Something To Say-World

Something to Say-World blog is a forum where I can vent and share my strong viewpoints with the world, and get feedback from others, whether they are pro or con, for or against my positions. The main thing is that we engage in a thought provoking discussion with hopes of seeing the world in a more clearer and different light than we did before initiating our intellectual dialogues. __________ MOTTO:Committed To Relentless Pursuit Of Hidden Truths -Globally-

Thursday, November 30, 2006


(Photos: Google images)

In my August 23rd article, “IRAQ: CIVIL WAR OR NOT? You bet there is, as long as two opposing factions are fighting!,” I provided a definition for the terms civil war and faction. I stated that according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Edition, the term civil war is defined as “A war between [factions] or regions of one country.” And the term faction is defined as: “ 1. A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually a contentious, minority within a larger group. 2.Internal conflict; dissension; conflict within an organization or nation.” All three definitions apply to the on-going situation in Iraq. But for the sake of argument, we will stay focused on the literal definition of the term civil war and the second definition given for the word faction, respectively. And I standby my stated observation and position.

What is so unbelievable, is the fact that the Bush administration is still putting it’s blindfolded spin on what is actually taking place before all our eyes. It seems that the only persons in the entire world that don’t believe Iraq is in a state of civil war, are members of the Administration and some active duty military leaders. Just today, the Washington Post published an article stating that a U.S. military spokesman said he expects violence to escalate over the next few weeks in response to Thursday's bombings in Sadr City

The article stated:"The U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, told reporters Tuesday that he expects to see "elevated levels of violence" as a result of the car bombings that killed more than 200 people in Sadr City, a Shiite district in northeast Baghdad. The coordinated attacks set off a wave of retaliatory killings in Sunni neighborhoods. While [acknowledging] the sectarian conflict, Caldwell [stopped short] of characterizing it as a civil war. We don't see somebody competing for control of the country here at all," he said at a press briefing. "What we see is a country that's still functioning and still has duly elected representatives in charge who are able to give instructions and orders to their security forces." It is mind boggling to have the spokesman acknowledging there is a sectarian conflict, meaning more than one faction are fighting in opposition to the other, and on the other hand to publicly deny there is a civil war occurring.

The operative word or catch phrase is “We don’t see somebody [competing for control] here at all.” No where can I find in the meanings of civil war, neither explicitly nor implicitly, in any of my searches for a more comprehensive understanding, in which the given definition mentions or restricts usage to that of a faction or factions attempting to take control of a country. The Administration is deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the longstanding and generally accepted literal interpretation of the word civil war, to satisfy its own political face-saving objective of “staying the course.” Or “we can’t cut and run.”mantra. Clearly a “war between [factions-more than one]” is taking place. And has been for some time now; even before I wrote the aforementioned article on August 23rd.

Anyone that continues to push the irrational position of “staying the course or remain in Iraq” is not only insane, but completely irresponsible and in denial. Before long, the fighting sectarian factions that are waging war among themselves, just might stop and think: “why are we fighting each other, fellow Iraqis-brothers? Let’s go get the invaders and occupiers that are now maintaining a low profile within their sanctuary fortresses. And afterwards, we can resume from where we left off.” And then what, Mr President?

Clearly, The U.S. should not wait until the situation reaches “critical mass,” if it hasn’t already, before redeploying our servicemen and women out of harms way. To continue to procrastinate or simply delay, just might be too late to prevent slaughter of U.S. troops. Bottom line: The time has arrived to leave Iraq now, Mr President! You decide.

UPDATE: Associated press writer Lolita C. Baldor reported today that the bipartisan commission on Iraq
will urge a pullback of some U.S. troops in Iraq, but will not recommend a specific timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, an official familiar with the panel's deliberations said Thursday. Read rest of story-CLICK LINK.

Also read USATODAY's blog article pertaining to the civil war issue debate:

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

CHENEY SHOULD RESIGN ALONG WITH RUMSFELD: The Vice-President is just as responsible for failed Iraq policy as Rumsfeld; if not more!

(Photo: Google Images)

First, I can't help but gloat a little with pride because in my previous post: “REPUBLICANS: IT'S NOT JUST IRAQ, STUPID! THERE ARE A HOST OF OTHER ISSUES THAT MATTER.” I was right in citing a number of concerns the voting public had on their mind during this mid-term election. And one of the biggest issues was corruption, just as I had projected. To many people, the culture of corruption, coupled with blatant arrogance, was just too much to stomach for another term with the Republicans. So I shall remain optimistic, and give the Democrats the benefit of doubt to see what they do in overseeing either one or both Houses of Congress. But being an independent, I remain cynical and suspicious of both parties, almost equally.

Now back to my primary basis for writing this post.
I strongly believe, as I have for at least two years or more, that Vice-President Cheney should resign. Principally because he was one of the staunch neo-conservatives that got the US into the ill-conceived Iraq war in the first place. His influence over the President, unquestionably, played a significant role in the ultimate decision to invade Iraq. Thus, Cheney must go too! Many have speculated that he is the “evil behind the curtain running the show anyway.” Is he? Personally, I don't believe Rumsfeld is or was the central problem when it came to executing the war. He was given an almost impossibe task to accomplish. Even with a much larger military presence in Iraq from the outset, the situation would more likely have been unmanageable.

But if President Bush is serious about doing what is best for the Nation, then he will replace Cheney as well. For Cheney, to a great extent, can be categorized as a Rumsfeld clone since they have worked together for many years both in the present and in the past. And have similar, if not identical, views on central issues involving foreign policy and military strategy. As such, he and Rumsfeld probably have a lot of similar characteristic when it comes to intellectual interpretation and making cognitive decisions.

For example, their collusive behind-the-scenes undermining tactics and maneuvering during this Administration has resulted in making the secretary of state’s position practically nothing more than just a body filling a seat; due to the so-called Rumsfeld and Cheney Cabal. Just talk to former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Had the President listened to the wise counsel of retired General and Secretary Powell, instead of Cheney and cohorts, he wouldn’t have gotten himself and the Country into such an untenable situation as the Iraq fiasco.

Hence, the President should provide Cheney a one-way ticket out of Washington D.C., simultaneously with his sacrificial lamb, Donald Rumsfeld, so they can leave together and remain in lockstep as they are known to have served and governed. Plus, if Vice-president Cheney was an honorable man, he would offer his resignation now, whether the President wanted to accept it or not. A new direction can only be achieved in its entirety if members of the "old guard" are no longer on board. If Mr Bush is truly serious in his pronouncement of wanting to get fresh perspectives on his Iraq war strategy, then he should force Mr Cheney to step down without hesitation. That would not only be the most practical and right thing to do, but would assure US citizens he really means what he says when stating he wants to take a new and cooperative directional course. You decide!

Read more on the Cheney and Rumfeld Cabal at:

Monday, November 06, 2006


(Photos: Google Images)

Republican Party Flag

Tomorrow's mid-term election results could be a pivotal point in U.S. foreign policy by rejection of the Bush administration’s flawed and reckless strategy of spreading democracy by means of applying aggressive military force. And whether Democrats gain control of one or both Houses of Congress or not, I am hoping some semblance of saneness will once again reemerge in how our great Country conducts itself in international affairs. Perhaps, the old African adage that was made famous by President Roosevelt: “walk softly and carry a big stick” will become the new mantra and dominate approach towards dealing in world affairs.

If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, maybe they will get the clear message upon analyzing election results; which will undoubtedly show they narrowly won or almost lost in several key races. Possibly, they will realize that voters, including their own loyal supporters are concerned not only about the Iraq war, but a litany of other restless nights and stomach ache issues as well: collective arrogance; lack of control and balance in government; wasteful pork-barrel spending as if public coffers are their own private bank accounts; increases in public debt; growth in government bureaucracy, which is an abandonment of the Conservative ideology of holding down the size of government, with controlled spending; rubber stamp governance; stubborn failure to admit when wrong and that a new direction is required in Iraq; that their old stale party-line of “staying the course”is no longer acceptable; blatant corruption; allowing lobbyists to influence legislation with duplicity and complicity on part of Republican public officials; and for bringing “dishonor” to the American people by allowing the President to place this great Nation in a situation where its moral authority and honest broker leverage are much weaker, if not completely exhausted, than they were five years ago.

And last but not least, which deserves a separate paragraph, the unforgivable sin of reaping further dishonor upon the United States of America, as reported by the Associate Press on a poll conducted by Ottawa-based EKOS Research, which revealed that: “A majority of people in three countries with close ties to the U.S. — Britain, Canada and Mexico— consider President George W. Bush a threat to world peace, ranking the U.S. president right up there with the leaders of two countries he has labeled part of the "axis of evil" — North Korea's Kim Jong Il and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” I cannot recall in my readings of US American history in which a US president has been so debased in stature, status and morality as has our current President; not even former President Carter.

So will tomorrow's mid-term election be a referendum on the Iraq war, the Bush-Cheney administration or the conservative Republicans as a whole, or all the above? Or will it just be an exercise in the status quo of “politics as usual,” where as voters will feel obligated to vote strictly along party-lines based on misplaced loyalty and blind allegiance? For sake of sanity and badly needed change, let’s hope not. You decide!

P.S. Go Vote! Do your civic duty, responsibly.
Read more of the Associated Press article at:

Thursday, November 02, 2006


(Photos: Google Images)

I watched Senator John Kerry's (D-Mass) heated and pointed news conference day-before-yesterday in response to the Republican’s allegation that he had insulted military servicemen and women with his off-the-wall, botched joke comments while appearing before a college audience in California this past Monday: The senator stated: “If you don't study hard and do your homework, you might “get-stuck-in Iraq.” His comment should have been, objectively, categorized as wise motivational advice for young college students. But his timing was off both in delivery and in a frantic cut-throat political climate. An atmosphere where the opposition party (both Democrats and Republicans) are just like unrelenting vultures circling over head
and foxes watching the chicken coup, patiently waiting for their prey to make a mistake (minor or major) so they can seize the moment to twist words, apply new meaning and interpretation for sole purpose of gaining political leverage. The end justifies the means, is their hidden agenda and a-moral mantra.

In my objective-independent voter opinion, Kerry was right to issue and apology to those who may have misunderstood his true intentions. And he was “also right” in his attempted humorous-advisory comment.

It is a well established fact, with documented historical proof, that those who are less educated and less fortunate and disenfranchised within the US society, or any society for that matter, have less choices in life. As such, they are the ones most likely to enlist in their country’s armed forces for economic reasons, or to simply better themselves. Look at all the enticements being thrown their way by recruiters and in advertisements from all branches of the armed forces. What communities and groups are their primary targets? Those attention getters have no meaning to those young men and women that come from affluent families.
Whether we are talking about an all volunteer force or during times of conscription, this is a reality; decade after decade, generation after generation.

Even when there is a compulsory draft, those that are wealthy, well connected and better educated, can find a way out of entering military service. I am excluding, of course, those well-off, rich folk that may apply for entrance into the “prestigious” military academies. However, during times of war, even many of them will try to use their political and military connections and persuasions to avoid being assigned to the front lines of battle.

Prime examples, are President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. Allegedly, Bush was not sent to Viet Nam because of family connections. And reportedly, Cheney was able to get several deferments from being drafted because he was in college. It isn’t one hundred percent fact whether family connections played a role in either of those decisions or not, respectively. But the bottom line is that Bush nor Cheney stepped up to the plate when their country sounded a trumpeting clarion call for them to render themselves for unconditional service. And as the saying goes: In every rumor, there lies a thread of truth.” The entire Nation and the Republicans are quite aware of both Senator Kerry's exemplary military and Senate records, knowing clearly that he did not "cut-and-run" when duty called.

Probably any other time, Kerry’s remarks would have more likely been overlooked since everyone is aware he is not a good story teller, nor a humorist or comedian? But this critical time was different, in that crucial mid-term elections are just several days away. Was the senators’s gaffe an October gift to the Republicans? I doubt it. But we will all know by next Wednesday morning as to whether US American voters are so vulnerable to allow one senator’s blundering remarks to influence them in taking their eyes and minds off the real issues confronting their country. I doubt they will be so myopic and closed minded. A miraculous gift the Republicans are hoping for in the end. You decide!.

Read more on Senator and military veteran John Kerry-CLICK LINK.