John McCain: From Politician to Party Whore

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has made his Faustian pact with the GOP. Topping his previous idiocies -- a war of one hundred, perhaps even 'ten thousand years' -- McCain now claims that al Qaeda "might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the US election against him". McCain forgets that the only US party to have ever benefited from an al Qaeda attack is the GOP, partners and fellow terrorists. [See: Terrorism is worse under GOP regimes] The prospect of erstwhile gain, after all, is why McCain made peace with Mephistopheles seen on the right first in line.

McCain, at a town hall meeting in this Philadelphia suburb, was asked if he had concerns that anti-American militants in Iraq might ratchet up their activities in Iraq to try to increase casualties in September or October and tip the November election against him.
"Yes, I worry about it," McCain said. "And I know they pay attention because of the intercepts we have of their communications ... The hardest thing in warfare is to counter someone or a group of individuals who are willing to take their own lives in order to take others."

--McCain says al Qaeda might try to tip US election

McCain surely hopes you are as stupid as the GOP rank and file who, apparently, never figured out that whenever Bush was in trouble, Bin Laden released another tape as if on cue. Clue: it was! Al Qaeda was, in fact created by the CIA. It's alleged leader, Bin Laden, worked with US intelligence throughout the '70s and '80s; he was visited by American 'spooks' as he received dialysis in Dubai, just months before 911.

According to Richard Clark, Al Qaeda, a creation of the CIA [See also: Disinformation: CIA Posing as Al-Qaeda?; Al-Qaeda: A CIA protégé], was created for the purpose of enabling the House of Saud to bankroll Osama bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union. Throughout this 1980s war, Washington and Riyadh funneled some $3.5 billion to the mujahideen.
Bin Laden became a US patsy when it was clear that he was much more valuable as a bogeyman around which a crooked and illegitimate Bush regime would create 'al Qaeda' --an evil terrorist "Spectre" which could be conveniently blamed for Bush's every red herring, his every pretext for wars of naked aggression against oil producing countries --notably Iraq.

Is McCain naive or complicit? Both! McCain is naive for falling for the GOP line of bullshit. He is complicit because, like Faust, he sold his soul if he ever had one. Even America's ABC News was 'suspicious' of Bin Laden's lack of substance but, most significantly, the political timing from which only Bush benefited.

Osama bin Laden's latest message is a hodgepodge of anti-capitalist vitriol, impassioned Islamic evangelism and what can best be described as a twisted attempt at reconciliation: Join us, or we'll kill you. 

Analysts say the video that came out days before the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks is more about timing than substance, an attempt by history's most wanted fugitive to thumb his nose at the forces arrayed against him and remind the world that he hasn't been caught.

--ABC News

Even ABC reported in 2007 that Bin Laden's beard looked phony but never bothered to ask why! Simple explanation: both Bin and the beard were phony. As Benazir Bhutto told the BBC before she would be gunned down in the streets of Karachi --Bin Laden had been murdered. Most, if not all, Bin Laden tapes were therefore faked, perhaps produced and directed by the CIA. The record will prove conclusively that whenever Bush was in trouble, Bin Laden could be counted on to release another production.


McCain was trashed and dragged through the mud by rabid, fanatical Bushie fundamentalists down south, a land of red states and redder necks. But don't shed any tears for McCain who recovered from the sucker punch just in time to play kiss up to the Bush gang of traitors! Don't waste your time with a modern Faust, a party whore who literally lined up to kiss Bush's ass, pretending all the while that the emperor was fully dressed. Unlike Faust, however, Party Whores cannot expect redemption at the end of a long poem, only ignominy at the end of a human tragedy.

Additional resources

• BBC Censored Benazir Bhutto's Reports that Bin Laden Had Been Murdered
• Another Inconvenient Truth: Bin Laden is Dead
• FOX News Joins BBC in Censoring Benazir Bhutto's Statement That Osama bin Laden Is Dead
• CIA Holocaust Claims Twenty Million Victims
• Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization
• The CIA Created Al Qaeda and there is 'Probable Cause' to Charge George W. Bush with High Treason!
• How a Second Terrorist Attack Will Benefit George W. Bush
• Another Inconvenient Truth: Bin Laden is Dead
• Benazir Bhutto: US Policy Causes World Terrorism
• Oil Traders Seize Control of World Oil Prices
• Why and How Governments Betrayed Our Dreams of Freedom With Lies and Incompetence
• The war on Iraq threatens the US Economy as mass murder ceases to be profitable
• Wizard of Whimsy
• Government spending causes ballooning deficit
• A Timeline of CIA Atrocities
• Uncle Sam, Your Banker Will See You Now
• Bush's Defense Budget Biggest Since Reagan Era
• The Decline and Fall of the American Empire, Gore Vidal
• Steve Kangas: The Origins of the Overclass
• Michael Moore: 9/11 Could Be Inside Job
• Economic Inequality of Health
• The Rise of the Corporate Special Interest System
• What is New World Order?
• Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes   

Why George W. Bush Should Stand Trial for Capital Crimes

There is probable cause now to try George W. Bush for capital crimes in connection with the US program of torture at Abu Ghraib as well as the war of aggression against Iraq. There is evidence that George W. Bush ordered this program which most certainly resulted in numerous violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles.

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

-US Codes, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441; How Current is This?

Certainly, the Bush regime has sought to make 'legal' Bush's crimes ex post facto, after they had already been committed. The argument that Bush, as 'President', may pardon himself or grant himself retroactive immunity from prosecution is just silly. If that were the case, every President might have tried to get away with it by simply making it all up as one goes along --the very anti-thesis of the 'rule of law', indeed, 'Due Process of Law', guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. If mere Presidents were allowed this kind of power, they might as well rule by decree, as Bush has presumed to do. As I have pointed out not even European monarchs were permitted to get away with that. King Charles I was beheaded for less. [See: Why Bush Made Plans to Invade the Netherlands; Bush's Unitary Executive Ends the Rule of Law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers].

George W. Bush has never denied that 'torture' was conducted upon his order. Abu Ghraib was not only about 'waterboarding' it was about a panoply of torture procedures --all of them perpetrated upon Bush's order. Bush has never denied that he ordered any procedure that we associate with Abu Ghraib. He has merely tried to justify it, as he tried to do in the following interview with Matt Lauer of the Today Show.

Bush: Bully and War Criminal

Bush does not deny. He merely tries to justify 'alternative procedures' --in English: torture and murder. We are supposed to conclude that because he has an 'obligation to protect the American people', he is above laws that make his actions punishable by death. I suppose that anyone, having committed crimes for which death is the penalty, might try the same thing. Less privileged criminals, however, should not even think about trying to make their capital crimes legal by decree.

I have bad news for Bush. Even if his regime were 'legitimate' his various decrees bypassing both Congress and the Constitution are unlawful. Bush is not above the law, though he may think he is. Likewise, King Charles I of England may have thought himself above the authority of Parliament but found out otherwise but much too late to keep his head attached to his body.

Bush has clear legal responsibility for his torture policies, the war deaths in Iraq and the admitted murders he confessed to in the 2003 SOTU address.

All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.

---Bush Boasting of Having Ordered Mass Murder, State of the Union Address, 2003

And let's not forget his plans to murder civilian journalists in Qatar, testified to by two UK officials who were prepared to put their careers (and freedom) on the line to make sure the story got out. Bush discussed murdering these al jazeera journalists with Tony Blair.

If Bush had any confidence in his actions he would lay his cards on the table. He doesn't, so he won't. The Office of Legal Counsel is refusing to hand over legal advice provided to Bush that supposedly justifies his executive orders. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) was able to review three of these documents and was shocked by what he read:

An Executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new Executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous Executive order. Rather than violate an Executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

The President, exercising his constitutional authority under article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President's authority under article II.

As [the] Whitehouse further notes...."In other words, the president can decide whether his own interpretation of the law is lawful."

And that's about the whole ball game, folks. Once the President becomes a fully fledged "unitary executive" the law disappears up the kazoo. It simply loses all meaning.

But Bush is aware that his actions would not stand the pesky scrutiny and the ordinary morals of ordinary citizens. And so he hides his handiwork. It's the same story on the just completed Pentagon report confirming that Saddam Hussein never had any connections to al Qaeda. It won't be published on the web since that would embarrass Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and identify them as liars and war criminals. Instead, if people want a copy they can write to the Pentagon and the military will send them a CD of their findings in a plain sealed envelope. Isn't that nice? Clearly no frog-marching will be happening for Georgie Boy. And why should it? In his own words:

Damien, 70 Reasons to doubt

Photos from Abu Ghraib document or are, at least, evidence that these procedures resulted in death on occasion. A complete investigation should be mandatory. Bush's efforts to exempt himself from the law are themselves unconstitutional and may not provide the cover he needs to escape the consequences of a real and thorough investigation into the program of abuses at Abu Ghraib. Federal laws make Bush's orders to torture capital offenses. Let's cut to the chase; George W. Bush has committed capital crimes. I say let's get on with the trial.

As an expert witness in the defense of an Abu Ghraib guard who was court-martialed, psychologist Philip Zimbardo had access to many of the images of abuse that were taken by the guards themselves. For a presentation at the TED conference in Monterey, California, Zimbardo assembled some of these pictures into a short video.

Wired.com obtained the video from Zimbardo's talk, and is publishing some of the stills from that video here.

Many of the images are explicit and gruesome, depicting nudity, degradation,
simulated sex acts and guards posing with decaying corpses. Viewer discretion is advised.

--Awful New Photos from Abu Ghraib

Bush's attempts to justify torture citing his obligation to protect the American people. His case is not convincing. When all the stats are analyzed, it will be proven that by giving presumed enemies a cause celebre to wage war upon the US and its people, terrorism will have increased and the American people put in greater danger. Certainly, official FBI stats, compiled and published by the Brookings Institution, proved conclusively that while Ronald Reagan waged his equally absurd 'war on terrorism', terrorism, in fact, got much, much worse. Americans are endangered by these reckless right wing, GOP policies.

Federal Judges may convene Grand Juries on their own motions. I urge courageous and honorable Federal Judges to do precisely that. I would encourage such a judge to charge this panel with a full investigation of the capital crimes for which there is probable cause now to bring charges against Bush, to try him for his crimes. Bush should be subpoenaed to appear before such a panel and prosecuted for obstruction of justice if he refuses.

Bush's decrees designed to place himself above the law are null and void, themselves unlawful. Bush should be compelled under oath to tell the truth or risk an indictment for perjury. Should he perjure himself, he thus risks prosecution for capital crimes, and, likewise, should he decide to confess his complicity in war crimes for which the penalty is death. Bush must stand trial now for having committed capital crimes.

Additional resources

• Robert Fisk On Dictator Bush and the Swingin' Corpse of the Dictator We Created
• Should Blue States Refuse to Pay for Red State War Crimes, Follies, Profligacy
• States want to secede from the United States
• "Vermont Passed A Resolution To Secede From The US"
• States Most Likely to Secede

Subscribe

Bush, Capital Crimes, war Crimes, Torture

Spread the word

All the President's Lies

The Bush administration became illegitimate when George W. Bush placed his hands on a black book and lied.

"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Bush Lies While Under Oath!!!!

“When a man takes an oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. And, if he opens his fingers then -he needn't hope to find himself again.”

--A Man for All Seasons, Thomas More , pg. 140

Bush lied when the took his oath of office. He has failed to execute the office of President in a lawful manner, exceeding his power and authority. Most egregiously, he has not merely failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", he has worked overtly to destroy it. This is high treason.

Once when challenged for his unwillingness to submit to the rule of law in an obvious snub of the Constitution, Bush screamed, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

And thus our Constitution has now become what Bush has made it. This annihilation of the foundational document of our republic was orchestrated by a president who swore an oath of honor to protect it, a devout Christian who promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office.

Congress, in its acquiescence and subservience, is equally culpable. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced, "impeachment is off the table," she not only absolved Bush of all previous transgressions but paved a figurative superhighway for any to come. There's a reason Congress's approval ratings are even lower than the administration's.

--Michael Abraham, Bush's legacy is the end of law

The protection and defense of the Constitution was Bush's only job and he blew it. He deliberately subverted the Constitution and placed himself above the law with bogus, made up concepts for which there is absolutely no legal precedent in either American history or over 400 years of common law to which we are heir.

"Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race."

Plato, Republic 473c-d

It is not unfair to expect George W. Bush, a man of questionable background or academic achievement, to attain the ideals described by Plato who describes "philosopher kings" as "those who love the sight of truth" [See: Republic 475c ]. After all, it was Bush --not the sovereign citizens of the United States --who merely assumed what was euphemistically called a 'unitary executive'. The 'unitary executive', without precedent in American History, GOP 'focus group-speak' for dictatorship, placed Bush above the sovereignty of the people, above the legislative responsibilities of the Congress, and outside the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. For Plato and for the ideal of the "Philosopher King", we must all flip Bush off. He has not earned our respect, nor does he deserve our obeisance. He is rightly the object of our utter contempt!

Bush has not governed a free people, he has supervised a crime syndicate and gotten away with it. As a result, US forces are bogged down in a war that cannot be won against an enemy of our own making. It was a war begun upon a pack of black-hearted lies, an avoidable war fought to enrich the rich.

To what degree do Americans share his guilt by simply obeying the laws and, in passive ways, enabling his criminal, murderous regime? There is no pacifying a mass murderer. Too many Americans, passively complicit, have 'enabled' Bush's many crimes against the Constitution, against humanity, and the people of the US.

In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American people, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era. We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tell us.

— Abraham Lincoln, January 27, 1838

The government --the United States, itself --is a creation of the people.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

--Preamble, US Constitution

It is not just my opinion but also that of the distinguished jurist, Joseph Story, often cited in opinions of the US Supreme Court, that the Preamble establishes, as a principle of law, the sovereignty of the people of the United States. The Preamble is quite possibly the most important part of the Constitution. The following admonitions, therefore, are addressed directly to George W. Bush to whom I would add read my lips: you are NOT the sovereign. You are NOT the dictator of this nation. You are NOT the origin of the law of this land. You are NOT above the Congress. You are NOT above the courts. You are NOT the boss of me nor anyone else. Comprende?

Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?'' 3

Findlaw, [See also: J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), 462. For a lengthy exegesis of the preamble phrase by phrase, see M. Adler & W. Gorman, The American Testament (New York: 1975), 63-118. ]

I have dealt with specific violations in previous articles. In summary, however, it cannot be repeated often enough: the Presidency of George W. Bush is illegitimate, outside the law, and, therefore, Bush's every decree, flouting as they do the rule of law, are illegal. The decrees of this administration should be ignored, flouted, subverted; they are illegal! Illegitimate as he is, none of Bush's 'signing statements' are valid. None of the decrees issuing from this 'unitary executive' are valid. No order issued by Bush is lawful.

Every person of conscience faces existential choices in dictatorial or illegitimate regimes. The question is: at what point does compliance with illegal, unjust or unlawful decrees become complicity. The origin of morality lies in the exercise of one's individual conscience. Dictatorial regimes that deny to the individual this choice are 'state absolutists' in the Hegelian tradition. The exercise of individual conscience is often denied. The pressing issue has to do with how one retains the sense of self amid official fraud, how one reconciles the requirements of state vs those of conscience.

The government's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was a fraud. It was the greatest fraud in the history of our country. It probably was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of humankind. That doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence of the kind of government which allows this to happen. We can do something about it. We're forced either to leave this country or to accept the authoritarianism that has developed--the authoritarianism which tells us that in the year 2029 we can see the evidence about what happened to John Kennedy.

--Jim Garrison, closing summation

Subscribe

GOP, New Orleans, Government Incompetence, Terrorism

Spread the word