|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
How Bloody Can Bush’s Legacy Be?Posted on Nov 12, 2008
The legacy of George Bush’s two “wars of liberation” may already be judged as foreign policy blunders, but the real costs of war remain even after the truism of failed empire. In Afghanistan, acid attacks on at least 15 female students mark a worrisome trend in womens’ rights there. And in Iraq, an Iraqi soldier opened fire on a patrol of U.S. troops, killing two. Furthermore, the apparent BBC policy to tout the war-effort line in every article about violence in Iraq—by never failing to detail how, overall, there have been “significant improvements” in security even while death and despair are daily occurrences—in effect diminishes the real tragedy of these events. Is it possible that the BBC believes there is an acceptable level of violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, or that there is some sort of fabricated notion of objectivity that requires such a backhanded defense of the war?
Advertisement New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Purple Girl, November 13, 2008 at 9:43 am Link to this comment
The ordeal prior to His Execution should get top billing in his ‘legacy’.
Report thisHe and all His Masters & Cronies demise should make the Inquistion look like Slap & tickle Sex games.
No Appeals, No pardons, No commutations, NO MERCY!
By nobozos, November 13, 2008 at 9:14 am Link to this comment
There will be a special place for George Bush in his imaginary hell, and he can’t get there soon enough to suit me.
And we Americans owe the world an apology for allowing the death, carnage, false imprisonment and torture to happen.
We have blood on our hands too. Period.
Report thisBy Tom, November 13, 2008 at 6:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The article concerns Taliban (as I understand they now claim responsibility) throwing acid in the faces of school girls and blinding them. I spent 2 years in Afghanistan and the Taliban were throwing acid into the faces of girls / women years before NATO got there. This is internal misogyny not something that was recently imported
Report thisBy iao6, November 12, 2008 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment
finally
Report thisjustice has been served
wraiths summon you from your cozy bed
a viscous sun oozes through pores of a
coagulating blood red dawn
echos of screaming bullets and babies
ricochet down your halls
you wade through earthy bubbling stews of
bowels bandages bombs and bibles
rocket fuel and bile seep through your soul
severed limbs grip their weapons
fingers on the triggers
twitching
twitching
through the crimson fog
you steal a peak in your bathroom mirror
one by one
as each innocent life
you altered or destroyed
returns your mortal stare
ask yourself if
finally
justice has been served
By Anarcissie, November 12, 2008 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment
Mr. O has spoken of a surge in Afghanistan. The acid thing, then, could be a useful provocation at this time.
Report thisBy shelle, November 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
If i was georgie jr, the next time i was sober, i would take a big ol’ forty five and blow what passes for my brains all over the whitehouse walls.
but of course this lower form of human does not posess even a shred of a conscience.
Report thisBy prole, November 12, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment
And who is it that judges the “the legacy of George Bush’s two “wars of liberation”... as foreign policy blunders”? Why just about every prominent Democratic Party official you can think of, including ‘progressive’ secular messiah, St. Obama! The harshest criticism of the invasion of Iraq to issue from the messiah’s mouth is a “strategic blunder”. Never has Obama been heard in public to seriously question the fundamental morality of such undertakings. In fact, he has reiterated in formal foreign policy speeches in the campaign his belief that the US “act unilaterally when it must”. In addition of course, Obama has voted for every single funding bill for the “war” since being in the Senate, even though he wasn’t yet elected to the Senate at the time of the original vote to use force in 2003. But jingoistic Joe Biden was, and he was one of the most enthusiastic proponents of the assault on Iraq in Congress. Then Illinois Representative, Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s new chief-of-staff and former AIPAC canvasser and IDF volunteer, was even more gung-ho. Most other Democrats either went along with the criminal invasion or did nothing to stop it. The same is true of Afghanistan - to say nothing of Palestine. Obama wants to increase funding for both the occupation of Afghanistan and the occupation of Palestine. As well as increasing American troop levels in Afghanistan, and maybe even unilaterally attacking into parts of Pakistan. And don’t think Iran is safe now, either. Obama has asserted quite explicitly that “all options are on the table”. Four years from now, or perhaps much sooner, there may be tragic reason to be asking, ‘How bloody can Obama’s legacy be?’ In the meantime, let’s not let Democrats off the hook for everything that’s occurred heretofore. That wouldn’t be very ‘progressive’.
Report thisBy ocjim, November 12, 2008 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment
So-called pro-lifers who voted for Bush never consider the millions of deaths and ruined lives he is responsible for: domestically and internationally.
Report thisBy skulz fontaine, November 12, 2008 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
Can we all say oceans of blood? How about the rendition? The detention? Oh and we should NEVER forget the torture! War crimes tribunals and NOW!
Report this