Arrest Bush, Arrest Them All

The United States Army general who investigated the Abu Ghraib torture scandal has accused the Bush regime of war crimes and challenged American prosecutors to act.

Retired Major General Antonio Taguba, who claims he was forced into early retirement for his outspoken findings, says Bush and his minions have disgraced the honour of the United States and its military:

“This report tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individuals’ lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.

The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted – both on America’s institutions and our nation’s founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.

In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. And the healing professions, including physicians and psychologists, became complicit in the willful infliction of harm against those the Hippocratic Oath demands they protect.

After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

The former detainees in this report – each of whom is fighting a lonely and difficult battle to rebuild his life – require reparations for what they endured, comprehensive psycho-social and medical assistance, and even an official apology from our government.

But most of all, these men deserve justice as required under the tenets of international law and the United States Constitution.

And so do the American people.”

Read the summary of the Taguba report here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/

Look, people, here’s another challenge. These draft-dodging despots, beginning with Cheney and working on down through the ranks of the neo-con vultures, are war criminals, plain and simple. Why, then, are we still treating them as legitimate members, nay leaders, of the community of nations of the free world? Bush/Cheney have caused the slaughter of far more people than Mugabe ever did, more than Ghadaffi, more than Arafat, more than al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden, more than just about anyone save for Nixon, Stalin and Hitler.

These people, and the right-wingers in other nations who serve as their enablers, are vermin and if our world is to heal the wounds they’ve torn into us, the leadership must be denounced and condemned, charged and tried. The hundreds of thousands of dead and millions displaced deserve nothing less.

Before you dismiss this call as histrionic or hyperbole, at least read this:

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/

Then, those of you interested in seeing the complete mosaic of how the American people and the rest of us were neo-conned into the War Without End on Terror, throw 75-bucks at PBS and get a copy of their 4.5-hour DVD “Bush’s War.” If you still have some hold on your senses and integrity, it’ll make your blood boil.

 

Bloodthirsty George, American Emperor

It was early in Bush’s first term and we were all getting used to his malapropisms and other grammatical blunders. It seemed that, whenever the president of the United States opened his mouth (and wasn’t reading from a speech), something goofy was almost sure to come out.

Some took that as a sign that Bush was genuinely moronic. Yet we keep getting assured that the guy is actually fairly bright, not that there have been many tangible signs of that.

But early on I read a report of an American linguistics prof who anaylyzed Bush’s candid speech and came up with a startling finding. There was one circumstance in which Bush always spoke with total clarity and coherence – when the topic was death.

Death has played a prominent role in little George’s life. He used his dad’s influence to get a posting in the air national guard in order to dodge the prospect of death fighting in Vietnam. When he was governor of Texas, condemned prisoners were toast. It was said that Bush never saw a death warrant he didn’t like and he signed them all as they came across his desk.

But death has never been as central to Bush’s life as it has since 2001, beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan. It was the conquest of Iraq two years later, however, that saw the Bush legacy really steeped in blood as tens, probably hundreds of thousands, of innocents died in the aftermath of the botched occupation.

It turns out that there were times when Bush’s blood lust was blatant, at least to those around him. US Army general Ricardo Sanchez recounts the bloodthirsty bent of his commander in chief in Sanchez’ memoir, “Wiser in Battle,” in which he relates what passed during a video conference call between Sanchez and Bremer in Baghdad and Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld in Washington during the reduction of the Sunni city of Falujah. From AlterNet:

According to Sanchez, Powell was talking tough that day: “We’ve got to smash somebody’s ass quickly,” the general reports him saying. “There has to be a total victory somewhere. We must have a brute demonstration of power.” (And indeed, by the end of April, parts of Fallujah would be in ruins, as, by August, would expanses of the oldest parts of the holy Shiite city of Najaf. Sadr himself would, however, escape to fight another day; and, in order to declare Powell’s “total victory,” the U.S. military would have to return to Fallujah that November, after the U.S. presidential election, and reduce three-quarters of it to virtual rubble). Bush then turned to the subject of al-Sadr: “At the end of this campaign al-Sadr must be gone,” he insisted to his top advisors. “At a minimum, he will be arrested. It is essential he be wiped out.”

Not long after that, the President “launched” what an evidently bewildered Sanchez politely describes as “a kind of confused pep talk regarding both Fallujah and our upcoming southern campaign [against the Mahdi Army].” Here then is that “pep talk.” While you read it, try to imagine anything like it coming out of the mouth of any other American president, or anything not like it coming out of the mouth of any evil enemy leader in the films of the President’s — and my — childhood:

“‘Kick ass!’ [Bush] said, echoing Colin Powell’s tough talk. ‘If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal.

“There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!'”

The last six years have been one long John Wayne moment for George w. Bush and he’s relished them to the full. What remains to be seen is how many more commander in chief moments will Bush try to cram in before he’s given his eviction notice. Could he “do” Iran, even if just for the fun of it?

And what sort of world awaits Bush come January when he’s back at the ranch in Crawford and there’s no one left he can kill? Not even a stack of death warrants to sign. How’s the guy going to cope in a strange, small world in which everyone lives?

 

The Trial of George W(anker) Bush

I’m looking forward to getting my hands on former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s tell-all book.

It’s not that there’s much in it that we didn’t already know. It’s that a former insider is essentially standing witness against his former boss, a man who may be a mass murderer on a grand scale.

What interests me is McClellan’s admissions of what fueled Bush’s decision to invade Iraq – his vanity. The former aide says that Bush’s overarching objectives were to be a wartime president and win a second term in office. Taken in this context, George Bush is a war criminal and a mass murderer. It was all about this frat boy rising out of his career of serial failures to stand tall as the victorious Commander in Chief of the United States of America. That thousands of his own people would have to die and hundreds of thousands of innocents abroad would lose their lives was of no moment to Barbara Bush’s wretched hellspawn.

To get his way, Bush turned on the American people and attacked them with a lethal brew of deception and fearmongering. Fully aided and abetted by a collaborative, right-wing media, Bush convinced his people that Saddam was a genuine threat to the world and, above all, to the United States and each and every one of them. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, even nukes, and was buying the raw materials for his arsenal (remember the “yellowcake”?) even while he was denying it. Worst of all, he was in cahoots with al-Qaeda and could even deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons into their hands for use against the U.S.

George w. Bush soaked the American people in the blood of innocents. He sullied and besmirched the honour and integrity of the volunteers who signed on to serve their country in its armed forces. He cajoled and intimidated and bribed other nations to serve as his collaborators, his enablers.

What does a man such as George Bush and what do his principal minions deserve for this treachery? They deserve to become an example to those who might be tempted to do this all over again some day. They deserve to be arrested and brought to the prisoners’ dock in shackles to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity and mass murder. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, Gonzales and yes, even Powell, should answer for all the killings and the torture and their abuses. Then they should be put in cages in their very own Spandau somewhere and held, incommunicado, for the rest of their lives.

For these people are villains of the very worst kind, those who kill for glory. Tyrants.

 

Running on Empty

Even the most powerful political leader on earth can’t get very far without a tankful of political capital. That tank inevitably begins to run low during the final months of a lame duck president’s term. In the case of George w. Bush, it’s not low, it’s empty.

Shrub’s Middle East farewell tour proves the point. He got up and delivered inflammatory speeches that failed to spark any reaction save for apathy. He went begging for more oil and got snubbed and shown the door.

George’s failure, from day one, has been his inability to understand the essential need to understand. This is a guy who’s boasted that he follows his “gut instinct” on major issues.

Gut instinct isn’t necessarily bad when it’s preceded by an accurate understanding and thoughtful deliberation. It works as the best alternative when you’ve done your homework and still haven’t come up with one clear solution. It’s not, however, a substitute for understanding or deliberation. Without the groundwork, gut instinct is no more than a wild-ass guess (WAG) and often something worse, a silly, wild-ass guess (SWAG).

Invading Iraq with 160,000 troops was a WAG. Deciding to occupy the country without tripling the number of boots on the ground was a SWAG. No understanding, no deliberation.

It didn’t take long for important people around the world to figure out how Bush worked which is a key reason why everything he’s touched – be it America’s economy, its environment, Iraq, New Orleans, its influence abroad, even its military adventures – has wound up on the heap in the biffy.

Bush went to the Middle East and claimed that he can solve the Israeli/Palestinian dilemma before he leaves office in January. With what, another SWAG? This guy is either trying to scam everyone or else he’s just plain delusional.

Remember when Bush confided to certain world leaders, including Canada’s own Paul Martin, that he was guided by God, in effect God’s instrument in the White House? That meant his decisions were divinely inspired, making him, in effect, a demi-god. And, as we all know, demi-gods don’t have to understand, don’t have to contemplate. All they need do is go with their divine, gut instinct.

It’s a sort of hucksterism rarely seen since the days of the old medicine shows but it’s one that no one’s buying any longer. Bush is empty, done, finished. No one believes him any more, no one seems to feel the need to humour him either.

In critical moments past, sitting presidents have sometimes called in their predecessors for advice. Think any future president will be running up long-distance phone bills to the trained chimp in Crawford?

 

Funny Incurious George Should Criticize Appeasers

Contemptus Stultus

We’ve all heard the story of George w. Bush’s thinly veiled slight of Barack Obama over the Senator’s statements that he would talk to America’s “enemies”, namely Iran and Syria. Without naming Obama directly, the frat boy who has miserably failed the American people every day of his administration, even back before 9/11, was obviously exploiting the opportunity of a speech to commemorate Israel’s 60th anniversary in order to get in a few partisan digs for John McSame.

Bush ought to appreciate appeasers, not condemn them. He’s relied on a gang of spineless appeasers in order to get his way and drag America down ever since 9/11. Without appeasers (yes, including Her Ladyship, Dame Hillary), George might have had to wait a few more months before invading Iraq by which time Hans Blix would have given Iraq a WMD Clean Bill of Health. Without appeasers, Americans wouldn’t be living under the scourge of the Patriot Act. Without appeasers, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached and probably indicted by now. Without appeasers America might not remain at the feet of Big Oil today. Without appeasers, America might not have tolerated the privatization of war itself.

The appeasers did more than just prostrate themselves before their self-proclaimed emperor. They empowered him with tools to intimidate and coerce those who refused to appease the puppet prince. These appeasers even allowed Bush to twist and pervert their Constitution to suit his will. These appeasers allowed Bush to institutionalize torture, to dishonour their own military, to arrest and imprison anyone, indefinitely, without charge – to fly them to some of the most vile nations on the planet where their dirty work could be carried out unseen, unheard.

Mister Bush ought to appreciate appeasers. Without them he’d be nothing – and wouldn’t the world be an infinitely better place for that?

 

Stoning Bush

American voters are going to get a chance to relive the nightmare of the past eight years before they go to the polls in November.

Oliver Stone intends to have his Bush byopic, “W”, in theatres well before the vote even though it’s only beginning filming next week. Stone hopes the movie will answer the question, “How did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?”

Yeah, how indeed?

Josh Brolin (above) has been cast to play Shrub hisself.

W – coming to a theatre near you, soon, real soon.

 

The Nuclear Threshold

Little Bundles of Instant Sunshine

During the height of the Cold War a lot of attention was paid to the “Nuclear Threshold”, the point at which the actions of one side would cause the other side to resort to its nuclear arsenal, the point of MAD or “mutually assured destruction”, the end of everything.

Back then it was recognized that even tinkering with the nuclear arsenal could destabilize the balance of terror. During his term, Jimmy Carter considered the neutron bomb, a bomb designed to be very heavy on radiation and very light on blast. The idea was that you could use it on an advancing Soviet army, for example, without causing massive destruction and radioactive contamination of the site. The same thing for civilian targets. You could effectively depopulate a city but leave the buildings undamaged.

The neutron bomb was feasible but it was wisely rejected. Saner minds realized it would make nuclear weapons more tempting to use which would cause the other side (the Soviets) to be even more paranoid about an American first-strike.

That’s what can happen when you tinker with a nuclear arsenal. It causes everyone else to speculate on what you’re up to. It can also cause them to begin building up their own nuclear muscle just in case their worst suspicions become reality. The simple point is we don’t need to get Russia or China acting on their worst suspicions.

Now George W. Bush is doing it up real fine. He’s doing it up on foreign policy. He’s doing it up on defensive systems. He’s doing it up on offensive systems too. Let’s see – we’ve got a guy who seems to be unstable staring us in the face and he’s brandishing a new shield and a big, new sword. What could he be up to?

It’s not what George Bush is up to, it’s the perception he gives that is the greatest danger. He’s gone unilateral, withdrawn from the nuclear treaty, begun deploying a missile defence system worldwide, and is about to begin production on a new generation of nukes. Add to this his proven willingness to conquer other countries on flimsy pretexts and that he has proclaimed a doctrine of unprovoked, preventative war to ensure that his country enjoys, in perpetuity, “strength beyond challenge.”

Now I don’t like math any more than the next guy but, pretend you’re Moscow or Beijing, and run those six factors through an equation and see what you come out with. Hell, they’ve even talked about first strike being a valid option. They’ve talked about using nuclear weapons against Iran’s bunkers.

This is the most bellicose president, possibly since 1812, certainly in the past half-century of American history. He’s also deceitful, naive, impulsive and ill-informed – putty in the hands of others. Now, factor that into your equation.

Somebody has to pull this clown back from the edge. That has to start by derailing Bush’s plan for a new generation of nukes. There’s nothing wrong with the existing arsenal. They’re reliable and devastating as ever. The new nukes Bush is after would simply make them easier and tidier to use, one warhead at a time. The rest of the world isn’t fooled by this. Why should the American Congress allow themselves to be drawn into this lunacy? Why should we all be plunged into another Cold War?