Willful Denial, Arrogance and Stupidity »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 10 months, 1 week ago in Political NewsSince we are a democracy, the consequences of our failure to recognize the bad things that our government does means that our government will therefore be enabled to continue to do those things with impunity.
The vast majority of Americans approve of our holding the Nazi war criminals accountable for starting World War II. Yet, substantially smaller numbers approve of holding George Bush accountable for his equally illegal invasion of Iraq. I defy anyone to explain how Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 was more legal or moral than Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, for which we sentenced several Nazi war criminals to death.
Read Full Story at journals.democraticunderground.com »
914 Views Share Story 92 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Radiofreeeuropa
All progress comes from unreasonable people.
Rats live on no evil star!
Wasilla: All I saw...
Sorry, just palindroming around with terrorists.
Are you still ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 92 (view all)
-
92%
berkeley10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"On June 14th, 2005, Senator Richard Durbin exposed, on the floor of the US Senate, the Bush administration treatment of its prisoners by reading directly from an FBI report.
Reply
For this courageous act, Durbin was subjected to a torrent of abuse from the Republican Party, called a traitor, accused of stabbing our troops in the back, and eventually pressured into apologizing. "
excellent article.-
15%
Endoscopy10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Very typical super biased hate mongering piece of liberal rants. Ignores the following facts about starting the Iraq War.
Reply
1. We were backing up the UN mandates against Saddam Hussein.
2. The US congress voted to give Bush the power to act which made it perfectly legal under our law.
3. 22 other nations sent soldiers with our soldiers.
Durbin and others like him on this site make it sound like those thing were and are continuously happening. No dates are given. When those things came to light to the officers people were punished. Why is no note taken of that. The hate filled rants try to smear our soldiers all of the time. They make out they are just going around killing all sorts of people, taking prisoners willy nilly for no reason, and torturing all of them all of the time.
HATE RHETORIC FROM THE LEFT. -
frank5787Comment removed: Spammer
-
-
95%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Our leaders and ruling elites have a number of tools for keeping us in denial about the bad things that they do. Corporate domination of our national news media, along with their refusal to talk about such things as Bush administration war crimes, is one of their most important ones. But widespread availability of the Internet has certainly reduced the effectiveness of that tool."
Reply
Yes and marginalizing anyone who speaks out is another one. -
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user11 Replies
-
Shankari25Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
95%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Although it is probably human nature to deny that which is too painful to admit to, allowing much of what has transpired over the last 8 years to go unchallenged is bad for the national psyche in the long term. And it encourages more "bad behavior" from future administrations. Cheney has out and out admitted to prosecutable war crimes.
Reply -
100%
Charlson10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When you criticize the government, you're called unpatriotic and unamerican. And these critics are the same ones who demand unflinching loyalty to a failed policy. I'd call these jerks the real enemies of America. They're determined to see America go down the wrong idealogical road than to admit they were wrong.
Reply -
-
19%
buckncindykill10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Apparently, radio didn't read the UN Security Council resolutions about Iraq. Does he remember the ones that authorized the use of force unless Saddam Hussein complied? I guess not. Does he not think it is a good idea that Saddam Hussein is now dead, put to death by an Iraqi court? Did he prefer it when the dictator was in power, torturing and raping the population? Probably...radio propbably has never met a dictator he didn't like. Freedom and liberty is not something that is a high priority at the U.N. Never has been. Or could it be that he's upset that the UN's pockets are no longer being lined by Saddam Hussein from the U.N.'s oil-for-food rip off?
Reply
Read UN Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. Read together, these resolutions did the following:
1. Demand that Saddam Hussein leave Kuwait.
2. Demand that Saddam Hussein immediately dispose of all weapons of mass destruction
3. Require that Saddam Hussein provide ample proof to the United Nations that these weapons have been destroyed and that no active weapons program for such weapons exists.
4. Allow any member nation of the United Nations to take military action against Saddam Hussein if the provisions of these resolutions are not completely complied with.
Saddam didn't comply. The U.S. is a member nation of the United Nations. The U.S. compelled compliance through the use of military force, as authorized by these resolutions. End of story.
What's more alarming here is this story's idea that someone else should be in a position to decide when the United States can legally use military force in its own defense. That, by the way, is a view shared by most Democrats.
By this measure, Hitler would have gotten away with what he did. Why? Because the UN would have twiddled around for years trying to decide what they should do with him.-
-
94%
djn3nunez310 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
4. Allow any member nation of the United Nations to take military action against Saddam Hussein if the provisions of these resolutions are not completely complied with.
Reply
Hogwash! Nothing in any one of those resolutions (alone or in conjuction) allows for any member nation to take military action against Iraq without the approval of the UNSC.
What's more alarming here is this story's idea that someone else should be in a position to decide when the United States can legally use military force in its own defense. That, by the way, is a view shared by most Democrats.
Wow what a bunch more crap and completely untrue. No Democrat believes that "Someone else" should decide when the US can military force. The Joint Resolution Authorizing force against Iraq spelled it out clearly, (which the Bush Administration ignored) there must be a significant threat posed by Iraq or there must be some connection to the 9-11 attacks. Furthermore this resolution required that all UN resolutions be carried out including 1441.
Which it was not.
What clause in what resolution do you claim that authorizes any member to use force against Saddam? -
8%
buckncindykill10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area, and thus provided the basis under international law for the allies' military action in the Gulf War. The determination in Resolution 1441 that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations under Resolution 687 provides a basis for the decision in paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441 that any further lack of cooperation by Iraq will be a further material breach.
Reply -
83%
StevieGee10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To buck and cindy killers...
Reply
1. Saddam Hussein left Kuwait years before the invasion.
2. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
3. Saddam Hussein provided Bush with an itemized list of all of his weaponry.
4. Since 1., 2., and 3., were complied with, number 4 doesn't apply what so ever.
-
-
94%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Buckncindykill-
Reply
You confuse two different military actions and 2 king georges.
How was invading Iraq a matter of the defense of the US?
It was not. Iraq posed no threat whatsoever, even Bush admitted so. He admitted there was NO connection to 9-11. So what was the rational again...oil? Get rid of mean a dictator we installed??
Really?
Oh and "radio" didn't author the article.
Nor does "radio" care for dictators, especially the home grown ones who attempt to dismantle that "God**** piece of paper" as Bush refered to it...the US constitution.
It would behoove you to stick with what "you" think rather than pretend to speak to what "radio" thinks.
Radio can speak for himself, and wishes to point out that you have no clue what "radio" thinks and no right to speak for him.
Fair enough?
End of first person references... -
94%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here are the real problems that should be investigated-
Reply
The creation of a propaganda campaign and lying to the American people and to Congress in order to build a false case for war against Iraq; then invading and occupying Iraq, in violation of U.S. and international law and in the absence of any good reason whatsoever; then failing to provide our troops with the body armor they needed, falsifying accounts of US troop deaths, and establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.
Exposing a covert CIA agent.
Providing immunity from prosecution to criminal contractors in Iraq and recklessly wasting US tax dollars on contractors in Iraq with direct connections to the Bush administration.
Indefinitely detaining our prisoners, including children, without charges or any legal rights, torturing them, and kidnapping people and transporting them to other countries to be tortured.
Lying to the American people and Congress, with the goal of overthrowing the Iranian government.
Creating secret laws.
Violating the Posse Comitatus Act
Spying on American citizens in violation of our 4th Amendment.
Announcing intent to violate duly enacted laws with signing statements.
Failure to comply with Congressional subpoenas.
Tampering with free and fair elections and corruption of the administration of justice.
Misleading Congress and the American people in an attempt to destroy Medicare.
Failure to prepare for or adequately respond to Hurricane Katrina.
Obstructing efforts to address global climate change. Muzzling scientists whose work does not support the Bush administration's positions.
Failure to respond to the 9/11 attacks on our country.
Endangering the health of first responders and obstructing investigation into the attacks.
How is that for starters? -
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo, I am hardly a hate filled person. But I am angry about what this administration and their supporters have done to this nation and the world. I don't believe it should be forgotten or forgiven. If these Bush supporters, such as yourself were to admit their error perhaps forgiveness could be offered, but as long as there are those who "would do it again" if they could, I can not find forgiveness, only diligence and a watchful eye on future malignant activity.
Reply
Your boys were effective, I will give them that. They intended to fleece the nation and they did effectively and completely.
In that sad sense they were successful.-
88%
Ciera-Marie10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Radio another good submission by you.
Reply
Sometimes people don't want to see the truth...even when it's right in front of them, or when their heroes (due to pressure more than anything else) admit they were wrong. They're still defended. Heck there are some right wing defenders on here saying history will vindicate Bush and Cheney.
All we can do is keep bringing the truth to the light. -
50%
buckncindykill10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll hand it to you Radio, we may disagree, but at least you defend your convictions. I admire people that do that, even if their statements and actions make me cringe :)
Reply
If you're ever in Richmond, VA, I'll spring for a Sammy A. of your choice. -
-
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
Neutral
watchingU66710 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
uh like-i never guessed, i bet his lawyers come with happy-meals and someone to run block for any bush questions,i hate him (busch) so much and i think his life should be erased from history,in the annals of history from now on no body in America can never say its name only to be referred to as;that,him/her prefer"it" and we don't tell any of the other countries (even Canada) at first they'll be like Americas fuc#in with us then after a week or two the others will be like They lost bush hey did any other countries find him Mexico is like "sheeeeet thay aint lookeeeng".then when a month has gone by the rest of the world starts getting scared cause now it looks like the guy who has the biggest gun is crazy.
Reply -
frank5787Comment removed: Spammer
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.