Sunday, March 25, 2007

BBC Debates: John Bolton, "Who do you think you're fooling?"

An Iraqi citizen and Tony Benn combine to speak truth to power -power in the person of US UN Ambassador, John Bolton. The first blow to US spin came from an Iraqi citizen who challenged Bolton: "You lost Saddam back in 1992; he became a pariah, and thats when you decided to go to war". Later, Tony Benn, in his statement directly to Bolton, accused the United States and George W. Bush of committing war crimes in Iraq, crimes no different from those enumerated in the Nuremberg Principles. It was a one, two punch, a must see:

A note on Bolton's reply to Tony Benn. Bolton said that it was too bad that Benn did not understand the American Constitution. I must add: Benn had said absolutely NOTHING that would have indicated that he had misunderstood the US Constitution in any way on any part. Throughout the "debate" a recurring theme --the US invasion of Iraq IS a war crime.


Bolton's excuse these days boils down to I was just following orders. Pressed by his interviewer, Bolton accused him of preferring to live under a dictatorship. In fact, this is a cheap trick taught by GOP media "consultants". In fact, NOTHING said by the interviewer could be so interpreted to mean that he preferred living under a dictator. It is significant, however, that it is John Bolton these days who characterizes the never-ending war in Iraq as a "civil war".

Typically, Bolton tries to blames his victim, the Iraqi people for whom the US attack and invasion of Iraq was and remains a US crime followed by an incompetent and illegal occupation.

It was not Iraqis who sought out a US invasion that would murder some 40,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in operation "Shock and Awe" alone. Since that time, an untold number have been killed, murdered, tortured. It is convenient for the Bush regime that the US did not keep track of Iraqi casualties. No one has bothered to count the hundreds, perhaps thousands, brutally tortured in secret. But this, we are expected to believe, is the fault of the Iraqi people!

Even Democrats, lately, have taken up the absurd position that the on-going chaos in Iraq is the fault of the Iraqi people whom "we" now expect to "step up to the plate" though we have killed thousands and forced millions to flee. We are told that the Iraqi people -faced with the destruction of infrastructure, the apparatus of civil government, and the vicissitudes of an ongoing civil war, insurgency, and ongoing US war crimes -who must make the Middle East safe for Bush's inevitable and cowardly withdrawal.Tragically, there is no easy escape from George Bush's crime scene. There is no absolution. George W. Bush is personally and legally responsible.

At this late date, there is only one conclusion left to be drawn: the United States is morally bankrupt. The GOP is complicit in capital crimes and defends them without conscience or empathy. The Democrats lack the backbone and the moral clarity to force the issue. The American people, meanwhile, wander aimlessly through the wilderness hoping things will get better, wondering why when they never do.

But even Wikipedia, whom I rarely trust completely, has gotten it right when it comes to John Bolton. Wiki calls Bolton a fascist.
John Robert Bolton (born November 20, 1948), a fascist masquerading as an attorney and an American diplomat in several Republican administrations, served as the interim[1] U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations with the title of ambassador, from August 2005 until December 2006, on a recess appointment. His letter of resignation from the Bush Administration was accepted on December 4, 2006, effective when his recess appointment ended December 9 at the formal adjournment of the 109th Congress. Bolton is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Labor Party MP, Tony Benn, meanwhile, is absolutely correct when he says that the US invasion, ordered by George. W. Bush, was and continues to be a war crime. Even US CODES: Title 18,2441, makes it a US crime to commit war crimes abroad. Those war crimes which result in death to the victim are capital crimes. Bush is in a lot of trouble when distinguished world leaders join a rising chorus of outraged citizens across the globe. They can now now make the open and shut case that George W. Bush is an international war criminal. Organize now to bring this outlaw to justice.


A interesting theory is making the rounds. And, at a time when it would appear that sectarian violence in Iraq will, in fact, spread and endanger the entire Middle East, it is hard not to conclude that the Bush gang is deliberately "fomenting" chaos and plans to benefit from it. It is a fact, after all, that when Bush ordered the attack and invasion of Iraq, Iraq was destabilized. Every facet of the war since then has been a mistake if not a debacle. Morons could have done better.

It may be prudent, therefore, to ask the tough question: is team Bush deliberately spreading chaos in Iraq? Has team Bush intentionally mucked it all up? Is it all just a part of a wider, nefarious plan? We have always suspected that oil was behind Bush's imperial ambitions. Will chaos in Iraq help Bush deliver to the oil barons an inflamed Middle East? Or has Bush gone too far? Has the ticking time bomb already blown up in his stupid face?

I am impatient with speculation at this point. I no longer give a damn why the resident criminal does what he does. The public record is clear enough; there is enough evidence now to try and convict him of war crimes. This gang of criminals seized the White House with a stolen election. Since then, it has committed treason in order to shut up its critics, most, prominently Ambassador Joe Wilson. This administration has sought to ramrod through Congress tax cuts that rob the poor and benefit the rich and corporate. Fortunately, the GOP effort to embezzle the Social Security trust fund failed. Still, it is difficult to understand how George W. Bush will pay for the murders that he has committed in Iraq without financing that ongoing war crime upon the backs of America's retiring seniors and mortgaging the future of America's youth.

There is a special place in hell...







Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

16 comments:

SadButTrue said...

One especially salient (IMnsHO) point I have been trying to make about renditions and 'enhanced interrogation techniques'* (torture) is in regards to the fate of those who have been incarcerated without evidence, then tortured, then found innocent. I believe such innocent victims of 'rendition'* (kidnapping) are much MORE likely to be 'disposed of' (murdered) than is a legitimately guilty terrorist.

For one thing, it puts the actual 'interrogator'* (torturer) in serious legal jeopardy. Murders committed with the attached circumstances of kidnapping and torture are subject to the death penalty in most U.S. jurisdictions, and considered to be crimes against humanity internationally. Needless to say, the same legal jeopardies adhere to higher officials in the military, CIA, FBI, and the civilian administration itself. Notice they no longer even pretend that it is just a few low-ranking 'loose cannons' as they did when the Abu Ghraib story broke. Finally, the White House has endlessly reiterated the theme that it would be disastrous to allow 'the enemy' to become aware of the techniques used. Should a victim be released missing a few teeth, some fingers, an eye, or his genitalia, this would reveal those ever-so-secret techniques.

In the case of someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who to all appearances IS a legitimate terrorist, it is in the government's interest to keep him alive for the necessary showcase trial. He could even be described as the mayor of their little Potemkin village of justice.

Writing in the New York Times, Slavoj Zizek had this to say, "While the scope of Mr. Mohammed’s crimes is clear and horrifying, it is worth noting that the United States seems incapable of treating him even as it would the hardest criminal — in the civilized Western world, even the most depraved child murderer gets judged and punished. But any legal trial and punishment of Mr. Mohammed is now impossible — no court that operates within the frames of Western legal systems can deal with illegal detentions, confessions obtained by torture and the like. (And this conforms, perversely, to Mr. Mohammed’s desire to be treated as an enemy rather than a criminal.)

It is as if not only the terrorists themselves, but also the fight against them, now has to proceed in a gray zone of legality. We thus have de facto “legal” and “illegal” criminals: those who are to be treated with legal procedures (using lawyers and the like), and those who are outside legality, subject to military tribunals or seemingly endless incarceration.

Mr. Mohammed has become what the Italian political philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls “homo sacer”: a creature legally dead while biologically still alive. And he’s not the only one living in an in-between world. The American authorities who deal with detainees have become a sort of counterpart to homo sacer: acting as a legal power, they operate in an empty space that is sustained by the law and yet not regulated by the rule of law.
"

As the dismissed prosecutors' scandal is beginning to reveal all too plainly, the Bush administration has done everything in its power to pervert the legal system. Its essential function as a civilizing influence has been completely lost on them. All they see is men in uniforms with weapons, who will obey their commands. The living body of the law has been replaced with a mindless Golem of animated clay.

* - having shown no talent for anything else, the Bush administration seems to have found their forte in coining the most outrageous euphemisms. One could only wish the gormless FOX-addicted public had the sense to see through them.

Unknown said...

I believe such innocent victims of 'rendition'* (kidnapping) are much MORE likely to be 'disposed of' (murdered) than is a legitimately guilty terrorist.

You are absolutely correct. When nothing distinguishes "us" from terrorists, it is absurd to think we can defeat terrorism. We have BECOME terrorists. Or as the French have said: L'Etat-Unis sont le plus grand terroriste

In the case of someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who to all appearances IS a legitimate terrorist, it is in the government's interest to keep him alive for the necessary showcase trial.

Even that is suspicious. What is the REAL evidence against him? Nothing obtained by waterboarding can be believed. Secondly, weren't we always told that the mastermind behind 911 was Bin Laden.

The difference is, Bush has the Mohammed. He will NEVER have his old business partner, Bin Laden.

Anonymous said...

Superb post, thank you!

Anonymous said...

The interogations remind me of the Salem witch trials. If she can swin then she is a witch and shall be killed and if she drowns then we give her a good christian burial. Either way the "witch" needed to be disposed of from the offset of the "trial".

Rich Miles said...

Note in the video of the program the petulant, nasty "my way or the highway" tone of Bolton's statement in response to the war crimes remark: "You just go right ahead, Mr. Benn. You just go right ahead."

I couldn't even figure out what Bolton was urging Benn to "go right ahead" to - it just looked like Bolton hadn't said anything snotty in a few minutes, and had to get something in. It had the same effect, to me, of Bolton saying something like "I know you are, but what am I?" Just about that same level of maturity.

And this clown was our UN ambassador? No wonder people all over the world hate America, with Bush, Rice and this bozo speaking for us.

Rich Miles said...

Sorry, Bolton's moment of snark was after Benn's "George II" remark. Other than that, my previous remarks stand as they were.

Sam Thornton said...

I agree that Bolton is a clown, but in looking at the Wikipedia article on him, couldn't find the term "fascist" in either the main article or the history of changes. Any thoughts?

theBhc said...

Len,

Great collection of vids. As far as the oil in Iraq goes, if you have not already heard about it -- and in our media climate that is entirely possible -- you might want to check my own article in the current edition of the The Humanist magazine (pdf):

The Long Game

and the definitive article by Greg Muttitt, Crude Designs.

Lots and lots of money to be made, and perhaps one reason for 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.

cheers!

Editor said...

I agree with EC's statement that this is part of a grander nefarious plot. The Bush2 Administration/Junta is competently incompetent. Iraq is one example. The botched war drives up oil prices (record profits for Exxon-Mobil tied in Saudis), enables us to build huge bases (served by Halliburton), gives billions to Christian-crusading Mercenaries (Blackwater), brings up demand for armaments (nice for Carlyle), and will keep long-term health care providers working with severely disabled troops (Tenet Health etc) in clover for a long time.

Look at the so-called Katrina Debacle, Bush made LA reliably Republican, scattering the Democrats in the inner-city to the winds....

Unknown said...

Rich Miles wrote:

Note in the video of the program the petulant, nasty "my way or the highway" tone of Bolton's statement in response to the war crimes remark: "You just go right ahead, Mr. Benn. You just go right ahead."

That is characteristic of Bush and Bushy. It is not only arrogant, it is adolescent. It's stupid. Bolton, at one point, said that Benn did not understand the American Constitution. RUBBISH. Not only had Benn NOT said anything to so indicate, Bolton has apparently forgotten that there is essentially nothing in the American Constitution that had not been thought of by Englishmen and Europeans first. John Locke in England comes to mind; Montesquieu and Rousseu in Europe. Montesquieu, in particular, articulated the doctrine of the Separation of Powers. It is, rather, Bolton and Bush who have either forgotten the separations of powers or have deliberately sought to subvert them. Bolton may understand the US Constitution, but he most certainly has no use for it as it was intended by our founders. Moreover, his implication that the English are incapable of understanding the US Constitution is jingoistic, provincial, and insufferably arrogant. Bolton is not fit to hold the office of dog catcher.

I couldn't even figure out what Bolton was urging Benn to "go right ahead" to - it just looked like Bolton hadn't said anything snotty in a few minutes, and had to get something in.

Indeed!

Unknown said...

Re: thornton..in looking at the Wikipedia article on him, couldn't find the term "fascist" in either the main article or the history of changes. Any thoughts?

Its blockquoted in my article. And, in any case, I consider the entire Bush gang of criminals to be fascists. If it walks like a duck...

And if Wikipedia had not said so, they should have.

Unknown said...

editor wrote:

Look at the so-called Katrina Debacle, Bush made LA reliably Republican, scattering the Democrats in the inner-city to the winds....

I have recently re-read Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I had often to remind myself that I was reading about Hitler --not Bush.

Fuzzflash, thanks for the kind welcome back. daveawayfromhome linked back to this article and was kind of enough to have written that I was "back with a vengence". I am encouraged by the both of you. My humble thanks.

I still have much to do in my new home, however. But hopefully, getting back on line will not be one of them.

Unknown said...

thebhc, thanks for the great links. One of them called Bush's statement to the effect that troops would not be withdrawn while he is in office to be the most believable thing he has ever said is right on target. Indeed, Bush does tell the truth.

He told the truth when he said "This would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship...as long as I'm the dictator."

He told the truth after 911 when he claimed to have won the trifecta.

He told the truth about the hitherto secret program of US torture, cold blooded murder and other crimes against humanity when he said "...let's just say they (his victims) met a different fate."

As I have said before, I no longer give a crap about his motives. I have never been interested in the motives of criminally inclined idiots. It is time now to organize a world wide movement to bring this venal war criminal to trial in the US for capital crimes and, in Europe, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

HopeSpringsATurtle said...

What a great post, thank you EC. Thorough, insightful and spot-on. I linked you at my place.

Deep Confusion

Unknown said...

thanks, hope...

I am checking out your blog right now and will add a link back on my blogroll.

Anonymous said...

Sam Thornton said:

I agree that Bolton is a clown, but in looking at the Wikipedia article on him, couldn't find the term "fascist" in either the main article or the history of changes. Any thoughts?

You didn't look very hard in the history of changes - here is what it says:

12:27, 25 March 2007 24.91.195.139 (Talk) (deleted "a facist masquerading as" preceding " . . . an attorney at ln 1. I don't agee with him either, but that's just silly.)

Note that this change was made the same day that Len wrote his article. It doesn't take much imagination to make a link between Len's article and a hasty change in Wikipedia, and this would not necessarily be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, considering how widely read the Existentialist Cowboy actually is.