Ralph Nader's letter to George W. bush

[crockett]

I'd say he gets it all just about right...

Letter to George W. Bush
POSTED JANUARY 2, 2014

January 2, 2014

George W. Bush
George W. Bush Presidential Center
PO Box 560887
Dallas, Texas, 57356

Dear Mr. Bush:

A few days ago I received a personalized letter from your Presidential Center which included a solicitation card for donations that actually provided words for my reply. They included ?I?m honored to help tell the story of the Bush Presidency? and ?I?m thrilled that the Bush Institute is advancing timeless principles and practical solutions to the challenges facing our world.? (Below were categories of ?tax-deductible contributions? starting with $25 and going upward.)

Did you mean the ?timeless principles? that drove you and Mr. Cheney to invade the country of Iraq which, contrary to your fabrications, deceptions and cover-ups, never threatened the United States? Nor could Iraq [under its dictator and his dilapidated military] threaten its far more powerful neighbors, even if the Iraqi regime wanted to do so.

Today, Iraq remains a country (roughly the size and population of Texas) you destroyed, a country where over a million Iraqis, including many children and infants (remember Fallujah?) lost their lives, millions more were sickened or injured, and millions more were forced to become refugees, including most of the Iraqi Christians. Iraq is a country rife with sectarian strife that your prolonged invasion provoked into what is now open warfare. Iraq is a country where al-Qaeda is spreading with explosions taking 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 lives per day. Just this week, it was reported that the U.S. has sent Hellfire air-to-ground missiles to Iraq?s air force to be used against encampments of ?the country?s branch of al-Qaeda.? There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before your invasion. Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were mortal enemies.

The Bush/Cheney sociocide of Iraq, together with the loss of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers? lives, countless injuries and illnesses, registers, with the passage of time, no recognition by you that you did anything wrong nor have you accepted responsibility for the illegality of your military actions without a Congressional declaration of war. You even turned your back on Iraqis who worked with U.S. military occupation forces as drivers, translators etc. at great risk to themselves and their families and were desperately requesting visas to the U.S., often with the backing of U.S. military personnel. Your administration allowed fewer Iraqis into the U.S. than did Sweden in that same period and far, far fewer than Vietnamese refugees coming to the U.S. during the nineteen seventies.

When you were a candidate, I called you a corporation running for the Presidency masquerading as a human being. In time you turned a metaphor into a reality. As a corporation, you express no remorse, no shame, no compassion and a resistance to admit anything other than that you have done nothing wrong.

Day after day Iraqis, including children, continue to die or suffer terribly. When the paraplegic, U.S. army veteran, Tomas Young, wrote you last year seeking some kind of recognition that many things went horribly criminal for many American soldiers and Iraqis, you did not deign to reply, as you did not deign to reply to Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son, Casey, in Iraq. As you said, ?the interesting thing about being the president? is that you ?don?t feel like [you] owe anybody an explanation.? As a former President, nothing has changed as you make very lucrative speeches before business groups and, remarkably, ask Americans for money to support your ?continued work in public service.?

Pollsters have said that they believe a majority of Iraqis would say that life today is worse for them than under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. They would also say George W. Bush left Iraq worse off than when he entered it, despite the U.S. led sanctions prior to 2003 that took so many lives of Iraqi children and damaged the health of so many civilian families.

Your national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, said publically in 2012 that while ?the arc of history? may well turn out better for post-invasion Iraq than the present day violent chaos, she did ?take personal responsibility? for the casualties and the wreckage. Do you?

Can you, at the very least, publically urge the federal government to admit more civilian Iraqis, who served in the U.S. military occupation, to this country to escape the retaliation that has been visited on their similarly-situated colleagues? Isn?t that the minimum you can do to very slightly lessen the multiple, massive blowbacks that your reckless military policies have caused? It was your own anti-terrorism White House adviser, Richard Clarke, who wrote in his book, Against All Enemies: Inside America?s War on Terror, soon after leaving his post, that the U.S. played right into Osama bin Laden?s hands by invading Iraq.

Are you privately pondering what your invasion of Iraq did to the Iraqis and American military families, the economy and to the spread of al-Qaeda attacks in numerous countries?

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

P.S. I am enclosing as a contribution in kind to your presidential center library the book Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions by Clyde Prestowitz (2003) whom I?m sure you know. Note the positive remark on the back cover by General Wesley Clark.

Share and Enjoy

http://nader.org/2014/01/02/letter-george-w-bush/

[HelmutKohl]

Right on :-) Is that Arrest Warrant for G. W. Bush abroad still active?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amnesty-...george-w-bush/

[Minte]

Originally Posted by crockett

I'd say he gets it all just about right...



http://nader.org/2014/01/02/letter-george-w-bush/

Ralph Nader, The clown liberal that destroyed the corvair. Screw him.
In a few years he can cut and paste most of that letter to Obama, but of course that would be racist. right?

[Bryan G]

Originally Posted by Minte

Ralph Nader, The clown liberal that destroyed the corvair. Screw him.
In a few years he can cut and paste most of that letter to Obama, but of course that would be racist. right?

What was he wrong about in the letter? Seems pretty accurate to me. Obama did not start that war, Bush did.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Both GW Bush and Ralph Nader are political extremists -- the "Ying and Yang" of American politics.
It's dramatic irony that they have common ground ...

[DWB]

Pigshit?

[xxxoverkill77]

So what?!

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Minte

Ralph Nader, The clown liberal that destroyed the corvair. Screw him.
In a few years he can cut and paste most of that letter to Obama, but of course that would be racist. right?

Obama hasn't started any wars, he's just been stuck cleaning up the ones Bush started.

I am curious how you just say screw that liberal Nader whom wrote a book that caused the US congress to create the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that I think we can all agree has saved countless lives, with it's evil socialist rules and regulations...

Meanwhile, Bush took us to Iraq based on blatant lies that has cost tens of thousands of lives and cost tax payers hundreds of billions. A war that has helped create even more terrorism, yet fuck Nader that liberal hippy he caused the death to the Corvair..

LoL I'm sorry I just can't wrap my head around this so called conservative wisdom..

[Minte]

Originally Posted by crockett

Obama hasn't started any wars, he's just been stuck cleaning up the ones Bush started.

I am curious how you just say screw that liberal Nader whom wrote a book that caused the US congress to create the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that I think we can all agree has saved countless lives, with it's evil socialist rules and regulations...

Meanwhile, Bush took us to Iraq based on blatant lies that has cost tens of thousands of lives and cost tax payers hundreds of billions. A war that has helped create even more terrorism, yet fuck Nader that liberal hippy he caused the death to the Corvair..

LoL I'm sorry I just can't wrap my head around this so called conservative wisdom..

Saving lives is overated. The earth can't support this many people

Nader worked for Ford.

Saddam Hussein got what he deserved.

Those people in the middle east killed more of each other than the US army did. They were killing each other before the US arrived and continue to kill each other after the US has left.

I could hide enough WMD's in my woods to destroy major cities.. And you'd never find it.
If you believe that Saddam Hussein was a righteous guy who got screwed, I have a bridge for sale.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Minte

Saving lives is overated. The earth can't support this many people

Nader worked for Ford.

Saddam Hussein got what he deserved.

Those people in the middle east killed more of each other than the US army did. They were killing each other before the US arrived and continue to kill each other after the US has left.

I could hide enough WMD's in my woods to destroy major cities.. And you'd never find it.
If you believe that Saddam Hussein was a righteous guy who got screwed, I have a bridge for sale.

I don't believe Saddam was a righteous guy that got screwed, I think the Soldiers whom fought and died for a defense contract money grab got screwed. I think the US tax payers got screwed because our tax dollars were redistributed to defense contractors. Last but not least I think the Iraqi civilian population got screwed, because setting up a stable and functioning democracy was never the goal, it was always just a money grab for the defense contractors, now instead of dealing with Saddam they deal with religious extremist and random bombings..

Oh yea but that Iraqi oil money was going to pay for it all. Yet another lie..

[kane]

Today on Reddit there was an AMA with Colonel (Retired) Peter Mansoor, former executive officer to General David Petraeus. He has some pretty harsh word for the invasion of Iraq in general and how things have gone there since. He was involved with leading men in both Iraq and Afghanistan and has some good insights on where we went wrong and the arrogance of the leaders that took us down these bad roads.

[Minte]

Originally Posted by crockett

I don't believe Saddam was a righteous guy that got screwed, I think the Soldiers whom fought and died for a defense contract money grab got screwed. I think the US tax payers got screwed because our tax dollars were redistributed to defense contractors. Last but not least I think the Iraqi civilian population got screwed, because setting up a stable and functioning democracy was never the goal, it was always just a money grab for the defense contractors, now instead of dealing with Saddam they deal with religious extremist and random bombings..

Oh yea but that Iraqi oil money was going to pay for it all. Yet another lie..

A president who lies. Where have I seen that before....

Your hero is not going to have a great next few years.

[Minte]

Originally Posted by kane

Today on Reddit there was an AMA with Colonel (Retired) Peter Mansoor, former executive officer to General David Petraeus. He has some pretty harsh word for the invasion of Iraq in general and how things have gone there since. He was involved with leading men in both Iraq and Afghanistan and has some good insights on where we went wrong and the arrogance of the leaders that took us down these bad roads.

No wonder the colonel didn't make General. The 2003 invasion of Iraq lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003. It was an incredibly efficient military campaign.

What results has a decade in Afghanistan brought? The Taliban are reorganized and will move right back into power the same day we pullout. Announcing that date was not a brilliant tactical move.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Minte

No wonder the colonel didn't make General. The 2003 invasion of Iraq lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003. It was an incredibly efficient military campaign.

What results has a decade in Afghanistan brought? The Taliban are reorganized and will move right back into power the same day we pullout. Announcing that date was not a brilliant tactical move.

His argument was that we needed to go into Afghanistan and that we were actually doing well there, then the administration got off track and became obsessed with invading Iraq. In his opinion Iraq was a conflict we didn't need to be involved in. Not only was it expensive in the cost of lives and money, but it took our focus off of Afghanistan. He argues that had we not invaded Iraq and instead kept our focus on Afghanistan we could have achieved our goals there and gotten out of there in relatively timely manner.

He goes on to say that now Al Qaeda is starting to organize in Iraq and the best we can hope for in Afghanistan is a situation where a leadership is elected that can effectively organize the country and fend off any Taliban insurances once we eventually leave.

[directfiesta]

discussing Iraq with Minte ...

[Minte]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

discussing Iraq with Minte ...

Here's a tip..rather than simply looking like a typical simpleton. Look up and attempt to understand the difference between an offensive military operation and an occupation force mission.

[Minte]

Originally Posted by kane

His argument was that we needed to go into Afghanistan and that we were actually doing well there, then the administration got off track and became obsessed with invading Iraq. In his opinion Iraq was a conflict we didn't need to be involved in. Not only was it expensive in the cost of lives and money, but it took our focus off of Afghanistan. He argues that had we not invaded Iraq and instead kept our focus on Afghanistan we could have achieved our goals there and gotten out of there in relatively timely manner.

He goes on to say that now Al Qaeda is starting to organize in Iraq and the best we can hope for in Afghanistan is a situation where a leadership is elected that can effectively organize the country and fend off any Taliban insurances once we eventually leave.

What's his argument for Obama staying in Afghanistan 6 more years?
If the locals wanted the Taliban out, they didn't need the US to help them.
The Egyptians didn't need anyone's help in removing their government. Neither did the Libyans.

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by Minte

Saving lives is overated. The earth can't support this many people

Nader worked for Ford.

Saddam Hussein got what he deserved.

Those people in the middle east killed more of each other than the US army did. They were killing each other before the US arrived and continue to kill each other after the US has left.

I could hide enough WMD's in my woods to destroy major cities.. And you'd never find it.
If you believe that Saddam Hussein was a righteous guy who got screwed, I have a bridge for sale.

You're missing the point Ralph made early on. You even back him up in a way. Before the invasion Iraqi's were harming Iraqi's. They obviously had nothing to do with 9/11 and it is fairly obvious the war was fought at Saudi Arabia's and Bush's dad's request and to strengthen the US oil companies stranglehold on resources in the region.Now the world is much worse off for the invasion and Bin Laden won that round by a landslide. It's about turning a campfire into a withering hail of firestorms.

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by Minte

What's his argument for Obama staying in Afghanistan 6 more years?
If the locals wanted the Taliban out, they didn't need the US to help them.
The Egyptians didn't need anyone's help in removing their government. Neither did the Libyans.

It's more like the opium/drug dealing cartel known as the CIA that has kept US in Afghanistan, pops.

[Captain Kawaii]

Originally Posted by Minte

What's his argument for Obama staying in Afghanistan 6 more years?
If the locals wanted the Taliban out, they didn't need the US to help them.
The Egyptians didn't need anyone's help in removing their government. Neither did the Libyans.

Sorry but you are clueless about North Africa.

[J. Falcon]

Minte can't be this fucking stupid, he must be trolling.

[Minte]

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

Sorry but you are clueless about North Africa.

Most impressive debating skills, soldier.

Populations have been overthrowing dictators and monarchs since the beginning of mankind. IE: The US revolution.

Share your wisdom, about North Africa. I must have missed a day of news. Last I recall Mubarak is out and Kadafi is dead.

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by Bryan G

What was he wrong about in the letter? Seems pretty accurate to me. Obama did not start that war, Bush did.

And as you know...here in Canada we play a similiar game of deception. Many blame PM Harper for our actions in Afghanistan - conveniently forgetting/overlooking it was PM Jean Chretien who sent Canadians into that theatre.

Revisionist historians seem to think we have incredibly short-term memories these days.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Minte

What's his argument for Obama staying in Afghanistan 6 more years?
If the locals wanted the Taliban out, they didn't need the US to help them.
The Egyptians didn't need anyone's help in removing their government. Neither did the Libyans.

He says that the length of our stay in Afghanistan is a product of a few different things. First, invading Iraq when we didn't need to. By redirecting those troops and resources we hurt the war effort in Afghanistan. Also, Afghanistan kind of became the secondary war for several years (this is still under Bush) and it was essentially left to fester while we focused on Iraq. He criticizes Rumsfeld for being a bad leader who would not take the advice of others unless it was what he wanted to hear. In essence, he only wanted the best case scenario and if you tried to present something else he didn't want to hear it. So when things didn't go as planned he had to then regroup and come up with another plan because he wasn't prepared with a plan B from the start.

The other issues is that at this point the people of Afghanistan have not shown that they have the ability to elect a leadership that is capable of uniting various tribes, pulling the country together, and standing up to the Taliban. We have lingered in Afghanistan hoping that this would change.

At this point, he explained, there are three basic outcomes in Afghanistan. Best case scenario is that we can get an effective elected leadership there that can and will stand up to the Taliban and with our help they can turn the country around and make it a stable place. The next outcome is that they can't find that leadership and we end up there for years and years and years working to keep the Taliban from taking over again. The worst case is that we leave and the Taliban ends up taking back the country and things return to how they were before we invaded and all of this has been for nothing.

The Egyptians didn't need any help because the military stood down. They didn't have a well armed force actively attacking them and the country. Right now it is still not very stable, they are still trying to find out what they want from a leadership. It would be a different story if their was a military force working against the people. In Libya they had military help from the US. We gave them guns and we gave them air support. Also, as it turned out, the military resistance wasn't that strong or determined.

You can't say just because A and B went this way then C should go that way. Afghanistan is a different country and a different situation than Egypt and Libya. For one, we invaded it. Had the people of Afghanistan decided they were sick of the Taliban and they rose up collectively against it that might have been very effective and they may have been able to remove them from power. As it was, we rolled into the country and removed them by force. There are many Afghan people who don't like the Taliban, but they also don't like the US for invading their country.

[Minte]

Originally Posted by kane

He says that the length of our stay in Afghanistan is a product of a few different things. First, invading Iraq when we didn't need to. By redirecting those troops and resources we hurt the war effort in Afghanistan. Also, Afghanistan kind of became the secondary war for several years (this is still under Bush) and it was essentially left to fester while we focused on Iraq. He criticizes Rumsfeld for being a bad leader who would not take the advice of others unless it was what he wanted to hear. In essence, he only wanted the best case scenario and if you tried to present something else he didn't want to hear it. So when things didn't go as planned he had to then regroup and come up with another plan because he wasn't prepared with a plan B from the start.

The other issues is that at this point the people of Afghanistan have not shown that they have the ability to elect a leadership that is capable of uniting various tribes, pulling the country together, and standing up to the Taliban. We have lingered in Afghanistan hoping that this would change.

At this point, he explained, there are three basic outcomes in Afghanistan. Best case scenario is that we can get an effective elected leadership there that can and will stand up to the Taliban and with our help they can turn the country around and make it a stable place. The next outcome is that they can't find that leadership and we end up there for years and years and years working to keep the Taliban from taking over again. The worst case is that we leave and the Taliban ends up taking back the country and things return to how they were before we invaded and all of this has been for nothing.

The Egyptians didn't need any help because the military stood down. They didn't have a well armed force actively attacking them and the country. Right now it is still not very stable, they are still trying to find out what they want from a leadership. It would be a different story if their was a military force working against the people. In Libya they had military help from the US. We gave them guns and we gave them air support. Also, as it turned out, the military resistance wasn't that strong or determined.

You can't say just because A and B went this way then C should go that way. Afghanistan is a different country and a different situation than Egypt and Libya. For one, we invaded it. Had the people of Afghanistan decided they were sick of the Taliban and they rose up collectively against it that might have been very effective and they may have been able to remove them from power. As it was, we rolled into the country and removed them by force. There are many Afghan people who don't like the Taliban, but they also don't like the US for invading their country.

Again, the Taliban were out of Afghanistan in less than 60 days. So his statement that the war effort was hurt is ridiculous. The mistake that was made was that we occupied both countries and we still do today. The military did their job and they did it very well.

Since then, and you can find the stats on wiki ie:taliban..the Taliban have been responsible for killing at least 70% of their own countrymen.

History is nothing but populations revolting against sitting governments and civil wars.
If the Afghan people really wanted the Taliban out, they would be out.

So I am not misunderstood. The Taliban were spanked. We should've left immediately after. Saddam Hussein and his sons were thrown out and killed. We should've left immediately. Being an occupying force in countries were the majority of the people don't want our philosophy is a fools errand.

And that had nothing to do with the military. They did their jobs very well.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Minte

Again, the Taliban were out of Afghanistan in less than 60 days. So his statement that the war effort was hurt is ridiculous. The mistake that was made was that we occupied both countries and we still do today. The military did their job and they did it very well.

Since then, and you can find the stats on wiki ie:taliban..the Taliban have been responsible for killing at least 70% of their own countrymen.

History is nothing but populations revolting against sitting governments and civil wars.
If the Afghan people really wanted the Taliban out, they would be out.

So I am not misunderstood. The Taliban were spanked. We should've left immediately after. Saddam Hussein and his sons were thrown out and killed. We should've left immediately. Being an occupying force in countries were the majority of the people don't want our philosophy is a fools errand.

And that had nothing to do with the military. They did their jobs very well.

You are correct. The military did their jobs very well. It was a failure of leadership. Basically, by your own admission, a failure by the Bush administration. If he had done things your way we would have rolled into both countries, removed the force (Saddam and Taliban respectively) and then left and allowed the people to determine their own future. What would have happened? I guess we can only speculate. Maybe they become countries with a stable leadership, maybe a dictator or some other extremist group comes to power. We can only guess.

So then, by your own admission, much of your problem is with how the Bush administration handled things after the invasion correct?

[jmcb420]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

And as you know...here in Canada we play a similiar game of deception. Many blame PM Harper for our actions in Afghanistan - conveniently forgetting/overlooking it was PM Jean Chretien who sent Canadians into that theatre.

Revisionist historians seem to think we have incredibly short-term memories these days.

That's exactly why I don't bother discussing these wars any further than giving the opinion that they are unjust.

It doesn't matter what has happened or for how long, proof, no proof, proven lies and deception, good, bad, or in between.

The average person is too fucking stupid to keep a list of the facts in mind, because it's just easier to regurgitate the last thing they heard on whatever shit news channel they watch...

[Minte]

Originally Posted by kane

You are correct. The military did their jobs very well. It was a failure of leadership. Basically, by your own admission, a failure by the Bush administration. If he had done things your way we would have rolled into both countries, removed the force (Saddam and Taliban respectively) and then left and allowed the people to determine their own future. What would have happened? I guess we can only speculate. Maybe they become countries with a stable leadership, maybe a dictator or some other extremist group comes to power. We can only guess.

So then, by your own admission, much of your problem is with how the Bush administration handled things after the invasion correct?

Absolutely. It should've been in and out. There was no justification to occupy either country. I've never been a supporter of the occupation. I was a supporter of the original missions. Get Hussein out of Iraq, and punish the Taliban.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Minte

Absolutely. It should've been in and out. There was no justification to occupy either country. I've never been a supporter of the occupation. I was a supporter of the original missions. Get Hussein out of Iraq, and punish the Taliban.

I agree, to a point. I think we never should have gone into Iraq, but I feel like in both cases (Afghanistan and Iraq) we should have been in, out and left the people of the country to determine their own fate.

It seems like you and Nader (so far as this letter is concerned) actually have some common ideals. While you disagree with him about whether or not we should have invaded Iraq you both seem to agree that the occupation and all the shit that came with it were wrong.

[2MuchMark]

Great letter, and glad that its public. Fuck GWB and DC. All Americans should be ashamed of what those two sons of bitches did during their time in office.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by kane

His argument was that we needed to go into Afghanistan and that we were actually doing well there, then the administration got off track and became obsessed with invading Iraq. In his opinion Iraq was a conflict we didn't need to be involved in. Not only was it expensive in the cost of lives and money, but it took our focus off of Afghanistan. He argues that had we not invaded Iraq and instead kept our focus on Afghanistan we could have achieved our goals there and gotten out of there in relatively timely manner.

He goes on to say that now Al Qaeda is starting to organize in Iraq and the best we can hope for in Afghanistan is a situation where a leadership is elected that can effectively organize the country and fend off any Taliban insurances once we eventually leave.

Funny enough those were almost my exact words here on GFY for the last 10 years. I always understood why we went to Afghan and I gave Bush support for doing it. Everyone from the CIA whom actually ran the first stages of the war to the troops whom later followed did an outstanding job in Afghan.

The Bush/Cheney neo cons however cost us the war when they altered tried to half ass it so they could invade Iraq. We would have long been out of Afghan with good results had Bush and co not dropped the ball.

Now it's likely worse than when we started same as Iraq.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Minte

What's his argument for Obama staying in Afghanistan 6 more years?
If the locals wanted the Taliban out, they didn't need the US to help them.
The Egyptians didn't need anyone's help in removing their government. Neither did the Libyans.

Egyptians had support of their military and a very well equipped one at that. Afghan barely had a functioning military. I can't commit on Libya though as I don't know much about what has gone on there.

As for Why is Obama still in Afghan? It's simple he was trying to do what Bush should have done. Sadly it was left neglected too long and likely will only get worse.

[Vendzilla]

Ralph Nader? Really?

I use to own a 1964 Corvair, great little car

The Corvair's legacy was affected by controversy surrounding its handling, which led to its inclusion in Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed. Subsequently, in 1972, Texas A&M University conducted a safety commission report on the Corvair for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; it found that the 1960–1963 Corvairs possessed no greater potential for loss of control than its contemporaries in extreme situations

The guy is a moron, just like the OP

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by HelmutKohl

Right on :-) Is that Arrest Warrant for G. W. Bush abroad still active?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amnesty-...george-w-bush/

Attacking another country and invading it is not a crime.

If you want to discuss war crimes, we should start with what Saddam did to Kuwait.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Minte

Absolutely. It should've been in and out. There was no justification to occupy either country. I've never been a supporter of the occupation. I was a supporter of the original missions. Get Hussein out of Iraq, and punish the Taliban.

While I agree with you, that's not how wars are fought - The winner stays behind to set up a new and stable government.

However, with Iraq and Afghanistan, the governments there were never really fully in control over the country. It's just like Pakistan now - The Pakistani government has never fully been in control of it's territory.

[onwebcam]

" I called you a corporation running for the Presidency masquerading as a human being. In time you turned a metaphor into a reality. As a corporation, you express no remorse, no shame, no compassion and a resistance to admit anything other than that you have done nothing wrong."

If you search DNB.com you will find George W. Bush as well as Barack Obama registered as a corporation. So he is absolutely correct in ALL Presidents acting as corporations and also why they aren't held accountable for any of their actions. You hear corporate personhood all the time but what I call person corporatehood if you will is hush hush.

[jmcb420]

Originally Posted by **********

Great letter, and glad that its public. Fuck GWB and DC. All Americans should be ashamed of what those two sons of bitches did during their time in office.

As an American, allow me to say... On behalf of all the good citizens of this country who don't have their heads slammed up their ass......

Many of us are very aware that George and Dick and their sorted cast of shitheads are unquestionably guilty of treason, and war crimes.

It can be said that Saddam was worse.... but Saddam wasn't American, and wasn't elected and backed by a trusting American public.

The Bush administration and a few of these fuckers in the Obama administration deserve to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Minte

What's his argument for Obama staying in Afghanistan 6 more years?
If the locals wanted the Taliban out, they didn't need the US to help them.
The Egyptians didn't need anyone's help in removing their government. Neither did the Libyans.

LOL.... Libyans did it alone .....

BTW, how do you like your " new & improved " Libya

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Attacking another country and invading it is not a crime.

If you want to discuss war crimes, we should start with what Saddam did to Kuwait.

Please explain the difference ....

( and I wont point out that Kuwait shares a border with Iraq ... while Iraq or Kuwait does not share one with the US )