The Bush Thread

[SuBe]

not to mention, it seems like Bush did everything he could to make this transition smooth...so it could be seen as a nasty maneuver on Obama's part. i'd love to see Bush under investigation, but for the reasons you and Raiden described, i don't see it happening either.

I would love to see the Clinton Administration investigated, but I don't think that would ever happen as well.

What I would REALLY Love to see is an Indepentent Comission that would investigate the last 100 years, to find out what policies really work and which ones don't. Wouldn't that be something, people actually seeing if the New Deal did any good, or the Sedition Act, or Patriot Act. Someone other than the Media?

 

[souvlaki]

Dude that's harsh.

Onion articles are written better

Oh God yeah. I actually laugh at Onion articles. This article is so bad and unfunny I can't see how it was suppposed to be a satire piece.

 

[Malice]

I love The Onion Video Podcasts...they rock

 

[The Overlord]

And Bush has not only an impressive bag of diplomas and success as Governor of Texas and was elected twice as President.

So what, a wrestler was elected governor. Getting elected is popularity contest,.

Clinton leaving Bush a recession isn't a theory .

No saying that Clinton caused the current mess is theory and frankly it sounds like buck passing to me, I guess you don't beleive in personal responsbility or that it shopuldn't be applied tot he President Bush.

It's obviously not - but, again, thats why I don't take much stock into the approval rating as they leave office.

I never claimed Bush was a military genius, but that's why he has people like Robert Gates and General Patereaus who are..

Except that Iraqi is a success now.....

They said it be a success in moth, 3 years was too long and not waht they promised and they didn't find WMDs. Too little, too late.

Not entirely.



President's aren't clocks......

Are you intentionally being tick or something?

And I think you actually believe this which makes it doubly amusing. ......

I took Mr. starkle for having the exact same attiutude you have, I'm not completely self rightous like you are.

When did I call it indisputable? ......

I disagreed with your theory that Clinton cused the economic crisis and you said was I instantly ignorant for doing so, that is the the most arrogant and childish thing I heard here in a while. Instead of debating your theory, you said it was instantly true and treated anyone who disagreed with it as an idiot, you treated theery as fact and had the gall to lecture anyone who disagreed with it.

You acted in a snotty and boorish manner, when had no basis to do so.

Frankly that is the mark of poor debater.

If I insulted you by telling you to grow up, I am sorry, but I would still recommend it.......

Again with the boorish, snotty attitude eh?

Cute, coming from someone so arrogant, you seem to think anyone who doesn't aggree with pet theories is some sort of mental child? That seems pretty childish to me.

Get some thicker skin. .......

Why should I tolerate rudeness and boorish behaviour?

Again, as Para said, the Federal Reserve is guilty of its own sin on the matter and thus there thoughts on the issue are not exactly final........

No, but it does throw reasonable doubt on your theory and I can find tother articles that disagree with your theory.

Admit it, its a thoery and when you cliamied it was a fact, you were in error, That's all I want for to admit. I don't mind that you treated a theory like fact, its the snotty attitude you had about that you seem boorish.

I treat intelligent and thoughtful opinions with the respect that should come with it - you simply have no prove deserving.........

That's just your opinion on my posts.

And frankly if you are going to act boorish, would should treat you in a civil manner?

Give it time...give it time...

So when can we judge in 4000 AD or something.

Also guess what the wall street Journal is judging him now and we know how liberal they are: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249634346200275.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[The Overlord]

I am willing to make a bet.

Obama will NOT go after Bush and try to get charges pressed.
Any takers?

He wont do it. No President as ever done it (that I can remember). They blame previous administrations and even ridicule them, but wont try to hold them accountable in court. It wont happen.

Obama may try to put something in law that allows it to more easilly happen...but right now, to do that, would be catastrophic for the country. To bring him up on charges, SO MUCH secret info would have to go public. I just don't think it will ever happen.

I will take that, no way Obama will do it, it just silly if he did? He is trying to unite the country, doing this will just amke him look small and petty and divisive.

 

[The Major]

Even if America does lose its superpower influence after fifteen years, they still won't allow Bush to be tried for war crimes. It's simply a matter of national pride. He'll be dead before any American leader is brought before the Hague.

A practice which needs to end. Bush escaping unmolested would give the green light to any power hungry dictator wannabe gunning for to be president's office. Next time they may not be so lenient to give up their power when another Obama shows up. What happens to American pride after that occurs?

But if anybody believes in cosmic justice, then have faith that he'll get his in the end.

Somehow I doubt you'd be fine with this if it was a common criminal. Which is odd since people abusing power within the government is a much greater crime.

America and the world has a system to deal with criminals without relying on cosmic justice. Use it.

Nothing he ever said or did will prove he was right about invading Iraq.

So what? If he commited crimes there he needs to answer for them.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Do you mean Uncertainy? I don't see how anyone could be certain that Germany and Japan wouldn't have ended up as failures in the 40s and 50s.

But, look how it turned out, if we continue to stablize Iraq, it could spread freedom to other parts of the Middle East. Just like how most of Europe Stablized after WW2, and how South Korea Stablized after the Korean Conflict.

Adding Freedom and Liberty to any country can't end up badly.

Yes, they were uncertain. I just said it a different way. And yes, Iraq may stabilize....and it may not. As I said, time will tell.

 

[The Major]

Sigh...

What do you charge Bush with Major? Treason? Treason is the betrayl of one's country to a foreign entity. Bush did not do that, and if so it cannot be proven.

Let's have a trial and fine out.

Torture? The only "torture," the administration admits to is waterboarding and other forms of psychological torment at the time these were not defined as torture.

I can call a flower a rollerskate, it doesn't make it so.

How can say this with a straight face?

He cannot be charged as he would be grandfathered. There is no evidence of more extreme forms of torture and if it took place who will testify? Those who committed it and will put their heads on the block by admitting it

True, but some could do it from either guilt or to get a better deal.

Even the Bush government has whistle blowers.

or those whom it was committed against, many who have proven links to terror organizations.

Wrong. If they were proven they would have been convicted years ago. Bush has completely screwed that up.

Not exactly credible witnesses.

That's not a good reason to not use them. They are still witnesses.

There are witnesses from within the government which will admit what they did was torture, too. One admitted it a few days ago IIRC.

Perjury? Bush was never under oath so even if he knowingly lied about WMDs he was not under oath.

Lets do it again with him under oath and without Cheney to hold his hand. We'll see how Bush does under those circumstances. t:

The illegal invasion of Iraq? The Iraqi government would have to press that charge in the World Court and I really doubt they will.

They should.

The fact is, for the past 8 years people much smarter than us have joined their teams of lawyers in looking for a way to impeach him for something illegal and there is nothing there.

Which have been stonewalled by the government. They have been on the fringes of the justice system, not the mainstream. The Democrats are a joke in pursuing Bush. Some opposition party.

The justice department has been severely compromised, as well. How do you expect justice to happen with that?

Now with Obaam in power this may be far easier.

Even if he committed crimes there is no way to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.

Not being proven guilty doesn't make one innocent.

So why waste all the tax dollars to try him when he will just walk?

1. This apathy your thinking is how politicians get away with crap like this. They have nothing to fear from a docile public.

2. It shows the government at least tried to go after him and his allies. Much better then looking like they're corrupt.

3. Why should money trump justice? That's a pitiful reason to stop investigating someone, especially people in the government who have abused their office.

4. This will make any politician who want to emulate Bush think twice before doing it.

 

[The Major]

Depending on whether or not Iraq becomes a stable democracy, Katrina will probably be remembered as Bush's biggest **** up...but strangely enough, it is one of the few things that is not his fault.

Bush didn't hire Brownie?

 

[Kelly]

So, according to you Major, we will charge him after we have a trial figuring out what he did?????

Wow, that's new.

 

[SuBe]

Let's have a trial and fine out.



I can call a flower a rollerskate, it doesn't make it so.

How can say this with a straight face?


True, but some could do it from either guilt or to get a better deal.

Even the Bush government has whistle blowers.



Wrong. If they were proven they would have been convicted years ago. Bush has completely screwed that up.



That's not a good reason to not use them. They are still witnesses.

There are witnesses from within the government which will admit what they did was torture, too. One admitted it a few days ago IIRC.



Lets do it again with him under oath and without Cheney to hold his hand. We'll see how Bush does under those circumstances. t:



They should.



Which have been stonewalled by the government. They have been on the fringes of the justice system, not the mainstream. The Democrats are a joke in pursuing Bush. Some opposition party.

The justice department has been severely compromised, as well. How do you expect justice to happen with that?

Now with Obaam in power this may be far easier.


Not being proven guilty doesn't make one innocent.



1. This apathy your thinking is how politicians get away with crap like this. They have nothing to fear from a docile public.

2. It shows the government at least tried to go after him and his allies. Much better then looking like they're corrupt.

3. Why should money trump justice? That's a pitiful reason to stop investigating someone, especially people in the government who have abused their office.

4. This will make any politician who want to emulate Bush think twice before doing it.

Give it up Major, you don't know what you are talking about. You can't go to trial, unless you were charged with something. You can't break a law, if that law doesn't exist. Get over it, he's gone.

 

[Kelly]

Bush didn't hire Brownie?

Brownie was not the main problem....

State and city government was the main cause....and it is still a problem in New Orleans itself.

Texas is an example of what can happen......Perry took care of Katrina victims better than their own state....why? Because he took action, instead of waiting for the Federal government to tell him what to do.

 

[SuBe]

Brownie was not the main problem....

State and city government was the main cause....and it is still a problem in New Orleans itself.

Texas is an example of what can happen......Perry took care of Katrina victims better than their own state....why? Because he took action, instead of waiting for the Federal government to tell him what to do.

Exactly.

 

[StorminNorman]

SuBe great avatar, I almost used that one myself

I will have to share pictures of my Doc Manhattan costume when 3 6 09 comes

 

[SuBe]

SuBe great avatar, I almost used that one myself

I will have to share pictures of my Doc Manhattan costume when 3 6 09 comes

Thanks! PM me your pic when you get it up on here.

 

[StorminNorman]

So what, a wrestler was elected governor. Getting elected is popularity contest.

Of course, which is why Bush's popularity with Texas Democrats in power during his tenure is, IMO, more impressive than his re-election or any article written by an outside commentator.

No saying that Clinton caused the current mess is theory and frankly it sounds like buck passing to me, I guess you don't beleive in personal responsbility or that it shopuldn't be applied tot he President Bush.

No, the banking crisis was YEARS in the making - not seven. While the direct causes can be debated, that fact cannot. The fact is Clinton, at the very best , did nothing to help the matter.

The idea of a past President impacting the future is not "passing the buck", its reality. It happens all the time in all aspects of government.

They said it be a success in moth, 3 years was too long and not waht they promised and they didn't find WMDs. Too little, too late.

Again, you are arguing about B when I am discussing A.

Are you intentionally being tick or something?

I took Mr. starkle for having the exact same attiutude you have, I'm not completely self rightous like you are.

I'm not self righteous in the least bit.

You acted in a snotty and boorish manner, when had no basis to do so.

Frankly that is the mark of poor debater.

Again with the boorish, snotty attitude eh?

Cute, coming from someone so arrogant, you seem to think anyone who doesn't aggree with pet theories is some sort of mental child? That seems pretty childish to me.

Why should I tolerate rudeness and boorish behaviour?

No, but it does throw reasonable doubt on your theory and I can find tother articles that disagree with your theory.


Admit it, its a thoery and when you cliamied it was a fact, you were in error, That's all I want for to admit. I don't mind that you treated a theory like fact, its the snotty attitude you had about that you seem boorish.

And frankly if you are going to act boorish, would should treat you in a civil manner?

While its amusing how many times one can use the terms "theory", "boorish" and "snotty" its obvious this is getting no where.

In the name of ending what has become a debate about tone and less about substance I will simply give you a half hearted bow and concede whatever point you want conceded. Its obvious this conversation has no further to go.

So when can we judge in 4000 AD or something.

Also guess what the wall street Journal is judging him now and we know how liberal they are: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249634346200275.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Again, you completely miss the entire point.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

here is an wsj article written in defense of Bush. Does that suddenly mean his reputation has changed?

What Demogoblin did wasn't against the rules though

LOL cute. Of course I never stated what Demogoblin did ANYTHING against the rules - I simply said that the post displays an opinion that is both extreme, immature and negligent of reality and as such one that is beneath that of a political mod.

"Juvenile" and "naive." How so?

An affair is a sleazy thing to do, but its nothing compared to how Bush has treated the presidency.

The idea that Clinton's list of sins was limited to adultery is both naive and ignorant of reality.

The Pardoning of Mark Rich for PERSONAL Payment is one of the most corrupt and disgusting acts a President has ever done. This was a man on the FBI's Most Wanted List who was pardoned simply because he payed for a Pardon. It was a disgrace to the American justice system, the procedure of pardon and the Office of the President of the United States.

And then there was the issue of Travelgate where Clinton fired employees of the White House Travel Office - a scandal that ended in an Independent Counsel stating Hillary Clinton made false statements to investigators.

And then there is the matter of China funneling in campaign cash to Bill Clinton in 1996 breaking Campaign Finance laws. The federal investigation led to 22 people being convicted of fraud, many of which were (you guessed it) employees of Bill Clinton.

And before I forget, there is still that whole perjury charge (not the sex) that got Clinton Impeached plus the theft of White House furniture upon departure.

An affair is a sleazy thing to do, but its nothing compared to how Bush has treated the presidency.

I disagree entirely. Did Bush stretch the boundaries of his abilities? Probably. But he did not personal benefit from his actions. Bush did not prosper from torture, Bush did not prosper from warrantless wiretaps between people in America to foreign terrorist suspects. Bush's actions, right or wrong, had the clear goal of protecting America. Does that make it right? Probably not, but it does not compare to a President that used and abused his position as President to pad his own pockets.

And then again there is the perjury charges (not the sex) that got him Impeached.

Tell me how my opinion effects my ability as a moderator. Several posters have said I'm one of thier favorites because of my laid back attitude. Not permissive mind you, just less infraction happy.

Popularity among the masses should never be confused with either quality or competence. Being "laid back" and easy does not mean you are good at this position any more than it means your bad. My criticism is not with your style, but your substance, or lack there of.

You didn't answer my question. Read my first statement. Why do you think we're upset with Bush? Why do you believe we think he's a war criminal?

I honestly believe that most of the "WAR CRIMINAL!" stuff comes from frustration, confusion, fear and misconception of war. Also most of the WAR CRIMINAL! stuff comes from the youth and the far left - groups well known for hyperbole and overreaction.

The reason I bought up Clinton's sex problems is because that is the defining mantra the Republican party had against him. No-one remembers anything else. The Republican party hasn't done a very good job showing anything incriminating that sticks beyond that. I'm no fan of Clinton's btw. If you have something to nail to the wall that is legit, do it. It's just going to take more then talking about his sex life.

The above.

What things have I said that are factually incorrect?

That Clinton's problems were simple Oval Office sex.

 

[StorminNorman]

Brownie was not the main problem....

State and city government was the main cause....and it is still a problem in New Orleans itself.

Texas is an example of what can happen......Perry took care of Katrina victims better than their own state....why? Because he took action, instead of waiting for the Federal government to tell him what to do.

Compare New Orleans to Mississippi.

The difference? Haley Barbor and competent leadership.

 

[Red Mask]

Hmmm

Not really. Some of those examples have nothing to do with Bush's own actions. But since they did happen under Bush's presidency that displays rotten leadership. Walter Reed is a terrible scandal because Bush spent so much money on military spending but most of it obviously didn't help the welfare of the troops. Remember, he cut down the soldiers' benefits before the Walter Reed scandal broke.

Also, the country did not overwhelmingly vote for a ban on gay marriage. And that doesn't mean certain states shouldn't allow gay marriage.

 

[Kelly]

Compare New Orleans to Mississippi.

The difference? Haley Barbor and competent leadership.

Exactly.....I didn't have any students from Gulfport, nor any families in my apartments....


And Gulfport was wiped off the face of the earth.

 

[Red Mask]

Do you mean Uncertainy? I don't see how anyone could be certain that Germany and Japan wouldn't have ended up as failures in the 40s and 50s.

But, look how it turned out, if we continue to stablize Iraq, it could spread freedom to other parts of the Middle East. Just like how most of Europe Stablized after WW2, and how South Korea Stablized after the Korean Conflict.

Adding Freedom and Liberty to any country can't end up badly.

I saw this report on BBC News once. They told the story of a previous occupation in Iraq after World War 1 by the British. They thought they were doing the right thing too by trying to install western freedom. But it didn't work.

There is no doubt that Middle Eastern people want democracy. But Western intervention is no longer the solution it used to be. Also never confuse that region with Germany or the Far East. Different solutions for different cultures. It took many bloody years for France and America to develop their current democracies. It won't happen sooner in the Middle East just because they say so. America has stronger ties with Saudi Arabia than with Iraq, but that kingdom is way more conservative, and America does far little about it. Which is fine for business.

 

[SuBe]

I saw this report on BBC News once. They told the story of a previous occupation in Iraq after World War 1 by the British. They thought they were doing the right thing too by trying to install western freedom. But it didn't work.

There is no doubt that Middle Eastern people want democracy. But Western intervention is no longer the solution it used to be. Also never confuse that region with Germany or the Far East. Different solutions for different cultures. It took many bloody years for France and America to develop their current democracies. It won't happen sooner in the Middle East just because they say so. America has stronger ties with Saudi Arabia than with Iraq, but that kingdom is way more conservative, and America does far little about it. Which is fine for business.

America would never have won indepenence if it weren't for both Authors from other countries writing about what Liberty is, and if it weren't for France aiding in the War. So, if you cut out Ideological Communication, and Warefare aid, we wouldn't be a "free" nation. (Not that I think we are free anymore)

So, if the people of Iraq never hear about Liberty, why would they fight for it? And, if they didn't have aid to battle Tyrrany, how would they fight for it? Spreading of Freedom from one country to another is just as important as removing an Child Abuser from the Child.

 

[Red Mask]

A practice which needs to end. Bush escaping unmolested would give the green light to any power hungry dictator wannabe gunning for to be president's office. Next time they may not be so lenient to give up their power when another Obama shows up. What happens to American pride after that occurs?


Somehow I doubt you'd be fine with this if it was a common criminal. Which is odd since people abusing power within the government is a much greater crime.

America and the world has a system to deal with criminals without relying on cosmic justice. Use it.


So what? If he commited crimes there he needs to answer for them.

As much as I want Bush and other leaders to pay, it's just not that simple. The world is not unified in that regard.

But in the past few years many people who committed crimes against humanity have been caught. James Taylor is in prison and will be facing the Hague. Some of them died before a trial was held, like members of the Khmer Rouge and a certain Serbian leader.

The whole world may not believe in democracy, nor do they agree on how it should be practiced. But for centuries people believed in justice and freedom. All we have is time and faith.

 

[Red Mask]

America would never have won indepenence if it weren't for both Authors from other countries writing about what Liberty is, and if it weren't for France aiding in the War. So, if you cut out Ideological Communication, and Warefare aid, we wouldn't be a "free" nation. (Not that I think we are free anymore)

So, if the people of Iraq never hear about Liberty, why would they fight for it? And, if they didn't have aid to battle Tyrrany, how would they fight for it? Spreading of Freedom from one country to another is just as important as removing an Child Abuser from the Child.

You're still confusing the old Western cultures for the Middle East. Many Middle Eastern people want democracy, but they don't want foreign intervention like in the past. It's just not that simple for America to spread their beliefs. Bush made the bonehead move of promising democracy to the Iraqis on the eve of the invasion. But even this week Iraqis know he did not deliver on that promise. If anybody is going to achieve that, it will have to be the Iraqi people. They have many hard years ahead, and it won't necessarily end up being the same as western democracy. Remember, their neighbors with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. What happens there also affects them.

 

[SuBe]

You're still confusing the old Western cultures for the Middle East. Many Middle Eastern people want democracy, but they don't want foreign intervention like in the past. It's just not that simple for America to spread their beliefs. Bush made the bonehead move of promising democracy to the Iraqis on the eve of the invasion. But even this week Iraqis know he did not deliver on that promise. If anybody is going to achieve that, it will have to be the Iraqi people. They have many hard years ahead, and it won't necessarily end up being the same as western democracy. Remember, their neighbors with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. What happens there also affects them.

What about that whole Purple Finger thing? They have a Democratic Government. Where have you been?

(Though, many of you know what I think about Democracies "Two wolves, one Sheep, what's for dinner?")

What they need is a Democratic Republic, which I don't know if they have that or not. I'm being lead to believe they don't, but I will have to do more research to find out.

 

[terry78]

There are people on other forums claiming that there were no more 9/11 incidents while Bush was in office so it must mean he was doing something right.



Wut.