Home

The Beginning of the End for Bushism?

Comment by Larry Ross, April 5, 2007

Alberto Gonzales has been Bush's lawyer for a long time, and acted for him in many ways. So Bush made him US Attorney-General where he has acted for Bush ever since, and covered up his crimes. Now there is the chance of exposure under oath, and the trail goes to Bush's door.

Exposure could lead to impeachment. Naturally Bush and his scheming neocons will do everything in their power to prevent this.

As Beimhart suggests "they may even start a new war". They would give Bush grounds to declare a national emergency, then declare martial law and arrange for new Patriot-type repressive laws to help avoid any testimony that might bring down his criminal regime. To add a dose of urgency and credibility, Bush may arrange a new terrorist alert, or an actual false flag where the US is attacked and Iran blamed as an excuse for war.

Bush has told many lies and committed various criminal acts, such as the massive Iraq invasion, bombing and occupation. 

So far he's got away with it and managed to enlist the support of most of Congress.

Unless Bush's next steps are anticipated and effective counter measures taken, the Bush regime may get away scot-free again and begin much more disastrous crimes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prosecutor Scandal Is the Beginning of Bush's End

by Larry Beinhart, BuzzFlash, April 4, 2007

About a year from now, pundits and instant historians will point back at the firing of the federal prosecutors and say, "That's where the impeachment began."

I'm glad that it began with, or at least around, Alberto.

The attorney general takes an oath to uphold the constitution and execute the law. When controversial matters come up, his role, traditionally, is often to be the guy who says, "We can't do that, it's against the law."

Gonzales took a different approach. He brought the ethics of a corporate lawyer to his office. He took it to be his job to find, or invent, a theory that would allow the administration to go forward. If the theory wouldn't hold up in court, or made little sense, that didn't matter. They could still maintain, with straight faces, that they believed what they were doing, on the advice of the attorney general, was legal and constitutional. If worst came to worst, they'd back off and move on, so long as the profit outweighed the penalty.

The most flagrant example is when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld decided they wanted to torture people.

Aside from the moral, practical, and traditional problems with torture, there were legal problems. America's own War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions prohibit torture, torture lite, and even real life re-enactments of episodes from the TV show "24."

Continue.....