posted July 14, 2004 08:03 PM              

Naturally....I JUST LOVED WHAT HE HAD TO SAY!

*********************************

In the small Texas town of Canyon Lake, a sea of Bush ideologues, there is a stong voice of reason: Doug Kirk, the much attacked publisher of the Canyon Lake Weekly. Recently, a letter to the editor from Frances Shannon went too far. Way too far.

“It is people like you who cry anti-war slogans, criticize our commander-in-chief for liberating Iraq and Afghanistan from barbarian rule that I was referring to as wimps,” she wrote. Besides Doug, she also included in the “wimps with no backbone that do not deserve to be called Americans” category, “wives, mothers, and others that complain.”

This rated more than a simple letter to the editor response.

Here's what Jack has to say....

For your information, Frances Shannon, when you were at home baking cookies, I and thousands of other “wimps with no backbone” were crawling around in Vietnam. While some at home were being “patriotic” and proudly waving the American flag with self-righteousness and vociferously supporting that un-mitigated disaster, as is being done today with Iraq, I and thousands of other Americans were getting shot to hell and back, as is happening in Iraq today.

Thirty-five years later, after all the pontificating about “never again” has faded from memory, that same flag of false and misguided patriotism once again “proudly” waves over America. It seems that never again is here again (if it ever went away).

The ease at which those of you who so blindly follow Bush can label fellow citizens as “wimps without backbone that do not deserve to be called Americans,” including those of us who are combat veterans, concerns me in some ways more than my serious concerns for George Bush. Having been decorated for counter-insurgency operations in 1966, having been three times wounded and living a life fighting the effects of Agent Orange, I am not a wimp.

By your statements, one can only conclude that you believe the only patriotic Americans are those that toot the horn for George Bush. I guess it makes no difference to you that the man you support has cut and is cutting funding for the Veterans Administration which to date has forced over 250,000 veterans out of the system due to a lack of funding. At the same time, this same man is creating more veterans and more disabled veterans.

If continuing my open opposition to the Bush cabal makes me a “wimp without backbone,” I guess I’ll be a wimp without backbone for whatever life I have remaining. For I will go to my grave in opposition to any and all who preach perpetual war for profit.

The thing that really stands out is that the vast majority of those who feel free to label their fellow citizens as un-patriotic, un-American, traitors, wimps, etc., especially those of us who actually wore the uniform and went to war, is that they themselves, for whatever reason, never wore this country’s uniform and never went to war. The arrogance of people to call anyone, let alone combat veterans, wimps and un-American is astounding!

My right to criticize was born in the thick of war. Your right to criticize was born in your front rooms from watching 30-second sound bites on Fox “news.” My right is carried by sacrifice, yours by privilege.

A Free Iraq?

As for the statement Iraq is liberated and the Iraqi people are now free, it would be laughable if it were not so very sad.

Sure the Iraqi people are now free, free to be a part of the 60% unemployed and free to watch Halliburton import thousands of foreign laborers to “rebuild” Iraq.

Free to watch the wholesale privatization of their nation’s resources, infrastructure, economy and everything in between by the same U.S. multinationals importing labor.

But the Iraqi people have been liberated.

They are now free to see their fellow citizens subject to arrest, detention, torture, and murder in the same prisons that Saddam used for the very same purposes. But they have been liberated and they are now free.

They are now free to watch their country turned into what it never was until the politically driven and ideology based invasion: ground zero for fools and fanatics. But Iraq has been liberated and the Iraqi people are now free.

They are free to wonder, with all the money Halliburton has been paid, when they will have potable water and electricity more than 8 hours a day; they are free to wonder about this and much more.

They are free to wonder why Americans pay no attention to their own General Accounting Office reports that clearly state Iraq is worse off than before the invasion. (GAO report, 6/2004: “Iraq is Worse off Than Before the War Began”)

I could go on for a long time enumerating the theft of Iraq, but time and space prevent that. Be that as it may, one last thought on the “liberation” of Iraq: For those willing to use the brain’s memory cells, you will recall that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, not one time was “liberating Iraq” part of the discussion.

From the beginning, it was weapons of mass destruction, mushroom clouds over Manhattan, and the link between Saddam, bin Laden, and al Qaeda, all of which has proven to be false and deliberately so!

It was when those “reasons” began to unravel that Bush’s adventure morphed in to a war of “liberation.” This was deliberate deception, just like with Vietnam.

I for one am really tired of Bush and company pissin’ on my boots while trying to convince me it’s raining. The crazy part is how many of you are reaching for umbrellas.

Jack Dalton is a disabled Vietnam veteran suffering from the effects of Agent Orange. He lives in Portland, Oregon. You can email Jack at jack_dalton@ommp.org

Posted Monday, July 12, 2004

posted July 14, 2004 09:11 PM            

Iraq has been liberated, approximately 26,000,000 Iraqis no longer have to fear Saddam's rape and torture rooms, not to mention his shredders.

Operational control has been handed over to Iraqis, elections coming next year.

Iraq has not contributed one barrel of oil for the money we spent to rid them of Hussein nor have they been asked to.

Iraq has not paid Haliburton one penny for refurbishing the oil fields nor has Iraq paid any contractor working in Iraq to refurbish their infrastructure a penny nor has Iraq been asked to do so.

The new Iraqi government is moving against the terrorists and Hussein loyalists. You know Rainbow, the one's who were getting a free ride while Saddam was in power and are doing everything in their power to prevent free elections, along with Syrian and Iranian elements who more than anything else fear a free Iraq with a representative government.

Most everything you've been moaning about for the better part of 2 years never came to pass. It's about time you got over it and moved on. Iraq is free and your buddy Saddam is in custody awaiting trial for war crimes, murder, genocide and a long list of other crimes committed against the Kurds, citizens of Iraq, Kuwait and Iran.

posted July 14, 2004 10:30 PM              

An ammendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage. With all due respect, what the hell are you guys thinking?! And what are you trying to prove. This is where your priorities are? What happened to the Republicans being the defenders of the Constitution? What happened to the Republicans favoring state's rights?

posted July 14, 2004 10:31 PM              

quote:

---

Jerry Falwell?
Pat Robertson??
Newt Gingrich???
Pat Buchanan????
Oliver North?????

Start by getting rid of those scary religious right crack-pots you let into the Party and then maybe we'll talk

---

posted July 14, 2004 10:38 PM              

quote:

---

your buddy Saddam is in custody awaiting trial for war crimes, murder, genocide

---

Oh jwhop, for heaven's sake, gimme a break!
My buddy Saddam, indeed!

If I were going to have buddies like that, I'd really be tryin' to suck up to our coming dictator Bush! *sigh*

But I prefer nicer company, thank you..

Rainbow

posted July 14, 2004 10:47 PM              

....radical you say?

posted July 14, 2004 11:31 PM            

Jerry Falwell
Pat Robertson
Newt Gingrich
Pat Buchanan
Oliver North

Ball is in your court

In as much as 8,000 years or so of recorded history has denoted a marriage as being between a man and a woman and not between 2 men, 2 women, 2 women and a horse, 2 men and a sheep, I'll let you tell me why suddenly any other arrangement other than a man and a women should be considered a marriage.

It's true the framers of the Constitution never considered there would evolve a group so corrupt that marriage needed to be spelled out for everyone. There's a whole lot of corrupt practices the founding fathers never considered would come up in America but the possibility is covered by Amendments to the Constitution and that's going to happen and should happen.

posted July 15, 2004 12:58 AM              

I'm glad you posted this letter from Jack Dalton, Rainbow. It reminded me of why I am proud to be an American. Real Americans stand up for the values that were embedded in our Constitution ... not for those who shred those values at home while waging pre-emptive war-for-profit overseas under false pretenses ... and are proud enough of our American ideals not to be intimidated by those who would shove the "flag of false and misguided patriotism" at us to silence criticism.

I'm no "my country right OR wrong" nationalist, but I'm proud of what this country has stood for and was built upon ... and it ain't what's going on now! Thanks to Jack Dalton and other patriots for standing up to remind us.

posted July 15, 2004 01:16 AM              

....and at first I kinda thought you were kidding around with me (while getting your point across), cuz we've known each other thru both Greg's and Randall's websites for awhile now...and at one time...used to even speak civilly to each other...*sigh*

But now dammit, you're making me mad!

Where do you come off, telling me to wear the label of Saddam's buddy proudly! What Guts!

quote:

---

Yep, your buddy Saddam. Whenever your entire focus is to protect an individual, to shield them from the consequences of their actions, and against the combined thought of the United States Congress, then it's fair comment to call that person or persons your buddy. Wear the label of Saddam's buddy proudly Rainbow, you and others who think like you have earned it. There's no question as to who you are for and who you are against Rainbow. Your comments place you for the terrorists including Saddam and against the interests of the US and the Iraqi people.

---

I don't know how you can say with a straight face that my entire focus is to protect Saddam...That is outrageouly, twisted! And you know it!!!

My "entire focus" is to wake up the American people to the fact that we have a crazy president! (and protect them too from this mad man!)

You can single me out if you want to, but I'm not alone when it comes to "catching on" to what he is all about....

Here's one you're gonna hate....

************************************

A new book by a prominent Washington psychoanalyst says President George W. Bush is a "paranoid meglomaniac" as well as a sadist and "untreated alcoholic." The doctor's analysis appears to confirm earlier reports the President may be emotionally unstable.

Dr. Justin Frank, writing in Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, also says the President has a ""lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions ... [and] pumping his fist gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad."

Even worse, Dr. Frank concludes, the President's years of heavy drinking ""may have affected his brain function - and his decision to quit drinking without the help of a 12-step program [puts] him at far higher risk of relapse."

Dr. Frank's revelations comes on the heels of last week's Capitol Hill Blue exclusive <http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml> that revealed increasing concern by White House aides over Bush's emotional stability.

Aides, who spoke only on condition that their names be withheld, told stories of wide mood swings by the President who would go from quoting the Bible one minute to obscenity-filled outbursts the next.
Bush shows an inability to grieve - dating back to age 7, when his sister died. "The family's reaction - no funeral and no mourning - set in motion his life-long pattern of turning away from pain [and hiding] behind antic behavior," says Frank, who says Bush may suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

Other findings by Dr. Frank:

*His mother, Barbara Bush - tabbed by some family friends as "the one who instills fear" - had trouble connecting emotionally with her son, Frank argues.

*George H.W. Bush's "emotional and physical absence during his son's youth triggered feelings of both adoration and revenge in George W."

*The President suffers from "character pathology," including "grandiosity" and "megalomania" -- viewing himself, America and God as interchangeable.

Dr. Frank has been a psychiatrist for 35 years and is director of psychiatry at George Washington University. A Democrat, he once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
In an interview with The Washington Post's Richard Leiby, Dr. Frank said he began to be concerned about Bush's behavior in 2002.
"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote, and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed," Dr. Frank told Leiby. Bush, he said, "fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated."
Dr. Frank's expert recommendation? ""Our sole treatment option -- for his benefit and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office . . . before it is too late."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to comment on the specifics of Dr. Frank's book or the earlier story by Capitol Hill Blue.

"I don't do book reviews," McClellan said, even though he last week recommended the latest book by the Washington Post's Bob Woodward to reporters at the daily press briefing.

© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue

posted July 15, 2004 01:42 AM              

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading Jack's words. I also LOVE the fact that he's from here, The Pacific NW Just across the river from me.

I think I'll shoot him off an email letting him know how his words touched me.

posted July 15, 2004 02:38 AM              

...glad you enjoyed reading Jack's words...*sigh*...I sent him an email too...

Love,
Rainbow

posted July 16, 2004 12:36 AM            

Nope, the wind's blowing in the wrong direction for you to smell any "perfume" and I oppose some of the President's policies myself.

However when an individual or a group's actions are so concentrated in one area that they move heaven and earth to keep someone in power and that person...Saddam Hussein is an avowed enemy of the US and when they support America's enemies, i.e. the Communist Workers World Party and their front organization, International A.N.S.W.E.R. by supporting their marches and signing their petitions to impeach the President, and when the purpose of those organizations is to keep a Stalinist clone regime in power in Iraq, then it's fair comment to associate that person or group as friends of Saddam and I do.

Just a reminder Greg, it didn't go unnoticed that you commented that we had killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Accuracy is important Greg so to keep the record straight, there have been more than 300,000 Iraqis unearthed from mass graves in Iraq and they're still finding more. Estimates are that upwards of 200,000 Shiites were killed by Saddam when they revolted after the 1st Gulf War. So, where are you getting your numbers from? The commonly accepted number of Iraqis killed by Saddam is somewhat over 600,000 and more than a million Muslims killed by Saddam over the years. Are you suggesting, as it appeared you were that more Iraqi civilians than that were killed by coalition forces? If you are, what source are you using?

Something else to keep in mind is that protests per se are not necessarily patriotic and are definitely not patriotic when those protests inure to the benefit of avowed enemies of our country.

posted July 16, 2004 08:49 AM              

Why shouldn't it be considered a marriage. They don't need a reason to claim their rights but you damn well better have a reason to deny them. And the 8000 years thing doesn't cut it honey. Please prove your theory - were marriage licenses issued 8000 years ago? Once upon a time marriages were made for money or property or title. The idea of marriage for love is quite a new concept. Once upon a time arranged marriages were the norm. While they do still exist, they are certainly running out of favor. Once upon a time 12 year old girls were married off to
50 year old men. Once upon a time polygamy was an option for any man that could afford it. My what lovely traditions! Why ever didn't we maintain them?

Citizens who are of a homosexual bent are still citizens. Why should their rights to the financial and legal protections of marriage be denied? Because Jwhop doesn't agree with the choice of partner? Now if a church doesn't see fit to marry them - then by all means don't. A church is a private institution and if they don't want to marry me because they don't like the color of my shoes more power to them. But the government belongs to all of it's citizens. And they are citizens, they pay their taxes - they're entitled. We allow pedophiles to get married, we allow federal criminals to get married, we allow Britney Spears to make an idiot out of herself in Vegas. All because it is a private, personal choice and the government needs to stay the hell out.

As for the Amendments - take another look. They extended rights, they didn't restrict them. Getting closer and closer to that "all men are created equal" stuff must really scare some people.