As George Bush stated at the beginning of his State of the Union address last night, "we have been placed in office by the votes of the people we serve". Precisely. Finally we hear some truth coming from the President's mouth and not blatant lies. So, how about the President concentrating on solving the problems of those he claimed elected him, which was the people of the USA, not the rest of the world.
Why is it that the United States of America has a bigoted sense of its own importance and just exactly who does George Bush think he is? He is the President of the USA, period and has no jurisdiction whatsoever outside the frontiers of his country. The speech began with references to the Ukraine and Iraq and then a sickeningly arrogant claim that "I will set forth policies to advance that ideal (freedom) at home and around the world". Thanks, but we don't want your freedom, or your democracy, or your cluster bombs dropped on weddings, or the slaughter of six-year-old kids or the wholesale massacre of tens of thousands of civilians as you look for your elusive WMD.
The parts of the speech relating to the USA have no part in this article, since this is the business of the President and people of the United States of America and indeed, the State of the Union address is supposed to be about.the Union. However, that a President can use an address to his nation about his policies for the Union to launch broadsides and tsunamis in international politics is unacceptable.
The President's claim that he is responsible to leave future generations with "an America that is safe from danger, and protected by peace" is perfectly legitimate. However, the word "responsible" should be underlined. Responsibility to create the conditions for America to be safe does not involve a witch hunt, an act of utter destruction and an act of butchery on a massive scale, such as that perpetrated in Iraq.
Responsibility does not mean making false claims that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the USA and its allies through its WMD and then launching an illegal war to back up the claim. This does not make the USA safer - it sows the seeds of hatred not only in the Middle East but in the hearts and minds of the citizens of the world and makes the possibility of a second front in the Iraqi war - terrorist acts in the USA - far more probable and collaboration with such elements far more plausible.
It is the recklessness, incompetence and irresponsibility of this President, and his father, who created the Taleban in the first place, that makes America more vulnerable to terrorism.
Regarding the statement "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life", can the President name one single country apart from his own (and the limited bunch of followers-on, many of whom sent symbolic forces to Iraq) that has invaded another in recent years?
Can the President name one single country apart from his own that has concentration camps where acts of torture and sexual depravity are committed on a systematic scale? Can the President name one single country apart from his own that slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent civilians in a war launched without any legal foundation? Who, then, is the tyrant? Who, then, perpetrates acts of state terrorism?
The President quoted a handful of Iraqis who said thank you to Washington. One questions how the tens of thousands of families who had loved ones murdered by his forces would react. How about the kid who had his limbs blasted off and his whole family blown away? God bless America!
Finally, as far as Iran is concerned, what business does President Bush have telling Teheran to cease its nuclear power programme? Nuclear power stations provide electricity for homes, for schools, for hospitals. We know the United States of America periodically likes to take satellite photographs of such buildings and claim they are chemical weapons factories but if Moscow and the IAEA both claim that the Iranian nuclear programme is for peaceful ends, who is George Bush to claim otherwise?
In fact, who is George Bush to make any claims whatsoever about policy which does not concern the people who elected him? He was elected, or so he claims, by the majority of the citizens of the USA, not by the international community, where he would not even be elected as a parking lot attendant.
Therefore, butt off, butt out and basically, mind your own business. We don"t want you, we didn"t elect you and we won"t have your arrogance and belligerence and chauvinism forced upon us. Your attack created the terrorist front in Iraq and your attacks elsewhere will produce the same state of chaos which will cost your workers hundreds of billions of dollars more of their hard-earned wages.
But what do you care, Mr. President? This isn't really about the State of the Union at all, is it?
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
Message from The Don: I noticed some stories that I posted from other websites
have been removed from Indymedia UK. If you try to censor stuff Indymedia out of
fear your servers will be ceased again then I will report it to Melon Farmers (Since
I happen to know the author personally he will print my reports on something like this
and I am not kidding!) for violating freedom of speech.
You have been warned I will not be silenced this time for spreading the truth, Understand?!!!!!!!
Why is it that the United States of America has a bigoted sense of its own importance and just exactly who does George Bush think he is? He is the President of the USA, period and has no jurisdiction whatsoever outside the frontiers of his country. The speech began with references to the Ukraine and Iraq and then a sickeningly arrogant claim that "I will set forth policies to advance that ideal (freedom) at home and around the world". Thanks, but we don't want your freedom, or your democracy, or your cluster bombs dropped on weddings, or the slaughter of six-year-old kids or the wholesale massacre of tens of thousands of civilians as you look for your elusive WMD.
The parts of the speech relating to the USA have no part in this article, since this is the business of the President and people of the United States of America and indeed, the State of the Union address is supposed to be about.the Union. However, that a President can use an address to his nation about his policies for the Union to launch broadsides and tsunamis in international politics is unacceptable.
The President's claim that he is responsible to leave future generations with "an America that is safe from danger, and protected by peace" is perfectly legitimate. However, the word "responsible" should be underlined. Responsibility to create the conditions for America to be safe does not involve a witch hunt, an act of utter destruction and an act of butchery on a massive scale, such as that perpetrated in Iraq.
Responsibility does not mean making false claims that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the USA and its allies through its WMD and then launching an illegal war to back up the claim. This does not make the USA safer - it sows the seeds of hatred not only in the Middle East but in the hearts and minds of the citizens of the world and makes the possibility of a second front in the Iraqi war - terrorist acts in the USA - far more probable and collaboration with such elements far more plausible.
It is the recklessness, incompetence and irresponsibility of this President, and his father, who created the Taleban in the first place, that makes America more vulnerable to terrorism.
Regarding the statement "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life", can the President name one single country apart from his own (and the limited bunch of followers-on, many of whom sent symbolic forces to Iraq) that has invaded another in recent years?
Can the President name one single country apart from his own that has concentration camps where acts of torture and sexual depravity are committed on a systematic scale? Can the President name one single country apart from his own that slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent civilians in a war launched without any legal foundation? Who, then, is the tyrant? Who, then, perpetrates acts of state terrorism?
The President quoted a handful of Iraqis who said thank you to Washington. One questions how the tens of thousands of families who had loved ones murdered by his forces would react. How about the kid who had his limbs blasted off and his whole family blown away? God bless America!
Finally, as far as Iran is concerned, what business does President Bush have telling Teheran to cease its nuclear power programme? Nuclear power stations provide electricity for homes, for schools, for hospitals. We know the United States of America periodically likes to take satellite photographs of such buildings and claim they are chemical weapons factories but if Moscow and the IAEA both claim that the Iranian nuclear programme is for peaceful ends, who is George Bush to claim otherwise?
In fact, who is George Bush to make any claims whatsoever about policy which does not concern the people who elected him? He was elected, or so he claims, by the majority of the citizens of the USA, not by the international community, where he would not even be elected as a parking lot attendant.
Therefore, butt off, butt out and basically, mind your own business. We don"t want you, we didn"t elect you and we won"t have your arrogance and belligerence and chauvinism forced upon us. Your attack created the terrorist front in Iraq and your attacks elsewhere will produce the same state of chaos which will cost your workers hundreds of billions of dollars more of their hard-earned wages.
But what do you care, Mr. President? This isn't really about the State of the Union at all, is it?
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
Message from The Don: I noticed some stories that I posted from other websites
have been removed from Indymedia UK. If you try to censor stuff Indymedia out of
fear your servers will be ceased again then I will report it to Melon Farmers (Since
I happen to know the author personally he will print my reports on something like this
and I am not kidding!) for violating freedom of speech.
You have been warned I will not be silenced this time for spreading the truth, Understand?!!!!!!!
