WAR ON TERROR MEET WAR ON DRUGS

I wonder if the writer of the letter "Top Priority Must Be The War On Terror" is working as a hired public propagandist?

I mean, just the way this guy wrote his letter, it leads one to think that he alone has inside knowledge on how to confront a problem which Bush has wasted our military strength and over $9 trillion dollars trying to beat? (Okay, so half that money went to his business cronies as tax cuts for the rich--but let's not get too ahead of ourselves here...)

Ronald Reagan pledged (back in 1984), to wage a "war" on drugs. And in the 23 years since, drugs are still here.

So what makes the writer so sure that we can win against a few extremist groups whom have no aspirations for world domination? (As he sees it?)

No nation has fallen to these extremist groups, no military has been subverted, but curiously enough, we have gone on some kind of moralistic/religious crusade to do what?

Bring the fight to the enemy? Try to stamp them out militarily? Stoop to their level of insanity?

Seven years have passed since Bush has infamously declared his silly war on terror. But terrorism is something that cannot be defeated by mere force alone. It has to be dealt with politically, economically, and socially--on all fronts. All at once.

Otherwise--like the war on drugs--terrorism is going to be here.

No matter who is President. Or what his or her priority is.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

CAR BOMBINGS? CIVIL UNREST? ASSASSINATIONS? LET'S BLAME AL-QAEDA!

Oooh, yes. I just love how our "intelligence" agencies piecemeal things together these days.

Instead of relying on hard evidence, concrete proof, and whatnot, it seems as though everything and everyone we seek to blame for one attack after another (even though we don't have any direct "links" to the source) is based on one thing:

AL-QAEDA.

Yes, that seems to be the "catch-phrase" of the 21st century here.

Instead of the dog eating your homework, our kids can blame Al-Qaeda!

Truly people, I didn't really know that this terrorist organization had its claws into everything--after the alleged drubbing we gave it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I didn't really know it could reach so far deep into Pakistan and assassinate Pakistan's former minister Benizar Bhutto.

Just like that! Do we have actual hard evidence that Al-Qaeda played a direct hand in this terrible event, or are we just overreaching again--like always?

Because until we find out who was really behind the attacks, blaming one terrorist organization for the ills of the world seems a little childish these days.

Especially since we don't have any reliable intelligence. (To put it rather loosely here.)

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO PUNISH THE MENTALLY ILL

As someone whom suffers from emotional and mental problems, I find this latest move by Congress and Bush to be a veritable slap in the face.

Instead of strengthening current laws already on the books, the government has now moved in such a way that it will allow gun owners illegitimate access to private healthcare records to determine whether or not that person is psychologically "fit" to legally buy a gun at his or her choosing.

And who's to say the government won't have the same level of access in the future? Hmm? Anyone think about that one?

Once again, the move is nothing more than an erosion of privacy rights for those who are mentally ill, or have emotional issues.

Because of Congress's shortsightedness, a large portion of this country will be denied their their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and own a gun--all because they have a few screws loose in the ol' melon.

But that's okay. The mentally ill and the handicap get discriminated plenty as it is on a daily basis anyways.

We all know it happens. I know it happens. I've had it done to me plenty of times over the years.

But..hey!...what's one more law to tell people that I am a bad person--based on one man's past actions? Sure! Why not? Let's draft more laws for people who are shunned by society as it is.

Make them feel more isolated than ever before!

After all, all we are doing is "protecting" America from individuals like me, right?

No harm done and all that?

Yep.

No harm done. None whatsoever.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

WAR DOCUMENTARY CHILLING

On the off chance, I went and rented a movie called "No end in sight", and spent the next hour and a half just dismayed and stunned.

I'll save the flowery speech about how this war continues to fail for a latter time; as I'll share this nugget of information: Those who started and conducted this war had nothing in the ways of foreign policy experience, nothing in the ways of military experience, nothing in the ways of reconstruction experience.

I watched this administration's reaction to the news of how Iraq spiraled down into chaos early on, and their behavior was clearly one of whom didn't really care. Donald Rumsfeld's evasiveness, Paul Bremer's ignorance of the Iraqis needs themselves, Bush's detachment from the whole affair--as he delegated the most important tasks of the occupation and rebuilding to lackeys whom had nothing in the way of real experience at the theater in question.

Looking at the latest reports of how the Malaki government is still unable to go forward in national reconciliation--2.5 years after being sworn in--I can still see the hand that's been dealt us from 2003 on: The ignorance, the gross incompetence, the lack of an understanding on how to wage war and deal with its aftermath.

All this from the war architects of this administration.

And what was worse about the documentary? I could easily see the ghost of Vietnam crop up in many of the disturbing images. I felt sick and sympathetic--despite my own anti-war stance.

Our soldiers deserved better than this quagmire that Bush hand picked for us all.

And they will never get it.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX

PLEBE FOR A PRESIDENT?

Just like with Iraq, Bush tells us that Iran is actively seeking nukes and is a dangerous country--and should be dealt with either diplomatically or militarily. (I was betting on the latter--waiting to see how much worse we could mess things up in the Middle East.)

In October, he famously stated that Iran's continued proliferation with nuclear weapons would lead to World War III.

Almost two months later, we get an NIE report that showed that (what I had long suspected) Iran was never pursuing nuclear weapons at all.

But for the life of me, Bush is insisting that Iran remains a considerable and viable threat to our nation's (and the world's) security.

Just like Iraq was before we illegally invaded.

Could it be that Bush's bluff had finally been called by the same intelligence officials which he himself handpicked to deliver this dramatic bombshell?

I'd like to think so. But what's been bugging me is what did Bush know in August--when he was briefed on the NIE--and when did he know it?

The man may think we are all still asleep at the switch--or first-year cadets out of some military academy--but some of us are wide awake.

Waiting to pounce on the truth.

Schuyler Thorpe

xxxth Street xx #X001

Everett, WA 98204

(XXX)-XXX-XXXX