Letters to the Editor

arrow Back

Body Bags

Dear Rick,

I want to say how much I have enjoyed reading your paper through the years. The combination of sarcasm, blatant, introspective and self-deprecating comments adds dimension to so many goofy letters; speaking of which, I appreciate your publishing some of mine, biased as my opinions may be. A wise man once said: opinions are like a-holes; everyone's got one. Besides your paper being by far the most interesting on the East End, it has no competition for at least 100 miles west.

Great stuff!

Way back, long after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center which was used as the vehicle to somehow divert our forces from catching the bad guy to instead attack Iraq and its dictator, Bush was forced to admit in mid-September 2003: "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attack."

If one recalls, Cheney kept the lie going long after Bush's forced acquiescence. Regardless of the fact that there was no reason to suspect the tyrant Saddam Hussein of having anything to do with the 9/11 attack, Bush had another agenda. He had long planned on invading Iraq, which his father was wise enough to avert. That personal goal has been chronicled and as well as his own statement that the only presidents that have a heroic legacy are those that are in office during a war.

That "legacy" he planned for himself is being borne on the body bags, blood and broken bones of our brave boys and girls. In fact the Saudi oil family with its historic ties to the Bush oil family were quickly flown out of our country despite the fact that the vast majority, 15 of the terrorists who partook in the horror, were Saudis. Strangely Bush did not attack Saudi Arabia. Wonder why? All in the family!

Last fall the Central Intelligence Agency stated categorically that there were absolutely no pre-war ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Al Qaeda and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The report was issued 9/9/06 to the Senate Intelligence Committee. It repudiates the non-stop assertions by the Bush administration that there were links. It is part of a CIA continuing inquiry by the Committee into pre-war intelligence about Iraq and goes far beyond its earlier findings in the summer of 2004.

Their statement that Saddam Hussein "did not have a relationship, harbor or even turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates" should put an end to the farcical rationale for our invading Iraq even in the minds of the mindless. That this administration is founded on lies and deception has been well established and that's sad, but pales in the light of a recent pole which suggests that 38% of the public still believes that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were complicit in the 9/11 attack.

This in spite of the panels' conclusion that Mr. Hussein regarded Al Qaeda as a threat rather than a potential ally, and that the Iraqi Intelligence service "actively attempted to locate and capture al Zarqawi without success." Bush had it right when he said that it was necessary to constantly repeat the same message over and over in order to have the public buy into it. 38% are still bought.

Congratulations, wartime Commander in Chief! We've toppled the enemy of our enemy. But all was not in vain. We've managed (read mismanaged) to kindle a friendship between historic enemies, Iraq and Iran. Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al Malaki will be going to Axis of Evil, Iran to kiss and make up. Makes you kind of warm and cuddly.

September 12, 2006

Letter Search
Site Search

2107 Capeletti Front Tile
Gurney's Inn