The names and faces of the military and the mercenaries, the people who do the killing and the dying and the waging of wars, those who come home in pieces or in coffins or are buried in obscure mass graves, those whose entire lives are "honored" by working people putting a flag out once a year, those who die way too young, who are lied to and deceived, who never get anything at all, who slaughter women and children and babies when instructed, who are told that they matter, they are important, that their mission is critical, that they are "defending their nation" when they are only acting to steal more wealth for the mass-murderers who declare war and steal the riches and hide in palaces and mansions surrounded by paid mercenaries and young military men, their names and faces change, but the essential structure remains the same.
Buckingham Palace by A. A. Milne
They're changing guard at Buckingham Palace
Christopher Robin went down with Alice.
Alice is marrying one of the guard.
"A soldier's life is terrible hard," Says Alice.
They're changing guard at Buckingham Palace
Christopher Robin went down with Alice.
We saw a guard in a sentry-box.
"One of the sergeants looks after their socks," Says Alice.
They're changing guard at Buckingham Palace
Christopher Robin went down with Alice.
We looked for the King, but he never came.
"Well, God take care of him, all the same," Says Alice.
They're changing guard at Buckingham Palace
Christopher Robin went down with Alice.
They've great big parties inside the grounds.
"I wouldn't be King for a hundred pounds," Says Alice.
They're changing guard at Buckingham Palace
Christopher Robin went down with Alice.
A face looked out, but it wasn't the King's.
"He's much too busy a-signing things," Says Alice.
They're changing guard at Buckingham Palace
Christopher Robin went down with Alice.
"Do you think the King knows all about me?"
"Sure to, dear, but it's time for tea," Says Alice.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Guess What I Did Today?
Okay, it was pitiful, as much a wave as a step, barely making contact between the sole and the ground, not so much "partial" weight-bearing as "minimal" weight bearing, but I don't care. I walked today. With crutches, hesitantly, with fear and trepidation, under the direction and observation of the physical therapists, I put my left foot on the ground, followed by the right, then the left again, and -- well, you get it.
Obama and the Democrats Refuse To Pass Healthcare Reform.
Obama and the Democrats refuse to pass healthcare reform. That's the only honest headline. What Obama and the Democrats instead announced last night is that they will do nothing at all to help the public. They are compelling 40 million Americans to buy health insurance, sending hundreds of millions of dollars of more business to the same criminals who are robbing us blind, but for the rest of us: nothing. No Reform. No Change.
The whole thing was just entertainment for the masses to deceive and defraud the public. What a show it was. Did you notice that all the Democratic women wore red, so they could try to pretend, try to fool the public into thinking this was just as important as the State of the Union? Like a revival carnival tent, I kept waiting for someone to bring out the bearded lady or the two-headed snake.
Everytime Obama opened his mouth the Democrats cheered like it was VE Day all over again. I kept expecting them to have the cameras cut to Times Square where male Democratic employees would be grabbing women, bending them over backwards, and giving them a big kiss, with excited journalists and flashbulbs recording the moment for all time.
"Good Evening" (wild cheers). "How are you?" (standing ovation). I almost think maybe Biden was standing behind Obama with signs, holding them up to the audience when the cameras weren't looking, like they do in the daytime game shows. Which is pretty much what this was. The Democrats took hundreds of millions of dollars from the health care industry -- insurance, doctors, drug companies -- in exchange for doing absolutely nothing to provide healthcare to the public. Instead of the TV Listings describing this as "Presidential Address to Congress," they should have just called it "The Price Is Right."
Obama got all puffed up when he announced that he will put some price controls on "co-pays and out of pocket expenses," but notice that he's not going to restrict the amount charged for premiums. The big money is the monthly premium. The co-pay is like forty bucks. Most people can afford forty bucks, but they can't afford the monthly premiums. So thanks for nothing.
Obama claims that he will not allow the insurance companies to "charge extra" for mammograms or check-ups or colonoscopies, but he pretends that he's unaware of the fact that most people have a deductible. All of those items would not exceed the deductible, meaning the individual has to pay for it one way or the other, well over a thousand dollars. If Obama believes mammograms and colonoscopies are such life-saving tests (which they are), then why doesn't the government pay for all of us to have them? Because he's spending all the public's money on the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, his new (undeclared) war against Pakistan, the eight new bases in Columbia, the coups in Honduras by the assassins from the School of Americas. Everything for War, nothing for the people.
Oh yeah. That whole "public option?" Keith Olbermann (on short notice, in fairness to him) kept referring to the fact that there would be a public option. Not really folks. Read the speech. Four years from now there will be a non-profit program set up to pay for healthcare for the uninsured who are too poor to be compelled to buy it for themselves. But only a maximum of 5% of the population can participate. I'm guessing skid row, jail, prison -- that type of medical care, to people who have not one penny and no ability to pay. For all the rest of us: nothing. No help, no public option, no Medicare for All, Nothing. And just as an aside: why wait four years to provide health care assistance to the poorest people in our country? My guess is that in four years there will be a quiet announcement that this will not be funded after all.
There was also a plan for a government-funded marketplace in which insurance companies can go to sell insurance to the public. Will we be paying for the insurance agent's travel expenses, hotels, meals, as well? Hookers? Phone sex? Why would the taxpayers pay to create a sales office for insurance companies? Notice that Obama and the Democrats do not plan to restrict the amount that the insurance companies can charge us in premiums. He says they will "compete" with each other for our business? Theoretically they do that right now, and the effect has been that they all grossly overcharge the public because there are no controls on what they can charge. They're competing to see who can steal the most money, provide the least service, and kill the most people.
The big pronouncement that Obama will forbid the exclusion of pre-existing conditions? Big deal. The insurance companies will charge such high premiums that insurance will be unaffordable to anyone with a preexisting condition. Just like it is today.
The pronouncement by Obama that nobody better try to stop him: that was aimed at the Democrats in the House, not the Republicans.
This is a complete sell-out of the public. The only true words spoken came from the Republican who called Obama a liar, because any claim that this represents health care "reform" is a lie.
The whole thing was just entertainment for the masses to deceive and defraud the public. What a show it was. Did you notice that all the Democratic women wore red, so they could try to pretend, try to fool the public into thinking this was just as important as the State of the Union? Like a revival carnival tent, I kept waiting for someone to bring out the bearded lady or the two-headed snake.
Everytime Obama opened his mouth the Democrats cheered like it was VE Day all over again. I kept expecting them to have the cameras cut to Times Square where male Democratic employees would be grabbing women, bending them over backwards, and giving them a big kiss, with excited journalists and flashbulbs recording the moment for all time.
"Good Evening" (wild cheers). "How are you?" (standing ovation). I almost think maybe Biden was standing behind Obama with signs, holding them up to the audience when the cameras weren't looking, like they do in the daytime game shows. Which is pretty much what this was. The Democrats took hundreds of millions of dollars from the health care industry -- insurance, doctors, drug companies -- in exchange for doing absolutely nothing to provide healthcare to the public. Instead of the TV Listings describing this as "Presidential Address to Congress," they should have just called it "The Price Is Right."
Obama got all puffed up when he announced that he will put some price controls on "co-pays and out of pocket expenses," but notice that he's not going to restrict the amount charged for premiums. The big money is the monthly premium. The co-pay is like forty bucks. Most people can afford forty bucks, but they can't afford the monthly premiums. So thanks for nothing.
Obama claims that he will not allow the insurance companies to "charge extra" for mammograms or check-ups or colonoscopies, but he pretends that he's unaware of the fact that most people have a deductible. All of those items would not exceed the deductible, meaning the individual has to pay for it one way or the other, well over a thousand dollars. If Obama believes mammograms and colonoscopies are such life-saving tests (which they are), then why doesn't the government pay for all of us to have them? Because he's spending all the public's money on the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, his new (undeclared) war against Pakistan, the eight new bases in Columbia, the coups in Honduras by the assassins from the School of Americas. Everything for War, nothing for the people.
Oh yeah. That whole "public option?" Keith Olbermann (on short notice, in fairness to him) kept referring to the fact that there would be a public option. Not really folks. Read the speech. Four years from now there will be a non-profit program set up to pay for healthcare for the uninsured who are too poor to be compelled to buy it for themselves. But only a maximum of 5% of the population can participate. I'm guessing skid row, jail, prison -- that type of medical care, to people who have not one penny and no ability to pay. For all the rest of us: nothing. No help, no public option, no Medicare for All, Nothing. And just as an aside: why wait four years to provide health care assistance to the poorest people in our country? My guess is that in four years there will be a quiet announcement that this will not be funded after all.
There was also a plan for a government-funded marketplace in which insurance companies can go to sell insurance to the public. Will we be paying for the insurance agent's travel expenses, hotels, meals, as well? Hookers? Phone sex? Why would the taxpayers pay to create a sales office for insurance companies? Notice that Obama and the Democrats do not plan to restrict the amount that the insurance companies can charge us in premiums. He says they will "compete" with each other for our business? Theoretically they do that right now, and the effect has been that they all grossly overcharge the public because there are no controls on what they can charge. They're competing to see who can steal the most money, provide the least service, and kill the most people.
The big pronouncement that Obama will forbid the exclusion of pre-existing conditions? Big deal. The insurance companies will charge such high premiums that insurance will be unaffordable to anyone with a preexisting condition. Just like it is today.
The pronouncement by Obama that nobody better try to stop him: that was aimed at the Democrats in the House, not the Republicans.
This is a complete sell-out of the public. The only true words spoken came from the Republican who called Obama a liar, because any claim that this represents health care "reform" is a lie.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Iraqi Shoe-Thrower To Be Released From Prison. A Hero.
(Steee-riiiiike One!)
Remember last year when George W. Bush did his victory tour of Iraq, one last opportunity to review the destruction and devastation he had caused, and an Iraqi journalist named Mr. Zaidi threw a shoe at Bush? Well, the poor man was arrested, charged with something like doing the right thing, thrown in prison. But he's going to be released from prison on Monday. A hero. A man to live in the history books.
This man fully expected that he might be shot for what he did, tortured, disappeared, thrown into an unmarked grave, murdered. But he did it anyway because he had principles. The people in Iraq have already built a statue to commemorate this brave act. It's a shoe. Who would think a shoe would become a sign of national pride.
This journalist risked his life to stand up against that monstrous murderer George W. Bush. Unlike, notably, the Democrats in Congress who for the most part sat on their fat corrupt asses and did nothing while Bush and Cheney waged war against the world. And now we know why.
Since taking control of the White House and Congress, the Democrats have done the exact same thing that Bush and Cheney did. Not only do they continue to wage war against the people of Iraq (a war based completely on lies manufactured by Dick Cheney) and Afghanistan (among the poorest people of the world), but we now are engaged in a war against Pakistan, and Obama and Hillary are staging coups and planning 8 new bases in Columbia so they can start wars against all the countries in Central and South America who want to be emancipated from the continued slavery system imposed by the U.S.
No wonder it's so hard to tell who's on what team. Maybe they should get uniforms, or something, because I'll be damned if I can tell a Democrat from a Republican these days. Or maybe they could get tattoos. The Democrats could shave dollar-signs into the backs of their heads, and get a "4" tattooed on their biceps. You know, 4 for the 4th letter of the alphabet, D. Like the Mexican Mafia does.
I think Southern California Mexican Mafia has a "13" tattooed for the 13th letter of the alphabet, M, and Northern California Mexican Mafia has a "14" for "N." Get it? "N" for "Northern" California? Of course that's partly so they can tell each other apart in prison because without the tattoos, they look and act exactly the same: just a bunch of criminals.
Which is my point. You can't really tell the Democrats from the Republicans because they look and act exactly the same: just a bunch of criminals. Do the 120 people in Afghanistan who were incinerated last week while trying to buy some gasoline on the cheap really care that the Democrats are running things now? Does it make any difference to the dead people, or their families? Or for any of us, for that matter?
Republicans have a few more MethBrains With Microphones, but in terms of the conduct of the parties, I can't tell them apart.
The Democrats need to have a team logo, one they can put on their suits and jackets, maybe have shaved into the back of their heads, tattooed on their biceps, so that the rest of us can recognize them when we see them. Because otherwise, you cannot tell a Democrat from a Republican. I suggest a big letter "D" with a dollar sign inside to show how corrupt they are, selling their votes and soliciting bribes for everything, never standing up for anything except money and more money for themselves. Then maybe some blood dripping from the bottom to represent the Democratic Wars Against Everyone, formerly known as the Bush-Cheney Wars Against Everyone.
This Iraqi journalist, Mr. al-Zaidi, is such a hero to the people of Iraq that somebody has actually built him, and will give him a home. Somebody else bought a car for him. Many others have sent money and other gifts. Kind of different from in our country where the people with principles see their homes, cars, and money taken away. Actually, that's true for most of us.(UPI) - ... "'He is a David and Goliath figure,' said Salah al-Janabi, a Baghdad linen salesman, told the British newspaper [the Guardian]. 'When the history books are written, they will look back on this episode with great acclaim. Al-Zaidi's shoes were his slingshot.'"
"Maitham al-Zaidi, the shoe thrower's younger brother, said he expected a quick death when he acted. Bush was able to duck -- a picture now appearing on T-shirts and wall posters. 'He thought the secret service was going to shoot him,' Maitham said. 'He expected that, and he was not afraid to die.'
Just think: the entire Democratic Party never did one thing to stop this illegal war. Not because they were afraid that they would be killed if they stood against it. Just because they're so lazy and corrupt, they were afraid they might miss out on a bribery-and-kickback party being held by some defense contractor.
No heroes for us. At least none in the national political scene. Lots of speeches. Big talkers. Tough guys, when it comes to talk. But when it comes to doing anything for the people, we got nothing. Well, I guess we've always got the firefighters.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Van Jones: Another American Citizen Crushed By The Right-Wing And By the Spineless Democrats.
Rupert Murdoch, enemy of the people, owner of Fox News, the New York Post, and much of the American media, as well as English and Australian media, fascist, war-lover, racist, sexist, Goebbels-groupie propagandist for the neocons and the neoliberals, is one of the big supporters of a business front group that exists solely for the purpose of attacking any possible Democratic legislation, stirring up violence and hatred and racism and sexism, and retaining control of the country in the hands of a few rich white fascist men. He wants a fascist dictatorship in this country, and he is using his corporate power and media to try to get it.
Murdoch and his fascist friends decided to go after a guy named Van Jones, a Yale law school graduate, community organizer, anti-police-violence organizer, and more recently the proponent of an entire radical change in our economy to create green jobs and to save our environment. Mr. Jones had recently been given a job by Barack Obama. He was gotten rid of by Obama (or maybe by Obama's henchman Emanuel) this week-end because Rupert Murdoch and his fascist friends decided to target Jones, to get rid of him, and to show once again that they own Obama.
Apparently Mr. Jones had the nerve to say that he thought somebody inside our government knew about 9/11 in advance. I agree with that. The only thing I'm not sure on is whether people inside or associated with our government actually planned, carried out, and financed the 9/11 attacks. Why is that such a shocking concept? Remember, Bush and Cheney refused to answer questions, testify, or let anyone inside their administration provide information to the "committee" set up to investigate 9/11. What were they covering up besides their own involvement in attacking their own country?
Why did Dick Cheney meet with oil corporation executives in March of 2001 and review the oil maps of Iraq, other than to prepare to seize the oil as soon as the 9/11 attacks gave Cheney an excuse to launch a war against Iraq? Remember PNAC put in writing, in 1998, that we need a Pearl Harbor-type attack on the U.S. in order to scare the public into allowing the neocons to launch wars against everyone in the world. And also remember that many of the people from PNAC at or around the late 1990s also worked for Israel in preparing their written statement called something like "A Clean Break," in which they said they wouldn't have to keep sucking so much money out of the U.S. if only "someone" would invade, attack, bomb, overthrow every single country in the middle east. Golly Gee -- I wonder who they had in mind.
Is that radical? Fine. Let's show all us crazy people up by having an independent prosecutor appointed with subpoena power to conduct a real investigation, compel testimony, and let's find out what really happened here. We keep hearing reports that bin Laden has been a double-agent for decades now, and we know Reagan created the myth of bin Laden by funding his enterprise back in the 1980s. Is it so surprising to think old Osama might still be taking orders from the CIA? Not to me it isn't. And while they're at it: why did those 9/11 hijacker pilots just happen to get their flight training at a flight instructor school in Florida owned by a former CIA agent? Lots of unanswered questions here.
I'd say anybody who accepts the official version of 9/11 should be fired for being F-ing morons.
And the second reason Mr. Jones was attacked is because he said derogatory things about the F-ing Republicans. Who doesn't? The Republican Party is now the fascist party of the U.S. Anyone who doesn't say derogatory things about them should have their head examined.
What's the deal here? Does Obama really think he can just keep making speeches while caving in to the corporate owners and the right-wing, and we'll all just sit still and take it? What a bunch of spineless weenies these Democrats are. Glenn Beck is crazy. He's nuts. He's as nuts as that crazy Bachman lady, as much a lunatic as Sarah what's her face. Glenn Beck is an alcoholic, and has the same destroyed brain type as the drug addict on the radio, the other god of the right-wing. They are all as malicious as the skanky anorexic Coulter. So exactly why would anyone do anything these people say?
But Mr. Jones is now gone from the white house. And to put the cherry on the cup-cake, the cowards at the white house are also insisting that Mr. Jones was not "fired," -- he resigned. Yeah. Sure. I believe that.
But it does give me an idea: why doesn't Obama resign? He has not done one thing to help the people of this country. Not one. So just quit -- leave. Go set up "foundations" like Bill Clinton did and collect your billion dollars in bribes and kick-backs. How about Rahm Emanuel, the apparent president? Why doesn't he resign? He is pro-war, he chose to volunteer to work for the Israeli military instead of one in the country to which he supposedly holds allegiance, he tried to prevent any anti-war candidates from getting funding during the 2004 or 2006 elections because he is so pro-war, he is a Clinton left-over, he is Wall Street's favorite politician and biggest recipient of Wall Street money, he has been against a "public option" or meaningful healthcare reform from the get go. So why doesn't he resign?
How about Hillary "I'll annihilate Iran" Clinton? Why doesn't she resign for threatening the mass incineration of millions of people who neither harmed nor threatened to harm the U.S. How about Gates, the man who not only keeps the wars going but also censors the press, why doesn't he resign? How about every person in the white house resigning for their continued slaughter of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and apparently the now-secret war in Pakistan, all being carried out for the purpose of stealing oil.
Were Obama and Hillary Clinton too busy this week-end planning the new wars in Central and South America, hiring mercenaries to staff the 8 new bases in Columbia, planning more coups, calling up their torturing murdering friends from the School of the Americas and sending them off with assignments about who to assassinate next? Is that their "mission?" Is that why Obama was too busy to lift a finger to tell Rupert Murdoch and Glenn Beck and all their fascist friends to go suck an egg?
How about if the really vicious people, the ones destroying the world resign and maybe leave Mr. Jones with his little project to create green jobs and try to save the environment. Honest to God, I'm going to leave the Democratic Party. I'm so sick of these people. Doesn't any one of them know how to throw a punch? Or take one?
http://www.alternet.org/politics/142481/big_business's_hidden_hand_in_the_smear_job_on_van_jones/
Murdoch and his fascist friends decided to go after a guy named Van Jones, a Yale law school graduate, community organizer, anti-police-violence organizer, and more recently the proponent of an entire radical change in our economy to create green jobs and to save our environment. Mr. Jones had recently been given a job by Barack Obama. He was gotten rid of by Obama (or maybe by Obama's henchman Emanuel) this week-end because Rupert Murdoch and his fascist friends decided to target Jones, to get rid of him, and to show once again that they own Obama.
Apparently Mr. Jones had the nerve to say that he thought somebody inside our government knew about 9/11 in advance. I agree with that. The only thing I'm not sure on is whether people inside or associated with our government actually planned, carried out, and financed the 9/11 attacks. Why is that such a shocking concept? Remember, Bush and Cheney refused to answer questions, testify, or let anyone inside their administration provide information to the "committee" set up to investigate 9/11. What were they covering up besides their own involvement in attacking their own country?
Why did Dick Cheney meet with oil corporation executives in March of 2001 and review the oil maps of Iraq, other than to prepare to seize the oil as soon as the 9/11 attacks gave Cheney an excuse to launch a war against Iraq? Remember PNAC put in writing, in 1998, that we need a Pearl Harbor-type attack on the U.S. in order to scare the public into allowing the neocons to launch wars against everyone in the world. And also remember that many of the people from PNAC at or around the late 1990s also worked for Israel in preparing their written statement called something like "A Clean Break," in which they said they wouldn't have to keep sucking so much money out of the U.S. if only "someone" would invade, attack, bomb, overthrow every single country in the middle east. Golly Gee -- I wonder who they had in mind.
Is that radical? Fine. Let's show all us crazy people up by having an independent prosecutor appointed with subpoena power to conduct a real investigation, compel testimony, and let's find out what really happened here. We keep hearing reports that bin Laden has been a double-agent for decades now, and we know Reagan created the myth of bin Laden by funding his enterprise back in the 1980s. Is it so surprising to think old Osama might still be taking orders from the CIA? Not to me it isn't. And while they're at it: why did those 9/11 hijacker pilots just happen to get their flight training at a flight instructor school in Florida owned by a former CIA agent? Lots of unanswered questions here.
I'd say anybody who accepts the official version of 9/11 should be fired for being F-ing morons.
And the second reason Mr. Jones was attacked is because he said derogatory things about the F-ing Republicans. Who doesn't? The Republican Party is now the fascist party of the U.S. Anyone who doesn't say derogatory things about them should have their head examined.
What's the deal here? Does Obama really think he can just keep making speeches while caving in to the corporate owners and the right-wing, and we'll all just sit still and take it? What a bunch of spineless weenies these Democrats are. Glenn Beck is crazy. He's nuts. He's as nuts as that crazy Bachman lady, as much a lunatic as Sarah what's her face. Glenn Beck is an alcoholic, and has the same destroyed brain type as the drug addict on the radio, the other god of the right-wing. They are all as malicious as the skanky anorexic Coulter. So exactly why would anyone do anything these people say?
But Mr. Jones is now gone from the white house. And to put the cherry on the cup-cake, the cowards at the white house are also insisting that Mr. Jones was not "fired," -- he resigned. Yeah. Sure. I believe that.
But it does give me an idea: why doesn't Obama resign? He has not done one thing to help the people of this country. Not one. So just quit -- leave. Go set up "foundations" like Bill Clinton did and collect your billion dollars in bribes and kick-backs. How about Rahm Emanuel, the apparent president? Why doesn't he resign? He is pro-war, he chose to volunteer to work for the Israeli military instead of one in the country to which he supposedly holds allegiance, he tried to prevent any anti-war candidates from getting funding during the 2004 or 2006 elections because he is so pro-war, he is a Clinton left-over, he is Wall Street's favorite politician and biggest recipient of Wall Street money, he has been against a "public option" or meaningful healthcare reform from the get go. So why doesn't he resign?
How about Hillary "I'll annihilate Iran" Clinton? Why doesn't she resign for threatening the mass incineration of millions of people who neither harmed nor threatened to harm the U.S. How about Gates, the man who not only keeps the wars going but also censors the press, why doesn't he resign? How about every person in the white house resigning for their continued slaughter of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and apparently the now-secret war in Pakistan, all being carried out for the purpose of stealing oil.
Were Obama and Hillary Clinton too busy this week-end planning the new wars in Central and South America, hiring mercenaries to staff the 8 new bases in Columbia, planning more coups, calling up their torturing murdering friends from the School of the Americas and sending them off with assignments about who to assassinate next? Is that their "mission?" Is that why Obama was too busy to lift a finger to tell Rupert Murdoch and Glenn Beck and all their fascist friends to go suck an egg?
How about if the really vicious people, the ones destroying the world resign and maybe leave Mr. Jones with his little project to create green jobs and try to save the environment. Honest to God, I'm going to leave the Democratic Party. I'm so sick of these people. Doesn't any one of them know how to throw a punch? Or take one?
http://www.alternet.org/politics/142481/big_business's_hidden_hand_in_the_smear_job_on_van_jones/
Sunday, September 6, 2009
U.S. Incinerates 120 Poor People In Afghanistan.
I can't tell you the number of times I've walked down a street in New York and seen people gathered around a car, back trunk open and full of products, cheap. "Five-dolla, five-dolla steaks; Designer dresses, shoes, CDs, DVDs, suits." You name it, somebody got a whole trunkload of it that apparently fell off the truck, they're selling the hot merchandise cheap to the citizens, if a cop comes along everybody scatters. Illegal, certainly. But I never once saw a cop pull a gun and just slaughter everybody who happened to be there trying to sell stolen goods or trying to buy something on the cheap. Never once saw that happen.
Of course there is no such thing as a "wrongful death" when cops do the shooting. It's always "suicide by cop." You hear these stories that are just unbelievable: the 90-year-old 4'11" couple, stooped over, walking up their stairs with canes, coming back from church in their Sunday best, some nervous or meth-head cop shoots them down, 20-rounds, and the conclusion after the "official" investigation is always the same thing: "Suicide by Cop." Those old people wanted to die. That's why they were out there. No other possible conclusion.
You see the same type of lies and cover-ups in the many wars being conducted by the U.S. around the world. Last week some dudes stole a couple of trunks full of gasoline in Afghanistan, parked somewhere, opened the trunk so to speak to sell it off cheap to the poor locals who showed up with their own containers to carry it back to their dumpy abodes. And our "allies," the Germans, saw satellite photos of the stolen trucks, saw the citizens standing in line with small containers to buy the cheap stolen goods, counted about 120 people standing out there, saw exactly what was going on, and decided to incinerate them by calling in airstrikes, dropping bombs from airplanes, blowing up the trucks, causing all the citizens to burn to death. That'll teach 'em.
And now the cover-up begins. How can you explain the decision to use an air-borne blowtorch on 120 civilians? For buying a little stolen gasoline for their families, maybe so they could have some fuel in their home? For that, they deserved to have an airborne blow-torch death, mass grave, charred remains of what once were citizens? Isn't that a little serious punishment for receiving stolen goods?
But we now hear that it was probably the Taliban that stole the trucks. And all the civilians with their little cans are being redefined -- no longer "civilians," they are now being called "militants." I think they should be called Crispy Critters. That's more accurate. Dead people. People we burned to death. Burned to death for being poor. Come to think of it -- that's what the Germans did during World War II: they burned people to death. And now we're doing it with them. Of course the U.S. denies responsibility, says it's all the Germans. But it's our war. We have no business being there. Every death in Afghanistan is the result of the U.S. war against the people of that country. A war with no purpose, no apparent end in sight. We're responsible.
By JASON STRAZIUSO and FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press Writers Jason Straziuso And Frank Jordans, Associated Press Writers
"Afghan officials say up to 70 people were killed in the early morning airstrike Friday in the northern province of Kunduz after Taliban militants stole two tanker trucks of fuel and villagers gathered to siphon off gas." ...
"The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, visited the site Saturday where two charred trucks and yellow gas cans sat on a riverbed." ...
"Taliban militants stole two fuel tankers late Friday that became stuck on a riverbed outside Kunduz. Villagers — either forced by the militants or enticed by offers of free fuel — gathered near the trucks, even as U.S. jets patrolled overhead. German commanders watching images from the U.S. aircraft could see about 120 people, McChrystal said Saturday. The commanders decided that the people were militants and ordered the airstrikes, Smith said, even though images provided by the U.S. aircraft would have been grainy and difficult to see."
Of course there is no such thing as a "wrongful death" when cops do the shooting. It's always "suicide by cop." You hear these stories that are just unbelievable: the 90-year-old 4'11" couple, stooped over, walking up their stairs with canes, coming back from church in their Sunday best, some nervous or meth-head cop shoots them down, 20-rounds, and the conclusion after the "official" investigation is always the same thing: "Suicide by Cop." Those old people wanted to die. That's why they were out there. No other possible conclusion.
You see the same type of lies and cover-ups in the many wars being conducted by the U.S. around the world. Last week some dudes stole a couple of trunks full of gasoline in Afghanistan, parked somewhere, opened the trunk so to speak to sell it off cheap to the poor locals who showed up with their own containers to carry it back to their dumpy abodes. And our "allies," the Germans, saw satellite photos of the stolen trucks, saw the citizens standing in line with small containers to buy the cheap stolen goods, counted about 120 people standing out there, saw exactly what was going on, and decided to incinerate them by calling in airstrikes, dropping bombs from airplanes, blowing up the trucks, causing all the citizens to burn to death. That'll teach 'em.
And now the cover-up begins. How can you explain the decision to use an air-borne blowtorch on 120 civilians? For buying a little stolen gasoline for their families, maybe so they could have some fuel in their home? For that, they deserved to have an airborne blow-torch death, mass grave, charred remains of what once were citizens? Isn't that a little serious punishment for receiving stolen goods?
But we now hear that it was probably the Taliban that stole the trucks. And all the civilians with their little cans are being redefined -- no longer "civilians," they are now being called "militants." I think they should be called Crispy Critters. That's more accurate. Dead people. People we burned to death. Burned to death for being poor. Come to think of it -- that's what the Germans did during World War II: they burned people to death. And now we're doing it with them. Of course the U.S. denies responsibility, says it's all the Germans. But it's our war. We have no business being there. Every death in Afghanistan is the result of the U.S. war against the people of that country. A war with no purpose, no apparent end in sight. We're responsible.
By JASON STRAZIUSO and FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press Writers Jason Straziuso And Frank Jordans, Associated Press Writers
"Afghan officials say up to 70 people were killed in the early morning airstrike Friday in the northern province of Kunduz after Taliban militants stole two tanker trucks of fuel and villagers gathered to siphon off gas." ...
"The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, visited the site Saturday where two charred trucks and yellow gas cans sat on a riverbed." ...
"Taliban militants stole two fuel tankers late Friday that became stuck on a riverbed outside Kunduz. Villagers — either forced by the militants or enticed by offers of free fuel — gathered near the trucks, even as U.S. jets patrolled overhead. German commanders watching images from the U.S. aircraft could see about 120 people, McChrystal said Saturday. The commanders decided that the people were militants and ordered the airstrikes, Smith said, even though images provided by the U.S. aircraft would have been grainy and difficult to see."
NOTE: the article refers to seeing 120 people by the trucks right before the bombing, but the claimed death count is being reported at 50-70, perhaps deliberately understated or perhaps some escaped death, it's not clear.
Friday, September 4, 2009
U.S. War on Afghanistan: Who Does The Killing, Who Does The Dying, Who Profits?
(U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard, deceased)
When did the U.S. invade Afghanistan? Early 2002, as I recall, almost 8 years ago. A country which consists of tribes, rocks, dire poverty, and land which the oil companies want to use for oil pipelines so they can steal oil from neighboring countries, pipe it through Afghanistan, then sell it on the open market for billions of dollars in profits. And pay presumably enormous kick-backs to the U.S. politicians who have funded this war knowing exactly why we were invading that country.
But you wouldn't really know we were conducting a war against those poor people because the media is owned by war-mongers, controlled by the government, and "our" Democrats love war more than the Republicans do.
Once in awhile something happens that brings the war to our attention. Like this week when Senator Feingold said perhaps it's time to get the hell out, or at least set a timetable, since nobody has any explanation as to why we're still there. (Except for that whole pipeline issue).
(With weapons, on patrol)
But something else happened this week in the U.S. War on Afghanistan. An American died. A Marine. And somebody, a journalist, took a picture of him while he was dying, and it showed up in the press. And the whole U.S. government went nuts. WHAT? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? SHOWING PICTURES OF DEAD AMERICANS TO THE PUBLIC?
(Wounded)
We cheer and celebrate the mass slaughter of "them" -- the Iraqis, Iranians, the poor people of Afghanistan. But God forbid an American who's over there doing the killing should himself get killed. Got to cover that up fast.
Ask yourself this: what would you do if another country invaded your country, stayed for 8 years, put an oil executive in and called him "president," killed your people, occupied your land, roamed throughout with tanks, guns, dropped bombs from airplanes, what would you do if you got the chance to fight back?
When the picture of U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard was shown in the press as he was dying, the Department of Defense and Secretary Robert Gates contacted AP (which took and published and photo) and "asked" them to remove the photo. It was removed. No dead Americans can be shown. Everybody else dead is okay, but no dead Americans. That's called censorship and pretending and lying and deceiving and keeping the public from recognizing the true cost of war. People die. And it costs a lot of money too. But mostly, people die.
What do you call journalists who only print what the government tells them to? Stenographers.
End all the Wars. Bring the Troops Home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)