Dear Sir,
while I agree with most of your assertions, analyses and
prognostications, I beg to differ with some of the illustrations you
provide.
Certainly: Bush is blackmailing America when he threatens to order
the CIA to stop its interrogation programs if Bush's way is not
adhered to; like a spoiled brat, he threatens to take his toys and
games home if the other boys won't play by his rules. He is a
disgrace to the US, and for his blackmailing, the FBI should
investigate him. (Fat chance!).
Quite right of you to illustrate the fawning by David Brooks.
But the examples you cite to underpin the statement that the "Bush
administration is responsible for slaughtering thousands of women and
children in Afghanistan an Iraq" to "achieve an objective" are not
very good. Bombing a restaurant to get at Saddam Hussein is terrible,
is horrific, considering the deaths of innocent civilians, but it is
not slaughter. In almost all bombing raids, by whomever, innocent
people get killed. You are right: war is horror. Bombing should be
outlawed.
If you had stated that the war is certainly ill-advised and more
probably illegal, that the US invaded a country that had not done it
any harm, the Bush lied and continues to lie, that he insists on
bending American constitutional law to his primitive, childish
fantasies, you would be easier to agree with. America catches the
Bush administration lying all the time, and does nothing. Hungarians
catch their prime minister with one lie about the economy and they
ransack the official radio station. There's a lesson to be learned
from the Hungarians.
Michael S. Cullen
--
I'd like to respond to Michael Cullen's comments in "Readers React
to Bush
Tirade". He says: "Bombing a restaurant to get at Saddam Hussein is
terrible, is horrific, considering the deaths of innocent civilians,
but
it is not slaughter. In almost all bombing raids, by whomever,
innocent
people get killed."
Interesting how Americans don't regard 9/11 in the same light - that
9/11
is what happens when America meddles in the affairs of other
countries,
overthrows democratically elected governments, props up dictators,
gets
itself involved in conflicts, and chooses war over diplomacy.
If America had no hard evidence Saddam Hussein was in that restaurant,
if
it was merely wishful thinking, then it WAS slaughter, plain and
simple -
it was America, yet again, treating the lives of foreigners with
complete
contempt.
When America is attacked, and innocent people die, it's wrong, it's
immoral, it's inexcusable, and it's time for revenge! When Americans
are
subsequently told how many innocent foreigners they have killed, they
shrug their shoulders and say, well, that's war! Yes, that's "war",
except
when that "war" is taken to America, and then it becomes terrorism,
and
the loss of life is a real tragedy; one the whole world should mourn.
Michael Cullen then states: "If you had stated that the war is
certainly
ill-advised and more probably illegal, that the US invaded a country
that
had not done it any harm, the Bush lied and continues to lie, that he
insists on bending American constitutional law to his primitive,
childish
fantasies, you would be easier to agree with."
In other words, if Robert Parry had stated the bleeding obvious. The
bleeding obvious isn't worth the time of day.
Mike Richards
--
Here's an angle for you. I haven't seen anybody
commenting on the fact that Bush's arguments for torture all boil down
to claiming that the ends justify the means.
Joel Shimberg
