After the Torture Memos: Can We Stop Paying George W.'s Pension?

Let's say an executive failed so miserably at their job that they were considered the worst at their job in the history of their company. They not only brought down their company, they brought down other businesses in their wake. And when they left their position, they then were given a pension of about $200,000 a year for life, plus expenses that include an office, security, staff and a travel fund - perhaps adding up to a million dollars a year.

Shouldn't this person be ashamed? If they had no sense of shame, and say the person was an AIG executive, wouldn't we demand the money back?

In the wake of the not-surprising revelations about the torture committed by the United States, I am left to wonder: can we stop paying President George W. Bush? Can we put his pension, which will total in the millions, to a vote?

We are talking about a person who could not have done a worse job leading this country if they tried to do the worst job in history.

Let's take a look:

1-Worst economy since the 1930's.

2-President during the most deadly attack on America soil in our nation's history.

3-President when an entire city, the city of New Orleans, is nearly destroyed by a hurricane, and the person he appointed to head FEMA - in charge of the cleanup - has virtually no experience in emergency management, and is in way over his head, resulting in an utter American failure.

4-President who brings us to war with Iraq in order to counter their weapons of mass destruction from turning into a mushroom cloud. Turns out, Iraq has no WMD's. We also have the wrong battle plan to fight the insurgency. And we are told that Iraq will pay for its own reconstruction. Several years later, we still have more than 120,000 troops in Iraq, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, more than 4,000 Americans dead, and more than 20,000 wounded.

5-United States now tortures. Previously, we prosecuted other nations for committing the acts which we now conduct. Japan, for example, in World War II. Now, we're Japan.

So, I have to ask the question. We're all angry at the bailout money going to AIG executives for their lavish bonuses; we're understandably irate that the very same people who put our economy in this mess are now profiting from it.

Why are we still paying George W. Bush? He was the CEO of America, right? That was his thing - the MBA President.

Shouldn't he be so ashamed by the hurt he caused us that he, like many of the AIG executives, would give us the money back?

And please don't tell me it was really Dick Cheney running the country. We all know that Cheney will go down as one of the poisonous, detested figures in our nation's history. But he wasn't the President.

George W. Bush said he was going to give speeches to fill the old coffers. He's doing that - there are people who will pay him to speak. Let them. He's a wealthy guy anyway. Even if he didn't get paid for his speeches, he'd be fine.

So why in the world should we be on the hook to continue paying a staff and a travel budget for the man who caused such harm to this country? Talk about adding insult to injury.

Comments

[kamau006]

Far from an AIG exec, W is more like the Bernie Madoff of failed presidents.
I can only hope for the same level of accountability.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/its-not-torture-if-you-us_b_188942.html

Great suggestion, Bush doesn't deserve to live on the federal dime after what he dragged us through.

[sushi11]

Voting a person into office allways bears some risk. You can never know how he or she will perform. So its only fair to stick to the deal and pay him his pension. What I will never understand, is how the American people could vote for him a second time after four lousy years. Having to pay his pension now can be considered "Lehrgeld" the German expression for having to pay for a lesson however direly it is.

Greetings from Europe,

s.

[humble liberty]

Think of someone with average intelligence (or political knowledge).

Half of everyone is below this level. People were voting for Bush because they want someone to appoint judges to overturn Roe v Wade, and keep the stem cell ban (before Obama), etc. They don't know what a derivative is or anything about KBR.

[J G H]

You want to punish the monkey, but what about the organ grinder? At least Bush was trying to pretend, perhaps to himself, that we were not using torture. Cheney, on the other hand, did everything he could to keep Congress from placing restrictions on interrogation methods. Bush bears some responsibility, but I would bet that he was getting a lot of encouragement and guidance from Cheney and Rumsfield.

[VOICEOFKNOWING]

Alright, super-ultr­a-liberal-­Matt:


1-Worst economy since the 1930's.

The economy is bad, but you're wrong... The Early 80's were worse under Carter (A Dem)

2-President during the most deadly attack on America soil in our nation's history.

Yes... Which was being planned during the Clinton Administration. Can't blame that one on Bush. Your grammar is bad for a writer... Should be "American", not "America".

3-President when an entire city, the city of New Orleans, is nearly destroyed by a hurricane, and the person he appointed to head FEMA - in charge of the cleanup - has virtually no experience...

Head of FEMA's fault, not Bush. FEMA does have guidelines for these emergencies, you know...

4-President who brings us to war with Iraq in order to counter their weapons of mass destruction... Turns out, Iraq has no WMD's. We also have the wrong battle plan...

Although I don't agree with the war in Iraq, I can't completely blame the President. I believe he was fed bad information by the Brits and Israel on WMD's. Again, the battle plan was put together by Generals, not really Bush.


5-United States now tortures. Previously, we prosecuted other nations for committing acts...

The terrorists are not a country. This is a new style of criminal. If you consider what we do to criminals, not military folks bad, I ask you to parachute into Iran and see how thay treat you, dude. I really don't like "so called" journalists like you.

[Mathewlittman]

That's the first time I've been referred to as ultra-liberal; I'll take it.
Let's go in order of brilliance.
1-The economy was worse under Carter, in the 80's. First, it wasn't. Second, Carter was President for one year in the '80's. So I'm sure you don't mean to say that the one year in which Carter was President during the '80's, and in on other years, did we have a worse economy than today. So, incorrect on all fronts. And a little dopey.
2-President during worst terrorist attack - planned under Clinton, you say. But a month prior to the attacks, Bush was told "Bin Laden to strike in U.S." and he didn't take it seriously enough.
3- Bush appointed the head of FEMA, genius.

[Larsen Rogers]

"if you ain't Liberal, you ain't American."

Secondly, Mathewlittman reply was pretty much what I was thinking about your comment.

Also, I have noticed that many cons try to rewrite history. Bad for the cons is that most Liberals know history. The 1930s depression was like a heart attack to the economy but the 1980s (whether under Carter or not) was like a heartburn.

Finally, "New style of criminal" is neither accurate nor a justification for torture. The 8th Amendment, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" was established because the founding fathers (Liberals) opposed the torture that was taking place in Europe at the time. Smart guys, those founding fathers.

[textynn]

Denial Denial Denial. A person can plan a crime anywhere anytime, in bed, on the bus, etc. When it's successfully executed is the fault of whoever is in charge of protection.
The economy in the 80 was nothing like this. Torture is not about an eye for an eye. That's like saying we shouldn't prosecute someone for using child labor because the children were bad children. It's about protecting children everywhere.

[Larsen Rogers]

Bush failed. I wholeheartedly agree. Too bad we did not impeach when we had the chance. I also agree we should not be paying him. Neither he, Cheney, or Rumsfield deserve any compensation from the U.S. Government.

U.S.A., please prosecute these guys. A poor man would already be on death row.

[VOICEOFKNOWING]

Does Carter? Look at his record...

[Larsen Rogers]

Jimmy Carter was an average president. Yes he does deserve the compensation he receives from the U.S. Government. He has also been one of the best Post-Presidents this country has had. Look at his record. Helping the poor and working for human rights. Being average or below average as president does not justify taking away his compensation package.

Flagrantly violating the Constitution does justify taking away compensation.

[mergina]

Can we drag him and cheney into court for their many lying, thieving, murdering crimes?

[VOICEOFKNOWING]

I like how you fuzzed your face out so no-one can see you...

[LizM]

Don't you think it would be better to spend the time and effort to ensure that Congress does its job and properly investigates all of the Bush administration's policies and actions in its blind and misguided pursuit of its goal to, ostensibly, make America safer...consitution and Geneva Convention be damned?

By the way, I think you might have just left 'number two' off your list...it doesn't appear to make much sense and I don't particularly like what is implied, unwittingly or not, if you take this thought to its logical conclusion.

[calfacon]

What # 2 implies is that he ignored warnings and failed to defend the country from attack. That's all.

[LizM]

Well, it could be read to imply that if another attack, God forbid, were to happen now that ObamaBIDEN are in charge, then that would be a knock of sorts against them, too.

I'm just saying that Matt should have elaborated a bit more with point number two.

[oregonbird]

Former government officials, whose movements are protected by government employees, have their travel plans vetted and approved by the present administration. SOP.

Given the high probability of security risks and international incident, Bush should be denied permission to leave the country. For his own good.

At least until some other G-20 country has the balls to put out a warrant for his detainment, and the rest quietly agree to hold him and transfer him to the Hague.

Then, he can hop a plane out of the country.

[ProudAmerican23]

FYI - Bill Clinton, President of the United States was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones law suit. The trial proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 55 senators voted not guilty, and 45 voted guilty on the perjury charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of obstruction, with 50 votes cast as not guilty, and 50 votes as guilty.[1] It was only the second impeachment of a President in American history, following the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

[VOICEOFKNOWING]

HERE! HERE!

[Yermammy]

If I HAVE to pay taxes on this war criminal, I'd rather it be to house him in a maximum security Federal prison. That goes for all those that followed him in his corrupt dealings too. Time to clean house.
Yeah, that's going to include some "Democrats" too, or DINO's as they're more commonly called. Good.

[babyboomerorig]

Best idea I've heard lately!

[bronceye]

His daddy has supported him for all of his life, let him continue to keep him.

[Alongside]

Torture! Torture! How can you even dare to make a comparison between what the Japanese did to our soldiers during the Bataan Death March with what might have happened to Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi and Mohammed al Kahtani. who were very much responsible for the murder of 3000 Americans at the World Trade Center, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Were these terrorist thugs deprived of a little sleep? How about the 3000 who sleep forever? Were they made to lie down on a cold floor? What about our 3000 fellow citizens who lie forever in the cold ground?

There is a huge difference that always goes ignored by the elite left winged media. The Japanese tortured Americans during World War II for the sole purpose of torture for torture's sake. What we were doing in Guantanamo by making the terrorists a little uncomfortable was in an effort to gather critical information that would help to keep our soldiers and citizenry safe from potential injury and death. Do you really believe that our military personnel torture people for their own personal enjoyment? It's done to keep millions of us including people like Littman safe so that he can continue to write his vicious nonsense.

[woodsywizz]

Urk. You are making an ugly distinction. WWII was a massive world-girdling destruction. What made us different was, "WE WEREN'T LIKE THEM". Now we are the world's pre-eminent power, and we are suddenly routinely doing things we hanged Japanese officers for doing.

Don't you get it? Our values prevailed in that war. My father almost died. My grandfather, in his third decade of Navy Service, was commanding a supply depot. We were all in. We changed the world. Now people EXPECT us, and everyone else, NOT TO TORTURE.

Finally - "making the terrorists a little uncomfortable"??? Do you at long last not know that most of those prisoners were swept up by bounty hunters and warlords for the rewards? "Little uncomfortable"??? Have you ever been kept in an 8' X 8' cage for seven years, interrogated for 20 hours at a stretch, drowned until just before death only to be revived and drowned again?

That's not "vicious nonsense". And I'm a serving Veteran, not an "elite", "left winged" person. I hate terrorism too, but torturing (yes that's what it is) is not the way to stop terrorism.

It only encourages it. And It's not our way. And because we WON the Second World War, we taught everyone else that it's not the way. So why are WE doing it now?

[oregonbird]

The fact that other people, in other times and places, have used torture, does not excuse or absolve the Americans who conceived, approved, permitted or performed torture. Civilization, and the law of our land, does not permit torture. Ethics and human empathy do not permit torture. I suspect that the precepts of any religion you believe you follow do not permit torture.

As for your claim of the right to safety -- that is the cry of a coward. There is no place on this earth that is 'safe', and your demand that you be made and kept 'safe' is nothing but embarrassing, in the face of the injured and mutilated victims of war and terrorism who continue to live productively each day without any such guarantee.

CIA officials involved in the torture have stated, on record, that information gained from torture is worthless. They report that the use of empathy, and offers of sympathy, are the only methods that garner true information. And yet you continue to grasp after disproved concepts in your desperate bid to force violence, even the possibility of violence, to happen to others, anyone other than yourself. Coward. Vicious coward. Xian coward.

[jmpurser]

No. If we want to take meaningful action along these lines we need to take it to court and President Obama has already ruled that out.

Once again, justice is "off the table" thanks to the Democratic "leadership".