George W. Bush in Violation of the Constitution of the United States of America

September 28, 2007 at 11:06 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, corruption, George W Bush, Iraq, King George | 5 Comments

We have his own words that he willfully and freely chose to violate the Law of the Land, the Senate ratified Charter of the United Nations. Without an actual UN resolution that called for an invasion of Iraq, Mr. Bush broke the law and invaded Iraq. Here are his own words, courtesy of Juan Cole, who translated from the Spanish transcript just recently released to El Pais. This is George Bush talking with Aznar of Spain about how things were going to go down in March 2003. I highlighted one part in particular, where Bush states that he blackmailed several countries into supporting him, countries like Chile. How reprehensible.

One very important question needs to be asked. Why would Bush not agree to having Saddam go into exile? After all, if Bush, as he says in this transcript doesn’t like war and would rather avoid the costs, why not take the offer and let Saddam rot in exile? Why the need to kill him?

George Bush violated the Constitution of the United States. By all rights and reason, right now we should be trying him for treason.

President Bush. We are in favor of getting a second resolution in the Security Council and would want to do it quickly. We would want to announce it Monday or Tuesday [24 or 25 of February of 2003].

President Aznar: Better Tuesday, after the meeting of the Council of General Affairs of the European Union. It is important to maintain the momentum gained by the resolution at the summit of the European Union [in Brussels, Monday 17 of February]. We would prefer to wait until Tuesday.

Bush. It could be in the evening Monday, considering the time difference. In any case, the next week. We will see that the resolution is written so that it does not contain obligatory steps [for Iraq], that it does not mention the use of force, and that it states that Saddam Hussein has been unable to fulfill his obligations. That type of resolution can be voted for by many people. It would be something similar to the one passed regarding Kosovo [the 10th of June of 1999].

Aznar: Would it be presented to the Security Council before, and independently of, a parallel declaration?

Condoleezza Rice. In fact there would not be parallel declaration. We are thinking about as simple a resolution as possible, without many details regarding [Iraq’s] obligations–such that Saddam Hussein could use them as stages and consequently could neglect to fulfill them. We are speaking with Blix [head of the inspectors of the UN] and others of his team to get ideas that can serve to introduce the resolution.

Bush. Saddam Hussein will not change and will continue playing games. The moment has come to be rid of him. That’s the way it is. As for me, from now on I will try to tone down the rhetoric as much as possible, while we seek approval of the resolution. If somebody uses a veto, we will go. [Russia, China and France have, along with the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom the right to a veto in the Security Council by virtue of being permanent members]

Saddam Hussein is not disarming. We have to take him right now. We have shown an incredible degree of patience so far. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be militarily ready. I believe that we will get the second resolution. In the Security Council we have the three African members [Cameroun, Angola and Guinea], the Chileans, and the Mexicans. I will speak with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March. There is a 15% possibility that Saddam Hussein will die or flee. But that possibility will not exist until we have demonstrated our resolve. The Egyptians are talking to Saddam Hussein. It seems that he has indicated that he is willing to go into exile if he can take a billion dollars with him and all the information that he wants on weapons of mass destruction. [Muammar] Gaddafi told Berlusconi that Saddam Hussein wants to go away. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances it is entirely possible that he will be assassinated.

We would like to act with the mandate of the United Nations. If we act militarily we will do it with great precision, tightly focusing on our objectives. We will decimate the troops loyal to him, and the regular army quickly will recognize what is going on. We have sent a very clear message to Saddam’s generals: we will treat them like war criminals. We know that they have accumulated an enormous amount of dynamite to demolish bridges and other infrastructure and to blow up the oil wells. We foresee occupying those wells very quickly. Also, the Saudis will help us by putting on the market all the petroleum that is necessary. We are developing a package of very extensive humanitarian aid. We can win without destruction. We are already planning for a post-Saddam Iraq, and I believe that there are good bases for a better future. Iraq has a relatively good bureaucracy and a civil society. It can be organized as a federal system. Meanwhile, we are doing everything possible to take care of the political needs of our friends and allies.

Aznar: It is very important to have a resolution. It is not the same to act with it as without it. It would be very advisable to have a majority in the Security Council that supported that resolution. In fact, it is important to have it passed by a majority, even if someone exercises a veto. Let us consider that the text of the resolution would have among other things to state that Saddam Hussein has lost his opportunity.

Bush. Yes, by all means. It would be better to have a reference to “necessary means” [a reference to the type of UN resolution that authorizes the use of “all necessary means”].

Aznar: Saddam Hussein has not cooperated, has not been disarmed; we would have to summarize his breaches and to send a more detailed message. That would allow, for example, Mexico to move [a reference to a change in its negative position on the second resolution, the extent of which Aznar could have known about from the lips of president Vicente Fox on Friday, February 21, in Mexico City].

Bush. The resolution will be custom-made in such a way that it will help you. The content gives me a little of the same [sense].

Aznar: We will send you some language.

Bush. We do not have any text. Only a criterion: that Saddam Hussein disarm. We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to drag things out until the summer. After all, this last stage has already lasted four months, and this is more than enough time to disarm.

Aznar: Having a text would allow us to sponsor it and to be its coauthors, and to arrange for many others to sponsor it.

Bush. Perfect.

Aznar: The next Wednesday [(2)6 of February] I envision being with Chirac. The resolution will already have begun to circulate.

Bush. It seems to me all very good. Chirac knows the reality perfectly. Their intelligence services have explained it to him. The Arabs are transmitting a very clear message to Chirac: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he is Mister Arab, but in fact he is making their lives impossible. But I do not want to have any rivalry with Chirac. We have different points of view, but I would like that to be all. Give him my best regards. Really! The less rivalry he feels exists between us, the better it will be for everyone.

Aznar: How to combine the resolution with the report of the inspectors?

Condoleezza Rice. Actually there will not be a report on February 28, but the inspectors will present a report written on March 1. We don’t have high hopes for that report. As with the previous ones, it will be a mixed picture. I have the impression that Blix will now be more negative than he was before, with regard to the Iraqis’ intentions. After the appearance of the inspectors before the Council, we must anticipate a vote on the resolution one week later. The Iraqis, meanwhile, will try to explain that they are fulfilling their obligations. It isn’t true, and it won’t be sufficient, though they may announce the destruction of some missiles.

Bush. This is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.

Aznar. I agree, but it would be good to have the maximum possible number of people. Have a little patience.

Bush: My patience is exhausted. I don’t intend to wait longer than the middle of March.

Aznar. I do not request that you have infinite patience. Simply that you do everything possible so that it all works out.

Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola, and Cameroon must realize that what’s at stake is the security of the United States, and they should act with a sense of friendship toward us. [Chilean President Ricardo] Lagos should know that the Free Trade Accord with Chile is awaiting Senate confirmation and a negative attitude about this could put ratification in danger. Angola is receiving Millennium Account funds [to help alleviate poverty] and that could be jeopardized also if he’s not supportive. And Putin must know that his attitude is putting in danger the relations of Russia with the United States.

Aznar. Tony [Blair] would like to wait until the 14th of March.

Bush: I prefer the 10th. This is like a game of bad cop, good cop. I don’t mind being the bad cop, and Blair can be the good one.

Aznar. Is it certain that any possibility exists that Saddam Hussein will go into exile?

Bush: The possibility exists, including that he will be assassinated.

Aznar. Exile with a guarantee?

Bush: No guarantee. He is a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared with Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in, we are going to discover many more crimes and we will take him to the Court the International Justice. Saddam Hussein thinks that he has already escaped. He thinks that France and Germany have ceased fulfilling their responsibilities. He also thinks that the demonstrations of the last week [Saturday, February 15] will protect him. And he thinks that I very am weak. But the people around him know that the things are otherwise. They know that his future is in exile or a coffin. For that reason it is very important to maintain the pressure on him. Gaddafi tells us through back channels that that is the only thing that can finish him off. Saddam Hussein’s only strategy is to delay, to delay and to delay.

Aznar. In fact the biggest success would be to win the game without firing a single shot and entering Baghdad.

Bush: For me it would be the perfect solution. I do not want war. I know what wars are. I know the destruction and the death that they bring with them. I am the one who has to console the mothers and the widows of the dead. By all means, for us that would be the best solution. In addition, it would save $50 billion.

Aznar. We need you to help us with our public opinion.

Bush: We will do everything we can. Wednesday I am going to speak on the situation in the Middle East, proposing the new peace plan with which you are familiar, and on weapons of mass destruction, on the benefits of a free society, and I will locate the history of Iraq in a wider context. Perhaps it will serve you.

Aznar. What we are doing is a very deep change for Spain and the Spaniards. We are changing the policy that the country had followed for the past two hundred years.

Bush: A historical sense of the responsibility guides me just as it does you. When within a few years History judges us, I do not want people to ask themselves why Bush, or Aznar, or Blair did not face their responsibilities. In the end, what people want is to enjoy freedom. Recently, in Rumania they reminded me of the example of Ceausescu: it was enough for a woman to call him a liar, for the entire repressive edifice to come down. It is the uncontrollable power of freedom. I am convinced that I will get the resolution.

Aznar. All to the good.

Bush: I made the decision to go to the Security Council. In spite of the disagreements in my Administration, I said to my people that we had to work with our friends. It will be wonderful to get a second resolution.

Aznar. The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.

Bush: I am optimistic because I believe that I am in the right. I am at peace with myself. It has been up to us to face a serious threat to the peace. It irritates me a great deal to consider the indifference of the Europeans to the sufferings that Saddam Hussein inflicts on Iraqis. Perhaps because he is brown-skinned, far away, and Muslim, many Europeans think that everything is all right in his regard. I will not forget what Solana once said to me: why do we Americans think that the Europeans are anti-Semitic and unable to confront their responsibilities? That defensive attitude is terrible. I have to acknowledge I have just great relations with Kofi Annan.

Aznar. He shares your ethical preoccupations.

Bush: The more the Europeans attack me, the stronger I am in the United States.

Aznar. We would like to make your strength compatible with the esteem of the Europeans.


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. You should really read “The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgement Inside The Bush Administration” by Jack Goldsmith. It’s a fast and a very very scary read regarding just outside the notion of the law the entire Administration is. The author is erroneously being pegged by liberals as a repentant brave conservative. Read the book and you’ll see that other than on a couple technicalities regarding excessive executive power (he’s totally fine with what you might call insanely excessive executive power, he just thought occasionally the administration went too far in looking for super insanely excessive executive power), he remains totally supportive of torture, abuse of executive privilege, blind trust in failed leaders, legally labeling NGOs and human rights groups as terrorism supporters, etc, etc. But the real scary thing about the book is that he’s coming at it from a legal perspective and shows you just how completely lacking the rule of law is in the executive branch. Under Bush in particular, but after finishing I couldn’t help but feel this is a deep structural problem beyond just this Administration and the neocons. Basically the President has lawyers who can (and under Bush almost always do, but other Presidents too even if not quite as much) find legal justification for any policy. Then if it ever goes to court, any member of the executive branch or bureaucracy can say they acted in good faith based on the executive branch’s legal analysis. So the people who carry out the policies are immune from breaking the law while the President himself of course is virtually immune given the inherently political nature of the impeachment process (which again is even worse in an administration which has taken partisanship to new heights). There was a play in Egypt years ago called “Shahid ma-shafsh Haga” – “A Witness Who Didn’t See Anything”. That’s basically what you have here, a mechanism by which everyone can and does claim plausible deniability and no one is ever held accountable for anything before the law. The law itself is not held up as the standard, but rather the sayings of partisan lawyers acting prior to the commission of pre-meditated crimes. Bush is a horrible example of this, and Goldsmith at the end all but flat out admits there is no law only a reliance on supposedly good honest leaders (fine, we know lousy leaders can destroy the law, but I for one always have believed the law, checks and balances, and enforcement mechanisms should make it VERY hard in a genuine democracy and law-based society to circumvent them so easily as Goldsmith shows the Bushies doing). And of course Goldsmith holds up the Bush Administration (and in particular one truly evil Cheney head lawyer) as supposed examples of such good leaders. I won’t even get into the deep, deep ignorance of the Middle East these guys have, the legal side of it is scary enough.

  2. Daniel, Daniel, Daniel: we all know it’s just a blankety-blank piece of paper.

    You’re so uptight, dude.

    (Nothing like living in a country where nobody in power is ever held accountable for anything any more.)

  3. Mark,

    I had a great moment today. I was talking with a friend who is from San Antonio. He’s generally not as knowledgeable about what is going on and when I shared with him this particular transcript, including where George Bush dismissed Saddam’s attempt to go to exile, my friend realized the folly of the whole situation. We really could have avoided 4000 American soldiers dead and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

  4. Bush: I am optimistic because I believe that I am in the right. I am at peace with myself.

    Spoken like the true sociopath that he is. Of course he’s at peace with himself: he has no conscience.

  5. Hi, please have a look at this:

    We want the truth to come out. This web site contains a dossier we started to elaborate in early 2003. Saddam would have gone into exile but Bush and Blair had already decided to go to war.

    Would you support us?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: