The Existentialist Cowboy: 2007-07-15

Saturday, July 21, 2007

A "Bellyful" of Right Wing Oil Frauds, War Crimes and High Treason

Americans are fed up with Bush and his moribund party. His GOP gang has gotten lazy, crooked, and stupid. But that's old news. More worrisome is the undisguised glee with which prominent goppers describe impending terrorist attacks on US citizens. One of them mused wistfully that Americans would soon have a different view of Bush's quagmire, his agenda, his place in history! Whenever I hear this kind of talk from a Republican, I instinctively grab my wallet and my..uh..my ass! In these times, no one should leave anything hangin' out.

Now --about those predictions of "spectacular" attacks on US citizens over the next several months. Presidential hopeful Ron Paul flat out stated that such attacks might be staged by the Bush government. Republicans, spare me your scripted, parroted remarks about "tin foil hats". Paul is one of your own. Maybe he should know!

The GOP overtly exploited the events of 911 and the 2004 campaign sought to capitalize on America's emotional response. I cannot believe that an innocent, responsible administration would try to restrict public disclosure about what really happened that day. A single term sums it up: cover up! An oil puppet wishing to make war in the middle east would need a pre-text. If anything said about the events of 911 had been true, truth itself would have been the case for war. Conclusion: the truth was covered up because it undermines the Bush case for war.

An 800 page "secret report" prepared by the joint congressional inquiry is said to detail the many intelligence failures preceding the attacks. Congressman Paul, however, raises an equally credible explanation for Bush's every move. It is to be contrasted to the "coincidence theories" designed by GOP consultants and strategists to fool a stunned and gullible public.

That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people , and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.

That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank , BCCI , Banco Ambrosiano , the P2 Lodge , the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there's no need to rehash all that . That was then, this is now !

That Jonathan Bush's Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.

That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.

That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama's brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.

That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is .

That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations .
--The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11

We know from our first semester Psychology courses that a conditioned reflex wears thin without reinforcement. Negative "training" even more quickly. The GOP has looked at the polls and have come to the same conclusions --the old 911 magic just "ain't workin' anymore". Who remembers the color codes of the Department of Homeland Security? A "red alert", as I recall, always seemed to come on the heels of a dip in Bush's approval rating. The GOP must surely think us well-trained and conditioned. I have a different view. It is an unimaginative GOP that is trained like Pavlov's dogs to scream bloody terror whenever it begins to look as if Bush is no longer loved. I don't like to think about what might be up their checkered sleeves. I hope Lou Dobbs is correct.

It's beginning to look like the American people may finally have had a bellyful of elected officials who do little more than shill for lobbyists, ignore the interests of America's citizens and perpetuate rather than solve the problems facing this nation.
Lou Dobbs, Lame ducks in a row

The GOP is out of ideas, out of gas, out of its tiny mind. A growing number of people have, at last, figured that out with a lot of help from idiots like Ric Santorum, Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch and, of course, Bush himself, role models of what not to be.

George W. Bush committed high treason by deliberately lying to the people, the congress, the UN so that he could take this nation to war. When his every pretext for that war is now established, beyond any reasonable doubt, to have been false, the burden of proof is now on Bush.

A veritable gestalt of black-hearted lies about WMD was but a pretext to begin a war of naked aggression in violation of the Nuremberg Principles and our own US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 War Crimes, which prescribes the death penalty for those war crimes resulting in death. This is not about politics Karl Rove style. This is a capital crime, a case of mass murder.

Certainly, there was no terrorism in Iraq before Bush ordered the US attack and invasion of a sovereign nation. It may be argued that there was no terrorism because Saddam's police state had crushed dissent. Bush, of course, tries to have it both ways: "Saddam was a brutal dictator" and we are fighting to defeat terrorists in Iraq so that they won't "follow us home". The GOP faithful cannot be expected to ask the tough questions: if there are "terrorists" in Iraq, then how and why are they there? The orthodoxy is never questioned.

Check out the poll that I added to my blog recently, an unscientific poll, to be sure. But as I consider visitors to my site to be literate, articulate and critical, the results may not be dismissed lightly. Significantly, no one participating in this poll has indicated that the US is fighting terrorism in Iraq. It is most often described as "resistance".

Tragically, millions of Americans, owned body and soul by big corporations, have willingly followed Bush into Iraq if not hell itself. These millions would have done so even if he had told the truth. Millions more would not have. Millions more would have insisted upon a lawful and free American. Bush dared not tell the truth about Iraq, that is, the US attacked an invaded Iraq because Bush and his oil partners wanted to control the world price of oil. Nothing had changed since Bush Sr ordered Operation Desert Storm. [See: The April Glaspie Transcript]

A decline in oil prices might have been a good thing for car markers and the SUV addicted but it was not a good thing for Bush and his sponsor --the oil companies.

Idaho GOP Sen. Larry Craig stood on the Senate floor late Tuesday night and said:
"What happens to the world energy supply if Iran does gain more control in the Middle East? What are the realities of the consequences of an Iran that possibly could gain control over 54% of the world energy supply? They could place a choke hold over the Strait of Hormuz and possibly in sea lanes in the region, severely limiting the supply of oil to the world market. That is not just a reality that the United States must face, but a reality for the world. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to lessen the US dependence on foreign oil.

He was cut off by the presiding officer, but later amended his remarks to include in the Congressional Record this:

However, we are not yet capable of raising production in the United States because we have been blocked by the other side of the aisle from doing so. Therefore, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could have dire consequences with our economy and energy supply; but would also have the same effects on the world economy.

Craig's Democratic challenger, Larry LaRocco reacted in an interview with NewWest.net

"Craig rose to his feet on the floor of the Senate to say we should not begin a responsible withdrawal of our troops because of oil... it’s an astounding admission, and it’s in black and white.

"This is the kind of rationale that many people have suspected, but now he has confirmed that it’s no longer about security, it’s no longer about squashing terrorists - he’s putting the lives of our great men and women at risk for oil....
"Craig’s silence all along on the Iraq war and his failure to challenge the Bush administration’s failed policies - even after the casualties mounted - led me to suspect there is something else beyond terrorism in his silence. And now we know."
Craig certainly isn't the only Republican who would use oil as the rationale for our continued occupation of Iraq. He's just about the only one who is arrogant enough and unconcerned enough about political repercussions to admit it. I suspect that's an attitude he'll come to regret.
-- Sen Larry Craig says it's all about the oil

Were it not so tragic, I would have found hilarious the fact that millions voted for Bush because they actually believed that he would lower the price of oil. If you are among them, you were duped and should have been. Neither Bush war was about lowering the price of gasoline. It was about keeping both high and the record shows they succeeded! Over the same period of time, America's privileged class has gotten exponentially richer at a time when America is a debtor nation --so what is the source of that wealth? That's another article.

Saudi Arabia and George W. Bush share an interest in higher prices for oil. Because of that, Saudi Arabia has always had a motive for involving itself in some way with pulling off 911. The House of Saud is most certainly a brutal family run dictatorship, a "mob", if you will! Corrupt, intolerant of dissent, it works stealthily behind the scenes to undermine consensus while maintaining the high price of oil. Unlike most Americans, a high price for oil is least among my objections. I support "green" energy sources and oil "ain't" green except for those getting paid for producing it and spreading it around like addicting dope.

Saudi Royals are motivated to conspire with whomever may be planning this new wave of terror that seems so eagerly awaited by the GOP, so conveniently predicted by the "prescient" swamis and seers inside this moribund party of no ideas, no ideals, no hope for America but fascism. I want to know --what ever does the GOP know about what has been planned, what might be in store for the US in the next several months? More importantly, I want to know how they know? Were they tipped off by their partners in oil --the Saudis? Or is the other way 'round?

At last, George Bush still insists Iraq is a "central front in the war on terrorism" --fallacy made flesh. It's a line given Bushies by highly paid consultants, spin doctors, and Rovian war mongers. Once you have learned to suppress your conscience, you, too, might earn six figures writing talking points for venal politicians. The Devil will always make a bargain. For these people, and they devil they bargain with, truth means nothing.

Because terrorism is whatever Bush says it is, it is fair to ask --are there any terrorists at all in Iraq? Why is terrorism ALWAYS worse under GOP regimes? [Also see: The GOP is not a political party. It's a GOP Crime Syndicate]

The US might have declared victory and pulled out. But the time is past for that. Bush invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddam's police state. It is easy enough to conclude that because of that, "terrorists" moved in order to "kill Americans" in a ready-made killing field. Sadly, there is no way to know. Because Bush has lied so often and so inconsistently, the truth about Iraq may never be known. The more rational explanation, the one that is most closely consonant with Occam's Razor, is simply this: there were and are no terrorists in Iraq. Bush simply defines anyone who resists his illegitimate occupation of that nation as terrorist! If, indeed, terrorists moved into Iraq --unthinkable under the regime of Saddam Hussein --Bush must be held to account.

Either terrorists are in Iraq or they are not. If they are not, then Bush's attack and invasion of Iraq is without it last rationale and Bush is a liar/war criminal. If there are terrorists in Iraq, then Bush is incompetent boob/moron who should never have aspired to office.

In the end, Bush's only choice is to withdraw US troops. There is no upside that will save him. If Bush should leave Iraq, he will have admitted that his war and occupation failed; that the lives of over 3,000 US soldiers were wasted upon his orders. It is most certainly no one else's fault but Bush's. Moreover, Bush will have lost his pretext to install a police state, a dictatorship of the GOP and the stupid.

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 20, 2007

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war.

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq.
...
This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist" legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government and installing martial law in the event of a "national emergency".

The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq.

In the end, ego and his mad desire to consolidate a dictatorship prevents Bush from making any correct decision. And, as Bush has never made a correct decision, he is cornered, a prisoner of his own devising.

The world knows that Bush has lost Iraq, his "Presidency", his legacy. That he tries to consolidate the powers of a despot merely seal his fate and ensure the judgement of history: the very worst, the most loathsome "President" in American history. Re-writing this history is beyond even the abilities of the omnipresent Homeland Security. Just this evening BBC reports that the Iraqi "government" (if you can call it that) is unraveling. Isn't it time we faced the similiar truth about the US and the illegitimate administration of George W. Bush?

Bill Maher on President Bush
Uploaded by admiraldata

By staying in Iraq, we capitulate the vocabulary of war. If we choose to remain and be targets, the war, indeed, goes on but never won.

An update

Bush tries to put down GOP revolt
By The Washington Post | Saturday, September 16, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush warned defiant Republican senators Friday that he will close down a CIA interrogation program that he credited with thwarting terrorist attacks if they pass a proposal regulating detention of enemy combatants, escalating a politically charged battle that has exposed divisions within his party. ...

Additional resources

Vets for Peacecalled for the impeachment of George Bush

Discoveries

Spread the word:

Friday, July 20, 2007

A "Great Revulsion": The Name "Bush" is Enough to Lose a Court Case

Mere mention of Bush's name may tilt the scales of justice against you if you are the one bringing him up. The "decider" is now so reviled that professional consultants advise attorneys: if you want to win your day in court, don't even mention Bush's name in open court.

This is not front page headline vindication, but I will take it. As I have said for years now: The Bush administration is not a "Presidency"; it's a criminal conspiracy. The GOP is not a political party; it's a crime syndicate. Now, at last --some objective proof that I am no longer alone. An entire nation is revulsed by Bush.

I learned about this upon wandering into the website of a consulting firm who teaches attorneys how to win those cases that go to court. Much of this practice has to do with jury psychology and the fine art of picking a jury.

Defense motion to ban George W. Bush's name at trial defeated
Apparently President George W. Bush is now so unpopular that some lawyers believe the mere mention of his name in front of a jury could tip the scales against them.

Attorneys Michael P. Laffey and Robert P. DiDomenicis of Holsten & Associates in Media, Pa., are defending Upper Darby Township, Pa., in a civil rights suit brought by Harold Lischner, an 82-year-old doctor who claims he was falsely arrested for displaying an anti-war sign at a Bush campaign event in September 2003.

With the case set to go to trial on July 23, the defense lawyers recently filed a flurry of motions, including one that asked Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gene E.K. Pratter to prohibit the plaintiff from mentioning Bush's name.

The motion in Lischner v. Upper Darby Township said that according to the latest Newsweek poll, Bush has "the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation," and that 62 percent of Americans believe that Bush's handling of the war in Iraq shows that he is "stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes."

Laffey and DiDomenicis argued that "the identity of George W. Bush has no relevance to plaintiff's claim and should not be admitted."

It's not been a good month for Bush. His immigration bill shot shot down but who is surprised. That's a no win situation and merely pressing the issue is an indication of just how desperate this administration has become. But you will not catch me romanticizing Bush's sorry plight with a word half so romantic as "desparado".

Two "key" GOP senators broke with Bush on the "surge". They are former Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar and George Voinovich. Both know the surge is a miserable failure and, at this point, I charge Bush with having puked up the "surge" plan in a fit of adolescent peak. It was put forward, as you recall, just after the Iraq Study Group had dared to put forward something, anything to pull the Shrub's sorry fat out of the fire. It doesn't matter what they proposed. Bush would have done something else. Lives don't matter.

There was a floor speech by Lugar and it was "hailed by former Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner". It was more bad news for the resident cretin, confirming that Bush, his commanders and diplomats, have only until mid-September to turn things around in Iraq. It's time for Bush to put up or shut up. Better, it's time he just resigned and spared the nation this horrible nightmare.

For his part, Lugar recalled his break with Ronald Reagan. Reagan had vetoed anti-apartheid legislation in the mid-1980s. Lugar broke with Reagan and lead the Congressional effort to override Reagan.

The cracks are showing. It's beginning to look like Paul Krugman's dream has come true.

"I have a vision — maybe just a hope — of a great revulsion: a moment in which the American people look at what is happening, realize how their good will and patriotism have been abused, and put a stop to this drive to destroy much of what is best in our country."

I wrote those words three years ago in the introduction to my column collection, "The Great Unraveling." It seemed a remote prospect at the time: Baghdad had just fallen to U.S. troops, and President Bush had a 70 percent approval rating.
--Paul Krugman, The Great Revulsion

As this "great revulsion" takes hold

Impeaching Bush State by State
The legal basis for these unprecedented state-level actions was discovered when, according to Steven Leser, Illinois Rep. Karen A. Yarbrough "stumbled on a little known and never utilized rule of the U.S. House of Representatives." The rule was written in a book formerly known as Jefferson's Manual, which, according to C-SPAN, "is a book of rules of procedure and parliamentary philosophy … written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801 … [used by the House] as a supplement to its standing rules." Section LIII, sec. 603 states, "There are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion … [one of them is] by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State …"
Each of the three resolutions mentions Iraq lies, torture and illegal spying, with slight variations in tone and specifics. Assemblyman Paul Koretz's California resolution (which includes Dick Cheney) and the Illinois resolution both include the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, while Vermont's focuses almost exclusively on Bush's most salient transgression, his illegal spying on Americans. The spying charge leads the other two resolutions' list of charges as well. ...

And, if that were not enough to convince you that Bush is on the ropes, several right wing blogs are presuming to tell Bush how to get his approval ratings back on top again. I would laugh out loud were not Bush's lies and murders so bloody tragic. I am tempted to just blow off the "conservative" bloggers with a terse: this bastard doesn't deserve high approval ratings. I might point out to the "authors" that the last time Bush enjoyed approval ratings of some 90 percent of the American people, they were in a state of shock just days after the events of 911.

Die hard conservatives, however, still wring their hands about how Bush's motives are openly questioned and reviled. How dare we suspect that Bush would "stage" another terrorist attack. Let me point out: it was NOT a liberal politician who went public with that. It was Congressman Ron Paul, a "libertarian" Republican, considered "conservative" because American usage has been screwed up by politics. Earlier, it was not liberals, but neo-consevatives, among them the PNAC, who openly pined for a "catastrophic event like Pearl Harbor" that would galvanize public opinion, presumably for the purposes of installing a right wing dictator and waging war on place like Iraq. Now that it's all come to pass, the cretins of America's morally moribund right wing will blame everyone but themselves.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
--Cassius, Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare

Shakespeare also wrote the following lines for Mark Antony:

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones.

The end of a single tyrant is not the end of tyranny. Bush leaves an horrific wreck in his wake. It may take generations to undo the harm. The struggle is eternal. Bush's downfall, when it comes and come it will, is just a new beginning and a difficult one. There is much work to be done. We have a Republic to restore.