Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Pro-Bush Rosignol and "Trout" vs. Anderson at Pressthink

If standards are lax, why aren't there more (any?) examples of errors that make the Bush administration look good to compare with the list of errors that make the Bush administration look bad? Why wouldn't honest mistakes have an even chance of going either way?

Any story about Iraq that doesn't demand George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, and Paul Wolfowitz be thrown behind bars for crimes against humanity is a sheaf of purposeful lies, not accidents. The fact that they are all still in office (or promoted) rather than impeached or fired is the evidence that one party government, dishonest or cowed reporting, and censorship of the news, not mistakes, has allowed them to continue to brazen out their serial lies and war crimes.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 23, 2005 02:26 PM | Permalink

Mark, do you realize how difficult it is for the majority of us to take you seriously when you advocate extremist positions like your "crimes against humanity" comment? What about Saddam? Was he humane toward his people? Where is your outrage when he tortured/killed his own people? You were silent. I know you're a good liberal, but why were you silent about how Arabs treat gays, women and Christian/Jews? Panties on the head of Muslims outrages you but what about beheadings and stonings of gays and women. Yeah, that's different. Only when US military offend (and are subsequently punished, which you never note) do you raise your ire. Why? Do you have any idea what happens in Sudan and Kuwait prisons, or frankly, even our own? CNN had a bureau in Baghdad when Saddam was in charge of Abu Ghraib. Eason Jordon placed his cojones in a lockbox for "access". CNN had it's chance to tell the world about atrocites Saddam committed, but chose to say that US military was targeting journalists. Do you have a clue as to why? Do you even care? Are you about human rights or are you just anti-military/Bush/war/whatever? It's easy to rail against an open society like ours (with FOAI), but what about those oppressed in closed societies? You don't give a damn, do you? Grab those low hanging fruit and deserve our contempt.

Posted by: kilgore trout at May 23, 2005 03:04 PM | Permalink

"Kilgore Trout,"
You know nothing about my views on Saddam and what I did or did not do about them in the 1980s. I suggest you stop trying to confuse your fantasies with my identity.

You are supporting an administration filled with veterans from the Reagan years that funded and facilitated the crimes that upset you so much WHILE THEY WERE HAPPENING and reconfirmed ties after Saddam's war crimes were verified. Rumsfeld personally shook his hand over it. Why do you support an administration filled with people who enabled Saddam to do what you claim to be so horrified by? I suggest a glance in the mirror.

Replacing one tyrant with another is not support for human rights. Do you imagine we must think Stalin liberated Eastern Europe because he overthrew Hitler's control of it?

By your logic, failure to support Stalin's control of Eastern Europe requires support for Hitler and amounts to appeasement of fascists. Is that what you imagine Bush was doing in his anti-Soviet speeches in E. Europe last week--appeasing fascists and expressing support for Hitler's continued reign? That is utter nonsense. The crimes of one do not validate the crimes of the other. You are demanding that they must when the US is involved.

Just because the US constitution talks about democracy doesn't mean that every action by every tin-horn cowboy elected to the US presidency promotes democracy by definition.

When you manage to understand that opposing Stalin's control of Eastern Europe does not require supporting Hitler's control of Eastern Europe, that opposing US crimes in the Iraq colony does not require supporting Saddam's crimes, you may have some claim to concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people.

The tyranny of your variety of chauvinism in US media coverage of the Iraq puppet regime (not shared by a single other set of national news media in the world) is a major pillar in the ongoing tragedy of a US occupation that has produced yet more crimes against the Iraqi people in the name of bringing them to an end (that include repeated indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas across the country).

The disappearance of the Downing Street Memo is only the latest in a sad four year saga of US media collaboration with US crimes against humanity in Iraq piled on top of Reagan and the US media's collaboration with Saddam's crimes against the people of Iraq. If you had the slightest interest in the fate of the Iraqi people, you'd see that opposing the latter requires opposing the former.

"My country right or wrong" is not an argument about the human rights of Iraqis. Stop pretending it is.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 23, 2005 06:42 PM | Permalink