The Bush Thread

[Sebastos]

For real?

 

[The Overlord]

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.

What the whole executing the ******ed guy thing?

Okay first I never said Bush as stupid at everything, that would be silly, I called him an incompetent leader and when I said leader, I meant President.

Maybe he was a good governor I don't give a crap. I don't think he was competent as President.

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.

Again you can't say its a fact that Clinton is solely responsible for the economic crisis, that's not fact. That's just your theory, which I don't buy frankly.

Are saying Bush bares no responsibility for the economic crisis?

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

Those are interconnected though, the point is for the war to have been a success it would have had meet all the promises it was based on, finding WMDs, all fighting ending in 6 months, the war paying for itself

That was a typo, I mean thick. When I said that "broken clock is right twice a day" I meant

I'm not self righteous in the least bit.

Please, if your ego in yourself and your opinions and your opinions was any bigger,it be visible from space.

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?

You didn't answer my question when will history judge Bush, a thousand years from now? Its a false argument its based on something that may or not happen in the future and there is no way to tell if it or won't happen. Its a completely useless point. Its make me saying that in 30 years , people will say Obama will be know as the greatest President ever. Can I prove or disporve that now, of course not.

Its a useless argument, because right now, you can't test it, so I don't give a crap.

 

[Kelly]

How about we keep our opinions to the issues, not the people posting the opinions.......

 

[Red Mask]

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.

Are you truly that naive to think establishing a democracy was the answer to Iraq's problems these past few years? The people have been suffering from insurgent and terrorist attacks and you think establishing a democratic government was the solution? The Iraqi people wanted America to ensure security and a rebuilding of the infrastructure first. That still hasn't been fully accomplshed. Even in Baghdad there is the occassional bombing. On paper they got the government, but they lack the means to enforce peace throughout the nation. Last year former members of the Baathist party were rounded up on grounds that they were planning a coup. It's unknown if those accusations were true or if they'll even get a fair trial. The fate of the reporter who threw his shoes at Bush is unknown. By their law he's being treated like the worst criminal, which is ridiculous for throwing shoes. The man didn't even have a gun.

Iraq has been trying to bring their oil industry back to pre-invasion production. They couldn't do that under the Bush era. Lately they've begun making offers to international oil companies instead of those rewarded with U.S. government contracts. It's still unknown how safe it is to work in those fields. With such poor economic infrastructures, it's hard to access just how democratic Iraq can afford to be. I wouldn't tell a single Iraqi refugee to move back over there. It's much better he goes to America for work.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Olbermann had a guy on his show, former NSA analyst, who claims the NSA was spying on journalists during Bush's administration. He has apparently come forward and volunteered the information to the Obama administration. He said he took the same oath that the President and every other official takes, which is to defend the Constitution. He feels that the Bush administration overstepped its bounds with this NSA spying thing.

It'll be interesting to see whether this blows up or not. If this guy is telling the truth, then you almost wonder whether Obama can avoid prosecuting the Bush administration. I know he wants to avoid it in the hopes of having more civility in Washington, but he might not be able to in this case.

 

[Red Mask]

Oh yeah. Let's not forget that Christian Arabs have had to flee the country because their Islamic neighbors threatened their lives. I didn't see Bush or any other Western power promising to ensure their safety and their rights to live there when that happened.

 

[The Major]

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

Wow, that's new.

Way to miss my point. Of course they should investigate thoroughly before putting him or his allies on trial. Unlike Bush I actually believe in doing stuff like that.

 

[Oddzball]

Perhaps Obama doesn't want to go after Bush because unlike morons like Pelosi and the Daily Kos nuts, he knows GWB did nothing wrong and isn't a criminal.

Vincent Buglousi is the man who prosecuted Charles Manson. Knows a thing or two about prosecuting a case. Eliabeth Holtzman formerly was Brooklyn (King's County) DA. Also knows a thing or three about prosecuting crimes and investigation corruption.

Each has published viable cases for prosecuting Bush and company.

Maybe they know something more about the law than you do nitehawk...

 

[The Major]

Give it up Major, you don't know what you are talking about.

Of course I do.

You can't go to trial, unless you were charged with something.

Honestly, I thought Republicans would be smart enough to know they'd do the regular procedures before putting him on trial.

You can't break a law, if that law doesn't exist.

It isn't illegal to torture people in America?

Get over it, he's gone.

So what? That won't erase the lives his ruined or the laws he's broken while in office.

 

[p4poetic]

I'm not sure Cheney is the mastermind. I think Rove and Rummy are a big part of it. Back in 1992, Cheney was one of the strongest opponents to an invasion of Iraq. Based on Cheney's writings, votes in the House, and decisions as Sec Def, I am not sure he is as much of a master mind as people think. It would mean he would have to change his opinions on basically everything he believed in, in 8 years. I think more likely, Cheney was the vocal ******* because he knows he is unlikable and makes a good shield who deflects criticism from Bush.

I remember that. There's a video out there of him speaking about it... I'm too lazy to look for it.

 

[The Major]

Brownie was not the main problem....

He was responsible for FEMA before, during and after Katrina hit IIRC. Bush hiring him makes him responsible for screwing up FEMA. It's the same with Gonzales and the DOJ. I don't remember Bush disciplining him very hard once the news leaked how much he screwed up, either. That's been Bush's MO whenever one of his "rogue" leaders messes up, which is basically every branch in the government.

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

That excuses FEMA should do the least possible things to help people? They're supposed to help, not be a burden.

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.

I'm not talking about the evacuation. The Federal government has completely failed on looking after Katrina victims to this day. They've been dragging their feet. They need to pay for that.

 

[The Major]

I honestly believe that most of the "WAR CRIMINAL!" stuff comes from frustration, confusion, fear and misconception of war.

Why do you think we are frustrated, in fear, "confused" and have "misconception" of war? You'll have to dig deeper then that. You're spouting opinion, not rationale.

Also most of the WAR CRIMINAL! stuff comes from the youth and the far left

Most of the world consists of the American left and its youth?

Why don't you think Bush or the people who tortured "suspected" terrorists are war criminals?

- groups well known for hyperbole and overreaction.

That's funny. It wasn't the left who relied on fear to undermine the country's citizens rights to privacy or the fact Bush gave himself the power to arrest anyone he wanted with no evidence and to lock them away without a trial. There's much more then that, of course.

That Clinton's problems were simple Oval Office sex.

And yet you can't convince the left or the rest of the world it isn't. That's what the Republican campaign's against the Clinton's has come down to with perception in the public arena. Give us something that sticks to Clinton he can't back away from that's legit the same way Bush does with torture and you'll convince us.

 

[souvlaki]

Perhaps Obama doesn't want to go after Bush because unlike morons like Pelosi and the Daily Kos nuts, he knows GWB did nothing wrong and isn't a criminal.

He's not doing it because going after the man once he's out of office serves absolutely no purpose and does nothing more than create a hostile environment with Republicans and wastes tax payer dollars. I don't like the guy, but I could care less now if he gets prosecuted for the things he did. History will judge him, lets leave it at that.

 

[The Major]

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.

Agreed.

 

[The Major]

He's not doing it because going after the man once he's out of office serves absolutely no purpose and does nothing more than create a hostile environment with Republicans

Hillary Clinton can create a hostile environment for the Republicans. She's still the Secretary of State.

and wastes tax payer dollars.

Why would prosecuting criminals be a waste of tax dollars?

I don't like the guy, but I could care less now if he gets prosecuted for the things he did.

What would a bad president have to do for you to want him to be prosecuted or impeached?

History will judge him, lets leave it at that.

History judges all of us. How do think history will see an America who let a war criminal president go free? That's what your proposing.

 

[The Major]

Are you truly that naive to think establishing a democracy was the answer to Iraq's problems these past few years? The people have been suffering from insurgent and terrorist attacks and you think establishing a democratic government was the solution? The Iraqi people wanted America to ensure security and a rebuilding of the infrastructure first. That still hasn't been fully accomplshed. Even in Baghdad there is the occassional bombing. On paper they got the government, but they lack the means to enforce peace throughout the nation. Last year former members of the Baathist party were rounded up on grounds that they were planning a coup. It's unknown if those accusations were true or if they'll even get a fair trial. The fate of the reporter who threw his shoes at Bush is unknown. By their law he's being treated like the worst criminal, which is ridiculous for throwing shoes. The man didn't even have a gun.

Iraq has been trying to bring their oil industry back to pre-invasion production. They couldn't do that under the Bush era. Lately they've begun making offers to international oil companies instead of those rewarded with U.S. government contracts. It's still unknown how safe it is to work in those fields. With such poor economic infrastructures, it's hard to access just how democratic Iraq can afford to be. I wouldn't tell a single Iraqi refugee to move back over there. It's much better he goes to America for work.

Agreed.

 

[Matt]

Let's have a trial and fine out.

You want to have a trial, where in theory, innocence is assumed, and find charges through the trial? Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Plus it really just doesn't make sense

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

How can say this with a straight face?

Because they weren't defined by exisiting torture laws at the time as torture.

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

Even the Bush government has whistle blowers.

Again, to avoid guilt or get a better deal from WHAT? You can't even define charges.

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

By your logic, if Bush were guilty, Congress would've impeached him years ago.

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

umm, yes it is. Prosecutions reject uncredible witnesses every day because they create reasonable doubt when cross examined. Witnesses who are not credible kill cases.

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

Again, what they are defining as torture was not at the time defined as torture in law. Thats the law, it is all there is to it. You cannot convict people for a past action based on a law that was changed after the action.

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:

You can't put someone under oath for the sole purpose of asking them self incriminating questions to get them to either commit perjury or incriminate themselves! Have you ever heard of the 5th Amendment?

They should.

You sound just as hypocritical as Bush. Telling the Iraqi people what they should think and feel. Maybe, and this is a long shot...but just maybe, they like not being under the thumb of a horrid tyrant?

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.

OR BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE IT! Hell, you don't even know what to charge Bush with! YOu want him put on trial, but you don't even know what for! What does that say?

Not being proven guilty doesn't make one innocent.

It also proves there was not enough evidence to prove them guilty.

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.

And your mentality is what allows this partisan ******** to hold our country back! You don't even know what frickin charges you want to have pressed against Bush! Do you know why? HE DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME AND IF HE DID IT CANNOT BE PROVEN BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT! Bush did unethical things, yes. But I have read the "cases," against Bush...and they would get thrown out at the grand jury. There is no way to convict Bush. But evidence is not an issue to you. You don't want a trial. You want a public lynching.

 

[Marx]

Hillary Clinton can create a hostile environment for the Republicans. She's still the Secretary of State.

She could, but it's very unlikely. She will be far too concerned with foreign affairs.

Why would prosecuting criminals be a waste of tax dollars?

George W. Bush will not be prosecuted or impeached. There is no point. It is nothing more than an extreme left fantasy that WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

What would a bad president have to do for you to want him to be prosecuted or impeached?

George W. Bush's actions were definately impeachable. Considering that it is never going to happen, the point is moot.

History judges all of us. How do think history will see an America who let a war criminal president go free? That's what your proposing.

Do you not honestly think that there are a ****load of others things that are a little more important than political grandstanding?

 

[The Major]

She could, but it's very unlikely. She will be far too concerned with foreign affairs.

Like that matters. Her mere presence is all the Republicans need to start up something. Her work overseas will be looked at very closely, as well. If she screws up or it looks like she has screwed up they're going to use it against her.

George W. Bush will not be prosecuted or impeached. There is no point. It is nothing more than an extreme left fantasy that WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

It never will with that thinking.

George W. Bush's actions were definately impeachable. Considering that it is never going to happen, the point is moot.

The reason it isn't pointless is that he was able to get away with it without being impeached.

Do you not honestly think that there are a ****load of others things that are a little more important than political grandstanding?

Going after criminals within our very government is political grandstanding?

WE have a law system for a reason. It is vital for the leadership in our country to be accountable or it wont matter what other things the government focuses on it will be destined to fail.

 

[Matt]

Again Major, what are the charges? You need actus reas and mens rea for a crime to have been committed. Mens rea is the mental intent to commit the crime (Latin for guilty mind), mean while actus reas is the actual act of the crime. If you cannot state charges and other elements of the crime it did not exisit. Its that simple.

 

[souvlaki]

Hillary Clinton can create a hostile environment for the Republicans. She's still the Secretary of State.

I can't even believe you are trying to compare Republicans' dislike of Hillary Clinton to what would happen if Democrats pushed prosecuting a former President. That is so apples and oranges, my friend.

Why would prosecuting criminals be a waste of tax dollars?

Because he's no longer in a position to do anything, and the drama that would come about from prosecuting a former President would cause more harm to this country and divide it even worse than he did while President.

What would a bad president have to do for you to want him to be prosecuted or impeached?

When he was President I could see a need. At this point it feels like petty revenge to be perfectly honest. I have stated, and will continue to state I think he was a horrible President, easily the worst in my lifetime, probably among the worst of all time. There was hardly a decision he made while in office that I agree with. But his legacy is destroyed, and history will show him for what he really is. At this point I'd rather just forget his Presidency instead of dragging it out even longer with a trial.

History judges all of us. How do think history will see an America who let a war criminal president go free? That's what your proposing.

Oh for God's sake, you know as well as I do that even if the proceedings did go forth he'd get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Our country does not need this right now. We've lived through eight years of right versus left (arguably sixteen), personally I do not feel the need to continue this for another eight.

 

[cyborg ninja 14]

This thread has become POS 101?

 

[Marx]

Like that matters. Her mere presence is all the Republicans need to start up something. Her work overseas will be looked at very closely, as well. If she screws up or it looks like she has screwed up they're going to use it against her.

You do realize that Hillary Clinton is the least offensive appointment to the Republicans, right?

It never will with that thinking.

The reason it isn't pointless is that he was able to get away with it without being impeached.

Do you need to be reminded of why Congressional Democrats came into power in 2006? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't to go off on a witchhunt for Bush.

Going after criminals within our very government is political grandstanding?

WE have a law system for a reason. It is vital for the leadership in our country to be accountable or it wont matter what other things the government focuses on it will be destined to fail.

As Matt said, what are the charges? Are you seriously suggesting a charge of war crimes? WHAT IS VITAL for the government to do is work together. An Obama Administration prosecution of the Bush Administration would destroy anything and everything that Barack Obama has said about this country, and everything that he would seek to do. But you're more obviously concerned about a political witchhunt than what is best for this country.

 

[Hobgoblin]

We have a repeat of the Gerry Ford situation here, imo. A lot of people wanted him to nail Nixon to the wall too, but he chose to move on and get things done. Putting Bush on trial for war crimes might sound satisfying but it would do more harm than good. Obama has enough on his plate for two administrations and he's been in power for 24 hours.

 

[souvlaki]

See, this is why even as a progressive liberal I think the far left are just as bad as the far right at times. It's all about revenge, and us vs. them which solves absolutely nothing in politics.