is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

2. Disdain for human rights

4. Supremacy of the military

That's quick and easy, isn't it? Lovely neocon kneejerk reaction. Dismiss criticism and try to make it seem foolish.

The assinine neocon "concern" for Tery Shiavo sickens me. It is naked political self interest and transparent manipulation

Any reasonable person who forms their own ideas and doesn't get their opinions from neocon propoganda knew the right thing to do was follow Terry Shiavo and her next-of-kin's wishes.

What exactly does following the express wishes of an adult have to do with human rights?

Read the Geneva Convention and the terms it sets for prisoners of war and non aligned combatants. Here's the short form... we are obligated to either treat those captured as POW's or turn them over to a duly constituted legal system, either that of America's or of their country of origin. None of this has been done for the "detainees".

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;(c) That of carrying arms openly;(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Here's the short form... we are obligated to either treat those captured as POW's or turn them over to a duly constituted legal system, either that of America's or of their country of origin. None of this has been done for the "detainees".

Congress has been exercising its authority to check the judiciary-in the form of filibuster aimed to prevent some of Bush's appointments. I have a feeling that this isnt what you mean. I don't care much about that, Gingrich and Co. held up the same proportion of Clinton's nominees in the 90's.

The whole point of the courts is to protect the country from a rabid majority.

The court is supposed to be above populist attacks.

On March 21, three days after Schiavo's feeding tube was removed, Congress passed a bill transferring jurisdiction of the case from Florida state court to a U.S. District Court, for a federal judge to review. President Bush signed it into law the next day. But federal courts refused to overturn the state courts' decision.

Why does it matter? The point is they're hypocrites.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the poor do give the rich?

Those on top make money from the collection of those making less at the bottom.

The rich on the other hand may have a lot of money and shift it around a lot, but are not actually creating as much need for jobs to exist as the poor are, because plain and simple... there are much less of them.

If you want to run a McD's on the number of millionaires that will walk through your door, good luck. The number of poor people on the other hand... Ka ching!

I am opposed to the degree to which wealth can apparently buy political favors and influence the outcomes of elections in this country by devious means such as these '527 organizations'.

We can't get campaign finance reform because it would reduce the power big money interests wield over politics

Do we really have a democracy, or is it just a sham where we are manipulated into voting for puppets of wealth and privelidge (i.e. fascists) under the false assumption that they actually care about the interests of the general populace?

The apparent religious convictions OF the government are one of the MANY reasons I have NO faith in it.

Firstly, Congress was fed a load of malarky about non-existant WMD that was all produced / synthesized or otherwise endorsed by the administration that had a responsability to ensure its veracity.

So does democracy still 'work' if the adminstration deceives the people and their Congress ? ( I assume you will contest this particular example, but just consider the question hypothetically).

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

To clarify, I am suspicious and mistrustful of any and all politicians who try to use religious posturing/convicitons/morality or anything derived from religion for their own political purposes.

However, the flawed intelligence presented as justification for war in 2003 was still the responsibility of the adminstration in power to verify. They produced it and convinced Congress to act on it.

The point is, the rationale for invading Iraq back before we invaded was the imminent threat and chemical and biological and nuclear WMD threat the Bush administration claimed Iraq posed.

Now, years after the invasion it is clear there were never any WMD

The rationale for the war is post-hoc reasoned and spun as "Saddam was a brutal dictator."

Well, there are a lot of other dictators around the world, with many being much worse that Saddam. If Saddam was so bad that we had to invade Iraq to oust him, surely there are other more murderous dictators we needed to get rid of first, such as those in African nations.

September 4, 1980: Saddam Hussein initiated a war with Iran as he attacked the oil-reserves in Iran.1987-1988: Saddam Hussein launched the Anfal Campaign against the Kurds. 180,000 Kurds disappeared and 4,000 villages were destroyed.March 1988: The Kurdish town, Halabaja, was gassed. 5,000 people were killed and 10,000 were injured.August 1988: Many Kurdish villages on the Turkish border were gassed. Thousands of people died.August 2, 1990: Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait.1993: Saddam Hussein broke the peace terms from the end of the Persian Gulf War. The United States bombed Iraq as a result.October 1998: Saddam Hussein failed to comply with the United Nations weapons inspectors. This action led to a four-day bombing raid by the United States.

October 16, 2002: President Bush signed a resolution passed by Congress authorizing the United States to use force against Iraq.November 27, 2002: Formal Weapons inspections began.December 7, 2002: Iraq issued their official declaration of weapons to the United Nations.December 19, 2002: Hans Blix stated, "Iraq's account is not a full account of all their weapons."December 2002: President Bush authorized the deployment of 100,000 troops to the Persian Gulf for early January.January 27, 2003: Blix reported that Iraq had not proved that they had eliminated illegal weapons.March 17, 2003: United States president George Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Either Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq or the United States would use force to remove him. Hussein was given 48 hours to leave.March 19, 2003: Saddam Hussein refused to leave Iraq.March 20, 2003: Just before dawn, the United States fired missiles at a bunker where the United States government thought Iraqi officials were sleeping.