Huckabee quarantine AIDS patients!

Huckabee has been accused of suggesting quarantine for AIDS patients in 1992. OK, I did the same back then.

I am medically trained; trained to diagnose and contain the spread of a threatening epidemic – that is “standard operating procedure” period.

The fact that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact but through (in those days) homosexual (anal/blood) sex placed it in a different category than lets say Typhus or Ebola so quarantine per se was not absolutely indicated. But we did not know much in the first days of AIDS and quarantine would not be a totally farfetched action at that time.

Huckabee was also critical of Hollywood and especially Elizabeth Taylor for trying to get the government to spend billions to find a cure “immediately”. I was also very ticked off at Liz because she never mentioned that AIDS could be prevented by the practice of safe sex; she did not want her boys to have to wear a condom, it would diminish the pleasure somewhat.

Huckabee was angered by the government directing billions away from cancer, etc. to find a cure without first having an effective prevention program in place – I agree and was also mad at this irrational approach to handling an epidemic. He suggested that Hollywood fund the research and I suggested Liz Taylor pay for it if she wanted a cure so bad.

We now know a lot more about AIDS and it no longer is a homosexual disease but afflicts many non-homosexuals. We did let it go out of control and now are having a hard time getting it under control but that is another subject.

I agreed with Huckabee on his AIDS stance in 1992 but we part ways as far as homosexuality is concerned but then he IS a Baptist Minister and that is that!

For me he may be an OK person but not presidential material at all!

A DEMOCRATIC PLAN IDEA FOR IRAQ

It appears that President Bush actually called 60 Minutes for an interview. In the interview he presented a challenge to the Democrats thinking of opposing his “troop surge” plan. He said that if they cut off funding for the surge, they better be prepared to tell the American public THEIR plan for Iraq.

He has a point. The Democrats, as of now, only plan to oppose HIS plan; they have NO plan of their own.

This is to say that pulling our troops out and letting the Iraqis conclude their de-facto CIVIL WAR is not an acceptable plan or is it. Bush says that just pulling out would allow our enemies to control Iraq and that would endanger the U.S. down the road.

What he is actually talking about is IRAN and there are indications that Iran is supporting the Shia majority in Iraq with weapons, etc. A nuclear Iran / Iraq partnership under the current Iranian leadership, would pose a much greater danger to the U.S. than poor ole’ Saddam ever did.

Condoleezza Rice is frantically traveling in the Middle East trying to drum up support for Bush’s plan by waving the possibility of a U.S. pull out with the inevitable rise of Iran as the big bully in the Middle East; something the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, et. al. are deathly scared of. Rice is saying – help us contain Iran or suffer the consequences!

Rice is also now trying to help the Israelis and Palestinians reach some type of accord; something Bush never gave a shit about before BUT NOW when he is desperate, he is saying, see - if you help us we will help the Palestinians – finally! I guess he is begging!

In the interview on 60 Minutes, I sensed that Bush knows he fucked up but believes his intentions were good and in the best interest of the country. He is desperate to find a clean solution to this nightmare but is willing to prolong the suffering until his presidency is over and THEN it becomes the problem of the next guy.

I did not sense that he believed a victory was possible AT ALL. He now sees that the Iraqi/Shia government is just waiting for the Americans to leave so they can finish the job and consolidate power under a THEOCRACY like that in Iran. That fat little cleric SADR is licking his chops already at the prospect of total power!

So what can the Democrats do? Senator Levin already voiced his concern about shutting Bush down and Levin is a big cheese in the Senate. Without a plan to hang their hats on they would appear just silly obstructionists and worse, allowing the remaining troops to be cannon fodder; not a good political position for retaking the presidency in 2008.

I say force the idiot to adopt the recommendations of the “Iraq Study Group”; instead of just shooting people, look for a political solution. Talk to the surrounding countries; see what they have to say. Explore a division along religious and ethnic lines: Kurd, Shia and Sunni. Allow them self determination in their respective regions but join them into a “weak” confederation that would JUST be there to distribute oil revenues – equally based on a per capita basis.

And here is the biggie; the U.S. would have to guarantee, militarily, that this loose confederation will be left alone by all other countries. This would entail leaving a small military force inside Iraq for a long time like we have in Germany, Japan and Korea – but the shooting will stop.

This plan may entail the disarming of the SHIA militias as well as the smaller Sunni militias – hey, it’s the price of peace – anyone have a better plan?

ADIOS SENATOR McCAIN!

Senator John McCain has lost my support for the presidency in 2008. He won my support when he stood up to President Bush in the last campaign. He stood up to the religious right; he was a man for all seasons and for all parties. Democrats wanted to run him for vice president; imagine a Republican running for vice president on the Democratic ticket? He was THAT attractive.

What happened? Well for one, he started kissing Jerry Falwell’s ass (Religious Right) something you thought he would never do, I mean make friends but don’t bend over?

And recently, he came out strong in support of President Bush and his new “surge” plan for Iraq.

To me, supporting Bush’s new plan is abandoning all reason and forgetting everything that has transpired in Iraq to date. One would have to be allowing politics to come before the welfare of this country and that, a true American, should NEVER do.

You may argue that McCain believes leaving Iraq is unacceptable and he has voiced that opinion and so he should propose his own plan on ending this quagmire but to simply agree with Bush’s totally preposterous rationale indicates, to me at least, that McCain does not have the smarts to lead this country.

Adios Amigo!

BUSH'S FLAWED LOGIC

What has the water cooler crowd in your office been saying about last night’s address by President Bush and his new way forward in Iraq?

My crowd was down. We had a few staunch Bush supporters before but now, to the man / woman, all are against him and want the madness to end. Some are calling him an alien sent from Mars to disrupt the world as we know it.

It was painful to watch him. ABC News showed, before his speech, clips of his pronouncements in the past; all now proven to be false or outright lies. I think Bush himself felt that his words are now empty, without meaning because he has lost all credibility with the American people.

He set no time table but his military advisor suggested two (2) years; all Bush has left in his presidential term.

I did detect a warning in his speech. He warned Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf States that they face extreme danger if they do not support his plan. The countries mentioned are Sunni and if the U.S. pulls out, Shiite Iran will take over and make Iraq into a Shiite partner country; a formidable front against the Sunni nations.

Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia have admittedly been supporting the Sunni militias in Iraq. Bush’s warning is to cease and desist. Once that happens then the Iraqi army will be able to neutralize the Shiite militias and peace will reign over the country or at least Baghdad.

With the violence stopped, the Iraqi government can now get on with rebuilding the country into a democratic showcase.

This logic assumes that the Iraq government and army are Iraqi first and Sunni or Shiite second. Well, that is impossible and will never be possible; therefore the logic behind his plan is flawed and unrealistic.

Maliki, his government and his army and police are Shiite – no Sunnis need apply. They will work with the Americans to wipe out all the Sunnis. Once done, the Shiite clerics will solidify their power (theocracy) and then turn on the Kurds. Once the oil is safely in their hands, they will declare with Iran a new Persian Empire, now with atomic weapons.

I think the Sunni nations mentioned above, know this and they will continue to supply Iraq’s Sunnis with weapons and anything else they need to keep the Shiites from taking over the country so the violence will continue no matter what we do.

My wife asked can we just leave. What would happen? The country would revert back to what it was before Winston Churchill drew a pencil line on the map and called it Iraq; into Kurd, Shiite and Sunni areas.

THE AMERICAN VOTER SAID GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ!

President Bush realizes that the American voter is sick of the war in Iraq and wants him to do something about it. Next week he will tell us his new plan.

He has been leaking information about the new plan just to gauge what will fly with the voter and the new Democratic controlled Congress.

His plan is to make the Maliki Government work. To do this he will send more troops to Baghdad to stop sectarian (Shiite vs. Sunni) violence. He then will give the Maliki government billions of dollars to create a job for every Iraqi and put a lamb in every Iraqi pot. This will make them happy and they will quit killing each other and live happily ever after in a democratic nirvana.

In his “New Way Forward” plan he will win the war in Iraq and be crowned king of the world. He has also replaced his entire military command in Iraq since the current commanders think his plans were worth shit all along.

I don’t think his plan will work and I will tell you why.

We are not at war. We invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam so we could then make them into a democratic nation. We were too stupid to realize we were only opening a can of worms.

So we cannot win a war that does not exist. There is a civil war going on and only one side can win that we are not one of the sides; only Shiites and Sunnis are and they will continue to fight until one side wins.

Bush feels that if he can stabilize the current Iraqi government (Maliki) then the whole country will stabilize.

The Maliki government is Shiite. Government Shiite troops have been involved in killing Sunnis. Maliki himself is known to have been involved in killing Sunnis. He may say he is for all Iraqis but he would be lying.

The clerics run the country and they will always run the country so a democracy is impossible – period. These clerics have huge militias. The Shiites are supported by Iran and the Sunnis are supported by Saudi Arabia. The government military is worthless and most of them belong to militias anyway so you know where their loyalty lies.

The Shiite majority will take all our money and still kill Sunnis until none are left.

The democrats say bring the troops home and just leave some to train the Iraqi army. Well, that’s better than the Bush plan because it will allow the Iraqi civil war to reach an end. The outcome is not in doubt and it will not result in a peaceful Iraqi democracy – never! BUT it would stop our soldiers from dying every day for a hopeless cause.

My original plan to divide the country into Shiite, Sunni and Kurd with a weak central government to distribute oil revenues equally (based on population) was rejected by Bush. Too bad, it would have worked.

The voters have spoken – GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ! I just hope the democrats have enough balls to do what we asked them to do, even if they have to impeach Bush as a danger to our democracy.

AND SO SADDAM IS DEAD!

And so Saddam Hussein is dead. How come I don’t feel any joy? It appears many of us in the U.S. don’t see how his death will have any affect on the miserable situation we and Iraq are in.

Bush made such a big deal about Saddam and why we have to invade Iraq but we now know it was all about Bush; Saddam just provided a convenient excuse that Americans bought hook, line and sinker.

Saddam was evil and ruthless and deserved execution for his crimes against his own people but 3,000 American soldiers did not need to die to bring Saddam to justice, his own people would have eventually seen to that.

Former President Ford, in interviews that could only be released upon his death, told President Bush not to go freeing oppressed people around the world unless there is a direct threat to our national security. We now know that Saddam was never a threat to our national security.

Maybe President Ford should have voiced his opinions while still alive, maybe his words would have done some good but alas, Gerald Ford was too nice of a guy.

I hate to even bring up the Iraq mess anymore but we have to keep talking and writing if we want something positive to occur.

I hope the Iraq Study Group report would give our president a way out of the quagmire. It does make 79 suggestions but he spits on them all – why? – Because the report does not have a plan for a victory in Iraq – a victory?

The “victory” cry was echoed by all the right-wing pundits in unison. I was disappointed to hear Senator McCain joined the group. My hearty endorsement of him for president in 2008 has been put on hold – for the time being.

I can understand the call for a victory; we all can. Bush absolutely needs a victory otherwise over 3,000 American soldiers died for nothing. On the other hand many more died in Vietnam and we still pulled out without a victory. Actually we suffered a defeat in Vietnam; plain and simple. The difference is that the pullout and defeat did not happen to the president that started the mess. Here Bush is absolutely the one responsible for everything that has happened in Iraq; hell, he invaded Iraq – remember? It would be HIS defeat!

I have maintained that the plan to invade Iraq and by doing so, create a democracy in the Middle East that would then spread democracy to other countries in the region was a silly, ignorant delusion. If that is what Bush defines as victory; it will never happen and it had no chance of happening from the start.

Reports from U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq (not general that serve at the pleasure of the president and say what he wants to hear) have confirmed that the Iraqi soldiers they are training do not, and will not, have any loyalty to Iraq. Their loyalty is to their religious group; Sunni or Shia. This one fact is what prevents us from ever having a victory in Iraq and what made a victory impossible from the start.

The idiots that are demanding a stable, democratic Iraqi government are in a state of denial. They have a bunch of lessons from past and recent history and they still refuse to learn.

Recently, news came of the Saudi government offering support to the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. Syria also is supporting the Sunnis and Iran obviously the Shia. Iraq is already divided and yet we continue to believe we can create a unified, peaceful Iraq.

Interviews with ordinary Iraqis confirm the fact that the country is already divided. The police are Shia and kill Sunnis at their checkpoints, so is the army. The Sunnis have only their militias to protect them and remember the Sunnis are in the minority. The government is basically Shia and will protect and enrich their own. So you see the division I called for in my past blogs is a reality; we just don’t know it.

POLITICS & RELIGION AGAIN!

Now that the Republicans have been shown the door, religion in politics should be a dead issue – wrong! Keith Ellison, newly elected Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Minnesota is causing a stir because he wants to be sworn in using the Koran or Quran.

Now Mr. Ellison is originally from Detroit and probably part African-American so it isn’t as if he was some cleric from the Middle East. He probably converted to Islam in later life.

First some background about the swearing in ceremony. All new members of the House are sworn in en masse, i.e. all together. They then can stage “photo-ops” by posing for an “individual” swearing in ceremony. Usually, in these photo-ops, they have a hand on the Christian Bible; at least that is how it always has been done – tradition.

Sine Ellison is the FIRST Muslim ever to be elected; he can start his OWN tradition for the future Muslims that may be elected to Congress – as I see it.

But NO – an angry column by Dennis Prager on Townhall.com argues that Ellison’s ceremony “undermines American civilization”. In his mind, American values can only be defended by people that swear to do so on America’s holy book; the Christian Bible.

Well, I disagree. The Christian Bible is NOT America’s holy book. It has, by tradition, been the book all swearing in ceremonies use. That is because Christians were the majority of early immigrants to this country and remained the majority in the early years. But now, things they are a changing and have changed.

It only makes sense to use a book that would matter to the most people even though obviously it REALLY does not matter since members of Congress lied, cheated and sinned like hell after they swore on the Bible.

The last few words of a swearing in ceremony are “so help you God” or something like that. Anyway, this would not carry a lot of weight with an atheist but with religious people, yes it would. But with all the different religions in existence here, the Christian Bible does not necessarily carry the same weight for everyone – obviously!

I personally, would want someone swearing to uphold American laws and not to harm America in any way, swear on something that he or she really believes in and something he or she holds very holy in their belief system otherwise it is like swearing on a Sear’s Catalog.

I am all for tradition but only when it makes sense. In this case, I don’t think it does and I think the Holy Roller conservatives need to pipe down and get a life.

A CIVIL WAR FOR SURE IN IRAQ

Iraq is in a civil war. I have been saying this for some time now.

NBC just decided to call the conflict in Iraq a “civil war”. President Bush adamantly denies that a civil war exists in Iraq.

The daily slaughter in Iraq is incomprehensible; people are now being set on fire as they walk the streets.

General Abezaid plays the Bush stooge and repeats the same ole’ stupid Bushisms, not realizing that he is damaging himself as a general but most of all, as a credible person.

Bush is in Europe trying to get NATO involved in Iraq – they won’t.

Iran and Syria are being urged to take a role in Iraq. How IRONIC! Syria and Iran have been sending suicide bombers and inciting general mayhem in Iraq and now they are called on to be peacemakers – how does that make Bush look?

Senator McCain is saying send more troops – to do what? You can have an American soldier behind every Iraqi and when we leave, the slaughter will continue – and he wants to be our next president – the idea is stupid.

Senator Levin says start bringing the troops home. He may as well say bring ALL the troops home right now because if we are unable to stop the civil war, we must let the civil war go on until someone wins. In this case, it will be the Shiites who will exterminate the Sunnis. The Kurds will hold their own ground.

Bush says “stay the course”. Has he completely lost his mind? What about his advisors?

The Baker commission is yet to make their suggestions. One that has leaked out is to get Iran and Syria involved. I thought they would come up with some sensible plan but I guess I was too optimistic.

There are a few that agree with the idea to divide Iraq. I think it is the only viable idea and an idea that will stop the slaughter the quickest.

Things are coming to a head rather quickly now – time for definitive action or there will be no Iraqis left.

BACKGROUND FOR THE DIVISION OF IRAQ

To understand why I am calling for a division of Iraq into Shiite, Sunni and Kurd areas with a weak central administration to distribute oil revenues, you must know something about how Iraq was formed.

Prior to World War I (WWI) the area was called the Ottoman Empire, administered by the Ottoman Turks in Constantinople / Istanbul. The empire encompassed most of the Middle East as well as part of Eastern Europe (Bulgaria and Albania).

The people living in the general Mesopotamian region were divided along ethnic and religious lines (Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds).

WWI was pretty complicated but suffices it to say the Ottomans chose to join Germany and Austria against Great Britain and France and we all know who won.

The Ottomans lost their empire to the Brits and the French. Where was the United States in all of this? Well, Woodrow Wilson was the president then and he really care about international politics but the U.S. people and the U.S. Congress did not (isolationism) and so Wilson was denied a voice in international affairs and so Britain and France divided the Ottoman empire as they saw fit.

The nation of Iraq was created by Winston Churchill and encompassed the three diverse groups we mentioned above under a single ruler the British picked. The British did not seem to understand the diverse nature of the groups they forced to live together in a phony country or, for that matter, did they really care.

The British were imperialists, had their own empire on which the sun never set and were really very full of themselves.

The Iraqi people became a nation and existed peacefully together but so did the Yugoslavians under Tito. But take the dictators out of the equations, Saddam out of Iraq and Tito dead in Yugoslavia and look what happened; neighbors slaughtering neighbors.

Why? I don’t have an answer but certain reasons are evident. The main and obvious reason is and was religion. The Kurds are Muslim but a different ethnic group all together. In Yugoslavia it was Christian against Muslim.

Knowing the history of the region, of the peoples and how they were thrown together (Yugoslavia by the Communists and Iraq by the British) will make it clearer why they should be separated once again.

IRAQ OPTION - DIVIDE !

Sunday, November 12, 2006


To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “A look at options in Iraq”, Nov. 12.


Iraq was never a natural country; it was artificially created by the British after WWI. Prior to WWI, the area known in history as Mesopotamia, was divided into Kurd, Shiite and Sunni regions and was part of the Ottoman Empire. Returning Iraq to its historic divisions is the only option, “A look at options in Iraq”, Nov. 12, which makes sense and one that will end the daily sectarian bloodletting.

Janusz M Szyszko

DIVIDE IRAQ NOW !

Now that Democrats are in charge and BUSH has been slapped out of his power trip - lets fix Iraq and stop our soldiers from dying.

Remember my original suggestion, a long time ago - partition Iraq - well it is becoming a viable idea and is under consideration now that BUSH has been pushed aside because he has no plan.

To repeat, Iraq was never a natural country. It became a country when Winston Churchill (British) decide to create a country - imperialist pigs! Under the Ottoman Empire the area now called Iraq was divided along ethnic lines into Kurd, Shiite and Sunni areas. All I am saying is to return to the natural boundaries of history.

The only thing that HAS to be addressed is the revenue flow from OIL. That has to be divided equally or per capita among the three (3) regions because only the north and south have oil well. The middle, Sunni, has none.

Divide the country and American soldiers will quit getting killed and maimed and Iraqis can stop slaughtering each other.

I will have more on this idea later but I do think it is the only way to proceed.

Janusz