It isn't. McCain still holds forth that
"It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell bent on acquiring them."He used gas on some Kurdish villages many years ago, not on New York, nor did he ever try to, nor did he have the means to, much less the ability to make nuclear weapons at the time or in the near future. The sell-by date on that misrepresentation is long past.
In Simi Valley last night, Romney praised Bush for showing the world that there are "consequences to attacking the US." There have been - for millions who had nothing to do with it and for tens of thousands sent off to acquire oil leases at the cost of life, limb and sometimes sanity along with the honor and reputation of the United States of America.
Both of them never miss a chance to excoriate Democrats for wanting to end the war that McCain is willing to make permanent and Romney brags about the difficulty they will face when debating a Republican. Neither realizes that it's three quarters of the country who want out, not some easily labeled minority or that they may have considerable difficulty not being run out of Washington on a flagpole come November if the jingo jive doesn't stop and the supply side economic voodoo doesn't stop and the lies don't end. There will come a point where calling people Dems and Libs and similar balbative bullshit isn't going to hide the fact that there are enough pissed off people to vote these phony bastards and their phony war and their P.T. Barnum economic policies into oblivion.
7 comments:
I'm not so optimistic that anything will change in November, whether it's Hillary or McCain.
Permanent war is the hallmark of central bank profitability and so long as we have a federal reserve, we will have war, regardless of who is president.
Profitability? Shareholders?
As far as I know, member banks have very little power over how their regional Federal Reserve Bank is run and they have no control at all over monetary policy - that's controlled by a board appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate. Yes they get payed a salary, but there isn't any profit much less profit sharing.
Being controlled entirely by the Federal Government, I don't see that it's a problem unless the President and Federal Government are owned by the people who own the banks.
Somehow I'm hearing echoes of some really thoroughly debunked myths here, but I could be wrong. Most of the Fed's income gets paid back to the treasury. Don't forget that war is the most frequently occurring event in human history and it's occurence has not increased with the advent of the Fed.
Of course the myth of a small cabal of people controlling the banking system is an old one and that belief in an of itself has inspired the most devastating wars in human history.
I'm disgusted with it all. I've had enough.
I'm still hoping to find that little island somewhere. . .
ii: re "central bank profitability": is that why switzerland is at war all the time?
as 4 mccain, was it indeed "worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein"?:
"Iraqi refugees throughout the region are becoming increasingly desperate. Despite a decline in violence in the second half of 2007, only a small number have gone home, often because their resources are exhausted. Of those who returned to Iraq, many found their property occupied and suffered secondary displacement.
"UNHCR estimates more than 4.2 million Iraqis have left their homes, many in dire need of humanitarian care. Of these, some 2.2 million Iraqis are displaced internally, while more than 2 million have fled to neighbouring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. Many were displaced prior to 2003, but the largest number has fled since. In 2006, Iraqis became the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe."
http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html
Why is it that the media never give us those numbers or any coverage at all?
why shd they? they don' giv a damn bout a lil thing like refugees....
Post a Comment