Regarding George W. Bush

[H2O Man]

"With all Bush’s upbeat talk and optimism, he had not told the American public the truth about what Iraq had become."
--Bob Woodward; State of Denial; 2006; page 491.

There was an article on Yahoo news today, regarding George W. Bush’s "regrets" from his years as President. Not surprisingly, his regrets are that at times, he made a fool of himself in a public way – with the "mission accomplished" banner, and his "bring ‘em on" nonsense. There were no regrets about the damage he has done to this country, nor the horror of the violence that he has caused in other nations.

As I read the article, which ended with Bush saying he wants to write a book because people deserve to know how he thinks, I was reminded of the sociopaths that I sometimes encountered in the county jail when I did forensic work at the local mental health clinic. Although Bush lacks the moral capacity to accept responsibility for what Vincent Bugliosi accurately has called "the most serious crime in American history," I hope that a state or county prosecutor will charge Bush after he leaves the White House, in the manner that Mr. Bugliosi brilliantly outlines in his book ("The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder").

I do take some pleasure in knowing that Bush, a vain and arrogant man, recognizes that he has become the most unpopular President in our nation’s history. Back in 2002 and ’03, Bush took pride in the fact that he had critics on the left. This was because many polls indicated that he had a high approval rating. And George W. Bush requires "approval," no matter how much he pretends otherwise – for he is a hollow man, a mere shell that imitates a true human being.

It is interesting to consider his attempt to shape his own image over the years, including his deal with Bob Woodward, which has allowed Woodward a level of access to classified information that would not be possible without Bush’s consent. And although I do not have a positive opinion of Mr. Woodward, I like that each of his four books on Bush have taken progressively negative views of him as a President.

One of the best parts of the last book, "The War Within" (2008) is the description of David Satterfield’s view of Bush. Satterfield was "a brainy foreign service officer" from the State Department, who had 25 years of experience working for both democratic and republican administrations. Let’s take a look at some information from pages 407-8:

"Satterfield could barely listen to Bush’s inflated rhetoric. It was too overstated, too triumphant, too victorious. …Bush, Satterfield observed, tolerated no doubt. ….As a result, he often made biting jokes or asides to colleagues that Satterfield found deeply wounding and cutting. ….Satterfield found it offensive ….Satterfield thought this reflected an insecurity in Bush. The president was a bully."

In the epilogue of this book, Woodward takes the opportunity to review the first three. He notes that "in ‘Bush at War’ many readers and a number of reviewers and columnists thought that I had portrayed Bush as a strong, inspirational leader. But my account also showed that he didn’t want an open, full debate that aired possible concerns and considered alternatives." In that book, Bush had identified a number of grandiose goals for his presidency, including uniting the country, defeating "terrorism," and achieving world peace. Modest goals for a man who actually believed that "God" had selected him at this point in history to accomplish them.

In his second book, "Plan of Attack," Bush told Woodward that he had sought briefings on how to go to war in Iraq, but never on whether to go to war. He told Woodward that he purposely did not ask four key people for their opinions: George H. W. Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and George Tenet. When Woodward questioned him on this, he said that Bush "dodged the question"; when Woodward attempted to pin him down, Bush gave his famous reply: "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher Father."

Woodward ended the third book, "State of Denial," with the quote at the top of this essay, in which he states clearly that Bush had not been honest with the American public. On page 433 of the new book, he writes, "My reporting for this book showed that to be even more the case than I could have imagined." He describes Bush as recognizing that he was impotent in his final year as President. Rather than take any responsibility for the hell he created in Iraq, Woodward tells of being "more guarded than ever, often answering that he could not remember details and emphasizing many times how much he had turned over to Steve Hadley."

"In our final interview, the president talked irritably of how he believed there was an ‘elite’ class in America that thought he could do nothing right. …There was an air of resignation about him, as if he realized how little he could change in the eight months he had left as president." (page 434)

Woodward ends his description of Bush’s presidency by noting that he had failed to accomplish any of the three goals he had identified in his first term. He notes that Bush had become "the nation’s most divisive figure." While I agree that Bush is a failure, both as president and as a person, I think that the months since Woodward’s final interview with him have proven him to be, in a very real sense, a figure who has united diverse groups in this country. Almost everyone has rejected him. Even the republicans running for congressional seats refused to be associated with him.

It may be that like Richard Nixon, that President Bush will avoid legal consequences for his crimes and abuses of the power of his office. But he has become a more pathetic figure than was Nixon in his final days and nights in the White House, walking the halls and talking to paintings on the wall, fully aware that he would be remembered as one of the most disgraced villains in our nation’s history.

[Swamp Rat]

1. k&r

[H2O Man]

8. Thanks.

Nice picture!

[TahitiNut]

2. Even the term 'sociopath' is an understatement in describing a man for whom ...

... nothing is too petty or trivial in exercising his abuse of power and trust in demeaning and patronizing others. Even to say he's a 'small man' is far too kind. He truly belongs locked in a padded cell for the rest of his miserable existence.

[H2O Man]

9. I agree.

Mr. Bugliosi's desription of him, as the worst violent criminal in American history, seems best.

[Starry Messenger]

3. Talk about the Manchurian Candidate.

This has been a very sad blot on our country and the world. We've violated everything we said we stood for and the extremists are emboldened. I hope this chapter closes soon. Thank you H2Oman.

[H2O Man]

10. Thank you.

It seems strange to read, in Woodward's first book, Bush complaining about leaders who tortured people. Not surprising, though.

[rosesaylavee]

4. The only way he can avoid legal consequences for his crimes

is if we stop asking for justice. Do you know if that Attorney General that Bugliosi was supporting got elected? She was going to prosecute Bush if she did. Unfortunately, I don't remember her name.

[petgoat]

6. I don't much appreciate the gratuitous "he may never be held accountable for his crimes" remarks.

It sounds an awful lot like the "Bush has done such terrible things,
it's too bad impeachment is just never going to happen" construct
we were all hypnotized with a couple of years ago.

"Ain't it just awful that the most depraved, decadent, corrupt
administration in history is going to get off scott free?"
passes for a realistic sensible hip-despairing view when it's
really a gutless self-fulfilling prophesy.

[H2O Man]

7. For several years,

I have advocated that the House and Senate impeach, try, and convict President Bush and especially VP Cheney. I am more than happy to compare notes on what activities I participated in, in an attempt to make this happen, with anyone here. Still, it seems unrealistic to think that there is any chance of either being impeached before Obama takes office.

The only real chance of either one being held accountable is if, as Mr. Bugliosi outlined, a states attorney general, or county DA, decides to prosecute on state charges. I certainly think that those people who feel they have a person with a sense of justice in either position provide them with a copy of Bugliosi's book.

[tomp]

16. and that is the primary reason i am not an obama suporter.

the prosecution of bush, inc. is my #1 issue and obama seems poised to pass on it, signaled quite emphatically by the embrace of colin powell. i have no hope in the coming administration.

[H2O Man]

18. None of the democrats

who had any chance of winning the presidential election would have been more likely to prosecute Bush or Cheney than Obama.

The only real chance for their prosecution is outlined in Bugliosi's book. It is worth noting that Mr. Bugliosi dioes not believe that there is any grounds for prosecuting Colin Powell. Although I have a strong dislike for Powell, I agree with Mr. Bugliosi on that.

[tomp]

28. firstly, bugliosi is not the alpha omega of legality.

a guy who supports the lone gunman theory always has to be questioned (though i like much of his other writing).

secondly, if "none of the other democrats who had any chance of winning the presidential election would have been more likely to prosecute Bush or Cheney than Obama", then none of them deserve to be president. you're sounding a lot like occam's bandage here, and that's beneath you.

[H2O Man]

30. It would be easy

to react to your attempted personal dig there, but I rarely look to do that which is easy. And because I think that you are sincere in wanting justice, I welcome the opportunity to not say "this is beneath you," or "that is over your head" .... but instead to say something that is intended as one friend talking to another.

There are three "potential" levels on which a person such as Colin Powell could be tried. The first is in the international court. The first is in the International Criminal Court, or ICC. We see good DUers say that they hope Bush, Cheney, and others are tried there for "war crimes." Yet, in saying this, they expose an ignorance of what the ICC is, and what it can and cannot do. Simply put, the ICC has jurisdiction only over nations that are party to the ICC treaty. This excludes the US, along with other nations such as China, Libya, and Yemen.

In a situation where the UN refers a case involving a person not covered by the ICC treaty, it takes the support of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, all of which have veto power, plus at least seven of the ten countries that serve two year terms. Add to that the fact that the ICC lacks the power to execute its arrest warrents, and it should be evident that this option is extremely unlikely to happen.

Second, criminal charges could happen if the US Department of Justice opts to bring them in the federal courts. While Barack Obama has not actually closed the door on this option, I do not think it is likely. It would have been different if Congress had done its duty, and held the investigations into suspected crimes and abuses of the power of executive office that they should have done. Not only did they violate their oath of office, but they betrayed the citizens of this country.

This is important, because the federal courts have held (most recently during the Nixon years) that Congress has the greatest subpoena power when investigating "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the context of impeachment. In the tripod of federal powers, this puts two "legs" against the third. No ther situation is as clear-cut in terms of forcing the executive office to turn over the information that can lead to both impeachment (civil) and then federal prosecution (criminal) for crimes.

I certainly hope that the Obama administration will at very least keep alive the option of DoJ investigations of criminal activities involving members of the Bush administration. Yet, as I will explain a bit later, it is not the only issue that is of importance to me.

The third option would be for a state attorney general or a county/city district attorney to prosecute a member of the Bush administration on criminal charges. This is, of course, what Vincent Bugliosi advocates. Now, in terms of Bugliosi's qualifications as a DA: he may not be the "alpha omega of legality," but because we exist in the real world, rather than a perfect world, it is fair to say that he was among the best-known and most successful DAs of recent times.

Still, one is not obligated to agree with him on everything. Indeed, whenever any two people think exactly alike, it is evident that only one of them is thinking. But in order to be other than disagreeable, one should be able to identify what charges, for example, they would propose that a person such as Colin Powell be charged with by a state attorney general or a county/city DA.

Now, in terms of supporting politicians for elected office ..... it is a person's option to decide that an issue such as impeachment and/or criminal prosecution of Bush et al is so important, that they cannot support any candidate who fails to share one's opinion and stance on the issue. But it is not the only option, and to say that it is beneath a person to do otherwise seems a rather rigid view to me.

Between 2006 and 2008, for example, I was in frequent contact with the office of House member, Representative Michael Arcuri. I expressed my beliefs on the need to impeach Bush and Cheney. But Rep. Arcuri did not support this. It would have been easy for me to decide that I could not support Rep. Arcuri for re-election, despite the fact that he took many other positions that I agreed upon.

As I said, I do not tend to look for what is easy. As tempting as self-righteousness may be, I knew that Rep. Arcuri faced a tough re-election campaign. He was pitted against an area person who has been among a group who hosted none other than Karl Rove at a few republican picnics; in fact, that group and Rove are involved in an effort to put a power line through our rural area, that pits them against a wide range of upstate people. Both Rep. Arcuri and Senator Hillary Clinton have been active opponents of this republican effort.

So, my daughters and I worked for the Arcuri re-election campaign. And, at risk of sounding obnoxious, I am good at grass roots politics. The others in the county democratic headquarters took notice of my tactics, and in the final weeks of the campaign, I met there with Rep. Arcuri and some of his top staff. Long story short: one Election Day, I accepted an invitation to meet with Rep. Arcuri and his wife to talk shop. The election was expected to be very close -- and indeed it was. I brought a few things with me to document my belief that he would win, and that his margin of victory would be a bit less than the number of votes that my daughters and I had secured for him.

Now, was that "beneath" me? You certainly may think so. But I don't. He and I still disagree on the issue of impeachment. But we still agree on a number of other important issues. And I am confident, after talking to both him and his wife, that he will honor his offer to take any calls from my daughters and I. In fact, my daughters' school teachers, who were in my home on Election Night, are planning to take him up on that.

Peace,
H2O Man

[tomp]

31. i also wish you peace, H20 man.

the problems we faced throughout the bush administration are essentially the direct result of our FAILURE to come to terms with the corruption of the government for at least the last fifty years: the compromise after compromise, the one-handwashing-the-other in congress, political "pragmatism". the concept of allowing corruption to continue is a threat to our very existence. i will compromise on many things, but not on that. nor should anyone who truly wishes the survival of the union, not to mention mere "progress". allowing "our" democratic leaders off the hook in such compromises is suicidal at this point. even if obama is able to institute and maintain a non-corrupt administration (which i submit he has already failed at with his embrace of powell) there will be others coming after him with less integrity. it is for posterity that i take such a "rigid" stance.

on the legal issues: if bush is guilty of murder, powell is guilty of accessory to murder. it's as simple as that.

on the" beneath you" comment: occam bandage has been making ridiculous statements on the issue of prosecution. it was written because i saw the similarity in the arguments, in the logic being applied. occam bandage has no credibiltiy with me. you do. it would be a shame for that to change. as for taking the easy way, try being an obama opponent, or for that matter, try to uphold principle against pragmatism on du. that is not easy.

for the record, i voted for obama and donated to his campaign, even though i oppose him on principle.

[H2O Man]

32. Sometimes people

take "old sayings" for granted, overlooking the fact that they became old sayings because they communicate simple truths. The issue of holding Bush and Cheney responsible for their actions brings to mind one of my favorite sayings from the 1960s: "Justice delayed is justice denied." This has never been more true than in the case of the utter failure of the Congress -- and that includes both the House and Senate, and democrats and republicans -- to uphold their oath of office, and to protect the Constitution of the United States against the threats posed by the Bush administration.

In my opinion, the most important difference between the other DUer you mention and myself is this: that person appears to believe that Bush et al should not be prosecuted, and I most certainly think that they should. I think that this is the same difference as, say, between shit and sugar.

Besides Rep. Arcuri's office, I had the opportunity to meet with and discuss the need for impeachment with people from several other elect officials in both houses of Congress. Not a single one -- not one -- was able to justify the stance that Congress should not impeach, based upon the law. In each and every case, they expressed a belief that attempts to obtain justice would fail, because of the nature of the process.

I disagreed then, as I do now, because I Arthur Schlesing, Jr.'s faith in democracy' greatest virtue, "it's capacity for self-correction." This issue was addressed in a powerful manner in this week's New York Times Magazine, in an article by Jonathan Mahler, titled "After the Imperial Presidency." By no coincidence, Mahler quoted from the exact same books to support his position, as I have frequently quoted from in my DU essays in recent years, to support my positions.

As a person who supported Barack Obama, I had also mentioned numerous times in DU essays that his election was not the answer to our problems, but rather, a small door. I also recognize that those who bemoan a lack of opportunity often ignore the fact that small doors sometimes open into large rooms.

Because of this, I have noted that we will have to step-up our efforts when Obama takes office. This is not limited to opposing republicans. As I've said many times, we will often have to penly oppose President Obama. I have used the example of how the civil rights movement had to pressure the Kennedy administration, as well as the Johnson administration. For this reason, I willingly will accept the role of being an opponent of the Obama administration on specific issues; a thorn in their side on others; but always in an open and friendly way. I sincerely hope that the majority of other progressive and liberal democrats, and our good friends and close allies on the progressive left, will do the same .... because, indeed, justice delayed is justice denied, and that should serve to remind us that it is essential that we remind the administration of this simple truth.

[tomp]

45. so what's the plan, H2O Man?

you were unable to convince arcuri or any other member of congress even when you had personal access. how shall we convince obama? i have never been limited to opposing republicans, but when it all comes down, we vote for the democrat and console ourselves by saying we tried really hard. i'm really quite tired of appealing to clinton, shumer and rangel, among others, and watching them vote the other way, and then being lambasted on du for not supporting THEM. so, what's the plan? my plan always starts with calling them like i see them. truth first. obama appears to be failing test #1. this only cements my inclination to believe in the hope of audacity rather than in the audacity of hope.

perhaps a "justice delayed is justice denied" campaign is in order.

[rosesaylavee]

23. Who are you talking about?

[H2O Man]

11. I'm not sure

who you mean. I do know that several prosecutors have discussed the case Mr. Bugliosi outlines in his book, in conversations with him. It only takes one person of conscience.

[Crankie Avalon]

5. So his presidency isn't his fault, it's the fault of some "elite class". nt

[H2O Man]

12. Must be.

No other explanation!

[Disturbed]

13. George W. Bush is a Silver Spoon Sociopath.

Will any American AG step up & charge this pathetic ex. Pres. with murder, with any Crimes?

[Mira]

14. K&R Whenever you post -H2O Man - I come running to read it.

I read every one of the books, and agree with your assessmts. all the way through. I, too,am not a fan of Woodward, but as the books came out I also saw his illusions being shattered.
I read them because of his access, and he is reporting things I can judge for myself how to interpret them.

I hold out hope for Bugliosi's approach to keep the sword hanging over GWBushes head wherever he goes. And I also am curious if the woman won who said she would prosecute him along those lines with Bugliosi's help if she was victorious.

[H2O Man]

19. Thanks.

It will only take one honest prosecutor, somewhere in the country, who is willing to do the right thing.

[onethatcares]

15. may the spirits of the dead

haunt his every moment. I want his nights to be sweat filled with fears of the hands of the tortured reaching out to grab his hands, the souls of the families that have died talking to him, prodding him with sticks. I want him to live what he approved, no more no less.

Peace

[Gin]

17. Bush is being punished....nobody will publish his memoirs....

Poor Baby! other than that..he leaves with low poll numbers but a cushy retirement that we all have to pay for..

[Octafish]

20. Can you imagine the harm he could've done were he intelligent?

Not to excuse or diminish the death of millions, the harm to our nation and planet, and his myriad treasons -- but can anyone imagine what George Walker Bush could've done were he smart?

In that way, if we had to have another (yeesh!) "president" Bush, maybe we were lucky to get the crazy monkey instead of Jebthro. That guy's scary smart, organized and eeee-vil.



Thanks for another outstanding essay, H20 Man! Your work makes readers smarter.

[H2O Man]

21. In a sense,

if he were smarter, he could have accomplished what VP Cheney did. Unfortunately, VP Cheney did it .... because he had a half-wit covering as President.

I believe that a number of the Republican Elders are planning to have Jeb run in 2012. And that is a far more serious problem, than the people who are over-exposing Sarah Palin today.

[KoKo]

24. Good Point but here on DU as elsewhere the "Palin Obsession" drowns out everything...

Makes one wonder, doesn't it. :eyes:

[acmavm]

27. Too soon for ol' Jebbie to run. After Obama's 8, when people's memories

have dimmed...

[Swamp Rat]

22. We're not out of the woods yet.

Not until January 20th, 2009. :hide:



:hi:



:hide:

[KoKo]

25. Biting Nails until then. Seems like it's years away given what needs to be done..

doesn't it. ugh....

[Swamp Rat]

29. ugh!

is right.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. Indeed!

:scared: :hide:

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Laurab]

34. So in the end, Bush did become a uniter.

Not the way he meant to, of course, but he truly did unite us.

I've read all of Woodward's books, except for the new one - do you think it's worth reading, is there much that's new in there? I've read almost every book that's come out about the failed bush presidency, but i find that I'm losing interest now. I think it's because I'm looking to the future, and the healing of the country, and just want bush GONE, but if you think the book is important, or full of new revelations, I'd read it.

K&R!

[H2O Man]

35. It's worth reading,

but I would recommend getting it at a public library. Then, if you think it is worth having a copy, you can decide if you should buy it.

[Laurab]

37. Thanks for the advice.

I seldom keep the books I read - I buy them, then re-sell them, usually right when they come out, but I'm behind in my reading, so I will take your advice, I think.

[bleever]

36. Soon, we will find it hard to believe

that this ever came to pass.

The enormity of it is practically incomprehensible.

[H2O Man]

41. There was a very good article

in this week's NY Times Magazine on "after the imperial presidency." I admit that one reason I liked it was because the author refered to many of the books that we have discussed on DU. Theenormity of the damage that Bush, Cheney & Co have done will present serious problems for decades to come, unless both houses of Congress are willing to step up to the plate.

You are absolutely right: it is practically incomprehensible. And even with Obama and Biden in office, the threat to our Constitutional democracy remains. The executive office alone can not resolve the terrible problems that the past 8 years inflicted on our nation (and the world).

[galaxy21]

38. Bush is a tragic political figure, in a way

Don't get me wrong, he deserves everything he gets. But I doubt he set out to be the worst president in history. If he'd surrounded himself with better people (and not had Cheney as vp) he still wouldn't have been a good president, but he wouldn't have been the worst either.

I think he'll end up like LBJ. Drinking himself to an early death.

[H2O Man]

42. I agree.

LBJ and Nixon both suffered serious mental break-downs, which took place during their final weeks and months in office. LBJ never really recovered. Nixon regained his footing somewhat, though he remained a paranoid, bitter man. I tend to think that LBJ had a bit more of a conscience than Nixon, and hence is earlier death.

Bush lacks the ability to accept even a tiny amount of responsibility for his actions. Yet, at times, I have found myself thinking that he was detached from even his slight grasp of reality. I wish him a cosmic mirror, in which he is forced to view himself as he really is.

[galaxy21]

49. I think Oliver Stone was pretty spot on in W.

Bush was this not so smart guy that got in way over his head and he should never have been put in that position. Its a lot like Palin being named vp. Taking these people that are ill suited for national politics and giving them the highest job in the land without them being truly qualified for it.

People can complain about Palin and Bush and their behaviour, but ultimately, both were just too stupid to know any better. The fault lies with the people that want presidents they can 'have a beer with' or someone 'just like them'.

[sofa king]

39. Excellent. 77% of us are "elite."

That's 1337 to you old-timers.

[H2O Man]

43. It is pathetic that

people like him think that "elites" -- including "the media" -- are responsible for turning people against them. The public had rejected Bush long before the "elites" and "media" had turned on him.

[eleny]

40. It's no mystery why people around the world rejoiced on our Election Day

I feel (and hope) that we're in the last months of messages from the Ministries of Truth, Peace, Love and Plenty.

He's been the perfect vessel for all of them.

[H2O Man]

44. True.

I agree.

Well said. Thanks.

[eleny]

47. thanks and btw...

i appreciate your mentioning the carolyn kennedy book the other day, the one about the bill of rights. i got it from the library yesterday on your recommendation.

the librarian was so excited because she already read it. it wasn't on the pickup shelf, so she had to get it from the back room. when she came out she opened it on a table and showed me how each chapter is about one of the sections. she's a big non fiction fan, too, and became animated that i was reading it.

i thought you'd like to know.

[H2O Man]

48. Great!

I appreciate that you let me know. And I am happy that you are reading it, and that the librarian already had!

[bobthedrummer]

46. George Walker Bush must be held accountable for his CRIMES and TREASON, kick, eom

[myrna minx]

50. K&R.

I do hope that we have just one prosecutor, somewhere that will take up the charge.

[leftchick]

51. I have been hoping to see you!

Excellent analysis and K&R! :)


But..... I disagree about him recognizing his pathetically tragic end to his reign. I see him more as the typical sociopath who has no clue how others perceive him. That to me is a tragedy in and of itself.