Main News
County Living
Church Announcements
Dated Events
Military News
Subscribe to the Transcript

Get Out And Enjoy The Summer Weather!

Please visit our kind sponsors

Issue Home July 22, 2009 Site Home

Letters to the Editor Policy

The Three Hitlers

The CIA has a history of bestowing Hitler's mantle on the leaders of uncooperative regimes. Three unfortunates have been cloaked with this odious distinction: Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Noriega was the military dictator of Panama for 7 years while moonlightening for the CIA for 30 years. His code name was rent-a-colonel. But rent-a-colonel became a little too independent, hard to handle. Double-dealing with communist Cuba was suspected. Something had to be done.

Suddenly, a spate of stories began to appear in newspapers; Noriega was a south-of-the-boarder Hitler, drug runner and money launderer. He had to go.

The U.S. invaded Panama in 1989. Noriega was arrested, tried on the latter two charges and convicted. He remains in prison to this day.

Next in line to receive the Order of the Swastika was Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq. He wasn't always a Mideast fuhrer.

Hussein's story begins in 1958. In that year, General al-Qarim led a successful coup and became military dictator of Iraq. From the start, he made noises about nationalizing the oil industries, invading Kuwait (once part of Iraq), and was becoming a little too friendly with Russia. Something had to be done.

The CIA's hit man for the job was street thug and Bath Party member, Saddam Hussein.

Hussein botched the job. But in 1963 the Bath Party - with a little help from the CIA - succeeded in assassinating Qarim and took power. And that street thug? He soon became leader of the Bath Party and took his turn at being military dictator of Iraq.

Hussein was plaint with U.S. Interests. In return he received financial and military support. For his part, the Iraqi strongman was no worse than other dictators the U.S. has supported: Pinochet, Marcos, Suharto, Somoza, Mubarak, Al Saud, to name a few.

But that support ended when he invaded Kuwait. A union of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil reserves would be the second largest in the world. The street thug had become too powerful, too independent.

The papers were flooded with comparisons between Hitler and Hussein. He had to go.

The U.S. invaded Iraq. And Hussein? He ended his 48-year tie with the CIA swinging from a rope.

This brings us to the last unfortunate to be tarred with Hitler's moniker: Mahmoud Admadinejad, President of Iran. Admadinejad, unlike the previous 2 Hitlers, was democratically elected. He was reelected in 2009 in a hotly disputed election. (Sounds just like our 2004 election between Bush and Gore.)

Admadinejad's goal is to unite Venezuela, Syria, and the Arab oil states; a union which threatens U.S. hegemony in the region. Enter the CIA.

Deposing governments -democratically elected or not - which threaten U.S. interests is the business of the CIA. According to John Stockwell, former CIA official and author of “The CIA's Greatest Hits,” that organization has overthrown democracies in 20 countries. Iran would be No. 21.

The financial recession has cooled the CIA's intrigues but not extinguished them. According to Dr. Michael Ledeen, American foreign policy expert and CIA advisor, the Iranians “have been killing Americans all over the world.” Ledeen is also convinced that the Islamic Republic plans to “test” an A-bomb on Israel.

Ledeen and fellow hysterics in Washington and Tel Aviv sound like the screech of a falling bomb; it's the hallmark of alarmists, and alarmists are always alarmed.

But we had better be careful with this Hitler. Unlike Panama and Iraq, Iran can hit back and hit back hard.


Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

Freedom Lost, Part 1

For those of you who read Jason Legg’s article (and if you didn’t, you should) in the County Transcript or Montrose Independent the week of July 6, you read a very compelling argument as to why you should oppose the federal Hate Crimes bill which President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are trying to quickly enact. Above and beyon that which Jason Legg presented in his argument, I suggest that you consider the broader scope of  this legislation. Our DA noted that if he were assaulted because he is Catholic, his assailant could be prosecuted under the Hate Crime bill, notwithstanding that assault is already a crime under Pennsylvania law. So ask yourself, why do we need a Hate Crime bill and who would want to promote such a thing? Consider this, let’s say you are a Catholic in the city of Boston and join in a demonstration opposing gay marriage. Under this new bill, you could be charged with a hate crime if it were alleged that you intimidated gay people. Boston, a city with a strong Catholic presence, probably wouldn’t prosecute you but the Federal Government would. Or say you lived in Arizona and demonstrated against illegal immigration. Arizona is not going to prosecute you but, under this new bill, the Federal Government would since you allegedly frightened the illegal immigrants. Just a few Federal prosecutions under such a law would very quickly put a substantial damper on demonstrations against popular Liberal agendas, not to mention the assault on peaceable assembly of the people guaranteed in Article I of the Bill of Rights.

Why is this legislation being pushed quickly? Could it be because if the citizens had time to reflect on the impact of such legislation, they would not support it, maybe even protest against it before the protest becomes a federal Hate Crime? Who is promoting it? Why, it just might be the Progressives (of whatever stripe) who do not support the family values in which most of us believe or want open borders to broaden their base of liberal, government dependent constituents. It looks to me like an attempt is being made, contrary to Article X of the Bill of Rights, to expand the powers of the Federal Government beyond those specifically enumerated by our founding fathers. It also looks like our States Rights are being suborned for the purpose of developing their voting base. Any way you look at it, it is not a good sign for our Freedom and could be representative of the Progressive goal of changing our form of government.

Demand that your Representatives (I use the word “your” loosely) vote against this bill. Tell them that if they don’t listen to you, you will find someone who will, come 2010. Remember, we get the government that we deserve and if you sit on your duff, don’t complain about what you get.


Joe McCann

Elk Lake, PA

Letters To The Editor MUST BE SIGNED. They MUST INCLUDE a phone number for "daytime" contact. Letters MUST BE CONFIRMED VERBALLY with the author, before printing. Letters should be as concise as possible, to keep both Readers' and Editors' interest alike. Your opinions are important to us, but you must follow these guidelines to help assure their publishing.

Thank you, Susquehanna County Transcript

News  |  Living  |  Sports  |  Schools  |  Churches  |  Ads  |  Events
Military  |  Columns  |  Ed/Op  |  Obits  | Archive  |  Subscribe