A random rant
I sometimes think if I hear one more time that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election or the 2004 election or that the war in Iraq is illegal or that members of the Bush political administration are guilty of war crimes, that there were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003, that Saddam had no connection with terrorists (including some who did have connections with 9-11 although Saddam was not in on that operation) or that Israel is the source of all the problems in the Middle East, I think I just will go off the deep end.
First: GWB did not steal the 2000 election. The U.S. Supreme Court did not select him. If anything, it was the Gore campaign that tried to use the judicial system to change the outcome in Florida. I am tired of hearing that all election officials down at the county level are in the hip pocket of this campaign or that political party. In the 30 years I covered elections, the local election officials have done their darndest to be as accurate and accountable as possible. So, when I hear people talk of conspiracies to steal elections, I think of those hard working folks at the local level and just shake my head.
As for Gore and his campaign: They just couldn’t let Bush have in the appearance of a victory, so they tried everything they could to stop the count until they could line up a judge or two to allow manual recounts, but only in areas that favored Gore. The hypocrisy of that just made me sick. For God’s sake, I wanted to scream, just let the process work itself out. There is a procedure for challenging the results of an election and asking for a recount, just follow it. Rather, the Gore campaign had to jump to the courts. And don’t go on about the GOP controlling the Florida secretary of state’s office, that is just hogwash to the extreme. Don’t go on about suppressed votes or butterfly ballots. It is all stuff to obscure the fact that Gore did not win.
Besides, in the ultimate end, after all the dust settled and a coalition of media outlets went back in a recounted the ballots ... guess who was the winner in like all the various scenarios: GWB.
So, if you don’t like the result, get over it.
Also, even if the minority vote was suppressed in some areas of Ohio in 2004, which it apparently didn’t happen but makes a convenient urban fairy tale, the margin of victory for Bush was such that it wouldn’t have mattered ... in other words, Bush-haters, you lost; time to get over it.
Nor was the war in Iraq illegal nor are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., guilty of any war crimes.
First, how many U.N. resolutions threatening AND authorizing force does it take to make a war legal? The UN Security Council since 1991 had passed 19 resolutions on Iraq that Saddam supposedly was in violation of. Even Hans Blix admitted that Hussein had violated the last one in November 2002, but he wanted more time.
If you truly believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime had NO WMDs, please read the entire Duelfer Report, http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html , not just cherry picked passages.
Also understand, if I put a bar of soap in my jacket pocket where you can’t see it and tell you it is a gun, you most likely would believe it was a gun. Especially if all my buddies with me are saying it is a gun, because they actually believe it is a gun. And when the cops show up and see me pointing my “gun”, they are not going to assume it is a bar of soap. They are going to assume it is a gun and tell me to put it down. And if I don’t do it immediately, they are liable to open fire and justifiably I might add.
Saddam may have had a bar of soap or he may have really believed he had WMDs, but 45 nations believed he did and formed a coalition (and so what if GWB allegedly coerced most of them, the man is not omnipotent and they still put their people on the line in one way or another) to take Saddam down. It was not something that just the Americans did, or just the Brits did, or the Italians or the Poles or any other of the members of the coalition.
Just because you don’t like George W. Bush does not make him a liar or a criminal.
Bush did not lie. He did follow the law. He got Congressional approval, that in essence (except that it did not have it as its title) was a declaration of war. He had a U.N. resolution to back him up. OK, granted it didn’t specifically authorize the U.S. to invade Iraq, but the November resolution authorized unspecified measures to compel compliance if Saddam’s regime did not satisfy its provisions. It didn’t.
Saddam had no links to terrorists, specifically Al Qaeda. Arrgggghhh. Please read the Iraq Perspectives Report.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html
And what has been released so far is just the tip of the iceberg.
I also wish people would understand the difference between a lawful and unlawful combatant. Unfortunately, since we have had a slew of bombing over the last 7 years, a lot of people think we can go back to status quo ante 9-11. When will we realize that we really are at war with these hoods and it is an honest to goodness root’n toot’n shooting war?
As for torture: Maybe I have misplaced my faith and trust but I find it difficult to believe that the type of soldiers I have had the pleasure to serve with actually engaged in torture. Of course, your definition of torture and mine differ. I mean, to me torture is like beating somebody with fists or a rubber hose. It is like breaking limbs and dislocating joints. It is like drilling holes in a body or chopping off digits. It is like carving on someone or using them for a human ash tray. Let’s not forget sexually violating someone.
However, it is not torture to subject someone to loud music that they dislike for 24/7 or to put them in a cold room with little clothes on. It is not forcing them to stand for hours, or squat for hours or keeping them under a bright light for hours. Those psychological pressures do not meet the standard for torture in my book. Nor does the Good Cop-Bad Cop routine.
My personal jury is still out on waterboarding. I don’t know enough about the procedure to know if it qualifies as torture. Drowning some one is, but then they would be dead. I do think that keel-hauling would qualify as torture, but that is primarily due to the barnacles, plus ships’ keels are much longer than they used to be. We could be back the cat-o-nine-tails, but they flogging really is more than punishment. It is torture.
Still, I am not sure humiliation is torture. It is humiliation and torture is more physical.
One thing I do wonder is that when did combatants (whether lawful or unlawful) get rights other than those laid down by the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war. Remember, we are in a war. Oops, I forgot ... we aren’t, even if Congress authorized the use of military force to resolve the problem.
Finally, for all those who hate GWB so much that they lose all sense of proportion. Understand this, in a few months on Jan. 20, 2009, at noon, a new president will be sworn in. This person will be the winner of a national ballot held on Nov. 4 (and days preceding in some jurisdictions) and your long nightmare will be over. I wonder what you will say if your preferred candidate doesn’t get elected this time. What excuse are you going to trot out this time.
Ok, I have vented enough for today.
