Don’t Mess With Mesh/Evidence-Based Voting
April 10, 2021
The First Amendment vs Cancel Culture
April 24, 2021
Show all

The War Crimes of George W. Bush

Author, Steven Markoff, joins us to discuss his book “The Case Against George W. Bush,” where he dispassionately lays out the three major war crimes the former president committed by invading Iraq. Plus, David, Ralph, and Steve discuss the Biden infrastructure plan.

Steven Markoff is the founder of several public service educational websites, including procon.org. He is the author of “The Case Against George W. Bush.”

“There are a lot of people that look at George [W.] Bush since his presidency and they say ‘Gee, you know, he’s been a pretty good guy. He’s really been helpful. He’s been more of an elder statesman. And we should give him a pass because he’s been a nice guy.’ Well, if you have a neighbor that murders three people, and after the murder he brings in stray dogs, and he’s nice to people, and he brings you a cake when you move in? Still a murderer. And… I believe that one of the reasons that Donald Trump was able to attack our democracy in the way he did, is that he looked back at George W. Bush and said to himself ‘Look at all the terrible things that guy did, and he’s never had to pay for it.’”

Steven Markoff, author of The Case Against George W. Bush

 

“When I finished the book, I offered the book to everybody that I had quoted, which was… around ninety authors. I offered it to Condoleezza Rice, I offered it to Dick Cheney, I offered it to the [George W.] Bush [Presidential] Library. I haven’t heard from one person about the book.”

Steven Markoff, author of The Case Against George W. Bush

 

“Normally, when you write an advocacy paper or book, there’s a lot of facts on the other side… But in all of the books that we went through– and we went through 130 published books, plus government reports, plus other reports– there is really no data that counters what I’ve quoted in the book.”

Steven Markoff, author of The Case Against George W. Bush

 

“Censorship comes in many forms. One of [them] is a colossal moral indifference to official crimes at the highest levels of our government.”

Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader Radio Hour Ep 371 Transcript (Right click to download)

18 Comments

  1. ross mann says:

    800+ yrs since magna carta and we are still so far from such aspiring ideals. the pain of shame i feel just for being human, and what humans have wrought. this issue, the unimaginable suffering inflicted, and it continues. that veteran’s letter while heartwrenching, bookended the reality of the past several decades on this earth.

    your show, always potent and vital. thank you, ralph, david, steve et al.

    • Afdal Shahanshah says:

      The sad reality is that we have actually regressed to a state of civil liberties that predates the Magna Carta, ever since Barack Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which allows for the indefinite jailing of US citizens without trial.

  2. Don Harris says:

    One reason we have not progressed recently in achieving the ideals of democracy and are currently moving in the wrong direction is we accept the narrative offered by the list of people mentioned for the conference that does nothing to challenge the forces undermining democracy as they are only offering strategies that have not worked for decades. (see every president and Congress since Reagan.)

    You need to include me and others that are not the usual suspects in the conference to provide a variety of opinions and strategies instead of just another group of like minded people so citizens can choose between doubling down on failed strategies and trying a different approach.

    For example, many of those proposed for attending the conference will be speaking about legislation that will get the big money out of our political process. This includes constitutional amendments as constitutional amendments require lots of legislation.

    The problem is that legislation can not get the big money out of our political process. Taking that route is an exercise in futility as the last few decades have clearly shown.

    The problem with big money corrupting our political process is that the big money legislators only pass legislation that primarily benefits the big money interests with a few crumbs for ordinary citizens to make it somewhat palatable.

    The big money interests have no interests in getting the big money our of our political system because they are benefiting from how it is now.

    In order to pass legislation to get the big money out of politics we first have to replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators.

    The problem has to be solved before legislation to solve the problem can be passed.

    Ralph has said politicians want our votes more than big money.

    So we need to put that theory to the test and demand that politicians run small donor campaigns and enforce that demand with our votes.

    And we can set up an organization with a website where citizens can register now that in 2022 they will only be voting for small donor candidates in the primaries and general elections to let other citizens and candidates know how they will be voting. Most citizens can cast a write in vote if there are no small donor candidates on their ballot to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates in future elections.

    Just 10-20% of voters nationally participating in this strategy in 2022 would have a profound effect on 2022 and future elections.

    As the 10-20% would not be spread evenly across the country there would be some congressional districts that were above the average. In these districts 15-20% of general election voters that don’t normally participate in the primaries voting for small donor candidates could defeat a big money establishment candidate that gets support in the primaries from the 15-20% of general election voters that normally vote for the establishment candidates in the primaries.

    In the general election a small donor third party or independent candidate could take enough votes from the candidate in a district gerrymandered for that candidate’s party to flip the district to the other party.

    This would inspire many more citizens to participate in 2024 and also inspire many more candidates to run small donor campaigns in 2024.

    Of course, we could just use One Demand that is set up for this purpose.

    But this will not happen if you, Ralph, do not take this opportunity from the comments here and put it in the conference so that citizens can be offered something that actually has a chance of succeeding instead of the same old failed approaches from the usual suspects.

    That is what the Ralph Nader of legend would do.

    That Ralph Nader would address such an approach and not leave it unaddressed for over five years. That Ralph Nader would not say on Washington Journal (10-24-2018 about thirteen minutes in) that he would have me on the Radio Hour to discuss this approach and fail to do so or even explain why the Ralph Nader on Washington Journal misspoke or changed his mind for over two years.

    Ralph Nader the legend would inform citizens about this opportunity, encourage citizens to participate and put pressure on politicians to participate.

    And anyone that believes in the legend Ralph Nader should be disappointed in the Ralph Nader that does not live up to the legend in this instance and should let him know when he comes up short.

    Ralph Nader the legend would expect nothing less.

  3. Susan Shaffer says:

    Please not that I think you may have Mr. Markoff’s email address wrong. He stated on the podcast that it was: scmarkoff@aol.com. You have left out the “sc” and I think it may not get to him. Perhaps you could check? Thanks. Loved the show, and I will be writing for a book for my Senators and Congress person.

  4. Rita Brunkow says:

    Mr. Nader,

    I am a huge fan, love your work, have followed you a long time, but more closely since I heard you speak at University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire somewhere around 2001 or 2002. I have read most of your books, and you are one of my heroes. I am grateful for all you do.

    Steven C. Markoff is the founder of a private, multinational precious metals firm and investment firm A-Mark (Nasdaq AMRK).
    https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/mark-financial-corporation
    https://www.amark.com/about-amark
    Just from some internet research this is a formerly highly secretive company, worth billions, that expanded and went public (NASDAQ – AMRK). Mr. Markoff would have a huge interest in what we are up to in Africa and other places as he deals in industrial metals. I don’t remember anything mentioned about this on the program.

    It’s hard to do a lot of research on the internet these days with all the paywalls being erected – I heard someone use the term ‘class journalism’ – investors and owners willing to pay the price get knowledge about the world or at least certainly more than the rest of us get (mostly propaganda). Unfortunately, and wrongly I believe, this was an issue from the start with academic data bases, and now has filtered down through most standard journalism. Even Reuters put up a paywall this past week.

    Anyway, I just want to pass along my skepticism regarding Mr. Markoff. It seems we are all targets for manipulation these days. Trump showed us all how easy it is for even a very bad global businessman to pass one’s self off as a populist. Not enough people get that. Sad.

    Markoff talked a good game on your show. He had me convinced I needed to get a copy of that book even though I’ve been convinced since Bush declared war on terror that he was guilty of war crimes. I might still get one, but I highly doubt Markoff’s motives stem from a desire to seek justice, but are more out of personal interest. Markoff came off on your show as some guy funded by a foundation sitting at home diligently gathering facts to document an injustice. He has founded the foundations he refers to, including the kind of ‘educational’ that claims to teach people how to think. One called ProCon.org has many topics and presumes to teach people how to discuss them. The one topic you WON’T find on that site is Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)- Incoming or Outgoing FID – good or bad? Is one really better than the other? Should there be limits? What should they be? Who could responsible for enforcing limits? This topic of FDI is rarely broached by any media, pundit, or even book if speakers or writers or politicians wish to have a career. FDI is critical to understand – in my opinion it is the foundation of imperialism. This guy, Markoff could be that next fake populist that appeals to many. Particularly since he is a globalist who is capable of not coming off as one. Even if Markham isn’t politically ambitious himself, embroiling the public in a debate over war criminals isn’t as productive as actually stopping the war crimes is more critical – and that takes awareness. We, the underclass, can’t begin to do that until we unveil and understand FDI as the basis of imperialism and how that leads to so many of the ills in society – both the oppressed and to the underclass oppressor nation. This guy isn’t interested in that, he is interested in more distractions it seems to me. But, what do I know. Not being of the upper investment class, I really don’t have access to enough information to know all that I don’t know. But I sure as hell want to…and I try the best I can.

    Thank you again for all you do,
    Respectfully,
    Rita Brunkow
    Eau Claire, Wisconsin

  5. Afdal Shahanshah says:

    I’m not sure I understand Markoff’s dismissal of Wikileaks citations near the beginning. Wikileaks isn’t sourced data? Uh… What? Does he have no idea how Wikileaks works or something? Most of the things released by Wikileaks are direct quotations or documents written by people in power–there’s no hearsay involved. Contrary to his claims, we do in fact know exactly what was said, which source said it, and when. And one can generally piece together the background of something the same way we piece together the background of any other story in journalism. Unless he means to say that only named or exposed leakers can carry any weight behind their leaks? Should we have not taken seriously the exposure of the FBI’s COINTELPRO operation until the people who broke into FBI offices and photocopied their documents to mail them to newspapers in 1971 finally agreed to be interviewed in 2014? That’s a rather sad understanding of the nature of evidence and facts, if so. The factual accuracy of Wikileaks is the envy to just about any news publications: they have never had to retract a single thing they’ve released because no one has ever managed to dispute what was released.

  6. Jim Basile says:

    Susan Shaffer is correct . Mark’s email as stated above (markoff@aol.com) is INCORRECT!

  7. Jose says:

    Cancel culture sucks.

  8. Ben Leet says:

    Excellent program. The 2016 book “The American War in Vietnam” by John Marciano describes another deception that led to U.S. war. At the time of Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963 “the United States had 16,500 troops in South Vietnam ‘pretending they were not fighting, and the Special Forces were executing a host of covert programs in North Vietnam.’ . . . in violation of the 1954 Geneva Agreements.” The book describes the campaign of terror, assassination and torture carried out by the U.S. puppet government of Diem. Diem’s last military chief General Tran Van Don is quoted, saying, “Their [the Saigon government’s] use of Gestapo-like political raids and torture were known and decried everywhere.” The pattern is repeated in Iraq; an arch villain is created, and the need to protect the world from unimaginable harm. War gives meaning to our lives. There is no repercussion, no moral outrage. The veterans return with damaged lives and psyches, their courage is heralded, but no one ventures to object that their sacrifice was misspent. I’m 75, I remember being drafted, almost. My generation paid a big price. I feel it’s time to speak out, the military needs to be put out of business, in a sense. Even the letter from the dying soldier read during the program was an example of a deceived notion of heroism, he joined the Army a few days after Sept. 11, 2001, to defend the country. From what? From 20 Saudi Arabian citizens who were indoctrinated into a narrow-minded Islamic fundamentalism? Congressswoman Barbara Lee voted against the war in Afghanistan, she represented my values.

  9. Paul Haeder says:

    Here you go, Bush is more than a war criminal, and he is in a league of many: My review of the book, not the man, Markoff.

    https://www.laprogressive.com/coming-home-to-roost/

    Then, a peak at the other war criminal, Biden. Then, look at all the others (war criminals) Biden supported, and that includes all those POTUS’s, back to JFK.

    https://theintercept.com/empire-politician/

    Jeremy Scahill is the author of Blackwater and Dirty Wars.

    While Markoff’s book is on the three huge crimes of W, the crimes of USA are looming, and Raoul Peck’s, “Exterminate the Brutes.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *