Constitution Party of Texas
 Return Home
 Party Info
 National Platform
 State Platform
 Latest News
 Support the Party
 Candidates for Office
 Sign our Guestbook
 Join the Discussion
 Campaign Materials
 Local Contact
 Are you a Terrorist?
 Audio Clips
 Free Stuff
United States
The US Constitution
The Declaration of Independence
Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalist Papers
Other Founding Documents
Smoking gun?
More like Smoking Dope

After watching the Bush administration play catch me spank me games with Iraq for the past year, I wonder why just 10 days away from the pre-planned invasion (the date was set last year according to my sources), Bush finally spills the beans and brings up his new evidence. Could it be that his "evidence" will be seen to be no evidence at all? Could it be that the Bush war machine realizes that their provocation for a unilateral, pre-emptive invasion of a foreign nation will not stand up to lengthy or careful scrutiny?

Let's play along with the Bush administration and their toadies for a moment though and assume that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. Let's say that Saddam would even have the ability to slip them to a terrorist cell in an effort to have them deployed here in America. Let's say that our FBI, the hero's of Waco, the false accusers of Richard Jewell, the murderers of Vicki Weaver and a host of other "accomplishments", manages to drop the ball on this one too.

Does anyone think for a moment that the United States would not retaliate with nuclear weapons against Baghdad?

Of course we would, in fact the entire world knows this and it has been made plain before in the past when the first Bush regime stated so in no uncertain terms. Before Desert Storm, Bush the First made it clear that if Saddam used such weapons we would retaliate decisively and without hesitation. That was when Saddam had the ability to actually deliver these weapons at least with long range artillery against US military personnel and he didn't do it then.

Why then would Saddam want to commit suicide at this point? If Saddam were an extremist Muslim such as those that run Pakistan and have nuclear weapons, submarines and the missiles to deploy them, we might make an argument for such a suicidal Jihad maneuver. Unfortunately for the Bush administration, Saddam is a secular atheist who doesn't have any love for the Taliban, Al Qaida, Sunni or Shiite Muslims who all despise him.

Citing a host of unconfirmed, un-named and most likely un-true sources of intelligence of dubious integrity, Bush has nonetheless determined that he will have his little war, a war that he had planned long before the September 11th attacks by SAUDI ARABIAN terrorists. Bush also mentioned falsely that Hussein has longstanding ties to terrorist organizations in a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Last time I checked we not only had longstanding ties with the Taliban terrorists in Iraq, we gave them massive quantities of weapons as well. We also gave Saddam Hussein the same kind of support at one time, not that we want to remember that little fact.

Further, this evidence was gleaned only recently, not months ago when the Bush administration set in stone the invasion of Iraq, a nation which sits atop one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Meanwhile, Kim Il Jong, brutal dictator of North Korea has threatened the United States with a pre-emptive nuclear strike from nuclear weapons we helped him produced. Bush has indicated that Kim Il Jong will be handled diplomatically. Kim Il Jong has missiles capable of reaching the United States of America, a million man army but fortunately for him he has no oil reserves.

Could there be a connection here? Could it be that Bush, a politician, has a hidden agenda?

We have also ordered Saddam Hussein to disarm, that's actually a very old tactic that the political left in America have been trying here in America. Those of us who realize that disarming ourselves so that panty-waist liberals can feel secure is akin to forcing another sovereign nation to disarm so that panty-waist neo-conservatives can feel the same. In both instances a group of ivory-towered elitists are forcing another group to disarm themselves in the face of obvious hostile aggressors. If you were the leader of even the most benevolent Middle Eastern Country would YOU disarm?

While Saddam is no doubt an evil individual, the world is chock-full of them and it is not the duty of the United States to do this despite hysterical cries from global utopian idiots to the contrary.

But even if all of Bushes dubious claims prove to have merit, (which I doubt, the man is after all a double dealing politician with delusions of grandeur), let's ask the really important questions. First, why on earth does the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America need to be involved in this entire fiasco in the first place? While we can put the blame squarely on George Bush Senior and his UN toadies for the current state of affairs in that region, that is no reason to continue this awful legacy. There is a saying, don't put good money in after bad and we should take that advice now, pull out and say "adios, good luck, if you so much as look in our direction to start trouble we'll flatten you like a bug". In short, our Republic should return to the tried and true policy of minding our own business with a big enough stick in our hands to let anyone know that has "funny" ideas that it will cost them their lives to try it.

Globalists, elitists and other would be aristocrats have always wanted to abuse their office and power to make their own legacies as well as to expand their personal fortunes and those of their friends. The fact that it is done with money extracted at gunpoint from the people whom they are supposed to serve and that the sons and daughters of these same people will be the ones that die ought to be a point of outrage for the entire American people.

Unfortunately, we will continue down the road of foreign entanglements with this current war on Iraq spawning further attacks by terrorists against America which will spawn other wars. At the end of it all there will be a lot of American taxpayer money wasted and a lot of innocent civilians killed and maimed. All of this is avoidable, but only if America returns to the rule of law, which is, the Constitution of The United States of America.

In Freedom,
Al Lorentz
State Chairman, Constitution Party of Texas
7 Febuary 2003

Al Lorentz is a Fundamentalist Christian and the State Chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas

Al Lorentz's Bio. Untitled

When honest people who hold strong opinions come together, it is natural that they state their opinions, and that those opinions occasionally clash. The articles that you see on this website represent the opinion of the writers, and are not the official opinion of this party. To see the official party position on any question, the reader is referred to the Party Platform.

Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author,and our URL. All CP Texas reports, and all editorials are property of The Constitution Party of Texas 2002 (unless otherwise noted).

Previous Articles by Al Lorentz

          Produced by JSager Web Designs