Musharraf’s Forced Exit and America’s Docility: A Comparative Analysis

Musharraf’s Forced Exit and America’s Docility: A Comparative Analysis
By © Amechi Okolo, PhD.

Musharraf's forced exit is great. It shows the tenacity and the commitment of Pakistanis to freedom and democracy – something Americans are unable to do. Bush has done far worse things to America and the world than Musharraf ever did or could ever do, yet Pakistanis became so annoyed, agitated and dissatisfied with him that they bound together to get him out, in spite of all the great odds against them. Musharraf had the solid backing of the American fascist government, and thus the backing of other western governments in addition to the solid support of the “all-powerful” Pakistani Army, which is funded and controlled by the US, yet his presidency could not be saved. The Pakistani people, therefore deserve hi-5s from all lovers of democracy because they pulled-off a deed that the American government worked very hard to prevent and all American pundits predicted impossible because the “all-powerful” Pakistani army would prevent it and/or that Musharraf would disband the Parliament before they would impeach him just as he disbanded the Supreme Court before they could rule his presidency illegitimate.

Bush has committed all the crimes with callousness and far greater negative consequences in America and the world than Musharraf or any other person could ever do, yet Americans are scarred to even think of or talk of impeaching him. In America here, in spite of our high voltage and deafening shouts of “freedom, equality and democracy,” we still exist in the medieval ages when the operating mantra was based on the principle of “the divine rights of the king” which holds that “the king does no wrong.” This is the only principle that will allow people who have seen, lived and observed Bush’s monumental crimes against America and the world to do nothing but hope and pray for January 20, 2009 when he would triumphantly leave the White House for Crawford, Texas in a victory train. In 2006, American voted in a Democratic majority in the Congress precisely to stop Iraq war and impeach Bush, yet Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have remained so afraid of Bush to do anything. Shame on the Democratic Party for their timidity and for being scarred of Bush. I wish that Cindy Sheehan defeats Pelosi in the coming 2009 election for her poor and cowardly leadership of the Democrats. To the best of my knowledge, only Vincent Bugliosi of Charles Manson fame and a few others, have openly called for Bush’s impeachment. Bugliosi just published a book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, where he laid out his case against Bush. In the, “Acknowledgements” for the book, Bugliosi wrote, “Although America is supposedly a free country, with freedom of speech and expression being our most cherished constitutional right, a considerable number of establishment people in this country -- including many of the biggest and most powerful publishing houses in America – made it clear that even though they completely agree with what I was saying in the book and recognized its potential in the market place, the book was something they did not want to have their name connected with. (Two law professors, liberal at that, were afraid, even to look at the book)”

Vincent Bugliosi’s book finally became available only when one very courageous American stepped up to published it. He wrote, “Out of this miasma of fear emerged a man, Roger Cooper, the publisher of this book, who loved America enough and had enough courage to step up to the plate and say, ‘No matter what, if America is ever to become the nation it once was, this story has to be told’.” The truth is that Americans are so scarred and mortified of Bush that it is a joke to call this country free and a democracy. The highest we have resorted to now, is to hope and pray for January 20, 2009 when Bush’s tenure will end. Some even think that the few of us who have the “temerity and the audacity” to openly call for Bush’s impeachment and trial as nuts, jokers, unpatriotic, angry, etc – without ever bothering to even consider our points and facts. I happen to think that as horrendous, monumental, unpatriotic, unprecedented and horrible as Bush crimes are, it would be the worst blight on modern America if we do nothing and let him walk away free at the end of his tenure. Meanwhile, I urge every true, concerned and patriotic American to read Bugliosi’s book.

My Reaction to the Article On Felon Disenfranchisement

My Reaction to the Article On Felon Disenfranchisement
By

Professor Amechi Okolo, PhD.

The Washingtom Post article of Monday, August 11, 2008 by Krissah Thompson on felon disenfranchisement is timely and demands urgent and detailed debates in the country. I am however, disappointed that the two major parties are not involved and do not have a position on such an important issue. This is one reason many people believe that US is a plutocracy and that its “democratic” elections are fake and facades. It is completely understandable that a democratic society would have people who think that felons should retain their rights to vote as well as those who do not think so. It is such issues that elections are made for and should be one of the major topics that should divide political parties and their candidates.

The tragedy of American “democracy” is that major issues are never discussed in our “elections” and that major candidates avoid discussing them. I think that journalists should force McCain and Obama to take definite positions on felon disenfranchisement. If Democrats favor giving felons back their votes, Obama should announce it and incorporate it in the party programs. This means that I do not think that it is smart for Obama to avoid the topic as he now does. And this is why some of us who are inclined to support the Democrats are not enthusiastic and might vote Green Party because Democrats are always too timid to take a position on major issues; and Obama who is supposed to be a change candidate is not different. If Republicans had wanted felons to vote they would have promoted the cause, which is why I like them because I like people who say what they believe and not those who play politics with issues. For example, Bush and Republicans believe in banning gay marriage and they are vocal about it. So Obama and the Democrats should push for felon re-enfranchisement. It is not smart politics to avoid important sensitive issues as Obama and some Democrats think. It is timidity and idiocy.

On Bush, The Press and Beijing Olympics: Self-Denial and Self-Deceit

On Bush, The Press and Beijing Olympics: Self-Denial and Self-Deceit!
By © Professor Amechi Okolo, Ph.D.

The New York Times, August, 4, 2008, article that seeks Bush to pressure China on Human Rights is misguided, delusional and boarders on self-denial. Bush does not need to pressure anyone on Human Rights and social justice. His own records on legality, civility, democracy and human rights are horrible, shameful and disgraceful. Therefore he has zero credibility to pressure China or anyone to obey or adopt human rights and social justice policies. New York Times will therefore, be doing America and the world lots of good by condemning Bush for his records and pressuring him to change instead of vice versa. So, they please stop deceiving yourselves and stop making us a laughing stock of the world when media present Bush as the global hope for peace, democracy and civility, when he is actually the, "cannibal and the dark side" of the twenty-first century. New York Times must get real. Bush must be laughing himself to drunkenness when he hears American media ask him to pressure other countries or other world leaders to become civil.

Actually, Bush is the worst human being, certainly, the worst president to ever grab and seize the American White House. I cannot think of any other American president who can rival Bush in his profligacy. Read the book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Republic Has Defied the Law by Marjorie Cohn for a good start on Bushes various outrages[1].

I really do not believe Bush has any morals at all. I believe he is a sadist and is completely amoral[2]. When I look at him, I only see the face of evil. Bush is a total evil. He has no conscience and no feelings for America, for Iraqis and for most Americans. All he cares for are himself and small circle of friends and accomplices – oil companies, military industries and their contractors, and the rich.

During the election campaign of 2000, Ralph Nader said, that “Bush was a business masquerading as a human being.” Everything Bush has done since his coup to the White House only confirm the wisdom and accuracy of Nader’s statement.

Also, when Bush was nominate by the Republican Party to run for president in 2000, Ron Reagan, President Reagan’s son called him, “the worst qualified person ever nominated by a major political party to run for president”. He continued, “What have been his achievements in life so far?” Mr. Reagan asked, “Nothing, except that at forty, he has seized to become a drunk.”

Again, remember that Ralph Nader and Ron Reagan were reacting to Bush’s presidential nomination and he had not become the president then. So, W. Bush’s imbecility was clearly well known even before he was foisted on us, and his records since then only confirm what people knew and said at the time, hence I am surprised that New York Times will be asking, pressuring, treating or expecting Bush to do otherwise. It is part of the idiocy, self-denial or pathetic docility of the American mind that they should be writing of Bush as if he were a respectable world leader forgetting that he stole his “elections” in the most brazen shameful ways and have also acted in the most murderous licentious ways in office[3].

Bush is therefore nothing other than a rogue president, a sadist and war criminal with complete disregard for American and international laws and morality. This means that New York Times insults our intelligence when they write about Bush as if he is a normal human being or our regular president. No he is not! They also insult their own intelligence when they write that way because they know the truth very well.

The worst American tragedy is that there is nothing I said here, which New York Times does not know. For example, their clear and elegant, August 7, 2008 editorial objecting to the trial and conviction of bin Laden’s driver make my point. They wrote:
The court designed by the White House and its Congressional enablers to guarantee convictions of high-profile detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — using evidence obtained by torture and secret evidence as desired — has held its first trial. It produced ... a guilty verdict. The military commission of six senior officers (whose names have not been made public) found Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who worked as one of Osama bin Laden’s drivers until 2001, guilty of one count of providing material support for terrorism. The rules of justice on Guantánamo are so stacked against defendants that the only surprise was that Mr. Hamdan was actually acquitted on the more serious count of conspiring (it was unclear with whom) to kill Americans during the invasion of Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001. The charge on which Mr. Hamdan was convicted seemed logical since he did work as Mr. bin Laden’s driver. But it was still an odd prosecution. Drivers of even the most heinous people are generally not charged with war crimes. It is impossible, in any case, to judge the evidence against Mr. Hamdan because of the deeply flawed nature of this trial — the blueprint for which was the Military Commissions Act of 2006, one of the worst bits of lawmaking in American history. At these trials, hearsay and secret documents are admissible. Mr. Hamdan’s defense was actually required to begin its case in a secret session. The witness was a camp psychologist, presumably called to back Mr. Hamdan’s account of being abused by his interrogators. Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor in Guantánamo, put the trial in a disturbing light. He testified that he was informed by his superiors that only guilty verdicts would be tolerated. He also said that he was told to bring high-profile cases quickly to help Republicans score a pre-election public relations coup.
Colonel Davis gave up his position on Oct. 4, 2007, which was the day he wrote a letter to The Los Angeles Times:

He “concluded that full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system.” In his article, Colonel Davis described a highly politicized system in which people who were supposed to be neutral decision-makers were allied with the prosecutors. According to Colonel Davis, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pushed out a fair-minded “convening authority” — the official who decides which cases go to trial, which charges will be heard and who serves on the jury. That straight-shooting administrator was replaced by Susan Crawford who, Colonel Davis said, assessed evidence before charges were filed, directed the prosecution’s preparation and even drafted charges. This “intermingling” of “convening authority and prosecutor roles,” Colonel Davis argued, “perpetuates the perception of a rigged process.” Colonel Davis said the final straw for him was when he was placed under the command of William J. Haynes, the Defense Department’s general counsel. Colonel Davis had instructed prosecutors not to offer evidence obtained through the torture technique known as waterboarding. Mr. Haynes helped draft the orders permitting acts, like waterboarding, that violate American laws and the Geneva Conventions. We are not arguing that the United States should condone terrorism or those who support it, or that the guilty should not be punished severely. But in a democracy, trials must be governed by fair rules, and judges must be guided by the law and the evidence, not pressure from the government. The military commission system, which falls far short of these standards, is a stain on the United States.[1] (Emphasis mine)

The above New York Times editorial said it all, and I cannot say it better than them. They surmised the facts as follows – that Bush set up a kangaroo court to try Ahmed Hamdan and found him guilty as pre-planned, and that the whole exercise is not democracy and a “stain on the United States.”

On a serious note, do drivers really know what their bosses do? Do Bush drivers now know what he does? When Bush will be tried for his war crimes, will his drivers also be tried?

Vincent Bugliosi, of Charles Manson fame, has just published a very indicting book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder and he did not indict or presume or suggest that Bush drivers will also be indicted. It has always been assumed that drivers are just doing their yeoman’s job because bosses do not discuss policies and operations with their drivers. It was on this sensible principle that Hitler’s drivers were not tried. So the very trial of Ahmed Hamdan is a fundamental violation of international law, principles and practice.
Hence for New York Times, to ask Bush whom they determined “a stain on the United States” to represent the values of the United States is a contradiction in terms. It only shows that New York Times is a hoax itself, an enabler and accomplice to Bush’s transgressions, and is not serious about what it writes.

This is why nobody will listen to Bush because they know that he is a hoax, a criminal, a violator of American and international laws and “a stain on the United States.” I will, therefore urge New York Times to be consistent and honest to themselves. Instead of now pressuring Bush to pressure others to behave well, they should spike the pressure for Bush to be impeached for his multiple crimes against America, Iraqis, Afghans and the world.
[1] Read, “Guilty as Ordered,” New York Times Editorial, August 7, 2008.

[1] Read, Marjorie Cohn, Cowboy Republic: six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law (Sausalito, CA: PoliPort Press, 2007), passim.
[2] Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (New York: Vanguard Press, 2008), passim.
[3] Read the following to understand that Bush stole our presidency: Greg Palast, The Best Democracy that Money Can Buy, (New York: Penguin, 2004); Alan Dershovitz, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) and Vincent Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President (New York: Avalon Press, 2001).