☰ Menu
Blog of Mass Destruction

Have They All Died In Vain?

By The Reverend Published: September 28, 2007


The Akron Beacon Journal opinion page editors need taken to the woodshed for printing today's Michael Smerconish, "What do we owe those killed in Iraq?" opinion piece. The Beacon can't bring itself to print national blogger pieces that have been correct about everything dealing with Iraq from before the invasion. But the ABJ can print opinions from an endless stream of clueless wingnuts who have never been correct about any of it and are still just as clueless today.

Here's a portion of the wingnuttiness that the Beacon should actually be embarrassed to have put into their paper.....

No, the tough call here is what we owe the more than 3,700 men and women who, having volunteered largely in a 9/11-inspired environment to join the fight against those presumed to threaten America, paid with their lives. What do we owe their memory? How about those yet to die? And is there a distinction between those two groups?


Will fallen soldiers have died in vain if we leave Iraq without establishing a stable democracy?

I say no with regard to those who have died to date.

My rationale is based on how we got into this mess: The United States was attacked. The words never again were heard throughout the land. The notion of pre-emption was adopted against a backdrop of missed intelligence and lost opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden before 9/11. Saddam Hussein appeared to represent a similar threat. (Erroneous, it turned out, but widely believed then.) The United States took action. The rest has not gone as any American had hoped.

But anyone who died in voluntary service to this country based on those circumstances died with honor, not in vain. In the same way Pat Tillman is no less a hero to me, even though I know he died from friendly fire.

Smerconish has earned a third degree black belt in wingnut. He thrashes around on the mats of Hardball once in a while, displaying his many years of practicing wingnut, the ancient art of the misguided.

The talk show host, in typical wingnut fashion, must justify Bush's Iraq crime. He has to make the deaths of thousands of American soldiers appear "honorable", so he reasons that before today all those who died, died with honor and not in vain, but those who die henceforth may not die with honor, but possibly in vain.

Huh?.....Hold that thought, we'll come back to it.

Smerconish's clincher lie is this, "Saddam Hussein appeared to represent a similar threat.[as Osama] (Erroneous, it turned out, but widely believed then.)"

The reason for invading Iraq was to place a permanent American military presence in the middle eastern oil patch.(Alan Greenspan even knows that). The intelligence was being fixed around the already existing decision to carry out the Project For The New American Century's long held dogma of spreading U.S. military might around the globe. What good is it being the world's only superpower if you can't cash in on that fact?

The numerous lies, leading up to Bush's illegal attack of Iraq, from neo-conservative White House maniacs, were coldly calculated to deceive not only the American public, but the Congress as well. In exactly the same way the White House maniacs just recently deceived and lied to Congress about why FISA needed an emergency re-write.

American soldiers, according to Smerconish, who died as a result of all the lies from the White House's criminal element concerning Iraq, did not die in vain. Dying for a bunch of pre-meditated lies spoken to hide the real imperialistic reasons for invading Iraq is not dying in vain, if Smerconish is to be believed.

And, of course, he isn't. To be believed.

George W. Bush sent tens of thousands of our military into Iraq based on total lies. He hadn't finished off the 9-11 al-Qaeda enemy. He withdrew valuable assets from that fight to, in an act of aggression, invade and occupy Iraq, a country that was not involved in 9-11, nor threatened America in any way. Saddam was never a threat to the U.S. But Iraq had....oil. Lots of it.

In spite of this truth....Smerconish says, up til now at least, our soldiers haven't died in vain. Jesus. I guess dying for a renegade White House group of liars is not dying in vain.

But what of those who die henceforth? Smerconish is not so sure about future deaths of American soldiers in Iraq.

Will the soldiers who died after serious questions were raised about our mission have died in vain?

I don't know that answer, but I believe that as time goes by without resolution, the odds increase that they will.

Then the Philadelphia Inquirer columnist and radio talk show nut says this....

...what makes the current debate so difficult: It's impossible to believe what anybody says.

American soldiers, who died because of the lies of rogue regime leaders in the U.S., did not die in vain (according to the neo-nut columnist) despite the fact that Iraq is now a clusterf**k.

Those soldiers who die henceforth after Petraeus' song and dance this month, Smerconish is not sure will have died in vain or not....the reason?....."It's impossible to believe what anybody says."

Blackbelts in wingnut must come inside cereal boxes.



About This Blog

  • Main Blog Promo
  • Cavs Blog Promo
  • Browns Blog Promo
  • Indians Blog Promo
  • Beer Blog Promo
  • Fracking Blog Promo
  • High School Blog Promo
  • Zips Blog Promo
  • Akron Dish Food Blog
Prev Next