Article: Spewing American Blood On Iraqi Oil Fields To Aid The House Of Saud

After getting buried in the November elections where Democrats didn't lose a single Congressional seat, some die-hard Republicans are still plugging away, while living in their fantasy world created by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

One such NeoCon friend, who shall remain unnamed, wrote in an email to me yesterday, "There have been no domestic terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001. This really pisses off the Far Left."

I thought I'd post my response here:

Living human beings - those not killed by chicken hawks and blood-thirsty war mongers - do not offend the Far Left or Democrats. It's these types of outrageous statements said by ignorant John Birch Society types. Yet, they have no idea how ignorant they sound.

Obviously, there have been no attacks on the USA since September 11, 2001. However, there have only been a few attacks total - and all have been well-spaced by YEARS. There were no al Qaeda attacks on the USA between 1993's World Trade Center attack until 2001.

Since, there have been hundreds of attacks since in places like England, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Italy, many island nations on the Asian Pacific rim and, most importantly, IRAQ. Many, if not all have been attributed, by the perpetrators, to our Iraqi invasion.

While many NeoCons celebrated - unusual since few American military leaders in our nation have - some reports have hundreds of thousands dead due to our non-nuclear intervention into the Middle East. In a rationale that few can understand, they claim, "we are fighting over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

Our government chose to occupy a soveriegn Islamic nation - which by all rational accounts, now, has become an all-Halliburton, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Lockheed production. Whoops, almost forgot the Carlisle Group.

The market might be up, but there are thousands down - laying on Baghdad Boulevard en route to a new home at Arlington National war bone yard.

After losing nearly 3,000 innocent civilians on September 11, a proper response might have been a very limited nuclear attack on the Tora Bora Mountains of Afghanistan with a stern warning that the total destruction of a major city could follow, if certain nations did not arrest Bin Laden, his followers, members of al Qaeda and the Taliban, etc.; gather them up over a week and deliver the lowlifes to Kuwait to await trial.

The warning should have further stated that any future attacks on American soil would follow by another limited nuclear retailiation, and the same response would be the reaction to a disruption world oil supplies.

Of course, this would have meant Saddam's forces would have had to guard his own oil fields. The same with the House of Saud and Iran. Such a solution would have cost next to nothing; killed very few, since very few live in Tora Bora; saved 3,400 American lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan; saved trillions from our national coffers. The war would have began on September 18, 2001, and been over in less than an hour. If you disagree, google:
"Surrender of the Japanese."

Instead, in a twist of fate that still have Pentagon experts spinning in the wind like the rest of us, Bush decides to never mention the name Bin Laden again and attack Iraq.

Could such an invasion cause a civil war? Afterall, Saddam's henchmen had been murdering people for decades to calm civil unrest between the Kurds seeking independence in the north; and the majority Shia in the south, seeking from national elections.

Are Republican extremists so tuned-in to propagandists that they have lost the ability to think for themselves, using basic commonsense and normal thought processes? If so, they could have read the first page of the memoirs of Bush Sr., where he explains that if the Desert Storm invasion included Baghdad, a massive civil war would have broken out destablizating the entire region.

Today, after Bush ideologues made this foray into the total abortion of "mission accomplished," and untold deaths; international bad will toward America; the tripling of world oil pricdes; and a no-way-out situation, the president is on the cusp of being face-guarded by Congressional resolution to cease the expansion. In other words, let's at least stop digging the hole deeper.

However, Bush has responded, in usual Bush fashion with no uncertainties, he will ignore Congress and the voters who placed the new legislators there just weeks ago.

To promote the "new" war, Bush and Cheney are talking the same nonsensical crap about Iran that they fed us about Iraq in 2002. Remember how we had to rush to invade Baghdad, before the "weather got too hot?"

This time, instead of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we are being told Iran is suddenly capable of a first-strike against the USA by a new Iraqi Intercontinental Ballistic Missle space program - which will be supplied within the next month by the "evil" North Koreans.

How much more lunacy before Nancy Pelosi acts? The president is, perhaps, prepping us for a nuclear first-strike against Iran. Will Pelosi open hearings leading to impeachment and does she have the guts to unfund the entire debacle?

Not all Republicans are thoughtless, many will be joining a joint resolution against the president's actions in the next week or two. And, in the past, men like Colin Powell, and more importantly, Bush's own father have shown the proper restraint to make a statement and then covet detente.

What has gone on makes perfect sense: Bin Laden told the world that al Qaeda has never attacked most nations, including many of our allies like Ireland, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands to mention a few.

Who gets attacked by these rebels? It seems, friends of the House of Saud. Then after tripling their OPEC prices, they get the thrill of watching our brave soldier's blood been spewed upon Iraqi oil fields.

America needs to rethink our position. Now.