Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Jim Wrenn
Bio: Jim Wrenn
Date:  September 10, 2011
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Science Fiction

For This Date 11, Month 9, remember to also take time to thank and support our troops, who deport jihadists to Hell for all time.
On the Tenth Anniversary of the 9-11 Attack, we owe our greatest thanks to our troops who are serving, who have served, who are wounded and who died and also to their families.

After thanking our troops and their families, we should thank those who exhibited the political courage in leading and supporting our troops in their mission to keep the jihadists off-balance and on the defensive while our troops and special forces hunt them down: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, special forces who captured Saddam Hussein, special forces who killed Usama bin Laden, our intelligence operatives (including interrogators), and many more. We should also remember that we should also thank those in the foregoing list that Qadaffi gave up his nuclear-weapons program shortly after our troops captured Saddam Hussein.

            Today, Date 11, Month 9, remember to also take time to thank and support our troops, who deport jihadists to Hell for all time.    

            It's true that Saddam didn't plan the Nine-One-One hit on our land, and likewise it's plain attacks on those planes were missions al Qaeda had planned.  Our forces we rightly dispatched to Afghans' domains to dispatch al Qaeda, foremost, and Taliban hosts, for launching on us such attack.  

            That help, not resistance, be gleaned for forces we sent to the scene 'twas rightly perceived for warlords to be our allies, our force must be lean.

            And meanwhile, the world knew Saddam, who harbored desires for a Bomb, consistently lied in claims he'd complied with truce-terms imposed on Saddam.  Though Wilson, the husband of Plame, proclaimed that "Saddam hadn't made a yellow-cake 'buy,'" he falsely implied Saddam hadn't tried as Bush claimed.  

            So Dubya correctly perceived the danger if we were to leave Saddam un-inspected, and so he elected demands that inspections proceed.  However, Saddam sternly ordered inspectors to not cross his border 'til Dubya said "Now" and put three-hundred thousand American troops on his border.  

 

Thanks In Our Name (Tribute to Our Troops) from PoliticalXray a.k.a. PoliSat.Com on Vimeo.

.            The critics of Dubya maintained as long as inspectors remained inside Saddam's borders that Bush shouldn't order our forces to topple Hussein.   However, what critics ignore is absent our keeping such force positioned with orders along Saddam's borders, inspectors he'd oust as before. 

            And then, in such case, he'd be free again to make WMD's, and thus he'd by now again be endowed with weapons called "WMD's."  And, further, to counter Iran's attempts to develop a Bomb, he surely would have resumed what he'd had:  A program for making a Bomb.

            Though Bush-critics argued that "sanctions" were means for preventing such actions, such claims are shown wrong by Kim Il Jung's Bomb despite strong enforcement of "sanctions."  Since Dubya was right to conclude that "sanctions" would never preclude design of a Bomb controlled by Saddam, reality's options were two:     

The two ways by which to prevent 
Saddam getting Bombs he'd invent?  
Inspections maintained 
or topple Hussein
if Bombs for Saddam we'd prevent.

Remember, Saddam's prior ejection of experts deployed for inspections 'til Dubya deployed a quite-massive force next-door for a "yes" to inspections?  Without such force being maintained, no doubt the next move by Hussein would be the ejection of expert inspections and back to Square One once again.

 

 

Bush-Wars Retrospective from PoliticalXray  on Vimeo.

            If faith in inspections we'd placed, the permanent burden we'd face would thus mean, of course, maintaining such force of three-hundred-thousand in place.  (Remember the motives explained by those flying Nine-One-One planes?  'Twas 'cause we'd deployed a token-sized force "in Arabic lands," they proclaimed.)  And even if we had maintained a large enough force to constrain Saddam to permit inspections, his tricks could still fool inspectors again(Remember in One-Nine-Nine-Four inspectors proclaimed that "No more remained  of Saddam's designs for a Bomb," but then learned by luck he had more?  Proclaiming his Bomb-works they'd closed, they learned they'd been duped by his pose when one of his kin said "Bomb-work had been continued right under their nose.")   And further, few nations were willing to honor the sanctions for chilling the search by Saddam for stuff to make Bombs from those who for him would be shilling.  

            The risks from "inspections maintained" meant one other option remained:  Ensuring "no Bomb" meant toppling Saddam with boots on the ground of Hussein.

            Though errors in hindsight appeared:  The WMD's that we feared were either destroyed or elsewhere deployed and never in battle appeared.  And errors in hindsight appeared on how to best handle the fears and grudges arising from ethnic despising suppressed in Saddam Hussein's years.  

            That chaos thereafter transpired when thugs from al Qaeda lit fires of hatred that bore resemblance to war is not proof we're wrongly inspired.  Instead, what thereafter transpired as chaos in which we are mired is proof that the job is tougher but not a job that was wrongly "conspired."  Our mission remains just as "just" as most would concede if our "bust" of Sǎddam's regime was perfectly schemed for drinking from liberty's cup.  

            If Bush were instead to have heeded the chant, "Ousting Sǎddam's not needed," it's likely Saddam would now have a Bomb, and what would Bush-critics be pleading?  They'd now impugn Bush 43 for "letting" Iraqis succeed in building a nuke the way they impugned his dad 'cause he left Saddam free.

            The Bush-critics casting of blame is half-hindsight thinking displayed-- For more, simply play the video named "Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay."  "Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay" will play when an image displayed above on this page, is clicked, which will play  "Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay."  Regarding the text that's displayed in all of those video frames, to find it displayed as text click the page "Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay."   For video made to extract a fair-hindsight view of the facts, one also can play the video named "Exposing [of] Bush on Iraq."  

            The two "vids" above that I list were authored in 2006, when Bush critics urged, "Withdraw, do not surge,
this war is a loss we can't fix."
  Such critics included Barack, who said, "Get out fast from Iraq, and funds I'll oppose 'cause ev'ryone knows we simply can't 'win' in Iraq."  With Reid and Pelosi he tried to hold-back the funds for our side, but Bush-- no lame duck-- made them pony-up with Joe joining John on his side.  And now in Two-Thousand-and-Eight the fruits of the surge have been great, yet those who opposed it won't say though they know it, and vict'ry we're near in '08.

            Perhaps as you're reading you find the words are in rhythm and rhyme.  If so, you're astute, so scroll-down to view the stanzas a line at a time.  

--Jim Wrenn, Editor, PoliSat.Com; PoliticalXray.Com.

Permanent link to this installment: 

http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/Archives2011/du20y11m09d11-01.htm 

 

   Read this column first

Today, Date 11, Month 9 
with reverence we pause to take time 
to thanks and support 
our troops who deport 
jihadists to Hell for all time.

It's true that Saddam didn't plan
the Nine-One-One hit on our land,
and likewise it's plain
attacks on those planes
were missions al Qaeda had planned.

Our forces we rightly dispatched
to Afghans' domains to dispatch
al Qaeda, foremost,
and Taliban hosts,
for launching on us such attack.

That help, not resistance, be gleaned
for forces we sent to the scene
'twas rightly perceived
for warlords to be
our allies, our force must be lean.

And meanwhile, the world knew Saddam,
who harbored desires for a Bomb,
consistently lied
in claims he'd complied
with truce-terms imposed on Saddam.

Though Wilson, the husband of Plame,
proclaimed that "Saddam hadn't made
a yellow-cake 'buy,'"
he falsely implied
Saddam hadn't tried as Bush claimed.

So Dubya correctly perceived
the danger if we were to leave
Saddam un-inspected,
and so he elected
demands that inspections proceed.

However, Saddam sternly ordered
inspectors to not cross his border
'til Dubya said "Now" and
put three-hundred thousand
American troops on his border.

The critics of Dubya maintained
as long as inspectors remained
inside Saddam's borders
that Bush shouldn't order
our forces to topple Hussein.

However, what critics ignore
is absent our keeping such force
positioned with orders
along Saddam's borders,
inspectors he'd oust as before.

And then, in such case, he'd be free
again to make WMD's,
and thus he'd by now
again be endowed
with weapons called "WMD's"

And, further, to counter Iran's
attempts to develop a Bomb,
he surely would have
resumed what he'd had:
A program for making a Bomb.

Though Bush-critics argued that "sanctions"
were means for preventing such actions,
such claims are shown wrong
by Kim Il Jung's Bomb
despite strong enforcement of "sanctions."

Since Dubya was right to conclude
that "sanctions" would never preclude
design of a Bomb
controlled by Saddam,
reality's options were two:

The two ways by which to prevent 
Saddam getting Bombs he'd invent?  
Inspections maintained 
or topple Hussein
if Bombs for Saddam we'd prevent.

Remember, Saddam's prior ejection
of experts deployed for inspections
'til Dubya deployed
a quite-massive force
next-door for a "yes" to inspections?

Without such force being maintained,
no doubt the next move by Hussein
would be the ejection
of expert inspections
and back to Square One once again.

If faith in inspections we'd placed,
the permanent burden we'd face
would thus mean, of course,
maintaining such force
of three-hundred-thousand in place.

(Remember the motives explained
by those flying Nine-One-One planes?
'Twas 'cause we'd deployed
a token-sized force
"in Arabic lands," they proclaimed.)

And even if we had maintained
a large enough force to constrain
Saddam to permit
inspections, his tricks
could still fool inspectors again.

Read this column second

(Remember in One-Nine-Nine-Four
inspectors proclaimed that "No more

remained of Saddam's
designs for a Bomb,"
but then learned by luck he had more?

Proclaiming his Bomb-works they'd closed,
they learned they'd been duped by his pose

when one of his kin
said "Bomb-work had been
continued right under their nose.")

And further, few nations were willing
to honor the sanctions for chilling
the search by Saddam
for stuff to make Bombs
from those who for him would be shilling.

The risks from "inspections maintained"
meant one other option remained:
Ensuring "no Bomb"
meant toppling Saddam
with boots on the ground of Hussein.

Though errors in hindsight appeared:
The WMD's that we feared
were either destroyed 
or elsewhere deployed
and never in battle appeared.

And errors in hindsight appeared
on how to best handle the fears
and grudges arising
from ethnic despising
suppressed in Saddam Hussein's years.

That chaos thereafter transpired
when thugs from al Qaeda lit fires
of hatred that bore
resemblance to war
is not proof we're wrongly inspired.

Instead, what thereafter transpired
as chaos in which we are mired
is proof that the job
is tougher but not
a job that was wrongly "conspired."

Our mission remains just as "just"
as most would concede if our "bust"
of Sǎddam's regime
was perfectly schemed
for drinking from liberty's cup.

If Bush were instead to have heeded
the chant, "Ousting Sǎddam's not needed,"
it's likely Saddam
would now have a Bomb,
and what would Bush-critics be pleading?

They'd now impugn Bush 43
for "letting" Iraqis succeed
in building a nuke
the way they impugned
his dad 'cause he left Saddam free.

The Bush-critics casting of blame 
is half-hindsight thinking displayed-- 
For more, simply play 
the video named 
"Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay."  

"Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay" 
will play when an image displayed 
above on this page, 
is clicked, which will play  
"Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay."  

Regarding the text that's displayed 
in all of those video frames, 
to find it displayed 
as text click the page 
"Rewind [and] Rewrite [and] Replay."   

For video made to extract 
a fair-hindsight view of the facts, 
one also can play
the video named 
"Exposing [of] Bush on Iraq."

The two "vids" above that I list 
were authored in 2006,
when Bush critics urged,
"Withdraw, do not surge,
this war is a loss we can't fix."

Such critics included Barack,
who said, "Get out fast from Iraq,
and funds I'll oppose
'cause ev'ryone knows
we simply can't 'win' in Iraq."

With Reid and Pelosi he tried
to hold-back the funds for our side,
but Bush-- no lame duck--
made them pony-up
with Joe joining John on his side.

And now in Two-Thousand-and-Eight
the fruits of the surge have been great,
yet those who opposed it
won't say though they know it,
and vict'ry we're near in '08.

Jim Wrenn,
Editor, PoliSat.Com.

 

After finishing this column, go to the right-hand column.

Jim Wrenn
Political Satire/Commentary at PoliSat.Com (Editor)

Send email feedback to Jim Wrenn


Biography - Jim Wrenn

Jim is a proud descendant of 18th Century criminal exiles from England who swam to the Outer Banks when the British ship taking them to a Georgia penal colony sank in a storm near Cape Hatteras. Having the prescience to prevent their descendants from becoming "TarHeels," they immediately migrated to Virginia, where, within just a few generations they worked their way up into poverty. Jim's grandfather was the first in the family tree to see the distant horizons, but his career was cut short by severe injuries he sustained when a cousin cut down the tree.

After a brief stint in the Amry (ours) following graduation from law school, he began his legal career in the state bureaucracy but was never able to break into the federal bureaucracy. Several years later, he entered the private practice of law and co-founded a small law publishing company. Later, finding the publishing of small laws unstimulating and finding his private practice too private to be lucrative, he began writing political satire/commentary. His greatest vice is taking himself too seriously.

He wrote the definitive books on the Clinton Era Error: the Clinton Liebrary Book (pre-October, 2000), which he later updated as the Clinton Liebrary Book 2001 Edition to include Election 2000, the post-election shennanigans, and related events through August, 2001. The 2001 edition is the only known literary source that conclusively shows why Bill Clinton pardoned Susan McDougal but not Webster Hubbel. It also presciently contains the Billary/Hillary Dueling Memoirs. At every opportunity he shamelessly promotes his books for orders on-line or by fax at www.ClintonLiebraryBook.Com. He's also the Librarian at the Clinton Liebrary (www.ClintonLiebrary.Com), which owns exclusive rights to Bill Clinton's most famous speech as well as Bill Clinton's comments after revelation of the identity of Deep Throat in 2005.

As an amateur scientist as well as a scientific amateur, he de-bunks the man-is-causing-Global "Warming" theory, and predicts that by the middle of the 21st Century (when he will be safely dead) physicists will discover the obvious flaws in Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which will lead to vastly-faster-than-light travel through polarization of gravity. As a constitutional-law scholar, he's trying to teach those who hold a static, zero-sum-game view of economic and social theories to understand that "property" is not a "thing" but rather is a human right.

Although he regularly teaches Continuing Legal Education courses to lawyers, he's too-often available through he Rubber Chicken Speakers Bureau to speak on politics, satire, etc., at luncheons, dinners, root canals, funerals, etc. His speaking fees are so outrageously high they border on criminal price-gouging, but as a free-market advocate, he defends his fees on the higher moral ground of charging whatever the traffic will bear. For more information (surely more than one would want or need), go to www.PoliSat.Com.


Read other commentaries by Jim Wrenn.

Visit Jim Wrenn's website at Political Satire/Commentary at PoliSat.Com

Copyright 2011 by Jim Wrenn
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved