London Mayor Tells Bush To Stay Out of Londontown — Will International Shunning Become Prosecution?

Boris Johnson, the conservative Mayor of London, has declared George Bush a persona non grata — asking him to stay out of London with his new torture-touting memoir. The question is whether such international shunning will become actual effort to prosecute Bush, who just confessed to war crimes. I discussed the controversy on Countdown.

Johnson begins his column without mincing words:

It is not yet clear whether George W Bush is planning to cross the Atlantic to flog us his memoirs, but if I were his PR people I would urge caution. As book tours go, this one would be an absolute corker. It is not just that every European capital would be brought to a standstill, as book-signings turned into anti-war riots. The real trouble — from the Bush point of view — is that he might never see Texas again.

It seems that, while our own Democratic and Republican leaders do not want to discuss torture (let alone investigate it), the Mayor of London is not keen on a former leader flogging his memoir and proudly proclaiming how he ordered the torture of suspects.

The controversy may only be the first international reaction to the book. While our media has discussed the book rather matter-of-factly as acknowledging his order to waterboard suspects, other nations take international treaties seriously and view this as an admission of a war crime.
Previously, Cheney and others were the subject of international calls for arrest after they admitted to roles in the torture program. The United States has a clear obligation to prosecute those responsible for our torture program. However, President Obama has promised to block any investigation of torturers and has stopped any investigation of those who ordered the war crime. In the absence of nations enforcing their international obligations, other nations will often set forward to enforce the rule of law.

Such claims are sometimes based on universal jurisdiction (or the universality principle) which asserts the right under public international law for any state to enforce laws against crimes outside its boundaries, regardless of nationality or country of residence of the accused. This enforcement is generally limited to such things as war crimes — viewed as a crime against all under such agreements as the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Obviously, such moves are controversial and subject to intense challenge. For example, one question is whether Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions restricts universal prosecution of crimes to “international conflicts” to the exclusion of torture at CIA facilities or Gitmo. Ironically, Bush always emphasizes the “war on terror” as an international effort.

In addition, since we tortured foreign citizens, those countries would have grounds to issue a warrant as was the case in the arrest of former dictator of Chile Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet was arrested in London in 1998 on an order from Spanish Judge Baltazar Garzon who cited Spanish victims in Chile. Regardless of the grounds, any warrant for Bush would put Obama in an even more ignoble position on torture (if that is possible). He would have to fight an effort to enforce human rights law while blocking such enforcement at home.  We would be in the same position as Serbia in both protecting accused war criminals and resisting efforts of other countries in seeking to prosecute them.

In the meantime, Bush’s book tour schedulers may want to avoid those countries which care about human rights and focus on such natural allies as China, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.  He might want to avoid Italy, Spain, and much of Western Europe.

Cheney and Bush have now virtually dared anyone to come after them. They know that Obama has chosen politics over principle. The question is whether the shunning in London will become an actual effort in another country to issue an arrest warrant.

Currently, the debate over torture in the United States is focusing not on the use of torture but whether actual evidence derived from torture should be admissible in federal court. That was the position of Gov. Pataki in our recent debate on Hardball:

Debates of that kind send a message to other countries that we are well past any debate over the use of torture and are now arguing over the use of the fruits of torture. When combined with the Bush book and Cheney interviews, some leaders may view any enforcement of international law as up to other countries. In the absence of such enforcement, they could feel that their countries will be compromised like the United States in turning a blind eye to a war crime or a war criminal.

This brings us back to Boris Johnson. It is rather difficult to say that your country rejects torture when it is feting a former leader who has publicly admitted to ordering torture (and remains proud of it).

Jonathan Turley

100 thoughts on “London Mayor Tells Bush To Stay Out of Londontown — Will International Shunning Become Prosecution?

  1. I would love to see George W. arrested overseas, but I would also be disappointed that we did not follow the law here in the US. It is obvious that Gov. Pataki didn’t want these detainees to be tried in a court that might actually follow the law.

  2. Bush was never much of an overseas traveler before he became president. He traveled between Texas and Maine. I think that is pretty much what he does now. Cheney looks to sick to do much traveling.

  3. Professor Turley is a better man than me listening patiently to that buffoon Pataki filibuster the questions. A Columbia law grad — like Pataki — knows better and to argue on sheer emotion against the Rule of Law in that way is a disgrace to him and those who ushered him to the bar. Pataki’s last stupid statement — that the Rule Of Law operates to deny those charged in American courts with the full protection of the Bill of Rights unless they are citizens — is simply wrong on the law. Citizenship has never been a prerequisite to Constitutional protections in American courts.

    Do Republicans believe in nothing except expediency to promote demagoguery?

  4. I would suspect that Mr. Johnson’s pronouncement was the first salvo in a coming fusilade of outside pressure on the US to do something about bringing Bush/Cheney to account for their actions.

    Which agency(s) is involved in orchestrating this will probably never be known, but perhaps they were waiting for an admission in writing and Mr. Bush has at last furnised it. His lawyers probably gave that the OK just like they did the original illegal acts.

    We can now watch the Kabuki dance of “Make me do the right thing” play out. Meanwhile Mr. Durham’s investigations are continuing and have been expanded by AG Holder so they can’t be charged of malfeasance.

  5. Congratulations, George W. Bush!

    You’ve won an all expenses paid trip to Spain! Spain! Where you can enjoy the hot Ibiza sun . . . through the bars of your prison window.

    (oh please oh please oh please)

  6. Professor Turley,
    If you were the judge, I’d have some hope that a civilian trial would be legitimate but I’ve been watching and trials of “Muslim terrorists” are going to be travesties. The Moussaoui proceedings were a travesty. Remember Moussaoui passing Judge Brinkema a note, “Why don’t we just kill ZM?” and he was right, the plan was to just kill him and the judge was OK with going along. But for one juror in the sentencing. He would have been executed.

    I followed the OJ Simpson trial and that was not a capital murder trial and I saw that Simpson’s lawyer were, legitimately, allowed to question evidence, including chain of custody of evidence. Judge Brinkema let anything in that the government wanted just on the government saying it was evidence. All of a sudden they come up with a business card they say they found and it has a hand written phone number on it and they claim Moussaoui also called that number, with no proof that he did, just claiming. The Judge let it in.

  7. Mr. Turley,

    Your spot on the Olbermann show has proven to me that you are out to get president Obama. I recall clearly that you heckled his campaign.

    I’m sure you have spoken to ‘Europeans’ who are disappointed with the US and our president concerning the torture issue. I know waterboarding is torture. But the fact is that the International Court at the Hague could bring charges against W the Ex-president at any time.

    It is also a fact that, were the United States Government to prosecute anyone on this issue, that effort would logically and legally begin in the US Congress or our court system and not in the Executive Branch.

    There clearly have been serious moral and legal crimes commited in our history by people in high public office…never has it been the case that the prosecution ws led by the president.

  8. The World Court at the Hague could bring charges RIGHT NOW!


    That is the point. If ‘Europe’ as Turley says, are down on the USA and President Barack Obama over this issue then why doesn’t the World Court START THE BALL ROLLING BY PRESSING CHARGES on W!

    Mr. Turley KNOWS that would raise the level of pressure on the US government to address the issue and he ignores that in his criticism of the president.

  9. If I, as an attorney, become aware that another attorney has committed an ethical violation, or a crime, then it becomes an ethical violation on my part to remain silent. Where and to whom do I report Holder and Obama for derelection of their duty as officers of the court first, and violation of their respective oaths of office, second?

  10. This nation is knocked out cold on our own Ambien and we aren’t going to wake up until the room is completely engulfed in flames.

    Powerfully written, JT.

  11. You folks are doing nothing, but snarking on the administration.

    Sandy Haley, if you want charges brought on W-Cheney then the people to talk to are in the International Criminal Court at the Hague…here’s their contact…

    Or you could contact your US Congressional Representatives.

    Never in US history has the President of the United States been the chief prosecutor or instigator in any criminal case, war crimes or otherwise, but Turley and this whole chatroom insist this should be the case. I smell a fish.

  12. You smell your own upper lip, Chip.

    No one here to my knowledge expects Obama to lead anything like a prosecution.


    That’s not his job.

    That’s his equally spineless creature Holder’s job as Attorney General.

    What we expect Obama to do is get the Hell out of the way and for Holder to do his job and uphold his sworn Constitutional duty.

    However, “Turley and this whole chatroom insist this should be the case” is at worst a falsehood and at best a fine example of the logical fallacy of composition (the from each to all error). Obama himself has violated the 4th Amendment by claiming to have the legal power to assassinate American citizens without due process – as egregious a crime as any committed by the previous administration absent their illegal invasion of a country that didn’t attack us. Some of us consider Obama as big a criminal as Bush.

  13. Buddha,

    Let’s not forget that refusing to prosecute people who committed\commanded torture is of itself a crime according to the UN convention against torture. Or the drone attacks.

  14. “Never in US history has the President of the United States been the chief prosecutor or instigator in any criminal case, war crimes or otherwise, but Turley and this whole chatroom insist this should be the case. I smell a fish.”(CHIPS)

    You haven’t read much of this blog have you? Your charge is unsubstantiated. If you want to defend Obama you’re going to do more than fish sniffing.

  15. Buddha wrote:

    “You’ve won an all expenses paid trip to Spain! Spain! Where you can enjoy the hot Ibiza sun . . . through the bars of your prison window.”


    Buddha, If ol’ George ain’t too dumb he will be sangin’ this tune ’bout Spain and England:

  16. Buddha,

    I figured you’d enjoy the thought of Rumpole trying to defend Bush … can’t you just hear the lecture on law and justice and the golden thread … (Rumpole was one of my favorite characters in the books and on film)

  17. Former Fed,
    Great old tune from my college days! Maybe George can sing “Mama Told me not to come” if he does visit the Continent and his torture past catches up with him!

  18. Buddha-

    Bush deserves to be defended by one of those Bible School “lawyers” he filled his Justice Department with. The same shysters who said you could torture prisoners until they died or suffered an organ failure. Now, that would be justice!

  19. Blouise & Raff,

    It would be indeed be ‘Joy to the World’ if George was arrested abroad while bragging about his waterboarding.

    I was also in college during those 3 Dog Night days.

    Can we get someone to forge Barbara Bush’s name on a card telling her son to visit Spain and England? (But my momma told me *to* come…

  20. FFLEO/Raff,

    I suspect George isn’t too good at that whole “listening” thing. Well, in all fairness, he probably listens to his mom. Whether he understands the words coming out of her mouth is another issue. :)

  21. It’s funny you should mention Warren, because if George goes to England (or Spain), he’s going to need . . .

  22. Blouise,

    I had never heard that Zevon tune before. What a rousingly good song it is with the piano and that fantastic lead guitar solo.

  23. Blouise,

    Thank you, dear. I don’t know why I was getting bad code.


    If you appreciate good song writing, and I know you do, all of Warren Zevon’s catalog is worth a listen even though “Excitable Boy” is widely considered his strongest album. He was as good as any and better than most. Not many people know when he was a child Warren studied classical music with Igor Stravisnski.

    Here’s my favorite song from “Excitable Boy” (and that’s saying something) – Accidentally Like A Martyr:

  24. Buddha,

    Watch his hands on the keyboard in the Excitable Boy I posted … pay special attention to the length of his fingers and how he holds his wrists over the keys … training, my man, training

  25. HaHA!

    Proving once again that no computer problem is so twisted that I can’t come up with an equally twisted solution,

  26. Buddha,

    I find it doesn’t work for me if I type in characters underneath the paste which is why it worked on the other thread but not here where you have typed after the paste job … I think

  27. Blouise,

    I think it’s three things: a bug in the long code for the Warren video, a change to WordPress and how my computer is set up. The short code seems to work fine. It could also be related to my Flash set up in Linux. I don’t use Adobe’s proprietary plug-in and with recent upgrades by Adobe, my plug-in may be causing the malfunction. I’ll get to the bottom of it eventually.

    Just like justice will eventually catch Bush.

  28. And a good night to you, Blouise (and my fellow bloggers as well). Today started at 5 AM and I hear my pillows calling their soft silky siren song . . . which is pretty impressive considering the cases are cotton.

    Bonne nuit, des gens aimables.

  29. Question: Is not “Enemy Combatant” a recent and special category of prisoner set up specifically by the Bush administration to deal with our current hostilities and deny captured combatants the protections of prisoner of war status? Haven’t we historically tried prisoners of war in military tribunals? That struck me in the Professors argument that (that roach) Pataki kept making the point that we historically tried enemy combatants in military tribunals when we did not; we tried prisoners of war. Or have I forgotten all of my American history?

  30. Only a few weeks ago the Obama administration affirmed that waterboarding is torture according to law, not policy. With this affirmation and Bush’s own admission that he ordered torture there is no legal excuse for failing to arrest him on the spot.

    I attended a lecture on the intersection of international and American law given by Koh at the U. of Michigan. He stated in this talk that it is the policy of the Obama administration to use indefinite detention and extrajudicial killing as part of the president’s war powers. I then asked him, given the topic of his talk, why Bush was not under arrest. Koh said he did not know because he didn’t work for the DOJ. He gave a quasi religious, extremely creepy explanation of the Obama judicial policy that is worth getting the tape of the event for, just to hear that.

    Damn right Bush is a war criminal and Obama is one also for failing to uphold our clear rule of law in prosecuting people who ordered, “legally” justified, or committed torture. Glenn Greenwald has a look at what the destruction of the rule of law is doing to our society on his blog today.

  31. lottakatz “Is not “Enemy Combatant” a recent and special category of prisoner set up specifically by the Bush administration to deal with our current hostilities and deny captured combatants the protections of prisoner of war status?”

    No. It’s not a new term. I’m unsure of its first usage, but it has been around for over 100 years and continues to have the same meaning.

    “Haven’t we historically tried prisoners of war in military tribunals?”

    Article IV of the Aug. 12, 1949 Geneva Convention defined “prisoner of war” with the following criteria:
    “Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

    2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
    a. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    b. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    c. That of carrying arms openly;
    d. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

    The term “prisoners of war” has been historically reserved for the captured regularly organized uniformed (identifiable by insignia at a distance) forces of a state. In general, prisoners of war are not tried. It is not a crime for a uniformed soldier to participate in war. Most prisoners of war are simply held until the end of the conflict. When accused of a crime, the prisoners do appear before a military tribunal, not an Article III court.

    Thus, al Qaeda members need not be treated as prisoners of war, and are not guaranteed the protections afforded prisoners of war provided by the Geneva Convention.

    An “unlawful enemy combatant” is one who acts as a hostile aggressor but does not meet the criteria of Article IV. The U.S. Supreme Court in ex parte Quirin (1942) ruled that unlawful enemy combatants could be tried by a military tribunal.

  32. Did President Lincoln authorize the extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizens?

    During the civil war, U.S. citizens were tried and convicted by military tribunal and were put to death. This was all done under the authority of President Lincoln. No Article III court was involved.

  33. BBB,

    That definition would cover our non-uniformed combatants who work for the CIA and OGA as well as private contractors. So if you plan to argue such a disingenuous and inaccurate legal argument, you’re going to have to apply it to our own people who fit the definition you outlined.

    BTW, Koh didn’t limit the president’s ability to kill people, including American citizens whom Obmaa determines is a terrorist, to overseas killing fields. He specifically said, anyone, anywhere. The only limit was a practical one, niceties such as it would not go over well with our allies, but there was no legal reason people couldn’t be killed in the US as well.

  34. Oh darn, Buddha is Lying waited until I logged off to launch her stinking snark attack…too bad I would have liked to slap down those lame lies in person.

    I guess you don’t like to deal with the facts because not one of all the lame phony-bottoms here even tried to address my key point THE PLACE FOR SUCH A TRIAL IS THE HAGUE JUST LIKE IT WAS FOR Radovan Karadžić!

    The entire US government and congress are complicit in the crimes of war we commited in Iraq they are not the appropriate body for such a trial…

    Once again, if any of you were serious you would be addressing your grievances to the International Criminal Court at the Hague, here’s the address.

    And what I smell is a lot worse than a fish, I smell bigotry and NEO-CONS!

  35. Jill, FACTS…

    The International Criminal Court at the Hague is the appropriate body for the trial….JUST LIKE IT WAS FOR Radovan Karadžić!

    The entire US government and congress are complicit in the crimes of war we commited in Iraq they are not the appropriate body for such a trial…

    Once again, if any of you were serious you would be addressing your grievances to the International Criminal Court at the Hague, here’s the address.

  36. Cow Chip,

    What you smell is the staggering amount of crap you’re full of. Lying? If pointing out that you have no idea what you’re talking about structurally vis a vis the American government makes me a liar, then so be it, but I’m pretty sure that they taught us the differing functions and capacities of all operators within the state and Federal systems while I was in law school – a lesson you apparently missed. You don’t even know the proper roles of our governmental officials so I guess I’d rather be a liar than an ignoramus.

    And if you think your repeatedly bleating about the Hague and accusing people here of being Neocons is a come back? It’s no wonder the British lost their empire. You can’t tell your ass from a hole in the wall.

    While we’re at it? You’re not ten any more. You’re a grown man. Get a better name than “Chip”, Skippy.

  37. Jill,

    “That definition would cover our non-uniformed combatants who work for the CIA and OGA as well as private contractors.”

    Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the CIA, OGA, and other operatives are there with the blessing of the Afghanistan Government. Neither al Queda nor the Taliban are recognized governments capable of detaining combatants.

    “So if you plan to argue such a disingenuous and inaccurate legal argument, you’re going to have to apply it to our own people who fit the definition you outlined.”

    First: Explain how my 10:11 AM comment has the attributes of an argument.

    Second: Identify anything you find to be disingenuous or inaccurate.

  38. I’m laughing my ass off at you, clown. You go on though. It’s really funny.

    As to the Hague? You don’t know what you’re talking about there either. The appropriate international venue would the ICC (International Criminal Court) which was created in 2002 specifically to address war crimes. Their ability to investigate and prosecute – either on complaint or sua sponte – is limited by the fact that the U.S. is a signatory to the Rome Statute, but hasn’t ratified the treaty, ergo domestic law doesn’t recognize it. This means any jurisdictional claims would have to be made in a jurisdiction where the ICC can claim not only legal jurisdiction, but physical jurisdiction as well. In addition to not ratifying the treaty, the U.S. has made so many Bilateral Immunity Agreements as to neuter the ICC should it be ratified. Under the Article 98 BIAs, the U.S. has no obligation to turn over current or former government officials, military personnel, and U.S. employees (including non-national contractors) and nationals to the ICC. The U.S. has used aid as a cudgel against any country that will not sign off on the BIAs. Any action by the ICC, as a matter of law at this point, would have to be sua sponte to stand a chance of success.

    Care to bray some more, lil’ donkey? While you’re clearly unable to understand basics, I don’t mind educating others while assisting you to look like a fool.

  39. Chip clearly does not know much about international criminal law.

    First, Radovan Karadžić is not being tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), but rather at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Indeed, the ICC would not have jurisdiction over Karadžić, due to Article 11 of the Rome Statue of the ICC, which restricts jurisdiction to crimes committed after the statute entered into effect. Also, the trial of Karadžić is still ongoing, so he should say “is” instead of “was.”

    Second, his 9:30 PM comment displays more ignorance when he refers to the “World Court.” The “World Court” is the common colloquial name for the International Court of Justice, not the ICC. But that is just a small quibble.

    Third, it not likely that the ICC would have any jurisdiction over Bush or any other American. Article 12 of the Rome Statute states that the ICC may only exercise jurisdiction if the person accused is a national of a state party to the ICC, or if the crimes took place in the territory of a state party. The USA is not a state party, so the first test fails.

    The 2nd test might succeed, depending on where the torture took place.. But that test is only part of the issue. Article 13 states that the situation must still be referred to the ICC by the state party or the security council. Since that has not happened, the only other option would be for the prosecutor to open an investigation proprio motu (Article 15).

    But there are a few things that would complicate that. First, “situations” are defiend by geographic areas. That is, the Prosecutor can investigate the “situation” in Kenya, or the Congo. In this case, there is no discrete geographic area. Second, the situation must reach a certain gravity (Article 17). That likely has not been reached in any one geographic area. Simply put, the prosecutor is unlikely to open an investigation into the situaiton in, for example, Poland simply because the USA tortured a handful of people there. The ICC is designed to go after crimes of greater magnitude and gravity in discrete geographic locations.

    Finally, Chip’s whole argument that the ICC should handle this is weak anyway. The USA has an obligation under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture to prosecute torturers.


    read your own link:

    “The jurisdiction of the ICC will be complementary to national courts, which means that the Court will only act when countries themselves are unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute.”

    Unless you argue that the USA are a failed state (“unable”) or beyond the rule of law (“unwilling”) the place to trial the former administration is the US, not the Hague.

  41. Berliner,

    I am not sure complementarity would prevent the ICC from investigating because the USA does not, in fact, seem willing to investigate the alleged crimes. For this reason I did not mention complementarity.

  42. Let me also throw in a few words about the meaning(s) of the word “combatant” under the Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC). This word has become rather confusing, even for LOAC scholars.

    The reason for this confusion (IMHO) is that there is a technical “combatant” status under LOAC, but the term is also frequently used to describe conduct, whereby somebody who is engaged in combat is referred to as a “combatant” whether or not they technically qualify for the status or not. BBB’s description is generally correct. Combatant status is generally afforded to members of the armed forces (excluding medics and chaplains) and members of a levée en masse.

    This becomes even more muddled when you speak of “unlawful combatants” because you could be describing: 1) someone who has the the status of combatant who is behaving unlawfully, or; 2) someone who participates in combat without having the status, or; 3) someone who participates without the status and further behaves unlawfully. In my opinion, only #1 is correct. Calling someone an “unlawful combatant” implies that he is a “combatant.” For this reason, the MCA was changed in 2009 from “unlawful combatant” to “unprivileged belligerent,” describing someone who does not have the privilege to engage in battle at all.

    So a member of the armed forces who violates LOAC in some way becomes an “unlawful combatant” and loses his right to POW status if captured. I believe, if I recall correctly, that this was the case in ex parte Quirin.

    Members of al-Qaeda, on the other hand, are not combatants at all, enemy, unlawful or otherwise.

    Having given BBB some props, I would also add that Jill is correct to raise the question of CIA agents. It is not clear that they are combatants either (and even if they are they do not wear uniforms, etc.). This issue has been raised several times by Harold Koh and other legal scholars, particularly in relation to the Khadr trial before the military commission. If it is a “war crime” for a non-combatant to participate in combat, then it seems that this would also make the CIA war criminals.

    I would also warn people not to rely too much on Civil War precedents, or even World War II precedents, when discussing LOAC. The current iteration of the Geneva Conventions were negotiated and ratified after those conflicts. The law does change sometimes, and LOAC is no different. For example, I frequently hear people argue that spies and saboteurs can be summarily executed (usually in furtherance of an argument that this is how “terrorists” should be treated). This might have been the law once, but it is certainly not the law now.

  43. I suspect CHIPS is simply seeking hits.

    However, the upside to his nonsense is: “Care to bray some more, lil’ donkey? While you’re clearly unable to understand basics, I don’t mind educating others while assisting you to look like a fool.” (Buddha)

    Thus I am learning a great deal.

    The idiotic ramblings of a few do spur on those who actually know what they are writing about which is of benefit to all.

  44. Jim,

    you are of course right, but as far as I can tell CHIPSHIRLEY.COM’s argument is that the US isn’t/shouldn’t investigating because the ICC are “the people to talk to” and is “the appropriate body” — which I interpret as “having primary jurisdiction.”

    And this is clearly wrong: the ICC is very explicitly the “court of last resort.”

  45. Berliner,


    Primary jurisdiction rests in the same place it always has: the Office of the Attorney General of the United States and the proper venue is the Federal courts.

  46. Now I do admit to having a bit of difficulty in adjusting to mespo’s latest character fantasy as I now have this mental picture of him dressed in a velvet smoking jacket, a champagne bucket full of Perrier by his side, maniacally laughing as he places a large silken handkerchief over the nose and mouth of an befuddled beer truck driver who is being forcibly restrained on the horsehair chaise in mespo’s study …. 8)

  47. Mespo wrote,

    “Do Republicans believe in nothing except expediency to promote demagoguery?”


    Not all Republicans are demagogues nor do all Democrats resort to demagoguery. I respectfully request that you do not illogically generalize all Republicans in the same vein to which rcambell resorts; I expect that of him—but not of you. Yes, Pataki appears to be a demagogue in good standing; however, his preposterous statements do not characterize all Republicans.

  48. Thank you for the Countdown link, Professor Turley, and for continuing the effort to expose Mr. Bush as the war crime pariah that he is. As a 32-year registered Republican, nothing would please me more than to see Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in prison for the damage they have inflicted on our Nation by their war crime acts and other egregious misdeeds.

  49. I was curious because aside from old movies and TV shows (a sketchy source, I know) I had no idea. I do think it would be cool if the Crawford Caligula got busted and the cops said:

    “You’re nicked, me beauty!”

  50. eniobob,

    Although I agree with Barbara someone should tell her that We the People wish her vile criminal progeny had stayed in the womb.

  51. BIL – also remember 2 other important point about Babs comments:
    1) She has another brain damaged discharge that wants to further the damage done by Boy Blunder but has to pass the Quitta to get the job.

    2) Babs is an old-school East Coast snob, the real kind not the made up boggyman of FAUX news. She looks down on everyone that is not from old money and old, English, religion.

  52. Jelperman and Tony Sidaway-

    I understand that under British law, before an arresting officer can say “You’re nicked”, he must first say; “Allo, Allo, Allo- What’s all this, then?”.

  53. I’ve always had a soft spot for Boris Johnson, he’s a little bit loopy but he always says what he thinks.
    And I usually agree with him. We’ve certainly got enough criminals over here without importing them.
    But I’d rather we arrested Blair first, I’ve always seen him as being worse than Bush. Blair is an intelligent bloke but I always felt like someone told Bush to go to war, Tony Blair should have known better. Mind you, I did just get the book so I’ll have to give it a read. It’ll probably just give me more reasons to get grumpy

  54. Dear Jonathan,
    If I may be so familiar…..I posted your blo on Facebook because I found the topic interesting. A loony woman claimed that Mayor Johnson never made any such statements about bush and proceeded to accuse me of LYING about her Mayor.

    I know nothing about this Mayor. I said nothing about him when I added the link to this blo. Needless to say she offered no proof of her statement. Now, I have already Blocked her because I don’t need insane people telling me I can be arrested for posting “lies” on FaceBook, but for my own satisfaction, I’d like to know the proof that the good Mayor said this about bush and his admission of REAL criminal behavior.

  55. Thank you so much, Buddha! Sorry if I didn’t catch the obvious, but it’s been a busy week……anyway, I appreciate the help!

Comments are closed.