left once a few soldiers got killed. The Muslim extremists just recently overthrew those warlords. I bet that is making them think they are stronger than we are now. Anyways, Bush the Second wins in 2000 and they know he will take the bait. They send in false information about Iraq (“they” being our old enemy Iran) and then set off the attack of 9/11/01. Same target as before because it was the same test. Bush gave them their war. Bush gave them their exact war. Iran never could beat Iraq. They tried everything they could and never could take Saddam out. Iran figured and correctly that Son of Bush would love to do what daddy didn't. Iran used the U.S. to beat Iraq and now they are taking it. I did it again. Sorry about that. Torture, right. Ok, so the above is why we are so scared right now and we should be. They are using our freedoms against us and playing us very well. They are reminding us why they have lasted thousands of years pretty much. They are a tough people who are prepared for pain and suffering. Torture therefore will never work. It only enforces their beliefs about us and gives them stories to tell. Torture to them by outsiders of another faith is just another crusade to them. They are taught that these are the moments their G-d is testing them and to give in is to fail the test. What we are doing right now is nothing new to them. The only way to beat them is to show them their conceptions are wrong about us and that will never happen while we have a President and Senators fighting for the right to keep up the “aggressive interrogation techniques”. We went to Iraq with bullets and bombs expecting flowers and candy. We dropped “Care packages” from the same planes we would drop bombs from. In today’s world image is everything and we are lousy at public relations. This is just what I see and I am logical enough to realize my desire is not reality. In reality, do I expect my country to torture suspected terrorists to gain information that could prevent another attack? Yes, I do. I cheer Jack Bauer like everyone else while I watch “24” and turn and ask why our government does not have people like that. Then I realize we do. What I do not expect is for my government to publicly fight over the right to torture. To my left leaning friends, expecting our government not to torture suspects after 9/11 is like expecting a person with pneumonia not to have a fever. Torture is a symptom, not the disease. To my right leaning friends, torture is not the right thing to do unless every other option has been tried and time is a known factor. I expect my government to torture to protect me, but I also expect them to hide it better. Remember that symptoms are signs of disease and disease will only grow if left untreated. Sorry if I rambled and thank you for the commitment to finishing my babble.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

It's the End of the World as We Know It, and I Feel Like Crap

By Kanrei “Republicans are assholes.” I am sorry for your reaction to that statement. It is not my thought, but rather I was just quoting something someone else said long ago. That is how pathetic Pope Benedict XVI made his apology to the Muslim world after insulting the entire faith. His exact words for the apology were: “At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims...These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought" Notice he is not sorry for what he said, just for the reaction of others to his words. He, in his mind, did nothing wrong. The words he said were not his words, but rather words written 600 years ago. I must ask did he say them if he did not believe them? No explanation is given for that unless you take that “invitation to frank and sincere dialogue”. "The Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.” Of course this dialogue would be with someone who just proclaimed your entire faith as nothing more than “evil and inhuman”. Who exactly would talk with such a person after such a declaration? I mean the Catholic Church is far from innocent when it comes to crimes against humanity and I bet their record would rival even that of the Islamic extremists if you include the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pedophilia, and support given to the Third Reich. I know I have just stepped on some toes here and I did that for a reason. Catholics world wide are individuals with their own thoughts and their own senses of reason. The Catholic Church has done bad things in its past, but not all Catholics should be held accountable for those acts. Same thing goes for the Muslims of today. “Why don’t the Muslims fight the terrorists then in their own faith?” Why did it take the Catholic Church so long to admit it had a problem with frisky priests? It is because when the accusation comes from outside it appears as an attack on the faith. The natural reaction is to round up the coaches and defend. That is what the Catholics did, that is what the Jews do when Israel is attacked and that is what the Muslims are doing now. It is called denial and is one of the steps of heartbreak. Soon comes acceptance and then and only then action will be taken. As long as the force comes from outside, the defensive circle will continue to strengthen. On a side note, I love how everyone blames the Jews for everything. Saddam is claiming his trail is the result of a Zionist/ Iranian conspiracy at the same time Iran is claiming the Pope is being controlled by Israel and the U.S. You really cannot write stuff this weird. Today, an Iranian newspaper reported that "The American and the Zionist aim is to undermine the glorious triumph of Islam's children of Lebanese Hezbollah, which annulled the undefeatable legend of the Israeli army and foiled the Satanic and colonialist American plot,". They claim that the Pope is under U.S. control and that his remarks were “a dictate that the Zionists and the Americans have written (for him) and have submitted to him”. Does anyone else notice that the entire world is pointing its collective fingers at everyone else to justify their own evil and inhumane actions? Every nation is currently guilty of it. It is an amazing sight to see when you think about it. America is blaming Iran who is blaming Israel and America who is blaming Iraq who is blaming Israel and Iran. Everyone is defending and justified. No one has done anything wrong, yet 3000 people were killed on 9/11 for no reason. Iraq was invaded for no real reason. Israel and Lebanon went to war for no good reason. Syria is preparing for war with Israel for no real reason. Iran is building nukes for no real reason. Bush, the Pope, the President of Iran, the leader of Iraq, and Israel are all talking tough and making everything more unstable. They are using words they know convey a certain message to those who must listen through translators and then are claiming “I did not mean it that way.” The one thing these people all have in common is a driving religious belief that they are 100% correct and their opponent is 100% evil. They all use “Satan” as imagery in their propaganda and they know exactly what they are doing. They all believe this to be the end times and are doing everything in their power to make it happen. The St. Malachi’s prophesies predicted the coming of the anti-Christ. It claims to name the last 10 popes. John Paul II was number 8 on the list which is why Pope Benedict chose the name he did. The St. Malachi’s prophesies claim that the pope to come after Benedict will be named Peter and Peter will be the anti-Christ. It claims that "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End." For this to happen, the Holy Roman Church must be persecuted and that is Benedict’s job and he is doing all he can to fulfill it. We are in the middle of a group of lunatics from various faiths all in agreement that this is the right time, but cannot agree on method for the end and are all competing to bring it about. None of these actions are by accident or coincidence. It is a plan. I really hope I did not offend anyone, it was not my intent. The leaders of the various faiths are using their power to try to end the world. This is very serious and very wrong or my tin foil hat is strapped on a bit too tight. Either way, I don’t like it.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Tony Tells Tale of Ties to Terrorists Today

By Kanrei Last week, a bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Report was released that stated there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and either Al-Qaida or terrorist Zarqawi. They said quite clearly "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support." In relation to Zarqawi it says "Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." That seems very clear to me. Almost cut and dry even in fact. It does not appear that way to Condi Rice as I reported on Sunday. It does not appear that way to Cheney in a story I decided to skip in honor of 9/11. According to Tony “Tar Baby” Snow it does not appear to the President that way…or maybe it does. Things are rarely clear with Tony Snow. You can ask the man a question and get every possible answer there is. A great example of this gift was reported by Editor and Publisherand took place at the press briefing on September 12, 2006. Tony Snow was asked if the President still believed there was a connection between Saddam and Zarqawi. Here is Tony’s answer. Follow the bouncing ball. “The president has never said that there was a direct operational relationship between the two. And this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq…and there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq. Al Qaida members were in Iraq. They were operating, and in some cases operating freely. From Iraq, Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But did they have, you know, a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. You know, were they getting a line item in Saddam’s budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country. And I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That’s the relationship.” Ok, so the President does believe they did not have a working relationship, but does believe they had a passive aggressive type of mutual ignoring relationship of nothing? Did I get that about right? The important questions are simple and Tony did answer them, and honestly in fact. It is in there if you look at it. You must break it apart. It is like the Bible code. You must know the answer before you ask the question to see the answer. Um, never mind that analogy. The first question Tony Snow answers is: Was there a working relationship between AQ and Saddam? The answer is no. “The president has never said that there was a direct operational relationship between the two” The second question Tony Snow answers is: Was Saddam funding Zarqawi? The answer is no. “You know, were they getting a line item in Saddam’s budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship” No funding and no working ties according to Tony Snow’s own words. The relationship he describes is one of the terrorists operating within Iraq with Saddam’s knowledge. According to the Senate report he was trying to capture the terrorists. “Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi.” This would mean of course he knows they are in his country if he is trying to capture them. Now this is a fun statement: “The president has never said that there was a direct operational relationship between the two”. When Cheney speaks or Rice speaks, are they speaking for Bush? When Bush speaks, is he speaking for Bush? Or are all of them supposed to be speaking for us and telling the truth? So when Cheney says Saddam and Zarqawi were working together like he did on 1/22/2004 when he said "I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government” he must have been speaking for Bush as well, right? When Cheney said “And you can look at Zarkawi, (Abu Mussab) al-Zarkawi . . . Who was an al-Qaida associate, who was wounded in Afghanistan, took refuge in Baghdad, working out of Baghdad, worked with the Ansar al Islam group up in northeastern Iraq, that produced a so-called poison factory, a group that we hit when we went into Iraq. . . . We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions" on 1/9/2004 was he not giving an example of an express working relationship between AQ and Saddam? Tony Snow goes to say “the president has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that’s the important thing, because I think there’s a tendency to say, Ah-ha. He said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff.” Being in cahoots and planning stuff and doing stuff is called an “operational relationship”. Say it with me Tony. “OP-ER-A-SHUN-AL Re-LAY-SHUN-SHIP”. Tony Snow is a great White House press guy and I mean that honestly. He tries so hard to lie and somehow the truth slips out every time. I mean we learned today that Saddam had no relationship with AQ, gave them no funding, and that Bush has lied about that. Thank you Tony and keep up the good work.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Modern Day Cowboys

By Kanrei As usual, the Drudge Report is ruining an otherwise great day. It really has been a wonderful day for me. I will not get into it, but let’s just say it is one for the movie. To cap off my day, I decided to surf the internet and see what is going on, then I stumble onto Drudge Report and see this: SHOWDOWN: IRAN PRESIDENT PLANS TRIP TO NYC; SPEECH AT UNITED NATIONS In the back of my head I immediately heard “It's a showdown in the no man's land, for the cowboy of the modern day/ Come sundown, don't be hangin' round, 'cos the cowboy'll blow you away”. It’s a song called “Modern Day Cowboy” by a metalish band named Tesla from the 80’s. The song was written before its time and speaks of the U.S.S.R. where I think it means the Middle East. It pops in my head quite a bit when this subject comes up actually. “Stormy night under jet black skies, Billy pulls into town the thunder rolled and the lightning bolts come crashin' to the ground Cold as ice, hard as stone, as he walks into the room With another man who was feeling the same way, all hell's breakin' loose” Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be giving a speech at the United Nations on Tuesday, September 19th at 7pm. President Ahmad…to-long-to-type as expressed interest in debating Bush. He is quoted in the Drudge story as saying "My forthcoming visit to New York for the UN General Assembly would be a suitable opportunity to hold the debate and all world people, especially the Americans, could hear and watch it without censorship." “Al Capone and the Bad Boy Jones, on the wrong side of the law Johnny D and his company, always first to the draw, Gangster lean, feelin' so mean, try to take more than their share 'Cos all they saw was ruling it all, the scent of blood was in the air” Now on this very same day, President Bush will also be giving a speech at the United Nations at 11:30 in the morning. I am curious if Bush will debate Ahmad… or not. I know I would not. There is little to gain in such a format because the dilemma is one that threatens the entire world and not just the United States. The debate must therefore involve the entire world and not just be between Bush and Ahmad… If I were Bush, I would give my speech that morning, meet with Ahmad… when he arrives and shake hands and “blah blah blah” with him, but not debate him. Insist it be a multi-nation talk. We already know Bush is bad at debating. Bet you did not expect me to side with Bush, huh? “So here we are and we've come this far, but it's only getting worse Foreign lands with their terrorist demands, only cause the good to hurt The U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., with their six-guns to their side I see the message, written on the wall, too much anger deep inside” The truly disturbing part of all of this is that Hugo Chavez is giving a speech at the United Nations the day after. Before the speeches, Hugo and Ahmad… are attending a “summit of Non-Aligned Movement countries.” According to the Drudge Report, this is a 116-nation group and so far their members that I know of hate us and are meeting 91 miles off of our coast. More to the point, they are 91 miles from this house. What scares me so much is that Hugo is already trying to become better friends with Castro. Fidel is evil, but he is incredibly smart and would not take such a deal. The problem is that Fidel is not really in command right now, Raul is. Raul is evil like Fidel, and he is sadistic as well, but he is stupid from everything I hear in Miami. Even the people who hate Castro like Jews hate Hitler will say he is smart. They do not say the same of Raul. Raul will join this group to give him the backing he will need to remain in power when his 80 year old brother dies. With Syria and Venezuela already allowing Visa-free travel between the countries and declaring they oppose the US, I smell bad things ahead if Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba form an alliance. “Bang bang, shoot 'em up, bang bang, blow you away It's a showdown in the no man's land, for the cowboy of the modern day Come sundown, don't be hangin' round, 'cos the cowboy'll blow you away” We are approaching a situation where World War Three is going to erupt. I can feel it in the pit of my stomach and it feels awful. I honestly do not know what can be done to prevent it at this point. I can only beg the nation to take the Florida open boarder problem more seriously. I have a horrible feeling it may be the next front and I am terrified.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

IcksNay on the RusdaeCay

By Kanrei So it seems Bush is remembering who Bin Laden is after all. We all remember his great announcement of “I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him” from March 2002. It was in the run up to the unrelated war in Iraq, so it was natural for him to dismiss Bin Laden at that time, but now that his party is so unpopular and Iraq is all but a failure in terms of nation building, our beloved President not only remembers Bin Laden, but has upgraded him as well. Now the unimportant Bin Laden is up there with Lenin and Hitler. I really thought the whole “World War Two Nazi” comparison was finished with, but I guess not. I seem to remember the Republicans being the ones screaming the most whenever that “N” word would pop up, but now they are trumpeting it from the rooftops. Should we point out that the Nazis were defeated in less time? “Bin Laden and his terrorist’s allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them” What exactly are their intentions? I do not mean to be stupid although I may be, but what exactly is their endgame? I have heard it was because they hated our freedoms. I have heard they want us dead. I have heard they want us out of the Middle East. I have heard they want Israel out of the Middle East. I have heard they feel invaded by the West. Last I heard they want to take over the entire world. I know Hitler and Lenin did want world domination. They were very vocal about this fact on numerous occasions; Stalin even more than Lenin. I think Stalin was probably who Bush was talking about, but, as we all know, he is the Dubya and could mean anything. So what exactly is Bin Laden’s goal? It is easy to say he wants the world. That is the common claim we use for every enemy we face, but I cannot believe this really. How does 9-11 make anyone want to convert to a so called religion of peace? It doesn’t, so how can conversion be their point? They do not hate our culture because our movies and music sell very well over there. No, it seems that now they hate us because they are evil and their faith is evil as well. “The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience, but they’re not madmen…They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane.” While this might help somewhat explain 9-11, I cannot accept "a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane" to explain all Muslims. He cannot really believe this. It has to be propaganda for the only base his party has left. I would say they are insane, but evil? I mean strapping on a vest made of bombs because you believe G-d will give you 72 virgins in the afterlife is not the sanest motivation a person can have. By writing off the every Muslim as evil, he is placating his ultra-religious followers: the American equivalent of what he claims we oppose. I know people are screaming at me through their monitor that Bush never said Islam, he said terrorists. Sorry, am I supposed to segregate this speech from all the other references to our war against “Islamofascism”? Or does “Islamofascism” have nothing to do with Islam? He did say this was a crusade at the start of all this. I wonder if that was not a slip after all. I don’t think Bush can even keep up with his spin anymore, but he does keep one constant theme going: nothing is his fault. Remember what we learned last week, day-to-day handling of this war is being run by the military and not him. This same lack of accountability holds true for the rise in terrorism world-wide on his watch as well. It seems we are just too damn good at stopping them. “Our effective counterterrorist efforts in part have forced the terrorists to evolve and modify their ways of doing business” I am so happy evolution does not happen. I would be scared otherwise. Seriously though, I want to know the "effective counterterrorist efforts". I know people will say we have not been hit since 9/11/01, but I believe we were hit under Clinton in 1993 and were not hit again by a foreign power (Show me proof Iraq was involved in Oklahoma). I thought Clinton was weak on terrorism, but using this logic he was better than Bush because he actually got the people who did it AND avoided a war, let alone two. I am sorry, but this discombobulated collection of ramblings (his, not mine) do not give me any faith what so ever in their vision for this war. While claiming they are fighting terrorism to make us safer, they talk more like they want to wipe out the Islamic faith. They practically admit it again in their updated terror-fighting strategy: “There will continue to be challenges ahead, but along with our partners, we will attack terrorism and its ideology and bring hope and freedom to the people of the world” I would say irony is defined as world domination to prevent world domination. This is a jihad against jihads. The irony would be priceless if I did not have to live this life-threatening madness. Never ending war is not a campaign strategy for the November elections no matter what Rove is telling you.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!