George Bush's War Would Be A Crime Against Humanity
Let's take a closer look at George Bush's Iraq War plans through a historical prism:
* The US aided and abetted the Iran/Iraq war by selling guns to both sides (more than a million were murdered).
* In 1990, Bush's father (then president and former CIA director) lured Saddam Hussein into raiding Kuwait.
* Bush, Sr., used this pretext to destroy most of the monstrous murder machine Saddam bought from us.
* CIA manuals, used by Afghan/Arab terrorists, were compiled at a University of Nebraska program funded by USAID.
* Bush, Jr., planned for a second Iraq War before he was selected president.
* Bush, Jr., the CIA and the FBI knew of an imminent assault on the US before 9/11. But, did nothing to stop it.
* The anthrax envelope attacks were a "black bag" attempt to link Hussein to the 9/11 bombings.
* Bush, Jr., has delayed and/or obstructed every legitimate 9/11 investigation.
* Bush, Jr., has closed off access to information regarding his preparation for war on Iraq.
* Bush, Jr., has ignored the massive peace demonstrations in America and around the world.
* The Bushes, the bin Laden family and the CIA had close relations, even to this day.
* Fifteen of the 19 Arab terrorists were Saudis, not Afghans. So, why did Bush bomb Afghanistan?
* Osama bin Laden and 9/11 were used in a "bait-and-switch" ploy to spark Bush's Iraq War sequel.
* Occupying Iraq and most of the Middle East is a rationale for our bloated $500 billion defense budget.
* Iraq has been destroyed already. A second war would only annihilate the Iraqi people, not Hussein.
Based on the above information, Bush's Iraq War would clearly be a crime against humanity. It couldn't be classified otherwise. There's no doubt Iraq is defenseless. After a dozen years of bombings, inspections and a crushing embargo, the facts speak for themselves. George W. Bush has yet to justify another round of death and destruction in Iraq.
The very planning for another Iraq War should be considered a crime against humanity. Bush's incessant saber rattling in the global media is nothing more than psychological warfare and mass torture of the Iraqi people. If George Bush were the president of any other country, he'd be dragged promptly before the World Court as a craven criminal and purveyor of crimes against humanity. In fact, the evidence suggests his father should be indicted for these heinous offenses, as well.
George W. Bush has no case for another war on Iraq. However, the consequences for such adventurism are simply catastrophic. The possibility of unleashing an unstoppable nuclear cataclysm should freeze the happy trigger finger of any reasonable leader. Mr. Bush doesn't appear rattled by this Armageddon scenario. On the contrary, it seems the more people protest his irrational war plans, the more he pushes for their execution.
A second Iraq War would be a crime against humanity. If Mr. Bush succeeds in his mad quest, he would expose himself to indictment as a war criminal. Already undergoing universal condemnation, America might suffer expulsion from many international trade and finance agreements. Even if the conflict didn't ignite World War III, the prospect of global chaos would certainly light the fuse.
No one would benefit from another Iraq War. Many nations disdain America for attempting a Middle Eastern oil coup at everyone else's expense. The hypocrisy of our sinister democratic agenda for the Arab people is so obvious it would be laughable if circumstances weren't so serious.
Recent reports revealed George Bush approved the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and future military strikes. This is an insanely immoral policy on its face. Even if Mr. Bush received global support to use atomic weapons on Iraq, killing millions of innocent civilians, who would buy all the irradiated oil? In this case, the war would come home in a most unexpected way.
Somehow, many Americans and George W. Bush are comfortable with the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons on the poor people in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the "depleted" moniker, this materiel has a half-life measured in the millions of years. When DU weapons are used to contaminate whole nations for millennia, these are, indeed, crimes against humanity. The leaders of America and England should be hauled before the World Court for these evil deeds.
The Bushes and their corrupt supporters had it all figured out: they would assume power by manipulating and stimulating global conflict. As a result, they'd be able to financially fortify the World War Industry and their campaign contributors. The constant raiding of the US treasury to bankroll endless war, all the time, is the ultimate crime against humanity and both Bushes should be indicted for this conspiracy.
George W. Bush and his Mafia administration are the worst racketeers to gain power in American history. The atrocities enumerated in this writing are sufficient grounds to indict George Bush and his father for crimes against humanity. If the president plunges our nation into war, the electorate should quickly demand a referendum to extradite George W. Bush to the World Court or the International Criminal Court for prosecution.
Extreme circumstances require extreme remedial measures. George Bush mustn't be permitted to embark on his ridiculous crusade of injustice. The clock of history beats onward relentlessly as American hearts grow heavier by the day. George W. Bush's reign of terror must be terminated -- the sooner, the better. Let's hope and pray the end will be merciful and democratically induced.
Franklin L. Johnson
starhelix@aol.com
Major Media's Pernicious Perspective Of Al Gore
Somebody's been drugging the drinking water of our nation's major media. How else can you explain the ridiculous articles praising Al Gore for bowing out of presidential contention in 2004? How else can you explain the media's insane drivel, their mewling utterances of relief, that Al Gore's gone?
The water passed out at those press club luncheons has to be checked for LSD or some other hallucinogen. When the entire cadre of America's most esteemed columnists and commentators support such a flawed position, drugs must be involved somehow, someway.
Al Gore said he declined to run because he feared the 2004 election would inevitably hinge on past history rather than focusing on the future. This insinuates we should just get over the constitutional injustice of the last presidential election and get on with our devastated lives. Many Americans are still angry about the blatant injustice which shoved George W. Bush into the White House. The result has been a constitutional crisis of epic proportion. This isn't something we must get over. This is a serious issue we should resolve.
The most outrageous element in the media's slant on the Al Gore question is their explanation. The very reasons they outline as to why Mr. Gore shouldn't run are exactly the reasons why he should. They say he would be more help to the Democratic party as a consultant to the White House campaign. They say he would be more like himself without the political pressures. They say he could address the salient issues of the day more directly while on the sidelines. And they say he wouldn't have that luxury if he were a candidate. Why would any of this nonsense be in the best interests of America?
We must ask ourselves: Why would the country be better off with Mr. Gore as a consultant instead of a candidate? Why do we tolerate the morphing madness of campaign handlers who strive to present electable images rather than the most mature choice for office? If candidates can't speak frankly about the important issues at hand, why do we have elections in the first place?
In Al Gore, we witness the best this great country has to offer. He's a hard working man whose character and career are unassailable. Time and time again, Mr. Gore has placed the interests of others and the nation before his own. His great humanity is unmistakable and shines brightly for all to see. Throughout his entire life, Al Gore has exhibited the qualities of compassionate and humble leadership. Could any voter ask for more from a presidential candidate?
George W. Bush is the stark antithesis to Al Gore. In his smarmy, septic smirk, we see the worst aspects of the American Dream. Mr. Bush represents the class-conscious, martial attitudes of the landed gentry. He is the sinister image of voter disenfranchisement, corporate greed, police repression, a militarized foreign policy, the suppression of women, rampant unemployment and environmental degradation. Mr. Bush's list of woeful characteristics goes on and on and on.
It was no mere accident Trent Lott felt comfortable enough about the corporate takeover of our government to reveal his true colors at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond. Republican pandering to the "hooded" states' rights interests of the so-called Solid South is at the root of the evil atmosphere pervading Washington today. Rampant voter disenfranchisement and an errant Supreme Court decision propelled George Bush into the White House. The tacit approval of this vile approach to electing Republicans must be exposed and eliminated if America is to survive as a credible democracy.
Al Gore is correct. If he ran in 2004, the election would certainly revolve around what happened during the last cycle. But, this is exactly what should occur. The outright theft of the presidency by George W. Bush must be addressed. Since Mr. Gore was denied his right to serve our nation due to the unconstitutional actions in the last election, he must be given the chance to confront the serpentine usurper of the presidency.
If Mr. Gore represents the best America has to offer, why shouldn't he run for the White House? More important, history would be unkind to him if he ducked the man who ripped him off and clearly did him wrong. He would be promptly branded a coward. What's worse, he'd be labeled a hypocrite for abandoning the nation at the moment of her direst need. There's no evidence Mr. Gore is a coward or a hypocrite. He simply should be given the opportunity to confront Mr. Bush on a level political battle field.
The raging issue of who legitimately won the 2000 presidential election must be resolved. For the sake of our hallowed democratic principles, this issue must be settled at the polls in 2004. For decades, America has accumulated too many skeletons in her closet. There's simply no room for one more. Al Gore must run in 2004 for the good of the nation. And no one should be in the business of trying to persuade him to do otherwise.
Meanwhile, it's strongly suggested you bring your own water, if you plan to attend the next press luncheon.
Franklin L. Johnson
starhelix@aol.com
Why Al Gore Will Be Elected President In 2004
There are many reasons why Al Gore should run and win the presidency in 2004.
It simply boggles the mind how our vaunted media make every effort to discourage this man from running. They say he has too much baggage (mostly Bill Clinton). They say he's too wooden and wonky. Yet, when he attempts to trim his image, they say he can't make up his mind.
The media bash him for writing books. The media bash him for being too articulate. They even bash him for kissing his own wife (not girl friend or hooker) in public. Are these problems of Al Gore's own making or are the media intent on destroying the real remedy for the disease in the White House?
The media are jubilant Al Gore's gone. They say we can now give potential challengers a chance to define themselves, unencumbered by his presence. Let's take a look at some of these so-called entrants in the Democratic presidential sweepstakes.
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) is a tall, handsome, thoughtful man who would make a good president. He has some name recognition and comes from a state where he can get the funds to run. He won't make it because he'll be smeared by the right as being too liberal, whatever that means. His record is Kennedy-esque. Apparently, in 21st century America, this fact alone disqualifies you. Boy, we've come a long way down.
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) is a political aardvark. His drone approach to speaking will not excite the democratic base. It'll also put the rest of the country to sleep. With so many problems facing our nation, the last thing we need is a Rip Van Winkle president. While senator Lieberman possesses good name recognition and probably can muster more campaign funds than any other Democrat, his appeal would be limited to the East and West coasts. The rest of the nation won't vote for him.
Senator Tom Dashle (D-S.D.) is a smart, sincere politician. He's very sensitive to foreign policy issues since he comes from a state bristling with nuclear missiles. He has very good name recognition, but the odds are he won't draw the funds necessary to run for the presidency. His political approach is too timid and cautious. Also, he let George Bush shove through congress a crazy tax cut and other ill-conceived legislation over his warm body. The nation would be much better off with a candidate with at least a coat rack for a backbone.
Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO.) is the congressional version of Tom Dashle. He's cautious to a fault and would be quickly slapped with the liberal logo. He has good name recognition. However, this Midwesterner would have a tough time getting enough funds to run. His base is too narrow, appealing mostly to union interests. He's a good man with not enough lead in his political trousers.
Other hopefuls, such as Vermont's Gov. Howard Dean, Connecticut's Sen. Chris Dodd, Delaware's Sen. Joe Biden and New York's Al Sharpton, are remote choices. North Carolina's Sen. John Edwards has to do more than comb his hair like John Kennedy for any serious consideration.
Now, it's apparent none of these men has what it takes to become a credible alternative to George W. Bush. This isn't to say the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee won't come from this group. However, any honest appraisal of the potential candidates would conclude only one person stands, head and shoulders, above the rest. And his name is Albert Gore, Jr.
There's an overwhelming reason why Al Gore should run for president in 2004. He owes it to the constitution and the people of the United States. George W. Bush never won the 2000 election. He was unconstitutionally selected by the Felonious Five Supreme Court justices who decided to protect our rancid election process rather than our democratic ideals. George Bush has never been, nor will he ever be, our president. He's a pretender, an interloper, an impostor. He's done nothing to improve the lives of our citizens. And he spends his time contriving reasons to begin World War III.
Al Gore knows the importance of the 2004 election. It's clear George W. Bush shouldn't be permitted to seal his rise to power by stealing a second term. The president has the financial support to bankrupt any Democrat challenger, except perhaps Al Gore. Mr. Bush will attempt to solidify his coup d'etat which was heavily financed by the military industrial incarceration complex. The only one who can save us from this savage injustice is Al Gore.
The American voters desperately need an opportunity to reconfirm their belief in our democratic process. The 2004 election must be a referendum for constitutional justice. The impostor imperial presidency of George W. Bush must be challenged by the man who actually won the right to serve the American people. Again, that person is Al Gore.
For some strange reason, our manic media can't seem to find one good thing to say about Al Gore. When his profile is examined, you discover a man of great warmth, intelligence, sincerity and integrity. Mr. Gore has led an exemplary life, making the tough decisions to serve his country. An excellent family man, Al Gore has proven himself with his actions and deeds. Conversely, George W. Bush rose to power on the wings and wampum of others.
Al Gore has worked hard his entire life to become worthy of the highest office in our land. No one can doubt his extensive qualifications. George Bush has no qualifications for the office he holds other than supporting the death penalty, both in America and for Iraq.
Al Gore would win the presidency in 2004 because the American people would elect him (a second time) if given the chance. The Democratic party should encourage his candidacy for the sake of our nation. Al Gore must reconsider his decision against running in 2004. When our citizens continue to cry out for justice and constantly call his name, he'll surely and humbly respond.
Franklin L. Johnson
starhelix@aol.com
We Must Demilitarize The American Language
Comedian and language master, George Carlin, is famous for his routine comparing the pastoral patois of baseball to the war terms used in football. He's at his satirical best when he presents this bit (and I paraphrase): In baseball you wear a cap...in football you wear a helmet. Baseball is played on fields of various dimensions...football is played on a rigidly defined gridiron. Baseball has no set time to end (there may be extra innings)...football has a definite time frame (when the clock runs out, the game is over)...The object in football is to use bombs, sweeps and other offensive weapons to gain ground in your opponent's territory in order to shove the ball into his "end zone"...the object in baseball is to go home!
It's no coincidence football surpassed baseball as America's national sport during the cold war decades following World War II. In fact, our nation has been involved in one war after another for more than a half century. The constant pressure from our militarized foreign policy has had a severe, negative effect on everything we do.
Our daily lives are full of war-related terms projecting images of death and destruction. Our media are saturated with stories of incomprehensible conflict, torture and inhumanity. Our so-called entertainment fare is violence-oriented to a dangerous degree. America is so overwhelmed by these negative forces, we barely notice the cruel impact.
We casually use war language when playing cards, basketball or bowling with family and friends. We rarely notice how this raw language subconsciously affects us. We "soldier on" down at the factory or office as we "fight" to maintain our shaky sense of well-being. Day after day, "battles" are "waged" in our "struggles for survival." Why does no one notice how the language in our lives defines the very nature of our insecurity and helplessness?
The first major tennis tournament in Australia has just begun. The commentators are completely unaware how often they refer to the skills of the players in martial language. Guns and bombs abound on the tennis court according to the play-by-play analysis. No one notices how sensationalizing match play with war words is not in the best interests of tennis or any other sport.
Americans are alternately conflicted and ambivalent about the prospects of another war on the defenseless people in Iraq. This issue should be a no-brainer. No nation should seek to destroy another nation, especially when you weren't directly attacked and spent most of a decade discovering that nation is completely vulnerable to our weapons. An attack on Iraq under these circumstances is immoral and unjust. So, where's the outrage against this insane policy? Why don't we care about what's being done in our names anymore?
Americans have been desensitized by the war references in every aspect of our lives. It's not the terrorism of Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein which disturbs us. It's the incessant bloodlust words and images which dull our perspective and overload our senses.
We must call attention to this phenomenon and how it wrecks our lives. We must understand the damaging affect the constant preparation for and waging of war has on us. Recent reports about GIs killing their wives and the murderous spree of the Washington sniper should awaken us to the tragedy in our midst. All these men were veterans from the first Iraq war. The "out of sight, out of mind" attitude regarding war must be questioned. You can't send our young citizens to mass murder other people and not suffer consequences from this action. The war will eventually come home.
If America is ever to lead the world in beating our weapons into plowshares, we must begin the process at home by demilitarizing our language. This simple step is achievable because it costs nothing and each of us can participate in cleansing our language, hearts, minds and souls. The demilitarization of America must begin by rejecting war words and replacing them with the language of peace.
Franklin L. Johnson
starhelix@aol.com
