Poppy Bush FINALLY Goes to Hell!

[Terry]

As for the June Cobb thing, who cares at this point sounds like yet another book? If that theory is correct then 1800 others are wrong. Oswald was not a patsy. If you were the kid of the cop Tippit that Oswald murdered I think you would be kind of pissed off at that kind of talk and how the 'patsy' people always skip over that. Also go look up his assassination attempt on Edwin Walker.

Oswald did it. Plotted, planned executed: all by himself. Because he wanted to, because he was disturbed. Simple as that.

[Terry]

Still amuses me that Jeb was the one the family thought would be the greatest political success.

But, hey, at least Jeb still has his brother Neil to kick around in terms of being the biggest failure in the family.

[Kristy]

Simple as that.

Nope.

[Terry]

Caitlin Johnstone
December 1, 2018

Thought experiment:

Think of an acquaintance of yours. Not someone you’re particularly close to, just some guy in the cast of extras from the scenery of your life. Now, imagine learning that that guy is a serial murderer, who has been prowling the streets for years stabbing people to death. Imagine he goes his whole life without ever suffering any consequences for murdering all those people, and then when he dies, everyone wants to talk about how great he was and share heartwarming anecdotes about him. If you try to bring up the whole serial killing thing, people react with sputtering outrage that you would dare to speak ill of such a noble and wonderful person.

“Look, I didn’t agree with everything he did, but you can’t just let one not-so-great thing from a man’s life eclipse all the other good things he’s accomplished,” they protest. “For example, did you know he was a baseball captain at Yale?”

“But… what about all those people he murdered?” you reply.

“God, why can’t you just pay respect to a great man in our time of mourning??” they shout in exasperation.









You turn on the TV, and it’s nothing but nonstop hagiography and adulation for this guy who you know was a serial murderer. Pick up a newspaper and it’s the same thing. On the rare occasions where they do mention his astonishingly high body count, they frame it as a good thing: he got the killing done quickly and efficiently. He helped our country get over its phobia of mass murder. Our streets sure are a lot cleaner without all those unwanted prostitutes and homeless people he butchered.

“What the hell?” you think to yourself. “This guy brutally murdered a whole bunch of men, women and children for no good reason. We all know this. How come that isn’t the single defining thing about this man’s life that we’re all discussing right now? When Timothy McVeigh died people didn’t spend all their time talking about his love of the Constitution or how he never liked broccoli. Nobody cares how much Ted Bundy loved his cat. Why are they celebrating this mass murderer as though his mass murders are some marginal, irrelevant anomaly in his life and not the single defining feature of it? I mean, that is his legacy!”

How surreal would that be? How weird would it feel to have all that death and destruction go either unmentioned or outright praised in discussing your acquaintance who perpetrated it?

Of course, this will never happen. No random schmuck in your life will ever get caught committing a single murder, let alone many, without being punished and seeing it become the very first thing people think of whenever their name comes up. No, that sort of treatment is a privilege that is reserved only for the elites who rule over us.



If a man kills a lot of people, then his legacy is that of a mass murderer. There is nothing else anyone could possibly accomplish in their lifetime which could eclipse the significance of the act of violently ripping the life out of thousands of human bodies. I don’t care if you started a charity, if you gave a graduation speech, or if you loved your wife very much. If you committed war crimes, knowingly targeted civilian shelters, and deliberately targeted a nation’s civilian infrastructure to gain a strategic advantage after the conclusion of a war based on lies, then you are a mass murderer who may have also done some other far less significant things during the rest of your time on this planet. That is who you are.

Murder is treated as the most serious crime anyone can commit in societies around the world because it is the single most egregious violation of personal sovereignty possible. When you murder someone, you willfully overpower their will for themselves and take everything away from them, without any possibility of their getting any of it back. This doesn’t stop being true if someone happens to be sitting in an office which empowers him to murder people without fear of consequences. If you murder one person, then what you are for the rest of your life, first and foremost, is a murderer, because murder is such a hugely significant crime. If you murder a large number of people, then what you are is a mass murderer.

George HW Bush was a mass murderer. That is his legacy. That is what he was. Any discussion of the man’s life which does not put this single defining legacy front and center by a very wide margin is being dishonest about the thing that murder is, and is doing so out of fealty to a corrupt power structure which enables consequence-free murder on a mass scale as long as it happens in accordance with the will of that power structure.



Whenever I hold my customary public “good riddance” social media celebration after a war pig dies, I always get people telling me they hope I die for saying such a thing. And of course I am aware that I am courting controversy by saying immediately after someone’s death that the world is better off without them, and hostile reactions necessarily come along with that. But I also think it says so much about people’s deification of these child-killing elites that simply being glad to see them leave this world, peacefully of old age and in their own homes, is seen as such an unforgivable offense that it deserves nothing short of death. I suppose that’s how high of a pedestal you need to place someone on above the ordinary people in order to see their acts of mass murder as insignificant little foibles instead of horrific atrocities which define their entire personhood. In the eyes of the thoroughly propagandized public, they are gods, as the nonstop fawning beatification of Poppy Bush makes abundantly clear.

US presidents are not special. They are not made of any different kind of substance than you or I. When they order the extermination of large numbers of human lives for no legitimate reason, they are as guilty as you or I would be if we murdered each and every one of those people ourselves, personally. And if you or I had done such a thing during our lives, we both know people wouldn’t be spending their time after we die talking about how delightful and charming we were.

George Herbert Walker Bush was a mass murderer, and the only reason that undeniable fact isn’t dominating public discourse today is because of the myopia caused by a deeply unjust power dynamic.

The Gulf War resulted in Iraqi deaths. Granted. Some of those deaths were doubtless the result of some particularly horrific methods of warfare.

Let's not forget, though, that the vast majority of the country was supportive of that first Gulf War. Not that this lessens Bush's culpability as Commander-in-Chief, but the Gulf War was hardly treated by the bulk of the American public at the time as some morally reprehensible undertaking the way Vietnam came to be seen as. Nor was it looked at as a misguided and mismanaged incursion as Iraq 2003 came to be seen as. Thus, whatever the nature of the atrocities in the Gulf War, while the decision resides with HW Bush, most of the American public were cheering that decision on.

US Presidents ARE special. Nobody else in America can in essence unilaterally decide to launch our nuclear arsenal. Or decide when we go to war using conventional means. Or issue pardons.

Ideally, no one person should be able to exercise absolute control over another. In reality, we all know this isn't the case in practice.

As a President, I've never thought that highly of HW Bush. In comparison to the other Presidents though, even just the ones in my own lifetime, I wouldn't say HW was among the worst. In basic humanitarian terms. perhaps Carter WAS the most decent. However, even Carter was far from what I'd call a peacenik as President. The nature of the American presidency - probably ANY presidency - is such that at some point the chief executive will issue orders that will result in the loss of lives/curtailing of freedoms for others toward the ultimate goal of advancing the interests of the nation in terms of maintaining power over and influence on the nation and the rest of the world. Power via control. The human species is no different from the animal kingdom in this regard.

[Kristy]

The Gulf War resulted in Iraqi deaths.

Over 70,000 innocent people.

Let's not forget, though, that the vast majority of the country was supportive of that first Gulf War.

Let's forget you are a dumbass. The American people were not in "favor" of the Gulf War, they were duped into by a massive propaganda campaign led by Bush and the psychopaths at the Pentagon.

[Kristy]

And for the last time it was June Cobb who pulled the god damn trigger.

[Seshmeister]

The American people were not in "favor" of the Gulf War, they were duped into by a massive propaganda campaign led by Bush and the psychopaths at the Pentagon.

That's a senseless statement. You can be in favor of something for all sorts of reasons real or imagined.

[Kristy]

That's a senseless statement. You can be in favor of something for all sorts of reasons real or imagined.

Oh, okay, you self-professed philosophy major.

[FORD]

For the most part, people were duped into believing some really ridiculous lies that Poppy Bush was spreading about Iraq. The first one was the "pulling babies out of incubators" story, which was proven to be complete horseshit, and the young woman who supposedly broke the story was exposed as a member of the Kuwait royal family. The even more ridiculous lie was that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was only the first stage and that he ultimately planned to invade both Saudi Arabia & Israel. The powerful Saudi & AIPAC propaganda lobbies both helped circulate this lie, of course.

Reality of course is that Poppy himself - speaking through his representative April Glaspie - gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. Saddam was pissed that Kuwait was stealing "his" oil by slant drilling into Iraqi territory, and Glaspie told him that the US wouldn't interfere in such a "local matter" between two middle eastern countries.

So, much like his son Chimpy's later invasion, Poppy's Iraq war was based entirely on lies.

[Terry]

Glaspie never gave an explicit assurance to Saddam that the US wouldn't intervene regardless of what Saddam did re: Kuwait. What Glaspie and Baker said was that the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait was something the US wasn't going to take a position on, provided the dispute was settled in a peaceful manner between the two countries.

Now, as to if Bush/Baker/Glaspie should have given Saddam an explicit warning during the period where Iraq was amassing troops on the Kuwait border that an invasion wouldn't be tolerated by the US, and would be met with more than stern words by the US if an invasion took place...certainly that scenario is one worthy of exploring in terms of arguing that Bush misread the Iraq runup to the invasion of Kuwait for what it was. There's no evidence whatsoever that Bush or anyone representing him told Saddam he was free to do as he pleased with Kuwait. If Saddam took the US position of neutrality regarding the border dispute as a green light to invade without US repercussions, that's hardly the case of that being the result of duplicity on HW's part, or HW changing his mind after the invasion of Kuwait.

As to the falsified/hyperbole-laden horror stories about Iraq propagated by the Bush Administration via the media, that's what propaganda is for: deceit or exaggeration utilized to influence populations to achieve particular ends or goals.

As to the overwhelming support of the American people for The Gulf War not being as such, sorry. My overriding memory - and I lived in the Northeast at the time - is that of virtually no dissent on both a local or national scale to that war. Which isn't to say the majority of the American people weren't still wrong - be they influenced by phony propaganda, a lack of knowledge of the history of the region or whatever - to support The Gulf War. I didn't have strong feelings at the time that The Gulf War was something America should be necessarily doing. However, I can't pretend nearly 30 years later that the strong support for the war didn't exist at the time, because it simply isn't true.

[Terry]

And for the last time it was June Cobb who pulled the god damn trigger.

I thought it was Umbrella Man...or Woody Harrelson's dad...or...

[FORD]

More likely it was BCE/CIA flunkies E. Howard Hunt & Frank Sturgis. Both of whom were actually arrested by Dallas police at the scene but then released when Oswald was established as the patsy. Hunt & Sturgis went on to play big roles in the BCE Watergate operation as "plumbers".

[Nickdfresh]

Over 70,000 innocent people.



Let's forget you are a dumbass. The American people were not in "favor" of the Gulf War, they were duped into by a massive propaganda campaign led by Bush and the psychopaths at the Pentagon.

Oh for fucking fuck's sake! YOU'RE the psycho! Driving the fucking gas-guzzling SUV and you sit there making moralist trash that makes you feel good. Please fuck right off!

[Nickdfresh]

For the most part, people were duped into believing some really ridiculous lies that Poppy Bush was spreading about Iraq. The first one was the "pulling babies out of incubators" story, which was proven to be complete horseshit, and the young woman who supposedly broke the story was exposed as a member of the Kuwait royal family. The even more ridiculous lie was that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was only the first stage and that he ultimately planned to invade both Saudi Arabia & Israel. The powerful Saudi & AIPAC propaganda lobbies both helped circulate this lie, of course.

Reality of course is that Poppy himself - speaking through his representative April Glaspie - gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. Saddam was pissed that Kuwait was stealing "his" oil by slant drilling into Iraqi territory, and Glaspie told him that the US wouldn't interfere in such a "local matter" between two middle eastern countries.

So, much like his son Chimpy's later invasion, Poppy's Iraq war was based entirely on lies.

I agree there was a lot of mindless propaganda employed, including the incubator story that was false. That doesn't mean Iraq's invasion was a nice affair. They systematically executed Kuwaiti military personnel that resisted and delivered their torture-stained bodies to their families as a lesson not to resist. They certainly pillaged Kuwait and terrorized its citizens....

And the "Green light" story is massively overblown brainfart by Bush's stupid ambassador IIRC. But no one said, "yeah invade those fuckers!"

[Nickdfresh]

I thought it was Umbrella Man...or Woody Harrelson's dad...or...

I thought it was the reptilian shape shifting alien mercenary that slithered into the drain culvert no man could fit in and made the magic shot up even though he never could have seen the motorcade passing...