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

[ProudNeoCon]

Go ahead and set up TRC. I would love to see that. Would guarantee that McCain wins in novemebr

[vietveter]

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

Good idea. It would be wise to wait until Jan 09 so that the

criminal in chief

can not pardon the guilty

[timm0]

I can understand the angst expressed by the folks who don't support any amnesty for administration officials. But my pessimism prevents me from seeing how anyone in that gang will ever have any chance at all of getting jail time if we don't implement some sort of TRC or TRC-like program.

At this point, in the midst of millions of mysteriously vanishing e-mails, mass amnesia during hearings, signing statements, unconstitutional executive orders, and refusals to abide by subpoenas, the job of prosecuting these vermin requires the unraveling of a web of legal maneuvers that will take decades. Without that getting untangled, the volume of evidence that highlights the techniques and strategies used to perpetrate the atrocities they've undertaken will probably never see the light of day.

The few "courageous" people coming forward are only those who are "big" enough to be able to avoid prosecution or whose deaths would be so high profile that they're insulated from cataclysmic retribution. Their word alone won't be enough to incarcerate anyone. There needs to be much more evidence. Since evidence is methodically purged by this administration, there will not be any evidence. The only thing that can weigh enough to lock anyone of these clowns up will be the word of eye-witnesses - so many as to rule out the possibility of frame-up and go beyond reasonable doubt. If you won't allow for the safety of whistle-blowers, I have a hard time believing justice will ever be served.

[brilliantatbreakfast]

What should happen now, Mr. Green? Well, for starters, you could stop making utterly boneheaded decisions about Air America programming and put Sam Seder back on the air. Or else you'll keep losing long-term premium subscribers -- like me.

[johnie2xs]

The excerpts from "7 Days" comes back a 404. What gives?

[xhibi]

Mark, thanks for the article.

"But now what? How can we hold Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Woo and all of them accountable?"

This has been bothering me so much for such a long time, and perhaps millions of others. How can we claim that we are the greatest country and democracy in the world, when we can't have the least accountability?

I mean, what kind of precedent are we setting in here? What if another W comes along some time later that is even more mad that this nut, and starts WW3 for instance. Can't we do anything about it while that president/administration is in power?

Why is such a taboo concept for democrats in Congress (or all Americans for that matter) to hold the administration accountable, or even considering some measure of no-confidence or whatever it takes to stop the madness?
Have they no spine and only care for what polls well with the public and what gets them the votes to stay in Congress?

To me it's not about impeaching Bush etal per se. It's about acountability and stopping the madness.
It bothers me that people are not outraged that this unnecessary war has killed more Americans than 9/11 and had nothing to do with it, and it has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis too (yes, they're human being too).

[appleknocker]

Why is anyone paying any attention to McClellan? The guy had, and has, no credibility whatsoever. Has he "revealed" anything that was not already glaringly obvious? And if he did, why would you believe him? Unless, of course, you're the type who believes what he wants to believe - a trait I tend to associate with the right.

[research]

Corroborating testimony is key to the prosecution's case.

We want MORE of these disclosures if we ever want to get justice against BushCo.

So we REWARD McClellen to encourage others.

That's why.

[appleknocker]

Corroborating - or any other - testimony from a witness without credibility is worthless. As for "justice against BushCo" - it ain't gonna happen.

[Economike]

Aside from the obvious fact that he was inside the white house, anything that keeps the public debate about what has happened in this country the last few years alive seeks to insure that there will be some sort of public retribution.

[balance]

Bush Jr remorselessly propagandized & rushed the nation into an unnecessary war, and the consequence is that thousands of people were killed, and many times more injured. In terms of pain and suffering, the numbers exceed that of 9/11.

Can anyone explain to me, why Bush Jr & Cheney, do not deserve impeachment?

[mydogshakespeare]

Sure. No sex = No impeachment. GOP members are obsessed with sexual matters, as if that is ALL that matters.

[AdobePhsyko]

Repugs have"A wide stance"

[rkoenn]

I am completely frustrated with this entire situation. If there ever was a president and veep that deserved to be impeached and found guilty it is this one. What George Bush and Dick Cheney, and the rest of the crew, have done to this country is unbelievable. As noted, signing statements, manipulation of intelligence, not strong on terrorists innuendo, flyboy antics by chickenhawks, "SO!," greed, religious right antics, tax disasters, Katrina, continuous campaign governance, cowboy antics, and on and on and on. What Nixon did pales in comparison yet they will hide behind the terrorist threat lingo and escape any justice. If John McCain continues this masquerade of governance I will have to seriously consider leaving this great country. I just could not put up with another 4 to 8 years of this. And I have to tell you a simple observation I have made of so many devout Repubs including my own sister and her greedy husband as well as folks where I work and in our work place almost everyone is making very good money. These simply greedy people vote almost on one thing only, TAX CUTS! They all feel that someone who didn't succeed is a do nothing, welfare case. They cannot see, or don't want to see, how upbringing, parenting, family wealth, or much more the cause of these peoples problems than laziness. But as long as the guy running promises tax cuts for these well-off to rich voters, they will vote for them.

[jhNY]

The perversion and misapplication of governmental power by the Bush cabal require exhaustive investigation, and in all likelihood, as a result of such investigation, trials and sentencing. For a nation that seems to have but little regret, compared to all the nations on earth, over incarcerating the largest number and highest percentage of its citizenry, it is curous that so many in the political class here cannot work up much of an appetitie for the application of justice to the doings of their fellow politicians, and instead suggest all sorts of quasi-reasonable half-measures and ineffectualities, such as pledges from a new administration to behave better than the last. Sorry, that's just not enough.

The law must be applied without regard to office or social standing or wealth or political power. The future of our democracy, which we like to call a nation of laws, is at stake. It's not enough just to turn the page. Prosecution is required, and the guilty must be punished. In jail. For a long time.

[Titonwan]

Why is impeachment not viable? Why is G.W.Bush not liable for war crimes and murder?

[Conservativeslayer]

I would love to have a Truth and Reconcillation committee appointed to investigate the Bush adminstration violations of US laws. I wish some journalist would ask McCain and Obama, if elected prez will they have their AG investigate the crimes of Bush, Cheney etc and prosecute them for what they have done. But like I don't think any reporter will ask that question to the prospective nominees, I don't think either McCain or Obama will be interested in prosecuting Bush anyway. They will be too focused on getting their agendas accomplished, then dwelling on what happened in the past. If Obama did prosecute Bush and others, the RW'ers would scream to the rafters about political prosecutions. Obama would have an extremely difficult time accomplishing anything legislatively. No as soon as the next president is installed, we will be bombarded with the message "We must move forward". So the Bush crime family will get away with everything.

[PADDYWHACK]

I am an independent voter and expect nothing from the gutless Democrats who will surf into power and then sit on their worthless hands.Give us something to believe in,not the craven accomodation of the WH we have become used to.Grow a pair.

[gro]

While a lot of bloggers are using the label 'enabler' for the media, I believe a more appropriate label is 'collaborator'. The crimes of this administration will continue to be revealed for many years. Will the American media will report them?
The public's revenge at the ballot box is a hopeful sign for America's future. If those ballots aren't stolen AGAIN as in recent elections.
The sad fact is that things will probably get a lot worse before January of 2009. The legal system has been abused for wicked ends, and I would hate to see the extremes that those in power will use to retain power.

[pigsatthetrough]

HuffPost's Pick

The article is to the point and expresses well the current situation. I would add to this what is wrong with America? Senator McCain is captured and as a prisoner faces torture. Yet as a Presidential hopeful he has not stood firmly against torture. A fifteen year old boy who fought for his country in Afghanistan, rots in Gitmo, while the presiding judge is now removed because he stood up for the defense attorney. The hell with the Geneva convention. Twenty or twenty five percent of Americans still believe in the Bush approach, yet the remaining seventy or seventy five percent, who say they are against this regime, have done nothing! Where are the true American ideals? If they exist, forget about what the press has failed to do, what have the people failed to do? Blame McClellan, as he was a puppet for the White House, and now speaks against it. Does that blame then absolve each and everyone of us for not speaking out vehemently, over and over again, against this regime and its policies? As each foundation of America, that the world was told we believe in, was undermined, where was or is the response, the march, the rebellion, against this horrific attack on American ideals. It is not enough to blame the press, the Democrats, or others. We should look at and blame ourselves. The next presidential election, will mirror what our true American Values are.

[Chavez08]

"The next presidential election, will mirror what our true American Values are."

Minus radical change in the thought patterns of most Americans, - the election will only reflect the values of Corporate Media, as usual.

[RRonin]

Sooner or later, a people get the government they deserve. Unfortunately.

[duceus]

The 70 to 75% who you say are against this regime were not opposed to the resumption of hostilities with Iraq. During the run up to the invasion, the American public supported it and the President. That number must have included many Democrats.
The TRC is just another fantasy for the rabid left, like impeachment or war crimes tribunals. These are the same people who ignore the intelligence gathered during the Clinton era that Saddam was reconstituting weapons programs or the fact that Saddam had corrupted the 'oil for food' program or that 'regime change' was something Clinton made law. Bloggers have to be controversial because they have no real news, they're not reporters, just agitators with short memories.
The fickle American public doesn't realize that Iraq and Afghanistan are the best fought wars in American history.