Good News, Bad News

Bad news first: we still have not captured Osama bin Laden or shut down Al Qaeda, the organization responsible for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. The good news: we captured a guy who was not involved with those attacks, who in fact has never attacked the US, but hey, at least he's an Arab. Don't get me wrong. Saddam Hussein is a despicable man, an autocratic dictator, and a violent thug. If the US and other nations had not intervened after his invasion of Kuwait in 1991 he would likely have fomented more violence in the Persian Gulf and even have posed a serious threat to Israel. But George Bush and his henchmen are claiming that his capture is a victory in the war on terrorism. This is sort of like pulling weeds to get the rabbits out of your garden. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. By 2001 Saddam was a minor regional threat, a threat that could have been managed and contained while the United States pursued more immediate and more dangerous threats. That Bush has repeatedly tried to confuse the two issues is reprehensible; that the American press has gone along with this deception is disgusting; that Congress went along with it, even after being lied to by the president, is criminal; that much of the American public continues to buy this load of manure is embarassing. If there is to be any hope for our republic, we have to stop accepting Bush's lies now. We cannot kid ourselves anymore that our government will take care of the important issues while we go about our daily lives. If we do not hold our government accountable they will know they can get away with anything, and we can say goodbye to the liberties so many Americans have fought for over so many years. Since 1776 generations of Americans have fought to protect our freedom from enemies abroad and at home who would take it away. Will we now give that freedom up willingly?
- posted by truthspeaker    Comments

 

Liberating Iraqis - from labor unions?

As part of our effort to fight terrorism and establish a free Iraq, US forces have raided the headquarters of the Iraqi Workers Federation of Trade Unions.

"They gave no reason at all, despite being asked over and over," says IFTU spokesperson Abdullah Muhsin. Soldiers painted over the name of the federation on the front of the building with black paint, Muhsin says. The union had few resources, "but we did have a few files, and they took those," Muhsin adds. Ironically, the office had posters on the walls condemning terrorism, which soldiers tore down in the raid.

The US-appointed Coalition Provisional Authority is also enforcing Saddam's 1987 law prohibiting workers in state-run industries from joining unions. (Pacific News Service)

Hundreds of Civilian Deaths in Iraq Were Preventable

Of course it's impossible to conduct a war without civilian casualites. But the US claims to be doing its best to minimize "collateral damage". Is that true? Human Rights Watch doesn't think so:

The use of cluster munitions in populated areas caused more civilian casualties than any other factor in the coalition's conduct of major military operations in March and April, Human Rights Watch said. U.S. and British forces used almost 13,000 cluster munitions, containing nearly 2 million submunitions, that killed or wounded more than 1,000 civilians. Meanwhile, 50 strikes on top Iraqi leaders failed to kill any of the intended targets, but instead killed dozens of civilians, the Human Rights Watch report revealed. The U.S. "decapitation" strategy relied on intercepts of senior Iraqi leaders' satellite phone calls along with corroborating intelligence that proved inadequate. As a result, the U.S. military could only locate targets within a 100-meter radius – clearly inadequate precision in civilian neighborhoods.

(Human Rights News)

Remember the Taliban?

And while we're allegedly fighting "terrorism" in Iraq (a country that had no ties to Al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks), the Taliban are retaking Afghanistan:

The United Nations may be forced to abandon its two-year effort to stabilize Afghanistan because of rising violence blamed on the resurgent Taliban, its top official here warned Friday in an interview with The Associated Press. Lakhdar Brahimi said his team could not continue its work unless security improves. He called for more foreign troops to halt attacks that have killed at least 11 aid workers across the south and east since March. NATO, which commands a 5,500-strong peacekeeping force in the Afghan capital, Kabul, has agreed in principle to expand into the provinces. But nations have been slow to come forward with pledges of troops.

(Associated Press) I don't feel safer, Mr. Bush.
- posted by truthspeaker    Comments