The Consortiumnews.com

Editor's Note: First, via Truthout, this commentary by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann in which Olbermann says Bush owes the American people an apology for his news conference tirade declaring that "it's unacceptable to think" that there might be any comparison between his administration's actions and those of Islamic extremists. Olbermann, who is one of the few brave voices left in the mainstream media, said that what was truly "unacceptable" was that a President of the United States would be "even hinting at an America where a few have that privilege to think and the rest of us get yelled at by the President."

Below are readers' comments about President Bush's explosion over criticism of his torture policies:

Dear Sir,
   while I agree with most of your assertions, analyses and prognostications, I beg to differ with some of the illustrations you provide.
   Certainly: Bush is blackmailing America when he threatens to order the CIA to stop its interrogation programs if Bush's way is not adhered to; like a spoiled brat, he threatens to take his toys and games home if the other boys won't play by his rules. He is a disgrace to the US, and for his blackmailing, the FBI should investigate him. (Fat chance!).
   Quite right of you to illustrate the fawning by David Brooks.
   But the examples you cite to underpin the statement that the "Bush administration is responsible for slaughtering thousands of women and children in Afghanistan an Iraq" to "achieve an objective" are not very good. Bombing a restaurant to get at Saddam Hussein is terrible, is horrific, considering the deaths of innocent civilians, but it is not slaughter. In almost all bombing raids, by whomever, innocent people get killed.   You are right: war is horror. Bombing should be outlawed.
   If you had stated that the war is certainly ill-advised and more probably illegal, that the US invaded a country that had not done it any harm, the Bush lied and continues to lie, that he insists on bending American constitutional law to his primitive, childish fantasies, you would be easier to agree with. America catches the Bush administration lying all the time, and does nothing. Hungarians catch their prime minister with one lie about the economy and they ransack the official radio station. There's a lesson to be learned from the Hungarians.

Michael S. Cullen

I'd like to respond to Michael Cullen's comments in "Readers React to Bush
Tirade". He says: "Bombing a restaurant to get at Saddam Hussein is
terrible, is horrific, considering the deaths of innocent civilians, but
it is not slaughter. In almost all bombing raids, by whomever, innocent
people get killed."

Interesting how Americans don't regard 9/11 in the same light - that 9/11
is what happens when America meddles in the affairs of other countries,
overthrows democratically elected governments, props up dictators, gets
itself involved in conflicts, and chooses war over diplomacy.

If America had no hard evidence Saddam Hussein was in that restaurant, if
it was merely wishful thinking, then it WAS slaughter, plain and simple -
it was America, yet again, treating the lives of foreigners with complete
contempt.

When America is attacked, and innocent people die, it's wrong, it's
immoral, it's inexcusable, and it's time for revenge! When Americans are
subsequently told how many innocent foreigners they have killed, they
shrug their shoulders and say, well, that's war! Yes, that's "war", except
when that "war" is taken to America, and then it becomes terrorism, and
the loss of life is a real tragedy; one the whole world should mourn.

Michael Cullen then states: "If you had stated that the war is certainly
ill-advised and more probably illegal, that the US invaded a country that
had not done it any harm, the Bush lied and continues to lie, that he
insists on bending American constitutional law to his primitive, childish
fantasies, you would be easier to agree with."

In other words, if Robert Parry had stated the bleeding obvious. The
bleeding obvious isn't worth the time of day.

Mike Richards

Here's an angle for you. I haven't seen anybody commenting on the fact that Bush's arguments for torture all boil down to claiming that the ends justify the means.

Joel Shimberg