Why I am against George W Bush and his administration. (You are either for us or against us.)

1. The 2002 elections and Florida.

Since this has been widely covered, I'll be brief. The election results in Florida were heavily manipulated in several ways. I'm only going to look at a couple:

1) The Governor (Jeb Bush) had thousands of people, mostly Democrats and approximately half of them Black, removed from the voters list illegally. Information about this is available at this link:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=palast

Contrary to Florida court rulings these people were wrongfully removed from the voters list. This resulted in a class action lawsuit by the NAACP which was settled out of court.

2) The results were tallied by partisan people who lied.

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

When it looked like Bush might lose, the Republicans reacted by using the biased Supreme Court to stop the recount. The Court then appointed Bush President.

What is wrong with this?

Well in any country I've seen, if an election is messed up this badly, a run-off election is held. The fact that the "democratic government " of the US was appointed by the courts, voting on party lines, should send chills up the spines of all Americans. Instead, the US media buried the story declaring that "Americans were sick of the issue therefore it was not an issue".

2. After The Elections

After the elections there was a lot of speculation about the kind of initiatives we would see from this president who was elected with a minority of actual votes and a highly controversial win in Florida. Since it was a very shaky election and a majority of voters voted against him, many speculated he would be more moderate than his campaign. In fact, the opposite was true. It was said that Bush would be moderate as a way to help bring the country back together. What we got was a president who attacked the environment, and women's reproductive rights almost from the get go. Bush outlawed funding of foreign family planning clinics that make abortion referrals. The court nominations he made almost all have extreme right wing or radical, fundamentalist, Christian agendas.

There was no attempt at reconciliation and his presidency was in trouble.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,96275,00.html
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/wildlife_arctic.asp
http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/29/29bush.html
http://www.newstribune.com/stories/012801/wor_0128010061.asp

Ironically, what saved Bush were the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. After this, Americans felt it was important to back the president no matter what. He introduced legislation designed to strip The Bill Of Rights of all its power. No one was supposed to question this because it would be unpatriotic to criticize the president in wartime. As soon as the president noticed that people were again starting to ask hard questions, his administration found a new conflict to use to silence his critics and help his friends.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

As you can see, the president appears to have an agenda that he is not talking about. In the case of Ashcroft, we see a man that is so biased toward Christian right extremism that he has had the Spirit of Justice's (a statue in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice) breast (singular) covered, apparently at a cost of $8000.

Since this is mostly an anti-war piece, I'm not going to get into " The real sins of the father": The Savings and Loan Scandal. Nor will I really go into Enron and Worldcom as they are handled well in many other places. Suffice to say, I don't think the President is an honest man and I'm not talking about lying about cheating on his wife. I'm talking about his and Cheney's connections to Enron and Worldcom and the vast sums of money the US population had to pay because of this.

3. At The UN: Part 1

At the UN, the US has a long history of defying the world courts and world opinion, except when it suits them. The US says that the UN must have more power in one breath, then says that this power will not apply to the US or her soldiers in the next. Reagan said UN courts have no jurisdiction in the US, however they do have jurisdiction wherever the US think it would be prudent. Now I'm not saying that I don't think Milosovitch should be at the Hague because I do, but I also think that the US must also be subject to the same courts, if the UN is to have any meaning. I believe that the UN is our only hope of real peace. The extension of US foreign policy is not a rational basis for peace. I believe that Kissenger should be sent to Chile and Argentina to face charges if our demands for justice from other nations are to mean anything.

http://www.middleeast.org/comments/1/2988.shtml
http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html
http://etan.org/news/kissinger/default.htm

In the run-up to the current conflict (gulf war II), the US has broken the Vienna protocols and used heavy surveillance, including phone tapping, on at least five of the six nations that were considered possible swing nations in the UN vote (that never happened) on the US's second resolution. As an American, I am extremely embarrassed about this. I don't think that this looks good for the US or her intentions.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s800897.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0302-01.htm

4: At the UN: Part 2

As soon as inspections were starting to get results, Bush decided to stop them and go to war.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030221-084549-5972r.htm

Now I don't support Saddam Hussein in any way, shape or form, but I believe that The War on Iraq is illegal:

In the links above, I have the text of the UN conventions regarding starting armed conflicts. It is clear that to go to war legally, the US needs further justification.

Many would now chime in with the question, "what about resolution 1441 which allows for 'serious consequences'"?

The answer is that this wording was used because some of the nations voting for resolution 1441 said they would refuse to vote for the resolution if it gave explicit approval of military intervention. Therefore, "serious consequences" specifically does NOT imply the use of military intervention.

At this point many may ask: "what about the resolutions that were passed authorizing the last Gulf war"?

The answer is that resolutions authorizing military force are only good once. A 12 year old resolution doesn't cut the mustard.

Toronto Star article

I believe the inspections had a good chance of working and were already starting to work. It is precisely because they were starting to work that they were ended. Even when France offered to give the US the authorization it wanted in 30 days if Iraq didn't disarm, the US said no. For the sake of some kind of unity, the US couldn't meet the French half way.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/epaper/editions/monday/news_e357174cb2a1114e0053.html

Thirty days was not a lot to ask for.

I've heard some object: "but it's been 12 years!", to which I say: no these inspections lasted 3 1/2 months not 12 years.

Since we were talking about war, 30 days was, I think, worth waiting. In my opinion, it was a crime not to wait. We should have tried ALL alternatives before we resorted to violence and if it had to come to that, it should have been under the auspices of the UN.

The world's largest holder of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the only nation to ever detonate, not one but two, nuclear devices over civilian populations (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan), has no business being the sole arbiter on Iraqi compliance in this matter. It is absurd.

That they should callously disregard the wishes of the Security Council and break international law in this matter, further reduces the credibility that the US has in other countries when we need it most.

5. Patriot Fries:

Some Republicans have started a hate campaign against the French:

Toronto Star article
http://gofrance.about.com/library/weekly/aa031603a.htm

French bashing is not clever, it is hate. If you want to criticize the French government great, but French bashing and patriot toast?

This has already resulted in arson:

http://indybay.org/news/2003/03/1586934.php

Some of you will say, "shame on you, the Patriot Act is necessary to protect us." I'll let Thomas Jefferson field this one:

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Some you may say, "shame on you, criticizing the president during a time of war, when he needs your support the most." I'll let Roosevelt answer this one:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

In conclusion: I have never been more ashamed to be a US citizen than I am right now. I believe the current climate of fear is unnecessary and is being used as an excuse to rob us of our rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Racial profiling and intimidating "voluntary" FBI interrogations are an affront to the concept of equality for all.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/iraq/1828846
http://www.aclu.org/ImmigrantsRights/ImmigrantsRights.cfm?ID=12139&c=22
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11320&c=206