In George W. Bush's ruthless world of abject deceit, fantasy rules and the truth is abandoned.

We now hear that in his new Dallas digs he has one framed souvenir that he treasures above all others.  It is the glass-encased gun owned by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.  Bush continues to take pride that he "got a bad man" to use the phrase that Fox News trumpeted to its slavish media zombies.

The truth is far less pleasant and it was determined early on after Saddam Hussein's capture that the one thing that the Bush administration along with the New World Order command would not tolerate was a trial of the dictator that permitted a proper range of questioning along with subpoenas to United States government high command.

In one of the recently rare instances of the U.S. media furnishing information into international thought, and issues that were broadly discussed in Europe and throughout the Middle East as readily as such information was ignored on the American scene, "Sixty Minutes" in 2004 presented an informative interview with a prominent and highly controversial French attorney.

The topic below was originally posted at the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Arguably America's greatest trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow, famously once said,

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."

Reading this morning's headlines about A.I.G. utilizing $165 million of their $170 billion tax payer financed bailout for bonuses, reminded me of Darrow's insight. The excuse being offered after all is that a "contract is a contract" and A.I.G. must fulfill their obligations.

Isn't it curious how contracts are deemed sacrosanct for Wall Street beneficiaries but not blue-collar members of unions in the auto industry? Unions are expected to get "realistic" and " renegotiate" their contracts but moneyed elites are allowed to carry on as before. Anyone who has the temerity to point out the contradiction is "unreasonable," "angry," "extreme," or heaven forbid, one of those "crazy left wing bloggers."