Sean Penn Speaks Truth to Bush and His Criminal Admin

[Seamus]

Well said Sean Penn

http://podcast.medianext.com/stations/kcbs/media/mpeg/Sean_Penn_s_Letter_to_President_Bush-1174766920.mp3

[Square Ball]

Stained and blood soaked underwear, feck he gets into him ok? his daughters, get it as well. Diddnt think he had it in him, has Penn an other agenda here? anyonr know if he is entering politics?

[heganboy]

Four and a half years ago, I addressed the issue of war in an open letter to our President. Today I would like to again speak to him and his, directly. Mr. President, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice et al: Indeed America has a rich history of greatness -indeed, America is still today a devastating military superpower.
And because, in the absence of a competent or brave Congress, of a mobilized citizenry, that level of power lies in your hands, it is you who have misused it to become our country's and our constitution's most devastating enemy. You have broken our country and our hearts. The needless blood on your hands, and therefore, on our own, is drowning the freedom, the security, and the dream that America might have been, once healed of and awakened by, the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

But now, we are encouraged to self-censor any words that might be perceived as inflammatory - if our belief is that this war should stop today. We cower as you point fingers telling us to "support our troops." Well, you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and bloodstained underwear, can take that noise and shove it. We will be snowed no more. Let's make this crystal clear. We do support our troops in our stand, while you exploit them and their families. The verdict is in. You lied, connived, and exploited your own countrymen and most of all, our troops.

You Misters Bush and Cheney; you Ms. Rice are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings, incompetent even to fulfill your own self-serving agenda, while tragically neglectful and destructive of ours and our country's. And I got a question for your daughters Mr. Bush. They're not children anymore. Do they support your policy in Iraq? If they do, how dare they not be in uniform, while the children of the poor; black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and all the other American working men and women are slaughtered, maimed and flown back into this country under cover of darkness.

Now, because I've been on the streets of Baghdad during this occupational war, outside the Green Zone, without security, and you haven't; I've met children there. In that country of 25 million, these children have now suffered minimally, a rainstorm of civilian death around and among them totaling the equivalent of two hundred September 11ths in just four years of war. Two hundred 9/11s. Two hundred 9/11s.

You want to rattle sabers toward Iran now? Let me tell you something about Iran, because I've been there and you haven't. Iran is a great country. A great country. Does it have its haters? You bet. Just like the United States has its haters. Does it have a corrupt regime? You bet. Just like the United States has a corrupt regime. Does it want a nuclear weapon? Maybe. Do we have one? You bet. But the people of Iran are great people. And if we give that corrupt leadership, (by attacking Iran militarily) the opportunity to unify that great country in hatred against us, we'll have been giving up one of our most promising future allies in decades. If you really know anything about Iran, you know exactly what I'm referring to. Of course your administration belittles diplomatic potential there, as those options rely on a credibility and geopolitical influence that you have aggressively squandered worldwide.

Speaking of squandering, how about the billion and a half dollars a day our Iraq-focused military is spending, where three weeks of that kind of spending, would pay the tab on a visionary levy-building project in New Orleans and relieve the entire continent of Africa from starvation and the spread of disease. Not to mention the continued funds now necessary, to not only rebuild our education and healthcare systems, but also, to give care and aid to the veterans of this war, both American and our Iraqi allies and friends who have lost everything.

You say we've kept the war on terror off our shores by responding to a criminal act of terror through state sponsored unilateral aggression in a country that took no part in that initial crime. That this war would be fought in Iraq or fought here. They are not our toilet. They are a country of human beings whose lives, while once oppressed by Saddam, are now lived in Dante's inferno.

My 15-year-old daughter was working on a comparative essay this week (you can ask Condi what a comparative essay is, as academic exercises fit the limits of her political expertise.) My daughter's essay, which understood substance over theory, discusses the strengths of the Nuremberg trial justice beside the alternate strategy of truth and reconciliation in South Africa, and I quote: "When we observe distinctions between one power and another, one justice and another, we consider the divide between retribution and reconciliation, of closure and disclosure." I can't do her essay justice in this forum, but at its core, it asks how, when, and why we compromise toward peace, punish for war, or balance both for something more.

This may focus another soft spot in the rhetoric of both sides. We're told not to engage in the "politics of attack." To "keep away from the negative"...Well, Mr. Bush, when speaking of your administration, that would leave us silent, and impotent indeed.

So, in conclusion, I address my remaining remarks to the choir: We all played nice recently at the sad passing of former President Ford. Pundits and players on all sides re-visited his pardoning of Richard Nixon with praise, stating that a divided nation found unity. But what of that precedent on deterrence now? Where is justice now? Let's unite, not only in stopping this war, but holding this administration accountable as well. Without impeachment, justice cannot prevail. In our time, or our children's. And let's make it clear to democrats and republicans alike that we are not willing to wait on '08 to hear them say again: "If I'd known then, what I know now."

Even in a so-called victory, what we saw yesterday was a House of Representatives that couldn't bring itself to represent either conscience or constituents. It's a tragedy that the Democratic Party's leadership in Congress refuses to allow the House to vote on Barbara Lee's amendment for a fully funded, orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Elites circled the war wagons against this proposal, and postponed the day of reckoning that must come as soon as possible - a complete pullout of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

There are presidential candidates who understand this. We do have candidates of conscience. As things stand today, I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich, who has fought this war from the beginning. You might say Kucinich can't win. Well, we have an opportunity to re-establish the credibility of democracy as viewed by the world at large.

We can fire our current president. We can choose the next president. You and me, the farmer in Wisconsin, the boys at Google, and Bill Gates.

It's up to us to choose. Why don't we choose?!

[An Gaeilgoir]

Powerful stuff and spot on the mark.

[stew]

It is not spot on the mark, who the fcuk does Penn thin k he is bringing the fact that Bush's children are not involved in the war? I understand that he holds all Republician thinking in contempt and has a hatred of Bush however he does have an agenda and that is to have the yanks pull out and let Iraq implode by virture of the fact their security forces are not yet up to the task of defending all of the various factions within the Country.

Bush's kids have the option of going into the military or not and they have chosen not to, that is their right and Penn had no class nor business involving them in his argument.

The yanks have to get out but ffs now that they are in there at least have them stay until the country is fit to ensure the safety of ALL of it's citizens.

Bush is a nightmare and I get that but Penn would do well to attack the man and leave the rest of his family out of his argument, it would add to his argument some of which I agree with.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

It is not spot on the mark, who the fcuk does Penn thin k he is bringing the fact that Bush's children are not involved in the war?

Penn is absolutely correct and within reason to ask that question, and he gives the very valid reason -- surely you are aware that there are so many who don't have a choice? So many who are press-ganged into service there, but so few of the politicoes' kids. 

I understand that he holds all Republician thinking in contempt and has a hatred of Bush however he does have an agenda and that is to have the yanks pull out and let Iraq implode by virture of the fact their security forces are not yet up to the task of defending all of the various factions within the Country.

Are you for real? Do you really think that the Iraqi 'security' forces are ever going to be "up to the task of defending all the various factions..." whilst the US (and Britain, et al.) still occupy the country? Really?

[muppet]

 One of Michael Moore's better stunts was interviewing Senators and Representatives in Washington and asking them if their children were in Iraq. Not one single politician in the Capital had a child serving in Iraq.

I doubt if Penn is bothered whether the Bush's law breaking offspring are in Iraq but it is a valid question to ask the man who has sent so many American children to their deaths whether his kids are going or not.

Stew consistantly defendes the indefensible Bush administration on this site which shows how much he is out of touch with opinion in this country. It also shows how living in the States and being in the line of fire of it's awful media can change your view of events.   

[Tyrones own]

  "It also shows how living in the States and being in the line of fire of it's awful media can change your view of events."

  Could you explain what you meant by this statement Muppet!

[muppet]

 The US media is hardly objective is it.

At one stage over 60% of Americans beloeved Iraq was responsible for 911 despite the fact that Iraq has never in it's history attacked the US. The following is as recent as 13th march 2007.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/13/MNG7UOK2D61.DTL

  Vice President Dick Cheney, lashing out at Democrats for the first time since the felony conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his former top deputy, resumed his controversial claims Monday that the war in Iraq is the central front in the worldwide U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney linked Iraq and al Qaeda even though post-invasion reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the presidential Commission on Intelligence Capabilities found no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda before the U.S.-led invasion on March 19, 2003.

In remarks to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Cheney contended that U.S. Marines face al Qaeda operatives in Anbar province, that the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown has unmasked al Qaeda car bomb operations in Baghdad and that Osama bin Laden has promised to make Baghdad the capital of a radical Islamic empire reaching from Indonesia to Spain.

"As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there is a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day, and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts," Cheney told the annual conference of the pro-Israel group, which interrupted his speech at least 27 times with applause.

"Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain," Cheney said. He said al Qaeda terrorists have made Iraq the central front in the U.S. war against terrorism.

The U.S. invasion, occupation and counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq over the past four years has claimed the lives of at least 3,193 U.S. soldiers, wounded 23,785 other GIs and cost taxpayers more than $400 billion.

Cheney spoke as part of the Bush administration's public relations offensive to win congressional support for the president's decision to send at least 26,100 additional U.S. combat and support troops to Iraq to try to stem bloodshed in Baghdad and Anbar province.

The administration also seeks congressional approval of an additional $100 billion to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cheney has long contended that the U.S. invasion of Iraq four years ago this month was justified in part because of suspected ties between Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

But a 148-page report released by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in September showed that U.S. intelligence agencies disagreed with Bush administration claims of links between Hussein and al Qaeda.

Cheney's hard-hitting remarks represented a symbolic rejoinder to some critics' contention -- and some Democrats' hopes -- that the vice president might be sidelined by the federal felony conviction of Libby last week.

Libby, facing sentencing June 5, ran afoul of a special prosecutor's investigation into an effort by Cheney to smear a prominent anti-Iraq war critic who raised questions about Bush's effort to justify the Iraq invasion with claims that Hussein tried to buy nuclear weapons materials in Africa.

Cheney spoke six days after Libby, his former chief of staff and national security adviser, was convicted for obstruction and false statements.

"When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called slow bleed, they're not supporting the troops, they're undermining them," Cheney declared. "When members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out."

The US media were too gutless to print the truth and lamely towed the government line for the last 4 years. Rupert Murdock has over 70 publications in the US. The editors of each of those were asked whether they were for or against the war in Iraq. All of them were for it. So much for freedom of the press. The few journalists that did speak out were castigated and some even lost their jobs. In any other civilized country the rest of the press would be outraged at this, but not the States. They sat on their hands as fellow hacks were punished for publishing anti-Bush articles.

It is odd for us to observe Hollywood celebreties making political speeches but with an impotent press corps who else can do it?
 

[J70]

Penn is absolutely correct and within reason to ask that question, and he gives the very valid reason -- surely you are aware that there are so many who don't have a choice? So many who are press-ganged into service there, but so few of the politicoes' kids. 

The US millitary is made up completely of volunteers. No one is forcing anyone to join. Everyone who joins the active military, reserves and National Guard is aware that they may see active duty in a war. Penn is weakening his argument by using the Bush twins to support it.

[J70]

Stew consistantly defendes the indefensible Bush administration on this site which shows how much he is out of touch with opinion in this country. It also shows how living in the States and being in the line of fire of it's awful media can change your view of events.   

I find that you get a much more diverse range of opinion from the media in the US than you do in Ireland. Analysis from the left, right and centre is easily available on just about any subject. Much of it, especially from the right, I disagree with, but there is nothing wrong with having your views challenged.

[Tyrones own]

  "The US media were too gutless to print the truth and lamely towed the government line for the last 4 years. Rupert Murdock has over 70 publications in the US. The editors of each of those were asked whether they were for or against the war in Iraq. All of them were for it. So much for freedom of the press. The few journalists that did speak out were castigated and some even lost their jobs. In any other civilized country the rest of the press would be outraged at this, but not the States. They sat on their hands as fellow hacks were punished for publishing anti-Bush articles."

Rupert Murdock has been manipulating and controlling what gets air time so as to keep in touch and appease his fellow liberal scumbags in this country for years
none other than the master himself Phil Bronstein of the San Francisco comical as its commonly known, in reading your typical closed ended biased post, i knew this article
had to have been pushed by either the Comical, the NY times or the Washington post and lo and behold...........
Those Bastards in the major news outlets are the root problem of what is going on in this once great country and before all you liberal sympathizers get up on your hind legs with your Anti everything Bush agenda, remember that Clinton did us no favors either in his 8 yrs but Murdock's outlets were surprizingly quiet with such stories as his part in war crimes against innocent Serbs,  selling Military secrets to China or letting Bin Laden slip through his fingers when he had him cornered amongst other Fcuk ups in the oval office need i say more but thats right Clinton was a Democrat.
The likes of Penn, Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Baldwin and our very own Gobshite Bono should be lined up against a wall and shot with a ball of each others shite, who the Fcuk do they think they are with their holier than thou attitude, they are a bunch of ordinary over paid half wits that just got lucky but think they have something to teach us lowly folk who can't think for ourselves.
As for the editors all being coerced into voting to go to war in Iraq, i think you'll find that that was a vote taken in '03 when the whole world believed Saddam had WMD's but again the liberals are able to turn this story around to have it suit their own agenda.
Was Bush the only one that believed he had them, i thought not. Even your very own Hillary voted to go to war in Iraq which might i add has been egg on the face of Murdock and the rest of his liberal Cronies in the news media since her decision to run in '08.
Of all people, i would have thought Irish people would be well aware of the danger and power of the media when they have an agenda to push, we only lived it ourselves.............................
I can only suspect that you do not reside in this country Muppet

[Tyrones own]

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54932

Muppet i just came on this interesting article but you'll never believe it, i could not find it anywhere in the far left reaching
SF Comical nor did i hear any snippet of it on any of Murdocks wonderful truth searching networks.
I rest my case, if you boy's that would try to have me Believe that propaganda and Anti everything Bush isn't very much alive and well
in this country that's headed for the Shitter then some of you are no better than thon p***k Penn

[Fluffy Che]

Well said Mr Penn. Out-FOXed? Just some of us..

[Bogball XV]

Did I miss something in reading that?  I don't see that he said anything bar "don't attack Iran, as it's a great country", typical shite spouted by hollywood liberal lefties imo (time was i was a liberal lefty, in fact I still am, but I hate this whole Bush bad, Democrats are godlike shite).  So, what does Sean suggest Bush does from here?  There's no point in berating the fact that they went in there in the first place, that's done, obviously Sean does like an auld 'i told you so', but what about the future, yeah, don't attack Iran, I agree, but 'Iran is a great country', indeed Sean??