The Bush Regime Is Still Determined to Lie to the American People
In the end, I don’t know what’s worse: Rummy’s flagrant disrespect for those who serve or the fact that I can find so little coverage of it save for the above-linked opinion piece (of course, there’s no mention of it on the War Department’s site). Senator Jeff Bingaman is trying to change that, though his proposed amendment was defeated along party lines. In contrast, the GOP-controlled House already passed such a bill. I never thought I’d see it, but apparently some things are too reprehensible even for the Republicans — House Republicans at that.
The invasion of Iraq didn’t have a thing to do with the war on terrorism. The strategists at the top of the Bush regime have cleverly changed the word “terrorism” to “terror” so they can claim anything is related to the attacks of 9/11, without actually coming out and saying it. “Ooh, Saddam is bad, he inspires ‘terror’... we’re not saying anything, but you can put two and two together.”
As for comparing Saddam Hussein with Hitler, are you out of your fucking mind? It didn’t work ten years ago, when Saddam Hussein actually invaded another country; what makes you think it’s any more valid now? Let me spell it out, so even a mental midget like yourself can understand: Saddam’s Iraq posed no legitimate threat to the United States. In case you haven’t been following current events, he didn’t have the so-called “weapons of mass destruction” your overlord used to justify our invasion. To imply that he was a threat to “millions” is rank stupidity. Now, let’s see, who has invaded a foreign nation over the objections of pretty much the whole world, and actually does pose a threat to millions...?
The DoD’s decision to group both the Afghanistan campaign and the Iraq invasions under the single “Global War On Terrorism” medal is political posturing at its worst.
I don’t know where you got the idea that Clinton was my hero. I’ve certainly never written that, or at least not that I can remember.
Oh, and their “failing religion”? I thought this wasn’t a war against Islam. After all, that’s what Duh-bya said, right around the time he called it a “crusade.” I guess that at least as far as you’re concerned, he was wrong.
Sometimes these things just write themselves.
Saddam Hussein was evil. We have no argument there. Taking him out was a noble goal, as I stated just last week. And at no point have I ever defended Saddam Hussein. Your accusation to that effect reminds me of the GOP ad questioning the patriotism of anyone who criticized Bush’s handling of the Iraqi invasion — Disagree with me? You must be a traitor!
But here’s the kicker, the point you seem all too ready to gloss over: Duh-bya didn’t use the “ethnic cleansing” argument — which had the benefit of actually being true — to go after Saddam. He did use the “weapons of mass destruction” argument — a lie — to convince the American people to go to war. He told us that Saddam and al Qaeda were connected — another lie. Slobodan Milosevic’s atrocities had the added danger of destabilizing Europe, unlike Saddam Hussein’s. But if, as you say (and frankly, I don’t argue), the “ethnic cleansing” argument was sufficient to justify war (even if not right now, while we were embroiled in an anti-terrorism conflict), then little George had an obligation to use that argument. Frankly, if he had, he might have convinced the rest of the world that the United States actually was in the right, as opposed to being a bully determined to pursue its own interests at the expense of world security.
Oh, and I like that — despite my only having referred to him twice (and really only in passing) in the history of my weblog — you think Clinton was my “crony.” I never imagined that folks would think we were personal buddies (and apparently had been for some time now), but it’s nice to hear.
If you call the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers based on a lie “moral values,” then your definition of “morality” leaves quite a bit to be desired.
Then again, since you didn’t know the definition of “crony” (a relatively simple word I recall mastering somewhere in junior high school), I wouldn’t be surprised if you were similarly lacking in your understanding of the word “moral.”
Maybe it's about rescuing people from an evil government. Approximately how many people do you think have died as a result of the war in The Democratic Republic of Congo? "War? Congo?", you're probably saying to yourself right now. Yep! Believe it or not, despite it not being hyped in the media, stuff actually happens elsewhere in the world. Anyway, the answer is 3.5 million have died. So why save the Iraqi people?
Do you know who Felicien Kabuga, Augustin Bizimana, Idelphonse Hategekimana, Augustin Ngirabatware, Idelphonse Nizeyimana, Protais Mpiranya, Callixte Nzabonimana, Yusuf John Munyakazi, Ryandikayo, Charles Sikubwabo, Aloys Ndimbati are? Don't feel bad because neither did I. I stumbled across the list while looking for information about the genocide in Rwanda. They're wanted fugitives for war crimes - crimes against humanity. Try to guess how many died in Rwanda within a 100 day period in 1994. Answer: 800,000. So why Saddam Hussein?
The ends justify the means? I guess that makes it okay to rob a bank as long as you give the money to the poor. Right? It's okay for the police to break into someone's house without a warrant as long as they find something illegal. Right? I could go on forever with scenarios, but hopefully you get the point.
Keep thinking about that question: Why Iraq?
Pretty much what the Bush regime has done here. But frankly, Jeff, I think your response was much better.
You have brought up some very interesting points. First Rwanda 1994. Who was president? Clinton went after targets in the former Yugoslavia because they were hard targets. Meaning easily identified. Tanks, troop positions etc. Clinton learned a lesson in Somalia about going after unconventional enemies. Rwanda was not a conventional problem. North Korea, I agree is an enemy and if you have read any of the stories coming out of there the atrocities against humanity are staggering. I believe we need to take them out as well, however, it won't be as easy as Iraq. The NK army is huge, and well trained. They would not wait for us to build up our military in SK like Saddam did. They would attack first. Seoul would be captured. In Iraq we have lost less people then we did on Sept 11th. In a war on the Korean peninsula, it would be a huge tragedy and the loss of life would be huge. To a lesser point, the US has less of an interest in NK. I don't feel that your mention of Russia is valid. They are not a terrorist state. Neither is China, though I do feel they are a threat as well. If Europe is looking for another super power to offset the US look no further than China. So by toppling Saddam we have hopefully started the first domino and a chain reaction that will bring more stability and democracy to that region of the world. Jeff you really have impressed me with your statements. Therefore I invite you to more debate. I also frequent starktruth.com you may duel me there as well. Another point that should be made here is Rwanda is yet another problem that has to due with Muslims. And the Fall of Saddam will open doors to Christianity, a far more peaceful religion, also as stated democracy, a far more stable form of Gov.
To be honest, what the neoconservative crusade wants is instability in the region, i.e., the toppling of autocratic governments and the installation of so-called democratic ones. Should they succeed (and given their staggering success in Iraq so far, I ain’t holding my breath), a collection of “democratic” nations may prove more advantageous to American interests, but not inherently more stable.
And Christianity’s a “far more peaceful religion” than Islam? Um, really? Could have fooled me.
Leaving aside the likelihood that Christianity may actually end up more oppressed than under the secular government of Saddam Hussein — if, as is being demanded, the new Iraqi constitution enshrines the supremacy of Islam — Christianity is in no way a more peaceful religion than Islam.
Yes, Islam has extremist adherents who use their religion as an excuse for committing atrocious acts. So does Christianity (in fact, from an historical standpoint, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more brutal religion than Christianity). Yes, certain violent dogmas are enshrined in the texts of the religion — again, same with Christianity. But as the religions are observed by the vast majority of their practitioners, the radical passages are not adhered to.
To claim righteousness on the basis of your religion is exactly the same argument the radical Muslim terrorists use. By doing the same, you lose any moral credibility against the argument; it becomes a “my religion is better than your religion” debate — an argument which cannot be won.
Arrogance like that puts you firmly in the company of nutballs like General Boykin. If you’re comfortable with that, fine, but don’t expect to be taken seriously by anyone else.
As for atrocities not being committed by Christians? Are we on the same planet? No, most may not have been in the name of Christianity, but I’d wager more crimes — from local to international — are committed by “Christians” than Muslims.
Let me be clear — I’ve got nothing against Christianity, and I don’t mean to denigrate that religion, by any means. But neither will I sit by while someone claims superiority on the basis of adhering to that belief system.
And you would appear to be completely ignorant of the numerous Muslim charity organizations (legitimate organizations — they’re not all terrorism fronts) both in this nation and around the world. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore their accomplishments. Why is that?
I know, you don't want me here, I leave now with one last word.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home