The sad fact of the matter is that Bush has enormously compromised the security of the USA by diverting resources away from hunting Al Qaeda, that attacked the USA, to pre-emptively attacking Iraq, a former US ally which didn't attack us on 9-11, had no links to Al Qaeda, and posed no threat to us. Not only has Bush lost all focus in the fight against terrorism, he is also responsible for a massive US financed recruiting drive Al Qaeda has benefited from as a direct result of our imbecilic, albeit extremely counterproductive, Iraq war based on nothing but spin, lies and deceit. And now he is also showing his true colors by again demonstrating his total disregard for democracy, freedom and human rights by staunchly supporting the evil dictator of Uzbekistan who has amongst innumerous other atrocities boiled victims to death: quote "Britain and the US claim a moral mandate - and back a dictator who boils victims to death George Monbiot Tuesday October 28, 2003 The Guardian The British and US governments gave three reasons for going to war with Iraq. The first was to extend the war on terrorism. The second was to destroy its weapons of mass destruction before they could be deployed. The third was to remove a brutal regime, which had tortured and murdered its people. If the purpose of the war was to defeat terrorism, it has failed. Before the invasion, there was no demonstrable link between al-Qaida and Iraq. Today, al-Qaida appears to have moved into that country, to exploit a new range of accessible western targets. If the purpose of the war was to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before he deployed them, then, as no such weapons appear to have existed, it was a war without moral or strategic justification. So just one excuse remains, and it is a powerful one. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. While there was no legal argument for forcibly deposing him on the grounds of his abuse of human rights, there was a moral argument. It is one which our prime minister made repeatedly and forcefully. "The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam," Tony Blair told the Labour party's spring conference in February. "Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane." Had millions of British people not accepted this argument, Tony Blair might not be prime minister today. There were many, especially in the Labour party, who disagreed with his decision but who did not doubt the sincerity of his belief in the primacy of human rights. There is just one test of this sincerity, and that is the consistency with which his concern for human rights guides his foreign policy. There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death. ..." unquote continued: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1072407,00.html
We may be backing this maniac right now, but hey, look on the bright side- You know we'll be bombing the shit out of him within a decade or two.:eek:
Exactly. Same old way of doing business. Take a look at the picture in the following article. A picture is worth 1000 words http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/_d10/_v10/__show_article/_a000010-000496.htm Gov't cozy up to thugs, put them in office, sell weapons, makes them evildoers down the road. Attack, transfer taxpayers $$$ from treasury to MIC. Public forgets, buys media propaganda, same cycle over again. Wash Rinse AND Repeat.