Let's hear it for torture!

What is it about torture that Bush/Cheney can't understand? Now they are trying to argue that the anti-torture legislation (the McCain amendment) doesn't apply to Guantanamo (actually, according to Bush, it doesn't apply anywhere as he will torture whenever and wherever he wants). But why would they argue against not torturing at Guantanamo? Obviously they think torture should be allowed, especially if it occurs outside of the Continental United States. Can you believe this? No modern country in the history of the world has ever argued that torture should be an acceptable method of interrogation. This is not to say they haven't done it, but they certainly haven't admitted to it (as in the case of the U.S. for the past who knows how long). Torture is unacceptable no matter where or under what circumstances it occurs. Period. That's it. There can be no argument. It is a recognizable violation not only of international law but also the laws of the United States. It is NOT PERMITTED! Anywhere. For any reason. Why should the U.S. be allowed to hold captives for years without any legal recourse, treat them however abusively they wish, brutally force feed them, interrogate them endlessly, and deny them even the most basic of human rights? The entire civilized world (if, indeed, one could believe the world is "civilized") is outraged over Guantanamo and is demanding it be shut down. But Rumsfeld, our senile and disgusting pretend Secretary of Defense insists, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Guantanamo is a wonderful place, a model of a prison, where the food is wonderful and everyone is treated like a prince (especially the teenagers).

I gather that Bush/Cheney are determined to start the nuclear arms race all over again. How else can you explain their new attempts to upgrade our nuclear arsenal, manufacture new and more creative nuclear bombs, spread nuclear know-how to India, and blatantly violate all nuclear agreements signed up until now? How is it that India can have nuclear weapons, Pakistan can, Israel can, we can, Britain can, France can, Russia can, even Korea can, but Iran can't? Do they (the utter morons that are in control at the moment) actually believe that if Iran had nuclear weapons they would immediately try to attack Israel or anywhere else? Do they believe the Iranians have a death wish such that they would do something to get their country immediately blown off the face of the earth? Of course Iran would like to have nuclear bombs if they could. They would be insane not to want them. Under the circumstances the world would probably be a safer place if they had them. Indeed, probably every country ought to have nuclear weapons as that seems to be the only guarantee they won't be bullied and threatened by those who have them.

And the farce continues. People still talk about bringing the troops home. The situation in Iraq is such that now we won't be able to bring the troops home, the Iraqi army isn't able to take over so we can't bring the troops home, we are looking into bringing the troops home, etc. GODDAMN IT! We have no intention of bringing the troops home. We are building permanent bases in Iraq. That has been the intention from the very beginning. I am convinced that the only people who have any grasp on reality at all are the Iraqis themselves. They know we have no intention of allowing them to have a legitimate democratic government that isn't totally subservient to the United States. And they are doing whatever they can to prevent us from doing just that.

I bet if you looked up stupid in the dictionary you would find a picture of George W. Bush. If you looked up evil you would find a picture of Dick the Slimy. If you looked up senile you would find Rumsfeld. And if you looked up inept you would find a picture of Condi Rice. It's a wonderful world we are living in. Happy days!