Illusions of anti-Americanists

Dear Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey,

You wrote: 
If Saddam Hussein is in court, why isn't Bush?
Saddam Hussein is accused of a number of crimes committed during his Presidency of Iraq. An analysis of four years of government under the Bush regime reveals some shocking parallels.

Saddam Hussein is supposed to have sent people to their deaths as President of Iraq. George Bush sent people to their deaths as Governor of Texas. What you not surprisingly fail to point out is that the people who are sent to Death Row, in other states as well as Texas, are sent there by way of a trial. Enough trials in America are televised to know that they are more than any kangaroo court that might have been set up in Iraq by Hussein. Since when did a dictator need a court to tell him what he could do? Bush never once sent someone to Death Row. The criminal committed the crime, was convicted by the laws of the land, and many times they are released by those same laws, and was given his punishment which is sometimes death and only given in cases where the crime was murder. But you're not American so why should I expect you to understand that and then report the truth about is as you state Pravda was intended to do.

Saddam Hussein is accused of being responsible for acts of torture committed during his presidency.

However, George Bush was President when the prison at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad was turned into a medieval torture chamber by US military personnel and George Bush is today President and the tortures continue at Guantanamo Bay. Yes, Bush is president and should hold accountable those who allowed these things to happen. Did you happen to mention that that is being done? No? What a surprise. Also, please explain the tortures at Guantanamo. Don't just give rhetoric.

Who would ever have thought that a President of the United States of America would have to defend himself against accusations of torture? And more than accusations, they are fact.  With the sweeping mass of liberal media and journalists such as yourself, it's totall sickening, but not surprising. It seems when a man stands for something that the media elite doesn't they tend to try and make an "example" of what being politically in! correct will do to you.

Saddam Hussein is accused of committing acts of mass murder. Would these mass murders be including the need to put down armed insurrection inside his own country after the United States had interfered, financed and armed the insurgents/terrorists? And is George W. Bush not responsible, as Commander in Chief of his country's Armed Forces, for the ten thousand civilian deaths during this illegal war, including one thousand children? Is George W. Bush not responsible for the mutilation of thirty-five thousand people, their legs and arms and faces and futures blown away by his Armed Forces? Is George W. Bush not responsible for the cluster bombs deployed in civilian areas or the Depleted Uranium munitions which left swathes of Iraqi territory radio-active? He's also responsible to see that another 9-11 never happens in America again, and so far, much to the disappointment of the Democrats and liberal journalists such as yourself, it hasn't.

Does George W. Bush think he can target civilian infra-structures with precision weaponry, destroy sewage and water and electricity supply systems, hand the contracts without tender to his friend Richard Cheney and walk free? More rhetoric. You should be embarrassed. I realize your article is only an opinion piece, and you are surely entitled to it, as am I. But please, it's like the 2000 election: Bush won, get over it; Cheney doesn't work for Haliburton anymore. But what you also fail to realize is that Haliburton is one of the very few company's that can do what was needing to be done on such short notice. No? There's more? Please tell me who!

Also, please do better research regarding how the contracts were given, ok?

Are the United States and the international community not ultimately responsible for millions of deaths inside the Iraq that Saddam Hussein was trying to govern, his task made impossible just because he refused to allow the Americans access to control his economy? What a pathetic bleeding heart liberal sympathizer you are! Hussein was trying to govern his people? Are you in denial about the kind of man Hussein was? Have you not seen how he lived and how his people lived? Have you not seen the mass graves, the video evidence of what happend under his "governance"?

Saddam Hussein is accused of attacking three neighbouring countries. However, how convenient it is to forget that Saudi Arabia was attacked in a very small incursion during the First Gulf War and Iran was attacked with the full blessing and support of Washington. Rumsfeld even went to Baghdad to pat Saddam on the back and shake his hand, although later he had difficulty in remembering what he had done. As a pacifist you would never understand war. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and at that time Iraq was our friend. I remember as a child watching the news and hearing about how Iraq was fighting the Iranians and was glad to know we had friends fighting them to. I never thought much more about Iraq until they invaded Kuwait. I was in the Marine Corps at the time and ended up in Saudi and Kuwait fighting against who was one time our friends.

And was the invasion of Kuwait not due to the Kuwaiti authorities performing acts of cross-drilling, stealing Iraq's oil? And was this invasion also not due to a need to defend Iraq's economy because Kuwait had been told by Washington (as a provocation) to reduce its oil prices? And was Kuwait not warned several times by Iraq that it was ruining Iraq's economy and that the only way out was war? Did the international community listen to Baghdad? No. If you believe that, I've got some oceanfront property in Oklahoma to sell you, cheap. Please provide evidence.

It did not. Washington had created the monster by arming Iraq to the teeth and decided to launch phase two, which was substituting Saudi Arabia by Iraq as its strategic base in its attempt to take a stranglehold of the resources in the Middle East and in Central Asia and sit on Iraq's vast oil wealth. Ah yes, I remember well how we, after driving the Iraqis back across the border of Kuwait, how we continued after them, killing them all and taking control of Iraq's oil. Oh wait, I just made that up. I guess I thought I was a liberal journalist for a second, you know, make stuff up and repeat it often enough people will begin to believe it actually happened.

If we had wanted Iraq's oil we would have taken it then. We could have taken Kuwait's oil as well as Saudi Arabia's. Did we? I'm sorry, couldn't hear you say no.

On the subject of illegal invasions, did George Bush not commit the same crime he accuses Saddam Hussein of, in attacking Iraq outside the UN Charter? This invasion was based on lies, bullying, blackmail, cajoling, forgery. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Did the Bush regime not show maquettes of models with satellite photos, complete with arrows and affirmations like "We know where they are"? So, where are they? First of all, the UN does not care about what is best for America or Americans. Thank God Bush and other politicians didn't wait any more for the UN to "fix" this. What would we be on now, Resolution 23? Hussein would still be in power, the threat he posed would still exist and the Democrats would be crying about how Bush did nothing whilein office to thwart terrorism in our country. Our intelligence community is weak, but that didn't occur in the nine months prior to 9-11 when Bush first came in to office. That had been building for a long time; the previous administration is practically 100% responsible for that and that is something you can't deny.

Saddam Hussein is accused of using chemical weapons against the Curds. Who sold them to him and what type were they? Did Washington say anything when gas was used to stop the Iranian army breaking through? Is Depleted Uranium not a form of chemical weapon? Is the act of dropping cluster bombs into housing estates any better? Accussed? You doubt this occurred? You're credentials might be impressive, but your credibility is about to drop of the bottom of the chart.

Or is George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, nothing more than a barefaced liar, as well as a mass murderer and a war criminal? You sure hope he is, don't you? But I'll answer that for you: NO. He hasn't lied, he's never murdered anyone and to even consider him a war criminal is nothing short of pathetic.

In which case, why isn't he in the dock alongside his country's former buddy and comrade in arms, Saddam Hussein? You are an Englishman and write for a newspaper in Russia, where I  currently live. You represent the typical liberal media establishment in your hate of George Bush and all that he represents, which includes me. George Bush's job is to take care of America and Americans and he's doing that. He hasn't give that authority over to the UN or anyone else and nor will he do that. I will be among the first to challenge him should he ever.

If Bush has a weakness it's that he has tried to work with the politicians in Washington too much, by that I mean he has tried to be too non-patisan/bi-partisan. He's been stabbed in the back by Kennedy and Company too many times and it may have been a part of his undoing. George Bush won't lose any sleep over what you write and others like you and neither will I, but please understand, there are many Americans and even foreigners, who are like me and agree with what My President has done in Iraq.  

Or is George Bush above the law just because he was born in the US of A? Welcome to freedom and democracy, winning hearts and minds by blasting the legs off six-year-old kids playing in their back yard, in their city, in their country. And the crime goes unpunished? Bush is not above the law and will be held accountable by The People if he is ever found to be doing any of the alleged, (oh that's right, you didn't use that word regarding Bush, only Hussein... a word that only seems to be used by defense lawyers defending criminals) atrocties of which you speak. History will prove you were talking out your arse and that Hussein was one of the worst dictators of modern history. You will also learn that Bush took great risk in making the decision to go in to Iraq, instead of waiting for them to send more terrorists to us and, and that he knew he may be committing political suicide by doing it! , but he did it out of the best interest of Americans, and as you are not one, you can never relate to.

Mr. Bancroft, you are entitled to your opinion and that is how this article was written. But what you have written can only be described as rhetoric and I have used that word several times in my response. You sound like a broken record for the Democratic Party. You are a professional, according to your bio anyway, and I would have expected better from you. Please do better research and provide some truthful evidence of your accusations in the future.


Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

Author`s name Evgeniya Petrova