It's only a secret until you tell somebody

House Majority Leader John Boehner sent out a private memo to house republicans yesterday in regards to the discussion they will be having on the "War" in Iraq and it's "Progress". The whole memo is very interesting if you actually read in between the lines.

For example...

The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world. We can no longer expect oceans between us and our enemies to keep us safe. The plotting and planning taking place in terror camps protected by rogue regimes could no longer go unchecked or unchallenged. In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow despots and dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.

Wow, that sounds familiar.

Oh wait, that's the same junk the republicans have been cramming down our throats for the past 4 years, with a little bonus thrown in; that it's apparently okay for us to invade sovereign nations cause they don't listen to us. How presumptious. Just kinda makes you wonder who is on george's hit list next.

But back to the point, the rest of the memo is so negatively slanted and just aims to abuse 9/11 and attack democrats, it isn't even funny.

It is imperative during this debate that we re-examine the conditions that required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Yeah, we've heard that story 10 thousand times, in all its variations. Including how we were attacking them because they had WMDs(they didnt), and how they were supporting Al-Queda(they weren't). How about we re-examine the REAL reasons we went into those countries, not just the newest ones.
He also quotes JFK:

“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”

Interesting quote. Here's a few more of JFK's he neglected:

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Or, it this suites your tastes better...
Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.
Or, my personal favorite...
I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived — yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

Peace not created by weapons of war? Bush and Co. must have skipped that one.

But back to the point.

In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we instead abandon our efforts against these threats in the hopes that they will just fade away on their own?

So apparently the republicans see only two choices; support the megolomaniac and invade any countries we disagree with, or hope the terrorists just go away. That's so naive, narrowminded, and stupid, I don't even need to address it further.

Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats’ only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.

Again, wow. If by "Waiver endlessly" he means "Debate the issues and not just follow the megolomaniacal shepard blindly" then yeah, the democrats want that. Debating the issues and not just following the executive branch is what the legislative was created for; if all it is used for is a bunch of yes-men, we might as well disband it cause it serves no real purpose. Democrats aren't proposing "defeat on the battlefield", they're weighing the costs in LIVES with the product of those"Sacrifices". Republicans apparently don't know the value of a human life, or just don't care; maybe if we had lobbyists throwing lives at them instead of dollars....
Besides, it's easy to say "it's worth it" when YOUR life isn't on the line, mister senator. Fucking ridiculous.
And something I've been wondering about for a while now; how is Iraq being invaded going to be a blow to terrorism around the world? The only reason the terrorists came to Iraq is because we INVADED it; they weren't there before, as numerous studies have shown. All we've done is DEstabilize an area, and ruin the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis. How is that supposed to "help" the war on terror? It isn't like the have a military, or a competent government, or a police force, or electricity and running water, or...

Politicians abusing the memory of 9/11 for their warmongering purposes is just sick and amoral. AND THEN, when we're involved in such a conflict that THEY STARTED, what do they do? Push anti gay marriage and flag-burning amendments to the front of the legislative agenda, in an attempt to garner support from their fanatical, biggoted base to make up for their record-low approval ratings. People are dying overseas in a war we were lied to about and NO americans want to see continue, and the very people who started it now want to debate amendments to make us LESS equal. How are we supposed to be the beacon of democracy and freedom when we STILL discriminate against each other, and want to make it legal to do so? Hippocracy at its best, but I guess the republicans have plenty of practice.

I hope you're all buried with sunscreen; I hear Hell is a pretty hot place this time of year.

It's been a long time...I shouldn't a left you

So an amendment was brought up in the Senate a few weeks back in an attempt to outlaw gay marriage. This issue KILLS me; it's by far the most divisive and polarizing subject that americans face today. What's hilarious about it, to me, is that the only argument against it is completely irrelavant.

Stick with me here...

The only argument against gay marriage is that it says in some book that man shouldn't lay with man. THE ONLY ARGUMENT. As we all should know, the first amendment clearly seperates church from state, and therefore any argument based solely on religion is completely invalid and unconstitutional. It's as simple as that. If two people want to be happy and plan to live the rest of their lives together, they should be allowed the same rights as everyone else, regardless of sexual preference. This is the same type of stupid bullshit rational that was used against the repeal of slavery; remember, THE BIBLE says it's perfectly fine to own slaves, even though they're people just like you and I who deserve the same rights. But the bible said it was fine to deny them the same rights as other humans. How did that work out? Oh yeah, it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny them their freedom, just like it would be unconstitutional to deny anyone the right to marry whomever they choose.

There isnt a good argument against gay marriage. An argument based on religion is just a fanatic's prayer, and even attempting to make one just shows you for the blatant homophobe you are. And I don't want to hear any of that "I have gay friends" bullshit, either; people can only be friends when they are equal, and you're blatantly trying to take away their right to be just as unhappy as everyone else. People can't be equal when some have rights others don't.

What really bothers me, though, is that it really doesn't effect anyone else, yet they make it out to be this national issue. How is it that two strangers getting married offends you? How ridiculous. I love the whole argument about them raising gay kids, and our country being overrun by homosexuals. Except that homosexuality is genetic, not behavioral, as in you don't learn it, you're born with it. If you learned it, how did the first homosexual even come about? He/She would have had to LEARN it from someone else. It doesnt make any sense to think that it is learned, or that having gay parents would increase the likelyhood of a child being gay.

Besides, if it were true, then eventually we'd all be wiped out because gays don't reproduce with each other, so there'd be no more people left after a few generations. And as all you fanatics know, the bible clearly says the world is gonna end by fire. See? Even GOD is trying to tell you homosexuality isn't a threat, you just aren't listening. Wow, didnt see THAT coming.