- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It's kind of a moot point about Bush at this point. We all know he's a total piece of crap as a human being. The real criticism should be directed at our ruling elite: the political "establishment," the news media, and the corporate power structure.
Somehow it was acceptable to have a completely worthless human being for president of the "United States." A military deserter, insider trader, drug and alcohol addict, who took pleasure in executions.
Not only was this acceptable, but it was preferred. Bush was not elected. The political elite, in the form of the U.S. Supreme Court, deposited him in office. Indeed, during the Bush era, criminality was the modus operandi for the political and corporate elite. The same corporate elite, I might add, that is now lining up for "bailouts."
Nothing has been learned from this. Lawrence Eagleburger, Secretary of State under Bush I, was asked during the fall campaign if Sarah Palin was qualified to be president. He answered "Not yet. But she will be." No standards. "Republicans" are almost universally criminal.
John McCain ran what was essentially a lying, fear-mongering, demagogic campaign for president. As such, that makes him a criminal. Good riddance.
The only question about Bush should be which court jurisdiction he should be remanded to - the Hague or the Federal system. I think both would be appropriate. Federal for treason, criminal negligence, lying the country into war, crony contract awards, and corruption of the justice system; the Hague for war crimes, kidnapping, torture, and murder. He could serve his several lifetimes of sentences concurrently. He should be made to work. Hard labor, I think it's called.
