Bush murders children - indirectly

Coming just before the first Presidential Debate – one where we can expect the focus to be Iraq – today’s news points out the biggest problem facing the next president.

“BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Insurgents detonated three car bombs near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad Thursday, killing 41 people, most of them children rushing to collect sweets from American troops.”

Thirty-four children (34) and seven adults died in that series of blasts specifically designed to occur where and when they did. This is the clear murder of children – there is no “insurgent” justification ... certainly no “freedom fighter” justification ... and as such, nobody can claim any “nationalist” basis for these wanton murders.

“A statement apparently from the Tawhid and Jihad group of al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said later it was behind the three attacks.”

President Bush chose to focus on Saddam Hussein rather than Osama Bin Laden. President Bush made the conscious choice to allow a known terrorist and murder to remain free – and instead decided to engage in a “war of choice” against someone who had insulted his daddy ... it is unlikely he will be called to task for the decisions which lead to the murder of these children – but their blood is as much, or possibly more, on his hands than on the hands of those who sponsored the murders. There can be no dispute, or debate, over the fact that these children would be alive if Bush had focused on Bin Laden – rather than his war of choice against a nation which offered no clear and present danger to the United States. At least none that is not based on lies by Bush and Britain’s Tony Blair to justify their war.

Blair has at least been honest enough to admit he was conned into the war ... and it is clear that Bush and company were the con artists. Of course, Blair had good course to suddenly give the appearance of honesty in the actions which caused so many unnecessary deaths – he has a heart problem which might result in him meeting his maker in the near future ... a point in life when “honesty” on any level is better than blatant dishonesty.

It is also a foregone conclusion that the America public is either so stupid, or so blood thirsty, that they will re-elect Bush – possibly going so far as to encourage and support the expansion of the war into Iran. It is highly doubtful that there will be any clear call for Bush to kill Bin Laden and all his followers. It is far more likely that the Bush majority will prefer to ignore Bin Laden and discourage any effort to directly address the Al Qaeda leadership structure.

Because of the actions of George Bush, more Iranians have died in the past two years than in all the years under Saddam Hussein. There has been more disruption of services under the regime of George W Bush than any period under Saddam Hussein – and as the Iraqi people know and understand ... they suffered what service disruption they had specifically because of the embargo that was imposed by George Bush Sr.