There is a problem with some Jews today. They are a people who are often very creative and innovative; a resilient people who have endured a holocaust and many other trials. But some of them today feel they must defend the actions of the state of Israel, no matter how far they descend into cruelty and oppression. Israel's behavior, such as the massacre in Gaza that killed 1400 and left thousands more homeless, is inexcusable. It is especially galling to justify this war crime by saying it was provoked by Hamas fighters who lobbed some rockets into Israel, which killed few if any Israelis. Nor is Israel excused for confiscating and destroying Palestinian homes on the West Bank and taking their land, based on fundamentalist nonsense every bit as stupid as the Christian and Islamic kinds. I do not support Hamas or Muslim terrorists. Their approach is dangerous to their own future as well as ours. However, it is time for Jews to take responsibility as well, and not make excuses or give support to Israel when it does wrong. U.S. support for Israel is the main reason why Islamic terrorists attack America, including on 9-11. We Americans have endured untold damage to our country through our blind support for Israel. We need to withdraw our support, unless Israel learns the ways of peace. As of 2009, their election of Netanyahu, and his subsequent behavior, proves they are determined not to learn.
A peace agreement must be worked out with the Palestinians. A state of Palestine must be established, and the state of Israel must be confined to the 1967 borders. The temple mount of Jerusalem must become a U.N.-administered international peace park. Peacekeeping troops must be admitted, and Palestine must cooperate with Israel to catch terrorists. Both peoples must be allowed to live in the country of their choice, with full human rights, fully under the sovereign government of that country (although civic governments can be established for Israeli-dominated towns in Palestine, or vice versa in Israel). That should be the extent of the "right of return." Lands confiscated in the new state of Palestine by Israelis must be returned, and compensation given for all destroyed property. Israel and the U.S. should help foster economic growth in Palestine, and not blockade its people from Israel. If a wall is deemed necessary, it should be dismantled and rebuilt along the 1967 borders. Palestinians should recognize Israel and desist from attacks and propaganda against it. Most of these ideas are already current among aware and peace-loving folks from each nation. The USA should require an agreement of this kind as a condition for any support for either nation and people. We can let them decide for themselves only if we are not supporting them with our taxes and by putting our nation at risk.
An Irish newspaper reports in Nov.2004 that American prisoners of war are taken to other countries from bases in Ireland to be tortured, then brought back to Guantanamo or other US prisons.
Over 300 tons of explosives were left unguarded by American troops on their way to Baghdad in April 2003. Videos obtained by ABC News proved that the explosives were still there after the Americans left, despite Bush's claims. Bush was warned by the IAEA to guard the site; as usual he ignored the warnings. The IAEA had inspected the site in March 2003 and found it still sealed. The site was found looted in May, and the explosives were available to use against US troops.
It has been widely reported that 100,000 or more innocent civilians were killed in the US attack and bombings of Iraq. This is more than double what war critics had already thought. If the attacks on Fallujah are included, the figure may be 200,000. There is no other word for this unnecessary killing of innocent human beings, in a nation that posed no threat and did not attack the US, except massacre. We have killed 200,000. Why? Because Saddam had killed lots of Iraqis, says Bush. We are destroying the country in order to "liberate it." Some liberation. Everyone who votes for Bush has blood on their hands. This is evil on a monstrous scale. Do Americans have a conscience at all? We'll know after Nov.2nd.
Do you want a draft?
After their experiences in Iraq, many soldiers and reservists will not return to the army. The military is already stretched thin. If Bush is re-elected, we will have no way to stop him. He has already drawn up plans and funded draft boards. He may have plans to invade even more countries, and certainly to send more troops to the Iraqi quagmire. Already 40% of our soldiers in Iraq are National Guard troops-- the very same Guard that Bush joined to avoid Vietnam. Kerry and Edwards, on the other hand, have promised not to have a draft. If you have children over 12, which candidate do you want to determine their destiny? Do you want their lives disrupted and perhaps taken away for Bush's foolish plans and "projects?"
Bush decided in September 2004 that he can't spend the money voted for Iraq for reconstruction, but for more security instead. As more people die there, and reports by press and military say insurgent numbers have doubled and tripled, security is elusive and elections more unlikely. Weapons are becoming more sophisticated, said army officer O'Reilly. Insurgent groups are working together, and bombings kill ever more people. 200 people died in two days in mid-Sept. Oil is being sabatoged, hurting income and reconstruction in the country. $16 billion in aid is simply unaccounted for, and Cheney's old oil-supply company Halliburton gets no-bid contracts for reconstruction that gets nowhere.
It is amazing that people think Bush is better suited to protect the nation from terror than Kerry. That is the only issue on which Americans trust Bush more than Kerry, according to Zogby and other polls, but it's enough to draw him even with Kerry. And yet, the war on Iraq diverted most soldiers and money from the war on terror to a war against Iraq, which had nothing to to with terrorist attacks against the USA. He has also diverted funds away from Homeland security to protect our ports and airports and pay fire fighters and cities, etc., so we have fewer first responders than before 9-11. Efforts to control nuclear proliferation in Russia and elsewhere have been stalled. Terror attacks by Al Qaeda have been more frequent last year than in any previous year, while the Muslim world is united against us. And yet most people still think Bush is protecting the people from terror better than Kerry would. Some polls even say that 40% of Americans think Saddam Hussein caused 9-11. What does that say about 40% of Americans? Perhaps that they are committed to Bush due to religious or pro-business ideology, so never mind the facts. Do the facts matter to you?
Vice President Cheney says Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda. The 9-11 commission says he wasn't. Cheney says he has evidence not available to the committee. The committee asks him, what evidence? Cheney says; duh, I dunno....
Is Cheney a liar?
He reiterated that assessment on NBC, adding, "They had 100 meetings before they were willing to have one on terrorism."
Sept.8, 2004: Kerry now calls the president George Wrong Bush. How about George Warmonger Bush?
Warmonger Bush now refuses to engage in a "town hall" debate where he would have to answer questions from ordinary average Americans. This on top of the fact that he won't allow anyone except Bush supporters to attend rallies where he answers questions. Makes sense; he has no answers. Why did 1000-plus Americans have to die in a war we didn't need to fight? Answer: we'll finish the mission so they didn't die in vain. Translation? We'll just send even more over to die for no reason. Answer: to liberate Iraq? Fact: the US doesn't control very much of the Sunni Triangle, which was Saddam's only center of strength to begin with. This despite thousands of tanks, bombers, missiles and 130,000 troops invading the country. Mission accomplished! Iraq will have to hold the January election outside those areas, since they are not secure. Translation: what election? Truth: the new "autonomous" government is hiring back Baath Party leaders to staff the government. This is the government the US is protecting. So the US is protecting the Baathists, and fighting them at once. Make sense?
Compare Clinton's war in Kosovo with Bush's war in Iraq. Kosovo: not a single US casualty; Milosevic deposed by his own people afterward. Iraq: at least 1100 US casualities; Saddam deposed only at the cost of an expensive and deadly ongoing occupation. Which administration was competent, and which not? You be the judge.
Cheney says: you'd better elect us, or there'll be another big terrorist attack. Convenient oversight: Bush refused to heed warnings about upcoming Al Qaeda attacks, preferring to prepare for war against Iraq instead. On August 6, 2001 Bush was told in a memo that Al Qaeda might attack buildings with airplanes. He went on vacation and ignored the warning. "We're attacking the terrorists where they are so they don't come here," Bush says. Reality: he is letting the terrorists get away in Afghanistan and creating new terrorists in Iraq where they never were to begin with. We frequently hear that our security at home is not adequate and poorly funded. Meanwhile the past year saw more terrorist attacks than the year before. Yeah, right: Bush is the man to beat the terrorists; we'd better stick with him!
John Kerry has extensive foreign policy experience. He has a record of doggedly pursuing a goal until it is done, contrary to what Bush says. When noone else had the courage, he investigated the BCCI banking consortium and exposed their corruption until it was stopped. He vigorously pursued Manuel Noriega, and the Contras. Kerry is a former prosecuter who will not stop until bin Laden is caught and Al Qaeda defeated.
-- E. Alan Meece