Beware: Political rant

Where does Rumsfeld get off complaining that anything is a violation of the Geneva Convention?!!? And for "humiliating" by broadcasting images of the handful of support troops the Iraqis have captured? This is the man who has presided over the holding of suspected agents of Al Qaeda in cages at Guantanamo Bay. He has also played a large role in trying to force Iraqi diplomats from their posts across the globe. Even if the Iraqi broadcasts were meant as propaganda, I wonder what the only released photo of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (taken at about 3AM after being denied sleep, a shower, a shave, fitting clothes, etc for days under US guard) was supposed to be.

I despise anyone even partially connected to September 11 and who otherwise use terror against any population, but there is a point at which action against these people has gone too far. And George W. Bush et al have been gleefully pushing the US and its "coalition of the willing" way beyond that limit. How do you condemn and invade a country for breaking its international treaty obligations while you have done so time and time again (Kyoto, International Criminal Court, ABM, CTBT)? The US has even willfully torpedoed a protocol that would have called for inspections on all potential global bioweapons sites. We stand for free speech and access to information. With the Justice Department secretly gathering our library records? We stand for equal opportunity but force certain people to register and even hold many of them for days without charge. W wants to "leave no child behind," but leaves the US education system in ruins from headstart to Post-Graduate Education. Is this "compassionate conservatism?" Is this even sane?

I most emphatically do not support this war. But that does not mean I don't support all the American and "Allied" troops that have been deployed. Quite the opposite. Unlike Bush, I believe that our brave soldiers should not be needlessly put in a position _where people are shooting at them and trying to kill them_. There is a big distinction to be made between supporting the troops and whether you support what they are ordered to do. Realize that the US gave its tacit approval to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in Northern Iraq by taking absolutely no substantive steps when the news broke. The US government even continued supplying arms to the Iraqi regime (as it had for years) after Halabja was gassed! Also realize that the only times that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons) was when he was facing direct attack from outside powers. He used them on Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds after they openly supported Iranian incursions. This makes me a bit wary of putting American forces in the position of invading Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a brutal despot and deserves to be overthrown, but only with a realistic battle plan and when there is a detailed and workable plan for Iraq's future.

And don't even get me started on the position W and his cronies have taken on the United Nations. If a Congressman doesn't get his way on an appropriations bill, he would be laughed out of the House and public service if he threw an equivalent tantrum and called the whole system irrelevant.

And what are we going to do if we can actually kill Saddam and his two sons? Have things turn out like Afghanistan? Karzai was pretty much forced into power by the US and nobody within his government can go anywhere in Kabul without a full US Marine guard convoy. Even then, there have been several high-profile assasinations. Beyond Kabul, forget it. I also find it interesting that American media doesn't think to mention the attempted (and US encouraged) revolt staged by northern Kurds and southern Shia in post-Gulf War Iraq. The one which Saddam brutally put down and ignored by the US. We have a great track record, don't we?

Oy!

End of rant.

Sorry for my tone, but are there any sane journalists or politicians out there anymore?