Saturday, September 09, 2006

Will George W. bush Answer for his Crimes?

Impeachment should not be used simply because you disagree with a person's policies. If you disagree with someone's policy, you vote them out. But President Bush has committed crimes, and that's what impeachment is for ~ Rep. David Zuckerman.

Bush Crimes Commission Releases Final Verdict 9/13/2006

From the Bush Crimes Commission website: The Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration will release its final verdict on Wednesday, September 13, 2006.

The final verdict will address the five indictments dealing with the Bush administration's wars of aggression, illegal detention and torture, destruction of the global environment through global warming, imposition of abstinence-only on AIDS prevention programs in the Third World, and the abandonment of New Orleans before, during and after Hurricane Katrina.

On September 13, the verdict will be formally served on the White House and the Department of Justice, read over the radio across the country, and released in printed form for national distribution.

Following the release of the verdict, the Commission is calling a national "Bush Crimes Day" on Tuesday, September 19. Inspired by the verdict of the Bush Crimes Commission, campuses and communities across the country will organize public events - demonstrations, student walk-outs, teach-ins, street-theatre, art exhibits - that draw attention to acts of the Bush administration that, by their scope and nature, shock the conscience of humankind - and bring to the fore our moral and political responsibility to bring these horrific crimes to a halt!

The release of the verdict fulfils a primary responsibility of this tribunal to deliver findings of fact and a verdict on the central question before the commission: "whether George W. Bush and his administration have committed crimes against humanity". The final verdict and the national Bush Crimes Day continue the Commission's mission "to frame and fuel a discussion that is urgently needed in the United States: Is the administration of George W. Bush guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity?" (Continue Reading)

About the Commission: The International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States documents the evidence on wars of aggression, detention and torture, destruction of the global environment, sabotage of global health programs, and the abandonment of New Orleans.

President Nancy Pelosi?

This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for, and one of them is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker! ~ Sean Hannity, the August 29 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show.

Following is Air America Radio host Thom Hartman's reaction to the preceeding Sean Hannity insane diatribe... (Transcript of the August 31th broadcast of the Randi Rhodes Show, Thom Hartmann, guest host)

Thom Hartmann: Sean Hannity is so terrified that he's nearly wetting his pants - this guy's going to be so frightened that he won't be able to leave the studio and get on his private jet. It's come to that. He is willing to die, he says - or maybe he wants somebody else's son or daughter to be willing to die - to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker of the house. I kid you not. These guys are running scarred!

(Plays audio clip of above Sean Hannity Quote)

Yes!! It's worth dying for, to make sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become speaker of the house! You get this? Now, the reason why - pretty straightforward - the Speaker of the House, were by some coincidence the president and the vice president to be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors or treason and thus impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate - the Speaker of the House becomes president of the United States. And if Nancy Pelosi, God bless her, were President of the United States... the phobias that would begin developing among these right-wingers.

So is it conceivable? Is it even remotely conceivable, that George Bush might go to prison, and thus be unavailable as President? Or that he might simply be impeached in the House - that's indicted in the House and convicted in the Senate - and removed from office? If the Democrats take control of the House and the Senate - those are the stakes.

(skip ahead aproximately 20 minutes. In the next segment Thom starts off by discussing how the bush administration releases bad news on a Friday evening - a pratice know as the "Friday Night Massacre" - so that by Monday it is old news and is burried by the press...)

...That same morning, just hours after the JonBenét Ramsey information hit the press, and just after I got off the air, it was revealed that US district court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor had ruled that George W. Bush and now CIA director Michael Hayden - remember him, the guy that was head of the NSA? - had committed multiple high crimes and misdemeanors and felonies, both criminal and Constitutional. If her ruling stands bush and Hayden could go to prison.

I mean, this is the story... you talk about the story of the century! Bill Clinton lost his law license - and he got impeached in the Senate - but I'm talking about in terms of legal consequences - lost his law license - over lying to a grand jury. And you know, the Republicans, they thought they had him - he could have gone to jail for that. They sure wanted to make it happen. Well this, I would say, is a little more serious than lying about having a little too much fun in the Oval Office.

Nancy Pelosi on Impeachment

According to Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats won't be seeking impeachment. This might surprise you, but I agree with her. The Democrats should not be saying - now - that if we retake the house and/or the Senate, that we will seek to impeach. Let me be clear: I believe bush deserves to be impeached. I think he is a lying amoral criminal that belongs behind bars. However, declaring an intention to immediately impeach if we are able to retake either house would be counterproductive. First of all, the Republicans would claim that there was no basis for impeachment, and that the only reason Democrats want to impeach bush is because they want "revenge" for Clinton, or because of "sour grapes" over the "defeat" of Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Secondly, the Republicans would use these claims to mobilize their voters and discredit Democrats.

So impeachment should be "off the table" for now. If the Democrats retake the House and/or Senate - and regain subpoena power - then they could begin to investigate this administration's crimes...

From the Washington Post: Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night. [However] In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to". (5/12/2006. Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President. By Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writer).

The article concludes with a statement from Brendan Daly, Nancy Pelosi's spokesman...

"Pelosi never considered impeachment a priority. Republicans are in such desperate shape", he said, "we don't want to give them anything to grab on to".

There is, however, an argument AGAINST impeachment - and I believe it is a valid argument which has to be considered seriously before proceeding. If any president ever deserved to be impeached, it's this scumbag - but there is a very real chance that impeaching George bush could hurt the Democratic Party.

From the online only version of The New Yorker: (New Yorker writers Jeffrey Goldberg and Amy Davidson discuss the Democrat's prospects) Jeffrey Goldberg: The problem - and this is what a lot of Democrats say who are cautioning against this - is that by the time the Democrats take over the House, if they do, it'll be 2007, and the Bush Administration will be on its last legs. The argument is that, if the House goes Democratic, the leadership should spend more time convincing the American people that this is the party you want in the White House in 2008.

Imagine if the Democrats in the House voted to raise the minimum wage, or for college-tuition tax credits. That sort of legislation would be broadly attractive to millions of voters, and either the Republican Senate or President Bush would be put in a position of stopping it. Or let's say that the Democrats take over the House and vote to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. That would probably be pretty popular. So they could work to make the country safer and to help the poor - or they could spend their time investigating the run-up to the Iraq war. (5/22/2006)


Whatever happens I sincerely hope that these people are not allowed to get away scot free. bush, Cheney and Rummy all belong behind bars. How likely is it that this will happen? Probably not very. At the very least a Democratic House or Senate should take steps to ensure that the upcoming presidential election won't be stolen - again. If they can't prevent that from happening then all is lost - and I'm talking about the survival of our nation, not the Democratic Party.

Further Reading
[1] Bush Crimes Commission FAQ.
[2] Bush Fears War Crimes Prosecution, Impeachment. by Marjorie Cohn, Znet. 9/7/2006.
[3] NSA Eavesdropping Program Ruled Unconstitutional. by Bill Mears and Andrea Koppel, CNN News. 8/17/2006.
[4] Did Bush commit war crimes? by Rosa Brooks, The Los Angeles Times. 6/30/2006.
[5] Talk host: Death penalty for Bush. Says president, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes. World Net Daily. 5/27/2004.

7/30/2014 Update: To answer the question posed in the title of this commentary... NO. We know now that GWb will NOT answer for his crimes. All the bush criminals got off scot free. This I knew would be the likely outcome when I originally wrote this post almost 8 years ago. Looking back, I SHOULD have know it with absolute certainty. Did I think GWb might actually face justice? I don't recall exactly what I was thinking.

However, I must have had SOME hope that the next president would hold him accountable. But, given that Reagan and the elder Bush were both let off the hook by the Clinton administration, I really should have know that there was NO WAY GWb was going to be held accountable in any way what-so-ever.

History has shown us that US presidents can get away with anything. Nixon was the ONLY POTUS to ever get in any kind of trouble, and he got off with a slap on the wrist... and was pardoned by Ford. This, in my opinion, was a mistake, as it set the precedent that Presidents never face consequences for their actions, no matter what they do.



  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. The above post was removed for the following reason, as stated in the rules section of my inaugural post: "...please don't post if your ONLY purpose is to promote another blog or sell something".

    SPAM will be deleted. Just about anything else is welcome.


Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.