Terrorists, Terrorists EVERYWHERE!

With the recent vote in the Senate that passed overwhelmingly (76-22), to label the Iranian military a terrorist group; we must ask ourselves, where do we draw the line? Senator Webb aptly pointed out that this was the first time in American history that we have labeled an entire country's military a terrorist organization, and this measure was a defacto authorization for use of force against Iran. I mean really, who is NOT a terrorist anymore? I fear that this term has been overused and almost replaced the word enemy in order to insight fear and garner support for just about anything. It's liberally applied to any entity that seeks to undermine the administration's goal of force-feeding freedom and dictating democracies for all! Is America seriously willing to repeat the mistake we made with Iraq? Our own estimates and those of the IAEA have BOTH determined that Iran is at least ten years away from being a real threat, and yet the administration keeps suggesting it's not true. Those WMD have GOT to be somewhere, right Bush? "Ooops, they're not over here...maybe over here? heh heh heh..."

In the Democratic debates that were recently on MSNBC, Senator Mike Gravel, Rep. Kucinich, as well as Senator Edwards called out those that voted in favor of the amendment against Iran. I think Edwards may have said it best when he offered that he learned a very different lesson about giving this administration any wiggle-room whatsoever for war - that they can't be trusted. The way Hillary laughed when Senator Gravel said she should be ashamed of her vote (video below), and it should have made it very clear to everybody exactly why she is the darling of Israel and has the support of the largest lobbyist in the US, AIPAC (also an Israeli entity). Her excuse for allowing the administration a crack to squeeze through and attack Iran? So that we can sanction them. Must I really point out that we have already sanctioned Iran TWICE in the last eight months, without ever passing any such resolution? Sanctions before diplomacy huh? Am I the only one that hasn't forgotten that the sanctions placed on Iraq killed over 1.5 million Iraqis, and that half a million of those were children, due to lack of clean drinking water? Even though the sanctions clearly "worked" to keep Saddam from obtaining WMD, that didn't stop us from initiating a war with them and occupying Iraq in the end - so what's the purpose of the sanctions again?!?!?

Hillary's assertion that Iran is responsible for US troops deaths is also absurd. All NIE and other Intel reports indicate that whether it be by weapons support or insurgent, Iranian involvement accounts for less than 5% of US troop deaths. The same reports indicate that the threats coming from outside Iraq, the ones that are MOST responsible for US troop deaths, are the Saudi Arabians. But hey, if we're going to look the other way when we knew their citizens were 90% of those responsible for 9/11, then why would we come after them now? The other country that is reported to be enabling terrorism and largely contributing to US troop deaths in the Middle East, is our other ally, Pakistan!

Must every day be "Opposite Day" with this administration at the helm? For Bush, the friend of our enemy, is also our friend! The enemy of our enemy is again, our friend; and if they are a signatory of the non-proliferation act, that may disqualify them from being an ally too (i.e. India & Israel: get lots of weaponry, and are not signatories). And if a country isn't a dictatorship, a theocracy, nor refuses to suppress a nation of peoples...then they are most likely NOT our friends (i.e. France). So why get your feathers ruffled-up when one of our largest military contractors (Halliburton), relocates their headquarters to Dubai, of the United Arab Emirates? Just because they were the ones that allowed all the funding for 9/11 to be transfered through their government owned banks and into the hands of the terrorists in the US, then refused to allow us to follow the money...and just because they are the ONLY country in the region that allows flights from Afghanistan to land, which enables the Taliban to travel...well, those things shouldn't be any cause for alarm - right? Hell no, those things suggest friendship to our president; because war is quite profitable, and business is GOOD! "Money trumps peace...sometimes" - right Shrub? I think he could have left the "sometimes" out, in an effort for him to be truly honest...

However, without the ability to throw the terrorist label around so liberally, there wouldn't be any good targets for the Military Industrial Complex, and business wouldn't be so good. The word terrorist has been used so often and inappropriately so many times, that I seriously doubt anybody knows what the true meaning of the word is anymore. That's why I was especially pleased to see one of our finest, a marine in the al Anbar province, author this article about this very issue. Apparently, our troops are concerned about our understanding of what a terrorist actually is, and suspect that there are political aims behind such sloppy use of the word as well. I was compelled to write him and thank him for doing this, since there really is no better authority on the matter and he aptly points out that we should be careful when applying this term to people because, "Words still mean things."

Even if Bush can't annunciate or spell them, I think he also knows that words mean something. Which is why I feel compelled to remind you all that he has essentially given himself the absolute authority to label anybody a terrorist, or label almost any event (domestic or international) a threat to national security or an act of terrorism; and then lock whomever he deems responsible away indefinitely, without ever giving them their day in court - even Americans. However, this directive (NSPD 51 or HSPD 20) basically castrates congressional powers and will allow Bush to attack Iran anyway, no matter what our Congress does or doesn't vote for.

Let's pretend for a moment, that Bush won't attack Iran before he leaves office: With Hillary admitting that she doesn't want to guarantee that our troops will be out of Iraq by 2013, and her recent vote in favor of labeling Iran's military a terrorist group; what makes you think that if she becomes president that she wouldn't use that directive to attack Iran herself?