Why We May Tolerate a War Criminal President


AddThis social bookmarking image button

Boy, I’ll bet George W. Bush is chuckling today.

You’d think it was a bad week for him. First the news comes out that the most senior members of his administration met in the White House regularly to decide how to torture whom.

And you’d think he’d have tried to pull off a Ronnie Reagan on this one, pleading “I dunno what they was doing” as the Republican Icon of Greatness did about Iran-Contra. But no. W. goes on ABC TV and tells ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz:

“Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people. And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”

When the President “approves,” it means he’s signed off on it. The buck stops with him. In short, President George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America, matter-of-factly told the Washington correspondant of a major television network that, he, the President, is a war criminal.

What kind of war criminal? Check it out:

Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the Abu Ghraib scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: “Some of the worse that happened that you don’t know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men … . The women were passing messages saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened.’

“Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it’s going to come out.”

And the 43rd President signed off on all of this. That’s the kind of war criminal we’re talking about.

So has the press stopped buzzing? Yes, about the fact that the President is a self-confessed war criminal they have.

No, the really big story this weekend is that Barack Obama, during a private meeting with fundraisers in California, identified some of the people of Pennsylvania as bitter at how government has let them down, and went on to describe the dynamics accurately, as anyone who took Sociology 101 could tell you. But some dweeb surreptitiously recorded his remarks on her cell phone, and the next thing you know there they are on Huffington Post.

And Hillary said this:

So Barack had to say this:

But it didn’t matter because the McCain people said this:

“It is a remarkable statement and extremely revealing,” McCain advisor Steve Schmidt told reporters on board the McCain campaign plane today. “It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

Schmidt said Obama’s remarks hit the “heart and soul of this country” and predicted Obama would have difficulty connecting with voters. “I think people will resent it and be very angry about it because that is not how most Americans view themselves. That’s now how most Americans view their lives in terms of practicing their faith or exercising their Second Amendment rights or having a desire to secure the borders in the country,” he explained.

When Obama later defended his remarks to voters in Indiana, a McCain spokesman fired back, “Instead of apologizing to small town Americans for dismissing their values, Barack Obama arrogantly tried to spin his way out of his outrageous San Francisco remarks. Only an elitist who attributes religious faith and gun ownership to bitterness would think that tax cuts for the rich include families who make $75,000 per year. Only an elitist would say that people vote their values only out of frustration. Barack Obama thinks he knows your hopes and fears better than you do. You can’t be more out of touch than that.”

This is how you get presidents as war criminals in America. And that’s why war criminal presidents can go on national tv, admit to it as if they were admitting to eating an extra brownie for dessert, and shrug it off. You count on the distractability of the people.

A majority of voters, aware of Abu Ghraib since April, 2004, went and voted for more of the same that very November. I guess for the majority who voted to re-elect the decider, anything would be better than a president who goes windsurfing.

Advertisements

3 responses to “Why We May Tolerate a War Criminal President

  1. Bush and Cheney have been indicted for war crimes in Maine and Vermont. I pray for justice which is not as swift as I would have it. I want my country back under the leadership of someone who cares about the people. I think Obama is our best bet. I don’t see him as an “idol” or a “messiah.” I see him as hope and change.
    Dianna

  2. Kenny from Ct.

    Calling Mayhill Fowler a dweeb. That’s all I want to hear from you. You didn’t even know her name or is this how you always refer to women?

  3. No, Kenny, I read Ms. Fowler’s column twice. If you can cite where she says “I taped this,” I’d like to know where because I didn’t find that. Given that she has been referred to as the taper second-hand as far as I knew, I didn’t name her.

    I’m surprised at your trying to redefine “dweeb” as some kind of sexist term. It’s been around since at least 1972, and never had those connotations (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dweeb).

    I call people who secretly tape private events and run out to get their shot o’ limelight from doing that dweebs. As you can see by the wiktionary definition, that’s fair.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s