Bush makes secret changes to Dictator Plans

[Beerina]

Of course there is nothing wrong with the concept of contingency plans. Has this particular administration shown it is responsible and trustworthy so no one need be concerned about these particular secret plans?

Secret? Seems pretty talked about to me.

Let me give you a hint:

Secret renditions, ignoring the laws against spying on US citizens without warrants

I do agree about the warrants issue. I suspect their secret (as admitted by AT&T, etc.) pipes to clone phone traffic are probably also being scanned for Democratic conversations or for dirt on this or that person, and that's the real reason they won't even submit even to after-the-fact retroactive approval, which is an option open to them.

abolishing the writ of habeas corpus, Guantanamo where people are held without any semblance of a fair trial

War prisoners do not get a fair trial. They are held until the war is over. Exactly what should happen given they might never view the war as being over, I don't know (to say nothing of a rather fuzzy end point, to put it mildly.)

invading a country that didn't attack us.....

It was about pre-emptive action against a rogue state that (though wrong) was believed at the time to be pursuing WMDs.

(And having said that, knowingly letting a significant chunk of the public think, mistakenly, that Iraq was involved in 9/11 is smarmy. So, too, would overemphasizing the certainty of the info.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're halfway there, Beerina. Why not come the rest of the way?

The contents of this directive, regardless of who's talking about it, are secret.

Prisoner's of war are one thing, arresting everyone someone turned in for a reward is not. (There are many more stories than the link, BTW) And that's not even including everyone turned in on some skimpy foreign intelligence of another country such as Maher Arar of Canada and Khaled al-Masri of Germany.

Pre-emptive action, my a$$. Read Richard Clarke's and Bob Woodard's accounts that the Iraq war was planned before 2000, let alone planned before 9/11- 2001.

This had nothing to do with any pre-emptive strike on a threat to the US. It had everything to do with corporate oil contracts.

 

[Ziggurat]

I noticed you totally sidestepped my entire post on what makes a corporation greedy.

So corporations are greedy. Surprise, surprise. You don't actually think American corporations are only greedy when it comes to Latin America, do you? That would be quite silly. And yet, they've got this weird persecution complex that other places we deal with don't have. Why is that?

Quite simply, it's because their problems are primarily their own fault, and they don't want to own up to it.

You're full of it that I'm not consistent. I said we as a country shouldn't have been supporting brutal oppressive dictators in the name of corporate profits.

And yet, your outrage on such issues is entirely selective. You weren't up in arms about the French doing even worse things in this regard. And you SURE as hell didn't want us to do anything which might have changed that. So spare me the moral posturing. I'm sure you feel quite passionately about all this, but really, your feelings aren't enough.

I didn't say we should be out there toppling those dictators with military force.

Oh, of COURSE we shouldn't do that. That might, you know, actually end the exploitation you complain about. Wouldn't want that, would we? Nope, since it wasn't us doing the exploiting, no need to end it. I get the picture, real clear.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ziggy, your post again ignores the issues and simply tosses out straw.

My position is consistent. My values are consistent. Your description of what I do or don't or should or shouldn't support shows your unwillingness to look at the subject objectively. You prefer to believe we should have invaded Iraq and you modify incoming information in your brain around that fact instead of taking a more honest look.

Surprise, surprise.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Regarding the greedy corporations, they are not all greedy. You asked what was the profit margin that made a corporation greedy, then ignored your original question when you didn't want to or couldn't address my answer. So for the record, not all corporations are greedy or unethical. I had posted this in another thread but it is worthwhile posting here as well.

Shop with a Conscience is a brochure from Sweatshop Watch with some company/brand names to buy from.

Also look for Fair Trade products. This is a very worthwhile growing movement.

Fair Trade in the US is no longer just about coffee: TransFair [USA branch of Fair Trade], has also introduced Fair Trade Certified tea, cocoa, fresh fruit, and, most recently, rice and sugar to the US market.

More of each dollar spent on any of these products goes back to the farmers and farm workers who produce them.