Why did Bill Clinton attend the National WWII Memorial services yesterday, May 29? Why would he want to be associated with honoring those who fought for American values? And who in the world invited him to be there? A long story, of course.
He despised and dodged the draft in 1969. When president (1992-2000) He reduced the entire U.S. military forces by 40%. He also did everything he could to enable China to replace the United States as the world's leading nation. The man clearly hates America. He is a deceiver, and stands for the antithesis of American values.
Who invited him, why, and why was his presence tolerated? Are these persons or agencies as disloyal and anti-American as Clinton is?
The dishonorable with the honorable USA Today
Photo by Mark Wilson, Getty Images
George W. Bush has always taken a non-relatiatory posture towards the Clinton regime. The day he entered office, Bush refused to expose the disgusting filth the Clintons had left behind. Bush simply moved forward in faith. This was a noble example, indeed.
But, Clinont deserves no friendly handshake at this point. He deserives to be remembered for the immoral ganster he really his. He deserves to be thought as the anti-American that he strove so faithfully to be. He deserves to be regarded still as Public Enemy No.1. He and Hillary have intimidated, shamed, brutalized and otherwise eliminated more people than is currently calculable. They held America hostage with their deconstructive ways. They knew as long as Americans were busy at work, they would never rise up against the Clinton regime. If they ever woke up, it would be too late.
There was one positive element in this Clinton appearance: Hillary was absent. But that only shows her true disdain for the country, and any sentiment that America is beautiful. She won't ever bother any more to try and deceive anyone into thinking she loves America. She's smarter than Bill.
Storms hit the Carribean, and then international troops enter. Haiti and the Dominican Republic get some horrible storms and flooding, then U.S. and Canadian troops enter to help keep order, bring in survival supplies, and to essentially rule.
This poses serious questions. Why are Haiti and the Dominican Republic not able to care for themselves? Why don’t Cuba, the Virgin Islands, or other central American countries like Mexico send aid? True, the same ‘multi-national’ military force came back in February, but that was specifically for political reasons, to manage the chaos burgeoning under ousted Haitian President Jean-Betrand Aristide. What is the status of a country which cannot manage itself?
Haiti boasts of being the first independent “black” republic, claiming independence from France in 1801. Haiti has an embassy in Washington, DC, no less (currently empty). Only half the 7.5 million people are literate, and over half practice voodoo. The infant mortality rate is 76.1 per 1,000 live births. 80% of the people live in abject squalor. Life expectancy is 50 years. Over a quarter of a million people have AIDS. The Haitian military forces are all suspended. Is this then a nation?
The Dominican Republic, the east side of the island, has 8.7 million people, with a life expectancy of about 67 years. Slighter better conditions. The Republic became independent from Haiti in 1844, but did not begin to progress until President Joaquin Balaguer, in 1966. Today the Republic claims one of the fastest economic growth rates in the hemisphere, and has an active Army, Navy, Air Force, and National Police. So why does it need an international force to come in?
It is one thing when a country needs a loan. It is another when it needs military intervention. The question would be, Does it ask for military intervention, or do the outside forces simply decide to intervene?
At any rate, the status of nations is at stake in the matter of dependency.
American Indian “nations” are in similar predicaments, all chiefly characterized by poverty and dependency. When one people’s identity is supported by another’s resources, tyranny is in the works. Of course, Indian “nations” have no military, but they do have police forces. The tyranny in Indian country is this: the main resources are the treaty promises. They are ill-defined, uncertain, and subject to change. Furthermore, they haven’t even allowed development. Enter: syndicated gaming industries.
Thus, we see in Indian country the same criminal foundations as we see in places like Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Yes, Indians historically earned the treaties, with blood, but Indian country has not developed economically, in general. The Caribbean Islands are, through incompetence and sheer fraud, earning a new dependency. Their sovereignty is in fact surrendered, and they should be considered dependent states, subject to the laws of the countries on whom they depend.
Richard Poe has recently exposed a kabbalistic billionaire whose powers have engendered within the man a sense of mystic messiahship. In the latest hard copy edition of NewsMax (May 2004), Poe reveals George Soros for what he is, at least partly. Soros is some sort of economic genius beyond the ken of most people, but Poe has put him in 'world context,' and that's what matters, because Soros intends to have an affect on all of us. It's an affect that freedom lovers of America will not appreciate.
Soros is all about atheism, abortion, euthanasia, and over-throwing the American Republic, particularly George Bush. Soros is about a new phase of communism. Soros' fortunes have controlled the economy of small communist countries already, and even the big heap of failed states called Russia. But now Soros wants to try his hand at America.
George Soros on the cover
of the latest NewsMax edition
Poe is getting a lot of publicity over this article, including an appearance on The O'reilly Factor. He is also getting a lot of atttention for his new book, Hillary's Secret War. The most recent PR, a specious and slithering denunciation of Poe's work, actually combines both stories, but it lambasts both. Hillary is bent on closing down freedom of speech on the Internet. Soros is bent on ending freedom of choice through his trained and armed "civil society" operatives known as Optors. Bunk, says Brock. This recent review, originating from homosexual and traitor to conservatives David Brock, is posted on Media Matters for America, an institution connected to Soros funding.
In live interview, Poe's voice intones the cryptic regions of research. Poe is a deadly analyst, and on O'Reilly's show, even O'Reilly himself held back his usual bull-dozing tactics on guests. He even appeared somewhat docile before Poe. This was marked. NewsMax published an account of the interview, but did not notice the unusual demeanor of O'Reilly. I saw it, and I was taken aback by O'Reilly's obvious respect for Poe. I'd never seen O'Reilly behave in any way remotely associated with humility. In this case, he did. Perhaps he knew right well that Poe was miles ahead of him in the Soros story. O'Reilly even said, "Well, what you say matches everything I know about Soros," as if O'Reilly knew anything, as if his own knowledge was something can could confirm Poe's research.
Maybe it was O'Reilly's own concern about the Soros Effect, the Soros prophecy. Maybe he was just honestly stunned by it. Poe was it's expositor, rather, it's omen. O'Reilly seemed deeply aware of that.
O'Reilly asked about Poe's concern for the Soros future effect. Poe said he was afraid that no one would know about it. Poe's warning would go unheaded, without result, simply because of ignorance. O'Reilly quickly asserted, "Well, ten million viewers know about it tonight!" Poe cooley responded, "But Jana Davis was on your show too. And nothing came of her story. It didn't go past your show." (Jana Davis was the OKC TV reported who claimed from the start that the OKC Bombing of 1995 was a major federal cover-up story.)
O'Reilly hemmed and hawed a second, then said, "We're going to follow this Soros story," and tried to assure Poe that there would be a positive result from Poe's testimony on The O'Reilly Factor.
So, essentially, Poe dissed The O'Reilly Factor, at least the significance of its effect, and O'Reilly didn't really have a come-back. Poe spoke the truth. Media, even FoxNews, doesn't guarantee a safeguard against inaction. Soros represents one of the greatest threats to American Republican democracy in history. Poe is sounding the alarm. Who will hear? Then, who can do what?
Well, in Hillary's Secret War, Poe does offer encouragement. He gives the Internet communication network great credit for the Republican victory in 2000. Perhaps the Internet will be the effective nemisis of George Soros as well.
Today we are seeing the results of the Clinton legacy in the problems that plague our United States military. Not only did Clinton drastically reduce the size of the military, but also tried to change its purpose and mission. If that weren't enough, he worked to break it down from the inside as well, making every effort to force the services to accept homosexuals, despite the 76% majority of professional military officers against it. Nothing could weaken the military more, even than putting women in combat.
In addition, the whole law of citizenship is set up where it actually encourages non-U.S. citizens to enter the military. It is quicker, surer road to citizenship. Clinton wasn't the original traitor on that one, but Jimmy Carter. And today's laws remain unchanged, encouraging military service as a prerequisite to citizenship.
This is neither patriotic nor safe.
Today's deserter proves the point from all sides. Staff Sargeant Camilo Mejia deserted ranks in Iraq. He'd 'served' in the National Guard for nine years, and was angry because the law said he was to be discharged after eight. He suddenly claimed "conscientious objector" status, and claimed the prisoner abuse, and the "oil-driven" nature of the war pushed him over the edge.
In a photo released by the U.S. Army, Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, center, leaves court after his court-martial, Friday, May 21, 2004, with his attorney Louis Font, right, and University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle, left, in Fort Stewart, Ga. A military jury convicted Mejia of the Florida National Guard of desertion for leaving his combat unit in Iraq in protest of an "oil-driven'' war. (AP Photo/U.S. Army, Pfc Benjamin Brody)
How clear can the message be? Only patriots should be in our military. We can't hand over such responsibility to the odds and ends of the world. This is the globalist philosophy working into our American military, and it is clearly destructive, and stupid to the core, destructive from those who designed and encouraged the laws of citizenship, and stupid on the part of the rest of us for sitting by and watching it all happen.
The U.S. military is not just a job. It is a special manifestation of patriotism. And remember Chaplain James Yee? Charged with espionage. The blogs take both sides, but, the Army issued a statement that it was dropping the charges because it could not prove them without revealing sensitive information.
Liberalism and multiculturalism in the military. That's the destructive, anti-American game plan. That's the forumla for chaos. To some degree, it's working.
Here is a classic example of how "Indian" casinos can threaten the economy of an entire state.
The Ho-Chunk Indian Nation of central Wisconson has decided to withold $30 million it agreed to pay the state, because it protests yesterday's decision by the state to give the final say in Indian casino deals to the state's legislature. Gov. Jim Doyle is expected to veto the bill (AB 998), but in the mean time, the Indians are flexing some financial muscle. The state could stand to lose up to $143 million of all the tribes without their agreed payments.
The tribes were given exclusive rights to have casinos, on the agreement that they would make certain payments to the state for these rights. So, Indians aren't keeping their word, instead of the white man not keeping his? Have the chickens come home to roost? And what shall be accomplished?
I predict that Indian tribes will be reduced to mere share holders in major casino operations. "Indian" casinos, created and managed by non-Indian, syndicated personnel and bought off politicians, will so threaten the basic economy and infrastructure of states that Indian tribes will either have to submit to entirely new legal definitions of being Indian, or else end up wholly subjugated by outside casino management. States will not stand by and allow themselves to be destroyed by the casino industry, or the states themselves will end up controlled by syndicated gansters. Well, it's happened before. One man used to control Chicago. Remember Al Capone?
(Indian grapevine says it's already happening. Reservations themselves are being redefined under "compacts." This is the first step in illiminating Indian reservations. They will come to exist as mere legal illusions, or 'virtual' entities.)
This is the inevitable direction of gambling. It is deceptively downward, like cocaine. Whither the fast, big money, thither the sharks. Gambling is a vice, and brings vicious people with it. It comes with a deep, destructive hook. Indian leaders, once involved with, or strong-armed by, outside management, are mere puppets from that point. For the sake of mere glitter, they are jeopardizing the Indian future, our land, and even our existence.
I find it a horrible, unbearable irony that Indians, who are world renowned for "spirituality," would succumb to something as utterly materialistic, worldy, earthy, and stupid as gambling. This is the complete and utter assimilation which ethnic chauvinist Indian leaders have always professed to decry--while they make money off of legal suits against mascots! This is the complete white-washing of Indian country by essentially bought off Indian leaders who think money is the solution to all Indian problems--while they do sweats and smoke peace pipes in the name of sacred spirituality.
In time, more and more news will come out about how "Indian" casinos have ruined Indian families and individuals. The bloody hook in it all will be exposed in due time--indeed, after it may be too late to change the course.
Massachusetts, where the Pilgrims landed in 1620, where the Puritans established a Christian community, where White Anglo-Saxon Protestants created a new country called America, has now become the center of sin, according their original standards. In the very churches where such great Christian leaders like Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards once preached, now homosexual women "pastor" on a regular basis, showing the triumph of sin over righteousness, in least terms of the Judeo-Christian standard anyway. There are 3,000 homosexual woman "pastors" in Northampton alone, making 10% of the population (30,000).
But these homosexuals don't care anything about tradition or rules. They just want validation for their transgressions, authentication for their tresspasses. They declare themselves faultless in their iniquity. They declare they have no iniquity. But still "sinners in the hands of an angry God," according to Edwards, or, sinners in the pulpit. I mean, preaching sin from the pulpit.
Spokesman for the "conservative" homosexual, Mr. Andrew Sullivan, was on Anderson Cooper's CNN show the other night. He was making some of the most specious remarks of all time on homosexual "marriage."
"When they walk out of that registry office and they have that piece of paper, it just says "marriage." And the certificates they have are indistinguishable legally and politically from a heterosexual." As if the legal and the political transcend the physical or biological.
"When you get away from the abstraction and the theory and you see these couples, regular people just lining up, what are they going to do after this? They're going to go home, watch TV, have dinner, go to bed. This is not a revolution that's going to destroy... "
Then Cooper said, "Pretty boring, actually," and they both laughed. Sullivan said, "It's--you know, gay people are really fighting for the right to be as boring and miserable as everybody else. " As if they have to be legalized to do so.
This takes the cake for inverted language, for usurpation, for "we're really like you" spin, so as to make homosexuality validated by the frustrations of normality.
Never mind the real agenda of homosexuality, the recruitment of children. It isn't about homosexuals wanting equal rights. It's about homosexuals wanting to see more homosexuals. They disguise the 'malignancy' of their nature. They simply try to describe themselves in everyone else's terms, to appear normal, in the name of "equality." But that's not the end of it. (Would that it were.) This is only a step in the progress of the disease. As history shows, whatever you legalize, you only see more and more of it, especially if it has been historically disallowed.
"Private" homosexuals were actually better off. Legalizing homosexual marriage will not do one thing to make homosexuality less offensive, less ostricized, or less abnormal. But such inverted "movements" always trust in their words. They have manipulated them so artfully, words are at last their only cover, their only refuge. They are disjunct from reality. Words finally become empty in their mouths. Empty, and "bitter as wormwood," with a sting that even the most self-deluded cannot escape. "Miserable" indeed, Mr. Sullivan.
In another major usurpation of words, homosexuals are now said to be "married," in Massachusetts, as if marriage can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, as if the word has no history, and really means nothing at all.
The argument has been going on in court for some time. November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to ban homosexual marriages. Communists rejoiced, of course, in the name of "equality"--their own favorite usurpation. That precious American word, "equality," in their deceitful mouths, is used to turn every American value upside down. But the fact also is, the U.S. Congress is against homosexual marriages, and there may soon be an Amendment banning such a usurpation of the word. (There is wide support for the Amendment.) The Massachusetts ruling is contrary to the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996. President Bush is against homosexual marriages. What a complicated legal mess. Attorneys and judges love it, of course, every 'case' of it.
It seems then that the meaning of the word is central. It has meant only one thing, for millenia. Now, in their solipsistic, self-idolizing, utter disrespect and disdain for others, homosexuals and their communist/anti-American allies (like the ACLU) think they can own the word "marriage." The anti-Americans have been word robbers from the beginning.
In an editorial,"It Won't Be Easy," for the Review & Herald (April, 2004), Roy Adams wrote, "the sophistry runs deep, couched in fervent calls for freedom and equality; disguised in earnest appeals for justice, civil rights, and gender equality and whipped up by charges of bigotry, homophobia, and narrow-mindedness. It makes one's head spin, and we don't know which way is up."
It's all about taking words from one established context, and trying to legally make them apply to a wholly different, foreign, and antithetical circumstance.
The young Kyle Williams decided to declare himself chief of the white "Indian tribe." Why not? Homosexuals declare themselves "married." What's the difference? Aren't all free to own all and any words?
Interestingly, according to the ancient Hebrew version of reality, we got into this mess through the Serpent's premiere usurpation of words. (Gen. 3:4,5). It basically said to the woman, "Hey, baby, do whatcha gotta do! You ain't gonna die, and you'll be like God! Go for it!"
I hear the drone of "equality" underneath this temptation. Whatever one's passions happen to be, they're equal to anyone else's, and should be pursued.
So, we can't say the Jews didn't warn us! (Ironic, since the ACLU is the major forked tongue in America.)
But I will not usurp the words "gay" and "Lesbos" (the Greek island) from their innocence, and apply them to homosexuals. I refer to homosexuals as homosexuals. They think that sounds a little too clinical? like something is wrong with them?
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. The American Psychological Association declared that it was not a disorder in 1975.
Well, that must mean they're okay. Now they can be like everyone else. Now they can be married. (And the APA's can avoid being sued!)
But, until the law says I can't use the word "homosexual," I shall refer to homosexuals as homosexuals, original term of modernity, and hope one day "gay" will simply mean cheerful again, and "Lesbos" will refer to a beautiful Grecian island of the eastern Aegaean Sea.
Democrats in Congress were "outraged" that the U.S. military had withheld the story of alleged prisoner abuse and all the 'exciting' pictures. Democrats were incensed by the administrative, conspiratorial 'cover-up,' and began blaming immediately every military person in charge, from Lynddie England to Brig. Gen. Janet Karpinski, and then every civilian federal authority from the CIA to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The Democrats seem politically delighted with the whole scandal, and self-righteously, gleefully call for the resignation of Rumsfeld. The famous lying hypocrit/questionably murderous gang leader himself, Ted Kennedy, shouted the loudest 'condemnation,' followed by the mindless echoing mantras of John Kerry vapidly effused over the whole 'administration.' (Kerry takes lessons from Hillary Clinton, obviously.)
Eward Kennedy, a model of disgrace
and anti-Americanism in modern times.
So they got their photos on TV. The world saw.
The very next event was the beheading of Nick Berg. The world saw that, too.
What the world does not see is the incredibly treasonist, solipsistic, sadistic nature of the anti-Americanism within the very halls of the American Congress. Indeed, what many Americans don't see is the pathetic sickness of mind and soul which permeates the Democratic congress, which is more intent on declaring their own righteousness and condemning those Republicans in charge, that it is securing the safety and lives of Americans everywhere. These poisonous snakes are simply the enemy, and the worst enemy at that. There has been no greater enemy that America has ever faced in its brief history in the world.
Why the photographs? To incite. They represent nothing of litigatory value, because the prisoners are unidentified. There is no proof of 'abuse' from photographs alone. But, whereas liberal legal personnel (lawyers and judges) will bend the heavens to protect criminals here in America (or anywhere) in the face of the most postive and indisputable evidence, when it comes to condemning conservatives or Republicans, they will condemn immediately with or without evidence.
Nick Berg is a casuality of war--of the Democratic treasonist war against America. The most common sense would have urged, would have pleaded not to make the military photos known, for that would bring out the already rampant demonism in the murderous Muslims. As a matter of fact, these self-righteous, foolish politicians have apparently forgotten that beheading as a form of public execution was the way of the Western world not too long ago. The rather primitive method of the Al-Qaeda henchmen merely reflects their lack of 'expertise' and professional equipment.
But what care the Democrats? They achieved their purpose. And the press will never blame them for their idiotic error, or rather, their treasonist plots.
Objectively speaking, one couldn't have written a better script for their whole political attack on the conservative Republican administration. What does this say about the photos from Abu Graib?
And by the way, the Arab countries condeming the execution have over-stated the righteousness of their own cause. Their 'noble' religion of Islam does not "deplore such acts" at all. Such acts were part of the culture in which Islam was born, and of which Mohammad was a part. The enemy infidel is to be given the sword. The murderous Muslims fulfilled their religious purpose. They feel no shame for what they've done, but rather glory and pride. The same goes for the murderous suicide bombers.
Yes, the rest of the world feels it has risen above this kind of barbarity. In America and Europe, we prefer to make movies about it, enjoying the harmless acting out of the mayhem, rather than actually doing it. We call it then "horror movies," and let Freud write it off as sublimated sexual urges, part of that strange activity we call civilization.
The Democrat Senators, or, I should say, the liberal, communist enemies of America posing as guardians of American values, have done their best to distort the prison 'crisis' in Iraq. Especially people like Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton have said all they can say to condemn the American military in action, calling the alleged abuse of allegedly Iraqi prisoners a travesty, and yet still refer to the Arab Muslim attack on New York City a tragedy. Michael Weiner "Savage" brought this out very dramatically last week.
Senator Edward Kennedy
Whatever ill feelings many Americans have developed toward Arabs, our feelings toward our treasonist senators should be worse, for their offense is worse.
From my personal experience with Arab people, I have found that when you offer the slighest kindness, respect, or attention, you will immediately receive the same back with exactitude. If the Arab feels insulted, disrepected, disregarded in some way, he will also render that back with equal force. Since most non-Arabs are unware of this mechanical psychology, they find they have insulted the Arab wholly unintentionally, and even unawares, so when the Arab reacts, it seems like a totally obnoxious intrusion.
Over all, this kind of personal accounting on the part of the Arab turns out to be burdensome, annoying, and is not about equality, but about the Arab trying to dominate. The whole process comes out to the Arab trying to control you.
The Senators are so out of touch with this social, cultural, and psychological reality that they emabarrass themselves with their ignorant statements. Their attack on the US military is treasonist, and the idea that murderous Iraqi prisoners is a major issue is ludicrous. Just compare, the painless humilation of the Arab ego, and the colossal slaughter of 3,000 people. Compare the shaming of a few Arab murderers, and their satanic murder of innocent men. women and children, their victims. Then reconsider the attitude of the careerist senators in Washington It is they who should be on trial in the people's court of America.
The white liberals in Washington weaken America, threaten the safety of all of us, and daily diminish the honor of America in the world. They are the true enemy. The Arabs know it. I'm beginning to wonder if they didn't conspire together in the prisoner affair.
Being unwillingly subjugated to despised authority is humiliating. Being forced act in ways offensive to ones values is humiliating. Being tortured, physically or psychologically, is humiliating. The allegedly Iraqi prisoners, then, suffering humilation at the hands of American military personal begs the question of humiliation altogether. How can war ever occur without humilation of some kind? Certainly, murderous terrorism, I should say, terrifying murderism, is certainly more humiliating to the vicims than stripping male Arab prisoners naked. I'd say having your legs blown off by such murderers is not to be compared with the male Arab ego. This is a travesty, a psychosis of modern journalism and politics. Protecting yourself from such murderers is surely more important than protecting their idiotic, animalistic ego.
The infamous photographs in and of themselves evince nothing, nor prove anything regarding actual abuse or even humilation, and instead provide only fodder for anti-Republican, anti-war operatives in media and social activism, and was apparently sole effect of the photographs. So forget the photographs. They'll never hold up in real court, if there is such a thing any more.
The liberal operatives decry the alleged humilation of alleged Iraqi's, yet these same liberal anti-Americans support pornography (off all types) in the name of freedom. These operatives are without honor. Their word means nothing to anyone but story-hungry media operatives.
The 'unfortunately senator' Hillary Clinton came on quinessentially hypcritical and santimonious as she spoke to the press immediately after the Rumsfeld hearing before Congress. She is so "deeply troubled" about the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners. But this is the same liberal who decorated the White House Christmas tree with pornographic paraphernalia and illegal drug paraphernalia(according to Gary Aldrich, Unlimited Access, 1998) and the halls with African female nudity. She and Bill did more to ruin America's image in the world than ten thousand fake porno pictures from a war prison could ever do. Hillary Clinton abused the all Americans, and has the unmitigated, psychotic gall to reprimand someone else, anyone else, for anything.
The Army didn't cover up anything about abuse, but has been investigating it for months. The only problem the Army is covering up is the problem women and homosexuals in war zones have brought to American effectiveness and security in the world. That they will continue to cover up. That issue is passed history. The "human rights" attorneys and treasonist judges ruled in their favor, forever.
The use of humilation to make murderers talk is always a part of the war-time prison scene. The confusion of command in Iraq is partly to blame here. The sexual element in the humiliation, as per allegedly Iraqi male prisoners, can nevertheless never be considered more cruel or unusual than their murderously blowing up innocent women and children civilians, Iraqi and foreign.
There may be no honor in humiliating them, even though they no doubt well deserve it, but is there less humiliation in having your legs blown off by them? Are we more concerned about their honor (i.e., their ego) than our purpose in Iraq--to protect the long range future of America's energy interests? What does the Arab ego offer the world? The Arab fuel supply is a bit more important.
Ah, but politics is becoming like the fuel what poisons the world. In war time it ignites the Hillaries and Kerrys in full flaming fakery. How humiliating to be forced to hear meaningless words from those without honor. It is a grievous, shameful offense. Is there a court to take this to?
'Round we go. More info about who's 'reponsible' for the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American military personnel. Leave it to those liberal media agencies to get at the truth of anything than can be made into an "anti-American" story. That's so objective, so legitimate, so noble.
Just following orders? the accused families say. We've heard that before. Remember the German Police Battalion 101? Remember Eichmann's defense in Jerusalem? What is the anti-American liberal media trying to make the American military into?
In her interview (May 4) with Greta Van Susteren, "responsible" Brig. Gen. Karpinski felt she was being undermined by those who resented her command. "Why you?" Greta had asked.
Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski,
out of uniform
Not good enough explanation. Else, we'd have to conclude that feminism, sexism, or homosexuality has deeper ill effects on the military process than anyone would ever be brave enough to admit. Women and homosexuals in the military may have cost more than anyone was willing to calculate.
There's no real advantage in attempts at rectifying the Abu Graib affair through damage control. Assessments of the ill effects don't help discover the culpability. Blame is what everyone is after here. That's where the moral "blood" is.
Still no one is probing the most obvious question: WHY the pictures? What advantage would be gained from taking photographs of the abuse? Photographs are for publicity. These photographs made available to the public prove absolutely nothing except the perversion of someone's character, whoever "ordered" them. With sacks over their heads, no a single "victim" can be identified, therefore no one can know that the victims were even Iraqis.
"A few misguided idiots" Michael Reagan calls them. No, I'm afraid it's deeper than that. This episode, if created by sex perverts, shows the importance of reconsidering the whole idea of military women and homosexuals in war zones. If created by Military Intelligence, as the alleged facts are beginning to suggest, then the matter of dealing with rock-headed Arabs needs refining. "Humiliation" is not torture, but prison is not paradise, anywhere, especially in war time, in a war zone. It's "humiliating" to be caught, period.
But this leaves the final question, once again, WHY the photographs? For Arabs to see? As a reaction to their hanging burned American civilian bodies in public? This was indeed "misguided" and "idiotic," if this is part of the motive.
America's pursuit of justice in this affair will finally be another example, not of failure, but of success, in a way. America doesn't overlook this kind of thing, like the murderous Arabs do, and the liberal anti-Americans do when the Arabs are at fault. Bush has been steadfast, patient, and compassionate all the way through this ordeal. It is a faith-based initiative, faith in goodness. If America can demonstrate compassion on the enemy, and self-correction when required, America will come off as the good guy America's supposed to be.
But that's only in the eyes of people who value "good."
Brigadier General Janice Karpinski says the six American military personnel involved in alleged prisoner abuse in Iraq were following orders. Karpinski is making the media rounds "on leave," and last night appeared on more than one major TV show. She was looking quite masculine on Grete Van Susteren's show, with her navy blue double breasted sports blazer, and her white open collar shirt with blue pin stripes.
Her explanation seems as incredulous as any other, at this point. A December, 2003 report says Karpinski is in charge of 15 prisons in Iraq, and has some 3,400 National Guard Army reservists under her command. (The report also says she's been married 29 years to Lt. Col. "George," witout children.) This report is obviously intended to be flattering to Karpinski, yet, by it's date, is has to be considered also essentially honest. It is no piece of cover-up or damage control. It was written 5 months before the sex scandal. It does not, however, give any clues as to the motivation or explanation for the conduct of the American soldiers in question.
The ill effects of the photos released have to have been foreseen. Therefore, it was a plan or plot of some kind. The next questions have to be directed at motivation. The media right now is absorbed in the blame game, as always, luxuriating in the scandal. Media wants names, top names, for the excitement of it all. "Who's responsible?" is the exciting question. Motivation of the acutal perpetrators seems a little too difficult for media to pursue.
But there are only a few possibilities afforded by rational thinking:
1) The soldiers were paid by anti-American activists (of various Arabic nationalities, and also including American white liberals),
2) The soldiers themselves have personal sexual problems, either from personal history or present conditioning, and "cracked" under the tempation of the circumstances,
3) Karpinski's incredulous explanation: they were following orders.
Karpinski's explanation is not likely, but reflects her self-consciousness regarding 'chain of command' and who's "responsible." The blame game fits so perfectly in this situation. Amricans are used to it. Lawyers and liars and media have made us used to it.
The soldiers obviously have a lack of standards regarding sexual proprieties. War conditions pressure anyone, but, their manner of "cracking" clearly shows a personal problem in the soldiers.
There is the distinct possibility, if not probability that this was all designed to confound the war effort. It is either that, or the individual soldiers just fell into their own vices, and the whole matter is incidental.
When President Bush offers his response, it can only involved two aspects: justice, and perspective. "We'll get to the bottom of it, and justice will be served," is what he will likely say. And also, he may cite the incredibly wide spread depravity under Hussein, and the likelihood that Iraqis in charge, working for the new regime, are wreaking out their own revenge on prisoners.
The involvement of American soldiers will nevertheless be a focus for a good while. Maybe it's a good thing. Maybe it will help clean up a lot. Let's hope there's more success there than here in America, land of the Howard Sterns and Janet Jacksons, where, once again, 'those responsible' were pursued, like Viacom and CBS, rather than the individual's committing the offenses.
Let's try to set a proper example through the new Iraqi regime. Lawyers, always the problem, pursue collectibles, not criminals. There's more money in the big commandos than in the individual offenders. Let's hope that we can focus directly on the offenders for a change, and not the collectibles.
Karpinski has unfortunately already pointed law and justice in the wrong direction. And we've already had our Clintonian apology. A lot of good that does.
At this rate, Iraq will sue the American military, or the U.S. government, like like Iran is trying to do through the Hague.
The alleged abuse of Iraq male prisoners by American military personnel appears more and more to be a case of American feminism in uniform. Brigadier General Janice Karpinski was apparently in charge. Some of the photographs release do show American female soldiers involved in the formal foray of impropriety.
Brigadier General Janice Karpinski, under moral fire
I'm wondering of some actual female homosexuality isn't a driving force behind it all. These are very stressful circumstances the military is under. Self-control can wane. A soldier can become frazzled, and his or her deepest resentment and aggressions can surface. There may be male homosexuality involved as well.
Notice that only Iraqi men are being allegedly abused. (It's yet to be clarified just what kind of abuse is involved, and how to distinguish between humiliation and abuse, between shame and torture. Sexual shame is a wholly different category than the tortures of physcial pain and even other psychological torture, like sleep deprivation.)
We do not have the details, but it seems rather odd that these American soldiers would parade their obviously inflamatory improprieties, and purposely have photographs made to display them before the public. We have no proof as yet that naked men in the photos were in fact Iraqi prisoners. The whole story is suspect.
If the motive of it all is to depict humilation of Iraq men, of murderous Arab Muslim men, who are notorious the world over for their physical and psychological abuse of women, then one can easily see how American feminisist in military uniform could be behind such a story, and create the sensationalism for purposes of world publicity.
They have succeeded. American feminist (homosexual?) females in military uniform have sought to create humiliating images of allegedly Iraqi Muslim men. They have also disgraced the American military uniform, complicated the sensitive war situation, the American mission in Iraq, and no doubt increased the endangerment of Americans everywhere. This is the price of their personal revenge, their personal passions, their personal resentment of men.
Is it a good thing? Murderous Muslim men need to be supremely humiliated in the world. Indeed. Will it do any good? No. Will it change their attitude? No. I say the mission of the feminists in uniform seems to them a personal triumph, but it is an international failure and brings shame upon the feminists themselves. It is epitomically immature. Then again, strict justice usually is.
Homosexuality in military uniform may be the real issue underneath all this.
No incident has brought out the hypocrisy of the Arab mind quite like the recent matter of alleged "prisoner abuse" of Iraqis by U.S. soliders. One expects double-faced lying from Arab media and leaders more than from any other source in the world, but their reaction to this matter takes the cake.
Arabs object to U.S. abuse! Imagine. It even sounds so completely fake. Picture it: the audacity, the inflamed perfidy, not of the American soldiers, but of the Arab mind. Indeed, the alleged abuse brings out the worst in the Arabs, their most fake face.
So, Saddam Hussein taught the Iraqis that they have rights? Saddam was a champion of human dignity? Iraqis are decent, moral people, deserving of high class treatment? Their men are noble fighters? And where did this notion come from? Not from themselves. They must have picked it up from the Western liberal media somewhere, from the American legal system in it's global, liberal form.
The fact is these Iraqis not like us. The Iraqis involved here are lower than the lowest inner city gang member in the world. Why? Their egoes are harder. They are more unreachable. Their egoes are like nothing the average Westerner has ever seen or known of, and such egoes are incomprehensible to the outside world. This is a lesson, an exposure, indeed, of nothing but ego--Arab ego, in all its fraud, hypocricy, and self-inflation. It loves to accuse others of what it first commits on others. That is the secret of its false life, and perpetual justification. It always has a cause. Every and any human relation is fodder.
There's a difference between being demonic, and being just simply stupid. Everyone's ego is capable of stupidity. But these arabs and Iraqis carry it further. They focus on cruelty, and they're used to it, and used to justifying it.
We'll have to wait a while to get the truth about these "humiliating" incidents. The media hype is obviouly an over-shoot, actually weakening its own claims by the very exaggerations. Arab media is now indulging in sense of self-righteous decency. They are gloating in what seems to them an opportunity to show their great concepts of human dignity, etc., etc. Remember, it's new to them. We don't know that they even believe in dignity yet.
The soldiers will of course be made the objects of the most righteous judgment the self-deifying liberals of the world can possibly conjure. The anti-American media will exult in the profuse condemnation and execration of the servicemen in battle who have to deal with the dog-headed enemies face to face. Never, ever will the anti-American yellow news writers of the world condemn the animal behavior of Iraqis. No, that's not news. But alleged "mistreatment" from an American soldier--of a nasty, murderous, animalistic enemy prisoner who no doubt doesn't deserve to live anyway, this is worthy of heaven's attention. This is an eternal offense, and liberals will suck ever drop of self-righteousness they can out of it.
Maybe some of these Iraqis need to know just how the world thinks of them. In a way, the soldiers ought to be thanked. They expressed what most people feel. Too bad, the liberals are always there to stiffle free speech, or any form of expression that is genuine. They forget, this is a war scene. This is a prolonged conflict of day to day tension, full of deceitful, treacherous, murderous Iraqis and other Arabs. They despise American white women, they despise American values. This is war, not a stage to display hypocritical liberal etiquette. Of course "torture" is an evil, but it is also a language of war. And who said anyone was tortured?
The murderous Iraqi prisoners were merely humiliated. Ah, the heavens fall! The ego of a animalistic Arab was humiliated. Fancy that! What a tragedy! All is lost!
No, we don't know the facts of the story, and may never. And 'torture' is certainly a subjective concept to a liberal. But I say there's a private place in each of us that ought to feel a sense of justice here in this incident. The Iraqi and Arab murderers are loving this war. They are utterly insignificant, and to spit on the shadow of an American enflames their depressed egoes like nothing else. Nothing ignites them more than to humiliate the West, especially the Americans, the big guys, the main guys.
So, they suffer a touch of humiliation themselves, and the world cries, "Unfair!" Gotta love it. Liberals are profound comedians. Well, I guess this all makes most of the American and coalition servicemen really saints. And we know they'll never get the honor for it. That's real sainthood.
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001