Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Bush Declares Sacrifice in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'.

Point-by-point rebuttal of President "Chicken-hawk" Bush's speech:

1. There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein ever aided or abetted Al Qaeda or terrorists in general. This constant reference to September 11 is getting tiring.

2. The enemies America now faces in Iraq are enemies you created by the very act of invading Iraq.

3. It will only be a great turning point if you actually win (the war not just the battle). Right now, that's still up in the air. More importantly, a lot of people don't think you (or anyone in your administration for that matter) possess the kind of skills, foresight, vision and commitment necessary to win.

4. Ah, yes. Iraqi security forces. Security forces so riddled with infiltrators that you can't even tell friend from foe. Security forces whose training isn't exactly up to scratch. Yes, the great Iraqi security forces, America's last best hope. Bullshit.

5. Is Iraq worth the sacrifice? Only if the American (and Iraqi) people actually see, feel and taste progress toward peace and stability. Unfortunately, they don't have that. What they have are daily car and suicide bombings, political assasinations, a never-ending insurgency and a government that can't seem to govern. After two years, everyone has a right to expect tangible progress toward better lives. No one has seen that yet.

Friday, June 24, 2005

Yes, my people. It is true. This Republican Administration is evil to its core.

BBC NEWS | Rumsfeld: US not losing Iraq war

Two years on and the administration remains as deluded as ever.

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Amnesty International - Working To Protect Human Rights Worldwide

Amnesty International's 2005 Report on the state of the world's human rights likens Guantanamo Bay to a modern day gulag in the mold of those run by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In separate news reports, President (Chicken Hawk) Bush calls the characterization "absurd". Secretary Rumsfeld categorically rejects the report's findings.

Let's see:

Soviet Gulag: People routinely imprisoned without the benefit of fair and impartial trials. Many imprisoned because of political beliefs. No access to lawyers or other independent counsel. Access by international organizations such as the Red Cross or Amnesty International was blocked, if not prohibited outright. Prisoners lived in squalor and inhumane conditions. Torture was rampant. Respect for human dignity probably non-existent.

Guantanamo Bay: Detainees come from around the world and are overwhelmingly Arab or Muslim. They are branded "Enemy Combatants" without, at least until recently, an opportunity to contest their being branded "Enemy Combatants" or their detention. They have not been informed of the specific charges against them. Many have been held for a number of years without benefit of trial or counsel. Reports of detainee abuse are rampant. (Allegations concerning gaurds flushing the Koran down the toilet comes to mind.)

The Bush Administration, before the Supreme Court stopped its overreaching, claimed an absolute right, non-reviewable by any court, to hold detainees indefinitely without any obligation to provide counsel, inform detainees of the charges against them or their rights, much less, try them before a competent and impartial tribunal.

So which is more absurd, Amnesty International's report or the Administration's response?