More Readers React to Bush Tirade
September 20, 2006
Editor's Note: First, via Truthout, this commentary by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann in which Olbermann says Bush owes the American people an apology for his news conference tirade declaring that "it's unacceptable to think" that there might be any comparison between his administration's actions and those of Islamic extremists. Olbermann, who is one of the few brave voices left in the mainstream media, said that what was truly "unacceptable" was that a President of the United States would be "even hinting at an America where a few have that privilege to think and the rest of us get yelled at by the President."
Below are readers' comments about President Bush's explosion over criticism of his torture policies:
Michael S. Cullen
I'd like to respond to Michael Cullen's comments in "Readers React
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
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.
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.
Back to Home Page