OPINION

Is the Bushites' Day of Reckoning at Hand?

Written by Natalie Davis
Published October 26, 2005
page 1 | 2

And how about Bush Administration moves to squash dissent? Peace activists found themselves on terrorist-watch and no-fly lists for daring to express disagreement with Bush's invasion. Former ambassador Joseph Wilson traveled to Niger and found that the administration's claim that the Iraq government procured WMDs there was a load of tripe. Wilson's reward? Someone leaked the news that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was working undercover for the CIA.

When word of a possibly illegal leak of classified information emerged, the Bush Gang offered little more than evasions, alleged obstructions of justice, and reported lies.

So it appears that for George Bush and his henchpersons, what goes around may be coming around. Finally, those who warned against electing this man and cautioned against his "war" may see a little justice. It is only right: If lies were told, those who told them — including Dubya — must be punished. If crimes were committed, the perpetrators must pay. And the Commander in Thief must be held accountable for his misdeeds, including leading more than 27,000 humans to their deaths in his pursuit of greed, power, and revenge.

As Bush learned too late in the wake of the devastating Hurricane Katrina, the buck is supposed to stop with him. That would be only fair: He wanted to be president. He and his cohorts were determined to rain violence upon Iraq. And whatever it took to achieve that — convincing a gullible public and Congress to go along with the plan, alienating much of the world, punishing dissenters for exercising their First Amendment rights — he was willing to do. Well, now it is long past time for him to get his just desserts.

If the Miers nomination goes down to defeat and if those involved in the Plame affair ultimately are indicted, it could signal the start. If the White House ends up dodging these bullets, the piper's payment will have to be deferred. But eventually, Bush must be held accountable for his reckless, costly actions, for his insufferable hubris, and for the hell he has caused. The American people deserve nothing less.

The announcement of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's findings, which may come as soon as Thursday, could start the ball rolling. Let's hope justice is served.

from all facts and opinions

page 1 | 2
Natalie Davis is an award-winning journalist, progressive- and GLBT-issues activist, musician and broadcaster. Davis' All Facts and Opinions - The Armchair Activist has existed since 1996. She is general manager and program/music director of Grateful Dread Radio, an 11-year-old multigenre Internet station dedicated to presenting diverse sounds for open minds.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Is the Bushites' Day of Reckoning at Hand?
Published: October 26, 2005
Type: Opinion
Section: Politics
Writer: Natalie Davis
Natalie Davis's BC Writer page
Natalie Davis's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Natalie Davis
All Politics Articles
Natalie Davis's personal weblog
All Opinion articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — October 26, 2005 @ 06:33AM — Cunning Linguist

Karma?

So when are the Clintons going to be punished for all the bad things they have done Natalie?

#2 — October 26, 2005 @ 09:13AM — Liberal

If you mean balancing the budget, reducing the size of the Federal government and reducing the welfare rolls, I think you're right.

We should ignore the possible criminal conspiracy to defraud the American people into supporting an unjustified war that has killed nearly 30,000 people and investigate...no wait...that doesn't make any sense.

Hmm, as much as I try to agree with Republicans, I can't. They just don't never make any sense.

#3 — October 26, 2005 @ 09:18AM — Dave Nalle [URL]

I just have to point out that Reagan had people indicted by the bucketful and it didn't slow him down one bit, or make him any less loved or popular as a leader.

dave

#4 — October 26, 2005 @ 09:21AM — Liberal

I just have to point out that Reagan thought that trees cause air pollution.

#5 — October 26, 2005 @ 09:23AM — Dave Nalle [URL]

They do, because they attract loggers and the loggers chainsaws burn gas. See, it's just a logical chain of events. Just like roads cause pollution because they attract cars.

Dave

#6 — October 26, 2005 @ 09:26AM — Liberal

"Suicidal Trees!" Film at eleven!

#7 — October 26, 2005 @ 09:35AM — Nancy

Bloody Bush! Finally someone else saying what I have been since the inception of this maggot's administration: he has American blood on his hands, and their deaths on his head. 2,000 Americans are dead for the noble cause of Smirk's ego: he wanted to be a War President, just like Poppy. And Cheney, Rumsfield, Rove, Libby, & the rest of the neocons were only too happy to help him do it.

God damn them all to the deepest levels of Hell for eternity - as Dante had it, the traitors' level.

#8 — October 26, 2005 @ 09:36AM — Natalie Davis [URL]

Mr./Ms. Linguist, I hope it is soon. Being accountable for misdeeds is something that is inevitable for everyone, not just the Bush junta.

#9 — October 26, 2005 @ 09:57AM — Natalie Davis [URL]

Oh -- and to defuse any erroneous suppositions right up front -- I supported the impeachment of Clinton.

#10 — October 26, 2005 @ 10:03AM — Natalie Davis [URL]

Mr. Nalle, you make a good point. Indictments do not equal convictions. The difference here is that Shrubbie isn't quite so popular, and as more people internalize the depths of his sins, he could become less so.

#11 — October 26, 2005 @ 10:26AM — Maurice

'You may be a Cunning Linguist but I'm a Master Debater'

I think it is interesting that people on the sidelines are so anxious to declare public figures guilty before being sentenced and in this case guilty before being indicted.

Think of the people that were convinced Reagan was guilty in IranContra. Think of the people that were convinced Clinton was going to jail for Whitewater.

How about if we wait before we convict?

#12 — October 26, 2005 @ 10:30AM — Aaman [URL]

It's all just bread and circuses

#13 — October 26, 2005 @ 10:38AM — phil

Nancy, those who side with the terrorists, are terrorists!

#14 — October 26, 2005 @ 10:41AM — Nancy

Bullshit! Another lame attempt to demonize those that disagree w/Bloody Bush. Some of us at least are already aware of that tactic & have read Goering. Nice try, fool.

#15 — October 26, 2005 @ 10:46AM — Maurice

Don't respond to Nancy. She is a self proclaimed racist and hate monger.

#16 — October 26, 2005 @ 10:52AM — Nancy

Maurice, I explained my error & apologized. I didn't understand the term. I also asked you to please explain, and you haven't bothered, nor have you bothered to respond to my apology. You just keep repeating personal lies. That's your problem, not mine. I'm not grovelling to you.

#17 — October 26, 2005 @ 11:07AM — Maurice

Nancy,

this is my LAST response to you.

I asked you if you were a 'racist and hated religious people'.

You replied 'Goddam right!'

If another post to me you claimed 'everyone is a racist in their own way'.

None of those comments are acceptable.

That is why I say you are a 'self proclaimed racist'.

#18 — October 26, 2005 @ 11:19AM — Natalie Davis [URL]

Mr. Phil, arguably Bloody Bush is the terrorist. Those committed to peace don't side with terrorists on either side of your war.

Mr. Maurice, I wrote that "indicted" does not equal "guilty." Do I believe someone is guilty? Absolutely, but I don't know who.

And guilty people are sometimes acquitted. Can you say OJ?

#19 — October 26, 2005 @ 11:22AM — Nancy

You are intent on continuing to misunderstand & misinterpret comments I have made, along w/further explanations. I made one apology, and you've made it clear you can't/won't accept it. As I said, I won't grovel to YOUR deliberate distortions or misinterpretations any more. I suspect you are severely neurotic & will continue to adversely react to any comment. Nuff said - to you, that is.

#20 — October 26, 2005 @ 11:31AM — steve

maurice, they should oust her from blogcritics! shes a leftist and a racist? thats a bad mix!

#21 — October 26, 2005 @ 11:35AM — Maurice

Natalie,

the tone of your post suggests you are ready to throw out presumption of innocence.

Your reply to me is tame compared to the rhetoric in the original post.

'He must be accountable for what he has wrought'

Wow

#22 — October 26, 2005 @ 11:38AM — steve

Mo, just let it go. there will always be less intelligent, less tolerable people in the world. its just another feminazi. Ive read some of her posts...I agree with you

#23 — October 26, 2005 @ 11:39AM — Natalie Davis [URL]

There is no doubt that the blood of thousands is on his hand. Who instigated the invasion and occupation? Bush. That is the idea to which that statement refers. Plamegate and the grand jury investigation are offshoots from that. We don't know who is guilty of the leak. We don't know if the act was necessarily criminal. But we do know who started the so-called war. And for that, Bush must be held accountable. If Fitzgerald deems there is a case, then those involved with Plamegate -- if proven guilty -- will get theirs.

#24 — October 26, 2005 @ 11:42AM — Natalie Davis [URL]

Oh, Mr. Maurice: If BC purged itself of "racists" and "hatemongers," a lot of people would be gone. You aren't going to like everyone you encounter here. To participate, you have to figure out how to deal with it. If someone really bothers you, the simplest thing to do is to ignore them.

#25 — October 26, 2005 @ 11:47AM — Maurice

Thanks, Steve and Natalie.

I've wished for an 'ignore poster button' because I have been sucked into a discussion too many times when it would have been better for me to not respond.

One last thought. The majority of posters and commenters here make for an enjoyable experience. Don't forget dietdoc.

#26 — October 26, 2005 @ 11:56AM — Natalie Davis [URL]

Mr. Maurice wrote: "The majority of posters and commenters here make for an enjoyable experience."

That statement can be disputed. But yes, sometimes it is better to just say no. Staying away from those individuals I find most horrid and unpleasant has improved my experience greatly, though. It goes get difficult if the list becomes too long, though, I would imagine, so it seems prudent to use that tactic sparingly.

By the way, I should make it clear that I would not consider placing Ms. Nancy on such a list. She and I disagree from time to time, but she strikes me as a well-meaning person. And she's passionate about her views, which I can appreciate. Every now and then all of us can go a bit over the top and say regrettable things. She has apologized, which the truly terrible would never do.

#27 — October 26, 2005 @ 12:00PM — Nancy

Thank you, Ms. Davis, for the benefit of the doubt.

#28 — October 26, 2005 @ 13:54PM — ss

steve says:
'Mo, just let it go. there will always be less intelligent, less tolerable people in the world. its just another feminazi.'

I guess that's who Bush is down to, people who call any woman with an opinion different from their own a 'feminazi'

The only thing more disturbing than the fact that people like this exist in large enough numbers to highjack a major political party, is the fact that the American middle keeps falling for the idea of a tax break that will never have to be repaid, which let's the 'feminazi' crowd run D.C.

#29 — October 26, 2005 @ 14:16PM — Natalie Davis [URL]

Seriously. But look at it this way: A person's use of that F word gives us clear signals about him or her.

#30 — October 26, 2005 @ 14:36PM — tommybass

Hey, schmuks, leave Nancy alone and don't nitpick her statements either. If you don't like free speech then YOU don't belong here.

#31 — October 26, 2005 @ 15:14PM — Dave Nalle [URL]

>>And guilty people are sometimes acquitted.<<

Even more than this, the hard to accept truth is that sometimes there are people who are guilty who SHOULD be acquitted. Not saying that's the case here, but sometimes guilt is outweighed by other considerations.

As for the Plame business, the real concern here should be that the indictments which come down will end up not having anything to do with the actual outing of Plame, but with peoples actions after the fact. That seems like a very real possibility, and it doesn't address the problem if there is one.

Dave

#32 — October 26, 2005 @ 15:19PM — Nancy

Well, it does, tho, in that while it was bad enough someone conspired to "out" Plame (possibly for retaliatory purposes), that anyone being questioned would then lie about it would be even worse. This sort of thing would indeed subvert the entire investigation/grand jury/legal system. So if that's what they end up being indicted for, that's good enough. You don't lie to a grand jury. That some of them obviously did just illustrates the arrogance & contempt for the law rife among neocons.

#33 — October 26, 2005 @ 17:25PM — Maurice

Natalie,

Nancy has never apologized or retracted her claim. Here once again is the conversation I had with her:

Maurice: .. you are a racist and hate religious people?

Nancy: Goddam right!


You will notice that even in this thread she never denies saying this.

The apology she offered was for saying "mighty white of you". I have a hard time believing she had no idea what that comment implied. She only back pedaled once she realized there were 2 black people on the thread.

I make it a point to not play the race card but I don't think it is necessary to be silent when a racist or bigoted comment is made.

#34 — October 27, 2005 @ 09:09AM — Nancy

Maurice, regardless of race, you have amply demonstrated you are a fool & a jerk. IF I were a racist, as Ms. Natalie pointed out, I wouldn't have felt I had to apologize or explain regardless of HOW many blacks were on this thread. And I would have been delighted to have offended & upset you. Take or leave it, your choice, your problem. You don't like what I say, that's just too damned bad. Life is tough, ain't it? I'm not kissing your ass any further, you puerile, whining jackass of whatever color you are.

#35 — October 27, 2005 @ 10:05AM — Georgio

Nancy is one of my favorites and she says it like it is..keep up the good work Nancy..someone has to stand up to these right wing fanatics..

#36 — October 27, 2005 @ 10:16AM — phil

People are fools, jerks, and idiots if they don't agree with Nancy. So what form of fascism do you espose..damn I am glad you are not in charge

#37 — October 27, 2005 @ 11:03AM — Nancy

Well, I guess that puts me in good company with lots of others on this blogsite who can't/won't handle anyone who disagrees with them, now doesn't it?

#38 — October 29, 2005 @ 01:45AM — Silas Kain [URL]

Even more than this, the hard to accept truth is that sometimes there are people who are guilty who SHOULD be acquitted.

Right on, Dave. That is the truth. And those who aren't acquitted should be given a Presidential pardon. I would fully support a conditional Presidential pardon for Libby, Rove and any other White House official provided they come clean and tell us the whole undeniable truth. The spirit of meaness and territorialism has to stop and that may be a good place to start.

#39 — October 31, 2005 @ 13:06PM — Temple A. Stark [URL]

Natalie,

This post was chosen by the section editor as a BC pick of the week. Go HERE (link) to find out why.

And thank you
- Temple

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/38536)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments