Hi, Edvard.
It's a pity you are not understanding us. We are against spam!

Always read the source.

Here's a quote from the article on Carney: "'On a scale from zero to 10, with zero being no relationship and 10 perfect operational coordination,' Carney said, the Iraq-Al Qaeda link was 'somewhere in the 2.5 range.'"

That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. It appears there were some fleeting contacts between the Saddam regime and al-Qaeda, though certainly nothing that approached the level of an operational relationship, and certainly nothing that enhanced al-Qaeda's threat to the U.S.

I guess in Arkin's book that makes Carney a "crazy." But it'd be nice if he would honestly represent other people's views. I lost some respect for Arkin after reading this.

Comparisons being made between the Iraq and Vietnam wars are very wrong. The nature of the wars, their sponsors and the publics reactions are very different. The only similarity is the politics in America where the administration touts wins and progress while the news reports are showing just the opposite, and like Vietnam, eventually the lie could no longer be maintained and we all have to face up to the facts. Its no longer the administration's war, but our's now, every Americans, now that we know Bush/Nixon failed. The American people are/were rightly mad about this. The elections showed that. So like in 1970, the facts have been laid out and the debate, which should have begun years earlier, begins. Since we did not properly debate what we were getting into in 1962/2003, we now must ask how to get out.

The differences in the conflicts however should not be ignored. There is little state sponsorship of the insurgents in Iraq. A recent report showed they are well funded, but through criminal activity. There is no threat of growing this war into a world war or even a small nuclear exchange. Its not even a war per se. Its an internal civil war at best and more like classic warlord rivalry. I actually agree with Bush that this can be "won" in the sense that an Iraqi government could be established and the insurgents marginalized, but Bush's methods are totally wrong and stupid. The Arab league and UN with NATO involvement could be encouraged to help to stabalize and secure Iraq. Once stability is created, a lot of the reasons for the rivalries will disappear as long as the US continues to support the democratic process. What really worries me is that Bush is now looking for any exit strategy and might be tempted to accept a non-democratic result. My feeling is based on Bush's friendships with many undemocratic countries and leaders, some very personnal friendships, and thus shows his lack of an idiological commitment toward democracy. How can someone who is close personal friends with the House of Saud seriously believe in freedom and liberty?

Honesty and truth....

...........this will cause some Americans, particularly those in the far Right to gag, however, only honesty and truth will dictate the true course that should be taken in Iraq. And there has been a paucity of honesty and truth coming out of America from the onset and I still haven't heard anything come out of the administration to suggest that truth is any way, a consideration now!

Someone wrote in the blog that America is loosing [the war] because America did not fully commit itself. We all knew that America had the bandwidth to go in and destroy Iraq; we could have done that at any time and we still can do that at anytime. However, the problem as I see it is that America's objectives were never honest and therefore never clear from the beginning, and that is America's real reason for failing.

The reasons for our going into Iraq, as explained by our illustrious leader, kept changing. And keep in mind that Bush declared that the mission was accomplished not too long after the troops stormed and took down Baghdad. Did we leave? Shortly after Tommy Franks flew in and said, folks you will be out of here in 6-months. Did it happen?

No, instead we began to hear about another list of concocted reasons for America continuing its stay in Iraq that were presented by our President. Is it fair to say that one would have a difficult time knowing when they had reached their objective if they were never honest about what the objective was in the first place, after all people do lie even to themselves?

In the case of the President, he has consistently said one thing to the public while doing another. Mr. Bush knew what his true objective was (that he consistently hid under a phalanx of lies) that belied everything that he spoke about to the American public. His true objective was what he was accusing the so-called Axis nations and others of doing, to put his stamp on the middle-east, and folks it is not working. Why? Because what he is attempting to accomplish is deceitful, unlawful, immoral and dishonest. His actions were being done in the interest of America, not the Iraqi people; General MacGregor explains Bush's motives the best, simply, politics and economics.

Clearly George Bush was and is the right man for the job of 'misleading' the American public, unless you want to bring back Tricky Dick or Ronald Reagan. A long-term and sustainable outcome will only be achieved when America decides to be honest and truthful about its objectives, and when America seeks to do the RIGHT THING with regard to Iraq and pursue noble objectives that have only the Iraqi people in mind.

Otherwise, America will continue to go around in circles and seeking the help of others inside and outside of America, in hopes of saving face given the horrific mess that it has already made in Iraq and the Middle-East unfortunately while innocent people on all sides continue to needlessly sacrifice their lives for a myth-laden policy!

All of what is going on now inside and outside of America, displomacy and study groups, proves that the Bush Administration is a failure from top down and that these folks did not have a clue; and they sitll do not have a clue, thus they have to seek the help of outsiders and other nations to rescue them!

Hopefully, someday our 'misleading' leader will recognize the value of honesty and truth and the damage that can be caused when one is less than truthful, in his case he is a surreptitious liar! Did he not learn anything from Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Oliver North and the boyz of late?

I would suggest to Busy and Chaney that they both do the right thing and have themselves fired!

Honesty and truth....

...........this will cause some Americans, particularly those in the far Right to gag, however, only honesty and truth will dictate the true course that should she taken in Iraq. And there has been a paucity of honesty and truth coming out of America from the onset!

Someone wrote in the blog that America is loosing because America did not fully commit itself. We all knew that America had the bandwidth to go in and destroy Iraq; they could have done that at any time. However, the problem as I see it is that America's objectives were never honest and therefore never clear from the beginning. The reasons for our going into Iraq, as explained by our illustrious leader, kept changing. And keep in mind that Bush declared that the mission was accomplished not to long after the troops stormed and took down Baghdad. Did we leave? Shortly after Tommy Franks flew in and said, folks you will be out of here in 6-months. Did it happen?

No, instead we began to hear about another list of concocted reasons for America continuing its stay in Iraq. Is it fair to say that one would have a difficult time knowing when they had reached their objective if they were never honest about what the honest was in the first place? In the case of the President, he has consistently said one thing to the public while doing another. Mr. Bush knew what his true objective that underlay everything that he spoke, to the public. His true objective was what he was accusing the so-called Axis nations and others of doing, to put his stamp on the middle-east and folks it is not working. Why? Because what he is attempting to accomplish is deceitful, unlawful, immoral and dishonest.

Clearly he was the right man for that job unless you want to bring back Tricky Dick or Ronald Reagan. A long-term sustainable outcome will be achieved when America decides to be honest and truthful about its objectives. Otherwise, America will continue to go around in circles in hopes of saving face given the horrific mess that it has already made in Iraq and the Middle-East, and America will continue to do so unfortunately while innocent people on all sides continue to, needlessly, sacrifice their lives for a myth-laden policy!

Hopefully, someday our 'misleading' leader will recognize the value of honesty and truth and the damage that can be caused when one is less than truthful, in his case a surreptitious liar!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1471.shtml

Beyond "Bobby": Exposing the continuing conspiracy and cover-up of the RFK assassination

By Larry Chin

With the film Bobby, director-writer Emilio Estevez captures a snapshot of 1968 America, and the many hopes and dreams lifted and crushed on the night Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. But the real story that still begs to be told begins where Bobby leaves off: with the assassination itself.

For it is only through investigation of the assassination and its cover-up, the murder's direct connection to the other 1960s assassinations (JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and others), and its relevance to subsequent (and also directly connected) wars and political crimes (Nixon/Watergate, Iran-Contra, and both Bush administrations) -- that the soul of the American Empire is truly revealed.

RFK case wide open

The RFK assassination was, like the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent figures, a political murder committed by operatives and agents of the US government (including, but limited to, the CIA and FBI), in conjunction with local police (operating as CIA cutouts), and intelligence-connected organized crime figures and mercenaries.

There is overwhelming evidence that the RFK murder was a CIA operation involving the Los Angeles Police Department.

More proof continues to emerge, including this fresh piece of evidence uncovered by BBC investigator Shane O'Sullivan. Conducting research for his own film on the RFK assassination, O'Sullivan has identified and corroborated the presence and identities of three former CIA operatives at the crime scene:

Michael Ruppert, former Los Angeles Police detective, author, journalist and editor of From The Wilderness, conducted his own investigation of the RFK assassination, tapping into inside contacts deep within the LAPD. His investigation definitively proves that the assassination was a CIA operation, and names some of the perpetrators:

Following the trail of evidence

If there is a call to action inspired by Bobby, it must not stop with a revival of the causes that purportedly died with RFK. It must begin with a furious worldwide call to break down the doors of the national security state, with the immediate reopening of real and legitimate investigations into not only the RFK assassination, but every other political murder and crime of the past 40 years. The CIA, the FBI and other agencies must be held accountable.

Nothing less will do.

The RFK assassination physical evidence was, predictably, destroyed, manipulated, and subjected to a massive and continuing cover-up shortly after the murder. Investigations have been meticulously sabotaged. Whistleblowers, eyewitnesses, investigators and researchers have been silenced and murdered. The Kennedys, physical evidence and 9/11

The crime scene, the kitchen of the historic Ambassador Hotel, was manipulated shortly after the assassination by the LAPD, but not before many forensic investigators, including Chief LA Medical Examiner Thomas Noguchi, raised questions that, to this day, remain unanswered -- and still offer a compelling and damning case for a conspiracy. The Ambassador was demolished in 2005. It is sickening, but no surprise, that this hallowed ground was torn down by the city of Los Angeles, despite the legal petitions before the California Supreme Court to save the site. RFK Assassination Far From Resolved It is bitterly ironic that the Bobby film was shot in the ruins of the Ambassador just before the building went down forever.

Sirhan Sirhan, the manipulated patsy who could not have committed the RFK murder as described by the ridiculous official version, has languished in prison for years, awaiting a retrial. His attorney, Lawrence Teeter, fought for years to reopen the RFK case, but died in July 2005.

Still, there is more than ample evidence, old and new, that demands that the case be reopened.

With respect to the RFK assassination specifically, there is a wealth of information waiting to be found, bought, read, studied and absorbed. The many sources include the following:

* Philip Melanson was a professor of political science, a specialist in the study of political violence, and the former director of the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination Archives. Melanson, one of the premier RFK assassination authorities, died in September 2006, just as he was completing a new work exposing US government drug trafficking. Tragically, Melanson joins Gary Webb atop the list of courageous and recently deceased investigators of the same milieu. The Archive still exists (under someone else's direction). Follow the link to the extensive list of Melonson's books and articles, which include The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations on the Conspiracy and Cover-Up (1991) and Shadow Play: The Murder of Robert F. Kennedy (1997).

* Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation (1993)

* Lawrence Teeter, attorney representing Sirhan Sirhan, fought doggedly to reopen the RFK case for years. In a July 6, 2005 interview for KPFA's Guns and Butter, Teeter discussed the case and his hopes for its reopening. Sadly, Teeter died in July 2005.

* Probe Magazine offers a full archive on every assassination of the 1960s. Probe's editors, Jim DiEugenio and Linda Pease, are the authors of the important The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK.

* William Turner and Jonn Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (1978, 1993). One of the first, and still best, investigations that prove that Sirhan Sirhan was a manipulated government asset.

* William Turner, Rearview Mirror: Looking Back at the FBI, the CIA and other Tails (2001). Turner's memoirs, which include extensive chapters on the RFK hit.

* The Robert F. Kennedy assassination (a web site that serves as a good general overview)

RFK assassination and deep political reality

The conspiracy and cover-up of all the 1960s' assassinations must be understood not as isolated murders, but parts of a long and seamless continuum. To borrow the words of Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, authors of The Iran-Contra Connection, they are merely "the outgrowth of a long tradition of covert US activities."

Any sober examination of any of the assassinations leads directly to the same master list of agencies, political suspects and covert operatives, from the Kennedy killings to the crimes of Watergate and Iran-Contra, to the present day. The system that made the RFK murder and cover-up possible is at its zenith today, with the openly criminal, overtly brutal George W. Bush administration.

Anyone who has studied his history must have been disgusted and outraged by the official ceremony in which George W. Bush named the Justice Department building after RFK, given the fact that the Bush crime family and its network can be directly connected to the Kennedy killings.

With due respect to Emilio Estevez and the well-meaning producers and cast of Bobby, tomes about suffering and symptoms, no matter how brilliant, artful or poignant, are useless if the root causes and agents of the problem are not identified, directly faced, and courageously eradicated. It is foolish to speak of a Bobby Kennedy legacy without the same attention paid to those who plotted, committed and covered up his murder.

Hopefully, the continuing efforts of researchers and investigators, and people like researcher/film maker Shane O'Sullivan will be a part of a new wave.
In short, there is an arduous and long-running battle for justice that must be joined. Let it start now.

==America LOST the conflict because of lack of commitment.==

How much more commitment can you possibly want? More than 57,000 dead, more hundreds of billions lost, and more risk of a global confrontation?

I really don't understand the view, apparently popular with the military and military historians that blames this mythological "lack of commitment" for the loss. Could perhaps a decision to fight a war that stems from a long colonial past (a past we solidified after WWII by allowing the French to further abuse Vietnam) be wrong in and of itself? We couldn't allow for that, so we must blame the lack of bloodthirstiness of the American public or the lack of further risk taking by the civilian leadership.

To od: Thank you for your personal response, did not expect that! NO, I do not desire to fight the Vietnam war again.Once is enough. I would like to see the 60000 or so who died there alive today because, as it developed, their sacrifice was for naught. How about yourself, were you there? America LOST the conflict because of lack of commitment. We were there because of a SEATO treaty. We left because America just could no longer bear the sacrifice, the daily media reports of war and because limiting the war to the the south was not getting the job done-a faulty civilian strategy, just as we have fought the Iraqi war with a flawed civilian strategy. Note the recent resignation of SecDef. If not prepared to win, then don't enter the fight.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info

Bush administration and US media blame Syria for Gemayel assassination

By Patrick Martin
23 November 2006

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

When a murder investigation begins, the starting point is not to shout from the rooftops some unfounded suspicion, but to assemble, in a methodical and serious fashion, all the physical and circumstantial evidence. A list of suspects must be drawn up, each with their possible motives.

Such a systematic approach is especially necessary in the case of the murder of a prominent political personality, where a "crime of passion" or accident can be ruled out, and the clearest avenue to determining responsibility is to ask: who stood to gain by the individual's elimination?

In the assassination of Lebanese cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel, however, the Bush administration and its allies in the American media follow no such procedure. Before any evidence had been collected, almost before the body was cold, the US government and its media servants began declaring that the killing was a Syrian plot.

The ferocity of this response should in and of itself raise eyebrows. Another agenda is at work. Or, worse, the clamor to blame Syria, without evidence or any attempt at substantiation, represents a premeditated course of action, prepared ahead of time, suggesting foreknowledge of the event.

It is of central importance that the Gemayel assassination takes place at a critical point of internal conflict within the American state. A raging battle is taking place within the US ruling elite over pursuing relations with Syria and Iran, in an effort to salvage what can be saved from the debacle of the US conquest and occupation of Iraq.

The Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel established by Congress to review US policy in Iraq and reluctantly embraced by Bush, is known to be considering a proposal for direct talks by the US government with both Syria and Iran. Sections of the Bush administration, and particularly the neo-conservatives linked most closely with Israeli foreign policy, have begun a preemptive attack on this forthcoming proposal.

Nearly three weeks before the murder, on November 2, the Bush administration issued an hysterically worded warning of plans by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah to seize power in Lebanon. Without offering any factual basis, the White House statement declared that the US government was "increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically elected government."

Since then, there has been a steady drumbeat in the American media about alleged Syrian conspiracies, culminating in the editorial in the Wall Street Journal Wednesday, issued barely 24 hours after Gemayel's death, declaring that Syria was responsible and calling on the Iraq Study Group to reconsider its plans to recommend a Washington approach to Damascus for talks.

How would Syria benefit?

Why would Syria order the killing of the Lebanese minister of industry?
Why would Syria order the killing of the Lebanese minister of industry? Unlike former prime minister Rafik Hariri, murdered in 2005, Gemayel was not a leading personality in the so-called "anti-Syria" faction of the
For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/nov2006/leba-n23.shtml

Tony Blankley,

Anybody read his column today in the Washington Post. Well, if you plan to read it, do so before you eat your Thanksgiving dinner for I am certain that it will make you throw up. On the other hand if you read it before you eat it, you might be too nauseated to eat!

DC, where do you find these people? Oh, they came from the Nixon and Reagan Administrations. Why do you think we sent the late President Reagan to Washington?

Answer: So that he could be with his friends like Tony! Can you say Reagan/Contra?

Happy Thanksgiving again!

how very sad it is to see what a dark, narrow corner this administration has painted our foreign policy into. There now seems only three options remaining on the middle east question. Get out of iraq with the help of the iranians and syrians; get drawn into a widening vacuum including the lebanese question(refer to the israelis:they are the most expert on why this a stupid option); or continue to conflagrate the entire middle east with the help of the israelis. We all know who will foot the bill for that! And lets not forget our marines who gave their lives in West Beirut the last time we got involved in Lebanon. Maybe its just time to come home our own way and defend our borders. Afghanistan represents the weak flank. WE should remain a prescense their for the time being.

I watched the run-up to the Iraq war very carefully, and our Arab allies were opposing going into Iraq, and said it would increase the number of terrorist and terrorism.
I don't buy into Syria or Iran killing Gemayel. It was a sloppy operation that was done in a hurry. It lacked the preparation that had gone into previous assassinations. I think it was an attempt to discredit Syria, and, indirectly Iran, because they have become involved in the Iraq "peace" process,and because a conference between those countries was imminent.
This Assassination also has put Lebanon on the brink of civil war. It was not an operation designed to "divide and conquer", but to "divide and render impotent". Occupying Lebanon is a risky business.
As to Baker and the first Gulf War, the U.S. was between a rock and a hard place. If we had taken over all of Iraq, we would have been in the same position we are in now. However, following the advice of the people of the region, Saddam was left in place, and some military presence was required to protect Saudi Arabia and now Kuwait. Bin Laden was mad because the Saudis didn't fight Saddam like the mujahideen had in Afghanistan. As we have seen, there are no good anwsers for conflicts in the Middle East.

To JC, who wishes to re-fight the Vietnam War 'without one hand tied behind his back': Invading the North was an option tried in the Korean war. It didn't work then. So the hawks moved on to the next stage, calling for North Korea (and probably China) to be nuked. If Vietnam had been left to people like yourself, no doubt that pointless exercise would have ended with a pointless nuclear exchange.

A better point to make about both Iraq and Vietnam is that these wars served no valuable purpose in the first place. Vietnam WAS lost - by the US military - and no dominos fell.

The point of war is not to prove how tough the US military is, though to an increasing extent that's the only justification I hear for remaining in Iraq.

THE POWER OF VOTING WITH YOUR FEET

When you find yourself in a HOLE. QUIT DIGGING!

Enough individuals see this fiasco (Iraq) for what it is. The majority who are eligible DON'T volunteer for the WAR. A further 8 percent reduction in the current rate of enlistment and the FIASCO will end within 6 Months to a Year. The kids are smart, they know the lie. However, they are in awe that the DECIDER is still acting out the 'Emperor Has No Clothes' and is STEADFAST in his efforts to MISLEAD them as if they were dumb sheep (SHEEPLE).

President Bush and the Fanatics are the only ones refusing to acknowledge the obvious and are encouraged to continue by THOSE who have the most to benefit from the situation (The media, talk Shows, Op Ed, the Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Etc.) of this the greatest American REALITY SHOW.

I say, let's all sit back, and watch these fools (The Baker's, Hamilton's) so intent in saving face (and Bush's legacy, Ha Ha ) instead of doing what is RIGHT for our country make fools of themselves (ourselves). The determination of whether we be fools will be made by the rest of the world - however I do suspect the majority of the world will be to polite to tell us as there is nothing to be gained. (Note: They be not TRUE friends.)

Alas, Bush and Congress will declare the brillance of the commission (Save Face), the honor and glory of our misadventure will be proclaimed along with the shout of Victory as we evacuate IRAQ. The rest of the world will watch in silence, will put another notch on their 'America Owes Us One Gun' and then sight it back on America for the time being, until the appropriate time*, they will all go back to BAU marking time.

* History repeating as in The Fall of Rome

"Carney, Miller writes, is a naval reservist who is one of the intelligence analysts who worked in the Pentagon after September 11 searching for the Saddam-al Qaeda relationship. He still believes that there was a link."

Mr. Carney needs to step outside his narrow naval intelligence worldview and simply come to the conclusion, as have millions of Americans, that quite simply:

AQ AND Saddam Hussein 'worked' for U.S. interests .

You know... like Former Mexican President Luis Echeverría, who was a CIA op at the same time he was president of Mexico according to papers released by the National Security Archive http://leighm.net/blog/?p=730

It's really that simple.

==A ground invasion of North Vietnam would have quickly ended that engagement. Would China have intervened? Who knows==

I think that your analysis strengthens Arkin's argument for strong civilian control of the military. I like that "who knows"... same goes for Russia potential intervention. So what engagement would you have ended with that invasion of North Vietnam?

And having a very difficult time in South Vietnam with over half a million of conscripts, why would you think that you would have done better by doubling your territory of operations and quadrupling (or more) your enemies?

That's similar to arguing that the way to end the Iraqi war is to invade Syria and Iran.

Re your comment: "Get ready for the Vietnam argument all over: We won every battle; it was just the American people - and the media! - that failed us."Not sure of your expertise to make such a comment, however,having served in Vietnam as rifle company commander, I find the "Vietnam argument" to be quite credible. History shows that you and other Americans through elected politicians imposed upon the military such restrictions in Vietnam combat operations, i.e., no ground combat ventures into North Vietnam from whence came the major enemy ground forces, restrictions on air operations, and restrictions on Laotian operations,which virtually assured that the war could not be won militarily and directy caused the great loss of life in that sad scenario.The military lost no major ground operation there. A ground invasion of North Vietnam would have quickly ended that engagement. Would China have intervened? Who knows. As to iraq, that appears to be, at this stage, a civil war which likely cannot be won with the present level of US forces. Good intelligence would have predicted such an outcome.Blame the politicians and the people who elected them, but don't blame the rifleman and don't place him/her in harms way with one arm tied behind.

Happy Thanksgiving America.....?

Tomorrow, when most Americans sit down to enjoy their Holiday meals along with their families, 28 million people on the other side of the world, mostly, will languish in despair.

They will be wondering how can the people of a so-called Christian nation be so hypocritical, and sit and give thanks to God, while they are occupying another once sovereign nation with believers of God in it!

Bush spared Tom turkey, perhaps he will have a heart and spare a nation that never provoked the U.S.A. in any manner.

Perhaps President Bush is the real turkey. Americans should thank the Iraqi's for the sacrifices of their land, sons and daughters, just so that Americans can get on with their Holiday Festivities!

Peace & Grace

Sorry for the duplicates, something occupied my computer!

Happy Thanksgiving America.....?

Tomorrow, when most Americans sit down to enjoy their Holiday meals and their families, 28 million people on the other side of the world, mostly, will, languish in despair.

They will be wondering how can a so-called Christian be so hypocritical, as to sit and give thanksgiving to God, while they are occupying another once sovereign nation with people believers of God in it!

Bush spared Tom turkey, perhaps he will have a heart and spare a nation that never provoked the U.S.A. in any manner.

Perhaps he is the turkey. Americans should thank the Iraqi's for their sacrifice, so that Americans can get on with their Holiday Festivities!

Peace & Grace

Happy Thanksgiving America.....?

Tomorrow, when most Americans sit down to enjoy their Holiday meals and their families, 28 million people on the other side of the world, mostly, will, languish in despair.

They will be wondering how can a so-called Christian be so hypocritical, as to sit and give thanksgiving to God, while they are occupying another once sovereign nation with people believers of God in it!

Bush spared Tom turkey, perhaps he will have a heart and spare a nation that never provoked the U.S.A. in any manner.

Perhaps he is the turkey. Americans should thank the Iraqi's for their sacrifice, so that Americans can get on with their Holiday Festivities!

Peace & Grace

Happy Thanksgiving America.....?

Tomorrow, when most Americans sit down to enjoy their Holiday meals and their families, 28 million people on the other side of the world, mostly, will, languish in despair.

They will be wondering how can a so-called Christian be so hypocritical, as to sit and give thanksgiving to God, while they are occupying another once sovereign nation with people believers of God in it!

Bush spared Tom turkey, perhaps he will have a heart and spare a nation that never provoked the U.S.A. in any manner.

Perhaps he is the turkey. Americans should thank the Iraqi's for their sacrifice, so that Americans can get on with their Holiday Festivities!

Peace & Grace