Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 360 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

After Downing Street Keeps Activist Focus on Bush After Bush

At the Inauguration next month, the activist organization After Downing Street is organizing two activist events. On January 19 at 11 am, people will gather at Dupont Circle to listen to some speeches and then throw shoes at the White House The shoes will be only symbolically thrown; they’ll be collected afterward and donated to charity. The next day, After Downing Street has obtained a permit to demonstrate on the Inaugural Parade route for the new President, Barack Obama, with the message “Arrest Bush.”

I’m not one to minimize the numerous crimes, misdemeanors and unconstitutionalities of George W. Bush. But — how to put this gently? — he’s not going to be President any longer. Barack Obama will be President as of January 20, and the rest of the government will carry on without George W. Bush, whether he is hit with a shoe, or thrown in jail, or not.

It seems to me that if you want to change what the U.S. government does, then the thing to do is address the government… which as of January 20, 2009 does not include George W. Bush.

Me, personally? I’m looking forward, not looking backward. The Obama administration has a lot of change to implement and has not expressed an inclination to actually do so on all necessary counts. I’d rather George W. Bush went scot free than the outrages of the Bush administration continue.

Where do you stand on this?

5 comments to After Downing Street Keeps Activist Focus on Bush After Bush

  • tom

    “I’d rather George W. Bush went scot free than the outrages of the Bush administration continue.”

    Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?
    If Bush (and all his henchmen) gets away with all the crimes and lies then what’s the point of the rule of law? If incoming officials can abuse, misconstrue and ignore the Constitution, without penalty or even comment, they’ll continue to abuse their positions and we’ll be creeping ever forward to a police state. What are we citizens supposed to rely on as a basis for our society if the Constitution is no longer relevant?

    i want them ALL from John Yu and Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and especially all those think tank “geniuses” of deregulation – including the players on Wall Street JAILED for the condition of the world today, the abuse of office, lying to us, spying on us, ignoring and abusing the Constitution, the whole “pre-emptive war” idea, the wholesale destruction of Iraq and it’s citizenry, and all the aberrant home policies too – Katrina, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the other governmental agencies that have NOT been doing their mandated jobs – their appointees should all be held accountable OR IT WILL JUST CONTINUE!

    Looking forward should definitely NOT include ignoring (and thereby tacitly forgiving) the past fascist takeover of our country. The K-Street lobbyists should be put out of jobs and corporate America should be abolished from its influence on our government, or the government will continue along the way it’s going – corrupt, inefficient, unaccountable and FIXED so that we have no real say or power over our “elected” officials.

  • Jim

    They don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but I have limited time and energy and I have to decide to what aims I’ll dedicate it. Do I want to spend my limited time pretending to throw shoes at someone who is leaving office in a few hours anyway, or do I want to try to advocate a course of action to the next president? No, in an ideal world the two are not mutually exclusive, but in my world and for my action I have to choose one. I choose the latter, and not because I think outrage at Bush and his fellow travelers is unimportant.

  • tom

    That’s fine. Just don’t expect much real change from Obama in foreign policy or financial affairs anyway. His appointments in those areas are disturbing and probably aren’t a good sign, but we’ll see in the coming year as we get started on a “new path” (hopefully off of the road to ruin that we’re flying down now).

    Once Obama is out of office, what’s to prevent the next tyrant masquerading as “a uniter, not a divider” coming along and following the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Yu/neocon playbook if nothing happens now? If the Constitution doesn’t mean anything any more, where’s the reins on executive power?

  • Jim

    What’s to prevent it?

    The repeal of the FISA Amendments Act, the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act.

  • Ralph

    I think it’s worth publicly shaming and legally pursuing the members of the Bush administration who committed serious crimes. I think it’s important because it sends a powerful message to the current president and future presidents: You are not above the law.

    The American public never really learned the full extent of the crime and corruption associated with Watergate or Iran Contra, because investigations were pretty much dropped after Nixon and Reagan left office. And how did that work out for us? Criminals like Poindexter lurking around deep in the bureaucracy starting projects like Total Information Awareness.

    If Charles Graner is the highest ranking member of the U.S. government to see the inside of a jail cell for mistreating detainees, we’re going to have a hard time convincing the world we’ve cleaned up our act.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>