(Unfortunately) Old News: Dick Cheney to Be Charged in Halliburton Corruption?

UPDATED TO ADD: Unfortunately, schadenfreude can make you too excited to notice that an article is old. Daggone it. For whatever reason, this story--at a legit site--came up today as though it was new. And I got all twitterpated, and published before I realized it. I almost struck the post, just deleted it into the ether. But you know what? It's Halloween time, and there's nothing scarier than Dick Cheney. So, I'll leave it up, and we can go on wishing that this (or something) would come to pass.

ORIGINAL POST:

Schadenfreude. According to Merriam-Webster:

noun, scha·den·freu·de often capitalized \ˈshä-dən-ˌfrȯi-də\ 

: a feeling of enjoyment that comes from seeing or hearing about the troubles of other people

A pretty horrible thing, ordinarily, right? But in certain contexts, for certain, specific people? Maybe not so bad. Certainly not in the case of my feelings for Dick Cheney. Of all of the odious people in or
associated with the George W. Bush administration, Cheney would be at the top of my list for
 "people I'd punish if I had super powers." I don't know if I'd banish him to a hell dimension, transport him to a planet of horrible smells, strand him at the bottom of a pit filled with vermin, or some other creative punishment, but I'd come up with something. Nothing lethal, mind you, just something horrible and preferably gross.

Image from source, Christian Science Monitor

Barring that? The greybar hotel would be so very nice. I mean, I know this thing is coming from Nigeria, and that Darth Cheney won't likely ever come to justice, but a guy can dream.

[Excerpt]
 
Dick Cheney to be charged in $180-million Halliburton bribery case

Nigeria's anti-corruption police said on Thursday they planned to file charges against former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in a $180 million bribery case involving a former unit of oil services firm Halliburton. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Tuesday summoned the country chief of Halliburton and last week detained 10 Nigerian and expatriate Halliburton staff for questioning after raiding its Lagos office. . .

Read more at: Christian Science Monitor

The View's Nicolle Wallace on Torture: “I Don’t Care What We Did”

Image from Salon

Torture's back, as I noted in my last post. The currently and briefly Democratic Senate has released their Torture Report after six years of study. It pretty much lays out that yes we tortured people, and that no, it wasn't a useful tactic, though it was illegal. War crimes. The reaction from the left is, "Yep, we knew that. Arrest them!" The reaction from most in the middle (or your average non-voter from this last election) is a shrug. "Whatever. Where's my iPad?" And from the right?

Predictably, many on the right are in denial. It wasn't torture. If it was, it wasn't that bad. Our Navy Seals are subjected to worse in training. Besides, they're terrorists, and they'd do worse to us. Hey, at least we aren't beheading them! And then there's the "Whatever it takes to keep us safe, all bets are off, just DO it."

That seems to be the position of Republican strategist and The View co-host Nicolle Wallace. I like her, or rather, I have in most appearances of her that I've caught. She's a conservative, but she's bright, articulate, funny and wry. She's sparred with Rachel Maddow several times, and they always come away laughing. But lately, she seems to be prone to outrageous statements, possibly because of her new gig? Though I wouldn't have expected her to say this.

[Excerpt]
 
“I don’t care what we did”: What Nicolle Wallace’s rant reveals about America’s torture problem

After years of excuses and delays, Americans finally have a chance on Tuesday to read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s so-called torture report (or at least most of its executive summary which, as the Intercept’s Dan Froomkin has noted, constitutes less than 20 percent of the whole report). And while it’s likely that most of the summary will focus on information we basically knew already, there have been hints of new and significant revelations, too. If it’s true that the CIA misled President Bush about the effectiveness of the torture program, for example, then the intelligence agency, which has already been caught spying on Congress, is even more of a threat to American democracy than we feared. Either way, the story of how the United States came to embrace “interrogation” techniques pioneered by . . .

Read more at: Salon

Should President Obama Pardon Bush/Cheney for War Crimes?

Image found at TrueActivist

Every so often, in politics, there is a really interesting play on the table. Something you didn't expect. Something that may accomplish part of a long-held goal, but possibly in a roundabout way. That's happening right now, though the odds are long that it would ever happen.

Just about everybody agrees that the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney administration authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the years following September 11, 2001, and that they were. . .extra-legal. Most people agree that these techniques went over the line, and I'd be willing to guess that a majority consider them outright torture. Where a partisan divide appears is in whether or not we care that we tortured people.

One could argue that a patriot should care. The United States of America is not supposed to commit war crimes with impunity, torture with no oversight, or imprison without due process. Especially at times when we're burning for vengeance, or just plain scared. Those are the times when our laws, our treaties, our moral compasses, our humanity and our Constitution need to be vigorously defended and adhered to. If not, exactly what are we defending?

Image from the (hopefully ironically titled)
WeMeantWell.com

So, while we quibble about how much over the line GWB & Co. went, we know they crossed it. Many of us think of them as outright war criminals. But we're also aware that--even though the other side can impeach a sitting president for lying about a trifle--there is no political stomach for trying and convicting any of those involved for said crimes. Which gives zero incentive for future presidents to follow even the most serious of laws. And the clock is running. Can we really expect the next president, or the next, to act on something so far in the rear view?

And act how? No way there's a trial or trials. It's just not going to happen. But someone has come up with a novel solution: Have President Obama pardon them all. It's a radical solution. It lets everyone off the hook. There might even be international blowback just for that. But it also brands them all as war criminals. Exonerated, but criminals, nonetheless. It's an asterisk that will be in every history book. And it would potentially act as a deterrent from a future president from crossing that line. Every person who wants to be president has an outsized ego. They do not want to be branded a war criminal, no matter how power-hungry they are.

All of that said, I think there's close to a zero chance that Obama would do it. I think personally, he'd love to. But I'm not sure the political will of the party apparatus is even there for that. Which is a pity. But think about this: should the GOP follow through with their "Operation: Kill Obama's Legacy" plan in the next two years, this could be in his back pocket.

[Excerpt]
 

Maddow: Pardon Bush for Torture To "Make It Clear Crimes Were Committed"



RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Tonight, the head of the national ACLU has just published this op-ed in the New York Times. It calls for President Obama to issue a pardon to former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials for overseeing torture as the U.S. policy for years. . .

Read more at: Real Clear Politics

GOP Counts on Dubya's Legacy for Fundraising

Not in a million years

Below, is the unedited, pasted-directly-from-the-email, money-beg from today's GOP. I present this to you, merely because I couldn't believe it. While the GOP and the tea party hate President Obama, they're also usually quick to disavow former President George W. Bush. Except for the rare (and odd) "Miss Me Yet" billboards with Dubya waving, and grinning like a loon, it's the rare conservative who will openly embrace his legacy.

Pressed to come up with the good things Bush accomplished, I have a very hard time. Extending Daylight Saving time is about the only thing I can come up with. Interestingly, I think a huge swath of the population would say that Bush "significantly diminished the United States’ standing in the world — and worse, he has made us less safe," particularly the first part of the sentence. The last part might be argued, but hell, I'd argue it in the case of Obama too. What, precisely, has President Obama done to make us less safe than Dubya?

In case you forgot, Bush ignored signs that 9/11 was coming. He started an unnecessary war against a country that did not attack us--though the administration tried damned hard to get us to make that connection. He instituted torture as policy.  He and his cohort Dick Cheney invented the "unitary executive," overusing executive orders and "signing statements," and non-transparency to unprecedented levels. Those very things--used more sparingly by the Obama administration--are now some of the primary things the GOP complains about.

[Email begins]

Like f  Share this on Facebook GOP.com Friend, Resolute and decisive. That’s what I remember when I think of the leadership of President George W. Bush. He led our nation through some of the most challenging moments of our nation’s history. He led. The President we have today thinks our country should “lead from behind” and has significantly diminished the United States’ standing in the world — and worse, he has made us less safe. I miss the leadership of President George W. Bush. And I miss him. I had the privilege of serving in his White House, and I saw the character that he and his family provided our nation. I will be forever grateful for their service. Tomorrow is President George W. Bush’s Birthday. It’s a moment that has reminded us of what leadership in the White House really looks like. And we’re working to send principled leaders to the Senate and House in 2014 and to the White House in 2016. Would you help make that possible by contributing $27 to get your official “I Miss W.” t-shirt today before his birthday? Order your official “I Miss W.” t-shirt today. Thank you, Sara Armstrong RNC Chief Operating Officer P.S. If you haven’t already, you can still sign President George W. Bush’s birthday card here. Contribute Now

[End of email]

But, by all means, get the Dubya T-shirt! Wear it in public! I think you might get some odd looks, perhaps questions about your sanity. And you may find yourself pretending that you're wearing it ironically. Maybe you'll even say you got it at a thrift shop as a joke. . .after all, that's where most of these are going to turn up.

Can We Please Ignore the Iraq War "Experts?"

Image from source, Politico

I would never claim to be an expert on the Middle East. I'll be honest, I've never even really understood the fervor of our support for Israel. So, I'm not going to put on a front like I have the answer to what's going on in Iraq right now. But I'm pretty sure about a couple of things:

- Whether our withdrawal from Iraq spurred the current unrest or not, we had to leave, a) because we couldn't stay indefinitely, b) because George W. Bush signed an agreement before he left office (remember, he had a shoe thrown at him), c) the Iraqi parliament voted us out, and d) the overwhelming sentiment of the American people was for us to leave.

- The architects and players of the War in Iraq, including Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley, Tenet, Rumsfeld, and Dubya himself should have no role in any decisions made. They also shouldn't be viewed as experts on cable news or the Sunday political shows. Add to the Bush Administration the cheerleaders for war, such as Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and really the whole of FOX "News" and right-wing talk radio. They were all flat wrong about almost everything. Their opinions shouldn't hold any weight or any sway.

- Most of all, let's get the President out of the damned microscope. Let's have just a smidgen of the old "don't criticize the Commander in Chief in a time of war," attitude again, shall we? Not to insane, grill-the-Dixie Chicks, Patriotic­™ American® ­levels, but in the actual patriotic American sense. Imagine if we did have the dreaded sequel to 9/11. Rather than rallying around the flag, Right Wing World would be sharpening their pitchforks, lighting their torches, and storming Pennsylvania Avenue. It's not healthy individually and not healthy for our country to behave this way.

[Excerpt]

The Case for Doing Nothing in Iraq

Here we go again. Whenever there’s a crisis anywhere in the world, you can count on America’s pundit class to demand action—usually of the military variety. Don’t just stand there, bomb something! After more than two decades of unchallenged American hegemony, Washington keyboards seem almost programmed to call for intervention halfway around the globe. . .

Read more at: Politico

Right Wing World: Spinning Syria

Do you remember the run-up to the Iraq War? I do, but FOX "News" and other conservative outlets seemingly do not. In the period after September 11, 2001 all the way through "Shock and Awe" and pretty much up to "Mission Accomplished," President George W. Bush and his administration was given the kid glove treatment from the press, and much of the public. I mean, I'm a lefty liberal moonbat blogger, and I didn't much question the Iraq decision at the time. I was skeptical, but what the heck did I know? No, it was a very slow burn, a very gradual awakening of the press, the birth of the blogosphere, and the dawning realization that we were lied into war that shook us out of the"Freedom & Liberty" free pass we were giving Bushco.

Image from the fabulous NewsCorpse

But Right Wing World is revising history, or trying to. They're conflating Syria and Iraq, but they're not using what actually happened. . .which is completely expected of course. I'm also seeing in various places (Iowa radio host Steve Deace, for one) that the liberals who did speak out against the war are somehow now marching in lock-step behind President Obama. Which--if you pay attention to Left Wing World (such as it is)--is completely wrong. 10 minutes of The Ed Show should disabuse anyone of that notion. But again. . .to be expected.

[Excerpt]

Fox News Dementia: Media Is Not As Hard On Obama/Syria As They Were On Bush/Iraq

On Fox News this morning there was a segment debating the media coverage of the “Crisis in Syria” (video below). On any other network this would have been a legitimate subject for debate and a fascinating topic. But leave it to Fox News to broadcast a version of history that makes Snow White’s adventures with seven diminutive forest dwellers look like a PBS documentary. . .

Read more at: NewsCorpse

Irony Alert: Rumsfeld Says Obama Hasn't Justified Syria Attack

Typical Rummy quote, this one on the location of WMDs: "We know
where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and east, west, south and north somewhat." Image from Raw Story.
 

I've already explained that I'm no expert on this Syria thing, and therefore will try to keep my opining to a minimum here on the blog. But you know who else should maybe take a step back? Donald freakin' Rumsfeld. Actually just about anybody from the Bush administration, but maybe especially Rummy. He's just proof that there is no sense of embarrassment on the right.

[Excerpt]

Rumsfeld: Obama hasn’t justified Syria attack

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday night that President Barack Obama had not done enough to justify an attack on Syria. “One thing that is very interesting, it seems to me, is that there really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation,” Rumsfeld told Fox Business Network host Neil Cavuto. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Lest We Forget: Who the Hell Cares What Dick Cheney Thinks?

I haven't read a word of the article I excerpted below. I didn't watch the clip. When I grudgingly watched FOX "News" Sunday this weekend to see what was up their asses this week, I turned it off when Dick Cheney was introduced as the guest. Why? Because I don't care what Cheney has to say. About anything. And nobody else should either.

In fact, there are very few members of the Bush Administration that should be appearing on Meet the Press or Face the Nation or any of the other shows, particularly on matters of foreign policy. Cheney and the rest weren't just wrong about damned near everything, they actually started a war under false pretenses. They presided over the worst terrorist attack on our country since Pearl Harbor.

Cheney says President Obama lacks credibility? A thesis on all the reasons Cheney has no credibility would fill pages and pages so lengthy that no one would read it, so I won't bother. I just had to say to the powers that be, and the universe in general, could you please keep this increasingly creepy man off of my TV, and out of the spotlight? Thank you.

[Excerpt]

Cheney Backs NSA Spying; Calls Snowden A Traitor, Says Obama "Lacks Credibility"


CHRIS WALLACE: What do you think of Edward Snowden?

DICK CHENEY: I think he's a traitor. I think he has committed crimes in effect by violating agreements given the position he had. . .

Read more (but I'm not gonna) at: Real Clear Politics

Blogiversary: SIX Years!

As I type this, we are in the waning moments of June 2, 2013. That means this is the end of the first day of my seventh year blogging at Greenlee Gazette. I started this blog--as I've often said--in frustration. Picture it: it was 6.5 years into the Bush era. Democrats, liberals and/or progressives were not just frustrated. We were the mush squeezed out of the end of a steam-rollered tube of left-wing ideology. The Karl Rove/Frank Luntz alternate reality machine had clobbered us pretty severely. We were standing up shouting "reality doesn't match what we're being told!," but we were largely ignored.

Feel free to scroll back in my archives, they're all there. It was a  vastly different time. We're now in a similar era for the opposing party, a second term (though not as deeply in), with a kinda lame-ducky vibe, and some "scandal," though nothing nearly so subversive as the Bush era crap. Nothing came of those, so that may have something to do with why Democrats aren't worked up over Obama scandal-ettes. But that's just the political backdrop. My mission as a blogger just got rooted in that fertile ground. That's not all there was to it.

An early dream, still unrealized.

Mostly, what the blog solved for me, was my a solution to my vast introspection. I'm a notorious "self talker," talking to myself to such an extent that it can be embarrassing when someone overhears. It comes from living until my early 30s on my own. It also comes from the discovery that if I say things out loud, I tend to remember them better. But once I had a blog? All of those spoken-to-no one thoughts were typed down, and--oddly enough--read by others! Woo hoo! I'm not crazy, I have readers!

Well, maybe you all are crazy too. But that's okay, we have each other. Over these last six years, the blog has been alternatively a catharsis, a burden, a diary, a platform, a creative outlet, an argument practice-zone, a lighting rod for controversy and a pet project. I have no plans of giving it up, though I often wonder if there's a way to have my cake and eat it too: keep the platform, but not be so shackled to it.

Who knows if blogging will still be "a thing" six more years down the line, or if it will be absorbed by something.  In the NewsFlesh series of zombie apocalypse books, blogging replaces journalism. I'd argue that we've already merged to a degree, possibly to the detriment of journalism. But it's also opened a world of discovery to people who needed an outlet, and helped inspire people who may not have sought out traditional journalism. I think on the whole it has been a positive development. I know that I'm inspired to carry on. And I'm sure I'll be here next year with another update.

In the meantime, thank you for reading, and please come back and bring your friends!

Scandal: Does it Matter That Bush Targeted Enemies with Gov't Agencies?

In politics, there are double-standards. For instance, if something pertaining to treatment of the president is perceived as racist, simply calling it that can be labelled "playing the race card," which is treated as an equal and opposite infraction. Similarly, if Party A is upset with something Party B has done--even though Party A has done precisely the same thing in the past that they're accusing B of--just pointing that out is seen as somehow out of bounds.

But this is my blog, and I really don't care about those dumb rules. The plain fact of the matter is, the various "scandal-ettes" as I'm calling them, the IRS/Tea Party one--the Justice Department/AP one and the Benghazi one--all have analogs to things in the Bush administration. And let's make this clear: all three of these controversies (umbrella-gate doesn't count) are merely alleged. There has been, as far as I know, no proven misbehavior by the President himself, or the executive branch on any of them.

Someone in this photo likely causes a visceral reaction in you, right?
Image from Alternet.

The same cannot be said of Bush and Co. Their politicization of every department of the government was legendary. They couldn't govern or conduct foreign policy for beans, but they played politics hardball well. Not good mind you, well. So, I think it's worth pointing out that even if each of these brouhahas, even if the go all the way to the top, has a precedent in the previous administration. And it's also worth pointing out that "impeachment was off the table." I always knew that Nancy Pelosi's diplomacy in that area was a bad idea that would never be repaid.

[Excerpt]

Bush Used the IRS, FBI, CIA and Secret Service to Go After Opponents -- Where Was the Fox and GOP Outrage?

As your kindergarten teacher probably told you, two wrongs do not make a right. But the discrepancy in reactions to wrongs does, indeed, show how Washington so often serves the interests of the political right. . .

Read more at: AlterNet

Republican National Committee Using George W. Bush as Fundraising Opportunity

Thanks W? Yeah, thanks a hell of a lot, George.
By the way, dumb asses, it's missing a comma.

I, along with millions of Americans, got an instant refresher course in all things Dubya over the last couple of days. In some cases, George W. Bush's tenure at the White House was glossed over, but I didn't see very much that actually tried to play his presidency off as a success. Mostly, it was just polite and respectful. Perhaps too respectful for my taste. I know that my political ideology colors my views, but to be fair, much of my current ideology was shaped in reaction to the eight years of Bush/Cheney! And watching that little weasel on television with his insipid answers to vapid questions (Q: What do you do with your time; A: Paint 2-3 hours a day!) just brought it all back. How embarrassed I was watching him represent our country.

Listen, I'll cop to having a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, but unlike current sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome, I had an honest, earned case of it. There wasn't as much making crap up then, inventing things to get torqued about. Oh, we nitpicked, sure. And we wondered what that boxy thing was on his back during the debate. And why he had that weird gyrating jaw when he talked. Wondered what the real story was behind the pretzel incident, and the falling off the bike incidents. . .mostly, all of that stuff just made us wonder if he was still on the sauce or the blow. But we didn't question his paternity, his citizenship, his religion, his sexuality or his patriotism. We thought he was a dolt, in over his head, with a collection of incompetents and/or amoral opportunists working for him. I could write a 10,000 word post for all of the solid reasons why I despised the Dubya Bush administration, but will save time, and just refer you to the bulk of this blog from its inception until January 20, 2009!

My take on best uses for the RNC's new image. Like it?

And George, if you can't tell after that, NO! We don't miss you yet! NO! We will not thank you for anything but leaving and going away. And, Mr. Reince Priebus, if you think that stupid sticker is going to work wonders for the RNC, I've got to think you're demented. Many Bush voters are loathe to admit it now. Fewer would display any kind of "W" sticker on their car. And any revenue you gain from this little endeavor is more likely to be overshadowed by the scorn heaped upon it. And also very likely to generate a whole new internet meme built ironically around it. I'll do my part.

Get yours here though, if you feel moved: Republican National Committee

Karl Rove in Trouble?

Image from source, Think Progress.

For the first two thirds of the Dubya administration, I wished all sorts of festering pustules and other maladies upon Karl Rove. There were a lot of figures in that group for me to loathe, but Rove was at the top of my list. After the outing of CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, the heat was turned up under Rove, and I had dreams of the proverbial frog-march in shackles, but it never came to pass. Still, Rove was ejected from the White House, and installed as a lowly "Republican strategist" on FOX "News." Where he clearly fit in.

Flash forward a bit, and Rove had become a power-player, a king-maker! I sat stupefied, wondering how this lowly, sleazy, skeevy toad could have landed so squarely on his cloven feet. To make matters worse, he was playing both roles, the behind-the-scenes (purse) string puller, and the on-camera commenter. If I happened upon FOX, and caught him and Liz Cheney at the same time, it was enough to almost give me an aneurism.

And then? I had a schadenfreudegasm. All of Rove's best-laid plans collapsed on election night. Even better, he was on camera as it toppled, awkwardly and futilely trying to pull his alternate reality into existence. He had egg on his face. And he spent the (Sheldon Adelson) casino's money with no return! Is someone measuring him for cement shoes? Well, we don't know yet. But it would seem that Rove might have other problems. . .

[Excerpt]

EXCLUSIVE: Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS Never Filed Legally Required Registration

When Karl Rove’s Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (GPS) formed in 2010, it established its official address in Warrenton, VA, and registered with the Internal Revenue Service a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) “social welfare organization.” It apparently did not, however, register as a charitable organization with the Commonwealth of Virginia, as appears was legally required. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Further Evidence that Right's Focus on Benghazi is Bunk

Let me state right up front that I'm as saddened as anyone about the deaths of four Americans abroad. Regardless of the risks of their jobs, or the volatility in the part of the world in which they agreed to work, it is always painful when there is loss of life. That said, the FOX "News"/Right Wing World focus on Benghazi--as I've said before--isn't about that. It's about growing the tragedy into a scandal.

It's working to an extent. The Benghazi attack has been so over-sold, magnified, layered with supposition and larded with untruth by the conservative machine, they've got their followers lathered up as only gay marriage, gun grabbing and The War on Christmas™ can usually do. However "real" their outrage feels, it is a manufactured, targeted outrage, planted there by people with an agenda.

Destruction caused by car bomber targeting the U.S. consulate in Karachi
Pakistan, in March 2, 2006. Image from source, DailyKos.

How do I know that without this megaphone, FOXbots wouldn't ordinarily give a crap about what happened in Benghazi? Because they ignored everything that went down under the previous administration, that's why. When there were intelligence failures (pun richly intended) under the Bush administration--including the doozy of 9/11/01--if there was a peep about it from Right Wing World, it was the world's softest chirp.

[Excerpt]

If diplomatic attacks are a sign of weakness, Bush was the weakest of all

. . .So did those attacks (and the 9/11 ones, for that matter) happen because of "perceived American weakness"? Is that what Rumsfeld wants to argue—that our country's diplomatic missions were targeted because George Bush's America was perceived as weak?

As for Obama, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are the first two attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in an ostensibly peaceful country during his entire presidency—and they were sparked by that idiot wingnut Islamophobe Terri Jones. The embassy in Afghanistan was targeted by the Taliban last Sept. 13, but that's a country at war. . .

Check out the list of "failures" under Bush at: DailyKos

Bush Era Memo Released: They Knew it Was Torture

The Decider and Darth Cheney. Image from
source, Huffington Post

Since President Obama was inaugurated, there have been rumblings from the right about impeaching him. They don't care why (as they didn't with Clinton. . .lying about a blow job?), they just want it done. They haven't gotten very far, but you can bet that if Obama wins a second term, the volume on that idea is going to go way up. Which strikes me as ungrateful, if nothing else.

Ungrateful? Yes. Because Nancy Pelosi long ago took impeachment "off the table," when it came to George W. Bush. And because President Obama declared that he would not seek to investigate the Bush Administration's potential crimes. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest got away scot-free! They took a wrecking ball to the country, and other parts of the world, and now they get to comfortably retire, with no worries about repercussions. We're talking war crimes here.

Pffft! War crimes! Why, that's just Bush Derangement Syndrome! Uh, no, it's not. Torture is a war crime, and the just released memo shows that the Bush Administration knew it was torture. Arguably, we should be pissed at the Obama Administration for insisting it won't investigate, and for not stepping cleanly away from all of the "expanded executive powers" created in the Bush Years. The story below does a good enough job pointing out those issues. I'm actually more concerned by the prospect of a future President Ryan or Cantor deciding that torture is cool again.

[Excerpt]


New Bush-Era Torture Memo Released, Raises Questions About What Has Changed And What Hasn't 

A six-year-old memo from within the George W. Bush administration that came to light this week acknowledges that White House-approved interrogation techniques amounted to "war crimes." The memo's release has called attention to what has changed since President Barack Obama took office, but it also raises questions about what hasn't. . .

Read more at: Huffignton Post

Bush Administration Wanted Iraq War from the Beginning

Image from source, PressTV

Anyone with a functional brain pretty much knows that George W. Bush and his administration wanted to go to war with Iraq before, not because of 9/11.  We suspected for years, as official "reasons" for the invasion shifted from one ridiculous thing to another.  Then the "Downing Street Memo" pretty much confirmed it, though it really didn't come to much.  Now, it seems that it's certifiably true. And still? Not much.  It's really amazing that Democrats wield this big club, and won't use it. Even the prospect of an impeachment-in-search-of-a-cause from the other side probably won't do it.  I can't wait to see what ridiculous "high crime and misdemeanor" the Republicans try this time. It would take a doozy to outdo "lying about a blowjob."  Maybe smoking in a no-smoking area?

[Excerpt]

'Bush team wanted Iraq war from start'

Declassified documents have reveled that advisors to former US president George W. Bush had focused on justifying a new war on Iraq as soon as he took office.

Official document released on Wednesday show that a few hours after the 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, the then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of attacking Iraq.



Papers posted by the Washington-based National Security Archive shows Rumsfeld discussing war plans for Iraq just two months after the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan. . .

Read more at: PressTV

Movie Seeks Prosecution of George W. Bush

Image from source, The Raw Story

I've long given up hope that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the rest of that sorry administration would ever be held accountable for their actions. All of the bellyaching by conservatives about President Obama's actions to date feel especially hollow given all of the Bush Era "high crimes and misdemeanors." If Bush & Co. aren't to be held accountable, who ever could be? Well, there is at least someone out there who hasn't given up hope. If nothing else, we have one more historical accounting of what happened. Maybe history will judge Bush if the law won't.

[Excerpt]

New movie to seek prosecution of George W. Bush

The author of a book calling for the prosecution of former President George W. Bush for murder has produced a documentary based on the book that will debut in February 2010.

The documentary draws on interviews with Vincent Bugliosi, whose best-selling The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder has sparked controversy and renewed discussion of recourse from Bush's critics. . .

Read more at: The Raw Story

Sheldon Whitehouse Urges Investigation of Bush Administration

Image from source, TPM Muckraker

Sheldon Whitehouse is always good for getting liberals like me all excited about actual justice for Bush Era crimes. If only he could get his colleagues to jump on board. While I sympathize about the potential media circus, and the political ramifications, some things just shouldn't be swept under the rug. What Bush has done, and what President Obama will end up giving precedent to is an utterly unaccountable Executive Branch. What could a President ever do again that would be worthy of investigation, let alone impeachment?

[Excerpt]

Whitehouse: Torture Probe Should Look At Bush Officials

. . .[I]n America, high office does not put one outside the law. Indeed, it borders on unethical for a prosecutor to refuse to investigate the corpus delicti of a crime because of concern as to where the evidence may lead. . .

Amen, brother.

Read more at: TPM Muckraker

Did Nancy Pelosi Know All About Bush Era Torture?

Photo from source, Raw Story

Nancy Pelosi has spelled out in no uncertain terms that she was briefed that "enhanced interrogation (torture)" was deemed legal by the Bush Administration, but not that it had actually been used. Moreover, she said that she was barred from saying anything or doing anything about it by Senate rules.

But now, there are reports that she did know about it. And if she did--in my opinion--I say we let the chips fall where they may. This whole "rule of law" anti-torture thing is not a vendetta to me, a way to punish George W. Bush and his cronies. Not to me anyway. But you have to wonder if this is the reason politicians are dragging their feet on the issue.

[Excerpt]

Pelosi was briefed on waterboarding in 2002, despite saying she wasn’t: report

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the Bush Administration’s torture techniques in 2002 — even though she’s publicly said she was never told about the use of waterboarding, according to a new report. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

John Boehner's Scary Obama Movie

This is how the GOP is going to turn themselves around? By trying to freak us out? John Boner Boehner apparently put together this little video, with the scary music and imagery. But their central question is odd: "After 100 days, do you feel safer?" Actually, I kinda do, with the creepy Bush Administration gone.

And after hearing "George W. Bush kept us safe!" (even though he presided over the worst terrorist attack on our country since Pearl Harbor), couldn't we just as easily retort that President Obama has kept us safe for 100+ days? Nah, no use fighting stupid with stupid.

Rachel Maddow: 6 Years Since "Mission Accomplished"

I can't remember when the scales fell off my eyes, pertaining to the ineptitude (and other negative qualities) of George W. Bush and his administration. I didn't vote for him, and never thought much of him. But I wasn't actively opposed to him at first, and held my tongue after September 11. Lots of us did.

But by the time of the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech/photo op, I was starting to get the creeps. Even at first, it was clear the event was stage managed, to say the least. And at that point, we didn't even know that the aircraft carrier was turned around to avoid showing the coast of California. And we didn't know that the administration would try to blame the banner on the troops. Some of us saw through Karl Rove's alternate reality making early. For others, it took a bit longer.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy