"Turnabout," the 1931 novel by Thorne Smith was given a very
strong recommendation that sparked a relentless search in used book stores from
New York City to Los Angeles. The story is about the struggles of a married couple who
became the victims of an ancient Egyptian god's practical joke when he
magically (as ancient Egyptian gods are permitted to do) switched their minds
into the other's body.
Our quest to find that obscure literary treasure came to an end in Los Angels many moons ago. The book delivered the expected level of entertainment and in an odd twist of fate that copy of that particular paperback was handed off to the fellow who had given the original recommendation because he wanted to re-read the hilarious antics again.
It turned out that the concept of two fictional characters
trading minds had previously been used in an obscure short story, written by A.
Conan Doyle, about a student and one of his professors.
The concept of two disparate personalities switching host bodies was used in the Tom Hanks film "Big" which told the tale of a father and young son who experienced that particular transformation.
In a week in which Republicans were castigating a Democratic
President for not following the rules of warfare and the Dems were shrugging
off the criticism with studied nonchalance in the "I can't hear you" mode of
saying "bugger off," the entire staff at the World's Laziest Journalist
headquarters was coping with a strong attack of dÃ©j- vu . . .
President Obama let an opportunity to investigate the possibility that George W. Bush and his posse might have (subjunctive mood) exceeded the bounds of good taste slip away and then when Obama gave his acceptant speech at the Nobel Peace Awards, he sounded a tad bellicose. Now, the Obama supporters approach the subject of impeachment and charges of war crimes with a very Karl Rove-ish sounding collective voice and the Repubs (does that word mean folks who visit a tavern for the second time in one night?) are snickering with fiendish delight.
Isn't there an old legal adage that states "Silence Implies
So if Obama was silent about any possible Bush complicity in war crimes (and he was), then, at the very least, the possibility has to be considered that Obama was an accessory after the fact for any (hypothetically speaking) Bush War Crimes.
The German High Command in WWII went to great lengths to
insure that the citizens of their country didn't know what was happening and
thus they had a legitimate claim to say to the members of the various allied
armies that occupied Germany after the war was over that the average German in
the streets didn't know what was being done in their name by their leaders.
George W. Bush made goddamn sure that his policies were reported by America's Free Press and thus insured that sooner or later Americans would be accessories before, during, and after the fact to his dirty deeds, if, indeed, there were any.
How many conservatives completely ignored the precepts contained in Robert Jackson's opening statement at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and cried; "He (Bush) didn't know that there was no WMD's!"? More than a few.
Any debate, at this point, over which Party's guy did or did
not commit war crimes is an exercise in futility.
The War Crimes Studies Center operates on the University of California Berkeley campus and since they haven't made any headlines about launching an investigation into the possibility of any Bush war crimes, that aught to settle the question once and for all.
By a remarkable coincidence, John Yoo, who led the team of legal advisors that George W. Bush used to insure that he never, either deliberately or accidentally, did anything which might arouse suspicions of potential War Crimes, works on that same campus and perhaps the War Crimes Study Center could invite Yu to be a guest lecturer who would be able to suggest to other countries what effective measures could be used to insure that their leaders would never commit a War Crime. Isn't preventing War Crimes as the Yoo team did, just as important as studying other countries' War Crimes?
On Thursday February 7, 2012, Senator Diane Feinstein
explained to excitable, gullible political activists that their concern about
civilian casualties from drone strikes are based on only seven or eight
fatalities and that efforts to allay their fears and rectify their gross
misperception, based on a regrettable clerical error, should be made.
The fact that the Dems now sound like Bush supporters and the Repubs sound like some old Berkeley peaceniks, might appeal to some people with a connoisseur's appreciation for irony (Isn't the dictionary definition of irony: saying the exact opposite of what you mean? Don't many people often incorrectly use that word [irony] when they mean poignancy?).
1 | 2