What Bush Should Say, Still

Wrote this piece in December of 2005, the night before Bush gave an oval office address as I recall. Been known to make people cry.

Pre-script of Bush's Oval Office Address Tonight: "Please Forgive Me"
Oval Office, the White House

9:01 P.M. EST, Dec. 18, 2005

My fellow citizens -- and fellow citizens of the world -- tonight I want to speak to you from my heart about the war in Iraq and the direction of my presidency.

The last time I spoke to you from this room, I told you that I had ordered the invasion of Iraq. I said it was about disarmament; it wasn't. I said I was doing it for your security; I wasn't. I said we had no designs on Iraq and simply wanted freedom for the Iraqi people; that was false. I also told you I attempted to avoid war -- that was perhaps the biggest lie.

The situation in Iraq is dire. We have cynically played factions off against each other. Our troops are killing Iraqis on a regular basis, terrorists which now operate in Iraq are killing innocents wantonly. The way we conducted ourselves has inflamed the most fanatic elements in the region. Apparently one of those groups has abducted members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams and now threatens to kill them.

My administration methodically drove toward an illegal war. We did this for our vanity, because the institutions which support us wanted it that way and those that claim they were opposed to that course didn't do what was needed to stop us. We've lied at virtually every turn before the invasion and we've lied since to keep up the rationale and to position ourselves to dominate the region. We have used the rhetoric of democracy, as with the recent vote in Iraq, to mask our true intentions and give Iraq a veneer of democracy and sovereignty while we have laid our plans for domination as we build 14 permanent military bases there. I want to let go of those plans and help in whatever way I can to ensure authentic democracy in Iraq -- and around the world. Our current course is fueling resentment and it is only a matter of time when the U.S. will be attacked in a manner even worse than 9-11.

Many did criticize my policies, but in the cocoon that is this office, all I heard were partisan and personal attacks, and all that did was harden my heart even more. The Democrats who engaged in similar deceptions about Iraqi WMDs in the Clinton administration and in today's Congress made all I did easier, not harder.

It was my recently learning of the work of the Christian Peacemaker Teams and the members now held hostage in Iraq that set me on a journey. I privately found out about their work after they were abducted. Their web page asks "What would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and self-sacrifice to nonviolent peacemaking that armies devote to war?" People proclaiming any faith or ethical structure can ask themselves such questions.

And these people have made an effort to do that. They have bravely gone to Iraqi neighborhoods, knowing full well that -- largely because of our governmental policies -- they may be resented and be in grave danger. They have lovingly talked and broken bread with Iraqis. More than talked, they documented the testimony of Iraqis about the torture going on in the prisons we run there. They did this even before many of you saw the horrible pictures from Abu Ghraib.

The group Swords of Righteousness says it will kill these good people unless all prisoners are released from Guantanamo and from Iraqi prisons. I cannot do that, but I can now say that all Guantanamo detainees will quickly either have charges put up against them and be tried in a constitutional manner -- or they will be freed; the same for all prisoners in Iraq.

If you are truly Swords of Righousness, and your criminal act was misdirected but your intentions just, you will now release the members of the Christian Peacemaker Team -- Tom Fox, Harmeet Sooden, Norman Kember, and James Loney. Upon their release, given the work that they have selflessly done, I fully expect that it is they who will be greeted with flowers and sweets in the streets of Baghdad. They will certainly be greeted with warmth and love here whenever they decide to visit me.

I am ordering our military command to withdraw all troops from Iraq within six months. This will include military contractors and will be done in an orderly manner. I request international peacekeepers from other nations with no major interests in Iraq to help the Iraqi people whom we have so damaged. I pray the families of those Iraqis killed -- and the number of such people likely far exceeds the 30,000 I claimed recently -- will forgive me for what I have done, and will now embrace what I am doing. We will pay compensation as a small token of our regret to the Iraqis killed in this war we have started. [Bush weeps, but continues with the address.]

I pray that the families of the soldiers who bravely went to fight a war they thought was just will please forgive me. I will attend as many funerals of U.S. service people as I possibly can and will do whatever I can to help put together shattered lives. I hope my actions will bring near the day when I can be accepted in Iraq so I can visit with Iraqis who have lost loved ones as a result of my actions and apologize in person. [Bush wipes his tears.]

My taking this course should not have rested on my spiritual journey; Congress should have stopped me from violating the Constitution and its War Powers clause; it did not. The United Nations should have stopped our nation from violating the UN Charter; it did not. The major media outlets should have exposed our lies; instead they amplified them. And you, the public at large, should have arisen in revulsion in a sustained manner. You did not. We must all change radically.

I believe that I have committed crimes; but I do now have sovereign immunity. I will now use that to redress wrongs I have done. I fully accept responsibility for what I have done and will accept the ruling of a legitimate legal authority when my term as president ends.

The best way to stop the insurgency now is to speak the truth and to listen, to change our policies when they are unjust, and they have been unjust long before 9-11, and to lovingly criticize others in legitimate ways. And that is what I am doing. Up until now, I have used fear to bully people into going along with war for illegitimate goals.

I am asking for the resignations of Vice President Cheney and of my entire cabinet; none of them expected to hear this speech tonight. I wish them the best, but I believe I need a new cabinet to do what we must do. Many people who are unwilling to grow, embrace and change will likely viciously attack what I am saying tonight; this does not mean I don't welcome criticism. But I know how it works, it's when a person or group stands for what is right that illegitimate power strikes against them; indeed I know all too well how it works.

To those of you who have been right, and have criticized me for reasons of principle: I ask for your forgiveness and hope you will now work with me to truly build a better world. To those of you who have been wrong as I have been wrong: I ask that you now change and grow with me. To those of you who have backed Bin Ladin and his crimes: I ask that you now also radically change as we together overcome our worst demons and embrace each others' -- and everyones' -- humanity.

Goodnight and may God bless all Humanity.

9:12 P.M. EST

This text was pre-scribed by Sam Husseini.

Helen Thomas on The Real News

Interesting, almost tough, interview. At the end -- I hadn't known this:

PAUL JAY: And a few days after you resigned, there was a poll taken in The Washington Post asking whether Helen Thomas should get her seat back in the White House press room, and apparently 92 percent of the people said yes, Helen should get her seat back.


One additional question for those who demanded Helen Thomas' head: Are people actually scarred that if European Jews go back en mass from the Occupied Territories and/or Israel to Germany and Poland and such that they will end up being rounded up into concentration camps? Is liberal democracy in Europe really that frail in 2010?

(Maybe it is -- I remember being hit by it all when I went to Germany several years ago -- this is where it happened I thought when the plane landed. Perhaps that reaction was a testament to my lack of knowledge of post-war Germany. Still, it was an eerie feeling the whole time I was there. Especially when I saw older people, I felt like going up to them and berating them: "What they hell were you doing?" -- "What they heck were you thinking?" Which takes my mind to thoughts of Lisa Kalvelage -- and why in the world Palestinians should be oppressed.)

I Question Rand Paul and Rep. Mike Pence

Reviving Washington Stakeout -- yesterday I questioned Rand Paul on executive power. He said that we need a debate on war and war powers, saying that Congress had abdicated it's constitutional role:

Also questioned Rep. Mike Pence. I asked if he knew that Israel had nuclear weapons, he said Israel is our most cherished ally; I asked if it didn't hurt U.S. credibility that government officials couldn't acknowledge Israel has a massive nuclear arsenal, he said Israel is our most cherished ally.

Mike Pence Avoids Israel Nuke Question, Aneurysm


Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is rumored to be looking at a 2012 presidential run. He’s on the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

I asked Pence: “Do you know that Israel has nuclear weapons?”

After a long pause, Pence said: “I’m aware that Israel is our most cherished ally….”

I followed up: “Do you think it increases or decreases U.S. credibility around the world when U.S. government officials can’t even acknowledge that Israel has a massive nuclear arsenal?”

Pence: “The American people support Israel. I call Israel our most cherished ally….”

So Pence refuses to acknowledge the empirical fact of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, he’s not alone. Stakeout also asked this question of John Edwards and then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who also tried to dodge it. Helen Thomas asked a similar question of Obama at his first news conference. One of the few politicos to answer that question in a remotely straightforward manner was Russ Feingold.

[originally published on Washington Stakeout on Nov. 7, 2010; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]

Rand Paul Calls for Debate on War and Presidential Power


Responding to Washington Stakeout, Senator-Elect Rand Paul said today that there needs to be a national debate on Afghanistan, that Congress has abdicated its role and that U.S. actions today should not be based on the debate ten years ago or the resolution of ten years ago. During his interview with ABC, just before being questioned by Stakeout, Paul call for cutting the military budget as well as other federal programs.

Paul calls himself a “conservative constitutionalist” and said he wants a war declaration vote rather than a use of force resolution generally. Still he seemed to stop short of calling the current situation unconstitutional, or saying exactly how he thinks it should be rectified. Article 1, Section 8 of course says that Congress has the power “to declare war”.

Transcript:

Question: Senator-Elect, are there examples where Bush exceeded proper limits of executive power in the “War on Terror,” and is Obama doing the same now?

Paul: Well, I think that I would like to see when we go to war that we declare war formally, and I think we should go to war reluctantly, and I think we do as Americans believe in a certain reluctance towards going to war, but I think when we had a use of force resolution instead of a declaration of war resolution, that lessened the debate somehow, and I think it needs to be elevated to an incredibly important plateau in order to discuss it. So I will argue that when we go into hostilities, we declare war formally and we don’t do it with a use of force resolution.

Question: So do you think that that precludes doing something about Afghanistan to rectify that, I guess what you would say, unconstitutional status?

Paul: No, I think — well no, I think what we need to figure out is where to go forward in Afghanistan. We need to have a national debate and say, is our national security still threatened? I don’t think it’s enough to have had the debate ten years ago, and just accept that that’s the same ongoing — the situation hasn’t changed. We’ve been there for ten years, and I think Congress has abdicated its role. Congress needs to have more of a role in talking about foreign policy. So there needs to be a debate within the Senate and the House, over what is in our national security interest and has it changed in Afghanistan? Can we do nation-building? Do we have the money to do nation-building? Is it effective? Those are things that should be discussed and should not be all based on a resolution from over ten years ago.

Question: Beyond the discussion that needs to happen, what’s your position, in terms of, are we in violation of the Constitution? How do you rectify that? And also in terms of Yemen and Pakistan now?

Paul: I think we need to have a debate over it, at the very least, is we need to begin to debate. I don’t think we’re even having the debate. So I think it’s a step forward to have the debate.

(Paul also addressed the military budget. While on with Christiane Amanpour, he said: “Republicans never say they’ll cut anything out of military. What I say is, national defense is the most important thing we do in Washington, but there’s still waste in the military budget. You have to make it smaller, but you also then need to address, how many wars are we going to be involved in? Are we going to be involved in every war all the time?”Transcript)

Special thanks to Glenn Greenwald (who suggested the opening question), Robert Naiman and Jonathan Schwarz.

[originally published on Washington Stakeout on Nov. 7, 2010; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]