31

Gearing up in Calgary for George W.

Bush’s protesters will be armed with shoes


 

Gearing up for George W. in CalgaryGeorge W. Bush’s speech in Calgary on Tuesday will mark his first public appearance since Barack Obama’s inauguration on Jan. 20, a day in which some gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue to boo the outgoing president. In Calgary, where Bush is scheduled to speak about his legacy to a well-heeled crowd at the TELUS Convention Centre, he may receive a more sympathetic reception.

But then, who knows, considering that even Calgary has fallen upon hard times. Early on, event organizers with tinePublic Inc. expected about 1,500 people would attend, with tables of 10 selling for $4,000, singles for $400 (GST not included). The group has since become more reluctant to discuss numbers. Ticket holders have been sent detailed instructions requesting that they arrive at 10:30 a.m. for the noon-hour event, and cautioning them they will frisked. The RCMP won’t discuss the security measures in place but have warned Calgarians to expect traffic delays.And a protest, or two. Just down the road from the convention centre on Stephen Avenue, Collette Lemieux, a Calgary activist, estimates that as many as 500 protestors may show up on Tuesday to voice their opposition to Bush’s visit, complete with a pile of shoes—a reference to Iraqi journalist and shoe-chucker Muntazer al-Zaidi—they will fire with a make-shift canon into a Bush effigy.

This past Saturday, an ad hoc group of Calgarians calling themselves ‘The People vs. Bush’ examined many of the issues that hang over the Bush presidency by mounting a mock trial of the former president. This amounted to little more than a five-minute piece of theatre scripted by Toby Pollett, who once served with the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry, and the anonymous Jet Pack Mac, a working Calgary writer who chose pseudonymity over the risks of being blacklisted in this conservative town.

The driving force behind the mock trial, Paul Hughes, also an ex-PPCLI man, poured his energy into the event to approximate “what we think it might feel like in a sense—with a little bit of entertainment—if Bush was to be made accountable in front of the International Criminal Court.” An abstract expressionist artist and high-performance hockey coach—in the 1990s he says he worked with stars Jarome Iginla and Chris Pronger to train kids at a highly successful hockey camp in Canmore—Hughes, 44, is an endearing and energetic Calgary presence. “It’s a pretty snappy little production we got going here,” Hughes, who played the prosecutor, told the small crowd.

Bush is a “morally bankrupt mass murderer,” Pollett, in character, shouted during the performance. “He has the approximate IQ of an alligator and you wouldn’t convict an alligator, would you?” asked Bush’s defense lawyer. “I know how hard it is to put food on your family,” argued Bush himself, played by 28-year-old graphic artist Matthew Dupuis in a beard and newsboy cap and gesticulating madly in the style of Richard Nixon. “I love the tar sands, by the way.” Said Dupuis, after the fact: “He’s a powerful man and a lot of emotions ran through the lines I spewed on his behalf.”

The mock trial, attended by a handful of people and acted out in a dingy corner of an aging movie theatre as the Calgary sun shone bright outside, perhaps demonstrated a little of why Bush selected the city for his first foray into the speaker’s circuit. Within Canada, said University of Alberta political scientist Greg Anderson, Calgary is perhaps the safest territory for Bush—a conservative city that’s home to perhaps as many as 80,000 Americans, the largest concentration of U.S. ex-pats in the world. And the money doesn’t hurt. Gossip puts Bush’s pay cheque at $150,000. That said, Anderson doesn’t “think W.’s going to be making big bucks on the international lecture circuit anytime soon.”


 

Gearing up in Calgary for George W.

  1. As someone who has admitted authorizing torture G.W. is guilty of crimes against humanity. Defined by Americans as the highest crimes of all, crimes so grave that there is no immunity and no statue of limitations. As such, Canada is bound by law to arrest him if he steps foot into the country. By NOT doing so, Canadians will become complicit in these crimes.

    I urge Canadians of all stripes to call their MP, the PM, the Foreign Minister and the leaders of the opposition parties demanding his arrest March 17th in Calgary.

    • I agree with you completely, eddieo. The man is POISON and so is Cheney.

    • If George W Bush is considered a war criminal, then wouldn’t the same designation be applied to many US Presidents [including Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Wilson] as well as some Canadian Prime Ministers.

      • They started wars of choice on false premises? News to me.

        • Abraham Lincoln started the American Civil War and would increase the size of central government and limit civil liberties. Woodrow Wilson declared war on Germany in 1917 in a misguided attempt to make the world safe for Democracy, in the process he jailed anti-war protestors. Franklin Delano Roosevelt interned Japanese American’s and took away their property. Truman nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both civilian centers near the end of World War 2.

          Needless to say history isn’t as simplistic as you make it out to be Jack. If you knew anything about it you’d realize that the supposed crimes of Bush pale in comparison to some of our heroes.

          I suppose you’re not very familiar with the maxim that the first casualty of war is truth, but then again I doubt you would.

          • We are talking Crimes Against Humanity here. Crimes that Americans defined and were the first to prosecute after W.W. II. Again, it is simply a question of law. We signed onto international treaties and are obliged to uphold them – otherwise the only purpose they serve is for a photo op, and I refuse to be that cynical.

            Allowing G.W. into the country freely would be a terrible stain on our country – one that would need to be investigated and prosecuted itself no doubt…

          • Oh, BDJ . . . Wilson declared war on Germany after the latter had repeatedly violated the neutrality of US shipping in its all-out U-boat campaign. FDR’s (and our) interning of Japanese-Americans (and -Canadians) was not a war crime, even if it was a violation of human rights. (War crimes are violations of international law.) Destroying enemy cities was and is not, alas, a war crime. As to Lincoln, the whole point of the ACW was that the North did not recognise the South, so they could not declare war on it; ergo it was not a war of choice.
            .
            Really, history is so fascinating.
            .
            The top-brass Nuremberg war criminals were prosecuted first and foremost for starting a war of choice. (It’s a shame that genocide and generally trying to destroy civilisation weren’t the foremost charges, but that’s the way it was.) Bush’s Iraq war is entirely analogous to that aspect of the Nuremberg trials. Lincoln’s, Wilson’s, FDR’s, and Truman’s wars were not. Guess you lose.

          • “We are talking Crimes Against Humanity here. Crimes that Americans defined and were the first to prosecute after W.W. II. Again, it is simply a question of law. We signed onto international treaties and are obliged to uphold them – otherwise the only purpose they serve is for a photo op, and I refuse to be that cynical.”

            Incinerating civilians in Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, aren’t crimes against humanity? What about the actions in Vietnam or Cambodia?

            As well what kind of genocidal activities have military forces been involved in and which soldiers of the United States military should be charged with war crimes as well.

          • “Oh, BDJ . . . Wilson declared war on Germany after the latter had repeatedly violated the neutrality of US shipping in its all-out U-boat campaign.”

            Ever hear of Wilsonian idealism Jack.

            “FDR’s (and our) interning of Japanese-Americans (and -Canadians) was not a war crime, even if it was a violation of human rights.”

            Actually their were also many accounts of POW’s being executed by American forces during World War 2, therefore according to your logic FDR would have been a war criminal.

            “Destroying enemy cities was and is not, alas, a war crime.”

            Yes it is, we in the Canadian Forces have certain rules of war. We can’t purposely kill civilians. But it’s good to note that you would likely have had little issue in the first Gulf War if we nuked Baghdad their wouldn’t be any issues involved.

            “Lincoln’s, Wilson’s, FDR’s, and Truman’s wars were not. Guess you lose.”

            Not really considering Iraq’s history of aggression, use of WMD’s, ethnic cleansing, and it’s consistent problems with weapons inspections.

            But I guess you lose, looks like you’ll still have to resort to jacking off to the thought of Tony Blair and George W Bush being hanged because it won’t happen in this life.

          • Jack, out of curiosity, would you also argue that the leaders of NATO are guilty of war crimes due to our intervention in Kosovo?

            It wasn’t sanctioned by an international body and we often bombed both military and civilian targets?

          • Rather moot question, BDJ, even if non-rhetorical, since as you know justice is decided by the victors . . . and Bush is now a loser. But, yes, it seems to me unarguable, legally speaking, that NATO had no international mandatefor the Kosovo war and thus was interfering in Serbia’s internal affairs (not, incidentally, because civilians died). Morally it was a different story, IMHO. Bush’s problem is that his war was both illegal and immoral: the former exposes him to prosecution, the latter to my disdain. I know there are many who don’t care if 100 000+ Iraqis died to make Iraq safe for Iranian influence, or rather to generate 2 years of nice White House soundbites, but I leave them to what remains of their conscience.

          • “But, yes, it seems to me unarguable, legally speaking, that NATO had no international mandatefor the Kosovo war and thus was interfering in Serbia’s internal affairs (not, incidentally, because civilians died). Morally it was a different story, IMHO.”

            How so, if anything it was more justifiable to intervene in Iraq than Kosovo since Iraq had a history of aggression against it’s neighbours, did manufacture WMD’s [with much help from the western world], engaged in ethnic cleansing, and had a totalitarian government. Kosovo is more of a feel good war for many on the left simply because their guy did it. Despite the fact that we only served as the air force for the KLA, an organization which was funded from the drug trade and Islamic nations.

            “I know there are many who don’t care if 100 000+ Iraqis died to make Iraq safe for Iranian influence, or rather to generate 2 years of nice White House soundbites, but I leave them to what remains of their conscience.”

            No need to worry, I never supported the Iraq War. However it wasn’t a war crime in the traditional sense. For it to be a war crime the government of Iraq would have had to be legitimate and largely benevolent, which it wasn’t.

            This might come as a shock to you but Iraqis have been been getting killed before Bush came to power. A large portion of the Iraqi population died due to starvation and I don’t think we have to go into the kind of regime that Saddam had in place.

            But if we are to go by your definition of what is a war crime then that would mean we should never intervene in a country involved in ethnic cleansing. That means no intervention into Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, or Sudan. If we’re going to put Bush on trial we should at the very least send a message to any future President who wants to once again intervene in another countries affairs that we can’t invade for any reason.

          • “But, yes, it seems to me unarguable, legally speaking, that NATO had no international mandatefor the Kosovo war and thus was interfering in Serbia’s internal affairs (not, incidentally, because civilians died). Morally it was a different story, IMHO. Bush’s problem is that his war was both illegal and immoral:”

            How is acting as the Air Force for the KLA, a known terrorist and drug running organization more moral than ousting Saddam Hussein. By all accounts Hussein was in fact far more barbaric than Milosevic. Hussein had a history of aggression, ethnic cleansing, and manufacturing WMD’s. We know because we had the receipts for the WMD’s.

            However just a question for the anti-Bush types here, since that seems to be the only principle and nothing else. Would you all oppose every and any possible intervention into a country’s civil affairs, whether it be Kosovo, Iraq, Sudan, or Rwanda? Would your non-interventionist principle extend that far? If so then you can speak of George W Bush as a war criminal, if not you have no real base.

          • BDJ . . . oh dear oh dear.

            Ever hear of Wilsonian idealism Jack.

            Ah, so it was Wilsonian idealism that got the US into WWI, was it? Gee whiz, guess that’s why them came in as late as they did.

            Actually their were also many accounts of POW’s being executed by American forces during World War 2, therefore according to your logic FDR would have been a war criminal.

            I said that Bush is personally responsible for a war of choice, not for individual war crimes on the part of American soldiers. That’s obvious, I’m afraid.

            Yes it is, we in the Canadian Forces have certain rules of war. We can’t purposely kill civilians. But it’s good to note that you would likely have had little issue in the first Gulf War if we nuked Baghdad their wouldn’t be any issues involved.

            Bombing enemy cities is not classed with the purposeful killing of civilians (though I wish it were). FYI, the Americans randomly shelled Iraqi cities as they were approaching Bagdad in the first days of the war. You’re in the CF, eh? So why are all your examples American? Too much History Channel, not enough Shock Troops?

            Not really considering Iraq’s history of aggression, use of WMD’s, ethnic cleansing, and it’s consistent problems with weapons inspections.

            LOL. The USA encouraged Iraq’s war with Iran, gave them the WMD’s, ignored the ethnic cleansing, and kicked the weapons inspectors out. Anyway, you’ll recall that it was all based on the charge that Iraq, in 2003, was an imminent threat to its neighbours and to the world via its alleged Al-Qaeda links. None of which was true at all.

            I don’t think Bush will be hanged, but I think some of his minions may well be keen-hauled. Thanks for the pleasant tone of your post. Wish I could say you’re a credit to the CF.

          • BDJ . . . oh dear oh dear.

            Ever hear of Wilsonian idealism Jack.

            Ah, so it was Wilsonian idealism that got the US into WWI, was it? Gee whiz, guess that’s why them came in as late as they did.

            Actually their were also many accounts of POW’s being executed by American forces during World War 2, therefore according to your logic FDR would have been a war criminal.

            I said that Bush is personally responsible for a war of choice, not for individual war crimes on the part of American soldiers. That’s obvious, I’m afraid.

            Yes it is, we in the Canadian Forces have certain rules of war. We can’t purposely kill civilians. But it’s good to note that you would likely have had little issue in the first Gulf War if we nuked Baghdad their wouldn’t be any issues involved.

            Bombing enemy cities is not classed with the purposeful killing of civilians (though I wish it were). FYI, the Americans randomly shelled Iraqi cities as they were approaching Bagdad in the first days of the war. You’re in the CF, eh? So why are all your examples American?

            Not really considering Iraq’s history of aggression, use of WMD’s, ethnic cleansing, and it’s consistent problems with weapons inspections.

            LOL. The USA encouraged Iraq’s war with Iran, gave them the WMD’s, ignored the ethnic cleansing, and kicked the weapons inspectors out. Anyway, you’ll recall that it was all based on the charge that Iraq, in 2003, was an imminent threat to its neighbours and to the world via its alleged Al-Qaeda links. None of which was true at all.

            I don’t think Bush will be hanged, but I think some of his minions may well be keen-hauled. Thanks for the pleasant tone of your post.

          • “BDJ . . . oh dear oh dear.”

            Yes, are you alright?

            “Ah, so it was Wilsonian idealism that got the US into WWI, was it? Gee whiz, guess that’s why them came in as late as they did. ”

            Actually the US came in late due to the largely isolationist sentiment in that nation. As well with reference to the submarine warfare, the United States should have expected some of their ships to be blown apart if they were supplying arms and ammunition to the Triple Entente. Lets look at the RMS Lusitania for example. New evidence has shown that the ship in fact had munitions on board, is this not a breach of conduct for a neutral nation? Not to mention the fact that Germany warned people in America not to sale on the ship or for that matter any ships heading to the British isles.

            The United States did have a choice in World War 1, they effectively chose Britian by being her resupply depot. Woodrow Wilson further hastened the chances of war by using rhetoric and idealism to bring the United States to Europe. That ended up being a disasterous decision in the long run. [If anything I’d say Bush most closely resembles Woodrow Wilson in that they both have a dangerous belief in the supremacy of warfare to reshape nations]

            “Bombing enemy cities is not classed with the purposeful killing of civilians (though I wish it were). FYI, the Americans randomly shelled Iraqi cities as they were approaching Bagdad in the first days of the war. You’re in the CF, eh? So why are all your examples American?”

            Because the lionshare of the conflicts have involved American forces. As for randomly shelling, do you mine defining that. More or less because with newer technology the military can be very precise in who they hit and I don’t think it would be looked to kindly on if the artillery were to just shoot shells at random with no idea of where they were headed.

            “Too much History Channel, not enough Shock Troops?”

            I don’t have cable, plus I have many books on both of the wars.

            “LOL. The USA encouraged Iraq’s war with Iran, gave them the WMD’s, ignored the ethnic cleansing, and kicked the weapons inspectors out.”

            I actually pointed out that we knew about the WMD’s because we had the receipts. My point however was that you’re only in favour of wars when someone you admire is in power. Just to give you a counter if Al Gore was to be the head of the invasion of Iraq I’m certain you and most of the other leftists here screaming war criminal would be fully supportive.

            As for the weapons inspectors, it’s well noted that Saddam Hussein had a quite toxic relationship with the UN and would conveniently kick them out of the country once in a while or restrict their access. While no WMD’s were found Hussein admitted that he wanted the world to think the country had them to prevent an invasion.

            Intervention in Iraq and conflict with that country has been constant since the first Gulf War. To ignore that fact is idiotic to say the least.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

            “Anyway, you’ll recall that it was all based on the charge that Iraq, in 2003, was an imminent threat to its neighbours and to the world via its alleged Al-Qaeda links. None of which was true at all.”

            Which I agree with.

            “Thanks for the pleasant tone of your post. Wish I could say you’re a credit to the CF.”

            I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings. But it’s 100% true, the people who think the escapades that happened in the past eight years never happened previously are acting on nothing but kneejerk emotions. The Middle East has seen intervention from the west for the past century, much of it negative unfortunately.

            I’m not going to say anything about being a credit to the CF. I think it’s somewhat absurd to make an insinuation based on one post. However given the General Lewis Mackenzie would likely agree with my assertion that Bush isn’t a war criminal, I believe we’re both dishonourable in your eyes. But no need to worry, I and many others are often on the receiving end of your attitude:

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4991313/Lutons-Muslim-extremists-defy-public-anger.html

  2. By the way I listened to a lecture by Gen. Lewis Mackenzie and he was asked point blank whether or not Bush was a war criminal. The answer was a firm no, followed by the statement that their are plenty of war criminals who are currently free and often idolized who fought on our side and against us, including many whom no doubt have the sympathy of your typical shoe thrower that’ll be in Calgary.

    • The International Red Cross – the authority of Crimes Against Humanity – declared that there is much evidence of torture and inhumane punishment. Dick and Bush both have admitted as much. How can one argue that they are not guilty if one is honest and looked at the facts BDJ? Perhaps the good general Mackenzie has a reason to lie or support war criminals? (I am not accusing him, but why would he argue such a thing that we know to be untrue?)

      • “How can one argue that they are not guilty if one is honest and looked at the facts BDJ?”

        Because one can recognize that many of those policies occured before the Presidency, as was already pointed out.

        The good General didn’t lie, he’s just not an extreme leftist.

        • From the International Red Cross report as it appears in today’s Washington Post:

          The ICRC’s conclusion is inescapable: “The allegations of ill treatment of the detainees indicate that, in many cases, the ill treatment to which they were subjected while held in the C.I.A. program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture. In addition, many other elements of the ill treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”

          Bush aides, including former vice president Cheney, micromanaged interrogation tactics from the White House basement.

          “The high-level discussions about these ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ were so detailed,” ABC’s sources said, “some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.” Those discussions started right after Zubaydah’s capture in the spring of 2002. According to ABC, the CIA briefed the White House group on its plans to use aggressive techniques against Zubaydah and received explicit approval.

          Techniques that created damage short of “the level of death, organ failure, or the permanent impairment of a significant body function” were later authorized in an August 2002 Justice Department memo, known as the Torture Memo.

          What more needs to be said? There is at least strong suspicion of guilt here. There-fore Canadian law requires us to bar him from the country, and arrest him if he does. To NOT do so is in violation of our own laws.

          • “What more needs to be said? There is at least strong suspicion of guilt here. There-fore Canadian law requires us to bar him from the country, and arrest him if he does. To NOT do so is in violation of our own laws.”

            We’ve had dictators and tyrants in Canada before, including Suharto. If we were to make such an arrest than we’d have no more foreign delegations from most of the world because they are far more lenient when it comes to torture and murder for political dissidents.

            As was stated many times before according to your logic many US Presidents would be arrested if they came to Canada, including Bill Clinton.

  3. I hope that these “well-heeled” Calgarians will show their distaste for this criminal by NOT attending anything to do with him.

    The more one reads about this “man” the more one is convinced he and his henchmen should be tried and quickly convicted. They are no less criminal than those who were prosecuted at Neuremberg – probably far more.

    I am the only one here who cannot reconcile the fact that the Bin Laden and Bush families are shareholders in The Carlyle Group and have been for some 60 years? That, my friends, is the tip of a very profound iceberg.

    • “The more one reads about this “man” the more one is convinced he and his henchmen should be tried and quickly convicted. They are no less criminal than those who were prosecuted at Neuremberg – probably far more. ”

      Really, mind justifying this statement. Was Saddam Husseins Iraq some kind of utopic democracy where the children played with gumdrop smiles. It would be nice if the idiots on left would once in a while recognize some semblance of reality.

      “I am the only one here who cannot reconcile the fact that the Bin Laden and Bush families are shareholders in The Carlyle Group and have been for some 60 years? That, my friends, is the tip of a very profound iceberg.”

      Nice to see that you get all of your information from a Michael Moore movie. Do you know what the Carlyle Group is?

      One thing I remain completely amazed by is that Bill Clinton who gave permission for the use of extraordinary rendition and initiated the sanctions against Iraq is somehow a lovable humanitarian. The executive has been engaged in largely unscrupulous dealings for well over 175 years. Those who are screaming are mere ignorants.

  4. One thing I’m amazed by is that I’m an opponent of the Iraq War and the current policy in Afghanistan. Yet then I hear these anti-war idiots making some absurd statement comparing the Iraq or Afghanistan intervention to the Werhmacht invading France. That comparison isn’t valid, it’s never been valid.

    If we are to go by the definition of war criminal that most people on here are using than I’m sure their are plenty of democractically elected leaders from across the world who would be put up before some tribunal.

    • And until these “leaders” are made to answer for their crimes, the next generation of leaders will continue to perpetuate these crimes. This is a basic tenet of civilization – ask any good law and order candidate if they agree.

      • What of Saddam Hussein then? Is he no longer considered a war criminal in todays world?

        As well if the leaders are guilty of war crimes then their must be some soldiers who are also guilty of carrying out these war crimes. Would you suggest that members of the military should be put on trial?

        • I would suggest that Saddam should have been tried by the ICC, as should Bush & Co. As far as the soldiers are concerned, Nuremburg made the precedent that “following orders” is not an excuse.

          That said, I am not a lawyer, I am just a concerned human being trying to see a clear path out of this mess of continual war, suffering and environmental degradation that we continue to excuse.

          • “I would suggest that Saddam should have been tried by the ICC, as should Bush & Co. As far as the soldiers are concerned, Nuremburg made the precedent that “following orders” is not an excuse.”

            Yes, I’m sure American’s are looking forward to leftists such as yourself jailing American soldiers. That being said the Canadian Forces has also been engaged in Kosovo without the support of the United Nations and actively bombed targets in Serbia, would you then argue that those CF-18 Pilots and those acting as Combat Support should be jailed as well for war crimes.

            “That said, I am not a lawyer, I am just a concerned human being trying to see a clear path out of this mess of continual war, suffering and environmental degradation that we continue to excuse.”

            Interesting, so if all of our troops were to leave the Middle East there would be no more war, suffering, and environmental degradation? Are you seriously that naive?

            It would be nice if for one these people on the anti-war left would admit that even if we were to leave the Middle East their would still be war and human suffering, however then recognize it’s not our fight.

  5. Its so easy to throw Bush under the bus, but doing what is right is not always popular! He was not a perfect president by no means but most 2 term presidents kinda of fade in popularity near the end of the second term. While I am for free speech these protest do no good and if they get media coverage its usually makes the protesters look like idiots!

    • Yes, doing what is right might not always be popular, but starting a war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs (which was the reason given), really amounts to illegality. I fail to see how this was right. It was and remains unpopular for very good reason. And protests do no good? I guess we should all just cozy up inside our homes then and pretend everything’s just A-OK.

  6. Interesting that being the Air Force for the KLA, a recognized terrorist group and drug running organization is considered perfectly moral yet ousting Saddam Hussein isn’t. Now if we compare Milosevic to Hussein, the latter is the far worse creature. Whether it be with regards to his aggression against Kuwait, his use of biological agents on Kurds, his support for suicide bombers in Palestine, or his continued starvation of his people.

    But, let me ask one question of people on here. Especially those whose only principle thus far seems to be to bash Bush and pretend to make extraordinary insights that have been made already by numerous suburban marxists. If the Iraq War was illegal, and it was unconstitutional their is no doubt about that, would you also oppose the intervention in Kosovo and Somalia? Would you also oppose any interventions in the Sudan? Would you also say that the west did the right thing in not intervening in Rwanda? If so then you do have a principled base to stand on since you oppose all foreign intervention.

    Quite frankly I’m all for a policy of non-intervention and closing the lionshare of American bases around the world. The difference is that my position doesn’t waiver based on which President happens to be in power.

Sign in to comment.