November 22nd, 2005

Apollo 4 on column of fire

How opponents of war support war

The white phosphorus pseudo-scandal has made visible, again, that opponents of war support that very institution. What, after all, are conventions against horribly destroying civilians in the act of war, but definitions of what sort of war is acceptable?

War should not be acceptable. The horror of it, if unhidden, will be our impetus to make war preventable.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., are war criminals, not because they use white phosphorus, but because they invade countries, unprovoked.
Apollo 4 on column of fire

Bombadier Bush

Regarding the story that Blair had to talk Bush out of bombing an
ally, Qatar, it seems to me that this should come as no shock. Do we
not remember the speech in which Bush announced (in different words)
that from then on we were operating by PNAC 'Pax Americana' rules?

Bush is the world's overlord. And, when a Bushist toady expressed
regret that Canada had forfeited its 'sovereignty' by disallowing
the U.S. from launching missiles into Canadian airspace, it was not
just a clumsy tongue. It's serious. Here is the 'Bush' doctrine:
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Update: The British Bushists are invoking the Official Secrets
Act to block the publication of further details about the Bush bombing
Doha story. I suppose that's what you call confirmation.

Update update: I heard that the Guardian is reporting
that this is the first time the Blair gov't has threatened newspaper
editors with the Official Secrets Act to block a story.

I'm going to repeat that we do not have to put up with three more
years of these madmen. We drove Nixon from office, peacefully, and
we can drive Bush and Cheney from office, similarly. That the
legislature is in the hands of traitors, this time, is simply a
complication, an extra barrier.
Apollo 4 on column of fire

Take note

I recommend people take note of the 'legal' trick by which Jose
Padilla was just denied his access to the Supreme Court—which,
despite the traitors who sit on it, would have ruled against the
Bushists.

I don't know details but probably Padilla is innocent of most of what
the Bushists have accused him of, just because they've accused
him. That's practically proof of innocence, no? In any case, ask
yourself, what kind of government do we have?

If Padilla had gotten his day in court, the Supremes would have
ruled against the Bushist power to declare 'Enemy Combatants' any
U.S. citizen, arrested in the U.S., that they feel like arresting.
This has nothing to do with Padilla; it is the Bushists stalling,
so that at least not now do they have to face the turmoil caused
by the next move, their failure to heed a Supreme Court decision.