Bush is speaking at the National Endowment for Democracy, and I heard him complain that the insurgents "do not respect the rules of warfare." Is he kidding? What of the Iraqi prisoners we raped, tortured, and murdered in Abu Ghraib? What of the American soldiers who are trading pictures of dead Iraqis and Afghanis for porn? What of the hundreds of prisoners illegally held at Guantanamo Bay?
He now says "All tyrants and would-be tyrants justify murder for the pursuit of their own world view." What the hell does this guy think he's doing? Spreading democracy? Who says democracy is the absolute best thing for these people, or for any people?
If American forces are going to accuse others of acting inappropriately, we have no right to accuse others of doing the same.
He also claims that our forces have disrupted 3 al qaeda attacks in the United States. Hmm, that's 3 more than I've heard of, and I don't really see any way this can be proven. Keeping us under a cloak of secrecy really has worked well for him.
jaded ranting
Thursday, October 06, 2005 at 10:56:00 AM
Rules of warfare?
Ben said...
Thanks for the support! -- American Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines.
~
jaded said...
I do support honorable soldiers working their hardest and risking their lives for this country. I don't support those who are continuing to embarrass their fellow soldiers and their country by committing these horrendous acts. There is no defending what happened in Abu Ghraib, or the reports of troops trading these pics for porn. My comments about the illegal imprisonment do not reflect on our troops, but on this inept administration that has nothing but contempt for the law.
~
dian said...
About the last subject in your post: while I think it is perfectly fine to have a healthy dose of skepticism of what the administration says, we shouldn't immediately jump to conclusions about whether someone is lying or not. Bush said this in a major national speech, which I don't think is the arena for such details. I know you posted this right after you saw it, but Scott McClellan did later elaborate on 2 of the 3 cases: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100600455.html
~
jaded said...
good, i didn't think those details would come out and i'm happy that the have at least partially come out. i'd like to see how this information evolves.
~
