Bush Vs. History

[unhappycamper]

Bush Vs. History
John Nichols
Aug. 29, 2005

The Iraqis are having a hard time pulling together a constitution quickly enough to meet President Bush's public-relations timeline.

As I am not an Iraqi, I have no interest in meddling in the affairs of that troubled land. Of course, I would prefer that the Iraqis establish a system of self-governance that, like ours in the United States, seeks to erect a wall of separation between church and state, preserve the rights of small states and political minorities, protect against military and police abuses, and guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of the press and all the other basics of a functioning democracy.

If I was really writing a wish list, I might also recommend that the Iraqis do a better job than we do of limiting the power of corporate monopolies, keep special-interest money out of their politics, treating healthcare and education as basic rights and establishing reliable electoral systems.

But as an American, I should not be worrying about perfecting the Iraqi constitution before I go about the work of getting things right here at home.

MORE
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/29/opinion/main800374.shtml

[wli]

1. I see only two possible assessments of Bush

1. failed wannabe Hitler
2. bigger badder Hitler v2.0

[izzie]

2. It does seem to me that there are countries that have done this

And we sure did not have a hand in all of it, so I do not understand Bush thinking we are the ones to force feed 'freedom' on to these people.We may think it the best way to live but they do not. Each country moves at it own pace.I think Bush will settle for anything that leaves the oil to ne sold to us and to hell with freedom or the people.

[Happy Friday.]

3. Lies About the War on Terror

Happy Friday.

The current administration loves to bandy about two bits of propaganda concerning the war on terror:

(1) The assertion that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
(2) The participation of our "allies" in the war on terror especially those participating in the "coalition of forces" in Iraq; for example, Spain (now withdrawn) and Britain.

But, if our wartime allies are under attack aren't we, by definition, under attack as well? Was the Battle of Britain, in World War II, of no consequence to the United States because it happened on British soil and not here?

In truth, there have been more terrorist attacks since 9/11 than before, regardless of location. The current administration is losing their war. Last year the State Department's report Patterns of Global Terrorism was harshly criticized by a professor of economics at Princeton University and a professor of political science at Stanford University. In their article, Faulty Terror Report Card they revealed that, contrary to the current administration's claims of success:

The number of significant terrorist acts increased from 124 in 2001 to 169 in 2003 --36 percent -- even using the State Department's official standards. The data that the report highlights are ill-defined and subject to manipulation -- and give disproportionate weight to the least important terrorist acts. The only verifiable information in the annual reports indicates that the number of terrorist events has risen each year since 2001, and in 2003 reached its highest level in more than 20 years.

In stark contrast, relying on the same report, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contended: "You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight ."

As the professors explained, the report's attempt to "spin" the war on terror was accomplished:

... by combining significant and nonsignificant acts of terrorism. Significant acts are clearly defined and each event is listed in an appendix, so readers can verify the data. By contrast, no explanation is given for how nonsignificant acts are identified or whether a consistent process is used over time -- and no list is provided describing each event. The data cannot be verified.

As a result of these criticisms, the current administration was forced to acknowledge it had "undercounted" and issued an amended report. This year, however, although publication of the report is required by law (22 U.S.C. § 2656f), the current administration determined to eliminate the report. This blatant failure of governmental transparency and honesty is exacerbated by the fact that:

"statistics that the National Counterterrorism Center provided to the State department reported 625 "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004. That compared with 175 such incidents in 2003, the highest number in two decades."

In short, it's getting a lot worse. And yesterday was just one more example. Oh wait, the attacks on London don't count ... they didn't happen "here".

[Demeter]

4. History Always Wins--No Contest

Even the looseleaf notebook kind cannot wipe out human memory.