George Bush's Giant Balls Have Damaged His Brain

If ever there was a man who should just shut the fuck up...

Here we have GW, in the kind of massive irony (that could only be topped if he was giving this speech in the Gulf of Mexico) that only he could muster, lecturing someone (albeit deservedly in this case) for wasting resources while millions of gallons of the precious crude is being wasted in the gulf because he and Dick Cheney didn't give a shit about regulation or oversight. Wonder how much all the oil is worth, Dumbya?

Here we have GW lecturing on wasting resources while the fish, shrimp, crabs and other valuable life in the Gulf are lost, perhaps forever, because of his administration's greed and blatant preference for oil companies over life, jobs, and nature.

Here we have a man whose whole raison de etre is the mindless destruction of America's bounty for the profit of a few, extremely wealthy plutocrats, and he has the balls to lecture some petty dictator over "wasting" resources. George Fucking W Bush wasted more resources to help Halliburton in one day than the Dear Leader could waste in a year.

I was glad to see that someone had the guts to point out that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were at the very least not exactly "Christian." I hesitate to think how many resources were wasted in Iraq over Bush's bullshit lies. We can't even accurately count how many people died...

George W Bush is the last man on earth who should be talking about wasting resources.

in reference to:

"But some local Christian organisations, including the Christian Alliance for Church Reform, criticised Bush's presence at a time when cross-border tensions are high."It is just nonsense to bring to the Korean War prayer meeting the former US President Bush, who started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have him give testimony," they said in a joint statement."
- AFP: Bush blasts N.Korea's Kim for wasting resources (view on Google Sidewiki)

Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

Via the New York Times, yet another report confirms the thesis of this blog: that the Bush Administration committed treason, the definition of which, is in Article Three of the US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

From the above linked NYT story, a new Senate report adds more proof to the case against the Bush Administration, especially Donald Rumsfeld. They let Bin Laden go when they had him cornered in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December, 2001.

The report, based in part on a little-noticed 2007 history of the Tora Bora episode by the military’s Special Operations Command, asserts that the consequences of not sending American troops in 2001 to block Mr. bin Laden’s escape into Pakistan are still being felt.

The report blames the lapse for “laying the foundation for today’s protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.”

George Bush stood on top of the rubble of the WTC and said we'd get those guys, but when it came time to actually get them, the order came down, from the Administration, to let our enemies get away. The Whitehouse ordered US troops not to finish the job.

I can think of many ways to aid our enemies. Short of actually plotting an attack with them, letting them get away with it, especially when you actually have them cornered and then let them go, is nothing short of treason. It would be hard to aid and comfort an enemy more than letting them walk away from justice.

In legal terms, this is known as accessory after the fact. Helping a mass murderer escape prosecution is, at the very least, a felony, and, without much effort at all, easy to define as treason.

Now that we know how the Bush administration worked, taking the politics of everything into account, is it such a leap to conclude that the Karl Rove mentality of making everything political, played a part in the decision to let our enemies walk away from Tora Bora? When people in top positions at the White House make decisions to let our enemies simply pack up and walk off through the mountains, doesn't that at least deserve investigation? Doesn't that at least deserve outrage from those who supposedly cherish our National Security above all else?

I can't wait to see the drivel from these Bush cheerleaders dismissing this story as politically motivated Bush bashing from the deranged left. It will be just another example of how these hacks put the well-being of the Republican party above the safety of US citizens, and above the ideal of justice for mass murderers.

Bush Administration Officials Cashing In On Iraq

I'm shocked. Shocked to hear that former Bush administration officials are profiteering in Iraq.

In 2008, Tim Shorrock reported for Salon that while “working inside America’s ’shadow’ spy industry, George Tenet, Richard Armitage, Cofer Black and others are cashing in big on Iraq and the war on terror.” Now, the Financial Times reports today that even more Bush administration officials are eyeing profits in Iraq:

[...]

Senior Bush administration figures including Zalmay Khalilzad, former US ambassador to Baghdad, and Jay Garner, the retired general who led reconstruction efforts immediately after the war, are leading a new business push into Iraq.

Seth and Amy should have done this, instead of the Goldman Sachs thing. Because rich people getting better health care than the rest of us isn't really that much of a really, but starting a war to make your buddies rich, well, that only happens every now and then in America.

Torture Memos are Evidence of Conspiracy to Commit Torture

The conspiracy to commit torture, which took place at the highest levels of government in the Bush corporo-fascist regime administration, now has enough public evidence, thanks to the recently releases memos, to warrant prosecution.

But before we go down the criminal prosecution road, we should see the immediate impeachment of Judge Jay Bybee. For the legal angles of this travesty of American national security, American reputation, and American authority, I turn to Scott Horton of Harpers who writes today in The Torture Tango:

The memo-writer and the person soliciting the memo both understood perfectly that their role was to get interrogators out in the field to go ahead and use the techniques against which reservations were being expressed. They understood that, if the memos were issued, individuals would in fact be subjected to the torture techniques they were approving. They also fully understood that it was likely that individuals would be killed or would suffer lasting impairment as a result of their decision to give the greenlight. This satisfies the prerequisites for a criminal charge against the memo writer under section 2340A, conspiracy to torture. The preparation and issuance of these memoranda were criminal acts, and the relevant level of mens rea likely emerges from the dialogue surrounding their issuance.

What do you call it when you have evidence of a crime and you don't prosecute? Is that prosecutorial discretion? Or misconduct?