7 Days in America: What Should Happen Now? A Truth Commission for Bush

Scott McClellan's book What Happened has been a feast for cable talk shows and commentators everywhere, with much discussion veering off on his motives. The Bush Team went into overdrive with its smear gear. Disgruntled? Money grubbing? Out of the loop? Off his rocker? A Manchurian author controlled by his North-Korean-like publisher? In a laughable attempt to blame the radar gun for the speeder, apologists Michele Bernard and Michael Smerconish actually argued on MSNBC that the big story was whether McClellan wrote the book in order to defeat McCain.

One who got it right was New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who wrote that the issue is not the author but a "scandal and a crime" called Iraq. So since it's not flak McClellan but commander-in-chief Bush with the power of war and peace, life and death over Americans and the world, let's now focus on George, not Scott.

Understandably upset with another source exposing his falsehoods, Karl Rove went on Fox to say that McClellan "sounds like a liberal blogger." Well...yes! In fact the liberal community -- Air America, MoveOn, the Nation, the Huffington Post and scores of others -- has been completely vindicated on Iraq and Rove et. al. completely discredited. Since the Far Right likes World War II and Hitler analogies, here's one -- the left was mocked and then historically vindicated about Iraq as much as an out-of-power Churchill was when he warned about the rise of Nazi Germany. Facts are stubborn things, said President Reagan.

And on the question of W's veracity generally, again we need only stipulate what scores of books, articles and probes have shown. As Lincoln once said of a rival, "he has such a high regard for the truth he uses it sparingly."

So most of the MSM may still feel the need to engage in on-the-one-hand-on-the-other hand journalism -- "let's hear from both sides on whether the earth is flat" -- the verdict is now in. It's not only McClellan but also a slew of books on Iraq (Fiasco, Hubris) and other administration memoirs and articles (Tenet, O'Neill, Clarke, Dowd)) which confirm that Team Bush misled the press and public by using propaganda to stampede America into a war that's spurred more terrorism and led to hundreds of thousands of lost lives and limbs.

This is now the majority view. And if some 25% of Americans disagree, it's probably the same quarter that believe that NASA staged the moon landing. The verdict is in.

But now what? How can we hold Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Woo and all of them accountable? For what we have here is not just a normal failed administration or even one Nixonian Watergate but a systematically corrupt group of people who shamelessly and serially lied and violated the law. America needs to make sure that some future administration doesn't assume that they too can dissemble and cheat since W got away with doing it for two terms and retired to a life of relaxing at the ranch and being feted by AEI and the Petroleum Club of Houston.

Until the President imitates the communist party boss of Mianzhu on his knees seeking forgiveness from mothers whose children died when their shoddy schools collapsed during the recent earthquake, here are four suggestions for those who a) understand that the Congress won't impeach Bush and Cheney and b) refuse to patiently wait for the verdict of historians in 50 years, as Bush urges:

*Vote Big. Americans have to use the franchise to reject Bushism by significantly increasing the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and electing a Democratic President with a big mandate. Record primary turnouts and wrong-track polls indicate that this is a realistic prospect. Revenge is a dish best served by 140 million voters. That's a recipe that the Republican Right will understand.

*Shame 'em. The mainstream media has to stop coddling this group and not allow them to escape scrutiny with a smile and a spin - Dan Bartlett on McClellan comes to mind. So, for example, when Bush tells the Air Force Academy last week that Iraq is like World War II, could a prominent network correspondent say: "You're kidding, right? For if it's similar, why did we draft millions in 1941 and no one in 2008? Would we have fought and won WWII with 150,000 soldiers?"

*Sue. While legal rules about "standing" have so far made it hard to legally uncover all the illegalities of this regime, the Federal False Claims Act allows individual citizens to sue (it's called "Qui Tam") if the government spent money fraudulently -- and then get a percentage of any recovery. Indeed, I'd guess that a private for-profit group could raise funds to create a law firm with the sole purpose of bringing False Claims Acts against federal agencies and complicit individuals for, say, Halliburton's illegal contracts or overruns or against government officials who unlawfully spent money appropriated for Afghanistan in Iraq. Hit them in the pocketbook.

*Create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). This worked in a very different historical situation of South Africa and can work here as well. There, South Africans who engaged in murder and violence were given amnesty if they confessed under oath to their crimes and knowledge...but would be prosecuted if they didn't. Of some 7110 seeking amnesty, 849 were granted it for "politically motivated" crimes...which in turn provided evidence to pressure and prosecute others. The largely successful effort led to both truth and reconciliation.

If Richard Nixon had his Leon Jaworski, a special prosecutor who sent 29 aides to jail, who will investigate George W. Bush? If massive prosecutions is too big a bite for a 44th president wanting to look to the future, here's a fair, workable compromise to make sure that the past doesn't become prologue.

In 2009 a new President could choose a new Attorney General who similarly announces that s/he will prosecute past officials for unlawful acts unless they first come forward and testify under oath. Because Bushies took literally their oaths to "faithfully execute the laws," their record amounts to a near executive coup d'etat (see Charles Savage's Takeover and my Losing our Democracy, chapters 2 & 3). Such examples include:

• condoning torture;
• ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act;
• assigning officials to politically campaign in open violation of the Hatch Act;
• refusing to enforce the Clean Air Act;
• spending money for propaganda as the Pentagon did in gathering former brass to hit the airwaves;
• violating contracting rules by giving lucrative contracts to favored firms,
• engaging in cronyism and coercion to influence prosecutions in the U.S. Attorneys
• abusing signing statements.

Indeed, even mere falsehoods could be investigated if they were under oath to Congress or if they legally vouched for false budgets, as Sarbanes Oxley explicitly does for CEOs attesting to annual reports.

If what we know about lies and illegalities is largely what managed to leak out or has been disclosed by a few insiders, imagine how much more may come out when a new administration turns over 43's rock of corruption?

A TRC for the Bush-Cheney administration would be unprecedented for the U.S. But so is a government of crooks and liars who misled us into a calamitous war and openly violated the U.S. Constitution. Or is it only consensual sexual misconduct by a president that warrants the attention of investigators? The way to deter the "culture of deception" in McClellan's subtitle is a combination of voters, lawyers, prosecutors and a Truth Commission -- to vote against it, sue it, prosecute it, or expose it. Do we believe in the Rule of Law or only the 'Law' of Rule?

EXCERPTS FROM 7 DAYS IN AMERICA, MAY 31, W/ ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, CONASON, HUFFINGTON & GREEN

Listen to the entire show here.

ZIMMERMAN: Q: A lot of the mainstream media mock Hillary Clinton for first agreeing that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count yet now saying that it'd be a violation of civil rights if they don't. On the other hand, you're a Clinton superdelegate who blames Obama for the mess. Why? "Let's be clear about it, he is one of many players who have participated in the scandal of disenfranchising Florida and Michigan. The only real answer was to have a re-vote in both those states, period, end of story. It is an absolute dereliction of duty -- from the Democratic National Committee to the local state governments of Michigan and Florida to the Obama campaign -- because all of them either did not either make the effort to push for a re-vote or,as we saw from the Obama representatives, engaged in a strategy to block a re-vote."

ZIMMERMAN: Q: Will Scott McClellan's book have any effect this year since already Bush has the highest negative rating of any sitting President in modern times? Does this simply make each side dig in their heels even more? "I think it has a tremendous impact because it puts the Iraq war and our policies on the Iraq war front and center in the national debate. While John McCain stands with the Bush administration, Democrats stand with 67% of the American people who feel this war was a tragic miscalculation and want a change of direction to fight terrorism more effectively."

HUFFINGTON: Q: What's your view of Robert Zimmerman's complaint that Obama's campaign stalled and helped defeat revotes in Florida and Michigan because it wasn't in their political interest? "I find this whole conversation amazing, honestly. Because it ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton's campaign, Obama's campaign, all the candidates who were in the race at the time agreed that Florida and Michigan were going to be punished because they were breaking the rules of the party. Now I think it was a stupid decision, but it was made by all of them. So I don't understand why we are debating this, I don't understand why the media treated this as a serious point, when in fact it is nothing more than an attempt to have a redo. There should be no redo. The delegates should be seated split between Clinton and Obama, the end."

CONASON: "The problem with Arianna's point, if I may, is that, the fact that the Clinton and Obama people went along with a bad decision of the DNC in the first place does not in my view justly disenfranchise everybody who voted in those states."

HUFFINGTON: Q: Karl Rove responded to McClellan's new book by saying that McClellan 'just sounds like a left-wing blogger.' Do you regard that as a smear or flattery? "No, I actually think he does sound like many of us who have been writing about this thing since 2002, and that's why the title of my blog post about him was 'Scotty Come Lately' because his critique not just of the Bush administration but of the media has been spot on but way too late. I'm glad he did it obviously, but there also has to be some questions asked of him like why now and why not then?"

CONASON: "I actually don't see much point in quarreling over the nature of Scott McClellan's character which I think has been well established for years as deficient -- the question is whether he has anything interesting to say, and, as Arianna said, his assessment of the subservience of the press to the White House during the years while he was there is devastating. And of course the reaction has been very interesting because they are extremely defensive. Charles Gibson got on the air the other day and said, 'oh no, we did a great job and we really pressed them when Colin Powell testified,' and if you go back, as Glenn Greenwald did in Salon and look at what Gibson said at the time, he was a complete lap dog. So that to me is the crucial point here, it's the podium's-eye view of a press that is kneeling before them."

HUFFINGTON: Q: What do you think of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for America -- in other words, if the Congress will not impeach this year and if Bush wants us to wait 50 years for history to vindicate him, how about something in between? In 2009 the Congress passes a law asserting that the Bush people cannot be prosecuted for any illegal misconduct so long as they testify under oath about their crimes and lies...they get amnesty for candor."I absolutely love this idea. I think you should sit down for 10 minutes and write it down as a blog post for the Huffington Post."

Comments

[tyrdofwaitin]

Physician, Heal Thyself. Before we jump gaily into the Bush Aministration waters, I think the media needs to have a Truth & Reconciliation process about its own compliticity with Bush propaganda.

It's easy to point fingers and identify perps that are down the road from us. But I believe the American media, some more, some less, owe Americans first: a thorough examination of what-it-knew-and-when-it-knew it in relationship to the lead-up and conduct of the Iraqi War. Secondly: an apology to the American people for the abuse of its power and neglect of truth telling when it could have veered us from this disaster.

Truth tell, media, starts at home.

[knighthowl]

Agreed that the media has a huge burden of blame. At the same time, they were not sworn officials. They did not violate any oath of office. They did not violate the constitution. They did not order war crimes. They did not condone and order torture. The media failed in its duty to seek our and expose the truth, but that does not mean that the criminals should go free.

[tyrdofwaitin]

Agreed knigthowl, but I think you would agree that if the media had stood firmly with the truth and against the lies, our elected government officials would have been reluctant to move against an informed American public;, i.e., we may have prevented their treasonous policies. That's the thing and I think Obama understands this: Our government officials get away with murder when the public stands in ingnorance. The more informed the public, the less the public will tolerate bad policy. Barack refers to it as bottom-up governance. Have we, the public, been narcotized for the last 8 years? To be sure. Is it too late? No, I don't think so.

[phasechange]

Excellent! Now, can you find someone other than Elliot Spitzer to head up the panel and investigations? Perhaps we should urge Obama to seek a Vice President who can take on this role. Additionally, it's time to marshal legal opinion on the limits of a President's pardon authority. No other constitutional provision is unlimited, nor should be the President's pardon authority. For example, a President should not be entitled to pardon crimes in which he was a participant or co-conspirator. Similarly, pardons should be limited to specific acts and not generally for a specific time period (Ford's pardon of Nixon would be held unconstitutional under such a standard).

[Bluedanube]

A nice sentiment but it's as likely to happen as a truth commission in Rome after the reign of Nero. America is on a course of self destruction that nothing can stop. The American public has a collective, unconscious, death wish.

[Economike]

The next era is not going to ask George Bush or Cheney permission before it dawns. The hallmark of most of these old farts is that they have successfully transfered their 1950's fear of socialism and anti environmentalism to the modern world. but they are like the pop singer who has plastic surgery year after year thinking they are going to stay young forever. It's a losing game. The consequences of climate change are going to change peoples minds as much as the last eight years of sickening corruption is changing the American public's mind, especially young people (except your kool aid slurping college republicans anxious to preserve there family bestowed priviliges). Ever notice how most of the people who use terms like tree hugger look like they have one foot in the grave? They don't care because they know they are not going to be around to face the music.

[tomsemioli]

The Democrats will do NOTHING because they are no different than the Republicans - aside from rhetoric.

[Fez]

The saddest thing about the Bush "Administration" is the fact that whoever is the next President will still have to make a serious effort at cleaning up the messes made by Bush while trying to solve the huge problems never addressed by Bush. Maybe a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" is the right approach. And maybe a War Crimes Tribunal is a better one. Fact is, until the US deals with all of the bodies swept under the rug by Bush and his cabal, there is not the slightest chance of solving some of the more intractable problems lying out there. The approach taken by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid (don't have the votes, let's move on) cannot continue in the next administration. There must be a full acounting of all the crimes and mendacity of Bush's government. Until that happens, we will be at each others' throats. We deserve better.

[CaseyBabes]

But then..........after all the complaints, accusations, bitchin' and groveling at him, the Prez just keeps going on like the Bunny Energizer, acting like a battleship having spitballs bouncing offa him. Incredible. The man is at total peace. Yzat? Dubya's only ever defense of himself is that "history will be (his) judge." None of the heavey hitters -- Cheny, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld -- wilt. Yzat? Could it be that with all the verbal fireworks from the Left, all they have is just that........verbal. Just what is it that prevents responsible members of Congress from bringing solid legal charges against POTUS? It certainly is not a lack of nerve 'cause any politician would jump at the chance to dominate the spotlight if he/she had justifiable evidence. Hundreds of thousands, millions, of words have been written and/or spoken damning the Bush Administration, yet he's still there. Why is that?

[Economike]

This too shall pass

[CaseyBabes]

Right......by term limits.

[Mark701]

A very good article, however, here's the problem. Americans don't like to admit they're wrong. The fools that voted for Bush don't want to believe they had anything to do with the criminals in the WH and the mess they've gotten us into. I'm not talking the 25% hard core nutzoids who would support him even if he started firing squads for ordinary Americans. I'm talking moderate Republcans. On some level they know it's not just about Bush, but them, their judgement, their concept of right and wrong and their willingness, despite all the facts, to accept Bush's fiction instead of fact. If it was just about Bush, he would have been tossed after 9/11. Before we are allowed to come to terms with the Bushies and perhaps put them on trial, these people will have to come to terms with themselves. I'm not keeping my fingers crossed.

[threegoal]

This is an idea I have thought about for some time, as well.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission can be especially important if Bush issues a large batch of pardons at the end of his term, and can be a lever for all those lower on the totem pole that he misses in his pardon-athon, if that indeed happens.

What's important is to create a powerful measure of historical scorn for this administration's practices, along with everything we can do to prevent future administrations from even being able to think about doing what the Bush administration has done.

As a side comment, this is also a strong argument for Obama over Clinton, as his relative lack of dirty laundry when contrasted with the Clinton years -- issues both real and perceived -- gives him much more standing to pull this off than a Clinton will ever have, and can dovetail naturally with his stated desire to change the political tone in Washington.

[bleek]

In terms of TRC, the election fraud of both 2000 and 2004 should be examined. If it can be determined that W didn't win either election according to law, then the grounds should be there for reversing the longest-lasting component of his presidency, i.e., his Supreme Court appointments. There would be no greater triumph for the American people than having Alito and Roberts removed from that bench that they are clearly unworthy of.

[timm0]

Tremendous idea - at least force a re-appointment vote... after Dems have a 60-40 majority, preferably.

[Economike]

Great !!@#$ idea.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

There is obviously rampant criminality throughout the executive department, especially at the top, so there's no need for amnesties for confessions. A major flaw: Confessions would later be claimed as coercive and disclaimed as soon as it became convenient, so that a "corrected historical record" would obscure and whitewash the absolute treasons of 43&con. We don't need more lies as part of the official records; we have way too many right now.

[MrJoyboy]

Why do we treat our presidents as if they acquired sainthood when elected? They are just ordinary men, ordinary criminals in some cases. The least we can do is put them in jail.

[esquire07]

The Country knows, and the World Knows that Bush is a lying criminal, but this America. He will go unpunished and get away with his crimes... as will all the criminals in the administration that lied to the World in order to fill their pockets with the profits of the so called "war."

We did not need Scott's book to relize this.

Dead US Troops = Halliburton Profit = Money in Dick Cheney's bloody criminal pockets ?

Who is going to stop it ? "Impeachement off the table" Pelosi ? She is to busy getting her face lifted.

The "War" will go on, US Troops will continue to die and be maimed, and the Bushies and Cheney's of the Word will continue to stuff their blood soaked pockets with the profits. Its that simple. Get over it.

[blueshift]

we'll never get them in front of a jury or a judge....everyone will be pardoned (can Bush pardon himself?) and the big guys, at least, will go free. You said it yourself about Nixon: twenty-nine underlings went to jail. Nixon got to retire comfortably.

[Conservativeslayer]

Bush can't pardon himself, but if he pardons everyone else then it makes it a moot point. If everyone else is pardoned and faces no threat of jail time, then there is no incentive to testify for a lesser sentence. By pardoning everyone, Bush will effectively ensure that no one will testify against him. I expect a huge number of pardons to be issued right before Bush exits the oval office. Remember how the RW'ers went ballistic over Clinton's last pardons, saying they were an abuse of office? Well when Bush pulls his stunt, they'll be singing a different tune. They'll say the President can pardon anyone he wants. In other words, it's ok if a repubilcan does it.

[mydogshakespeare]

One requisite, before starting the Truth Commission, is insuring that Bush, Cheney, and the myriad aiders and abetters do not leave the country. Bush has already purchased a 100,000 acre ranch in Paraguay, one of the few countries that does not have an extradition treaty with the U.S.