Charles Goyette Interviews Russell Mokhiber

Charles Goyette, June 04, 2008

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Russell Mokhiber, editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, discusses the White House press culture, the questions he posed to Scott McClellan while press secretary, his condemnation of the Washington political culture, the mistake of the Iraq War, Vincent Bugliosi’s new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Bush’s ignorance of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and Iran, Scott McClellan’s lack of courage regarding his allegations against Bush, the repetitive nature of White House press conferences, allegations that the mainstream media went soft on questioning the Iraq War, the possible prosecution of George W. Bush after his term ends, his constitutional powers of pardon, Ari Fleisher’s fortunes after leaving the White House, the comparison of George W. Bush to Charles Manson, Mokhiber’s prediction that Bush will be prosecuted, the American people’s complicity toward Bush’s actions, and his opinion of the Ricardo Sanchez book, Wiser in Battle: A Soldiers’ Story.

MP3 here. (38:02)

YouTube here.

Russell Mokhiber is the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter.

5 Responses to “Russell Mokhiber”

  1. This interview really underscores the frustration I have with many in the anti-Iraq-war camp. They’re mostly hardcore statists. They have problems with personalities in government (like Bush), but they have no principled objection to the state so defacto, they aren’t truly anti-war. They’re only against this, Republican led war.

    For example?:
    “Bush is the only president in this century who actually wanted to go war!”

    Well, technically this is a correct statement since Bush is the ONLY US president this century who’s engaged the US in a full-scale war (I suppose Clinton probably was up to military shenanigans in 2000-2001, but for the sake of argument, let’s not consider any of those “war”). But I think it’s clear that he’s referring to the past 100 years and in this case, it displays a tragic, self-induced blindness to American foreign policy for the past century. EVERY PRESIDENT WHO ENGAGED THE US IN MILITARY ACTION WANTED TO DO SO. There has not been a war fought by the US in the past 100 years that was necessary for our defense. All US Presidents have lied to and manipulated the public to get us into war. Do you really think Wilson didn’t want us in WWI? FDR in WWII? That involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq War 1, Somalia, etc.. etc… was something the sitting president was resistant to? No, War is indeed a Racket and the US President has ALWAYS been in favor of keeping the racket going.

  2. U.S. Constitution – Article 2 Section 2
    “… and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

    How does the “except in Cases of Impeachment” work here? If Nixon had remained in office and faced impeachment, he would not have been able to have pardoned himself, if I understand this correctly. What if Bush finds himself facing impeachment and decides to resign? Can the Legislature refuse to accept his resignation and leave him unable to be pardoned? Is it saying he has no powers of pardon when he is under impeachment proceedings?

  3. I will be watching the Lakers and the Celtics.

  4. there is no chace in hell they will prosecute him the entire congress has as much blood on their hands as cheney and bush

  5. Aw, this was a very nice post. In idea I want to put in writing like this additionally – taking time and precise effort to make an excellent article… however what can I say… I procrastinate alot and not at all seem to get one thing done.

Leave a Reply