Bush is a crook.

Originally Posted by a lurker

I'm only posting this so several someones will tell me how this is perfectly legal.

Isn't it more likely that they will tell you that if it's necessary for national security, and the War against Terrorism/Drugs/<insert bogeyman here>, then it's perfectly justified, and that since you oppose these measures, you must be in favour of Terrorism/Drugs/<insert bogeyman here> not to mention that you hate America.

That was an ugly run-on sentance.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Watts

The executive branch gets away with a lot. Especially during times of war.

That makes it right because...?

Quote:

I know this one Republican president who suspended habeas corpus, and killed 400,000 or so Americans in a war. He also locked up anybody who said anything bad about him in the press. Think his name was Lincoln.

Also, a democrat president I heard about locked people up in concentration camps... oops I mean 'internment camps' for just being of Japanese descent.

Yet another democrat president lied about a certain incident and started a long war in some asian country called Vietnam.

I'm quite familiar with modern history, thank you. I'm aware of all of those examples, and the circumstances under which those decisions were taken. What I'm not aware of, though, is the part where Lincoln. Roosevelt and Kennedy had been absolved of all blame for their actions. I'm not saying it's entirely fair to blame them for actions which they felt they had no choice but to take, but I don't agree that what they did is all fine and dandy. I also don't think that you can excuse Bush by saying that America has had presidents who did bad things in the past.

He hasn't rounded up Arab-Americans and thrown them in camps. He's only suspended habeas corpus in the case of foreign nationals.

Quote:

He started a war, and lied about it. But plenty of presidents who have started wars have done that.

The whole of your case seems to be that if other people did bad things while in the White House, then that would entitle George W. Bush to do bad things too. I'm not buying it.

Originally Posted by Wesker

While what Bush does can be considered illegal, y'all act like he's the incarnation of evil and the only president to do such things. We only have to go back to Bill Clinton for alot of the exact same issues

In so far as that is the case, that was wrong too. Democrat candidates can often be as bad as Republicans, is that what you wanted someone to admit? If so, consider it admitted. That doesn't change the fact that it must be stopped, no matter what party the current President represents. It's the issue that concerns me, not George W. Bush.

You might ask why it concerns me, if you glance at my flag. The reason is that these same issues are affecting the country in which I live. I can't help but feel that if the American people manage to win any kind of a victory in these matters, then that's something to give me hope too.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Fjordor

In reality, they are not absolved of their faults... but no one devotes all of their time on them, like people have been doing with Bush.
Nor do people call them crooks, thieves, swindlers, war criminals, etc.

Perhaps because those presidents managed to accomplish things of worth as well as the things for which they are not so well remembered. If George W. Bush had been the one to sign the emancipation proclamation, then I think I'd be a little more inclined to think well of him. That takes care of just one thing that Lincoln did to counterbalance his less pleasant acts. FDR led the country though WWII, and I know you don't need me to explain why that was different to the Iraq war. I'm not even entirely sure what to name as the example in the case of JFK. That's not because there's nothing to bring up, of course. It's because I'm not sure which of his many positive moves was the most prominent.

I'm genuinely curious. What exactly is the legacy of the Bush adminstration which will serve to counterbalance all of his wrongs? What would you put out there and say that it's the good he did in his time as president?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Watts

History has been quite forgiving to all of them don't you think? Very little of their negative actions have been mentioned or just glossed over in most history books. With a very few notable exceptions. Certainly not the version of history most people learn in school.

I gave my own opinions. History has been kind to them because their postitive actions have been found to outweigh their negative actions. That doesn't make certain actions that they took any less improper, and nor should it. If I believed that George W. Bush had accomplished sufficient good to outweigh his negative impact on America and on the world, then I wouldn't criticise his presidency either.

Quote:

You're contradicting yourself. By saying this, and then saying it's not okay for Bush to do what he's done you're holding people who have held this particular office to differing standards. What if the Bush or his Administration thinks that he/they have no choice in doing what they've done?

I admit that I did not make myself entirely clear, but I believe that I can clarify my view in such a way that you would not view it as a contradiction. I don't think that it's entirely fair to condemn any President of the United States for the actions that he felt needed to be taken. It's only fair to take into account the fact that the likelyhood is that he was only doing what he thought was right. On the other hand, even if those decisions were made with the best of intentions, it still does not automatically make the results a good thing either for America, or for the world.

The likelyhood is that Bush believes he is doing what needs to be done, but that will not stop his presidency from being judged on the basis of his results. That's really the most valid basis, in my mind, on which to judge a US President, and on that basis, I'd suggest that his results are going to prove to be substantially worse than any of the four former presidents we have discussed in this thread. I think you'll find that this is less contradictory, even if you don't agree with me.

Quote:

Yet another contradiction. Democrat presidents can be as bad as Republican presidents. Yet, you assume Britain will somehow be better off with a Democrat President?

Where did I state this? I believe that Britain and the rest of the world will be better off with a president other than George W. Bush, but I don't believe that a Republican president is automatically worse than a Democrat. I am not one of the blinkered ideologues who belies that all Republicans are ineffectual and evil.

Quote:

Hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are just as committed to Iraq and our current foreign policy as the Republicans are. Especially when it comes to issues like Iraq. Kerry didn't sound all that different from Bush during the 2004 presidential election.

For what it's worth, I'd have to say that if I were an American, I would not have voted Kerry. His campaign failed to appeal to me on any level. I'm really not one of those who believes that you pick a colour and vote accordingly for the rest of your adult life. I think that the Democrats are in an appalling state, and I don't really imagine that they will be able to field a winning candidate at the next election. Just because I locate myself somewhat left of centre on the standard (and inadequate) political spectrum does not mean that I'm inclined to believe that the Democrats can do no wrong. I have been well-educated in that regard by the shambolic debacle that has been British politics since about 1992.

I trust you understand my position better as a result of this post. I don't believe there's anything inherently contradictory about what I've said here, although I'm certain that you'll do me the honour of correcting me if I am mistaken.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

Regarding other president's being as bad or worse than Bush, I think that this condemnation of the man is more of being fed up with the President doing this kind of thing attitude than aggression towards Bush himself. It's the forefront of decades of this kind of thing.

YES. Judge the results, not the man. Although it's tempting to verbally attack the man, I do acknowledge that it's wrong to do so.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

As for the topic, I'm sure he is a crook. The guy is the worst President of all time.

Really? Worse than Nixon, who was threatened with impeachment, and resigned the office of the President in his second term of office? That's a bold statement. It is also a debatable point, since Nixon had a hand in certain positive acts of government. I would have to say, though, that Nixon would probably have to be nominated to the position of "worst president" if worst means most unscrupulous. If worst simply means most ineffectual, then there are several candidates ahead of Bush, who has in fact been most effective at furthering his own political agenda. Or should I say his father's political agenda?

I'd also point out that George W. Bush is in all likelyhood no different from any other Republican president from the specialised viewpoint of a homosexual voter. One of the unchanging truths of politics is that you must appeal to your core demographic and screw everyone else.

Quote:

I'd to think what Bush has done has had some positive repurcussions. By channeling this nationalistic frevor into what's essentially a war without end, this practically will guarantee an end to extensive American influence and power abroad. While limiting our foreign policy options, I don't think forcing us to act in accordance with our allies (at the very least) is that bad of an outcome.

I can see your point, and I do admit that there's something to be said for that as an outcome of this war. However, I cannot bring myself to praise Bush, or his policies for bringing about this outcome. It was not his intention, after all. Indeed, I do not think his conviction has ever wavered. I'm quite certain he still believes that entering into this war was the right and proper thing to do. Of course, it's entirely possible that the majority of the voting public still believe that, too. In that case, I suppose that they would claim that Bush has a powerful and heroic legacy. I don't agree, but as an Englishman, my opinion is irrelevant.

Quote:

Nothing personal, by posting what I did I was merely trying to fight against what I consider a relapse into old styles of judgement that yield responsible from our positions of power. Too many liberals/democrats in this country blame the man, not the office. Since the office itself is frequently and easily corruptable and corrupted. My comments were solely based on what I mentioned above.

It is easy to blame the man, and not the policies, and it's pointless. He will be gone soon enough, and another will take his place. Whether he wears a red or blue ribbon on his lapel is rather irrelevant. There are only a few fixed points in both conservative and liberal doctrine, and the rest is down to personal style.

I do believe that it's a personal style of George W. Bush to gather more power directly to the office of the president, and I can't say I llike what I've seen of his public image one bit. However, it's his results, and his lasting effect that count, because he won't be there for long, in person. Each president does not come to the office with a clean slate, instead they have been place in a particular position by the actions of the former holder of that office. What Bush could, and could not do, has been partly defined by the groundwork laid down by the former presidents. It is for that reason that it's pointless to blame the man. Whatever you want to blame Bush for, you have to also blame Clinton, to a certain extent, and so forth.

That's the case in politics everywhere, of course. We're still feeling the shockwaves of the Major adminstration over here in Britain, and that ended in the mid 90s. If we're very lucky, the next election might see that legacy finally laid to rest. It has only taken a decade.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

I keep hearing this, and things like it, brought up as an argument against Bush; that he's only doing what his father wants. Other than the fact that George Bush is George W. Bush's father, where does it come from?

It comes from the tongue-in-cheek observation that George Bush wanted Saddam Hussain's head on a silver platter, and George W. Bush seems to have delivered. It's not an argument against Bush, as such, when I say it. It's simply the observation that the grudge seems to have been passed down from father to son. I don't suggest that George W. Bush is his father's puppet, in any way. I perhaps phrased that in a misleading way.

Originally Posted by Watts

I think every president who has held the office has had a goal of preserving and expanding the power/influence of the office. Not just for themselves, but for their predesscors. Starting from the beginning with Washington. Centralized authorities tend to be authortarian by nature. Drawing more powers to themselves. Can't name a historic example to the contrary. This was probably the prime motivation behind the decentralized Articles of Confederation.

Just to clarify, are we both talking about the same thing here? I'm talking about attempting to take those powers which rightfully belong to the other branches of the United States Government, and bring them directly under the personal control of the office of the President. I'm sure you've read a great deal about George W. Bush's views in this matter, so I won't insult you by repeating his statements. All I will say is that if the system of checks and balances is intended to protect the American people from abuse of governmental powers, then the erosion of that system is something to be greatly concerned about. I'm aware that statement is pretty much self-evident, but wouldn't you agree that George W. Bush has done his part to erode that system, and will probably try to do more?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

Yeah, I think we are already dwelling heavily into Minority Report territory. Take all these Dateline (IIRC) stories where they do those sting operations to catch internet predators. I work in law enforcement, and even I can't figure out how any of the charges stick.

Maybe they arrest them not for their actions during the show, but for the metric fuckton of child porn that's later found on their PC.

FELIPE NO