War criminals and sociopaths often have a “human side” that can obscure how heinous their actions are, as in ex-President George W. Bush’s budding career as an artiste, writes William Blum.
By William Blum
A few years ago, when George W. Bush came out as a painter, he said that he had told his art teacher that “there’s a Rembrandt trapped inside this body.” Ah, so Georgie is more than just a painter. He’s an artiste.
And we all know that artistes are very special people. They’re never to be confused with mass murderers, war criminals, merciless torturers or inveterate liars. Neither are they ever to be accused of dullness of wit or incoherence of thought or speech.
Artistes are not the only special people.
Devout people are also special: Josef Stalin studied for the priesthood. Osama bin Laden prayed five times a day. And animal lovers: Herman Goering, while his Luftwaffe rained death upon Europe, kept a sign in his office that read: “He who tortures animals wounds the feelings of the German people.”
Adolf Hitler was also an animal lover and had long periods of being a vegetarian and anti-smoking. Charles Manson was a staunch anti-vivisectionist.
And cultured people: This fact Elie Wiesel called the greatest discovery of the war: that Adolf Eichmann was cultured, read deeply, played the violin. Mussolini also played the violin. Some Nazi concentration camp commanders listened to Mozart to drown out the cries of the inmates.
Former Bosnian Serb politician Radovan Karadzic, convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, was a psychiatrist, specializing in depression; a practitioner of alternative medicine; published a book of poetry and books for children.
Members of ISIS and Al Qaeda and other suicide bombers are genuinely and sincerely convinced that they are doing the right thing, for which they will be honored and rewarded in an afterlife. That doesn’t make them less evil; in fact it makes them more terrifying, since they force us to face the scary reality of a world in which sincerity and morality do not necessarily have anything to do with each other.
William Blum is an author, historian, and renowned critic of U.S. foreign policy. He is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, among others. [This article originally appeared at the Anti-Empire Report, http://williamblum.org/ .]
We have sociopaths running our government. From GHW Bush and his murderous hatred for Kennedy, to his Sociopathic son, to Obama to Trump, as well as Clinton.
All are sociopaths
hitler was an art student and he was better than g.w. bush.
war criminals – like bush – are immune to what they’ve done. deluded is the word. and obama was no different, in some ways worse.
could the two think that the murdered only die cartoon deaths?
the nazis were hanged.
bush & obama get libraries.
google what judge robert jackson said at the conclusion of the nuremburg trials.
we didn’t listen.
Stalin a war criminal? He defeated Hitler. Odd crime, that.
Why remark that the Luftwaffe rained death upon Europe when in fact it was the USAAF and the RAF that caused the vast majority of civilian deaths on that continent.
The irony of this piece is that attempts to paint Bush Jr with a dark brush (pun intended) whilst exonerating Roosevelt and Truman.
Wow, nice one Bill. So glad to see you back!! Can we have more?
The author also forgot to mention that the vast majority of Americans LOVE DOGS but have no problem with drones and other military tools doing what they are doing…………………
Memo to the Commander in Chief: For your eyes only.
By Stephen J. Gray (satire)
You now have help in the White House. The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) has kindly supplied a seasoned ex general to assist with communications. You, yourself have appointed him and others of great military talent. The MIC got a bit worried when you said “NATO was obsolete,” and “rattling allies” is not good for the war business. Still, now that you are supporting the Afghanistan War, there is some relief in the ranks of the MIC. Big money, corporate profits and jobs are at stake, if there is PEACE in the world. Wall Street nearly collapsed with worry and the stock market shares of the war industry depend on more war. (Please no more peace scares.) Peace would be a disaster, and people might like it. Therefore, we must keep bombing, blitzing, destroying, killing, murdering and supporting both sides in some of the conflicts. That is the reality of what is happening today. Anyway we are glad you are hopefully getting with the program. Keep on tweeting and doing what you are doing best. Leave the Big Stuff to the MIC, consider us your obedient helpers and may God Bless America as we make it great again.
Note: This memo could be construed as Satire….
[more info at link below]
While cruising the internet tubes I ran into another and longer essay by Mr. Blum. In it he asked this question:
The answer is “yes”.
Opinion time: Should William Blum locate a hospital willing to do a kidney transplant for a patient of his age, I’d suggest taking a very careful look at how the anesthesiology is handled. Elderly patients are lots more fragile than younger ones, and there is a condition called “pump head” which can move them straight to the nursing home from the recovery room. Personally, I’d bite the bullet and carry a good book with me to the dialysis place.
The statement you quoted by Mr. Blum is a bit ambiguous. Does he have kidney failure, or another condition in which he thinks dialysis might help?
Didn’t you cut/paste the fake link I use to avoid moderation? Just put it into the address bar, and replace the ** with tt to get a working address.
Yes, Mr. Blum says he is not in the best of health, and is on dialysis now.
I am not about to defend Adolf Hitler, but we should be cautious about how victors rewrite history to be consistent with their own purveyed narrative. It has been SOP for this nation to demonize those whom we choose to destroy, before, during, and after any conflict. Whether it is the modern(sic) villains like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Rouhani, Kim Jong-Un, etc., or past villains like Mao, Hirohito, Adolf, or Mussolini, the depiction is always black or white without nuances, while our own villains, from Lincoln to Obama are all heroes, often misguided by their advisors to do deeds that they would inherently abhor. Kennedy and Clinton were supposedly great men except for their unrepentant inclination to diddle outside their respective marriages.
There is a lot of untold stories from WW2, where our own actions (e.g. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.) would dwarf AH’s (unproven) atrocities. Stalin gets a free pass despite having slaughtered many more than AH is reputed to have killed. The German people have been paying, and are still paying despite not having been alive when it happened, for crimes that were “proven” in the Nuremberg kangaroo court.
What if we were to hold Nuremberg trials for present day wars and occupations?
No, you’re just going to defend the generic Nazis who weren’t named Adolf Hitler.
And I like the way you do the “everybody was evil” thing. Kind of takes the heat off those so-called “bad guys”, doesn’t it?
Zachary Smith – Cloak and Dagger brings up some good points. It’s pretty much been the Nazis and Milosevic and, gee, they didn’t exactly get that Milosevic thing right, did they? But, oh well, I’m sure he feels all warm and fuzzy up in the great beyond, knowing he’s now been found innocent. Too bad his children never got to see their father again.
History chooses who to fry, who counts and who doesn’t. When do the rest of the trials begin? When the cows come home?
The key is to always have enough money so that you never have to physically kill anybody when they’re getting in your way. That way you can’t be held liable. Put a weapon in your hand and kill someone, you’re going to trial. There is intent: “Look, everybody, that was intentional.” No, no, you want to make sure that you get the laws changed in your home country so that you, the elite, are allowed to own the politicians. Now we’re talking! Then once you own the politicians, they do your bidding for you. It’s all very legal (it’s democracy!), at arms length, and you can’t be held liable.
With a foreign country, you just get out in front and economically kill them with sanctions, get hit men to bump their leaders off, hire enough people to get a coup started, then bribe enough officials to make sure it’s carried out. You do it by buying off the media, who then kill your opponent with lies. Or you go after them on false charges of (take your pick) using chemical weapons, throwing babies out of incubators, and then send in the troops. Rah, rah.
Many ways to kill: emotionally, physically, economically. When you’ve got enough money, you don’t ever have to get your hands dirty. You just hire out.
Who’s buying the politicians? Who owns them?
Dear BE – You think this Nazi justifier “brings up some good points” Does your love for Trump extend to saying, “after all, there were lots of good people among Hitler’s Nazis”?
mike k – of course Cloak and Dagger brings up good points. If you can’t see them, then you are blind. He brings up the point that the victors get to write the history. And that makes him a Nazi? That’s common knowledge to anybody with a brain and it is absolutely correct.
He brings up the point that we “demonize those whom we choose to destroy”. Gee, MH-17, Russiagate, Saddamgate, Gaddafigate, Putin, Assad don’t spring to mind? Whoa, he must be a Nazi for saying that! (sarc)
He says “while our villains are all heroes”. So true. Bomb Hiroshima, Dresden, Nagasaki, obliterate the Middle East, surround Russia with missiles, but, hey, it’s all good. It’s done for “democracy”! (sarc)
And he asks why there aren’t more Nuremberg trials. Whoa, whoa, the Nazis are coming for saying that! (sarc)
Get a grip. People who cry out “Nazi” and “Fire” at every opportunity are idiots and not to be taken seriously at all. What, are you afraid, if there were more Nuremberg-type trials, that what happened to the Jews wouldn’t remain front and center? They’d blend into the other atrocities and wouldn’t stand out?
Not getting your way, so you cry out “Nazi”?
You spotted this Nazi loving troll creep, Zachary. A site trying to put out truths like CN, inevitably attracts human garbage like this; I guess it’s the price of throwing out pearls of wisdom, that some swine are also attracted for their own ugly purposes.
mike k – and a site trying to put out truths like CN inevitably attracts trolls who see their history and only their history, and damn all those who ask questions. How dare people ask questions! Shut them down! Call them a Nazi! An apologist, a denier! That tactic only works with the stupid.
I remember some Jewish guy found some information in the archives that he felt painted a different picture of history. He compiled the data, and then went to speak with his Jewish parents. They said they would disown him if he printed what he found out. They eventually came round and said that if it was the truth, then he must print it, even though it would change history. Was he a Jew-hater or someone who wanted to get to the truth?
There are those who are more interested in the truth than protecting a narrative. These types of people ask questions, they’re curious. To call them a Nazi for that is really disgusting.
Cloak and Dagger asked the question: why haven’t there been more Nuremberg-type trials? Answer him.
I believe that Jewish guy I spoke about discovered (no, he wasn’t the original discoverer, but the others were just called Nazis and dismissed) that Hitler had been working with the Jews to get them out to Palestine. His Jewish parents had never heard about this before. Hitler was working with the Jews? What?
Yes, all of this is important information for people to know. It changes the story, doesn’t it? But, hey, let’s just shut that down and hide it under a rock, shall we? (sarc)
The Fascist Left likes screaming Fascist/ Racist/ Bigot/ Homophobic/ Whatever at anyone who disagrees with them, including run of the mill conservatives and the moderate left. It’s just their way of closing down debate and smearing anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their warped view of reality. They closely resemble Hitler’s Brownshirts. They call themselves “Antifascist” to legitimise their own self righteous violence against anyone they choose to target.
A politician in the UK called Livingstone appeared on a radio programme and referred in passing to the fact that in 1933 Zionist organisations had cooperated with Hitler to organise the emigration of Jews from Germany. This is a historical fact that had been covered extensively by Jewish historians. The effect was to rescue Jews from persecution. But Zionist organisations disliked this being raised and started throwing around smears of anti Semitism. Livingstone was smeared as anti Semitic and subjected to a kangaroo court where he was thrown out of the Labour Party. It didn’t matter that what he said was true, “our feelings have been hurt, so this is anti Semitic.”
mark – Ron Unz has a good article (I think written by The Saker) on how the Deep State use the Fascist Left/minorities to divide and conquer. They make sure they are well-funded and then set them loose to get people fighting. Very good article written by someone who considers himself a minority.
Ken Livingstone has a wiki, and this is what that site claims is his actual quote:
The very best I can say for this person is that he had a Trump-Level understanding of history. Probably he wasn’t being malicious, but merely ignorant. The whole affair left him open to being sandbagged by his party leaders.
We may assume this is the reason the Zionists wanted the Transfer Agreement. We may also assume that the Nazis agreed to the deal to head off a world-wide boycott by Jewish businessmen at a time when those Nazis were getting established in Germany.
Zachary Smith – many times I have had to correct you on your “history”. In fact, too many times to count. But you can do your own research on what was going on with the Jews and Palestine long before Hitler came along. I’m done trying to educate you. Start by going back a few decades.
And don’t take verbatim everything you read on Wiki. Consider who owns it.
Transcript from UK site:
“He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews. “
Zachary Smith – I don’t care about Livingstone; I don’t even know who the guy was. And as far as newspaper stories go, once one says something, the others just follow along with the same story, repeated verbatim. Same old, same old. You can see it if you switch from MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post – all spouting the same lies.
Do your own research on the Jews and Palestine. You just might be surprised by what you find.
Mark, perhaps your library has The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black. My copy is the 1985 edition, and on page 25 is this:
“In the Nazi mind, the Jewish-led, anti-Nazi boycott would reduce exports and foreign currency below the viable threshold. By Nazi thinking, a second prong of the jewish offensive would be publicizing German atrocities to undermine confidence in the new regime and turn the non-jewish world against Germany.”
By the way, what’s with the rabid hatred for the “lefties”? Did one of them kick your puppy when you were a kid? And that term “Fascist Left” – does the UK have an equivalent of our doughy pant-load Jonah Goldberg, or did you pick it up from him?
You picked a great site (not!) for trotting out your holocaust denial crap.
Why does the image C&D sent with his post remind me of Nazi symbols? Could it be the garbage in his post?
mike k – “Why does the image C&D sent with his post remind me of Nazi symbols?” Perhaps because you want to see that? Because you see Nazis behind every bush?
His symbol looks like something my son might use for his on-line gaming. A lot of people play World of Warcraft and other games where shields are used.
Certainly Hitler, and his crowd were horrible, and destructive human beings, however I do know that if the reasons for WWII were looked at there is certainly some blame to go around. I do agree the US seems to always give itself a pass when it comes to it’s own history and the multiple atrocities it has committed. It is good that Germany has acknowledged it’s sins, something we have failed to do, and continue to justify the millions of lives we have destroyed including whole countries. Unfortunately the American people, by and large, believe we are pure at heart and our intentions good and our wars noble.
Elise Wiesel is also a sociopath liar!
Also narcissistic “look at me, my hurt is greater than anyone ever” idiopathic liar. Free Palestine.
Hitler was an artist as well, probably a better one than Bush. If both of them had spent their lives painting, an awful lot of human misery could have been avoided.
Hitler was kind to animals and banned animal experiments (Jews were used instead.) He was also a vegetarian teetotaller who was concerned about the environment and championed organic farming.
Himmler was horrified by the thought of his men robbing their victims. Killing them was fine, but he expected his killers to be honest and avoid corruption.
“Some Nazi concentration camp commanders listened to Mozart to drown out the cries of the inmates.”
Never could get my head around this sort of thing. I mean, which is more believable?:
“Fritz, turn up the radio, I can’t stand the cries of the inmates.”
“Fritz, go shut the inmates up”.
Good points in the article. It’s practical to think of human morality as having more dimensions than simply good vs. evil. One is often interested in a more refined set of questions: a) What criminal or evil acts has this person committed in the past? b) Would they hurt me or people I care about? If so, under what set of circumstances? c) Would they hurt other people in the future? If so, under what set of circumstances? d) What sort of intervention or safeguard would be required to prevent them from doing harmful things in the future? Individual psychology may matter to some questions and not others. Some questions are important, but we have doubt about our ability to accurately answer.
One can only answer for oneself. One’s answers are translated into what one does. It is these actions that shed light for others on who one really is.
The article should continue to talk about all of the artists that never attained political power. Imagine if Vincent van Gogh became King of France or Bobby Fischer (chess genius) was elected president? It would have been Nero all over again. Another category would be scientists, like Einstein, who also had an artistic side (violin player), whats up with them? Then how about leaders who were not artists, like Napoleon Bonaparte, George Washington. etc. The we ought to give a little time to people who were artists that were not driven mad, like Abraham Lincoln (fiddle player) and artists who never sought political power, like Mozart and Bach. Then we should add a passage about some possible exceptions, like the proposition that Hitler was a vegetarian because he had notoriously bad teeth. In all, I guess the grand takeaway here should be that narcissistic and pathological don’t wear a sign on their backs advertising their affliction.
We all have several subpersonalities within our repertoire. When you talk to children, you are one person with distinctive characteristics and mannerisms. When dealing with your professional duties a different “I” comes forth. With someone you love it is another self that appears. Gurdjieff and Assagioli had ways to become aware of, and work with these different selves. To think that we are always dealing with one consistent person is a great mistake. Becoming an integrated person with a consistent conscious “I” able to be aware of and manage one’s various selves is a goal of inner development through work on oneself.
The business model emphasizes the personas: Specific masks for specific agendas: “Face Value”: What lies under the masks?
The weird thing about Dumbya is that he paints semi-lurid portraits of maimed GI’s who served in the Middle East. Is he subconsciously trying to make himself a more integrated person?
DFC, if you ever read about the life of Vincent van Gogh you would know if anything he was a very empathetic human being and would never become another Nero! The very qualities of a psychopath aloud them to rise in the political ranks and become leaders, and van Goth certainly did not have those qualities. You should read about psychopathy, and perhaps that will give you a better understanding.
Annie – I agree. Vincent van Gogh would have folded if people started telling lies about him (like most of us would). He would not have had the gall, the thick skin, the competitive nature to fight back. Not a fighter, just someone who turned his anger inward.
DFC – “The narcissistic and pathological don’t wear a sign on their backs.”
Great comment. As Annie points out above, they are often “charmers” (like Ted Bundy). They talk a good game, are well-educated, well-spoken, wear a good suit, read a teleprompter well. We get fooled by them. Imagine if Ted Bundy had become a politician. Who would have seen it coming? It would have been, “He’s such a nice young man, so well-spoken, and look how well he dresses.” Ugh.
Most people think that all psychopaths act out in social ways that ultimately put them in prison, but there are plenty of them who don’t, and ultimately become very successful in areas like politics, and business. They even find that surgeons rank high on the psychopathy scale where as regular medical doctors do not. They have even found that the brain of a psychopath is different then that of a normal person. They found differences in the frontal lobes and amygdala. Like narcissists they are charmers, which ultimately allows them to use other people to their own ends..
Also to add: John Wayne Gacy was an artist (with about as much skill as Bush), and was superficially a boon for his community and the local Democratic Party, enough that he met with Rosalynn Carter. He also raped and murdered over 30 boys.
Ted Bundy volunteered for a suicide hotline, and raped and murdered dozens of women.
Pedro Lopez raped and murdered perhaps 300+ young boys and girls. He probably also had some quality that some apologists would deem redeeming. Maybe he liked feeding birds, or was a swell yodeler. Current whereabouts unknown due to imo ridiculous sentencing maximums in South America, and other failures.
Actions matter, not personal qualities. And on the flip-side, I’d rather have a serial killer as President who greatly improved the world and didn’t engage in mass genocide of foreigners than a personal saint who doesn’t even step on a bug who yet by actions continues US mass global slaughter. I’m not generally utilitarian, but in this case…well I guess I’ll have to revisit my moral tree. But there are other real examples: Saddam Hussein was a dictator who committed terrible crimes on his own people, and also his country was very progressive re: women’s rights, and also hated al qaeda and other terrorists (except maybe Carlos the Jackal who they may have harbored). Qaddafi may have personally orchestrated the terrorist bombing of hundreds of innocent airline passengers; Libya though was one of the richest and most internally humanitarian countries in Africa until the US decided to murder him and hand the country over to terrorists, then help the terrorists engage in sex trafficking and moving arms to Syrian terrorists. A politician who personally disagrees with abortion yet recognizes that his/her own views should be trumped by any/all women and so legislates and fight for such–why would I not for them just because they personally are pro-life?
Hillary Clinton: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/hillary-clinton-abortion/494723/ “For the most part, Clinton’s stance matches the official stance of the United Methodist Church, or UMC—the tradition in which she was raised and remains a faithful member. Clinton, who calls herself an “old-fashioned Methodist,” told a Newsweek interviewer in 1994 that abortion is morally wrong. One of her biographers, Paul Kengor, notes that she has turned to the UMC’s Book of Resolutions when she has wanted help reaching a decision or when grappling with a moral question. The Book accepts abortion but only in a qualified way. It professes “the sanctity of unborn human life” while allowing that certain circumstances—“conflicts of life with life”—may warrant terminating a pregnancy. This may explain Clinton’s recent comments on NBC’s “Meet the Press” during which, to the dismay of many pro-choicers, she described the fetus as an “unborn person.” She has also declared her support of some “late-pregnancy” restrictions that would go into effect perhaps as soon as the “unborn person” is viable, except in cases of rape or incest or when the life or mental or physical health of the mother is at risk.”
So, I’d have no problem voting for a person such as Clinton if they kept their own biases/religious views to themselves and not want to legislate such on others. Clinton favored restrictions on abortion though. She put her own views as higher than every single other American woman’s personal views.
Even a George Bush or Barack Obama or Donald Trump might not be a sociopath in his personal views; but still orders sociopathic actions. A moral failure sure, but not indicative of the “why”. More the “why care about what one of these people’s motivations truly are”. Actions which affect billions are more important than dissecting a single person’s personality, and obviously as in this article, whether they’re a good painter or a vegetarian or whatever.
Another example: Christopher Hitchens. And in the same vein, Sam Harris. Oh, such great intellectuals, that must excuse each from promoting war and Islamophobia. Which has nothing to do with atheism of course. Lacking a belief in a deity doesn’t lead to any other ideas. Sorry, drunk and rambling. I’m an atheist and pro-choice. Sam Harris is an utter moron. Very good site though, and commentariat, thanks.
Wow !!! The over using of the “terrorist” epithet against middle easterners is quite telling. As a non American, I never fail to get shocked at how much even the so called left leaning Americans are nothing but misinformed bigoted Bozos.
I would treat any conclusion made by the ICTY show trial with great caution. It was so rigged that it allowed the prosecution to use (anonymous?) hearsay evidence, and that hearsay evidence could not be challenged by the defendant.
Milosevic was arrested by Yugoslav authorities on April 1, 2001. Following his arrest, the United States pressured the Yugoslav government to extradite Milosevic to the ICTY or lose financial aid from the IMF and World Bank. On 11 March 2006, Milosevic was found dead in his prison cell in the UN war crimes tribunal’s detention centre, located in the Scheveningen section of The Hague, Netherlands. He was denied a state funeral.
Fast forward to March of 2016:
“The ICTY’s exoneration of the late Slobodan Milosevic, the former President of Yugoslavia, for war crimes committed in the Bosnia war proves again we should take NATO claims regarding its ’official enemies’ not with a pinch of salt, but a huge lorry load. […] The ICTY’s conclusion, that one of the most demonized figures of the modern era was innocent of the most heinous crimes he was accused of, really should have made headlines across the world. But it hasn‘t. Even the ICTY buried it, deep in its 2,590 page verdict.
CNN provided blanket coverage of what was described as “the most important trial since Nuremberg.” Of course, Milosevic’s guilt was taken as a given. […] Anyone who dared to challenge the NATO line was labeled a “Milosevic apologist”, or worse still, a “genocide denier”, by ‘Imperial Truth Enforcers’.
Inevitably, Milosevic was likened to Hitler. “It was just like watching the evil strutting Adolf Hitler in action,” wrote the News of the World’s political editor, when Milosevic had the temerity to defend himself in court. “There were chilling flashes of the World War Two Nazi monster as the deposed Serb tyrant harangued the court.”
To make sure readers did get the Milosevic=Hitler point, the News of the World illustrated their diatribe with a picture of Hitler ‘The Butcher of Berlin’, in front of a concentration camp, with a picture of Milosevic ‘The Butcher of Belgrade’ superimposed on a picture of a Bosnian concentration camp. Which in fact, he had nothing to do with.”
Notice how Milosevic was labelled “Hitler” and how anyone who disagreed with this label was called an “apologist” or a “denier”. Gee, isn’t this what we’re hearing over and over again on this site?
Weapons of mass destruction are coming!
Saddam Hussein is coming!
Gaddafi is coming!
Putin is coming!
Russia is coming!
Chemical weapons are coming!
North Korea is coming!
Iran is coming!
White supremacists are coming!
Duck and cover, everybody! And whatever you do, don’t ask sticky questions because when you question, you’re really just apologizing and denying, aren’t you? Well, aren’t you?
Some have suggested that the “truth enforcers” are just paid trolls. What do you think?
This so called court is just a kangaroo court set up by western powers to promote their own interests. Most of the defendants have black faces and come from poor weak African countries that have incurred the displeasure of the US empire. There are a very few exceptions like Milosevic, who just got in the way of US plans in the Balkans.
Most African nations now recognise this “Court” for what it is and refuse to give it any credence. You’ve got about as much chance of seeing war criminals like Blair, Bush and Co. in the dock there as you have of being struck by lightning.
Milosevic was the victim of “Syrian chemical weapons” type propaganda hoaxes. The main one was the so called Srebrenica massacre, where 8,000 people were supposedly murdered by Serbs. What really happened was that Moslem terrorists murdered 2,000 Serb civilians. Serbs then murdered 500 Moslems by way of reprisal.
Wake up and smell the coffee Muslim is not synonymous with terrorist …. and of course the serbs happen to be civilians !!! What a double think.
> This so called court is just a kangaroo court set up by western powers to promote their own interests.
> Most of the defendants have black faces and come from poor weak African countries that have incurred
> the displeasure of the US empire. There are a very few exceptions like Milosevic, who just got in the way
> of US plans in the Balkans.
You are confusing the International Criminal Court with the “International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia” set up by the Security Council (with dubious legitimacy).
The Canadian ambassador refused to testify as a witness at what he compared to a 1930s Moscow show trial.
If you realize that psychopaths are people free from feelings of guilt, with no capacity for empathy, and too often can be charmers, it comes as no surprise that other parts of their brain may allow them to paint, or love music. Their narcissistic perception of themselves, like that of Mr. Bush, can even lead them to believe their artwork can reach the level of a Rembrandt, when their artistic work says otherwise. Political leaders have shown to rank high on the psychopathy scale.
You are right Annie, Bush has no capacity for empathy for anyone except his own. The notion that Bush has a ‘human’ side is a fallacy. The man is a nasty stinking war criminal who should be condemned to death. When Hitler died one would have thought there could never be another man like him, but these swines are still with us in the American administration and the military. This plague of diseased minds seems to infest the entire planet. To suggest that Bush the murderer has somehow turned into a reformed man because he’s taken up painting is absurd and an insult to the million he murdered and the many millions of people injured and dispossessed.
Somehow the author never mentioned that president who destroyed Libya, engulfed Syria in chaos and destruction, and caused the greatest refugee crisis of the last 60 years. That is to say nothing of his weekly meetings with CIA’s Brennan in which he, like Caligula, would decide who should live and who should die.. Yet. not only is he given a free pass, but in many quarters is remembered as a great intellect, a man of the people, and leader of ” the resistance.”
Other people call him “The Fraud” and “Banksters’ President”
He is much worse than our current president in his psychopathy. With Trump, what you see is what you get. Obama, as you noted, is a cold-blooded killer, a liar and a phony who betrayed the poor suckers who believed his Hope and Change shuck and jive.