portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war

Bush's UN Speech Rambling, Unsubstantial

"As an original signer of the UN Charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations."
Sure . . . as long as we don't have to stop doing anything we don't want to stop doing. Then we ignore the UN. We don't respect the UN . . . we just want the UN around to resurrect for its cachet of respectability when it's useful to further our agenda.
I listened with disbelief to GW Bush's address to the UN. In the recent past, both Cheney and Rumsfeld have gone on the record to admit that there had been no connection between the events of 9/11 and Iraq or the Hussein government.

Yet, in a speech designed to marshal support for nationbuilding in Iraq, the first words out of Bush's mouth, recalled the 9/11 tragedies and global terrorism.

In a speech where he often fumbled words and fiddled with his script, Bush spoke in a defensive, arrogant, and inexplicably vague way about the need for the UN and its affiliated countries to support police and rebuilding efforts in Iraq. Although it was not explicitly stated in the speech, it is still clear that these contributing countries will have no real influence or power - something the Bush administration is unwilling to relinquish. It is also increasingly clear that, despite the desires of the Iraqis and our allies, control over Iraqi affairs and services will not revert to actual Iraqis until it is pried out of Mr. Bush's fingers or until all major services have been divied up among major corporations domestic and foreign.

No apologies were offered for the preemptive strike which was opposed by almost every country on earth, nor were any apologies offered to Germany, France, or other countries which have been insulted and threatened because they would not support the preemptive strike and subsequent occupation actions. At no time did Bush admit that things have not . . . and are not . . . going smoothly or that far more Iraqi citizens are now dead as a result of the US occupation than the amount of Americans killed in the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon . . . neither of which the Iraqi people were responsible for.

Bush intoned: "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction," two lies that do not stand. Does he think that if he simply continues to repeat them they will suddenly become true? He calls Hussein "an ally of terror", ignoring true allies of terror in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, including Osama Bin Laden.

Bush stated, "A second challenge we must confront together is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Outlaw regimes that possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -- and the means to deliver them -- would be able to use blackmail and create chaos in entire regions." Sadly, this sounds a lot like the United States at the present time. This statement, coming on the heels of an appeal to Congress to allow research and development into a new generation of nuclear weapons makes it hypocritical statement indeed.
He goes further in suggesting that the US "stands ready to help any nation draft new [anti-proliferation] laws, and to assist in their enforcement." While, of course, retaining the right to build and deploy at its own discretion more and deadlier nuclear weapons at its own discretion.

Re. "Humanitarian Aid" it is embarrassing to hear Mr. Bush brag about pledging a mere $15 billion towards AIDS research worldwide (an amount pledged, not paid), and $1.4 billion on global emergency food aid while lobbying aggressively for $87 billion to cover partial expenses in Iraq through the end of 2003! The acts of Hussein aside, a lion's share of the deplorable condition of Iraq's infrastructure can be blamed - for the most part - on damage caused by the recent attack and the earlier Gulf War.

Next, Bush drags international underage sex slavery into his crusade-laden scree. What does this have to do with the subject at hand? It's another "hydrogen car" smoke and mirrors attempt to distract. And incidentally, where in the United States does one find organized, large-scale Thailand-type sex tours involving children?

Finally, our Commander in Chief offers the following: "As an original signer of the UN Charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations."

Sure . . . as long as we don't have to stop doing anything we don't want to stop doing. Then we ignore the UN. We don't respect the UN . . . we just want the UN around to resurrect for its cachet of respectability when it's useful to further our agenda.
BRAVO!!!! 23.Sep.2003 21:19

K.C.Roberts

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!! I could'nt have said it better myself!!

Metta,
K.C.

impressed 23.Sep.2003 21:35

mom

I am actually impressed you had the stomach to listen to the speech. I have found that the mere sound of the resident's voice is enough to ruin my day.
thanks for the analysis --- sounds about par for the course.

stop attacking bush for awhile. 23.Sep.2003 21:38

jeb bush bangbangbang03@hotmail.com

I think your comments are worthy of a brief reading but you apparently just selected the parts of his speech that supported your argument. As anyone should of course. I used to agree with some of the things you are saying until just recently when i woke up and realized just how loud the liberals are and just how much of a majority(my opinion) of americans are conservative and just might agree with our president. It seems like a lot of bashing of our fearless leader who went ahead and did what he said he was going to do.
And yeah the guy makes mistakes but that makes me admire his human quality. What good does it do to just attack and criticize every word he says, instead of trying to look at the other side. Do you know how much money is donated from other countries? i do not, but that might make an interesting point.

just a thought, to try and look at the unbelievable circumstances the rich guy from texas, who had to live up to his fathers role, who says it like it is, and just is there. For the same reason my father never yelled at the referees in my basketball games like some parents; He was always worried that they would turn to him and ask him if he would like to come down and do a better job? What politician can make you happy? Well, i like being in the middle now, i feel i can see things clearer now.

Well, jeb 23.Sep.2003 22:18

I'll Stop When He Stands Trial

I did not hear the demented Commander in Chimp say much else than what was reported here. I see only a deluded neo-con puppet, who was the centerpiece of an overthrow of the US government, and allowed mass murder to take place on 911, probably out of his own stupidity and ignorance, used that brutal attack to manipulate American public opinion away from liberty and towards fear, and then acted as an instument of the sickly twisted Uber-Zionists, in a darkly comical effort to rule the world by force.

His "leadership" has routed the US Constitution and international law standards, strengthened our enemies, routed our economy, moved aggresively to squander the last of our precious resources, created the biggest US government in history, decimated our economy with idiotic monetary policy and crippling debt, and sought to reward corporate criminals at every opportunity. Where is the middle ground there, and what do these policies have to do with conservatives?

When this is over 23.Sep.2003 23:07

anonymous

He'll have nowhere to hide.

This will be the worst, most shameful situation that a living president will have to deal with... worse than Nixon, because we will be dealing with the results of his policies for many years to come. When those soldiers come home, when widows or widowers live with raising their children alone, as we deal with the debt with which he has burdened us, and Iraq remains unstable, people will ask him to answer, again and again and again. He will hide behind the secret service, because he has that privelege, but he will have to hide on his ranch.

He should have hidden in safety on his ranch after retiring as Gov., not having much ability to deal with the world on his own, and spared us from a ruined economy, ruined lives and ruined reputation.

We can hope that things turn out as positively as you predict, anonymous. 23.Sep.2003 23:25

anne frank

It appears that the whole world is lurching toward overt fascism. Hopefully things will change when -and if- Bush is outed, though alternatives don't look too promising at this point . The global elite look to have us pretty much locked up, though nature is unpredictable....

Bush is not the Problem 23.Sep.2003 23:52

.

"His 'leadership' has routed the US Constitution and international law standards, strengthened our enemies, routed our economy, moved aggresively to squander the last of our precious resources, created the biggest US government in history, decimated our economy with idiotic monetary policy and crippling debt, and sought to reward corporate criminals at every opportunity. Where is the middle ground there, and what do these policies have to do with conservatives?"

George Bush is not the problem, despite all the whining and bitching you hear about him. The problem is the American Empire itself. Most of these Bush Bashers aren't opposed to American Empire (which the USA has always been) or its genocidial wars.

They are only opposed to the way that Bush has *handled* the American Empire. These American "patriots" are analogous to Nazis who would have criticized Hitler--because he made tactical mistakes in handling the Jewish Problem and conducting the second World War.

Bush is Inept 24.Sep.2003 00:10

Puppet Basher

Bush is an idiotic puppet. He controls what he is told to control. I see a distinct difference between rulers that are hampered by the rule of law and seek to undermine it, and rulers that simply cancel the rules, and declare their own.

My statement, that you quoted, was not in defense of the "empire". I was merely pointing out that the current rulers don't even serve "conservative" interests.

As far as your comment: "Most of these Bush Bashers aren't opposed to American Empire (which the USA has always been) or its genocidial wars." Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Just for kicks, what if... 24.Sep.2003 01:53

Dusty Faith

What would happen if the UN Security Council demands that the US leave Iraq?

Bush's Full Speech 24.Sep.2003 02:12

sean (hairy jedi)

Here's the full speech - make up yer own minds....

Mr. Secretary General; Mr. President; distinguished delegates; ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four months ago -- and yesterday in the memory of America -- the center of New York City became a battlefield, and a graveyard, and the symbol of an unfinished war. Since that day, terrorists have struck in Bali, Mombassa, in Casablanca, in Riyadh, in Jakarta, in Jerusalem -- measuring the advance of their cause in the chaos and innocent suffering they leave behind.

Last month, terrorists brought their war to the United Nations itself. The U.N. headquarters in Baghdad stood for order and compassion -- and for that reason, the terrorists decided it must be destroyed. Among the 22 people who were murdered was Sergio Vieira de Mello. Over the decades, this good and brave man from Brazil gave help to the afflicted in Bangladesh, Cypress, Mozambique, Lebanon, Cambodia, Central Africa, Kosovo, and East Timor, and was aiding the people of Iraq in their time of need. America joins you, his colleagues, in honoring the memory of Senor Vieira de Mello, and the memory of all who died with him in the service to the United Nations.

By the victims they choose, and by the means they use, the terrorists have clarified the struggle we are in. Those who target relief workers for death have set themselves against all humanity. Those who incite murder and celebrate suicide reveal their contempt for life, itself. They have no place in any religious faith; they have no claim on the world's sympathy; and they should have no friend in this chamber.

Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: between those who seek order, and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change, and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man, and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children without mercy or shame.

Between these alternatives there is no neutral ground. All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. No government should ignore the threat of terror, because to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup and recruit and prepare. And all nations that fight terror, as if the lives of their own people depend on it, will earn the favorable judgment of history.

The former regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq knew these alternatives, and made their choices. The Taliban was a sponsor and servant of terrorism. When confronted, that regime chose defiance, and that regime is no more. Afghanistan's President, who is here today, now represents a free people who are building a decent and just society; they're building a nation fully joined in the war against terror.

The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder, and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. The Security Council was right to be alarmed. The Security Council was right to demand that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so. The Security Council was right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply. And because there were consequences, because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace, and the credibility of the United Nations, Iraq is free, and today we are joined by representatives of a liberated country.

Saddam Hussein's monuments have been removed and not only his statues. The true monuments of his rule and his character -- the torture chambers, and the rape rooms, and the prison cells for innocent children -- are closed. And as we discover the killing fields and mass graves of Iraq, the true scale of Saddam's cruelty is being revealed.

The Iraqi people are meeting hardships and challenges, like every nation that has set out on the path of democracy. Yet their future promises lives of dignity and freedom, and that is a world away from the squalid, vicious tyranny they have known. Across Iraq, life is being improved by liberty. Across the Middle East, people are safer because an unstable aggressor has been removed from power. Across the world, nations are more secure because an ally of terror has fallen.

Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were supported by many governments, and America is grateful to each one. I also recognize that some of the sovereign nations of this assembly disagreed with our actions. Yet there was, and there remains, unity among us on the fundamental principles and objectives of the United Nations. We are dedicated to the defense of our collective security, and to the advance of human rights. These permanent commitments call us to great work in the world, work we must do together. So let us move forward.

First, we must stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq as they build free and stable countries. The terrorists and their allies fear and fight this progress above all, because free people embrace hope over resentment, and choose peace over violence.

The United Nations has been a friend of the Afghan people, distributing food and medicine, helping refugees return home, advising on a new constitution, and helping to prepare the way for nationwide elections. NATO has taken over the U.N.-mandated security force in Kabul. American and coalition forces continue to track and defeat al Qaeda terrorists and remnants of the Taliban. Our efforts to rebuild that country go on. I have recently proposed to spend an additional $1.2 billion for the Afghan reconstruction effort, and I urge other nations to continue contributing to this important cause.

In the nation of Iraq, the United Nations is carrying out vital and effective work every day. By the end of 2004, more than 90 percent of Iraqi children under age five will have been immunized against preventable diseases such as polio, tuberculosis and measles, thanks to the hard work and high ideals of UNICEF. Iraq's food distribution system is operational, delivering nearly a half-million tons of food per month, thanks to the skill and expertise of the World Food Program.

Our international coalition in Iraq is meeting it responsibilities. We are conducting precision raids against terrorists and holdouts of the former regime. These killers are at war with the Iraqi people. They have made Iraq the central front in the war on terror, and they will be defeated. Our coalition has made sure that Iraq's former dictator will never again use weapons of mass destruction. We are interviewing Iraqi citizens and analyzing records of the old regime to reveal the full extent of its weapons programs and its long campaign of deception. We're training Iraqi police and border guards and a new army, so the Iraqi people can assume full responsibility for their own security.

And at the same time, our coalition is helping to improve the daily lives of the Iraqi people. The old regime built palaces while letting schools decay, so we are rebuilding more than a thousand schools. The old regime starved hospitals of resources, so we have helped to supply and reopen hospitals across Iraq. The old regime built up armies and weapons, while allowing the nation's infrastructure to crumble, so we are rehabilitating power plants, water and sanitation facilities, bridges and airports. I proposed to Congress that the United States provide additional funding for our work in Iraq, the greatest financial commitment of its kind since the Marshall Plan. Having helped to liberate Iraq, we will honor our pledges to Iraq, and by helping the Iraqi people build a stable and peaceful country, we will make our own countries more secure.

The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self-government for the people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic process. This process must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis, neither hurried, nor delayed by the wishes of other parties. And the United Nations can contribute greatly to the cause of Iraq self-government. America is working with friends and allies on a new Security Council resolution, which will expand the U.N.'s role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, in training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections.

Iraq now has a Governing Council, the first truly representative institution in that country. Iraq's new leaders are showing the openness and tolerance that democracy requires, and they're also showing courage. Yet every young democracy needs the help of friends. Now the nation of Iraq needs and deserves our aid, and all nations of goodwill should step forward and provide that support.

The success of a free Iraq will be watched and noted throughout the region. Millions will see that freedom, equality, and material progress are possible at the heart of the Middle East. Leaders in the region will face the clearest evidence that free institutions and open societies are the only path to long-term national success and dignity. And a transformed Middle East would benefit the entire world, by undermining the ideologies that export violence to other lands.

Iraq as a dictatorship had great power to destabilize the Middle East; Iraq as a democracy will have great power to inspire the Middle East. The advance of democratic institutions in Iraq is setting an example that others, including the Palestinian people, would be wise to follow. The Palestinian cause is betrayed by leaders who cling to power by feeding old hatreds and destroying the good work of others. The Palestinian people deserve their own state, and they will gain that state by embracing new leaders committed to reform, to fighting terror, and to building peace. All parties in the Middle East must meet their responsibilities and carry out the commitments they made at Aqaba. Israel must work to create the conditions that will allow a peaceful Palestinian state to emerge. And Arab nations must cut off funding and other support for terrorist organizations. America will work with every nation in the region that acts boldly for the sake of peace.

A second challenge we must confront together is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Outlaw regimes that possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -- and the means to deliver them -- would be able to use blackmail and create chaos in entire regions. These weapons could be used by terrorists to bring sudden disaster and suffering on a scale we can scarcely imagine. The deadly combination of outlaw regimes and terror networks and weapons of mass murder is a peril that cannot be ignored or wished away. If such a danger is allowed to fully materialize, all words, all protests, will come too late. Nations of the world must have the wisdom and the will to stop grave threats before they arrive.

One crucial step is to secure the most dangerous materials at their source. For more than a decade, the United States has worked with Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union to dismantle, destroy, or secure weapons and dangerous materials left over from another era. Last year in Canada, the G8 nations agreed to provide up to $20 billion -- half of it from the United States -- to fight this proliferation risk over the next 10 years. Since then, six additional countries have joined the effort. More are needed, and I urge other nations to help us meet this danger.

We're also improving our capability to interdict lethal materials in transit. Through our Proliferation Security Initiative, 11 nations are preparing to search planes and ships, trains and trucks carrying suspect cargo, and to seize weapons or missile shipments that raise proliferation concerns. These nations have agreed on a set of interdiction principles, consistent with legal -- current legal authorities. And we're working to expand the Proliferation Security Initiative to other countries. We're determined to keep the world's most destructive weapons away from all our shores, and out of the hands of our common enemies.

Because proliferators will use any route or channel that is open to them, we need the broadest possible cooperation to stop them. Today, I ask the U.N. Security Council to adopt a new anti-proliferation resolution. This resolution should call on all members of the U.N. to criminalize the proliferation of weapons -- weapons of mass destruction, to enact strict export controls consistent with international standards, and to secure any and all sensitive materials within their own borders. The United States stands ready to help any nation draft these new laws, and to assist in their enforcement.

A third challenge we share is a challenge to our conscience. We must act decisively to meet the humanitarian crises of our time. The United States has begun to carry out the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, aimed at preventing AIDS on a massive scale, and treating millions who have the disease already. We have pledged $15 billion over five years to fight AIDS around the world.

My country is acting to save lives from famine, as well. We're providing more than $1.4 billion in global emergency food aid, and I've asked our United States Congress for $200 million for a new famine fund, so we can act quickly when the first signs of famine appear. Every nation on every continent should generously add their resources to the fight against disease and desperate hunger.

There's another humanitarian crisis spreading, yet hidden from view. Each year, an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 human beings are bought, sold or forced across the world's borders. Among them are hundreds of thousands of teenage girls, and others as young as five, who fall victim to the sex trade. This commerce in human life generates billions of dollars each year -- much of which is used to finance organized crime.

There's a special evil in the abuse and exploitation of the most innocent and vulnerable. The victims of sex trade see little of life before they see the very worst of life -- an underground of brutality and lonely fear. Those who create these victims and profit from their suffering must be severely punished. Those who patronize this industry debase themselves and deepen the misery of others. And governments that tolerate this trade are tolerating a form of slavery.

This problem has appeared in my own country, and we are working to stop it. The PROTECT Act, which I signed into law this year, makes it a crime for any person to enter the United States, or for any citizen to travel abroad, for the purpose of sex tourism involving children. The Department of Justice is actively investigating sex tour operators and patrons, who can face up to 30 years in prison. Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the United States is using sanctions against governments to discourage human trafficking.

The victims of this industry also need help from members of the United Nations. And this begins with clear standards and the certainty of punishment under laws of every country. Today, some nations make it a crime to sexually abuse children abroad. Such conduct should be a crime in all nations. Governments should inform travelers of the harm this industry does, and the severe punishments that will fall on its patrons. The American government is committing $50 million to support the good work of organizations that are rescuing women and children from exploitation, and giving them shelter and medical treatment and the hope of a new life. I urge other governments to do their part.

We must show new energy in fighting back an old evil. Nearly two centuries after the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, and more than a century after slavery was officially ended in its last strongholds, the trade in human beings for any purpose must not be allowed to thrive in our time.

All the challenges I have spoken of this morning require urgent attention and moral clarity. Helping Afghanistan and Iraq to succeed as free nations in a transformed region, cutting off the avenues of proliferation, abolishing modern forms of slavery -- these are the kinds of great tasks for which the United Nations was founded. In each case, careful discussion is needed, and also decisive action. Our good intentions will be credited only if we achieve good outcomes.

As an original signer of the U.N. Charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to fulfill the U.N.'s stated purposes, and give meaning to its ideals. The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America stand in the same tradition. Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both require -- both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are free. We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage together.

May God bless you all. (Applause.)

What if? 24.Sep.2003 02:13

anonymous

He'll develop a huge boil on his face, and hide at the ranch, like when the election wasn't automatically given to him.

Well that's the first thing, anyway.

Bush Bashers have no Brains. 24.Sep.2003 02:17

.

"As far as your comment: 'Most of these Bush Bashers aren't opposed to American Empire (which the USA has always been) or its genocidial wars." Do you have any evidence to support that claim? "

Uh yeah. How many of the Bush Bashers (especially Democrats and Liberals) supported the invasion of Afghanistan or the (cough, cough) "War on Terrorism"?

As most people outside the United Snakes of America realize, this War on Terror is a bogus war and is about America's drive to impose an American dictatorship (or what is euphemistically called a "Pax Americana") on the world.

Better yet, how many of these damned Liberals supported Clinton's "Humanitarian" bombing of Yugoslavia, or his "humanitarian" intervention in Somalia, or how many idiotic "progressives" are supporting Bush's "humanitarian" invasion of Liberia.

All of these military interventions have nothing to do with humanitarianism and everything to do with American colonization and conquest of resource rich lands or those geo-strategically situated for oil and transport corridors.

IN some ways, you could say that the Democrats and Liberals are worse than the Conservatives, because they try to portray themselves as the "antiwar" party--which is they clearly are not.

M-I-C-K-E-Y 24.Sep.2003 05:27

PP

As William Rivers Pitt said:

"...blaming Bush for the gross misadministration of this government is like blaming Mickey Mouse when Disney screws up....he is not in charge. These other men [Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle] have delivered us to this wretched estate, and by God in Heaven, there will be a reckoning for it."

 http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081003A.shtml

bush's performance at un 24.Sep.2003 05:38

tg

"A president who has led his forces to victory, ostensibly on behalf of the United Nations, would in theory deserve a hero's welcome. But that was not what President Bush encountered in an icy chamber here today, almost five months after he declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq.

"Fidgeting in an almost eerily silent hall — where the audience observed a tradition of not applauding before or during a speech and offered only perfunctory applause at the end — the president spoke in an even tone, occasionally smiling but rarely becoming passionate." NYT.

Well he couldn't pack this hall with his millionaire/billionaire supporters who give him standing ovations for padding their bank accounts - no wonder his performance was off.

Re: Bush Bashers have no Brains 24.Sep.2003 09:20

Puppet Basher

Well, I for one don't support any of that crap, so put away your broad brush. Also, where do you get your stats, NBC News?

You write: "IN some ways, you could say that the Democrats and Liberals are worse than the Conservatives, because they try to portray themselves as the "antiwar" party--which is they clearly are not." I would have to agree with that.

Re: Bush Bashers have no Brains 24.Sep.2003 09:20 Puppet Basher 24.Sep.2003 14:27

I for two

I for two do not and never did support the invasion of Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia, or Somalia, or Liberia. I don't know anyone who is anti-Bush who was for the war in Iraq. I do know a lot of people who were confused and unsure about Afghanistan. But, come to think of it, they couldn't be called "Bush Bashers." They were "we should support our president" sufferers of 9/11 aftershock.

So where are you getting your information about "Bush Bashers?" Did you take a survey?

I don't think so. If you did might might learn that people are not as bad as you think, and you are no better than they. But it's safer to just make assumptions isn't it? Then you can stay on your lonely hill and keep looking down on people.

Annotated Refutation of Bush’s September 23 Address Before the United Nations 24.Sep.2003 22:04

Stephen Zunes

Published on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

An Annotated Refutation of President George W. Bush's September 23 Address Before the United Nations

by Stephen Zunes

"Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: Between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children, without mercy or shame."

This is an ironic statement from a man who defied basic principles of international law and rebuked those who called for peaceful alternatives.

"Afghanistan's president, who is here today, now represents a free people who are building a decent and just society, a nation fully joined in the war against terror."

The people of Kabul, which is virtually the only part of Afghanistan under the firm control of President Hamid Karsai, are relatively free as compared with their lives under the Taliban regime. However, most of the rest of the country has fallen into chaos, as war lords, ethnic militias and opium magnates battle for control. This has led to a resurgence of the Taliban and their Al-Qaeda allies in parts of Afghanistan.

"The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. The Security Council was right to be alarmed."

Unfortunately, much of the Security Council was not alarmed when Saddam Hussein engaged in mass murder through the use of chemical weapons, in large part because the United States and other great powers were at that time backing his regime. Nor was the Iraqi regime seriously confronted for such atrocities, in large part because the U.S. government falsely claimed that it was the Iranians -- then the preferred enemy -- who were responsibly for the infamous Halabja massacre and similar attacks. Indeed, throughout much of the 1980s, the United States, along with other advanced industrialized nations, provided the dictator with much of the raw materials and technology needed for his WMD programs.

"The Security Council was right to demand that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so. The Security Council was right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply. And because there were consequences, because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace and the credibility of the United Nations."

This is incredibly misleading on several counts:
First of all, the Security Council never specified the consequences and never authorized any member states to enforce alleged Iraqi non-compliance through military means.

Secondly, once Iraq allowed inspectors back into the country in November, released its accounting of proscribed items (which UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix now says was probably accurate), and acceded to UNMOVIC's demands regarding surveillance flights, interviews, etc. there is reason to believe that Iraq was actually in compliance of UN Security Council resolutions for at least several weeks prior to the U.S. invasion.

Thirdly, since when is one country invading another an act of "defending the peace?"

Fourthly, the United States has done more than any country -- including Iraq -- to damage the credibility of the United Nations: 1) over the past thirty years, the United States has used its veto power more times than all other members of the Security Council combined during that same period; 2) Iraq was hardly the only country in alleged defiance of UN Security Council resolutions: over ninety UN Security Council resolutions are currently being violated, but the United States has blocked enforcement of most of them since they usually involved a strategic ally (for example, Morocco, Israel and Turkey each are in violation of more Security Council resolutions than was Iraq at the height of its defiance); 3) the invasion of Iraq itself was a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter.

"Iraq is free, and today we are joined by representatives of a liberated country."

Though Iraq is free from Saddam's dictatorial regime, it is still not free. The country is under foreign military occupation. The Iraqi "representatives" at the United Nations during President Bush's speech were hand-picked by the U.S. occupiers.

"Saddam Hussein's monuments have been removed and not only his statues. The true monuments of his rule and his character, the torture chambers and the rape rooms and the prison cells for innocent children, are closed. And as we discover the killing fields and mass graves of Iraq, the true scale of Saddam's cruelty is being revealed."

Actually, the scale of Saddam's cruelty was fairly well-known by human rights activists for quite a few years, revealed in reports by Amnesty International and other reputable human rights groups as far back as the 1980s. During this period -- the height of Saddam's repression -- the United States was quietly backing the regime. It was the United Nations that was largely responsible for curbing the worst of the regime's human rights abuses. These included unprecedented efforts by the Security Council, including the use of Chapter VII, to impose strict limits on the Iraqi government's ability to mobilize its forces within its internationally-recognized borders and to establish a large autonomous zone within Iraq for the country's Kurdish minority. In addition, the UN Security Council's imposition of a total ban on imports of military and police hardware dramatically lessened Saddam's ability to engage in mass murder more than a decade prior to the U.S. invasion.

"The Iraqi people are meeting hardships and challenges, like every nation that has set out on the path of democracy. Yet their future promises lives of dignity and freedom and that is a world away from the squalid, vicious tyranny they have known. Across Iraq, life is being improved by liberty."

The primary hardships for the Iraqi people stem not from any democratic transition, but from the lack of basic services, the breakdown of law and order, severe damage to the civilian infrastructure, massive unemployment, and related hardships resulting from the U.S. invasion and its aftermath. Unfortunately, despite the ouster of a brutal dictatorship, the majority of Iraqis believe that their quality of life has not improved as a result of the U.S. invasion, but has actually deteriorated.

"Across the Middle East, people are safer because an unstable aggressor has been removed from power."

In reality, Saddam Hussein's ability to engage in acts of aggression had been neutralized some years prior to his ouster as a result of losses in the 1991 Gulf War and the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and other offensive weaponry under the UN inspections regimes that followed.

"Across the world, nations are more secure because an ally of terror has fallen."

According to the CIA and the State Department, Iraqi support for international terrorism peaked during the 1980s, a time when the U.S. government actually dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring terrorism. (Iraq was put back on the list when it invaded Kuwait in August 1990 despite lack of any evidence of increased terrorist activity.) Subsequent to 1993, most credible analyses both in and out of the U.S. government of state-sponsored terrorism reveal that Iraqi support for international terrorism was relatively minor and indirect and far less than that of a number of other Middle Eastern countries, including U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia. Today, however, due to the country's great instability and because -- like Afghanistan under Soviet occupation in the 1980s -- U.S.-occupied Iraq has become a magnet for extremists from throughout the region, nations are actually less secure from the threat of terrorism arising out of Iraq than they were prior to the U.S. invasion.

"Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were supported by many governments, and America is grateful to each one. "

The initial U.S. military response in Afghanistan was indeed supported by many governments, though it lessened as the United States took sides in the country's civil war and civilian casualties from unnecessarily heavy high-altitude bombing increased. By contrast, very few governments supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Most of those that did support the invasion did so contrary to preferences of the vast majority of their populations; a number of poor countries were subjected to promises of increased aid and trading privileges in exchange for their support and threatened with loss of such vital transactions for their refusal.

"I also recognize that some of the sovereign nations of this assembly disagreed with our actions. Yet there was, and there remains, unity among us on the fundamental principles and objectives of the United Nations. We are dedicated to the defense of our collective security, and to the advance of human rights."

In reality, there is enormous disagreement between the United States and most other nations in the United Nations regarding the role of the world body. Most nations see the UN as a quasi-legislative body based on certain clear legal structures designed to build an international consensus for the promotion of collective security against aggression and to seek non-military means of conflict resolution. By contrast, the Bush Administration has essentially demanded that the UN be used to advance its foreign policy agenda. Unfortunately, many if not most of the UN member states violate basic human rights and the Bush Administration supports some of the world's worst human rights abusers.

"These permanent commitments call us to great work in the world, work we must do together. So let us move forward."

In practice, this appears to mean "do what we say." (This attitude is not new to the Bush Administration, however: recall that President Bill Clinton's ambassador to the UN and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated, also in reference to Iraq, that the United States "will act multilaterally when we can and unilaterally when we must.")

"First, we must stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq as they build free and stable countries. The terrorists and their allies fear and fight this progress above all, because free people embrace hope over resentment, and choose peace over violence."

Afghanistan is far from stable and the United States has opposed strengthening the international peacekeeping forces to extend their operations beyond Kabul. Iraq is not only unstable as well, but as long as the U.S. maintains its occupation, the United Nations will have a hard time standing with the people of Iraq. A bigger question is this: Has the U.S. invasion and occupation created an environment where the people of Iraq feel free, embrace hope and choose peace? Or, has it created a situation where people feel they are under foreign military occupation and thereby embrace resentment and violence?

"... In the nation of Iraq, the United Nations is carrying out vital and effective work every day. By the end of 2004, more than 90 percent of Iraqi children under age five will have been immunized against preventable diseases such as polio, tuberculosis, and measles thanks to the hard work and high ideals of UNICEF."

This figure would be comparable to childhood immunization rates in Iraq prior to the U.S.-led Gulf War in 1991 and subsequent sanctions that largely destroyed the country's public health system.

"Iraq's food distribution system is operational, delivering nearly a half-million tons of food per month, thanks to the skill and expertise of the World Food Program."

The World Food Program has also reported that malnutrition is much higher now than it was prior to the U.S. invasion.

"Our international coalition in Iraq is meeting its responsibilities."

First of all, given that the United States is providing 85% of the personnel and an even higher percentage of the financial costs, it can hardly be called a "coalition." More to the point, the United States has failed miserably in living up to its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Conventions in such areas as providing basic security and public services.

"We are conducting precision raids against terrorists and holdouts of the former regime."

Unfortunately, there has been tragically little precision in quite a few cases, resulting in widespread civilian casualties. In addition, an increasing number of targets of the raids are neither terrorists nor holdouts of the former regime, but non-Baathist nationalists who are fighting U.S. occupation forces, not civilians. As tragic as every death of an American soldier may be, international law makes a clear distinction between terrorism (which targets innocent civilians and is always a war crime) and armed attacks against uniformed soldiers of a foreign occupying army (which is considered a legitimate form of warfare.)

"These killers are at war with the Iraqi people."

Actually, far more Iraqi civilians have been killed by U.S. occupation forces.

"They have made Iraq the central front in the war on terror and they will be defeated."

In reality, only a tiny percentage of the armed attacks have been directed at civilian non-combatants and therefore considered acts of terrorism. Furthermore, "the central front in the war on terror" should be directed toward Al-Qaeda, which really does present a serious threat, rather than Iraqis who would probably stop fighting once U.S. occupation forces got out of their country. Finally, given the steady increase in anti-American violence and indications that a growing percentage of the attacks are coming from non-Baathist nationalists rather than the remnants of Saddam's regime or foreign terrorist cells, it will not be defeated very easily.

"Our coalition has made sure that Iraq's former dictator will never again use weapons of mass destruction".

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction for at least five to eight years prior to the U.S. invasion. He last used such weapons (in the form of deadly chemical agents) in 1988, a full fifteen years before the U.S. invasion. It was the UN inspections regime, not the U.S. invasion, that eliminated his WMD programs. Similarly, it was the UN-imposed embargo, not the U.S. invasion, that denied the regime access to needed technologies and raw materials to rebuild such programs in the future. In other words, the U.S. "coalition" had nothing to do with eliminating the possibility of the former Iraqi dictator using weapons of mass destruction as he did during the 1980s.

"We are now interviewing Iraqi citizens and analyzing records of the old regime, to reveal the full extent of its weapons programs and long campaign of deception."

So far, both the records of the old regime and interviews with Iraqis involved with WMD programs appear to indicate that the weapons programs were terminated and the proscribed weapons and delivery systems destroyed or otherwise rendered inoperable by the mid-1990s.

"We are training Iraqi police, border guards, and a new army, so that the Iraqi people can assume full responsibility for their own security."

As long as the United States remains the occupying power, these police, border guards and new army will have little credibility among large segments of the Iraqi population. Until they do, the situation on the ground will remain highly unstable.

"At the same time, our coalition is helping to improve the daily lives of the Iraqi people. The old regime built palaces while letting schools decay, so we are rebuilding more than a thousand schools."

Iraq actually had one of the best education systems in the Third World prior to the U.S.-led bombing campaign during the 1991 Gulf War and subsequent sanctions.

"The old regime starved hospitals of resources, so we have helped to supply and reopen hospitals across Iraq."

As virtually any development worker -- whether with the United Nations or with any number of non-governmental organizations -- in Iraq during the past dozen years will testify, it was the U.S.-led sanctions that starved hospitals of resources.

"The old regime built up armies and weapons, while allowing the nation's infrastructure to crumble. So we are rehabilitating power plants, water and sanitation facilities, bridges, and airports."

First of all, thanks to its enormous oil wealth (as well as exports and loans from the United States and other countries), Saddam Hussein's regime during the 1980s was able to provide both guns and butter -- developing an over-sized military while building power plants, water and sanitation facilities, bridges, and airports. By contrast, Iraqi military spending during the 1990s was widely estimated to be only about one-tenth of its previous levels. Meanwhile, the heavy U.S. bombing during the 1991 Gulf War was largely responsible for the destruction of Iraq's power plants, water and sanitation facilities, bridges, and airports and the U.S.-led sanctions that followed made it almost impossible for Iraq to import the parts needed to rebuild them. Finally, it is important to note that the Bush Administration -- with bipartisan support in Congress -- is itself busy building up armies and weapons while allowing our own nation's infrastructure to crumble.

"I have proposed to Congress that the United States provide additional funding for our work in Iraq, the greatest financial commitment of its kind since the Marshall Plan. Having helped to liberate Iraq, we will honor our pledges to Iraq."

The financial commitment to Iraq does not come anywhere close in real dollars to the Marshall Plan and is actually quite paltry compared to what the administration has been willing to spend to bomb, invade, and occupy the country. In addition, there has not been a clear accounting of the funding earmarked for reconstruction work and much of that money has gone to politically well-connected U.S. corporations that gained exclusive contracts through non-competitive bidding. Additional billions of dollars have gone to bribe foreign governments to commit token numbers of soldiers to make up for insufficient manpower from the U.S. military and to make the U.S. occupation look like a broad coalition.

"And by helping the Iraqi people build a stable and peaceful country, we will make our own countries more secure."

Iraq is actually far less stable and peaceful than it was prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation and the enormous anti-American resentment that has sprung up in the Islamic world as a result increases the risks of deadly terrorist attacks.

"The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self-government for the people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic means. This process must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis, neither hurried nor delayed by the wishes of other parties."

If this was really the primary goal, then why doesn't the United States end the occupation and turn interim administration over to the United Nations, as was done with East Timor between the withdrawal of Indonesian occupation forces in 2000 and the country's independence two years later? A number of UN agencies have extensive experiences in recent years with successfully transitioning war-ravaged states to orderly and democratic self-governance; the U.S. military does not.

"And the United Nations can contribute greatly to the cause of Iraqi self-government. America is working with friends and allies on a new Security Council resolution, which will expand the UN's role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections."

A careful reading of the U.S.-sponsored resolution reveals that it essentially forces much of the financial and logistical burdens of overseeing the post-war, post-sanctions and post-dictatorship transition upon the United Nations while leaving the United States primarily responsible for shaping the military, political and economic future of the country. As part of a UN Trusteeship, UN workers would be more likely to build cooperative relationships with the Iraqi people. As simply a part of a U.S. occupation, however -- as would be the case under the U.S. draft -- they would just become additional targets of an increasingly restive population.

"Iraq now has a Governing Council, the first truly representative institution in that country. Iraq's new leaders are showing the openness and tolerance that democracy requires, and also showing courage."

The Governing Council is representative only in the sense that its members are drawn from a diverse segment of Iraq's ethnic and religious mosaic; they are not necessarily representative of the political will of the majority of the population. Their perceived openness and tolerance may stem largely from the knowledge that they are serving only at the pleasure of the U.S. occupation authority. Their courage stems from the recognition that they are seen by many Iraqis as collaborators and therefore fear they could suffer from the same fate as has befallen collaborators with military occupations in other countries throughout history.

"Yet every young democracy needs the help of friends. Now the nation of Iraq needs and deserves our aid, and all nations of good will should step forward and provide that support."

Countries throughout the world have expressed a willingness to provide large-scale aid and assistance in the form of security, technical expertise, money and logistics as long as the country is under a UN trusteeship, not an American military occupation.

"The success of a free Iraq will be watched and noted throughout the region. Millions will see that freedom, equality, and material progress are possible at the heart of the Middle East. Leaders in the region will face the clearest evidence that free institutions and open societies are the only path to long-term national success and dignity."

This is ironic statement from the government that is the world's primary economic, diplomatic and military backer of autocratic leaders throughout the Middle East. Since coming to office, the Bush Administration has actually increased military and economic assistance to dictatorial regimes that deny their people free institutions and open societies.

"And a transformed Middle East would benefit the entire world, by undermining the ideologies that export violence to other lands."

Then why not encourage such a transformation by first ending U.S. support for the dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- long considered America's two most important Arab allies -- that not only deny their people the political freedom that President Bush claims to support, but have (not coincidentally) produced most of Al-Qaeda's members and leadership.

"Iraq as a dictatorship had great power to destabilize the Middle East."

It did during the 1980s, when the U.S. was supporting it. Subsequent to Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, however, after its military capacity was largely destroyed and they were no longer able to import the necessary weapons, technology and raw materials from advanced industrialized countries, the Iraqi dictatorship was barely a shell of its once formidable military prowess.

"Iraq as a democracy will have great power to inspire the Middle East. The advance of democratic institutions in Iraq is setting an example that others, including the Palestinian people, would be wise to follow."

The primary obstacle to Palestinian democracy is the Israeli occupation -- armed and financed by the United States -- which denies the Palestinians their right to self-determination and their ability to create and sustain their own democratic institutions.

"The Palestinian cause is betrayed by leaders who cling to power by feeding old hatreds, and destroying the good work of others."

Actually, Palestinian public opinion is more militant than most of the Palestinian Authority's leadership, which has called for resuming negotiations and implementing the road map that would lead to a Palestinian state encompassing the now-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip alongside a secure Israel with a shared co-capital of Jerusalem. While some demagogues -- particularly among radical Islamic groups -- are indeed exacerbating the conflict, the violence from the Palestinian side stems less from "old hatreds" as it does from the very current and ongoing occupation and colonization of their land and the ongoing repression and harassment of their people.

"The Palestinian people deserve their own state, committed to reform, to fighting terror, and to building peace."

Then why is the United States spending billions of dollars, vetoing UN Security Council resolutions, and shipping massive amounts of armaments to enable Israel to maintain the very occupation that prevents the Palestinians from establishing a viable state? In addition, thus far President Bush has shown no indication that his vision of a Palestinian "state" is anything more than right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's plans to offer the Palestinians a bare 40% of the occupied territories (less than 10% of historic Palestine), subdivided into a series of non-contiguous cantons surrounded by Israel.

"A second challenge we must confront together is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Outlaw regimes that possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -- and the means to deliver them -- would be able to use blackmail and create chaos in entire regions. ... We are determined to keep the world's most destructive weapons away from all our shores, and out of the hands of our common enemies. Because proliferators will use any route or channel that is open to them, we need the broadest possible cooperation to stop them. Today I ask the UN Security Council to adopt a new anti-proliferation resolution. This resolution should call on all members of the UN to criminalize the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; to enact strict export controls consistent with international standards; and to secure any and all sensitive materials within their own borders."

It is noteworthy how the United States exempts itself and such Southwest Asian allies as Israel and Pakistan from anti-proliferation resolutions while focusing solely on governments it doesn't like. It is also revealing that the Bush Administration has rejected calls from Middle Eastern nations -- ranging from allies like Jordan to adversaries like Syria -- for the establishment of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone for all of the Middle East, comparable to treaties that already exist in Latin America and the South Pacific. It is also worth noting that the United States has also been notoriously lax in its own export controls of dual-use technologies.

"... There is another humanitarian crisis, spreading and yet hidden from view. Each year, an estimated eight to nine hundred thousand human beings are bought, sold, or forced across the world's borders. Among them are hundreds of thousands of teenage girls, and others as young as five, who fall victim to the sex trade. This commerce in human life generates billions of dollars each year, much of which is used to finance organized crime. There is a special evil in the abuse and exploitation of the most innocent and vulnerable. The victims of sex trade see little of life before they see the very worst of life, an underworld of brutality and lonely fear. Those who create these victims, and profit from their suffering, must be severely punished. Those who patronize this industry debase themselves and deepen the misery of others. And governments that tolerate this trade are tolerating a form of slavery."

Most development organizations and advocates for Third World women recognize that the sex trade and other human trafficking has grown most dramatically in countries where traditional economies have collapsed as a result of neo-liberal economic policies imposed by U.S.-backed international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund. The selling of one's daughter or oneself becomes a matter of survival. Shifting to a development policy that emphasizes sustainable development and grassroots economic initiatives (such as micro-lending programs) will do far more to lessen this human tragedy than relying on law enforcement alone.

"... As an original signer of the UN charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to fulfill the UN's stated purposes, and give meaning to its ideals."

Then why did the United States violate the UN Charter by invading a sovereign member nation?

"The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America stand in the same tradition. Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent."

This is an excellent summation of why the policies of the Bush Administration are subject to growing opposition both at home and abroad.

"Both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are free. We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage together."

Indeed, individuals and nations must demonstrate enormous courage and struggle nonviolently against the policies of what is being seen increasingly as a rogue superpower whose quest for domination so seriously threatens the rule of law, basic moral principles, human freedom and any hope for real peace and security.

~ ~ ~

Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco and the author of 'Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism' . He serves as Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus  http://www.fpif.org/ Project, where this analysis first appeared.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0924-02.htm
Foreign Policy In Focus via Common Dreams NewsCenter

Re: Bush Bashers Have No Brains 25.Sep.2003 04:55

.

"I for two do not and never did support the invasion of Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia, or Somalia, or Liberia. I don't know anyone who is anti-Bush who was for the war in Iraq. I do know a lot of people who were confused and unsure about Afghanistan. But, come to think of it, they couldn't be called "Bush Bashers." They were "we should support our president" sufferers of 9/11 aftershock.
So where are you getting your information about "Bush Bashers?" Did you take a survey? "

Well, most polls that I have seen suggest that a close to a majority or more of Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq--with this support declining somewhat only now that the shit has hit the fan and things are not going so well over there in Vietnam, er, I mean Iraq. And certainaly a majority of Democrats still support the "War on Terrorism" (sic). And most of the Democrats are Bush Bashers I believe.

Go over to Democrap Underground or Democrats.com or some of these so-called "alternative" media sites, and you will see the majority of them waste their time bashing Bush.

. 25.Sep.2003 12:06

anonymous

Why would I want to go over to any Democrat site? I'm not interested in categorizing people, or making sweeping generalizations about any particular group.

This thread is about Bush. There are very good reasons to bash Bush. And if I bash Bush, that doesn't mean I fit into your stereotype of a Democrat. Democrats should bash Bush. They have their reasons. Anyone who cares about this country and the world should bash Bush. There are many reasons to do so.

For you to say that just because someone bashes Bush, they must have supported the war, because "most" Democrats supported the war, and most Democrats are Bush bashers, doesn't make any sense at all.

A lot of people have dark hair. More people in this country have dark hair than blonde hair. I live in this country. Do I have dark hair?

You just bashed a lot of people for no good reason.

Bush and company is driving this country into the ground, and we should all just shut up about, right?

Democrat Doublespeak 26.Sep.2003 00:53

.

Anonymous your comment makes so little sense it sounds like some of the propaganda spewed by the Democratic Party presidential candidates in their debate.

Why is Bush Bashing a waste of time?

Because George W. Bush is largely a front man. IT is the people behind Bush--such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rove--who are calling the shots.

Moreover, most of the policies adopted by the Bush Regime have been SUPPORTED BY THE DEMOCRATS. This includes the invasion of Iraq where a significicant number of Democrats voted for the war, and Richard Gephardt even played a key role in authoring the House Resolution granting Bush the power to attack Iraq.

The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans.

Many of the Democrats who are "opposing" the war now are only doing so for poltiically opportunistic reasons--namely to advance their own political power grab and career. See Gen. Wesley Clark.

. 26.Sep.2003 03:50

anonymous

When people bash Bush, they are in effect bashing Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rove, etc. At least that is the case here where most people are well aware that they are the ones making policy. People who bash Bush, don't want to just get rid of him and keep the rest. You have to know that. I shouldn't have to explain it to you. People bash Bush because he is the president. Should we just bash the others and tell Bush that we want him to stay? Who's not making sense? If you get rid of Bush, you get rid of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rove, etc., at least for awhile.

You write on a thread on Indymedia that Bush bashers are brainless, supported the war etc. You don't say "the Democratic party" or "most Democratic senators," you say "Bush bashers."

I'm pretty sure that most Bush bashers here, are not as you describe. That's what I'm commenting on.

You don't have to tell me about Wesley Clark. He's a Republican anyway. Just turned Democrat for this election. And Wesley Clark is not just a "Bush basher." He is running for president. What do you expect him to say? Does that mean that all people who also don't like the Bush administration are just like him? NO.

Democrats 26.Sep.2003 15:50

anonymous

. If you had said that the Democrats are brainless, I wouldn't have argued with you. But called "Bush bashers" brainless. That includes a lot of people with brains. You have to be either brainless, corrupt, or in denial to support the Bush administration.

Spineless is a better adjective for the Democratic party though in my opinion.

more b.s.and lies 29.Sep.2003 13:05

jean taylor-graham

Another attempt to snow the public. If this Bush and Company are in power another 4 years, all social programs will be completely out of funds--we'll have another Black Wall" to grieve over in DC. Our disabled vets will have poorer and poorer care with less benefits for themselves and families. Just to list a few of our problems under Bush and co. Let's send him back to big "T"

Demorats are part of the Problem 01.Oct.2003 00:24

.

You people still don't get it--or don't want to get it.

Bashing Bush (or the Bush Regime in general) is a waste of time because the problem is NOT Bush. The entire political fraud called "American Democracy" is the problem. The Bush Regime is merely a symptom.

Every policy adopted by the Bush Regime that Phony Progressives hate so much HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE DEMO-RAT PARTY.

The Phony War on TErrorism, the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, Homeland Security Department, Tax cuts for the rich.

ALL HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY to one degree or another. Remember the Republicans didn't have the majority in the Senate until after the 2002 selection and required DEMO-RAT SUPPORT TO PASS ALL OF THE ABOVE LEGISLATION.

You mindless Bush Bashers carefully overlook this minor little issue--or want to cover up these facts with your juvenile and simple minded bashing of Bush.

Either your are very politically clueless, or more likely, you are Demorat Party sympathizers who are INTERESTED IN MANIUPLATION ANTI-BUSH SENTIMENT TO PUSH AND PROMOTE YOUR OWN POLITICAL CANDIDATES OR PARTY.

The Demo-rats are NOT spineless as you suggest. The Demorats are just as Evil as the Republicans.

And its time to give up the politics of Lesser Evilism one and for all.