This is a day that will forever live in Infamy

So over the past few weeks, there has been a lot going on in DC as far as the invasion of Iraq and Senator McCains No Torture amendments. But first;

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday he expects some 20,000 U.S. troops to return home from Iraq after next week's elections, and he suggested that some of the remaining 137,000 forces could pull out next year. If conditions permit, we could go below that," he said in the latest administration hint of at least a modest reduction next year

Now at first glance this may seem like good news. Untill you look a little deeper, that is. You see, i didn't read the word "Will" anywhere in the statements, only the circumstancial, "expects" and "could". So we could pull 20,000 troops out of Iraq next week; we could also send 20,000 more in. There were no promises made, and untill we actually SEE our troops coming back home and staying here, I'm going to remain skeptical, especially of an administration that hasn't really met any of its goals this year.

Speaking of promises, Condy Rice made one today.
"Will there be abuses of policy? That's entirely possible," Rice said at a NATO news conference. "Just because you're a democracy it doesn't mean that you're perfect."
"That is the only promise we can make,"
She said we aren't perfect, and that's newsworthy? Pointing out that this administration isn't perfect IS NOT a promise, it's pointing out the obvious. Maybe if we set our goals correctly and said," We will make sure our military will never torture another detainee again," and actually enforced it, it wouldn't happen. I've been called an Idealist on numerous occasions, and you know what? I absolutely am. I believe that if something is wrong you should fix it, period, and that includes the torture of defenseless prisoners. I don't believe in compromise when it comes to cruel treatment of human beings; the old Christian saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is one I truly try to live by, and since i wouldn't like to be stripped, have objects shoved up my butt, and have photos taken of it all, how could I ever condone it for use on another person? Since the president seems to think that torture is okay in some situations, perhaps he should try it sometime. Then, perhaps, he wouldn't have such disdain for the well-being of others. Also, I love the double-talk we are being presented; on one hand, we are told "We dont condone torture, and we don't believe in it," and on the other hand the president and the tools around him(known as his cabinet) oppose an anti-torture ammendment. "We need to keep our options open." WHICH IS IT!!!!!!
Either torture is immoral and unconstitutional, and we should do everything in our power to prevent it, or we use it and invite retalliation in kind when terrorists abduct our reporters and troops. Presidential Candidate Santos on the West Wing said," We are fighting terrorists with terror...so what does that make us?" and he was absolutely correct. When we start using torture, even keeping it open as an option, we become the very thing we have sworn to fight, and lose whatever moral high-ground we once stood on. A little fact I've thought about recently that ties into my "Do unto others" mantra is that the Constitution declares that all men are created equal. Not just all Americans, ALL MEN(men being a universal pronoun). If we can universally agree that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the self-evident rights of all people, then why should we just ignore them when dealing with foreigners? Last I checked, cruel and unusual punishment was still banned under the constitution, as well as the right to a fair and speedy trial, yet we only hold ourselves to these standards when dealing with other Americans. It makes no sense; if we are to believe that all men are created equal, and that the rights provided for are self-evident, then we should hold ourselves to the same standard, under the Bill of Rights, when dealing with a foreigner that we do when dealing with an American. Do we allow the torture of Americans? Do we allow them to be shipped off around the world to secret "Black site" prisons? The purpose of the Bill of Rights should not only be to protect the people, but also as a standard as to how we should treat the rest of the world.
In other news, I've decided most celebrities should be forced to wear muzzles unless they are actually acting in their crappy movies or singing their crappy songs. This is a quote from Gwyneth Paltrow
American actress Gwyneth Paltrow has praised Londoners for their resilience after the British capital's transport network was attacked by suicide bombers on 7 July (05).

The Shakespeare in Love beauty, who lives in London with her rock star husband Chris Martin and daughter Apple, admits she is amazed by the locals' courage in the face of adversity.

She says, "I find the English amazing how they got over 7/7. There were no multiple memorials with people sobbing as they would have been in America. There, they are constantly scaring people but at the same time, people think nothing of going to see a therapist."

Who does she think she is? Apparently, an educated woman, considering you can't compare the two actions, or the circumstances surrounding them. For starters, 9/11 was the first attack of it's kind, and the devastation and recording of it were both unique. Subway attack? Tokyo ring a bell? Hardly the first of its kind. Also, Britain is used to losing fights; hell, we stopped keeping track of how many times we trashed them(at least 3). We Americans, on the other hand, have never, EVER lost a war; we simply weren't used to this kind of loss. Losing 3000 people and a cultural landmark to an absolutely unique form of attack and instilling the fear of flying into otherwise sane people is slightly different than what happened in London. No disrespect, the London attack was terrible as well, but nothing on the scale of 9/11. Why don't we just compare it to Pearl Harbor. I'm sure Gwyenth would have said FDR was just over-reacting and needed to grow a pair when he gave his amazing speech afterwards. Celebrities just shouldn't be allowed to speek; most aren't college educated, and have spent so much time being the center of attention in their little society of egomaniacal money-whores that they actually think they can produce an intelligent opinion on something. Don't EVER compare anything to 9/11, and if you don't like how we mourned the biggest tragedy in America in 60 years, GET THE FUCK OUT! We don't need you, we won't miss you, adios.

Here's a Thought...It's finals week, so I'm saving them for tests. Sorry, go do some thinking for yourselves. Trust me, it's good for you and doesn't cost a thing. Unless, or course, you're an idiot celebrity, in which case it's only your reputation and dignity you should forfeit when you open your mouth.