DO NOT CLOSE THE OPERA WHATEVER YOU DO

One more piece before I go. This too is tied to Bush indirectly. It has to do with an opera and ISLAMOFACISM that has arisen because of Bush and his deeds.

An opera in Germany that has been performed for a few years (Mozart) and contains a scene where the severed heads of Jesus, Poseidon (god of the sea), Buddha and Muhammad are displayed has been CANCELLED. Why? Because of fear of Islamic violence against the opera staff and for that matter, anybody else in the world, that could become a target because the Muslims feel offended.

The cancellation was the decision of the opera manager but all of Germany is up in arms saying that this is unacceptable behavior. In effect, this is censorship through blackmail – threatening violence if Islam is insulted in any way. Obviously, the Muslims will tell you what insults them and what is permissible.

Critics are saying that the Muslims have to learn that in the West, we have such a thing as freedom of expression and they need to start learning it and accepting it.

I personally think that this whole affair needs to be a lesson. This whole thing about being scared to insult Islam and Muslims because they will riot and harm innocent people is plain bullshit and needs to be nipped in the bud in the most severe fashion possible – shoot the rioters!

This is indeed a clash of civilizations and cultures and we cannot allow ourselves to go back to the Stone Age.

Janusz

ABRAMOFF AND THE WHITE HOUSE

Let me give you another piece of damning info on Bush and his cohorts to help you make your election decisions.

Jack Abramoff, GOP fundraiser, lobbyist and darling of the White House is under federal investigation for bribery and a bunch of other crimes.

Why is this interesting? The Bush administration has maintained that they did not know Jack and did no business with him therefore they are clean of all the dirty things ole’ Jack did.

Since Jack’s dirt touched so many in Congress, heads are already rolling (Tom Delay being one) and will continue to roll as the investigation proceeds.

Now Jack’s records of contacts and deeds (like a diary) reveal that the White House is indeed involved and all the big shots at the White House including Cheney, Ashcroft, etc……………………….

Jack managed to get what he wanted, how? I think bribery is the word.

What does Bush say about all this: Jack is a liar, you can’t believe anything he says. This lame retort was made in the face of documented proof.

Bush thinks Americans are so stupid that they will buy whatever comes out of his mouth and if you vote Republican then, yes, you are one of the stupid Americans.

Janusz

CLINTON TELLS THEM TO EAT SHIT!

President Clinton took exception to being blamed for 9/11, Al-Qaeda and bin-Laden. Chris Wallace accused Clinton of not doing enough to stop bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda before 9/11 implying that if he did 9/11 would have not happened. The implication also was that Clinton was busy having a blow job and did not pay attention to serious matters of state.

Ole’ Clinton told Wallace to eat shit. He called him a Republican hit man and then proceeded, with finger in face, to tell him and the Republicans off. I loved every minute of it.

The gist of what he said was that he, Clinton, tried everything he could to kill bin-Laden when he was in office and then left a detailed plan for Bush to follow up in continuing the campaign to kill bin-Laden when he left office AND BUSH DID NOTHING.

Bush was already planning his invasion of Iraq and had no time for Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda; they were not on his “to do” list so if we are to blame anyone for 9/11 it would be BUSH.

The Republicans are using every dirty trick, including all out lying, to paint themselves as the protectors of this country and not the ones responsible for getting this country and its citizens into so much danger.

Clinton had every right to get pissed and it is about time that Democrats get pissed and not put up with the lies of Bush and his cohorts; expose the sons-of-bitches for what they are.

I have never seen such deceit and plain evil coming out of people who proclaim to be so damn holy. If I didn’t believe in such crap, I would swear Bush is the devil at work – smooth and deadly!

Janusz

GENERALS AGAINST RUMSFELD!

Another bit of info that should be taken into consideration when voting is the testimony of U.S. military generals that retire and then feel free to tell Congress what a total fuck-up the war on Iraq was and is.

The generals have great contempt for Donald Rumsfeld and said that he, above everyone else, has screwed up the military operations in Iraq. They said he basically is incompetent and should be removed.

I would go so far as to state that he is personally responsible for the deaths of American soldiers (3,000 and counting). He did not allow enough troops to do the job correctly, did not allow the right equipment and totally miscalculated what needed to be done to secure Iraq.

President Bush stands by his man cause if Rumsfeld falls than so does his bullshit about why he went to Iraq and why he should stay.

Why are these generals coming out so strongly against the administration’s handling of the military in Iraq? Well, for one thing, they do not want history to blame them for the mess; painting them incompetent. They want to make sure history shows that their hands were tied by a Secretary of Defense that thought he was god and a president that also thought he was god.

Bush and Rumsfeld want to stay in Iraq until the next president takes office. Once the next president has to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and all hell breaks lose, Bush will say it was the new president’s fault.

Janusz

IRAQ A VERY BIG & COSTLY MISTAKE!

Oh so many topics to discuss but so little time. Things are moving rather quickly now, before the election and I wonder if the American people are aware of some of the key bits of information that could and should sway their votes.

One very importante piece is the leaked and subsequently, partially declassified by the President, report by U.S. intelligence agencies that the invasion of Iraq has helped to make terrorism grow and prosper and that we are now in much more danger than if the invasion never occurred. I have mentioned this in prior blogs.

Let me repeat this slowly and clearly so we all really understand.

President Bush’s invasion of Iraq has enabled terrorism to spread all over the world. We are not just talking about Al-Qaeda; we are talking about independent groups that have sprung up as a result of the war on Iraq. If there was no invasion of Iraq, these groups would not exist. Is this sinking in a little?

Now just to show you how legitimate this is, the report “TRENDS IN GLOBAL TERRORISM: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES” represents the view of 16 spy services within the U.S. government. Now that is not one or two disgruntled spies; it is ALL of them.

Bush, as usual, tried to defend his invasion of Iraq by using the tired old slogans he has used throughout; Saddam was a bad man and we did the right thing to remove him – AT WHAT COST TO US AND OUR COUNTRY!

The report makes it perfectly clear; the invasion of Iraq has made the entire world a much more dangerous place for us and our children and probably our grandchildren; not just Americans, everyone on this planet – kapish?

If you still believe Bush did the right thing and want him and his party to continue this debacle than there is no hope for you whatsoever and you are a threat to the safety of us all!

Janusz

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROPOSAL IN MICHIGAN

Saturday, September 23, 2006

To:     The Canton Observer
Re:     “Faith communities must support affirmative action”, Sept. 21.


I must admit that I was a bit confused after reading “Faith communities must support affirmative action” by Rev. Dr. Daniel H. Krichbaum. I think we all agree that past discriminatory practices in this country against women and minorities did occur. These practices have been stopped and outlawed and proper redress has been applied through years of affirmative action measures.

Dr. Krichbaum cites the promise of our Founders to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and urges us to “stand for fairness and equal opportunity for all women and people of color”.

He presupposes, I gather, that women and minorities do not still have equal access to jobs, contracts and educational opportunities and it is here that I beg to differ. I feel we have made great progress in eliminating the negative role gender and skin color play in our society, at least on a legality level and that fact has to be recognized.

I believe the availability of financial resources is actually the more pertinent factor when it comes to educational opportunities and that the playing field can and should be leveled through various scholarship and financial aid programs. These programs should be made available to all students with limited financial assets regardless of skin color or gender even though they may end up applying to a particular ethnic or gender group. I used scholarship money and the GI Bill to fund my own education.

As far as jobs and contracts provided by our governmental agencies, I believe decisions should be made based on a person’s ability to do a particular job and a company’s ability to handle the requirements of a specific government contract professionally, efficiently and at the lowest cost to the taxpayer – period.

I have read many arguments pro and con the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative proposal that will be on our ballot come November. The one argument that seems to stick out, for me at least is that discrimination of any kind and type should be opposed and in the reality of today’s social environment, the ballot proposal banning all discrimination in government employment, government contracts and educational programs, should be adopted.


Janusz M Szyszko

DeVos: Reality or Myth?

To: The Detroit News
Re: "DeVos backs intelligent design in class:, Sept. 21

Dick DeVos presents himself as someone who knows what it will take to bring Michigan's economy back yet he favors the teaching of intelligent design to our children in science class, "DeVos backs intelligent design in class", Sept. 21. I don't see how Mr. DeVos expects us to take him seriously when he cannot tell the difference between reality and myth.

Janusz

DEVOS JUST LOST MY VOTE!

Thursday, September 21, 2006

To” The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Intelligent design OK for science class, DeVos says”, Sept. 21.


Just when I was buying into Dick DeVos’s economic turnaround plan for Michigan, he slaps me in the face with his Intelligent Design pronouncement, “Intelligent design OK for science class, DeVos says”, Sept. 21. To my thinking, I cannot regard a man or woman seriously if they insist in cramming their religious beliefs down my throat.


Janusz M Szyszko

MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN!

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Area Catholics, Muslims seek healing over pope”, Sept. 20.


The pope’s speech that so riled the Muslim universe, was deliberate and timely but in no way insulting as any one who has read the pope’s comments will tell you. But any religion that condemns the taking of ones own life as well as the lives of innocent people but worships and praises suicide bombers that slaughter innocent people deliberately as holy martyrs, has some serious explaining to do. As long as moderate Muslims refuse to condemn and denounce such behavior in the loudest and harshest possible terms and take positive steps to oppose it, they should not expect any understanding or respect from non-Muslims. The pope tried to open a door of dialogue between religions and cultures but now he has to see how futile his attempt was – pity.


Janusz M Szyszko

MORE ON THE POPE AND THE MUSLIMS!

In the aftermath of Pope Benedict’s lecture, many different opinions are surfacing, written by people who actually read his speech.

Karen Armstrong, a much respected religious history scholar came out against the Pope for inflaming Muslims with old, untrue stereotyping. She talked about history, the Crusades and how we butchered Muslims for their faith as well as the Jews, etc. I think, as smart as she is, she missed the point.

The Pope’s defenders looked at what the Pope said in light of the current world situation and especially, the problems with Muslim nations and Muslims themselves. They point out that a dialogue, as asked by the Pope, needs to happen. Muslims need to start asking some hard questions about their faith and about the actions of certain Muslims who justify their murderous actions as holy and according to the tenants of Islam.

A radicalized Islam has emerged and is threatening people that adhere to the old Islam. I don’t hear any moderate Muslim voices in opposition to these nut cases; are they scared for their lives? Well, judging by the violence in the streets of Muslim nations, killing is sanctioned by the good book and even demanded if a Muslim is not following the rules as interpreted by the guys with the guns?

The Pope wants dialogue but can he actually get it if no Muslim is willing to get out on a limb and actually discuss Islam. Remember that freedom of speech is a western thing; Islam does not allow it in countries where it is the law of the land.

I think the Pope did a very brave thing. He brought up a subject that needs to be addressed if the radical Islamists are to be stopped. They can only be stopped by other Muslims who will adhere to their version of Islam and treat the radical version as heresy and unacceptable. Can a brave and smart Muslim or group of Muslims be found?

I have only heard maybe one or two moderate voices that appeal for calm since the violent antics of the demonstrators plays right into the hands of critics of Islam who say, see, look at these idiots, they resort to violence at the drop of a hat and call it religiously justified.

It did not help that Al Qaeda or the umbrella organization of all Islamic rebels came out and said that their aim is to destroy all “cross worshipers” and all who live in the west and to make the entire world a Muslim world. Are we dealing with rational people here?

I think the Pope needs to stand his ground and the west needs to produce a backlash; a backlash that will force Islamic moderates to emerge and take control.


Janusz

MORE ON BENEDICT!

Let’s get back to Pope Benedict and the Muslims.

This morning’s papers brought news of rioting, recalled ambassadors to the Vatican, churches firebombed in Gaza and the West Bank and even threats of suicide attacks on the Vatican and the Muslims think they have no issue with religious violence.

The pope is issuing “regrets” for having his words cause such strife but NO APOLOGY and he aint’ takin’ nothing back!

Did the pope insult Islam? Well, judging from the ruckus generated by Danish cartoons of Muhammad, anything and everything may be considered an insult to their faith; it is hard to decipher. Remember when someone in the prison at Guantanamo, Cuba said that an American urinated on a copy of the Koran or at least threw it into the toilet. Wow, what uproar. Here in the West we had a work of art consisting of a crucifix in a glass of urine – weird but no riots.

For some reason, when Muslims perceive their religion was slighted, they have to react in actual acts of violence or threats of violence as if their god demanded revenge. My usual answer to that was to say if your god is so pissed off, let him do something about it otherwise shut up!

It is hard for us in the West to understand this type of religious thinking; cannot empathize.

The pope, in his speech, brought up the concept of violence as part of religion as in a holy war (Jihad) and in the use of violence to convert infidels to Islam. One thinks of the so called holy martyrs that kill innocent people all in the name of Allah.

He mentioned the role of reason and science in our lives and in our faith, in effect, questioning the use of reason in what Muslims believe and do. He argues that god cannot be capricious and do whatever he wants, no; he is basically good and incapable of evil behavior. Muslims, on the other hand, think their god is unknowable and can do whatever he wants. Here he gets into a lot of philosophy and theology.

Breaking it all down, he tells the Muslims that they are behaving like idiots and wrapping their idiotic and violent behavior in the cloak of religion. In the Koran, Muhammad, before he had any power, advocated using the sword to spread the faith. As he gained power (through the sword) he became more mellow and philosophical. Bottom line, Mohammad invented this religion and he based the Koran on a lot of things he learned along the way, some good some not so good.

Islamic history is populated by many wise men that interpreted Islam for the masses as many Christian scholars interpreted Christianity for everyday use. Currently, Islam has been taken over by radial clerics who use it to wage war against the West and against their enemies and this has to be challenged by the West because it appears that moderate Muslims are incapable or scared of posing a challenge to Islamic extremism.

This pope has balls and appears to have a guaranteed place in history if he sticks to his guns.

Janusz

POPE'S REMARKS SPARK ATTACKS!

Sunday, September 17, 2006

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Pope’s remarks spark attacks”, Sept. 17.


Threats of suicide attacks were made on the Vatican; Christian churches in Gaza and the West Bank were firebombed, ambassadors to the Vatican were recalled and Islamic governments screamed demands for an apology, all because of a speech given by Pope Benedict about religious inspired violence, “Pope’s remarks spark attacks”, Sept. 17.

I think the reactions by Muslims worldwide to the pope’s words speak for themselves; they do have a problem with violence in their religion and they need to address this problem.


Janusz M. Szyszko

ENOUGH MUSLIM OUTRAGE!

Saturday, September 16, 2006

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Muslims demand apology”, Sept. 16.


I would rather Imam Mohamad Ali Elahi had a constructive retort to Pope Benedict’s speech instead of just expressing outrage, “Metro Detroit Imam expresses shock”, Sept. 16.

The pope brought up a very timely and valid topic of violence in the name of religion. To further the understanding between religions and cultures, the topic needs to be addressed on a calm, intellectual level and not in knee-jerk indignation.


Janusz M. Szyszko

ANSWER THE POPE, NOT RIOT!

Saturday, September 16, 2006

To: The Detroit News
Re: “Pope enrages Muslims”, Sept. 16.

I actually read the entire speech by Pope Benedict XVI that has caused such a ruckus, “Pope enrages Muslims”, Sept. 16, and feel it deserves an intellectual response from Islamic scholars and not the childish, violent and destructive rioting that is taking place.

Violence in the name of religion is a valid topic, especially in light of our current world situation. Muslims would go a long way in enlightening the non-Islamic world about the peaceful aims of their religion through intellectual dialogue instead of engaging in mindless violence at every perceived slight to their religion.


Janusz M. Szyszko

POPE BENEDICT AND THE MUSLIMS!

Well, it seems I cannot stay away from religious matters for too long.

Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech at the German university where he used to teach theology. I really never read any of his stuff so I never realized how smart and brave this old fart really is.

In short, his speech which was very intellectual (audience was all professors) brought up the topic of violence and religion and threw in a reference to Islam and the concept of “Jihad” or Holy War.

Because the pope quoted a 14th century conversation between a Byzantine Christian Emperor and a Persian Muslim scholar which included the words “Show me what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword, the faith he preached”, the speech caused quite a stir.

Well this speech, that I doubt anyone really read or for that matter, could fully understand has caused rioting in the streets of Islam. This is similar to the reaction the “Muhammad Cartoons” had.

The fact that the riots started in Pakistan and spread throughout leads me to believe that some cleric read parts of the speech and then went out on his balcony and told the great unwashed masses underneath that the pope insulted Muhammad and should be killed.

Let me make something perfectly clear, the idea of violence in the name of religion, is not limited to Islam. The Christians practiced it (The Crusades) and continue to practice it (Northern Ireland) to this very day. Christians practiced forced conversions also (Spanish Inquisition) and burned many heretics; so violence is nothing new to the history of Christianity.

But this pope, unlike the previous pope that tried to make nice, nice with every other religion and culture, wants to take the Muslims on in a theological and philosophical debate saying you cannot discount reason in your belief system, you cannot have a god that preaches violence and you cannot allow the extreme wing of Islam to dictate to all Muslims. He basically poked them in the eye. To me that is very brave but then the pope is pretty old and does not have much time to make his mark on world history.

I will have more in the next segment since this could get lengthy………………

Janusz

POW RULES-Conflicted?

Since the Supreme Court told President Bush that he cannot treat prisoners captured during the so called war on terror, any which way he wants (not following any laws), Bush has asked / demanded from Congress a new law giving him that power.

In the Senate committee handling this request, there appeared to be opposition to the President’s request and the opposition had some prominent Republicans in it.

First, I guess, we should know what the President is asking for. I don’t know all the specifics but he wants the CIA free to use interrogation techniques that are currently disallowed and he wants the power to suspend legalities governing prisoners when he deems necessary. In other words, he wants the rules of the Geneva Convention on how to treat prisoners of war, changed or redefined.

One of the Republicans against President Bush’s demands is John McCain, who spent 5 years as a POW in Vietnam; he still bears the physical and mental scars of that incarceration. I guess one has to respect the views of someone that actually has been a POW.

Colin Powell, another Republican objector, maintains that we must maintain a moral high ground and not descend into the same world as the terrorists. He also said that our own troops are protected by the Geneva Convention rules when they are captured.

I doubt the so called terrorists care much for the Geneva Convention or its rules but then the original rules were drawn up after WWI and specifically concerned uniformed soldiers of an established army or military force. The terrorists are part of an organization, not uniformed and not part of a recognized military force; nonetheless, they act like soldiers in everyway, but does that matter?

Bush makes a compelling argument that getting these terrorists to talk protects Americans from attack and our interrogators should have all the tools necessary to make these varmints talk! How can you argue with that?

The Europeans, as always, said that human rights and human standards have to be maintained. The question is why? The terrorists don’t maintain them by specifically targeting innocent civilians which is strictly forbidden by the rules of war even though civilians are killed as collateral damage.

Our antics at Abu Ghraib prison showed Americans violating Geneva Convention rules about treating prisoners in a big way. We said that was wrong and sentenced the U.S. soldiers responsible to prison terms. It showed the world that we can act as animals just like they can. How about the soldiers that rape and kill innocent women?

I will be honest with you and say that I am conflicted on this issue. The fact that I do not trust Bush and do not want to give him any powers he can misuse, makes me leery.

The fact that this is not a conventional war and the combatants are not regular military, gives me pause. The fact that even under Geneva Rules, a spy can be shot because he is not really a soldier in uniform, also gives me pause.

I don’t like giving carte blanche to anyone, especially our government; there have to be rules. Seeing how Americans can behave like animals even with rules in place makes a good argument for having specific rules of behavior and punishment for breaking those rules.

I am still conflicted………………………………..

BUSH SPINS THE FACTS AGAIN!

Tuesday, September 12, 2006


To: The Detroit News
Re: “Never Give Up”, Sept. 12.


President Bush took a solemn occasion like the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that so devastated us and the world to deliver a slick political promotion of his actions. He had the decency to admit that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks but he did not have the moral courage to apologize for his disastrous decision to invade Iraq when he should have been chasing and eliminating the very people who attacked us.


Janusz M Szyszko

BUSH POLITICIZED SOLEMN OCCASION!

Tuesday, September 12, 2006


To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Bush calls for nation to unite in terrorism war”, Sept. 12.


President Bush could not help but politicize a very solemn occasion in this country’s history, “Bush calls for nation to unite in terrorism war”, Sept. 11. He admitted that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 attacks but went ahead and defended his invasion of Iraq by saying Saddam was a threat too. That simplistic statement may fool some of the people but most of us want him to apologize to the nation, on this solemn day, that instead of going after and crushing the perpetrators of the 9/11 horrors, he decided to invade Iraq which was not a clear or viable threat to the United States. His actions were and are detrimental to our war on terror and asking this nation to unite behind him and his party is nonsensical.


Janusz M Szyszko

BUSH'S LIES EXPOSED!

Saturday, September 09, 2006


To: The Detroit News
Re: “Report: No link to Saddam, al-Qaida”, Sept. 9.


The Detroit News buried on page 9, news of a just released Senate report that proves the nation was misled about the justification for the invasion of Iraq, “Report: No link to Saddam, al-Qaida”, Sept. 9.

The fact that many people in this country still naively believe President Bush and his, now proven false, reasons for invading Iraq and the fact that the Bush administration continues to propagate those lies to sway votes in November, demands front page exposure for this Senate report, unless of course the intent is to keep the conclusions of the report quiet.


Janusz M. Szyszko

MICHIGAN'S SENATE RACE!

Friday, September 08, 2006

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “GOP sees hope for Senate; Bush to help with cash”, Sept. 8


I can see why the GOP and Mike Bouchard see Senator Stabenow as vulnerable in November, “GOP sees hope for Senate; Bush to help with cash”, Sept. 8, but allowing President Bush to attend Bouchard’s fund-raiser, may not help their cause. Michiganians that dislike Senator Stabenow, dislike allowing Republicans to retain their majority in the Senate even more. Mike Bouchard is a good candidate, but his election chances may depend on the company he keeps. If he does not see that, maybe he is not such a good candidate after all.


Janusz M Szyszko

POLITICS OF NATIONAL DECEPTION!

Friday, September 08, 2006

To: The Detroit News
Re: “Ex-Clinton aides blast miniseries”, Sept. 8


Originally Walt Disney’s ABC Network called the upcoming miniseries “The Path to 9/11” a documentary, “Ex-Clinton aides blast miniseries”, Sept. 8. When loud objections appeared calling it fraught with factual errors and fabrications, the designation changed to docudrama, whatever that is. As complaints kept pouring in, they called it a dramatization which I guess means it is as someone imagined it and therefore not necessarily factual at all.

My questions is why air a 5-hour, 2-day, without commercial interruption miniseries that blames the attack on Democrats, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack and close to the November elections; pure politics and dishonest politics at that.


Janusz M Szyszko

UAW: LET CHRYSLER DIE!

Friday, September 08, 2006

To: The Detroit News
Re: “UAW: No Chrysler benefit rollbacks”, Sept. 8


The UAW will not give the same concessions to Chrysler that they gave to GM and Ford because Chrysler is not on the verge of bankruptcy, “UAW: No Chrysler benefit rollback”, Sept. 8.

Their logic must be to cripple Chrysler by making them non-competitive with Ford and GM and then finally, when Chrysler is on its deathbed, grant concessions to restore parity with the others? This type of UAW logic is what is making the union the chief obstacle to any form of recovery in the Michigan auto industry.


Janusz M Szyszko

THROW THE BASTARDS OUT!

We need to talk more about the Bush administration’s major push, before the November elections, to confuse the American voter about the war on terror and their failed war in Iraq.

My question is that if everyone in the world can see that the war in Iraq is un-winnable and was a huge mistake in the first place, why is Bush continuing to sacrifice American lives?

His original plan to democratize Iraq and therefore all of the Middle East, one country at a time, is a big, fat failure – it will never work. So why does he not pull out?

Because he would have to admit failure and admit that our soldiers died for nothing; something he obviously is not prepared to do and so what is he prepared to do.

If in November, the Democrats win and force him to pull out of Iraq; he will say that the Democrats lost the war on terror because they ran instead of staying the course, which brings us to why he is so fiercely trying to conflate the war on terror with the war in Iraq – is he is looking for a way out for himself and his party and for a kinder treatment in history books?

The hard question is does he really believe what he is saying or is he just plain lying to save his ass. I think he may believe that his original plan had merit (democracy in the Middle East) and he may even believe that Iraq is not lost yet but how can he believe that the killing in Iraq is due to terrorists when his own generals report a civil war between Iraqis.

In my opinion he is trying to make the best out of a really bad situation. He wants the Republicans to win in November and so he will again, lie and confuse the issue, so Americans will believe him and vote accordingly. He has lied before and it seems natural for him. I think he believes that the end justifies the means and that God is on his side and has appointed him to save civilization as we know it.

He has now lumped terrorists into the “Islamo – Fascist” camp, hell bent on destroying us all. The war in Iraq is now just part of the big battle against these enemies. Iran is an enemy so is Syria and so is Hezbollah and Hamas; they are all gunning for us. We must kill them all!

He has conveniently forgotten that if he had taken care of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and not invaded Iraq, we and the world would not be in this precarious spot in history and for that reason we need to throw the bastards out!

Janusz

DETROIT VOTERS LACK GOOD SENSE!

Saturday, September 02, 2006

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Alonzo Bates Gets Trouble He Deserves”, Sept. 1 Editorial



The Free Press says the voters of the city of Detroit had the good sense to deny Alonzo Bates re-election, “Alonzo Bates Gets Trouble He Deserves”, Sept. 1. Noting that Mr. Bates has been working for the city in various capacities since 1971 with a number of “brushes with controversy” during those years, I question the good sense of Detroit voters.


Janusz M. Szyszko

VICTORY IN IRAQ?

Saturday, September 02, 2006

To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “President warns against leaving Iraq to terrorists”, Sept. 1.


President Bush’s declaration that a victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in Iraq is preposterous, “President warns against leaving Iraq to terrorists”, Sept. 1. Iraq is engaged in a civil war; Shiite Iraqis against Sunni Iraqis and therefore an American victory in Iraq is not possible. If we leave now, one side will win and form an Islamic dictatorship. If we leave now, maybe we can start the war on terror.


Janusz M. Szyszko

MORE BULLSHIT FROM BUSH!

Bush is starting a new spin on his invasion of Iraq in an attempt to save the Republicans during November elections. He has, in the past, tried to tie the attacks of 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq but that did not fly; recently he had to admit, in a press conference, that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 - Logically then the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror but Bush keeps on spinning.

Now he is again trying to link the invasion / war in Iraq to the war on terror. He says that victory in the war on terror is dependent on victory in Iraq and that could not be further from the truth BUT he hopes Americans will buy this round of bullshit or at least enough Americans will buy into it to elect some Republicans in November.

As I said, ad nauseam, Iraq is in a civil war; the Shiites are fighting the Sunnis for control. These are not terrorists, these are Iraqis. Al Qaeda was never in Iraq – Saddam made sure of that. They only entered Iraq when Bush invaded and opened the door for them. Actually, the Iraqis have thrown Al Qaeda out of Iraq because they don’t want them messing with their civil war.

Now Bush is saying that the war on terror is like fighting the Nazis. He is playing on his new term “Islamic Fascists”. He has lumped everything and everyone together into one enemy, the so called Islamic Fascists to make things easier for Americans to understand and support, the problem is that this is just more bullshit – it is not true.

Hitler came to power because of blind patriotism on the part of many Germans – they believed him just like some Americans believe Bush and allow him to use dictatorial powers just like the Germans did for Hitler.

The terrorists don’t want to conquer the world like Hitler, they want the infidels out of the Middle East and they want the Middle East to be a theocracy (run by clerics) under strict Islamic law. Does that sound like Hitler of Mussolini to you?

The entire Bush administration including most of all Rumsfeld, are pressing this new tactic. The Democrats cannot allow it but they probably will – cause they have no balls or smarts.

Janusz