After watching a recent PBS documentary on the Hussein trial and execution, I have come to the opinion that both men are exactly the same. When I say exactly the same, I truly mean the same; not metaphorically speaking, but in an absolute factual sense! Most Americans call Saddam an evil corrupt dictator, I say that President Bush is no different. There may be some of you that read this blog and think that there is no way that a person in their right mind could possibly make such an outlandish statement, but I say at least listen to the following argument before passing judgment:
First, both Saddam Hussein and George Bush are (or were) in fact dictators. Saddam came to power by means of a coup and then confirmed by subsequent various dubious elections, so did George W. Bush. Neither individual were democratically elected, and immediately moved to silence any dissent raised by their opposition. Remember, Al Gore actually received the majority popular vote http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/; Bush was elected by the Electoral College, in fact, there was some serious question whether he actually carried the Florida vote (where his brother John Ellis "Jeb" Bush was Governor). No one would argue that Saddam's elections were "fair" elections either, but at least he didn't put anyone else's name on Iraq's ballots; in turn, there was never any illusion of genuine propriety created by them. Therefore, both nations leaders came to office under false pretenses.
Second, both Bush and Hussein engaged in unprovoked wars to fulfil personal agendas. We Americans have all heard the horror stories of Iraqi war crimes and genocide. There are several facts about these Iraqi wars that most Americans are either ignorant to, or simply refuse to acknowledge. The first of these facts is that the United States not only encouraged Iraq to invade Iran, but we supplied Iraq with both intelligence and war materials during the entire conflict. It is a fact that the US supplied materials necessary to produce chemical weapons which were ruthlessly (and effectively) used against the ill-prepared Iranian army. So whenever you think that it was necessary to invade Iraq to rid Saddam of his "weapons of mass destruction," just remember that the US would have given him any WMDs he might have had (if in fact he still had any of them left). Second, the 1990 invasion into Kuwait was given tacit approval (or at least there wasn't any overt opposition) by the US government PRIOR to the actual invasion. It was only some time after the invasion, that the US registered any disapproval in Saddam's actions. After all, Iraq was actual considered an ally at the time! One fact that most Americans fail to comprehend is that Kuwait was actually a province of Iraq and was carved out of Iraq by the English who, at the time, controlled the region.
Similarly, George W. Bush invaded Iraq without any legitimate reason. Iraq was never involved with the 9/11 attack, nor were they in possession of any WMDs. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers died for no other reason than defending their own country from the invasion of a foreign power (the United States of America). In fact it is my not-so-humble opinion, George Bush should be brought before the Hague, and charged with war crimes. These newly formed military tribunals should be charging Bush with treason and genocide. This "personal" war of Bush is costing this great nation 10 billion dollars a month and much more in the lives of our brave soldiers.
Finally, though not as so important as the first two examples, is the fact that both individuals routinely "cleaned house" of all those that opposed them within their respective governments. Although Saddam's chosen method was considerably more violent (typically by means of execution), it makes little practical difference in the inevitable outcome. Let us not forget the recent Federal prosecutors dismissal scandal. President Bush simply fired any prosecutor that did not agree with his narrow political views. Admittedly, none of the fired prosecutors lost their lives, they did lose their positions and thus effectively eliminated them. Not to mention the ruthless way that the Bush/Cheney administration attacked anyone that questioned their policies. How many Americans were branded as "traitors" and unpatriotic by this administration. There is also some debate as to exactly how many Americans have had their Constitutional Rights violated under the guise of "homeland security." In fact this very blog and the computer you are using to view it, could at this very moment, be on some DHS agents screen being scrutinized for threats to the United States. This is not the America the Founding Father intended.
If President Clinton can be impeached for not wanting to disclose his "personal" sex life, why can't George W. Bush be impeached for prosecuting an illegal war of aggression? So you see, there is no significant difference between the two "dictators." For those of you out there that would call me a traitor, I served my country in the Armed Forces... did you?
No comments:
Post a Comment