Category Archives: Bush

Democracy à la Dubya

Democracy ala Dubya has two sections. Here are excerpts from each:

To Democratize Or Not To Democratize

In his State of the Union Address, the president branded the United States as the world’s “partner for a better life.” He also recommitted “our nation” “abroad” “to an historic, long-term goal”: seeking “the end of tyranny in our world.” To discredit those who oppose recreational, unprovoked wars, coups, and other state-sponsored global interventions, Mr. Bush deployed the “isolationist” epithet.
The president’s proselytizing is unconstitutional and has been undertaken with no real authority. If Mr. Bush is so bewitched by the demos—the rule of the many—he should try some Athenian magic on the foot soldiers who’ll be fighting and financing his schemes.
So how about a referendum on this question?

Elect A New People
While throwing money and men to Moloch, the commander in chief ignores that the Arab Street has always been more militant than its leaders… The only way Bush will get the democracy he desires in the Arab world is by dissolving the people and electing another, to paraphrase Bertold Brecht…

Blog away.

About Democracy ala Dubya, Jay Homnick of The Reform Club writes: “Ilana Mercer has summed up her recent critques of George Bush’s Middle East policy in one powerful essay wherein every word sparkles. Agree or not, not to be missed.”
There is an interesting thread at The Reform Club, to be followed here.
Thanks Jay.

A Liar by Any Other Name

America, Bush

Bush excluded all analysis (including from his own highly regarded experts) that didn’t comport with his thesis about Iraq. He adopted (posthaste and post hoc) as his preferred sources of information corrupt parties like Egypt, Jordan, ex-KGB man Vladimir Putin, and Ahmad Chalabi. He ignored objective reality, invading an indisputably hobbled country, launching the invasion when “an effective inspections regime was in place,” after having “effectively caged Saddam.”
Yet labeling Bush a liar is apparently “slander and defamation,” to repeat Bill O’Reilly.
Fine. For the sake of semantics, how does “criminally negligent” grab you? Proving intent ought not to be a hurdle since Bush still holds that his destruction of lives (American and Iraqi) and property (American and Iraqi) was worth it. But if mens rea is a sticking point, I’ll settle for negligence, with an emphasis on breach of duty.

‘Due Process’ For A Despot

Bush, Iraq, Justice

Now that this burlesque of justice is branded ‘made-in-America,’ it’s a Mark of Cain on all of us

Now that we’ve established a constitutional government in Iraq, the rule of law, and a judiciary capable of Nuremberg and Tokyo-type prosecutions, no less, we can sit back and observe the 6th Amendment applied in Baghdad.
Duly, Saddam Hussein is enjoying a “speedy and public trial”—he was brought to trial a mere two years after capture. The trial is public only in the sense that we know it is underway. Paula Zahn is too busy reporting on her latest colonoscopy to dispatch a legal analyst to publicize the proceedings. (Her staff is probably too scared to go, though.) Zahn’s cable cohort, for different reasons, has confined its coverage to bad-mouthing the righteous former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark. These TV titmice believe being on Saddam’s sparse defense team is the same as “supporting” him.
I believe that under American-style justice the accused also has a right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” Hussein has only recently been formally charged. As the trial commenced, so Hussein’s attorneys—well, those still alive (two defense lawyers have already been killed, another wounded)—had to request time to study the charges against their clients.
As to Hussein’s right to confront the witnesses against him—would that the Iraqis on the so-called stand were merely swaddled in abayas. Those not too frightened to testify (three men and two women, so far) were hidden behind screens, their voices modulated.
Look, prior to Bush’s invasion, I didn’t give a tinker’s toss what Iraqis did to Saddam. He was their baggage. But now that this burlesque of justice is branded ‘made-in-America,’ it’s a Mark of Cain on all of us
Incidentally, we were told until recently that Saddamites are behind the insurgency. But those behind the slaying of Saddam’s attorneys are probably Shiite—it has even been alleged members of the Iraqi “government” are involved. Yes, this is what chaos looks like. Once a rogue state; Iraq is now a failed one, where any faction that imagines its wishes are being frustrated goes out and kills its foes. Freedom is on the march.

Bill (Anderson) On Black (Conrad)—and Derivative Deviltry

Bush, Criminal Injustice, Justice, Law, libertarianism, The Zeitgeist

Hooray for crusader against injustice, economist Bill Anderson, who wrote in agreement with my column, Crucifying Conrad (Black):

“I am in complete agreement about ‘derivative crimes’ such as mail fraud and wire fraud. Candice Jackson and I have written at length about this stuff, so I am glad to see someone else also beating this same drum. An attorney friend of mine once told me that federal prosecutors are the single greatest threat to liberty in this country, and I agree.
That is why I have not been among the cheerleaders of Patrick Fitzgerald and the bogus “Plamegate,” in which the prosecutors early on realized that no law was broken, so they decided to look for other charges. I have strongly criticized other libertarians who have been cheering Fitzpatrick because he is tormenting the Bush Administration. In other words, all libertarian principles go out the window because the political outcomes in ‘Plamegate’ are satisfying.

Must reads are Bill’s “The Courts and the New Deal,” and Washington’s Biggest Crime Problem.