How George W Bush Embodied Pure Evil in the US White House

The invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003 was based upon vicious lies and was an enormous international war crime that wasn’t and won’t be prosecuted, so, the case for its severity and evil, and for indicting George W Bush, Ralph Nader, and Antonin Scalia, and their respective partners in this enormous crime, the invasion of Iraq, for the three main stages of Producing it, will be presented here, in order for this massive crime to become established as being a part of the historical record, though it will never be a part of any such record in law and jurisprudence, as it Ought to be.

That invasion broke a number of important historical precedents, including its introduction of the entirely false concept of pre emption as being acceptable in any and all possible circumstances as ‘Justifying’ a military invasion as constituting an act of self defense instead of as being what it actually is, which is international aggression. This ‘Okayness’ of pre emptive invasion was introducing America’s “International Rules Based Order” to replace the UN’s international law based order, so as to terminate any international Democracy of nations and replace it with America’s international Dictatorship of nations, America’s rule over the Entire Eorld, “You’re Either with Us or against Us”, and shove the UN aside. There would be US dictated international “Rules,” Instead of UN authorized and internationally democratically created international laws.

George W Bush kicked off his campaign to destroy Iraq based on lies, in his 7 September 2002 press conference with his lap dog Tony Blair the leader of England, when Bush asserted and Blair seconded his allegation, that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had just come out with a new report saying that Iraq was only six months away from having a nuclear weapon, and this assertion made the front page of the New York Times on the following day, which stenographically reported the President’s lie without so much as even checking whether or not Bush was simply lying, which he was. The IAEA denied the President’s allegation on four occasions, not only immediately but especially, since virtually no news medium Reported any of their first three denials, on its fourth try, on 27 September 2002, when finally it got reported to the public in the small newspaper the Washington Times, which headlined obtusely “Agency disavows Report on Iraq Arms”, so that no one would even pay any attention to the story, instead of, for example, headlining honestly “IAEA Says President Bush Lies to Say IAEA is his Source for WMD Allegation Against Iraq”. The article can be read here, so you can see how this newspaper tried to give the false impression that Bush had Erred instead of Lied, and that the article then went on to skillfully distract its readers away from and ignore that question of “Lie” altogether, as a consequence of which the article had no impact. This had been the only real chance to get the word “Lie” into the coming debate, and nobody had the courage so to announce that “The Emperor has No Clothes.” Meanwhile, the Bush Administration built upon Bush’s lie in order to fool the public that there should be an invasion of Iraq so as to stop Saddam’s, non existent since 1998, nuclear weapons and other WMD programs. Furthermore, the NYT headlined on 25 September 2002 “Blair Says Iraqis Could Launch Chemical Warheads in Minutes”, and reported, Also stenographically, the also entirely concocted “Britain Asserted Today that the Iraqi Government of President Saddam Hussein could Launch Chemical or Biological Warheads within 45 Minutes of an Order to Use Them and Acquire A Nuclear Weapon in One to Five Years.” How many people cancelled their New York Times subscriptions once such extremely toxic regime reinforcing lies as ‘News’ in the NYT, the home of “All the ‘News’ That’s Fit to Print”, became manifestly clear in Retrospect? But instead, that newspaper thrived. It’s the way to profit in the propaganda business.

Here is a good 25 minute video news report on the Consequences of that US and allied aggression against Iraq. Furthermore, on 29 September 2015, I headlined and reported: “GALLUP: ‘Iraqis Are the Saddest & One of the Angriest Populations in the World’,” showing that even 12 years after America’s invasion, Iraqis were far worse off after this destruction of their country than before it. But the invasion was extremely Profitable for such US firms as Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil and Halliburton and many others.  So, America’s billionaires got their moneys worth out of him. And, of course, the  body bag manufacturers also did. And then President Trump even publicly threatened to financially destroy Iraq if they would demand an end to America’s occupation of their country. And Joe Biden has continued it. Uncle Sam is as brutal an imperialist as ever was.

But George W Bush Main Streamed neo conservatism, US global conquest, into the American Presidency. In fact, even Before he won the Presidency, this had been his intention, to be a “War President.” Russ Baker, in a 27 October 2004 article, “Bush Wanted to Invade Iraq if Elected in 2000”, wrote “‘He was Thinking about Invading Iraq in 1999,’ said author and journalist [Bush’s ghostwriter] Mickey Herskowitz. ‘It was On his Mind. He Said to me “One of the Keys to Being Seen as A Great Leader is to Be Seen as A Commander in Chief.” And he said, “My Father had All this Political Capital Built Up when he Drove the Iraqis Out of Kuwait and he Wasted It.” He said, “If I have A Chance to Invade (…) if I had that Much Capital [which is what the 9/11 attacks Did give him], I’m Not Going to Waste It. I’m Going to Get Everything Passed that I Want to Get Passed, and I’m Going to Have A Successful Presidency”.’ ” Almost immediately after Bush invaded Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks, he switched his focus to finishing the job with Saddam Hussein that his father had, so, apparently, thought Bush Jr, left ‘Unfinished’. And he was correct about the American public, his job-approval soared to 90% on 21 – 22 September 2001, due to the 9/11 attacks, he had just given his war address to a joint session of Congress on 20 September 2001 and announced then the invasion of Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and kill all of them. “The Terrorists’ Directive Commands them to Kill Christians and Jews, to Kill All Americans, and Make No Distinction among Military and Civilians, Including Women and Children’,  and That was his “Political Capital.” He quickly began to Spend it on Iraq, but he announced that this would be a war against Muslims everywhere who hate “All Americans.” Immediately, America’s Muslims became targeted by Americans. Bush aimed to build and exploit that majoritarian American fear and hatred against Muslims, in other nations too, starting with Iraq. “This War will Not Be like the War against Iraq A Decade Ago, with A Decisive Liberation of Territory and A Swift Conclusion.  It will Not Look Like the Air War above Kosovo Two Years Ago, where No Ground Troops were Used and Not A Single American was Lost in Combat.”

Furthermore, Linda Bilmes of Harvard noted at 21:00 in that 25 minute video, “We have Spent at Least Two Trillion Dollars to Date in Out of Pocket Money, We have Committed at Least an Additional Two Trillion Dollars to Date in Veterans, Social Security, (…)” resulting from this invasion of Iraq. So:,the US federal debt will be at least $ 4 Trillion higher because of this one evil decision by that President. At least $ 2 Trillion of that has already been spent, in addition to the vastly higher losses to the residents of Iraq. Right now the US federal debt is over $ 33 Trillion. Bush’s invasion of Iraq enriched his friends and produced enormously higher losses than that to the rest of the world. It wasn’t Merely a taking, it was a much more massive Destruction. And it was fueled by that hatred.

That isn’t counting any of the OTHER catastrophes form George W Bush, such as 9/11 itself, the 2008 crash, and his butchery in Hurricane Katrina.

Two individuals did more than anyone else to bring that monstrosity, Bush, into the US White House. One of them was Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court, who on 9 December 2000 halted the recount of the votes in the Florida US Presidential election, a recount that had been ordered on 8 December 2000 by the Florida Supreme Court, and Scalia, having the express authorization to do so from the other 4 Republicans on that Court, did it because, Scalia said, “The Petitioner has A Substantial Probability of Success.” That “Petitioner” was George W Bush, and that “Success” referred to the result that Scalia was Already Calling, and Pre Determining to Be as, Bush’s victory against Al Gore in the State of Florida. So, the five Republican ‘Justices’, who were Led in this matter by Scalia, effectively Made Bush the winner of the 2000 Presidential contest. They were careful, however, to say that this ruling must Not be cited as a precedent in any Future case before the US Supreme Court, it was a ruling ONLY in order to hand the ‘Victory’ to Bush against Gore, nothing else. That statement by the Court was a tacit acknowledgment of this being a political, instead of legal, ruling. It was traitorism.

But would Gore have been any better than Bush? Ralph Nader had been the third party candidate whose participation in that contest was a campaign against, and extremely critical of, the Democratic Party’s candidate, Al Gore. Nader was far more critical against Gore than against Bush. In fact, much of Nader’s campaign was funded by Bush mega donors. None of it was funded by Gore mega donors. Nader’s campaign succeeded, it sucked away from Gore more than enough voters in Florida so as to Enable that State to go into a recount, and it took more than enough votes in New Hampshire away from Gore to throw that State’s victory outright, which would Otherwise Have Gone to Gore to Bush. So, Nader made Bush the President though he lied to say he wasn’t aiming to be the “Spoiler” but instead the victor, which was way out of reach for him, and he knew this, in the contest. He got under 3% but that was enough to throw the contest to Bush, especially because in the closing weeks he was campaigning only in the toss up States, just like a spoiler candidate Would. Incidentally, RFK Jr is not another Nader, he already scores around 20% in the polls, and both of his competitors might easily sink. Unlike Nader, RFK is in the contest to win it, NOT to spoil it for one of the other contestants.

Of course, Gore dropped out of politics after Scalia, with the assistance of the Court’s four other Republicans, made Bush the President. However, not long after Bush, on 7 September 2002, essentially started his campaign to get Congressional authorization to invade Iraq, Gore re entered the public sphere for just one day, on 23 September 2002, in order to deliver to the Commonwealth Club of California a detailed speech arguing why Congress should NOT grant Bush that authorization. You can read Gore’s speech here. It is entirely truthful. Unfortunately, even He had not yet gotten word that the IAEA had Denied that there was any such “New Report”, but, even so, Gore’s speech hit all of the Other major reasons why Congress should say no to this. It was Gore’s farewell speech to politics. He didn’t wait until the catastrophe was done and then condemn it, he spoke very soon after Bush made clear that Bush was determined to invade Iraq. And this was well in advance of the fateful Congressional vote to authorize the invasion, a vote in favor of invading, which favor both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton helped to lead on the Democratic Party side. That’s at least $ 4 Trillion which Gore as President would have Saved future Americans, not to mention all the rest of Bush’s destruction at home, and Especially abroad.

On 22 January 2018, CNN headlined “George W Bush’s Favorable Rating has Pulled A Complete 180” and reported,

George W Bush has turned his unpopularity upside down.

Six in 10 Americans, 61%, say they now have a favorable view of the 43rd President of the United States in the latest CNN poll conducted by SSRS, nearly double the 33% who gave him a favorable mark when he left The White House in January 2009.

His mark is lower than Barack Obama’s 66% favorable rating in the same poll, but significantly higher than the 40% favorable rating for President Donald Trump.

Most of Bush’s climb back to popularity came from Democrats and independents. His favorability mark among Democrats has soared from only 11% in February 2009 to a majority 54% now.

In fact, Bush holds a majority favorable rating among every demographic group but liberals, including strong Democratic groups like non whites and people under 35 years old.

When it comes to Republicans, his marks are virtually the same as they were immediately after he left office. His favorability climbed from 76% among Republicans a month after he left office to 88% in a 2015 poll from CNN | ORC. but it’s fallen back down to 76% in the Trump era.

Despite the climb overall, Republican disapproval of the former president has tripled from 7% to 21% since 2015.

If this is the way that today’s Americans treat a traitorous monster in The White House, then how would they treat a truly great President, an authentic patriot, such as Abraham Lincoln or FDR, today?

Please note, however, that I am here Not presenting any case that Bush wasn’t perhaps the best US President so far in this Century, but ONLY that he was a traitorous monster when he Was the US President. As to whether he was the worst, and maybe the worst ever, perhaps the best argument for that would be that none of his successors has pointed out both that Bush Was a monster, and what Bush did that made him Be such. Unless and until we have a President who will Do that, condemn and explain the evilness of neo conservatism, America will probably Continue to have traitors in The White House. And doing that would require real leadership, rather than what has been following after Bush, which is mainly followership, a continuation of his neo conservatism. That followership is leading only yet Further into hell. It could lead to WIII. In order to reverse that, a good revolution might be required. But could a bad revolution make things even worse than continuing on the present path would? Bush’s traitorism brings that question to the front now.

¶

Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL, Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to US and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘News’ media but the social ‘Sciences’, duping the public.
Eric Zuesse blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/.

https://theduran.com/how-george-w-bush-embodied-pure-evil-in-the-u-s-white-house/

Meer informatie
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=Eric+Zuesse
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=The+Duran
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=George+W+Bush
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=George+Walker+Bush