Trump And PM Khan Might Have Just Ruined Iranian-Indian Relations

By Andrew Korybko
Source

The American and Pakistani leaders independently took two very important and uncoordinated moves at almost the exact same time that might coincidentally have the same effect of ruining Iranian-Indian relations.

Iranian-Indian relations might be about to enter their worst-ever period in modern history as a result of two very important and uncoordinated moves undertaken at almost the exact same time by the American and Pakistani leaders. PM Khan just paid his first visit to Iran where he and his hosts announced that they’ll enter into a new era of anti-terrorist cooperation that geopolitical analyst Adam Garrie comprehensively analyzed in his recent piece on this breaking news event. The ball was indeed in Iran’s court to stop India’s anti-Pakistani Baloch terrorism like I wrote the other day, and to Tehran’s credit, its leadership finally understood this and decided to expand its military partnership with the global pivot state of Pakistan. This will greatly complicate India’s Hybrid War capabilities in clandestinely using Iranian territory to carry out terrorist attacks against Pakistan by proxy as it obsessively seeks to sabotage CPEC, meaning that PM Khan’s visit will have far-reaching and long-term geostrategic security consequences in the New Cold War.

In parallel with this, Trump decided that the US won’t renew its Iranian oil sanctions waivers and that Washington’s GCC partners of Saudi Arabia and the UAE will help the Islamic Republic’s energy customers replace their imports with Gulf resources instead. India was very vocal last year about its intent to defy the US’ unilateral sanctions against Iran, but as I wrote in my piece at the time about the “Indian Illusion“, all of this was just rhetoric to hide the fact that New Delhi was quietly implementing its new American patron’s will. Trump just put Modi on the spot, however, and it might augur negatively for the Indian leader during the ongoing month-long electoral process if he publicly capitulates to the US’ demands and replaces Iranian resources with Gulf ones like I suspected he’s been planning to do since late last year after his summit in Argentina with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. As such, this American move might also be yet another “bad cop” tactic against Modi to get more strategic concessions out of India.

It therefore wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that Trump and PM Khan might have just ruined Iranian-Indian relations for good when considering the combined effect of their latest moves to that relationship. The Pakistani leader exposed India’s Hybrid War terrorist plot during his talks with the Iranian leadership which probably explains why the two neighboring nations decided to take their military cooperation with one another to the next level, while the American leader is forcing India to stop importing Iranian oil under the threat of potentially crippling “secondary sanctions” and to replace its resources with those from the Islamic Republic’s hated GCC foes. Although Iran and India still have shared strategic interests in the Chabahar Corridor and North-South Transport Corridor, the trust that formerly defined their relations is broken and their ties will never be the same. The end result is beneficial to the US and Pakistan for different reasons and might even interestingly be a tangential outcome of their recent diplomatic cooperationin Afghanistan.

Advertisements

Imperial America: Humanity’s Scourge-Latest Target Venezuela

Imperial America: Humanity’s Scourge

by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.orgHome – Stephen Lendman)

Washington’s criminal class is bipartisan, at war on humanity at home and abroad for world dominance, targeting all sovereign independent governments for regime change – Venezuela in its crosshairs for the last 20 years.

A slow-motion US coup against its democratically elected leadership accelerated with the recognition of a designated puppet as illegitimate president, wanting fascist tyranny replacing governance of, by, and for everyone equitably if the Trump regime’s plan sticks.

On Wednesday, maestro of regime change in Venezuela Mike Pompeo, defiantly said the US “stands with (illegitimate puppet) interim president Juan Guaido” – a designated stooge, a figure representing US imperial interests in Venezuela.

According to Pompeo, the Trump regime “will take appropriate actions to hold accountable anyone who endangers the safety and security of our mission and its personnel.” 

He barely stopped short of declaring war on Venezuela, belligerent intervention surely drafted, readied to be implemented on command if things go this far.

US-appointed UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres operates as an imperial tool, flagrantly violating UN Charter principles and other international law, opposing what demands support, backing what demands condemnation.

He failed to denounce Washington’s coup attempt in Venezuela, a statement on what’s going on through his spokesman, saying:

He’s “concerned (sic) over reports of casualties in the context of demonstrations and unrest in Venezuela and calls for a transparent and independent investigation of these incidents,” adding:

He “urge(d) all actors to lower tensions and pursue every effort to prevent violence and avoid any escalation. What we hope is that dialogue can be possible, and that we avoid an escalation that could lead to the kind of conflict that would be a total disaster for Venezuela.”

He was silent on the Trump regime’s flagrantly unlawful actions against Venezuelan sovereignty and Nicolas Maduro’s legitimacy as president – the latest betrayal of his mandate as UN secretary general, time and again disgracing the office he holds.

According to Russia’s envoy to Venezuela Vladimir Zaemsky, self-proclaimed interim Venezuelan (US designated puppet) president Juan Guaido was under severe pressure both on 5 January, when he was elected (National Assembly) head, and on 10 January, when Nicolas Maduro” was inaugurated. “He was forced to take this step…reluctant to do it, but…was…overpowered” by US dark forces to act.

Everything disruptive in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez’s election and inauguration two decades ago, including current anti-Maduro street protests, was planned and orchestrated by Washington – a longstanding plot to transform the country into another US vassal state.

On Thursday, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza denounced the US coup attempt, saying “(i)t is striking to say that the US government is not behind the coup attempt in Venezuela.” 

“It is AHEAD of it, on the vanguard, without any masks, or pretense. In Washington, they openly designed and executed the plan, giving orders to their governments and satellite actors around the world” to back the coup.

“As the saying goes, you need to know who is the master of the circus. President Maduro yesterday broke off relations with the owner of the circus, with the United States. Satellite governments, submissive governments, are following the instructions of the master.”

Many Latin and Central American regimes, along with others in Britain, France, Germany and elsewhere, saluted and followed orders – like they always do, subordinating their sovereignty to the US, operating like colonies, supporting imperial lawlessness over the rule of law.

On Thursday, Maduro formally severed diplomatic ties with the US, ordering closure of Venezuela’s embassy and consulates in the country, its personnel recalled home.

He denounced the Trump regime’s actions as “a great provocation,” adding “(t)here’s no doubt in the world that it’s…Trump who wants to impose a de facto, unconstitutional government.” 

“It’s a coup in Venezuela against the people and democracy” – orchestrated by Pompeo, likely together with John Bolton, admitting the Trump regime’s goal is for Big Oil to control the country’s oil reserves, the world’s largest, adding:

He, Pompeo, and other regime hardliners are focused on “disconnecting” the legitimate Maduro government “from the source of its revenues” – mainly oil, wanting US designated puppet Guaido controlling them, adding:

“We’re working really around the clock to do what we can to strengthen the” illegitimate regime.

In response to Maduro giving US officials in Venezuela 72 hours to leave the country, after severing diplomatic relations with Washington, Pompeo said they’ll stay, falsely claiming Maduro has no “legal authority to break diplomatic relations with the United States or to declare our diplomats persona non grata.”

At the same time, the State Department ordered non-essential diplomats and staff in Caracas to return home, the facility to remain open.

The Trump regime’s coup attempt  this week was planned long ago. How far US dark forces intend going remains to be seen.

Maduro has majority popular support, based on his overwhelming electoral triumph, along with backing from the country’s military.

As Venezuela’s legitimate president, his best strategy may be to encourage millions of supporters to take to the streets against US imperial designs on the country.

That’s how Bush/Cheney’s April 2002 coup attempt was defeated in 48 hours – popular will triumphing, supported by Venezuela’s military.

A “Day of National Dignity” earlier commemorated the triumph of the human spirit in Venezuela over US imperial aims to control the country.

It’s needed again now to challenge the Trump regime’s designs on its sovereignty, resources and people – a popular uprising against imperial America, against its dirty hands, supporting the preservation of Bolivarian social democracy. It’s too important for Venezuelans to lose.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Why Russian Nuclear Bombers are in Venezuela?

Americans need to know the history of broken US promises that led to Russia’s encirclement. During the re-unification of Germany in 1990, the US offered an “iron-clad guarantee” that NATO would expand “not one inch” toward Russia. When Soviet Premier Gorbachev agreed. Rick Sanchez explains

The Bushes’ ‘Death Squads’

The Bushes’ ‘Death Squads’

George H.W. Bush was laid to rest on Wednesday but some of his murderous policies lived on through his son’s administration and until this day, as Robert Parry reported on January 11, 2005.

How George W. Bush Learned From His Father

By Robert Parry
Special to Consortium News

By refusing to admit personal misjudgments on Iraq, George W. Bush instead is pushing the United States toward becoming what might be called a permanent “counter-terrorist” state, which uses torture, cross-border death squads and even collective punishments to defeat perceived enemies in Iraq and around the world.

Since securing a second term, Bush has pressed ahead with this hard-line strategy, in part by removing dissidents inside his administration while retaining or promoting his protégés. Bush also has started prepping his younger brother Jeb as a possible successor in 2008, which could help extend George W.’s war policies while keeping any damaging secrets under the Bush family’s control.

As a centerpiece of this tougher strategy to pacify Iraq, Bush is contemplating the adoption of the brutal practices that were used to suppress leftist peasant uprisings in Central America in the 1980s. The Pentagon is “intensively debating” a new policy for Iraq called the “Salvador option,” Newsweek magazine reported on Jan. 9.

The strategy is named after the Reagan-Bush administration’s “still-secret strategy” of supporting El Salvador’s right-wing security forces, which operated clandestine “death squads” to eliminate both leftist guerrillas and their civilian sympathizers, Newsweek reported. “Many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success – despite the deaths of innocent civilians,” Newsweek wrote.

Central America Veterans

The magazine also noted that a number of Bush administration officials were leading figures in the Central American operations of the 1980s, such as John Negroponte, who was then U.S. Ambassador to Honduras and is now U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.

Other current officials who played key roles in Central America include Elliott Abrams, who oversaw Central American policies at the State Department and who is now a Middle East adviser on Bush’s National Security Council staff, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a powerful defender of the Central American policies while a member of the House of Representatives.

The insurgencies in El Salvador and Guatemala were crushed through the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians. In Guatemala, about 200,000 people perished, including what a truth commission later termed a genocide against Mayan Indians in the Guatemalan highlands. In El Salvador, about 70,000 died including massacres of whole villages, such as the slaughter carried out by a U.S.-trained battalion against hundreds of men, women and children in and around the town of El Mozote in 1981.

El Mozote massacre. (Wikimedia Commons)

The Reagan-Bush strategy also had a domestic component, the so-called “perception management” operation that employed sophisticated propaganda to manipulate the fears of the American people while hiding the ugly reality of the wars. The Reagan-Bush administration justified its actions in Central America by portraying the popular uprisings as an attempt by the Soviet Union to establish a beachhead in the Americas to threaten the U.S. southern border.

[For details about how these strategies worked and the role of George H.W. Bush, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

More Pain

By employing the “Salvador option” in Iraq, the U.S. military would crank up the pain, especially in Sunni Muslim areas where resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq has been strongest. In effect, Bush would assign other Iraqi ethnic groups the job of leading the “death squad” campaign against the Sunnis.

“One Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Perhmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with discussions,” Newsweek reported.

Newsweek quoted one military source as saying, “The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving the terrorists. … From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.”

Citing the Central American experiences of many Bush administration officials, we wrote in November 2003 – more than a year ago – that many of these Reagan-Bush veterans were drawing lessons from the 1980s in trying to cope with the Iraqi insurgency. We pointed out, however, that the conditions were not parallel. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Iraq: Quicksand & Blood.”]

In Central America, powerful oligarchies had long surrounded themselves with ruthless security forces and armies. So, when uprisings swept across the region in the early 1980s, the Reagan-Bush administration had ready-made – though unsavory – allies who could do the dirty work with financial and technological help from Washington.

Iraqi Dynamic

A different dynamic exists in Iraq, because the Bush administration chose to disband rather than co-opt the Iraqi army. That left U.S. forces with few reliable local allies and put the onus for carrying out counterinsurgency operations on American soldiers who were unfamiliar with the land, the culture and the language.

Those problems, in turn, contributed to a series of counterproductive tactics, including the heavy-handed round-ups of Iraqi suspects, the torturing of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and the killing of innocent civilians by jittery U.S. troops fearful of suicide bombings.

The war in Iraq also has undermined U.S. standing elsewhere in the Middle East and around the world. Images of U.S. soldiers sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners, putting bags over the heads of captives and shooting a wounded insurgent have blackened America’s image everywhere and made cooperation with the United States increasingly difficult even in countries long considered American allies.

Beyond the troubling images, more and more documents have surfaced indicating that the Bush administration had adopted limited forms of torture as routine policy, both in Iraq and the broader War on Terror. Last August, an FBI counterterrorism official criticized abusive practices at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more,” the official wrote. “When I asked the M.P.’s what was going on, I was told that interrogators from the day prior had ordered this treatment, and the detainee was not to be moved. On another occasion … the detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night.”

Despite official insistence that torture is not U.S. policy, the blame for these medieval tactics continues to climb the chain of command toward the Oval Office. It appears to have been Bush’s decision after the Sept. 11 attacks to “take the gloves off,” a reaction understandable at the time but which now appears to have hurt, more than helped.

TV World

 

George W Bush as an infant with father George HW Bush at Yale University. (George Bush Presidential Library)

Many Americans have fantasized about how they would enjoy watching Osama bin Laden tortured to death for his admitted role in the Sept. 11 attacks. There is also a tough-guy fondness for torture as shown in action entertainment – like Fox Network’s “24” – where torture is a common-sense shortcut to get results.

But the larger danger arises when the exceptional case becomes the routine, when it’s no longer the clearly guilty al-Qaeda mass murderer, but it is now the distraught Iraqi father trying to avenge the death of his child killed by American bombs.

Rather than the dramatic scenes on TV, the reality is usually more like that desperate creature in Guantanamo lying in his own waste and pulling out his hair. The situation can get even worse when torture takes on the industrial quality of government policy, with subjects processed through the gulags or the concentration camps.

That also is why the United States and other civilized countries have long banned torture and prohibited the intentional killing of civilians. The goal of international law has been to set standards that couldn’t be violated even in extreme situations or in the passions of the moment.

Yet, Bush – with his limited world experience – was easily sold on the notion of U.S. “exceptionalism” where America’s innate goodness frees it from the legal constraints that apply to lesser countries.

Bush also came to believe in the wisdom of his “gut” judgments. After his widely praised ouster of Afghanistan’s Taliban government in late 2001, Bush set his sights on invading Iraq. Like a hot gambler in Las Vegas doubling his bets, Bush’s instincts were on a roll.

Now, however, as the Iraqi insurgency continues to grow and inflict more casualties on both U.S. troops and Iraqis who have thrown in their lot with the Americans, Bush finds himself facing a narrowing list of very tough choices.

Bush could acknowledge his mistakes and seek international help in extricating U.S. forces from Iraq. But Bush abhors admitting errors, even small ones. Plus, Bush’s belligerent tone hasn’t created much incentive for other countries to bail him out.

Instead Bush appears to be upping the ante by contemplating cross-border raids into countries neighboring Iraq. He also would be potentially expanding the war by having Iraqi Kurds and Shiites kill Sunnis, a prescription for civil war or genocide.

Pinochet Option

There’s a personal risk, too, for Bush if he picks the “Salvador option.” He could become an American version of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet or Guatemala’s Efrain Rios Montt, leaders who turned loose their security forces to commit assassinations, “disappear” opponents and torture captives.

Like the policy that George W. Bush is now considering, Pinochet even sponsored his own international “death squad” – known as Operation Condor – that hunted down political opponents around the world. One of those attacks in September 1976 blew up a car carrying Chilean dissident Orlando Letelier as he drove through Washington D.C. with two American associates. Letelier and co-worker Ronni Moffitt were killed.

With the help of American friends in high places, the two former dictators have fended off prison until now. However, Pinochet and Rios Montt have become pariahs who are facing legal proceedings aimed at finally holding them accountable for their atrocities.

[For more on George H.W. Bush’s protection of Pinochet, see Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

One way for George W. Bush to avert that kind of trouble is to make sure his political allies remain in power even after his second term ends in January 2009. In his case, that might be achievable by promoting his brother Jeb for president in 2008, thus guaranteeing that any incriminating documents stay under wraps.

President George W. Bush’s dispatching Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to inspect the tsunami damage in Asia started political speculation that one of the reasons was to burnish Jeb’s international credentials in a setting where his personal empathy would be on display.

Though Jeb Bush has insisted that he won’t run for president in 2008, the Bush family might find strong reason to encourage Jeb to change his mind, especially if the Iraq War is lingering and George W. has too many file cabinets filled with damaging secrets.

The late investigative reporter Robert Parry, the founding editor of Consortium News, broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. His last book, America’s Stolen Narrative, can be obtained in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

GHW Bush: Honoring a War Criminal

Comment:  Another article on the same subject  i.e. The Demise of a War Criminal, yet I could not resist the temptation to share this one by Lendman.  Another powerful, passionate and truthful outburst!

By Stephen Lendman
Source

America honors its worst. Throughout his career as a House member, UN envoy, GOP National Committee chairman, ambassador to China, CIA director, vice president and president, GHW Bush was an unapologetic imperial spear carrier.

He supported all US wars of aggression and launched his own – against nations threatening no one. His actions showed profound indifference to rule of law principles and human suffering.

Countless millions were grievously harmed by an agenda he backed and led as president. Major media shamefully praised what demands condemnation and accountability, even posthumously.

Praising “his leadership and choices on the global stage,” the NYT claimed “historians will almost certainly treat him more kindly than the voters did in 1992” – establishment ones only, not honorable truth-tellers.

A Jeb Bush/James Baker op-ed shamefully said they “never met a man as remarkable as George HW Bush” – a profound perversion of truth.

Wall Street Journal editors praised his war on Iraq, ignoring his naked aggression and genocidal sanctions, the latter responsible for the deaths of around 5,000 Iraqi children under age-five monthly while in force.

He was involved in Washington’s Contra war in Nicaragua. It followed the Sandinista National Liberation Front’s (FSLN) overthrow of US-supported tyrannical Anastasio Somoza’s fascist regime.

As president, he ordered the invasion of Panama on December 20, 1989, aiming to prove his toughness against a defenseless nation no match against America’s military might.

Manuel Noriega was Washington’s man in Panama from December 1983 until yearend 1989, a valued CIA asset until forgetting who’s boss.

No longer being convenient stooge enough for his imperial master led to his downfall.

Bush’s machismo and imperial arrogance bore full responsibility for thousands of Panamanian civilian deaths and injuries, many more thousands displaced.

Residential neighborhoods were destroyed in poorest parts of the country, including by incendiary devices used to torch structures.

Tanks crushed victims. Panamanian defense force members, civilians, journalists, and others were executed in cold blood.

Bush proved his cajones by mass slaughter and destruction. In the aftermath, he shamefully said it was “worth it” – smashing nations a US specialty before and after the rape of Panama.

William Blum earlier called (fantasy) “democracy” America’s deadliest export. Its agenda makes the world safe for Wall Street and other corporate favorites at the expense of ordinary people everywhere.

Commenting on carnage in Panama, Blum said “(t)he invasion and ensuing occupation produced gruesome scenes: People burning to death in the incinerated dwellings, leaping from windows, running in panic through the streets, cut down in cross fire, crushed by tanks, human fragments everywhere.”

Accountability never follows the highest of US high crimes, victims blamed for US wrongdoing every time.

Most Americans know nothing about the so-called 1989 Christmas invasion, why it was launched, the devastation caused, or human toll.

Raping Panama, deposing and arresting Noriega, along with Bush’s Gulf War walkover of Iraq let him crow that “we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”

Horrendous Nuremberg-level crimes don’t matter. Noriega fell out of favor for not cooperating with Washington’s contra war on Nicaragua. 

Media hysteria vilified him, citing things that didn’t matter when he was Washington’s man in Panama. 

When no longer wanted, his fate was sealed, how Washington treats other foreign leaders no longer useful, notably Saddam Hussein.

The January 1991 Gulf War followed imposition of sanctions in August 1990. Enforced for over a dozen years, they were genocidal. A Kuwait-funded PR campaign whipped up public support for naked aggression – ending on February 28.

US forces committed high crimes of war and against humanity, including mass slaughter and destruction of essential to life facilities.

Terror-bombing blasted power plants, dams, water purification facilities, sewage treatment and disposal systems, telephone and other communications, hospitals, schools, residential areas, mosques, irrigation sites, food processing, storage and distribution facilities, hotels and retail establishments.

Transportation infrastructure, oil wells, pipelines, refineries and storage tanks, chemical plants, factories and other commercial operation, civilian shelters, government buildings, and historical sites were also destroyed.

The Panama and Gulf War were two of history’s great crimes. In Iraq, virtually everything needed for normal life was destroyed or heavily damaged.

Genocidal sanctions killed up to two millions Iraqis, two-thirds of them children under age-five. Bush II’s 2003 “shock and awe” blitzkrieg through 2007 took up to 2.0 million more lives, mostly young children.

Two imperial wars of aggression and genocidal sanctions destroyed the cradle of civilization. War and related violence in Iraq continues to this day, the nation occupied as a US colony.

Bush I’s new world order agenda, continued by his successors, including Bush II, features endless wars of aggression, state terror on a global scale, along with growing homeland tyranny, heading toward becoming full-blown.

A special place in hell awaits GHW Bush, Bush II when he passes, and all other US war criminals. 

They include everyone supporting Washington’s imperial agenda, including congressional  members authorizing funds without which wars can’t be waged.

An earlier article said the Bush I, II, and entire family dynasty speaks for itself – a crime family for over a century.

If You Murdered A Bunch of People, Mass Murder Is Your Single Defining Legacy

photo_2018-12-02_08-49-23_118dd.jpg

By Caitlin Johnstone
Source

Thought experiment:

Think of an acquaintance of yours. Not someone you’re particularly close to, just some guy in the cast of extras from the scenery of your life. Now, imagine learning that that guy is a serial murderer, who has been prowling the streets for years stabbing people to death. Imagine he goes his whole life without ever suffering any consequences for murdering all those people, and then when he dies, everyone wants to talk about how great he was and share heartwarming anecdotes about him. If you try to bring up the whole serial killing thing, people react with sputtering outrage that you would dare to speak ill of such a noble and wonderful person.

“Look, I didn’t agree with everything he did, but you can’t just let one not-so-great thing from a man’s life eclipse all the other good things he’s accomplished,” they protest. “For example, did you know he was a baseball captain at Yale?”

“But… what about all those people he murdered?” you reply.

“God, why can’t you just pay respect to a great man in our time of mourning??” they shout in exasperation.

You turn on the TV, and it’s nothing but nonstop hagiography and adulation for this guy who you know was a serial murderer. Pick up a newspaper and it’s the same thing. On the rare occasions where they do mention his astonishingly high body count, they frame it as a good thing: he got the killing done quickly and efficiently. He helped our country get over its phobia of mass murder. Our streets sure are a lot cleaner without all those unwanted prostitutes and homeless people he butchered.

“What the hell?” you think to yourself. “This guy brutally murdered a whole bunch of men, women and children for no good reason. We all know this. How come that isn’t the single defining thing about this man’s life that we’re all discussing right now? When Timothy McVeigh died people didn’t spend all their time talking about his love of the Constitution or how he never liked broccoli. Nobody cares how much Ted Bundy loved his cat. Why are they celebrating this mass murderer as though his mass murders are some marginal, irrelevant anomaly in his life and not the single defining feature of it? I mean, that is his legacy!”

How surreal would that be? How weird would it feel to have all that death and destruction go either unmentioned or outright praised in discussing your acquaintance who perpetrated it?

Of course, this will never happen. No random schmuck in your life will ever get caught committing a single murder, let alone many, without being punished and seeing it become the very first thing people think of whenever their name comes up. No, that sort of treatment is a privilege that is reserved only for the elites who rule over us.

If a man kills a lot of people, then his legacy is that of a mass murderer. There is nothing else anyone could possibly accomplish in their lifetime which could eclipse the significance of the act of violently ripping the life out of thousands of human bodies. I don’t care if you started a charity, if you gave a graduation speech, or if you loved your wife very much. If you committed war crimesknowingly targeted civilian shelters, and deliberately targeted a nation’s civilian infrastructure to gain a strategic advantage after the conclusion of a war based on lies, then you are a mass murderer who may have also done some other far less significant things during the rest of your time on this planet. That is who you are.

Murder is treated as the most serious crime anyone can commit in societies around the world because it is the single most egregious violation of personal sovereignty possible. When you murder someone, you willfully overpower their will for themselves and take everything away from them, without any possibility of their getting any of it back. This doesn’t stop being true if someone happens to be sitting in an office which empowers him to murder people without fear of consequences. If you murder one person, then what you are for the rest of your life, first and foremost, is a murderer, because murder is such a hugely significant crime. If you murder a large number of people, then what you are is a mass murderer.

George HW Bush was a mass murderer. That is his legacy. That is what he was. Any discussion of the man’s life which does not put this single defining legacy front and center by a very wide margin is being dishonest about the thing that murder is, and is doing so out of fealty to a corrupt power structure which enables consequence-free murder on a mass scale as long as it happens in accordance with the will of that power structure.

Whenever I hold my customary public “good riddance” social media celebration after a war pig dies, I always get people telling me they hope I die for saying such a thing. And of course I am aware that I am courting controversy by saying immediately after someone’s death that the world is better off without them, and hostile reactions necessarily come along with that. But I also think it says so much about people’s deification of these child-killing elites that simply being glad to see them leave this world, peacefully of old age and in their own homes, is seen as such an unforgivable offense that it deserves nothing short of death. I suppose that’s how high of a pedestal you need to place someone on above the ordinary people in order to see their acts of mass murder as insignificant little foibles instead of horrific atrocities which define their entire personhood. In the eyes of the thoroughly propagandized public, they are gods, as the nonstop fawning beatification of Poppy Bush makes abundantly clear.

US presidents are not special. They are not made of any different kind of substance than you or I. When they order the extermination of large numbers of human lives for no legitimate reason, they are as guilty as you or I would be if we murdered each and every one of those people ourselves, personally. And if you or I had done such a thing during our lives, we both know people wouldn’t be spending their time after we die talking about how delightful and charming we were.

George Herbert Walker Bush was a mass murderer, and the only reason that undeniable fact isn’t dominating public discourse today is because of the myopia caused by a deeply unjust power dynamic.

%d bloggers like this: