political purpose

It isn’t no secret that Republicans care not about the thousands that perished on that September morning in 2001, but it does deserve a little reminder from time to time:

A Republican candidate for Governor of New York this morning reached new heights of rhetorical condemnation of health care legislation, comparing its passage to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

"The day that that bill was passed will be remembered just as 9/11 was remembered in history," Carl Paladino, a Buffalo businessman seeking the Republican and Conservative Party lines, told host Curtis Sliwa on AM 970 The Apple this morning. "It was an attempt by these people in Washington to defy the Constitution. It is clearly in conflict with all of the basic precepts of the Constitution."

So a bill meant to help ensure the well being of millions of our citizens is the equivalent to a violent attack that claimed the lives of thousands of innocents?

Perhaps Carl needs to learn the definition of terrorism:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Read number 1 over and over again Carl and think about what you are doing. You are using a terrorist attack for political purpose. In other words, you are acting as a terrorist by proxy. So excuse me for telling you to go “Cheney yourself” since you are siding with our enemies.

First the blame for all the problems in Iraq went to al Qaeda. Once that theory was debunked, the administration aimed the blame to Iran. Now look at what is happening:

There is no evidence the Iranian government is stirring trouble in Iraq, a U.S. general said on Monday, playing down suggestions that Tehran will retaliate for U.S. backing of Israel's war on Hizbollah.

"There is nothing that we definitively have found to say that there are any Iranians operating within the country of Iraq," Major General William Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, told a news conference.

U.S. officials have previously said the war between Israel and Iran-backed Hizbollah might encourage Tehran to make mischief in Iraq to pressure the United States, which has some 130,000 troops in the country.

So why does our government keep looking for scapegoats to lay all the blame on when it comes to Iraq? Simple - they don't want to tell you where the real problem is. That problem is coming from within. It involves people, who are Iraqis, who do not accept democracy or our presence. They will fight not only us, but also the Iraqi citizens who support us.

Basically it comes down to all the ingredients being thrown in for a civil war. Perhaps this is why the administration used these scapegoats. Look at some simple facts.

1. The last thing Bush wants is a civil war. This would mean a reauthorization for the war, that is sure to fail. It would then most likely lead to us having to withdrawal from the region and let them fight it out within.
2. Al Qaeda was the first good stooge. Blaming al Qaeda for the problems kept building that 9/11 and Saddam link that the administration so badly wanted and lied about. While many of us know the truth, there are still many in the country who believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. In other words, using al Qaeda for the blame of what is happening in Iraq served a political purpose more than anything.
3. We want a reason to attack Iran. Saying Iran is causing the problems in Iraq could provide the administration with a reason to do some attacks within Iran without extra authorization from Congress. Simply declaring Iran as an enemy of our cause in Iraq would be authorization enough. The problem lies in people in our Congress (namely Democrats) and citizens here asking the tough questions and would want to see evidence of such involvement by Iran should Bush take action against them.