Hypocrisy rules

[sqlrob]

From GWB's speech in Nevada:

"Free countries don't develop weapons of mass destruction. Free countries don't attack their neighbors. Free countries listen to the hopes and aspirations of the people who live in those countries. "

Let's see...

Who was the first country to develop a nuke (OK, so it was wartime, so I won't really count this one)?

Who *just* funded development of smaller nukes for regular use?

Who isn't destroying their chemical weapon stockpile per a signed treaty?

Who *just* strengthened the PATRIOT act through clandestine measures, despite all the outcry against it?

Who doesn't allow demonstrators with counter ideas anywhere near a speech, yet allows positive ones?

Comments

Re: Huh?

[sqlrob.livejournal.com]

Okay, let me get this straight. If a terrorist agency uses a nuke on an American city, what SHOULD the response be, if we can't return the gesture in kind? I realize that people get a bit nervous when retaliatory strikes are mentioned, but we don't need a sledgehammer (thermonuclear weapon) to take out a nest of vipers in a concentrated location.

These aren't being developed for that purpose, but simply for use in normal circumstances.

Anyone smart enough to get a nuclear device is not going to stay in a concentrated area after delivery, so using another nuke (small or not) is a moot point.


Show me ONE person who has been inconvenienced by the Patriot Act.

That's not the point, although I will address that in a second. You have multiple communities, including NYC voting to not cooperate with the federal government on it. Yet portions of PATRIOT II get put in bills that is impossible to have public discourse on it? How is that listening to the public?

You can argue that Parilla and anyone in Guatanamo are hurt by it. Read the Constitution. Where are the strictures it places on the government limited to citizens? (Hint: the only place citizenship is mentioned is voting and running for office). Is the war on terrorism a war sufficient for suspending rights, something where there is no defined enemy and the finishing conditions are amorphous? That sounds like a military government to me, not one based on Freedom.

There is also the worry as to where it is going, with the some of the tricks pulled for "National Security". The ACLU recently challenged the Patriot act, and the DOJ wanted the following phrase redacted because it was "sensitive" and affects national security:

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent."

Oh, that's from a publically available SCotUS decision.

Or pulling "sensitive" information from the libraries, such as the procedures for getting back material that was confiscated by the government?

Or using its provisions to bust strip club owners?

Or the effects its had on response time that will actually increase the time it takes to respond to a bioterrorist attack?

Please.. JFK 2.0 routinely has his people do the same thing of screening out people who would otherwise disrupt the harmony of a political event. Contrary to popular belief, these functions are NOT necessarily open, unlike Official Government Business which is.

"That's what everybody else does" is not a valid excuse when you're holding yourself up as a paragon of freedom to the rest of the world.