I don't understand what all the fuss is about. The reality is very simple indeed:

GW Bush and Gang, far from being 'the good guys', LIED in all directions to get get the US into the war that had actually been planned long before 9/11. (In fact, there were very simple ways by which the whole world, including most of the Islamic world, could have been brought to fight a real war against terror after 9/11 - check out: "Avoid Osama's Trap", by Bernard Haykel, published 25th September, 2001 - http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/09/25/stories/05252523.htm. Instead of doing the moral, correct (and commonsense) things that they could have, GW Bush and Gang deliberately ignored all of that for their own mad reasons - and went out like Rambo to fight their phony wars (in Afghanistan and then in Iraq).

-- GW Bush and Gang LIED to US citizens to get them into the 'right mood for war'. (And US citizens, scared witless and shitless by 9/11, bought the lying arguments of GW Bush and Gang).

-- They LIED to the US Congress to get the funding for their war. (And most members of the US Congress, also scared witless and shitless by 9/11, bought the lying arguments of GW Bush and Gang and gave them all the funds needed to fight that phony war - the real cost of GW Bush's foolish wars is well into trillions of dollars by now).

-- They LIED to the world in attempts to justify their war. (But only the <'coalition of the willing' - more properly known as Bush's poodles) - bought those lying arguments).

So what is the current argument about? GW Bush and Gang are "the good guys"? Don't make us laugh even more at you than we are already! They are WAR CRIMINALS plain and simple - and they should be treated as war criminals.

What US citizens need to do with the war criminals currently leading their nation is very simple indeed: IMPEACH GW Bush, Dick Cheney, and whoever in that Gang of War Criminals is impeachable under US law. Then put the whole bunch into prison for their crimes - or hand them over to an International Court of Justice, which should have the courage to put the whole lying bunch into prison for the rest of their natural lives (if found guilty, of course). Then US citizens need to work to become a democracy - government of the people; by the people; of the people. (That would really be 'Mission Accomplished!"). Currently the US is a government of the people - but by war criminals, for war criminals.

If US citizens are unwilling to do what's right (or at least to publicly proclaim their opposition to the War Criminal Bunch leading them), then they must be adjudged to be complicit in the crimes committed by their 'leaders' (much as many Germans of the 1930s and '40s had been judged to be complicit, on 'moral grounds' at least, in the crimes of the Nazis).

GSC

Here it is Mike: I'm on the Left, and I despise Islamist nutjobs. Hate their guts. Hope they die. Total religious fanatic idiots. Vile murders. You happy? I said it, and believe it. What the hell does that have to do with US people torturing human beings? In contravention of all law and decency? Without a clue about guilt or innocence? And, Chucky, here in the glorious US of A we execute underage criminals who are legally classified as CHILDREN for all purposes save our death penalty laws. Of course, we give them lethal injections instead of cutting their heads off (I defy you to show, knowing what we know of the time it takes for lethal injection to work, that one is somehow a vastly superior way to kill someone than the other). And by the way, the oldest democracy is Iceland, not the US. For someone obviously on the Right, I'm surprised that you are such a Relativists--I thought that some things were moral, others immoral, and never the twain shall meet? Like all conservative phonies, you invoke all these "eternal truths" until you want to punish or kill some darker fellows, then all your universal principles dive out the window.

This, Victoria L.--

“So you laud O'Hehir's rage at the fate of "unconvicted, untried people" and then attack me for calling O'Hehir a hypocrite when he describes dumping naked "unconvicted, untried people" in the middle of a harsh desert. You deserve a special hypocrisy award, a-ignatius.”

Is why I asked you

"and are you disputing that detainees - who have not yet been tried - are being tortured?"

To which you responded with--

“I made no comment on that subject and it is dishonest to introduce that idea. You can't defend O'Hehir's sentiments so you manufacture false one's and suggest that I hold them?”

You called me a hypocrite on the basis of the idea that Bush Co. are ‘unconvicted and untried’and thus Andrew’s rage at the atrocities they’ve committed is unjustified. So by that logic, I guess we are to understand, then, that you feel that it hasn’t been proven that the detainees are being tortured under this administration– right? That’s why I asked you if you were disputing it. Your response? Oh, that you made no comment on the subject and it was *dishonest* to introduce that idea.

Says Victoria L--

“First of all rage is never a noble or constructive sentiment. We all feel but it should not be proudly paraded about as if it were a badge of honour to be so unnuanced in our reactions. Rage means you are seeing things in black and white.”

I would venture that the ability to feel rage for the misfortune of others, for the horrific torment wrought by bullies even if it’s not happening to you, is certainly far more noble than whatever it is that’s compelling you to smugly sit back and continuously, persistently intone about how tedious and puerile you find Salon's articles. Just how many letters have you written about that very topic, anyway?

“And I fail to see how my calling O'Hehir self-loathing and condemning his rage are hypocrisy, but nice try.”

Huh. That’s funny, because in your letter you explained that you condemned his rage on the very lofty grounds that ‘rage is never a noble or constructive sentiment.’ And yet in the very same letter you label Andrew as a ‘self-loathing class act.’ Elsewhere on this discussion you call someone an ‘ignorant Salonista.’

Unless you can somehow prove these statements are noble or constructive, you are the very definition of a hypocrite.

For years many of us have said that Bush is dangerous. Our reasons have been vented and yet Bush remains in office. He continues on his merry way and we do little more than vent our opposition. By now you realise that this is a wheel that turns around and it goes nowhere. It seems that dangerous people are allowed to hold office until they have caused an enormous amount of damage in the form of deaths and ruined societies. After they have wreaked their damage we hope that someone will replace Bush and that they will right the wrongs.

I expect that Bush will spend the rest of his life in comfort with all of his limbs intact and his empty head telling all of us how he was saving the world from terrorism except that after he left office a nasty Democrat undid his good work. Unfortunately, Bush seems to lack a conscience and I doubt that he will be troubled by his legacy. That will be our problem. This silly rich boy has grown up to tell the world how it should be run into the ground.

Robert James speaking out from Sydney.