Sunday, November 09, 2008

Bush Could be Executed For War Crimes

Members of the Bush administration and George W. Bush personally conspired to violate the Geneva Convention, US obligations to it as well as US criminal codes! When it became apparent to Bush that he and high ranking members of his administration were culpable and could be put to death upon conviction, Bush tried to make his crimes legal --but only after he had committed them.

Clearly --the Bush administration itself is aware that it is in deep, deep trouble.
...there is one group of people that has always taken the war crimes charges seriously--the members of the Bush administration themselves. They have good reason for doing so, because they have exposed hundreds of Americans to possible prosecution for violating US law.

As long as George Bush is president and controls the Department of Justice, there will no prosecutions for war crimes, but after Bush is gone, anything could happen and hundreds of Americans could be charged with war crimes.

--David Wallechinsky, Is George Bush Guilty of War Crimes...and Who Cares?
Unless Bush plans to make his escape to Paraguay while still 'President', his exit from the Oval Office will make him vulnerable to process for violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996 passed by both houses of Congress without dissent. The act covers every crime that may be charged to Bush as of this moment and as of the time Bush will exit the 'cover' of the Oval Office. The act deals specifically with his deliberate "killing, torture or inhumane treatment" of 'detainees' at Abu Ghraib, GITMO and the gulag archipelago of 'detention centers' throughout Eastern Europe. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in the death of a detainee carry the death penalty and there is no statute of limitations.
(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.

--TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes

Bush had been planning to commit capital crimes long before 911 and, in fact, tried to make 'legal' the crimes that he had intended to commit.
Wishing to rebuke the unpunished war crimes of dictators like Saddam Hussein, in 1996 a Republican-dominated Congress passed the War Crimes Act without a dissenting vote. It defined a "war crime" as any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. It thereby advanced a global trend of mutual reinforcement between national and international law.

The War Crimes Act was little noticed until the disclosure of Alberto Gonzales's infamous 2002 "torture memo." Gonzales, then serving as presidential counsel, advised President Bush to declare that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to people the United States captured in Afghanistan. That, Gonzales wrote, "substantially reduced the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

--The Nation, Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
Bush did not succeed in putting himself above the laws that prescribed the death penalty for the very violations of laws that he had planned. Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government [as quoted above] reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here.

It was because Bush knew he was guilty that he tried to ram through Congress amendments to the War Crimes Act that would exonerate him EX POST FACTO. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. Bush defenders will waste their time trying to convince me that ex post facto prohibition applies only to those laws making one prosecutable for acts that were legal at the time of commission. In other words, if it was legal to spit on the sidewalk at the time you did so, you are immune to prosecution under any law passed after you had so spit! Clearly --Bush can not commit murder now and expect to escape prosecution by making it legal after his crime of murder. Don't confuse this with amnesty, which, to my knowledge, Bush has not sought nor does he deserve. Rather, Bush has tried to rewrite both laws and history. He tried to make legal those capital crimes that he had already committed.

Several yeas ago, I wrote an article that pointed out that any federal grand jury could indict Bush for capital crimes and, in fact, could begin an investigation of Bush upon its own volition. Any federal judge can, upon his/her own motion, convene a federal grand jury to consider any case deemed worthy of investigation. I would suggest that any Federal Judge reading this, get off your bench and convene a jury! It is your patriotic duty to this nation and its laws!

Former LA Prosecutor Vince Bugliosi makes another case, that because Bush deliberately lied in order to send US soldiers to their deaths in an illegal war, Bush is prosecutable for murder.
In the first sentence, we're told:
The book you are about to read deals with what I believe to be the most serious crime ever committed in American history - - the president of the nation, George W. Bush, knowingly and deliberately taking this country to war in Iraq under false presences, a war that condemned over 100,000 human beings, including 4,000 American soldiers, to horrific, violent deaths." (V. Bugliosi, p. 3)
The president "knowingly and deliberately" caused the deaths of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians and that's called murder, plain and simple. This is not a hypothetical case that could happen under special legal interpretations. When the president leaves office, he is subject to the same law as the rest of us. Bugliosi explains the ability to prosecute the case against George W. Bush by a district attorney or states attorney in any local jurisdiction where a life was lost in the Iraq war. Federal prosecutors also have that option. Bugliosi's detailed analysis of this phenomenon offers some of the best analysis in the book and the detailed end notes.

--E. Pluribus Media, Bugliosi's The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Because he has notoriety, Bugliosi has succeeded in attracting some attention to this issue. My fear is that in the post-election atmosphere of relief that Obama turned back the GOP wave the pressure to bring George W. Bush to justice will subside. That would be a grave mistake, a catastrophic precedent. If Bush is allowed to make good a get away, the signal will have been sent that US presidents are above the law and may perpetrate mass murder and war crimes at will.

Violations of US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 are NOT to be confused with violations of international treaties which may have the effect of putting Bush in the dock at the Hague. Certainly, Bush had planned to commit acts that were known to be violations of US laws and our treaty commitments. Even before 911 provided Bush the pretext to attack and invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, Tom DeLay sponsored legislation that provided for a US military invasion of The Hague in those instances should Bush find himself in the dock for war crimes. The timing of the bill is material to the case against Bush and speaks to the fact that Bush had been planning to wage war and wished to immunize himself against prosecution for the acts that were known at the time to be violations of international laws to which the US was bound by treaty.

I know of no reason why Bush should be impeached before he is indicted. Impeachment is a political remedy, the purview of Congress. What is discussed here are specific acts that are against the law. Bush should fear the very real possibility of being hauled before a federal judge charged with capital crimes.

There are yet other legal ghosts that will haunt Bush. He may be charged with perpetrating the crime of genocide.
U.S. Code; Chapter 50A; Section § 1091. Genocide

(a) Basic Offense. - Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, in a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the specific
intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such.

(1) kills members of that group;

(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;

(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;

(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;

(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or

(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b0.

--US Codes; Chapter 50A, Section § 1091. Genocide
Hat tip to: Above Top Secret

The Congress did not have the stomach for impeachment and shirked it's duty --that of impeaching a 'President' that should have been impeached for his crimes against the Constitution. Impeachment might have saved this nation the nightmare that it has not yet survived.

I would hope that a hard nosed federal judge will take a different view. I would urge that a federal grand jury be convened immediately to consider upon the probable cause and the evidence whether or not George W. Bush is guilty of capital crimes and whether or not he should be put to death!

Bugliosi: Bush Should be Prosecuted for Murder


Anonymous said...

Obama Victory Celebration

Anonymous said...

Save me a front row seat!

Dan Gambiera said...

Much as I'd like to see him on Death Row there's a better option. Send him to the Hague with Dick "The Torturer's Apprentice" Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Mukassey, Yoo and the rest of that evil crew. Let the world know exactly what they did. We can watch them rot in jail, not martyrs, just disgraced criminals.

Anonymous said...

But then that would mean questioning the entire media, the sources of dis-information that sell us terrorist scams and war plans. It would mean an end to the two things that jewish rulers use to get what they want. It would mean no more fear and blackmailing queers.

Anonymous said...

What's to keep Bush from pardoning himself?

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...

What's to keep Bush from pardoning himself?

The very notion of someone 'pardoning himself' is just plain stupid!

Naturally --I would have expected that kind of stuff from the GOP and, certainly, if Bush thought he could get away with it, he might try it!

He's already claimed dictatorial powers FOR WHICH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS WHATSOEVER IN LAW! Likewise ---the ASININE idea that any mere chief executive, whom the Constitution makes RESPONSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE, should be able pardon himself is ludicrous, idiot, bullshit and has no basis whatsoever in American jurisprudence, precedent, or express powers delegated by the Constitution.


Unknown said...

An observation ---

I know some folk are well-meaning and, perhaps, I sound like a scold. So be it!

Read some damn law! Personal feelings don't really count here.

Bush TRASHED the rule of law and presumed to rule by decree! Either that is allowed to stand OR Bush is brought to justice.

Now --if you don't think Bush should face the hangman, MAKE A LEGAL CASE!

Sentiment does not amount to much here. We're talking about restoring the rule of law in the US and that MUST begin by hold Bush TO THE VERY LAWS THAT HE PRESUMED TO FLOUT!

Unknown said...

Dan Gambiera said...

Much as I'd like to see him on Death Row there's a better option. Send him to the Hague with Dick "The Torturer's Apprentice" Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Mukassey, Yoo and the rest of that evil crew.

I believe the entire gang should face justice in both jurisdictions --US and Europe; and at the ICC, specifically, in that the US is signatory to the relevant treaties. Both the US Constitution and US statutory laws OBLIGATES the US to those provisions to which we are bound by bona fide treaty, in this case, the powers of the ICC to prosecute war criminals.

But --if Bush does not stand trial in the US as well a PERNICIOUS PRECEDENT will have been set.

Bush MUST stand trial for mass murder in the US for having broken, indeed, FLOUTED, THUMBED HIS STUPID NOSE AT THE RULE OF LAW IN THE U.S.

Yet other crimes may be charged him in the ICC.

C'mon, folk! Read the Constitution! Read some US law. Do you think it's just fancy words?

Unknown said...

Too late. If you were following yer Main Stream Morons today you will have read the reports that The Obama and Bush 'bonded' at their big, big meetup today.

You see they belong to a special 'club', Presidents and ex-Presidents, which really could care less about you and me than the dog dirt they might scrape off, or have the Secret Service do so, their $5,000 shoes.

Of course the EU might see things differently. But here in Murka....

Our leaders can do no wrong for we are God'd chosen folks.

Unknown said...

A.Citizen said...

Too late. If you were following yer Main Stream Morons today you will have read the reports that The Obama and Bush 'bonded' at their big, big meetup today.

I don't care what Obama does as long as he observes the rule of law --something Bush worked overtly to subvert!

Secondly, like 911 TRUTH, people cannot simply sit around on their asses and hope something good happens. 911 TRUTH is now a MOVEMENT. This must be as well.

At last -- the prosecution of George W. Bush is not entirely up to Obama who may have little to say one way or the other.

As I have pointed out REPEATEDLY ---a single Federal Judge and convene a federal grand jury upon his own motion and task them with the investigation of GWB.

There iS plenty of PROBABLE CAUSE to do this. Look up PROBABLE CAUSE --a concept that should be taught in high civis but apparently is not.

Such a federal grand jury can subpoena anyone it please ---GWB himself. If he should refuse, he is subject for immediate prosecution for contempt.

A federal grand jury investigating GWB will win EVERY DEMAND for information. GWB will be prosecuted for obstruction of justice if he stonewalls.

And should some of the information sought be left available inside the White House and demanded of the new administration, Obama will not risk a constitutional crisis in order to protect Bush.

I have stated that there is sufficient probable cause to charge Bush NOW!!! There may even be enough evidence available in the public record and various FOIA requests to convict!

Bush, after all, has never denied the orders he made.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Bush will go to jail, but when? I feel a deep concern over what has happened to our country and am fearful of what lies ahead for us as a nation.

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...

Yes, Bush will go to jail, but when?

Wounds left unattended never heal. The sooner this issue is dealt with the better. The murder of JFK, for example, was NEVER properly investigated; the purpose of the Warren Commission was to effect and cover up! Today --no one believes the Warren Commission and the fact that the US government most certainly played a role in his death is an OPEN WOUND that never healed.

What Bush has done this country puts the assassination in the shade. Bush ignored our laws, our traditions, our democracy --and he did this for highly partisan and commercial motives. In other words, Bush did this for MONEY ---money for his elite backers, always greedy for more.

The case against Bush is similar but even bigger in scope than that made against Nazis at Nuremberg. I commend Bugliosi and credit him for coming foward. But the ACTUAL case that must be made is far, far greater and more sweeping that Bugliosi has gotten around. While I commend Bugliosi, I must point out: Bugliosi is no Robert Jackson.

Until he is brought to justice for it, it must be admitted that Bush pulled off the crime of the century.

George W.Bailey said...

Yes, the WC was a mess. A good book on how that went down is Breech of Trust by Gerald McKnight. A well documented account on how the whole thing was politicized from the very beginning so they never would get to the truth. McKnight clearly explains why government commissions should never get into the investigation business. The 9-11 Commission is another example of that only this time around, they made sure they did NOT publish any of the evidence they compiled. (Besides omitting controversial testimony such as Mineta contradicting Cheney's testimony on his actions that day.)

Anonymous said...

Question for the President Elect:
How will you remove the stain on our Constitution left by the failure of this Congress to honor their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution in the face of so many well documented and researched violations attributed to Bush, Cheney et al? The Constitution does not empower Speaker Pelosi to take impeachment "off the table". The repudiation of Bush's impeachable actions through the Constitutionally mandated process of impeachment is the only way to demonstrate to the world that our system of government works for the people and for a nation of laws.

Anonymous said...

For starters, don't believe that the US signed on to the ICC in Rome.

The two nations that abstained were the US and Israel.

As for impeachment articles coming out of the House, forget it.

Much of the House, including that traitor Pelosi, realize that if Bush were to be impeached, many in the House would be exposed and implicated, setting themselves up for prosecution.

That's not going to happen.

Even Vermont, a progressive state and no friend of the criminal Bush regime, only gave that person running for AG 5% or so of the vote and her platform was that she was going to indict Bush.

And I don't see any federal judge convening a grand jury to hear Bush crimes.

A majority of those have been appointed by Republicans and they aren't going to bite the hand that's fed them.

Junior will take a page out of his Daddy's playbook and grant immunity to a bunch of the Bush mob by granting sweeping pardons for crimes they have yet to be indicted for.

Just like his Daddy did with the Iran-Contra gang.

"It's good to be the King"

Unknown said...

Greg Bacon said...

For starters, don't believe that the US signed on to the ICC in Rome.

The 'capital crime' is a FEDERAL LAW! 'Rome' doesn't matter.

Moreover, the US does have treaty obligations and if those were NOT valid, why was Tom DeLay trying to get legislation passed that would immunize Bush against prosecution in those courts? That attempt was made even before 911! What were they planning?

At last, Bugliosi's case does not depend upon the US being signatory to any treaty. His is a murder ---pure and simple. He's prosecuted plenty of such cases.

Unknown said...

Willyboy said...

The repudiation of Bush's impeachable actions through the Constitutionally mandated process of impeachment is the only way to demonstrate to the world that our system of government works for the people and for a nation of laws.

The Congress has taken impeachment off the table. Fuck 'em! A Federal Grand is an entirely different matter.

Impeachment is a POLITICAL PROCESS. Impeachment would have been a good thing when it was still relevant. Now --Bush is just a felon on the lamb as far as I am concerned.

Congress shirked its duty.

If Bush is indicted by a federal grand jury, he's just an accused felon and Congress will have nothing to day about the process unless Congress. Congress even rewrite the laws to get this common criminal off the hook. Ex post facto laws are PROHIBITED by the Constitution.

opit said...

I'm reasonably certain I saw a note that orders that American citizens held for trial at the Hague for war crimes would be 'rescued' by U.S. Armed Forces because such would not be tolerated : passed before 9/11.
Rule of Law is not high on Bu$hCo agenda - as you repeatedly note.

Unknown said...

opit said...

I'm reasonably certain I saw a note that orders that American citizens held for trial at the Hague for war crimes would be 'rescued' by U.S. Armed Forces because such would not be tolerated : passed before 9/11.

You are quite right. That's the measure that was carried by Tom DeLay. I consider it to be EVIDENCE that Bush was PLANNING to commit war crimes and wanted to make them 'legal' though the measure itself violated US treaty obligations to which the US was already committed.

The folk in Europe POKED FUN at the Bush/DeLay 'measure' with cartoons showing US paratroopers descending upon the Hague.

In fact, the measure authorized JUST SUCH ACTION.

It was a stupid measure then and remains stupid.

A US invasion of the Hague would have provoked a war with Europe. France --need I remind --has SILENT NUCLEAR SUBS that could have been placed strategically up and down the eastern seaboard.

A war with Europe will leave the US a wasteland! Every city could be leveled.

Rule of Law is not high on Bu$hCo agenda - as you repeatedly note.

That's why these assholes need to be rounded up JUST AS NAZI WAR CRIMINALS WERE ROUNDED UP as the war in Europe wound down.

I will work assiduously to support the international movement to track these bastards down, cuff them, put them in shackles and frog march their guilty asses before a hangin' judge.

Anonymous said...


Shall murderers go off scott free?
In the United States, let´s see--
Crimes against peace within Iraq,
Too late it is to take them back.

Had US forces not deployed
How many deaths did that avoid?
O, it was more than two or three
Now credited to you and me.

I am a US citizen,
Considered "the best hope of men,"
But now the best hope rather seems
May die the dreams America dreams.

Universal hegemony
The aim of it would seem to be,
"Global police" role as was felt
Cheeky by Teddy Roosevelt.

Still, in a world where everyone
Has got--so it seems barring none--
A "Muslim problem," why should we
Emulate schizo jihadi?

Yet, terrorists as hijack well
The ship of state, should go to hell,
Or, as they did in Nuremberg
Swing in deliverance to the morgue.


Unknown said...

IMSMALL said...

Shall murderers go off scott free?

In the United States, let´s see--
Crimes against peace within Iraq,
Too late it is to take them back.

Thanks for your poetry.

Justice is for everyone or no one. If Bush walks, then no one now imprisoned should be subject to execution or continued imprisonment. If Bush walks, 'law' means nothing.

On a slightly different topic, the US is now looking at another 'great depression' and one which will make the 'Great Depression' of the 1930s look like a walk in the park.

Anonymous said...

The American people should know that George W. Bush is not only a war criminal: he is also a hate-crime criminal.

George W. Bush had better stop committing hate crimes.

“What did you think of that NAACP anti-Bush race-baiting ad in 2000? You know, the one that practically said Bush was responsible for the dragging-to-death-behind-a-truck murder of a black man just because he didn’t sign a hate crimes bill several years after the man’s death” (Posted by Aaron. Retrieved December 11, 2008, from


“Sean Penn accuses Bush of ‘criminal negligence’” (Retrieved December 11, 2008, from Thus, Sean Penn believes that George W. Bush was at fault, criminally, relative to his response to Hurricane Katrina.

“Had the residents of New Orleans been white Republicans in a state that mattered politically, instead of poor blacks in city that didn’t, Bush’s response surely would have been different. Compare what happened when hurricanes Charley and Frances hit Florida in 2004. Though the damage from those storms was negligible in relation to Katrina’s, the reaction from the White House was instinctive, rapid, and generous to the point of profligacy. Bush visited hurricane victims four times in six weeks and delivered relief checks personally. Michael Brown of FEMA, now widely regarded as an incompetent political hack, was so responsive that local officials praised the agency’s performance.”

“The kind of constituency politics that results in a big life-preserver for whites in Florida and a tiny one for blacks in Louisiana may not be racist by design or intent. But the inevitable result is clear racial discrimination. It won’t change when Republicans care more about blacks. It will change when they have more reason to care.”

Jacob Weisberg. (2005, September 7). An Imperfect Storm . . . How race shaped Bush’s response to Katrina. Slate. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from

“And I’m sorry, but anyone who doesn’t think race has anything to do with the way things have gone down in New Orleans is really beyond help. Like my man Big Sexy said: ‘Do you think folks woulda been left out like that if this had happened in Vermont?’ A complete and utter disgrace” (Posted by Jackie Chiles. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from

Assuming that George W. Bush had in fact been criminally negligent relative to his response to Hurricane Katrina, would Bush be responsible for hate crime?

“One of those very least were George Bush’s personal complicity in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger[,] [an African-American woman,] in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of [then] president-elect George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell (Nevada Progressive Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010). Retrieved November 29, 2008, from

Does George W. Bush’s murder of Margie Schoedinger constitute a hate crime?

“A woman in Texas who filed a lawsuit against the president for rape and torture[,] [Margie Schoedinger,] was found shot to death. It was ruled a suicide. No one is investigating. Bush reportedly dated the woman in high school and speculation is that he was using the woman as his sex slave because he is above the law” (John Kaminski (author of “America’s Autopsy Report,” a collection of his Internet essays published on hundreds of websites around the world). (No date listed). Why We Need Martial Law . . . Criminal government is destroying America; military must step in to restore Constitution. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from

Do George W. Bush’s rape and torture of Margie Schoedinger constitute hate crimes?

“I believe that George W. Bush hates black people. Through secret government machinations, he caused Hurricane Katrina to form and aimed it at New Orleans on purpose, just so he could wipe out lots of poor blacks. I also believe that before the hurricane hit, he snuck into New Orleans and stole the keys to every school bus in the city to make evacuation of poor people impossible” (Janet M. Stroble. (2006, April 12). Now I Believe. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from

If George W. Bush intentionally did what Janet M. Stroble indicated, would Bush have committed hate crimes against countless black people?

“I believe that George W. Bush hates Moslems. All that garbage about freedom, democracy, and the right to vote is a pollution of their culture. I believe that George W. Bush hates immigrants. There were a lot of immigrants working in the World Trade Center and George W. Bush didn’t warn them ahead of time” (Janet M. Stroble. (2006, April 12). Now I Believe. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from

In that George W. Bush hates immigrants and deliberately failed to warn them ahead of time as indicated by Janet M. Stroble: would Bush accordingly be responsible for hate crimes relative to racial minorities who were harmed?

“Did Kanye West[’]s [comment], [‘]George Bush Hates Black People[’][,] get his mother killed?” (Retrieved October 18, 2008, from

There is a discussion at relating to whether President George W. Bush murdered Kanye West’s mother—Ms. Donda West.

Did President George W. Bush, who hates black people, murder Kanye West’s mother in the heat of raging racism? Somebody indicated that although the president of the United States is monitored by the Secret Service, he certainly can meet with one or more persons where his conversations are not intercepted and secretly “order a hit” on someone or order the murder of someone.

If George W. Bush did murder Kanye West’s mother, would it constitute a hate crime?


“George W. Bush murdered Senator Paul Wellstone” (Retrieved December 10, 2008, from This Internet site has a lot of information indicating that George W. Bush murdered Wellstone.

The information in this paragraph indicates that Senator Paul Wellstone was a Jew. “Senator Wellstone briefly considered running for president in 2000, but called off the campaign, joking to reporters, ‘I’m short, I’m Jewish, and I’m a liberal’” (Retrieved December 10, 2008, from “‘I’m the son of a Jewish immigrant from the Ukraine. My father fled persecution.’ United States Senator Paul Wellstone” (Retrieved December 10, 2008, from “Paul Wellstone … Former U.S. Senator, Minnesota … Born/Died[:] July 21, 1944 – October 25, 2002 … Spouse[:] Sheila Wellstone … Religion[:] Jewish” (Retrieved December 10, 2008, from “Paul [Wellstone] was a short, Jewish professor at Carleton College in rural Minnesota” (Paul Hogarth. (2006, October 25). Preserving Paul Wellstone’s Legacy. BeyondChron. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from

“Bush’s visit to Israel is under the guise of Middle East peace. You gotta be kidding me! Bush is THE MASTER ARCHITECT of Middle East war, not peace. . . . Bush didn’t go to Israel because he likes Israelis or like Jews, nope, he went there because he hates them. He went there to spread his message of doom, war, pain and death” (Storm Bear. (2008, January 10). PROOF: George W Bush Is An Anti-Semite! Retrieved November 23, 2008, from

“‘We have a president who was selected rather than elected. He stole the presidency through family ties, arrogance and intimidation, employing Republican operatives to exercise the tactics of voter fraud by disenfranchising thousands of blacks, elderly Jews and other minorities’” (Barbra Streisand at Retrieved November 26, 2008, from

“A new book out today quotes George W. Bush back in 1993 as saying: ‘You know what I’m gonna tell those Jews when I get to Israel, don’t you Herman? I’m telling ‘em they’re all going to hell’” (Posted by Terry Olson. (2006, September 5). The anti-Semite and the agnostic: George W. Bush and Karl Rove. OlsonOnline. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from

“It’s now official: the Bush family wealth is linked to the Jewish Holocaust” (Retrieved November 2, 2008, from

“Bush Family Are Nazi” (Retrieved November 2, 2008, from

“How the Bush Family Helped Hitler Kill 6 Million Jews” (Retrieved November 2, 2008, from

“But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush’s business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W. . . .” (Retrieved November 2, 2008, from

Assuming that George W. Bush did in fact murder the Jewish former Senator—Paul Wellstone, would Bush have committed a hate crime? Bush would have “purposefully” (criminal-law terminology) murdered Wellstone. Wellstone’s Jewish wife and Jewish daughter also died in the plane crash. Bush would have “knowingly” (criminal-law terminology) murdered Wellstone’s wife and daughter. However, would Bush’s murders of Wellstone’s Jewish wife and Jewish daughter also have constituted hate crimes?

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

Retrieved December 12, 2008, from

Comment by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang — December 12, 2008 @ 6:03 pm

Filed under: Impeachment News — Mikael @ 10:44 am. (2008, December 12). Senate Report: Rumsfeld, others in Bush Administration are War Criminals. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993