WEEKS AFTER W’s Speech in Canada on “Economic Development” Protest Signs Still Seen on City streets
This blogger writes: The most perverse political joke of the season came on October 20, 2011 in The City of Surrey, British Columbia. And it just won’t go away! Weeks have passed since Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts introduced George W. Bush as keynote speaker at the city’s annual Summit on Regional Economic Development, yet fresh anti-Bush protest signs continue to populate Surrey boulevards declaiming “NO MORE BUSH ECONOMICS.”
Her Worship‘s courting of Bush at the summit set loose howls of protest in the streets the day of the summit and, as evidenced by the protest signs still poking the city mother in the eye, reverberations of anti-Bush sentiment persist in the Vancouver suburb.
Even as the City of Surrey’s sober captains of trade and commerce sat playing footsies under the table with the disgraced ex-president, economics analysts from sources as diverse as The Economist and Vanity Fair publish devastating condemnations of Mr. Bush’s disastrous botch up of the U.S. economy that led to the near-death financial crash of 2008. Should the man who nearly broke the world’s largest economy REALLY be lecturing Canadian Chamber of Commerce types on “economic development“? What could Watts have been thinking?
Economic development? George W. Bush? WHAT?!
The growing City of Surrey enjoys exceptional prosperity. Its 2010 Financial Statistics reports indicate a city always in the black. For more than three years Surrey’s annual budgets have produced significant cash surpluses accompanied by positive net growth, with level incurred debt. The city’s credit rating is ever-positive as well. Who needs the Yankee ‘Decider’-of-Destruction in town advising us on how to manage our money?
What could Watts have been thinking?
◊(Aside from the bad joke on October 20 of giving an audience to Bush’s ersatz economic advice, the worldwide Arrest Bush initiative the same day tussled with B.C. Provincial Court to act on a criminal indictment of Bush for alleged war crimes. This blogger is awaiting results of a Freedom of Information request to reveal how dark politics in the office of the Attorney General for B.C. may be protecting Bush from Justice in Canada.)
The Economist writes in its online article: “George Bush’s Legacy“:… “He inherited a projected ten-year surplus of $5.6 trillion and bequeaths a ten-year deficit of $6 trillion, assuming his tax cuts remain in place…[Bush’s] policy of cutting taxes while increasing spending—of simultaneously pursuing big government and small government—dramatically swelled the deficit. Hardly the makings of a positive judgment from future historians.
“The most important legislation of his first year in office was a $1.35 trillion tax cut that handed an extra $53,000 to the top 1% of earners. At his farewell press conference on January 12th Mr Bush called his tax cuts the “right course of action”, as if they were an unpopular but heroic decision. They weren’t.
“As many as 1.7 million Americans are expected to lose their homes in the months ahead. For many, this will mean the beginning of a downward spiral into poverty.
“Between March 2006 and March 2007 personal-bankruptcy rates soared more than 60 percent. As families went into bankruptcy, more and more of them came to understand who had won and who had lost as a result of the president’s 2005 bankruptcy bill, which made it harder for individuals to discharge their debts in a reasonable way. The lenders that had pressed for “reform” had been the clear winners, gaining added leverage and protections for themselves; people facing financial distress got the shaft.
“Decades hence we should take stock, and revisit the conventional wisdom. Will Herbert Hoover still deserve his dubious mantle? I’m guessing that George W. Bush will have earned one more grim superlative.”
That’s what this blog is all about.
In Canada Noose Tightens around Bush-era War Criminals – Cheney’s Visit Draws Protestors, Bush, Clinton Likely to Face Same Soon
This blogger writes: The peaceful, green Canadian city that first officially opposed George W. Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, that gave birth to environmental juggernaut Greenpeace, and that officially declared itself a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone decades ago, gave former U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney a war criminal’s welcome – “the kind of welcome he deserved,” in the words of one protestor – as the American leader most often referred to as a “war criminal” arrived in Vancouver to promote his memoirs and speak at a $500-a-plate speaking event on 27 September.
Police were called in to control hundreds of protestors who blocked the entrance to the posh Vancouver Club, making it difficult and frazzling for paid-up ticket holders to gain entry to the venue.
The promotional event was sponsored by The Bon Mot Club, and sold out almost immediately after tickets went on sale.
People do get a thrill out of seeing a real monster live and up close, in technicolor!
Cheney drew fire again from more protestors the following evening when he spoke to a Calgary, Alberta nosh ‘n talk crowd.
It’s not only Dick Cheney who is drawing heat in Canada recently. Former U.S. presidents George W. Bush and William J. Clinton are targeted continent-wide by at least four organized groups seeking to bring them to justice for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Mr. Cheney is only the most recent leader to face protests from angry Canadians. More showdowns loom on the near horizon.
Visit of George W. Bush on October 20, 2011: Canada must prevent entry or arrest and ensure prosecution for torture:
George W. Bush and William J. Clinton are scheduled to appear together in the border city of Surrey, B.C. on 20 October, 2011 at a regional economic development summit. Surrey is a member city of Metro Vancouver. Human Rights activists will be awaiting the arrival of both former presidents there in October.
Vancouver-based Lawyers Against the War, The StopWar Coalition, the New York–based Center for Constitutional Rights, and London-based Amnesty International have all recently lobbied Canada’s immigration minister, Jason Kenney, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Dianne Watts, the mayor of The City of Surrey to insist that authorities apply Canadian immigration law to the former U.S. leaders, just as the law is applied to all persons who have been deemed by the government of Canada to be, among other things, “accused of international crimes, torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity” under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sec 35(1) (a).
The Hon. Don Davies, NDP critic for Immigration of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the Canadian parliament also went public with a demand that Cheney either be banned from entering Canada, or must face a court of law upon his arrival in Canada.
But Mr. Cheney found a friend the same day. Prominent “reputation manager,” Doug Anderson, senior vice-president of marketing, research and intelligence for Harris Decima defended Cheney on the popular CBC TV News show, “At Issue.” Anderson inveighed against Mr. Davies’ remarks about banning Cheney from Canada, arguing: ”A lot of people in Canada don’t like Dick Cheney, don’t agree with what he did, but I think that might not strike people as being the way to handle that issue.” Vancouver journalist Charlie Smith called Anderson’s remarks “elite manufactured consent” in The Georgia Straight newspaper.
The legal ammo the activists use against the former leaders are two important international laws: (1) The declaration proclaimed at the Nuremberg Tribunal following the Second World War that declared that launching a war of aggression was the “supreme” war crime if it was not done in self defence. Many legal scholars argue that a war of aggression can only be fought with the backing of the UN Security Council. Bush’s “Iraqi Freedom” was not authorized by the UN Security Council…and….
(2) The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which the United States participated in drafting. The U.S., however, has neither signed nor ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. When the Bush administration dismissed United Nations concerns about torture, one judge observed: “America’s idea of what is torture … does not appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations.”
[As for himself, Cheney made the claim in Vancouver that the controversial water-boarding torture, which he called merely a “coercive interrogation technique” was used only three times under his watch! I wonder. Did Cheney’s blithe, well-heeled audience actually believe that?
THIS blogger doesn’t believe Cheney’s claim for a minute. Three instances of water boarding by American interrogators are on the record. But were they recorded deliberately? Or were they instead leaked photos or recordings? Further, countless prisoners taken by the U.S. were subjected to “rendition” – the practice of shipping detainees away to third party nations where torture is regularly, routinely practised. Are we to believe that none of those other barbaric countries water-boarded “renditioned” U.S. prisoners, not even once, !?]
A spokesperson for the New York based Center For Constitutional Rights said that her group was calling for Bush’s arrest but not for Clinton’s, even though they’ll both be in Surrey in October, because Clinton’s 1999 leadership role in the joint invasion with NATO of the former Yugoslavia has already been before the International Court of Justice in the Hague. More seriously, Bush led America in 2003 into war against Iraq criminally, as defined in both international and domestic laws.
American criminal lawyer Vincent Bugliosi (who is famous for his convictions of such notorious felons as Charles Manson for murder) makes the case for charging Bush with first degree murder under U.S. criminal law in his 2008 bestselling book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder.” In the book, Bugliosi proposes that Bush could, and should, be charged for “the most serious crime ever commited in American history” – the taking of America into an illegal war under false pretences, and therein perpetrating serious war crimes. The author writes with deep passion that Bush’s disregard for law and moral rectitude directly resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 human beings, including 4,000 young American soldiers, thus showing “reckless and wanton disregard” for the consequences and “indifference to human life,” terms that both would lead to a conviction for murder under U.S. criminal law.
“More and more in our times Canadians have wondered just what kind of continental neighbour America, is, exactly. Where will it all end?”
That’s what this blog is all about.
- The World According To Dick Cheney (warnewsupdates.blogspot.com)