Did no one notice the savage hypocrisy of Bush’s stem-cell veto? (TomPaine.com)

[marmar]

It’s Not Ethical?

Submitted by Alec Dubro on June 21, 2007 - 10:49am.
President Pro-Life George W. Bush brandished his principles for an audience of activists in the White House East Room and proudly vetoed the federal stem-cell funding bill.

With breathtaking irony, Bush stated, “Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical.” He called the United States “a nation founded on the principle that all human life is sacred.”

Let’s put aside this fanciful rendering of America’s early history, which, if it was founded on such a principle, we had a funny way of demonstrating it to the original inhabitants. Instead, let’s think for a moment about Bush’s record of not destroying human life.

If, in his mind, he was not killing thousands of Iraqis to make life better for the survivors, then why was he killing them? Apparently, then, it’s OK to destroy human life to alter geopolitics, to enhance the power of the United States, to seek revenge on collaterally-placed victims, to try out new weapons and tactics, to give our untested armies a chance to see actual combat, or, just for the holy Hell of it.

In short, destroying human life is fine, unless you’re doing it to save human life. And, if the United States has surmounted its bloody history and moved into a period in which all life is sacred, then a fine way to show it would be to, now and today, stop shooting in Iraq.

But you and I know that Bush means no such thing. When a fundamentalist-posturing, millennial, faith-based militarist says "human life," he means undifferentiated clumps of cells; he does not mean fully-formed human beings. And he certainly does not mean dark, moneyless foreigners. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/it_s_not_ethical?tx=3

[1monster]

1. Yeah, I did catch that... Dubya should be the one who had the "H"

in one of his middle names. George Hypocrisy Walker Bush.

[atreides1]

2. I disagree with the premise of this article

The writer makes the assumption that Bush and his supporters regard the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, human!

Perhaps, it would have been more truthful to state what is becoming more and more obvious every day,
unless you're like Bush your not human.

[Warpy]

3. The only humans in the world are the male members of their class

The rest of us are bluejean clad worker ants.

Potential new worker ants are important to preserve, sort of like money in the bank. Current worker ants are expendable, we've got more than enough of them for the time being.

Have I mentioned recently how much I loathe that way of thinking?

[AndyA]

4. What about our troops?

They aren't Iraqis, and they are also being slaughtered in his war.

Unless you're wealthy, once you're born, your life means nothing to Bush. They want to protect stem cells, fetuses, etc., but once you pop out, forget about it. You can starve. Get a poor education. Be abused by your parents because they never wanted you. You can go off to fight and die in a war based on lies, so the big corporations can get richer.

Life means nothing to Bush unless you're one of the privileged few. (Privileged few = wealthy).

[soothsayer]

5. hell yeah i noticed it, yelled at the tv, am still mad over it

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Sure, we caught the hypocrisy! There stood a man, with his hands covered in blood,

talking about ethics. First there were the dozens he had executed in Texas, then the his failure to heed the warnings before 9/11 and the deaths of citizens in those acts, next is bloody 'wars' of occupation, and let's not forget New Orleans. If he respects human life, he has a funny way of showing it.