December 07, 2007
Washington Post Misses Opportunity
As I read the story describing the conviction of a bus driver for killing two pedestrians and who received a one-year jail term for two counts of felony criminal homicide I thought: What a wonderful opportunity for the Post to present an editorial making the case for charging Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for thousands of counts of felony criminal homicide of American soldiers in Iraq.
The bus driver confessed to his reckless driving behavior that killed two women federal employees. He expressed considerable remorse. The judge could have given him a three-year sentence.
It has always seemed abundantly clear to me that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and perhaps others could have and should have taken many measures to prevent the thousands of deaths that have occurred because of the Iraq insurgency and civil war. They should have anticipated the inevitable insurgency after the initial military victory. Indeed, there is abundant evidence that experts predicted such a violent insurgency. Is not acting on such information reckless and criminal behavior? Of course it is.
All the talk about impeachment, that is going nowhere politically, has missed the more realistic opportunity to pursue criminal charges against the biggest architects of the Iraq war.
I assume there is no time limits for pursuing criminal homicide charges, so that even if the current Justice Department does not have the integrity to pursue them that a Democratic White House could ensure that such charges are aggressively pursued.
Then why haven’t we heard any current Democratic presidential candidate publicly reveal their intentions to pursue felony criminal negligent homicide charges against Bush administration officials, including Bush and Cheney?
If a city bus driver must serve one year in prison for killing two people, then imagine what jail time Bush criminals should receive for the many thousands murdered in Iraq because there were too few of them and because they did not have adequate body and vehicle armor, for example.
The Bush focus on foreign terrorists lacks moral authority as long as the American justice system does not pursue domestic criminals hiding behind their government positions.
I want to see Bush and his criminal co-conspirators in jail. And so should you.
Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at December 7, 2007 12:49 PMThat would be appropriate if it can be proven that lies were told, and knowingly propogated. Is it possible to prove with the Executive Branch deleting E-Mails, records, and destroying tapes and other evidence? Why has no one tried? The blunders are numerous, which leads one to wonder if they were lying, or just incompetent, or some of both? At the very least, impeachment is justified.
Posted by: d.a.n at December 7, 2007 06:05 PMd.a.n.:
At this point, even the white House has admitted Bush is lying. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/white-house-bus.html Doesn’t take much to prove anymore.
Posted by: jarandhel at December 7, 2007 07:18 PMJarandhel,
There is more here than the ‘news report’ you’re referencing, the bad part is that people who are politically disposed to an emotional examination of any news will ignore all other possibilities and use any news it finds as reinforcement of their emotional mindset.
So, you’re saying that you don’t think Iran is a danger, to their neighbors or the world as a whole, because of what was released in the NIE report recently?
Have you even looked at the report? Not the cherrypicking that the media or others are doing, but the actual report?
Posted by: Rhinehold at December 7, 2007 07:36 PMBad planning, negligence=criminal homicide
Lying about evidence=perjury
Warrantless wiretapping= consiracy to undermine the constitution/treason, maybe?
And lets allow Iraqi citizens to sue Bushco for damages caused by the invasion and occupation.
Could we get them for war crimes or crimes against humanity, too?
Posted by: Silima at December 7, 2007 10:05 PMAnd then there’s Article V (wikipedia) of the Constitution, which is being violated.
Since when did all three branches of government and all 535 Members of Congress ever unanimously agree on anything 100%? Not only do they all have a clear conflict of interest, but there is something statistically strange about it.
The Constitution is under attack.
The best way to prevent tyranny is to avoid the beginnings.
jarandhel, There’s is little doubt in my mind that lies were told (watch this video) and numerous blunders and cover-ups followed. It’s pretty damning when you see their statements back-to-back (see partial transcript below):
- Donald Rumsfeld stated: There are a lot of people that lie and get away with it.
- Donald Rumsfeld stated: We will in fact find, uh, weapons, or evidence of weapons programs that are, are conclusive.
- Donald Rumsfeld states: We know where they are. They’re around the area of Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south, and north.
- Donald Rumsfeld stated: I don’t think we’ll discover anything, myself.
- Donald Rumsfeld stated: It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction.
- Reporter says to Donald Rumsfeld: You said you knew where they were. Donald Rumsfeld responds: I did not.
- Donald Rumsfeld stated: Well, first of all, I, I haven’t lied.
- Donald Rumsfeld stated: I don’t know of anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.
- Dick Cheney stated: And we believe he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.
- Colin Powell stated: Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb.
- George Bush (43) stated: We can not wait for the final proof.
- George Bush (43) stated: It could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
- Donald Rumsfeld stated: Colin Powell did not lie.
- Colin Powell stated: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources; solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
- Colin Powell previously stated in February of 2001: He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capabilities with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
- George Bush (43) stated: The [Saddam] regime is seeking a nuclear bomb.
- Dick Cheney stated: I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 911. Reporter states: You have said in the past that is quote “pretty well confirmed”. Dick Cheney responds: No, I never said that.
- Dick Cheney stated Dec, 1, 2001: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that he [Osama Bin Laden] did go to Prague and he did meet with, a, senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.
- George Bush (43) stated in 28-Jan-2003: Saddam aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda.
- Reporter asks George Bush (43): [What did Iraq have to do] with the attack on the world trade center. George Bush (43) responed: Nothing.
- George Bush (43) stated: I, I don’t think we ever said, I least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and, and, and, and Saddam Hussien.
- Condoleza Rice stated: Of course, it was information that was mistaken.
- George Bush (43) later joked about it: Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere… Nope, no weapons over there… Maybe under here [his podium]?
But the electorate continues to empower the government, and therefore deserves it, as long as the eletorate repeatedly rewards Congress with 95% to 99% re-election rates (Congress’ party seat-retention rates are 96.5% on average since year 1980).
At the very least, these people should have been held accountable in some way (if only removed from office): (George Bush (43), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleza Rice, etc.).
Posted by: d.a.n at December 8, 2007 10:20 AMThis link (to 6 minute video) may be better if the other link above doesn’t work.
Posted by: d.a.n at December 8, 2007 11:12 AMThanks for the morning stretch, guys. Now, on to reality.
Posted by: googlumpus at December 8, 2007 12:50 PMI am beginning to understand why you guys hate President Bush so much. He really does control your lives. No matter what the subject, you can only think of Bush. He is clearly your dark master and he holds you in thrall.
It makes you think that it is a good idea to criminalize politics.
He is your dose of reality. President Bush will leave office in 2009. He will not be running again and I doubt if he will ever seek any other office. He will have been president for two terms. That is what will happen. He will not be impeached and after he is out of office for a couple of months your hatred of him will start to sound even sillier than it does today. Maybe by then his grip on your souls will lessen enough for you once again to have thoughts that do not include George Bush.
The willingness of the right to defend and stick by an obviously criminal Administration tells more about their character than it does the character of those who want to see this Administration punished for their criminal activities.
Jack wrote: I am beginning to understand why you guys hate President Bush so much. He really does control your lives. No matter what the subject, you can only think of Bush. He is clearly your dark master and he holds you in thrall.Nonsense.
Jack, It’s not just Bush, and it’s not mere hatred for Bush. At least, not for me. The problem is far greater than one person (i.e. Bush). Don’t you think thousands of Americans sent to a war (of which many have died and been maimed) based on lies and exaggerations is any reason to be a little upset? I’m sure there are some who hate Bush for the wrong reasons, but your comment trivializes the real and concrete reasons (the lies, the blunders, and the incompetence, over and over and over).
Jack wrote: It makes you think that it is a good idea to criminalize politics.Not true. The idea is not to criminalize politics itself (i.e. the art and/or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs). The idea is to criminalize those that commit crimes, such as purgury, lie, theft, fraud, etc.
There is a big difference that apparently escapes some people.
Jack wrote: He is your dose of reality. President Bush will leave office in 2009. He will not be running again and I doubt if he will ever seek any other office. He will have been president for two terms. That is what will happen. He will not be impeached and after he is out of office for a couple of months your hatred of him will start to sound even sillier than it does today.You may be right. He probably won’t be impeached. That in no way dimishes his lies, exaggerations, blunders, and incompetence.
Jack wrote: Maybe by then his grip on your souls will lessen enough for you once again to have thoughts that do not include George Bush.That’s a slap in the face of the thousands of Americans that are now dead as a result of lies, exaggerations, fraud, blunders, and incompetence. It wasn’t just mistakes. There were lies. And Bush recently railed on television about World War 3 and against Iran. Bush is dangerous, and the tens of thousands of dead are proof of it. Yet, some people want trivialize and rationalize it all away as a mere mistake deserving of our understanding? In retrospect, there is now no doubt that lies and exaggerations were told. Yet, people are not supposed to be upset about it? Even though their sons, daughters, husbands, and wives are now dead or maimed as a result of those many lies? Mission Accomplished? No WMD?
At any rate, the problem is not just Bush.
The problem is much larger than that, but Bush and his administration are the poster children for the lies, fraud, corruption and incompetence that is rampant in the federal government.
It is a :
- a culture of corruption the permeates our entire society;
- a federal government that is FOR-SALE to a very few that abuse vast wealth to control and influence government (83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more) come from a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters;
- and sadly, most of the remaining 99.85% of those 200 million eligible voters that don’t vote, don’t care, don’t know, or blindly pull the party-lever and reward the very same incumbent politicians they rail against; rewarding them with 95% to 99% re-election rates;
- a growing disparity trend that did not all come about by mere coincidence, but is tolerated and even empowered by those that don’t see what is happening, don’t care, or have been seduced into the petty partisan-warfare, and trumps responsible problem solving too often; threatening the future and security of the nation.
Trivializing and rationalizing the deaths of thousands as a result of lies, exaggerations, negligence, and incompetence speaks volumes too.
Did you watch the video above (and the partial transcript of it above)?
Care to try to explain away some of those direct contradictions, lies, and the hundreds of blunders?
When people say: “Bush lied, and people died”, that is not an exaggeration or a innocent mistake.
It is the truth.
And the fact that it has happened before (in other administrations) and will probably happen again does not rationalize it away, nor justify it. To merely say we are human and make mistakes doesn’t cut it. Not when the lies are repeated and perpetuated, and bluder after blunder result in the destruction and death of tens of thousands.
The willingness of the LEFT to defend and stick by an obviously criminal Administration tells more about their character than it does the character of those who want to see this Administration punished for their criminal activities.
That, is what was said from about 1995 to 2000.
That, shows the true hypocritical nature of the lefts character.
That, is why things will not change.
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
