May 07, 2013


You know one of the things that really frightened me around the time of the Boston bombing? Those letters containing ricin which were mailed to Obama and one other politician. If I'm not mistaken, they caught the guy who sent them--and he was once an Elvis impersonator! That was the amusing part. The frightening part was the introduction of a WMD like ricin being mailed out to politicians again. Remember the panic of the anthrax scare after 9/11? So many news items on that scare that I was literally shaking envelopes before opening them. Postal workers started wearing plastic gloves and I'm not sure that they've stopped yet. Several people died and more became ill from anthrax exposure. We never caught the perpetrator, though the main suspect killed himself with an overdose of acetaminophen. A chemist who has access to deadly anthrax can't OD on anything stronger than Tylenol? Seems kinda wimpy but that conspiracy theory is not the road I want to go down. Occurring one week after September 11th attacks, anthrax truly terrified this nation. We were already in shock after 9/11 and suddenly we were afraid to open our mail? The press laid it on thick. I watched CNN a lot back then and they loved to do whole segments about other WMD that could be unleashed on subway cars, etc. Exploiting this panic mode, Bush made a hideous decision: to attack Iraq. A decade later, most Americans now agree that attacking Iraq was the wrong thing to do--Saddam had no WMD and no way to attack the US. But it's a bloody stain on this country that we allowed ourselves to be tricked into war against a non-enemy because of fear. And the fact that we wanted revenge for 9/11. In no way am I suggesting that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan to hunt for the perpetrators of 9/11. But those perpetrators weren't in Iraq. So the press began it's Saddam was "a bad man" approach to whet our appetite for war. And it worked. I'm seeing the return of a disturbing pattern. The Boston bombing, the ricin letters immediately afterward and then another "bad man" over in Syria who we might have to attack, Obama claims, if he's been using sarin gas against his people. That's the "red line" Obama's drawn that would force the US to take action against this heartless tyrant in Syria. What does this red line mean to you? Honestly, are you suddenly caring that much about the people of Syria? Could you even point to it on a map? A few months ago, most of us re-elected Obama because we were sick of two long wars. Bush had started them and Obama was withdrawing troops. Are you ready for another war? Obama is using double-speak about how "right now" he can't see any scenario for boots on the ground in Syria. But let's face it: he has supported Israel's recent bombings of Syria and Israel is our biggest ally in the middle east. Are we sneaking into another war which Obama, not Bush, will start? Now you may be thinking that I'm paranoid and prone to conspiracy theories. Granted, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush administration did have a hand in orchestrating the anthrax scare. But THIS isn't a theory, it's a fact: both CNN and the NY Times apologized after we invaded Iraq for not asking harder questions of the Bush White House as they led us into war. At the end of this month, the country will celebrate our armed forces on Memorial Day. If you truly support the men and women who fight our battles for us, let's make sure we learn from our past mistakes and ask those hard questions about war with Syria RIGHT NOW. Let's make sure that it's a battle we need to fight, that we know how to fight, that we have an exit strategy for and that we have enough money to fight AND care for the soldiers who come home from that fight. Never forget 9/11. And never forget that the US government tricked it's citizens into an unnecessary war. An enormous amount of blood spilt and a fortune spent because of our commander-in-chief's lies. It's tough to admit that our government would willfully mislead us but we know that Bush did it, so why wouldn't Obama? The military-industrial complex has to get paid somehow. How else will Obama's many defense industry campaign donors be paid back? Even on the "liberal" corporate media like MSNBC, tonight's lead stories are on three women abducted in Cleveland. Or on rape within the military. They definitely aren't talking about Syria. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm paranoid. But this isn't looking good. Here's an expert on the middle east's assessment of US involvement in Syria from He calls Obama's recent statement supporting Israel's air strikes in Syria "pitiful." I hope you'll check out what he has to say in this alarming segment. Doubting the anonymous sources which "prove" that sarin has been used in Syria reminds me of the yellowcake uranium sources which were Bush's red line to attack Iraq. DEMOCRACY NOW: As the United States moves toward increased intervention in Syria, we’re joined by Robert Fisk, the longtime Middle East correspondent of the British newspaper The Independent. Just back from two weeks in Syria reporting around the capital Damascus, Fisk discusses what he calls the "theater of chemical weapons," the latest in Syria’s civil war — a battle he says the Syrian government is winning — as well as his reaction to what he calls President Obama’s "pitiful" backing of the recent Israeli missile strikes. "Don’t ask me if they have used chemical weapons," Fisk says. "It’s conceivable. There really isn’t any proof. What you have got to realize is that this is a propaganda war just as much as it is a savage war, killing many thousands of human beings."