I am joining a growing list of Americans who oppose the confirmation, of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.
As the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, Gonzales’s advice led directly to the abandonment of longstanding federal laws, the Geneva Conventions, and the United States Constitution itself. Our country, in following Gonzales’s legal opinions, has forsaken its commitment to human rights and the rule of law and shamed itself before the world with our conduct at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The United States, a nation founded on respect for law and human rights, should not have as its Attorney General the architect of the law’s undoing.
In January 2002, Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions inoperative. Gonzales’s endorsement of the August 2002 Bybee/Yoo Memorandum approved a definition of torture so vague and evasive as to declare it nonexistent. Most shockingly, he has embraced the unacceptable view that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States. He has called the Geneva Conventions “quaint.”
[. . .]
With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.
While it is vital that we defeat our enemies, we must not become them in the process. As a nation, we must stand united against Albert Gonzales and everything he represents. Torture is not an American value.
I would love to hear those neocons who dismiss Abu Ghraib and similar horrors as not so much torture–it wasn’t physical after all–it was just softening up the prisoners for interrogation, yadda yadda–if that naked human pyramid was composed of American soldiers. And to claim that all of those prisoners were actual terrorists (or even all insurgents!) is disingenuous beyond the pale. Sure, Wil isn’t going to single-handedly derail the Gonzales appointment or even put a bump in its path. He is merely practicing his democratic right of protest and encouraging others to speak out as well. Good for you, Wil.
Blast, missed the Clinton question.
I didn
the key to understanding the man
Oh man…I was managing to wisely keep out of this, but this one from Maverick just got me:
“I didn
ok this is my last post on this topic cos ive lots of stuff to do today and you could debate this topic till the next century and still not get agreement…
Its my opinion Alberto Gonzales is not suitable for office with so much power based on his past history (how recent or distance it was is irrelevant) and i hope that americans who feel the same speak up. I assume most people posting comments here, live in a democracy and have rights afforded to them if they are accused of any wrong doing no matter how grave the crime may be. I only wish the same rights were afforded to the people accused of being terrorists. It is far worse in my opinion to imprison one innocent man who has not been afforded the right to defend himself, than to let 1000 guilty men walk free from those same rights being afforded to them.
Maverick:
As regards you quote from edmund burke…in his pamphlet Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770), he argued that although the King’s actions were legal in the sense that they were not against the letter of the constitution, they were all the more against it in spirit. i kinda find that ironic since that is what President bush is doing. While Edmund Burke is famous in Ireland for speaking up against the opression of catholics in ireland by the british, a lot of his comments/views are highly flawed and undemocratic in nature, so i wouldnt place much value in his opinions. For example, he was once infuriated at the notion that Britain and Ireland should learn from the French revolution and allow all citizens the vote!
Im out on this debate! Wil, thanks for the great blog and all the comments an all, look forward to next one like this!
Laterz
Noel
Are there any NeoCons in the house?
Has anyone actually suggested that the excesses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are A-ok? I mean on the thread. The conservatives here seem pretty moderate to me, but I might be projecting my feelings on to them.
I think, so far, the worst I’ve said is that the “torture” I’ve seen written of at Gitmo is pretty tame compared to what’s been done by the jihadists. I still think it’s indecent. Of course, some of those “tortures” were just basic interrogation by women. After all, all American women are prostitutes by their standards and it is religiously offensive for Islamic men to be in the presence of “unclean” women.
Of course there were cases where women took things too far, and acted (mildly) like prostitutes, knowing full well what that would do to the prisoner’s religious standing.
This creates a real pickle in my mind. Interrogation is interrogation. It’s not nice. But how far is too far? What are the limits? I don’t know. Should women be allowed to use their sexuality as a weapon? In a truly liberated world the answer is “yes”.
Was anyone here aware that we don’t keep the Gitmo prisoners in cages, and haven’t for some time. We’ve spent around 60 – 70 million building a full up prison facility, and go to extreme effort to make sure we give them food in keeping with their religious requirements.
I’m not saying we’ve done everything saintly. I am saying we do take measures to be far more humane than they would be to us. All I want is an end to the exploitation of this loophole in the law. A government that becomes TOO comfortable letting the ends justify the means is a very dangerous government.
All I know for sure is one form of what “too far” looks like. Abu Ghraib. I’m glad our military didn’t need outside scrutiny to put a stop to it.
Kristen: I expected someone to pull Iran-Contra out. And I was (even as young boy) disappointed in the President. But as I got older, one thing kept popping up: Why he did it. To get hostages back. The deal, crappy as it was, did something even our Special Forces troops had failed to do. It saved American lives.
The results may not have been worth the price, but I can understand the reasoning.
Did Clinton
I write a column for my University Paper and I wrote about this just the other day. Enjoy.
Well spoken, Wil. Our first value as Americans—and really, as humans—is to protect other human lives and human dignities. It’s a shame we have forgotten that. In a world of partisan values taking precedence over common morals, our own countrymen take to the streets to support those who endorse violations of the very things that make us human. Party over belief. Policy over value. Government over people.This is not a Bush administration thing, nor is it even an American thing. That’s what makes it all the more unfortunate—with so…many…people who seek power over values, will we ever reverse the trend? What will it take?
Sean W Wrote:
“This was not the act of one sick individual. This was organized and systematic. We may never know the full extent of what happened at that prison, but authorization for these acts heads all the way up the chain of command. I don
Added to Kristen: Yeah, the Morality comment WAS a cheap shot. On the other hand it IS how I feel, honestly.
Given that I do give Clinton props as the Second Best President of my time, I don’t think I was way off base. Even if I leave that part off, I still feel he damaged our National Defense ability and failed to act on the growing threat of Global Terrorism.
At the same time, I understand his politics and his situation, so I don’t hold those things against him with rancor. I just dock some points.
Also, when you eliminate Reagan from the Scoring, Clinton becomes the Best President of my Time.
Being the righty, I expect people to expect me to think the worst of Clinton…But I am a MODERATE conservative. I’m open to new ideas.
Back on Topic:
Nice link Vlad, but it raises another question. Who’s telling the truth? I really doubt Bush was the first Governer to find a way to get excused from jury duty. Heck a member of the Supreme Court was called up in Massechusets recently, and excused when the found out who he was.
Further, Bush Jr’s DUI is either a matter of public record (in which event, the issue in the link is irrelevant), or it is not (in which case, as a cousel to Mr. Bush, it was Gonzales’s job to protect him).
So who’s being truthful and who is twisting facts to their advantage. Both side have reason to lie, and there isn’t enough info to judge.
But Gonzales is a Litigator. He must have some kind of public record. His actions there paint a far broader picture, and asnwer the question; Did he do his job in advising the President, or did he deliberatly seek out the most dubious twist of law he could find?
I don’t really care, myself. My issue is with the man in the Oval office. I think the key to dealing with him is on Capitol Hill. I want more people to think that way, maybe something will come of it.
By the way, my “bi-partisan” offer is serious. I will join the fight against Gonzales if just one of you will join me in trying to build leaverage for the People in Congress.
I think “For the People, of the People, and by the People” should be more than just pretty words.
Maverick
I think you might have missed this story
And this one too.
Read my column again. This is becoming systematic in our culture. The good may indeed outweigh the bad, but the bad is doing more talking than the good.
People in the military are conditioned to obey. Add the fury 9/11 wrought and one can justify doing the wrong thing for the right reason. I should also note that Graner’s company commander asserted his 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination when he was questioned about these abuses and torture, as did his commander, LTC Stephen Jordan who oversaw all interrogations as head of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center.
Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, Commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade in which Graner served, has testified that she had seen orders signed by Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez in which the physical and psycological abuse of prisoners was authorized to obtain information.
Additional information can be found here These pictures are graphic though.
So we have a clear line from a lowly Specialist to a Captain, a Lieutenant Colonel, a Brigadier General, a Lieutenant General, and then the Secretary of Defense. Above that there is only one more place to go.
The name we use for that line is a Chain of Command
The thing you fail to understand Maverick is this is us. This is how the world sees us. This is how some of us see ourselves. Graner is indeed speaking for us because hardly anyone else is talking. Bush has no credibility left in the international world. Neither does Cheney, or Rice. The only guy who could get his foot in the door just quit. Bush’s denials and condemnations carry no weight.
I stand by everything I wrote in that column. In fact I wish I had been harsher.
Well said, Maverick.
Whil, buddy, I love ya but you got to spend more time forgetting the hyper-idealism and utter hypocrisy of Star Trek, then take a bitter reality pill and realize that the American way of life is built upon pillars of sadism and torture.
After all, we are human.
This appears to paint a bleak picture of humanity, but it does not: the majority of us want peace, but we are at constant war, in all its guises, against those who will kill, cheat and maim to get what they feel is rightfully theirs.
I would like to address one particular fact about the conspiracy theory: there is none. There is no shadow government. There is, however, a dark side that has allowed us as a nation to grow and prosper. The reason you don’t see the dark side is because you don’t want to see it, so the government, as directed by the people, has hidden it away from you.
September 11th has brought a closer truth to the Americas that it has long been avoiding: the world is a nasty place filled with greed, violence and ego. Do you not think that before this day gruesome acts were taking place to keep you safe? Do you consider Clinton’s attempt at assasinating Bin Laden murder? Or would it have been self-defense? Does it appal you the actions taken on the people that bombed the USS Cole? They were taken to justice by losing their lives in a very awful manner: they were beheaded. In other countries what we have done is far from unnecessary.
I live in New York City, Whil. I know too many people that died. What would your opinion be if you had your whole family die in the World Trade Centers? This is what I would like to hear from you.
What do you offer as an alternative to psychological torture and manipulation to those who might take another plane and fly it into your neighborhood? For me, I don’t give two hoots about those people.
Try and kill me? No, sorry, my friend, you go first and before I do I’ll find out what you know and take out anything else that is trying to do harm to my friends and family.
About Abu Ghraib: if anyone thinks they would leave GIs to tend to torture they would be out of their minds! Why let GIs do it when you have the full power of over 40 years of highly specialized people in the armed service as a resource? If those people were intended to be torture they would have been taken quietly away and then, poof: never seen again. Abu Ghraib was the same as Vietnam and every other war: let young people trained to be killers see their friends killed, leave them alone with the people that represent their hatred, and see what happens…
Please come out of your ivory tower, Whil. The rest of the world is waiting around watching their backs in subways, on buses, at cafes, in movie theaters, in restaurants and in their neighborhoods, comforted by the fact that people are dying (on both sides) to make sure that what we believe in keeps on going.
NotAMoon:
A life spent in fear is a wasted life. And let’s be clear about one thing. Nobody is dying for my freedom. Nobody, period. Our young men and women are dying because Bush and Company have an aversion to telling us the truth. They made up a fairy tale about WMD’s and when they were proven wrong they spun another fairy tale about being liberators. I think we all know how that one is working out.
They are fighting and dying for oil, and that, in my opinion, isn’t even worth a paper cut.
I didn’t ask or expect anyone to go to Iraq in my name. They should not have been sent in the first place. You need to stop wrapping up a lie in a bloody flag. The only place where I feel my freedom needs defending is right here at home.
Okay, so how are faked suicide attempts torture? (I was alread aware of the story, and I I was aware of the Doctor’s complaints. Things that again, would not be possible if Congress would put together a law on this stuff).
Following up, I was aware of the so called sexual abuse artilce as well (in fact if you check my earlier posts, i mentioned those very things). What was sited is hardly what I would call egregious, but that doesn’t make it right. It’s still a far cry from, beheading people. I’m still not sold on your interprestion of these events. I shall add Kudos to the FBI for staying on the DoD about their complaints.
And we have General Kerpinski. There’s a woman with no reason to lie! THat Wikipedia article flat out states the there was an Executive Order defining exactly what measures could be used for interrogation, and physical contact isn’t on the list. Neither is sexual humiliation.
I don’t believe General Karpinski’s story because I know the military, and no General Officer would take an order like that without written confrimation. It would be suicide, and you don’t make General with out a lot of help and the ability to detect that kind of thing a mile off. There are too few General slots. One black mark and it’s your career.
All you’ve managed to do is add more names to the list of criminals. There’s still no proof of conspiracy. More the opposite. Why would those engaged in a coverup allow an FoI request that spelled out the terms in the executive Order? They could just as easily bury the thing.
Why did General Tagabu write a report that declared these action criminal and then seal the same report as Secret while criminal proceeding began against those named or under investigation?
The Army didn’t want this. I’m too pragmatic to think that we can’t have any means of interrogation, but what happened at Abu Ghraib was out side of the bounds. Our people weren’t even supposed to touch the prisoners.
And for all of this, the worst thing you can come up with Camp Delta is the prisoners have been abusing themselves? It still doesn’t hang together. We’ve released prisoners from Gitmo and their stories don’t come near the depravity of Abu Ghraib…and these guy don’t like us. If Abu Ghraib was policy, why wasn’t the same policy used at Gitmo, where the administration believes it can keep prisoners forever? Camp Delta could be used as blackhole for suspected terrorists, but it isn’t.
Finally, I will qoute a man I particularly dislike. Rummy:
“These events occurred on my watch as secretary of defense. I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility, I feel terrible about what happened to these detainees. They are human beings, they were in U.S. custody, our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn’t. That was wrong, To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of the U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. We’re functioning in a
Notamoon said:
“but we are at constant war, in all its guises, against those who will kill, cheat and maim to get what they feel is rightfully theirs.”
Like Oil. Hypocricy…
I’m with Sean. This is OT as pointed out last night, but there is NO other reason why US troops invaded Iraq IMO.
And to recur to my continuing theme, let’s say you are right, and there is a Conspiracy leading to the top. You’ll never prove that without a man on the inside willing to leaks some really incriminating documents.
Who can stop it then?
You guessed it. Congress. With one fell swoop of a long and drawn out legislatural session Congress could declare the terms of the Executive Order, unlawful, they could set detention limits for suspected terrorists, and they could draw the line between torture and interrogation.
They haven’t. They haven’t even tried. They haven’t reid because they get no benefit for doing so. But if their seat is on the line they will. They get to sit pretty and let you spend your anger on a man you can’t touch, and walk out of it smelling like roses.
Are our law makers any less responsible? If you see a man about to beat a child with a base ball bat an you have a taser in your pocket, don’t you have a duty to intervene? Why isn’t Congress held responsible?
Because if you are right, and there is a conspiracy, Congress is an accessory after the fact.
Cop out
I just realized where this going. It’s a standard arguement format, where you snip at the edges of my point, and Ikeep drifting away from the core until we all foret what we are talking about.
I want to reiterate my core position.
1) the Anti-Gonzales website blurb began with a patent untruth about Gtmo and the Geneva Convention. because of that, I don’t trust it.
2) I do not condone, defend or support the abuses carried out at Gitmo of Abu Ghraib, but i do still have faith that our defense and law enforment establishment still contain people of honor who work to prevent these abuses of the law.
3) I believe that going after a second term President is wasteful, as there is next to nothing the public can do. Focusing on Congress is where the ball game is.
4) There is no smoking gun to prove the Administration is people with criminals, so looking for it, believing in it or worrying about it serves only to divert energy from the one avenue that can still affect the nation’s policy. Congress.
That’s where I stand. We can play this guy wrote this and that guy wrote that all day long, but we won’t progress. You can keep attacking my reasoning and I can keep attacking yours.
Or we can try to focus on points of congruence.
We agree that the hole in the law needs to be dealt with, ne? Do you think my proposed method is flawed?
Sean W: This really sucks, because your site is one of my personal favorites, but..
That last post was one of the most fucking un-american things I’ve ever heard. Those men and women ARE dying for your freedom. The tens of thousands who died in Vietman, or WWII, or any other conflict in the history of our nation died for your freedom. Just because you are a member of the increasingly whiny minority, and you disagree with our current Commander in Chief, doesnt meant that you get to devalue the lives of our soilders overseas simply because you disagree with why they are there.
Their service is not up for debate, regardless of their personal opinion. They have no choice but to fight, and perhaps die. We are all free members of this nation, and remain free because of our fighting men and women. Any one of us can opt out at any time. The fact of the matter is that the majority of this country put our President in office, and we stand by him. An American that makes light of our soilders’ sacrifice by using their deaths as fodder in this relentless Bush-bashing is so goddamned un-patriotic it makes me physically ill. They fight, and die, because they’re great Americans. They followed orders from a majority-elected Commander in Chief. They are enacting the will of the majority of this nation.
To speak out against the government is not only one of our rights, it’s our responsibility. To completely and utterly disrespect our fallen, because you are a minorty who has a politically driven disagreement, is disgusting.
Make no mistake: They believe they’re fighting for your freedom, whether you believe it or not.
~~(__)8>
Woah… slow down a bit. There are still two sides here.
IF you believe the War in Iraq was started to go after terrorist elements that are out to cause North Americans harm, then the troops (who I respect greatly since I am not there or in Afghanistan in the role of Canadian peace keeping) are indeed fighting for your freedom and safety.
Perhaps though, they are as mislead as others, and some believe the former to be true. What choice do they have? If the war was NOT began to fight off terrorists, but for another purpose (like Oil), then they are not fighting to protect your freedoms at all.
This is still OT I suppose. And I am rehashing what everyone already knows and his discussed into the dirt…
Back on track, the same guys who are gaining power now (and were in power before) KNOW what is going on. They KNOW why the war was started even if we debate that for years… To flagrantly throw aside the rights of foreign people based on ethnicity or religion which is basically what is happening IMHO… goes against what Freedom is about.
Well it *was* a good debate I suppose.
I anxiously await the next few days in Iraq. Personally? I fear the worst. Whatever the results.
I’m sorry, I must deke out of this as well for now. I know little of Democrats or Republicans. I onyl see things from a foreign sideline. Maybe I should read on for a while and let things be for a bit. I do enjoy the debate however 🙂
Good night and may we all rest easy!
I don’t think it was unamerican.
A bit innocent, but not unamerican.
The best defense really is a good offense. That won’t change until we run out of things to defend against.
But not everyone can accept that. Even when the course is correct, and the reasons are pure, we need those who don’t believe to act as our conscience. To say “this is not right.”
Being Democratic means listening to those people, and weighing their arguments.
This time the Correctness of the course is debatable, and the reasons are not pure. At times like these we must listen, and we must weigh. If we find that we believe the speaker to be wrong, we must still listen to the next and the next.
Some of those objectors are NOT kneejerk, and they have things to say. We have to listen, or we miss the point.
When it comes to the debate on the use of force, the only thing truly unamerican is silence.
Just my opinion!
People go to my site?
Wow, thanks. I really mean that too.
I must, respectfully, disagree with you. I can only think of a few wars where the protection of personal freedom was a priority. The Revolutionary War, The Civil War, and World War 2 being the notible ones. But Saddam Hussein was not threatining my personal freedom, nor the freedom of anyone I know. I can see how the Iraqis might have felt different but it’s their country and they needed to do something about it.
Hussein was not involved in 9/11. The people who flew those planes were Saudis. Iraq could not have delivered a bomb by mule though. That country was in shambles. So when I say that those troops are not dying so that I may be free I am literally telling the truth. Let’s not romantisize this any more than is needed. Vietnam was not going to invade the U.S. yet we have a huge wall in Washington D.C. filled up with the names of those who were killed because our leaders were wrong. Just like they are wrong now. These 1400 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines died because someone did not tell us the truth.
I’m not denigrating their sacrifice though. If anything I am mourning it. I feel such sorrow at the uneeded death and destruction, at the thought of the wounded coming home, of the families who are grieving. I feel so bad for all of them, but that sorrow is quickly replaced by anger when I realize that there was no great cause that they died over. They thought they were protection America from these nonexistant WMD’s. Our kids were lied to, and because of that lie what should have been a noble sacrifice just becomes a tragic, too tragic, waste of life. These brave souls were thrown away and wasted by a government that believes they are good for only two things, and two things only; Photo ops and acting as cannon fodder.
I don’t hate our troops. I know what they go through. I know their dedication. And yes I know that people like Charles Graner are the exception to the rule. I just believe so strongly that they deserve so much better from their government and their commander in chief. I just cannot accept given the reality of the situation that it is my freedom that is being fought for and defended in Iraq. Those kids are fighting for oil, and to be honest with you, I think they know it too.
Such a terrible waste though. It is an awful awful waste.
I agree. It seems like a waste when you begin to realize the motives for our occupation arent as pure as we first believed. I just dont think it takes away from their sacrifice though, that’s all.
..and hell yeah I read your site! You’d probably be surprised how many people do. Just ask Wil. He’s an internet writing god now, up for blog sainthood. 😉
~~(__)8>
The sacrifice, in my opinion, is just as pure. When the reasons why the sacrifice was required are revealed as a lie it loses none of its honor and puirity but it does pick up the un-needed baggage of tragedy.
And that really really sucks. It dishonors both the sacrifice and the country that required it.
And it is so nice to know people read my blog. I would ask that people start using the comment threads so I can know it.
The funny thing about democracy is how often it has to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing (civil rights anyone? The sixties, women’s rights, protections for gays and lesbians*?). Given the option, the US would have sat WWII out.
Fortunately, for Europe, Gemany and Japan didn’t gives the option…Nor, it seems, did Bletchly Park, but that’s neight here nor there.
The fact is, Saddam was a bad man, and I won’t shed a tear over what happened to him or his supports. I do shed tears over the incompetence of our administration. They thought they could just waltz in, wave the flag and make things better. And they screwed the pooch from day one.
They thought they pull the same trick we pulled with Japan in WWII. Heh. Japan worked because we demonstrated a level of power that they couldn’t image. I suspect THAT would work in Iraq too, but Nuking them is just bad policy.
*Yes, I an avowed conservative believe in civil rights for homosexuals. It’s not I’m hunky dorry with the preference. I just figure it’s none of my business. Also I have a gay friend, and he’s a nice guy…once you get past his facination with Elves, native Americans and Nazi Germany (I wish that last bit was a joke.)
Maverick
You supporting gay rights as an avowed conservative does not suprise me in the least. True conservatism holds that the government should stay out of the personal lives of citizens and be as non invasive legally as possible. Old School political conservatism would want nothing to do with the Gay Marriage Amendment.
If anything I respect you for making a principled stand and knowing, philosophically, where you come from. I wish there were more like you in the GOP.
Fascinating discussion here, I think solid points are being scored on both sides, including the one I don’t agree with. I have noticed, however, that nobody is addressing the true cause for our country’s policy ills – the 40-something percent of the population who didn’t vote at all in the presidential election.
This philisophical division and the fallout from it is the fault of the apathetic, and the expectation of apathy from those in power. If we can’t unite as a country to do something as simple as choosing our representation, what hope is there for us? As the saying goes, you don’t get the government you want, you get the government you deserve… and we deserve the mess we’re in.
Wil – love the blue hair. Please give us the story behind it sometime when the talk isn’t so serious.
I have to disagree with most here. The Islamist terrorists are NOT enemy combatants. Just this morning they launched an attack in Iraq via rocket fire. Under normal combat conditions, the U.S. would have responded by attacking their position in a like or unlike manner, maybe by firing rockets, maybe by a helicopter attack, etc. Under the Geneva rules, that would be fine.
But these extremists are attacking from inside residential neighborhoods. Their actions are those of cowards, hiding behind the skirts and burkas of the same women they oppressed each and every day of their lives. By the “Geneva” rules, should we attack the innocents in the area these bastards are hiding? The answer is clearly no. We cannot attack them like that.
If the enemy behaved as civilized warriors, they would be accorded the rights and privileges of POWs. But they do not. They hide within the civilian population, and use their own people as human shields. They operate closer to the rules of spies. Spies have NEVER been considered POWs. Actually, they’re worse than spies. Spies don’t use their women and children as weapons and shields.
Glyn Evans:
Let’s say the assumption (what it truly is) of the US going to war in Iraq is true, then the only people to blame are the citizens of the US. Hard to believe? Absolutely! But let’s look at the facts: in the past ten years, during the reign of any liberal’s favourite touchstone Clinton, the United States has taken a direct assault on the oil reserves of the entire planet. The sale of 3 litre plus engines pulling 2-3 ton trucks has more than quadrupled. Yet, the country goes into a depression when gas prices “soar” above $2 a gallon? Give me a break. Count all of your friends, then their friends, then tell me exactly how many 3 litre plus size engines they have in their cars. Most likely you will find the absolute majority with 6 cylinder or 8 cylinder cars and trucks. Where should all this oil come from? God forbid we start drilling in Alaska where no one lives! No, we can’t do that! The citizens of the US are up in arms about destroying their own natural resources! Hmmmm. Well, if we don’t want it in our own back yard then where…?
The engine of this country is energy in all its forms, but particularly the automobile. Blame yourself and the rest of the country before you let your myopic idealism blind you to the “truth”.
That said, profiteering for war was one of the reasons the US was pulled into WWII. Don’t believe that? Read your history carefully. We were building so many ships and shipping so much equipment, arms and other sundries to England, etc, that we could barely keep up with demand. We only really started caring about Europe in an idealogical sense once the Wolfpack starting killing people and Japan decided to bring us into the war. Even then profit and power were the deciding factors behind the attack.
Let me address another interesting side not that is rarely discussed: Iraq is a lynchpin. Peace in Iraq could lead to peace in the middle east. We are helping to clean up what Russia, England, Turkey and Germany, among others, started at the beginning of this century: Arabia as a whole was a tribal wasteland in which everyone decided to play for cash because of its only real worth, to the collective us: oil.
Do you not think that the Israel/Palestine debacle is not moving forward because of what is happening in Iraq?
Just take a look at the papers and see how many ex-pat Iraqis are doing.
We believe in this country that freedom of the press equals information. Our reporting system in this country is so closely tied to finances and politics that it is nigh impossible to suss a true and meaningful view of what our true foreign policy is. Learn to read between the lines instead of believing, face-value, everything you read.
So, with my tirade over I now will rest. After writing this I feel purged. I love politics. I love America. I love Democracy. Get out and vote you lazy bastards!
Political discourse will set us free!
Notamoon…
Sure. I have a big car too. That being said, maybe they could take the $80 BILLION that Bush wants to continue this war for two years,and research alternate power sources… or better yet, build homes for all those homeless in southern Asia…
To stay on topic however, this just in on MSNBC news…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889654/
and a brief quote:
The war on terror “cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years,” – U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green
Glyn Evans:
Interesting article. I am certainly not blind to the fact that the treatment of these people is uncomfortable.
What I cannot abide, however, is that there is this point of view that only appeals to the emotional facets of their problem, but does nothing to address a solution.
We have a criminal justice system that is broken. We let criminals go because the letter of the law ties the hands of our prosecutors. Where do we start to have a trial with international assasins?
How does one build a jury of peers with people who are not US citizens, but people that were captured on a random battlefield in the name of Allah? When you apply their rules of engagement, how does Allah enter the equation? If you stack a jury with peers of the prisoners you might likely have a number of Muslims who either simply ignore their religion, or who are secretly sympathetic/militant.
How does one argue the rule of law (reason, logic)when it takes a back seat to Allah (cultism, faith, virgins, etc)?
It doesn’t stand much of a chance, I believe.
We can stand on our ideals all day and complain that we must not become what we despise. But how do you feel when a murderer is let go in our courts on a technicality? What if they murder again? What if they are let go and kill your mother/wife/child?
I know what your answer is that those questions. And I know you know mine.
As far as your “alternative energy” statement goes:
Past four years over 2 billion in govt money has gone into it.
While we’re on the topic:
1. Nuclear – not in my back yard
2. Oil – not in my back yard
3. Dams – oh, no, we will kill salmon
4. Hyrbrids – good step forward and buys time to nowheresville
5. Solar – good luck with this one. Aint no sunshine when it rains
6. Hydrogen Economy – where does hydrogen come from? Water, mainly. How you get H from H2O? Electricity. Where you get electricity? From #s 1,2 and 3.
7. Electric Cars – where you get electricity from?
How can we, as a country, save ourselves?
1. Public Transportation
2. Stick to 2 Litres in cars/small trucks
3. Have a permit for anything over 3 litres and pay a tax penalty
4. Build more dams! Sure, it kills of some environment, but it is FREEEEEEEEE ENNNNNERGY! It rains, or something, and then we make energy from it. Amazing. Free. Cheap. Continuous. Non-pulliting (but it kills salmon).
5. Switch off lights, demand energy saving techniques in everything we do.
These are solutions.
Lets make the cause go away and there you have a solution.
Do you practice what you preach? I do.