Jack Spillane so wrong on Iraq

Dear Jack,

Just a few thoughts on your outrageous Iraq claims. Bizzarely, one cant get a comment posted on your "local" blog if it dares critique:


You said that most Americans are more concerned with "the way the war has been fought" rather than standing in opposition to the war per se. One wonders where you got this from, given that you said it a day or two before the longshoremen shut down the Pacific coastline in opposition to the war. Of course, this event was strangely underreported by your owner NewsCorp as opposed to 24 -7 coverage of Rev. Wright and Obama's real estate**. Are you saying that Americans are unconcerned with the costs in blood, treasure, and US legitimacy that Bush's unnecessary war has prompted? Are Americans willing to forget the blatant pre-war deception* ( of course your slogan is that Bush didn't lie ...and they died) , the shifting rationales, the perpetual recourse to "six more months", the backing of various ethnic factions in Iraq, the ongoing sabre rattling and threatmaking, the debilitating health of the military?

I guess not. I guess it's just a minor strategic quandary that Americans find themselves in. If only we had won, caught all the bad guys and created Utopia then it would have been the right decision. After all, millions of pre-war protesters, a majority of elected democrats, US Mayors and former National Security officials, 2006 voters, Nobel prize winners and soldiers who have been steadfastly against invading and occupying Iraq in polls, press and protest are easily ignored when you stress over those Iraqis "waiting us out."

And as for polls, who cares if, in 2006, Zogby found that 90%, almost all, US troops thought the war was retaliation for the Iraqi role in 9-11. Where did they get that from? Any ideas who spent millions in a slick propaganda campaign ( your owner News Corp didn't really cover the Pentagon Pundits scandal) to spread these lies? Where would Harry Truman have the buck stop for these lies? Let's find out with some Cartesian logic:

They died, were dismembered or had brain trauma by the thousands. 90% died believing a lie. So, quod erat demonstrandum, Bush fed them that lie.

The best thing you can do is disregard and devalue troops, Arab lives or the health of the US and just claim that "Iraq was probably a good number 2 in the War on Terrra" ( WMAR 1420 Host).



__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* Despite your favorite WaPo columnist finding "substantiations" for some Bush WMD claims, the Downing Street, Aznar and Sands memos all show that Bush was building a case for war versus responding to a discovered threat. As the recent ( and long delayed) Senate report showed and substantiated, countervailing evidence was buried and ignored. That's deception, lying. When its costs the skin, limbs, brains, lives of 19 year olds it's a crime. Get it?

** You have, apparently, solved the Obama real estate riddle and we will not require a $70 million Whitewater type investigation. Despite Obama buying a million dollar plus house after he secured a million dollar book deal, you claim there was likely "a loan" from some Countrywide folks in the mix. In a 'case closed' style, you also claim, falsely, that Obama purchased the place at 30% below the ask. In fact, a closer look would reveal that , in submitting the highest bid, Obama came in at 15% under the ask. I'm sure your clarifications will come with your searing and comparable analysis of McCain.