- Wednesday, June 21 2006 12:28:41
"Name me another country that has invaded another sovereign nation under false grounds"
What false grounds?? Saddam did in fact violate numerous treaties and UN Resolutions and every single Intelligence Agency on the planet assumed that Saddam still possessed WMDs. Go ahead and read any of the statements of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Jay Rockefeller about the dangers of Saddam Hussein leading up to the war and in many cases their statements were even more alarmist than what Bush stated.
Actually, their remarks were based upon intelligence given them by the Bush Administration. Many of the original points and foci of the Admisnitration's arguments have been proven false by history. (No WMDs -- the original argument, BTW -- etc, etc, etc.) "Freeing" the Iraqi people" was a very late addition to the party line. We have, as a nation, never launched a proactive war to "free" any people from their own government.
And, as a matter of historical record, the CIA and British Intelligence were pretty much alone in the WMDs -- and we were relying on their documents.
"Who kidnaps foreign nationals and places them in black sites hidden from all outside contact"
Every war ever conducted involves the taking of POWs who are always held until the war is over - at least, unlike FDR and Japanese-American citizens, Muslims weren't rounded up by the tens of thousands and incarcerated for the duration of the war and their property confiscated.
Yes. The taking of POWs is permitted. POW treatment is a very specific set of circumstances, and is under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention. The Bush Administration has very specifically avoided labeling our prisoners as POWs to avoid having to treat them according to international convention. Again, look it up, it's a matter of historical record.
"Who torture in order to obtain information"
"Allegedly" torture is more accurate. Perhaps if you consider sleep deprivation and loud music to be torture. Abu Ghraib resulted in severe punishment for those responsible whereas the terrorists whom the US is fighting would consider the Abu Ghraib treatment to be punishable for being too kind.
Again, you're quoting party line and ignoring the facts. To date only a few lower level soldiers have been tried and/or convicted. The International Red Cross would differ with you on the definition of tortue, as would those nations we have "allowed" to have prisoners so that they can extract information. Abu Graib is a single example, and with only a little effort you can find recent documentation of many other examples.
"Who spy on their own citizens"
Canada did exactly that when investigating the alleged 17 Islamic terrorists who planned on blowing up Toronto and beheading the Prime Minister. I guarantee every other Western country (including Britain, France and Germany) is conducting similar surveillance operations that have not been reported because the Press is far less free there than in the U.S.
First of all, we ain't Canada or anyone else. Nor are the wiretaps and other methods being employed by the government legal means. Circumventing the law, even if you're the President, doesn't make it legal.
"Intimidate their supposedly free press"
Examples?? Other than unsubstantiated and frequently refuted claims by shameless reporters like Christiane Amanpour this assertion is pure nonsense. Perhaps Mark is referring to the Jayson Blair members of the media?
Please, please, please check the records before writing something like this. Less than two weeks ago Congress approved a Bush Administration item that increased fines for "indecency" by tenfold. There is no definition for what constitutes an infringement, only a vague "to be determined by the FCC". Not only is the fine excessive (it can be per incident multiplied by the number of stations running the "offensive" material),but also creates a dampening affect on the Constitutional rights of the station. Since stations are beholden to shareholders, it becomes the parent companies' fiduciary responsibility to avoid all potential fines, effectively censoring the media.
"Do not provide national assistance to its own citizens during national emergencies"
Based on such illogic I suppose State and Local government is exempt from providing such assistance as they were supposed to.
Having recently returned from New Orleans and spoken to people there, I'm stunned that there are still people who assume that the State and Loal governments are the only ones responsible for a response. It isn't that they didn't react, it's that FEMA and the Bush Administration committed serious errors in responding, the vast majority of which were and are inexcusable. Again, check the public record, including FEMA's own report.
"Whose economy is teetering on the brink of ruin with a soaring debt and overwhelming trade imbalance"
As a percentage of GDP the debt is actually no greater historically than in the past, especially considering that Bush inherited a massive recession (the Internet bubble burst) from Clinton followed by 9/11 which resulted in a TRILLION dollars being lost in the economy within a week of the attacks.
Party line response. The national debt has increased by the highest percentage in history. The stock market bubble actually had a very minor effect on the common person's finances. The 911 attacks jolted the economy, yes, but not by a trillion dollars within a few weeks.
To compare Guantanamo with the Soviet Gulag is sheer idiocy. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Soviets incarcerated a minimum of 25 million political prisoners with roughly 2 to 3 million deaths. Guantanamo has less than 500 prisoners and so far only 3 have died (at their own hands). Comparing the U.S. administration to the Nazis is as revolting and reprehensible a comment as was ever made. Those who make such comments prove one thing and one thing only: their absolute ignorance of history.
You may find the anology offensive, but the record shows that our personal rights have been seriously eroded under this presidency. Many of their arguments and issues demonize minorities or minority groups. The lower and middle classes have seen an erosion of their financial clout, and we have seen a substantial surge in the wealth of corporations and the richest individuals. You'll note that corporation involvement in government is a fundamental aspect of fascism, and the fact (historical) that so many of our current administration's policies were written by corporate officers should give you pause.
I'm not attacking you personally, but you've got to do more research that parroting party line and Fox News statistics. The above information is substantiated by public record, and I'd encourage you to see if what you quote on the Pavilion is indeed born out by the facts.