Got the following on an e-mail from an American:
A teacher in a small Texas town asks her class
how many of them are Bush fans. Not really knowing what a Bush
fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids
raise their hands except one boy, Johnny.
The teacher asks Johnny why he has decided to
Johnny says, "I'm not a Bush fan."
The teacher says, "Why aren't you a Bush fan?"
Johnny says, "I'm a John Kerry fan."
The teacher asks why he's a John Kerry fan.
The boy says, "Well, my mom's a John Kerry fan, and my
Dad's a John Kerry fan, so I'm a John Kerry fan!"
The teacher is angry, so she says, "What
if your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot? What would
that make you?"
Johnny says, "Oh! That would make me a
Now that was weeks before the unveiling of photographs of naked
detainees showing the true American colour in Iraq. The graphic
bromide images exemplified despicable and degrading acts of
barbarism unleashed by uniformed grinning USA soldiers, men
and women, on Iraqi prisoners of war. (Agencies and TV channels
worldwide, first week of May)
The venue of this heinous crime was the infamous
Abu Ghraib prison, where toppled president Saddam Hussein's
official lackeys perpetrated lesser acts on Iraqis; lesser because
elements of sexual abuse, sadism and sodomy were absent -- the
Iraqis never took pictures of humans being treated as dogs.
Once again the supposedly famous US intelligence,
now for the wrong reasons, failed the public, as it did apparently
before 9/11. This time the media let the cat out of the bag
and caught the US administration unawares. If a reporter got
to it first, which is exactly what happened, the entire Pentagon
must have been on 'sick' leave. Yes! What has been happening
in Iraq for the past one year and more is sick.
Let us take a peep at how Bush's US works these
days: Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of military
operations in Iraq, told '60 Minutes II' that the torture was
'reprehensible' (presumably meaning on the wrong side of the
law) and (surprisingly) claimed that those facing charges were
'not representative' of American soldiers in Iraq. 'Don't judge
your army by the actions of a few,' he said. Americans 'need
to understand that is not the Army'.
These mendacious comments were refuted by CBS's
(US TV channel) chilling interview with Army Reserve Staff Sergeant
Chip Frederick, one of those facing court martial. Frederick,
a Virginia prison guard, is charged with assaulting detainees,
ordering prisoners to strike each other and an 'indecent act'
for observing one of the sexual abuse incidents. He insisted,
however, that his actions were not those of a rogue soldier,
but were sanctioned and encouraged by military intelligence
and the CIA. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/tort-a30.shtml)
Aha! Kimmitt, I am not certain how low down
your leg your brain is lodged, but will your administration
believe for once that Saddam is 'not representative' of common
Iraqis and stop the mindless killing, the senseless bombing.
Will you listen to the cry of an Iraqi woman if she pleaded:
'Don't judge our people by the actions of a few'?
In justifying their attack on scantly armed
Iraq, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice and the entire unpalatable dish
propagated that Saddam had to go because he was very brutal
on his people. Obviously Saddam did not go and kill someone
personally; one would assume there were a few flunkies gratified
to do that, but being the president of the regime he and his
'pack of cards' were held responsible. Fair enough, especially
when you have the most powerful armed forces in the world at
your beck and call!
Now that the soldiers under his command have
put even the most despotic of present-day rulers and pornography
to shame, we can only echo the call of the New York Times and
a host of other American newspaper editorials (6-7 May) calling
for the resignation of Rumsfeld. If the US Defence Secretary
is the king of spade then surely Bush has to be the ace in that
Whereas one's heart should weep as soon as one
sets eyes on those debasing pictures, beamed globally, it took
Bush several days before coming out with an apology.
Rumsfeld was less economic with the words and
said thus: 'To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of
the US armed forces, I offer my deepest apology.' (DS, 8 May)
Does that include hundreds of Iraqi civilians, men, women and
children, the aged and the young, who were killed, maimed and
traumatised by the indiscriminate action of the US armed forces?
Let me plead an imaginary case for Saddam. If
the father of Uday and Qusay were to give it in writing, 'To
those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of my armed forces,
I offer my deepest apology', would the US pull out of Iraq today?
Would you (Bush and Co.) accept Saddam as president tomorrow?
What makes you so sure then that your apologies, delayed as
they were, are acceptable to the people of Iraq who you are
so generously trying to 'liberate'?
Let the words of a Saudi paper draw the conclusion.
The Arab News commented on 8 May: 'While he (Rumsfeld) has been
in charge, murder, torture and humiliation were heaped on Iraqi
detainees almost as a matter of course.
'If he resigns without fuss, perhaps he may
begin to redeem himself by making a tiny contribution to the
restoration of America's good name in the world'.
Key words: tiny, good name. But then it is a Saudi newspaper.