Bush is a crook.

Well, kinda.

Quote:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

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

Quote:

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Can this nigger say anything other than "I believe"? It's not protected religious expression, nor is it sidestepping lying in the most obvious manner possible, when you use it in this manner sir.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

This boy is off his head.

I mean for real. Is he related to Bub Rubb and Lil' Sis or something.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

What about drink driving? Can he do that?

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

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.

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

I just can't muster that much outrage. As I said in another thread, by doing this Bush is underminding people's faith in the system and pressing forth with a libertarian agenda. Can't say I think that's a bad thing.

But I'm not expecting Republicans or Democrats to like that. Plus, Bush hasn't been very good for business.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

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

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.

Really, is what Bush doing that shocking? Those were just a few examples. He hasn't rounded up Arab-Americans and thrown them in camps. He's only suspended habeas corpus in the case of foreign nationals. He started a war, and lied about it. But plenty of presidents who have started wars have done that. So he has some innocent Iraqi's blood on his hands. So does Clinton. In fact Clinton has even more Iraqi blood on his hands thanks to UN sanctions on medicine. So we tortured some people... yeah, like that hasn't happened before?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Posted by Watts
Really, is what Bush doing that shocking? Those were just a few examples. He hasn't rounded up Arab-Americans and thrown them in camps. He's only suspended habeas corpus in the case of foreign nationals. He started a war, and lied about it. But plenty of presidents who have started wars have done that. So he has some innocent Iraqi's blood on his hands. So does Clinton. In fact Clinton has even more Iraqi blood on his hands thanks to UN sanctions on medicine. So we tortured some people... yeah, like that hasn't happened before?

Of course the US has a very ugly history. The thing is, when we rounded up Japanese-Americans and sent them to concentration camps, suspended habeus corpus, or got our troops stuck in a useless war over in Vietnam, it's universally agreed that our former presidents fucked up. It happens. Every country has had bad leaders and done stupid things.

It's shocking now because when people make mistakes, you're supposed to learn from those mistakes so that you don't make them again. And Bush is showing a staggering lack of hindsight when it comes to the blunders of his prececessors. If this was the first time any of this were happening, it would be awful but it'd be a learning experience. There's no excuse for it now, when the country has screwed up like that before and should know better.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

He's only suspended habeas corpus in the case of foreign nationals.

There were Americans and British citizens at Gitmo too.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Monkey King

Of course the US has a very ugly history. The thing is, when we rounded up Japanese-Americans and sent them to concentration camps, suspended habeus corpus, or got our troops stuck in a useless war over in Vietnam, it's universally agreed that our former presidents fucked up. It happens. Every country has had bad leaders and done stupid things.

Only a complete ignorance of American history could allow these actions to repeat themselves. Maybe just a general apathy for said events?

Originally Posted by Monkey King

It's shocking now because when people make mistakes, you're supposed to learn from those mistakes so that you don't make them again. And Bush is showing a staggering lack of hindsight when it comes to the blunders of his prececessors.

You're making a huge assumption assuming that the Bush Administration is lacking the ability of foresight. Everything from the war in Iraq, to the war drums beating over Iran screams of foresight. Maybe you just think it's an odd coincidence that Bush is starting to sound like Jimmy Carter three years after Iraq when energy prices are rising? Another coincidence being that the Republicans could possible use the Iran war drums a'beatin' to discredit the Democrats in the coming elections when no attack materializes?

I don't believe in coincidences. While I don't believe what the Bush Administration is doing is entirely sane, I can't believe they don't have reasons for doing what they are. We just don't know about them.

Originally Posted by Monkey King

If this was the first time any of this were happening, it would be awful but it'd be a learning experience. There's no excuse for it now, when the country has screwed up like that before and should know better.

Hate stating the obvious, but we don't live in an ideal world. Back to Bush.

The NSA domestic spying, the Valerie Plame affair and more. All of which could have come out before the last presidential election. This leads to me to believe that Bush is nothing more then a scapegoat. For what? Who knows.

Originally Posted by Arainach

There were Americans and British citizens at Gitmo too.

British citizens falls under the foreign nationals category. Also, I don't think any American detained at Gitmo was anything but an enemy combatant. So they forfeit their right to their citizenship. Not like Michael Moore is taking a vacation at Gitmo! Harhar!

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Also, I don't think any American detained at Gitmo was anything but an enemy combatant. So they forfeit their right to their citizenship.

But without Habeus Corpus, how exactly can we determine whether that claim is valid? Isn't that essentially giving the Government a blank check to arrest whoever you want? "Wait, I get a lawyer!" "No, you're an enemy combatant!" "Says Who?" "King George of course."

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Arainach

But without Habeus Corpus, how exactly can we determine whether that claim is valid? Isn't that essentially giving the Government a blank check to arrest whoever you want? "Wait, I get a lawyer!" "No, you're an enemy combatant!" "Says Who?" "King George of course."

That's legal grey area that the Bush Administration is using to dodge the issue. The constitution doesn't cover American citizens captured and held outside of American territory. Plus, American citizens found to be in combat operations against American forces captured on foreign soil not acting as a proxy on behalf of a nation-state has no legal precedance to my knowledge.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

While it might be a very idealistic notion, I still believe that we generally deserve the kind of administration we're willing to accept and obey in the long run. The American people could have kicked Bush out of office in the 2004 election and since then there have been numerous scandals, some of which just screamed "impeache him!". Yet nothing significant happened so far and the only conclusion I can draw from this fact is that the general public just isn't off bad enough yet. Probably a lot more GIs have to die in foreign countries and more civil rights and laws have to be undermined at home, all for the abstract concept of protecting a country's interests.

The slogan, "at least we live in interesting times" just doesen't cover such pitiful developments anymore.

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

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

"The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton contains 15 essays by scholars, lawyers, lawmakers and cultural critics that chronicle Clinton's utter disregard for "a nation of laws, not of men."

University of Virginia Law Professor Lillian R. BeVier opens the book with a scholarly essay defining the rule of law and explaining why it is so important as a constraint on "the conduct of both individual citizens and those who govern them."

Senator Fred Thompson examines China's illegal contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign and the abject refusal of Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate the matter, concluding that "there can be no clearer example of the undermining of the rule of law."

ACLU President Nadine Strossen condemns, among other things, Clinton's actions to restrict habeas corpus, his attempts to censor the Internet, and his efforts to create databases on all Americans. Clinton has worked closely with the Republican Congress to undermine the rule of law, she says, but "the Clinton administration bears the brunt of the blame for all those devastating assaults on cherished constitutional rights."

Roger Pilon looks at Clinton's disdain for constitutionally limited government. Repeatedly, Clinton acted "as if the Constitution were an empty vessel to be filled with his policies and programs." In a similar vein, former Assistant Attorney General Douglas W. Kmiec examines Clinton's efforts to promote his policies through executive orders, "often without any citation of statutory authority, thereby bypassing legislative procedure."

Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Project for Criminal Justice, notes that "Clinton has exhibited contempt for the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold," as evidenced by his support for warrantless searches of public housing units, warrantless drug testing in public schools, a weakening of the right to trial by jury, and expanded property forfeiture. Clinton's record on economic liberties is no better. James Wootton, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, examines the administration's resistance to compensation for "regulatory takings" of private property. But when the federal government does have power to override state tort law that frustrates interstate commerce, Wootton says, Clinton refuses to use it.

Cato Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Robert A. Levy and Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor focus their attention on the illegitimate wars on tobacco and guns, respectively. Both wars undermine centuries-old common law principles. Former White House Legal Counsel C. Boyden Gray looks at the administration's war on Microsoft, which "represents nothing more than a successful hijacking of the government's regulatory power by Microsoft's competitors -- an especially grievous abuse of the rule of law."

Former Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson chronicles how Clinton and Reno have thoroughly politicized the Justice Department. Berkeley Law Professor John C. Yoo discusses the imperial president abroad, showing how Clinton has abused constitutional restraints on his foreign power while ceding the authority of the federal government itself to international institutions.

Finally, the book examines how and why the institutions one would normally expect to be defending the rule of law have failed. Former Justice Department attorney Daniel E. Troy, Illinois Law Professor and Cato Visiting Scholar in Constitutional Studies Ronald D. Rotunda, and author David Horowitz look, respectively, at the political parties, the bar and the legal academy, and the media and the cultural institutions, each of which not only failed but was often complicit in undermining the rule of law. "

So don't get your panties all in a wad. Bush will be gone in due time and you can have a pure as the driven snow liberal to replace him. I'm sure the next guy won't even think to engage in such activities.

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

What I'm not aware of, though, is the part where Lincoln. Roosevelt and Kennedy had been absolved of all blame for their actions.

http://www.wethepeople.gov/heroes/holzerlecture.html
http://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildu...sch/roosevelt/

Just a few examples.
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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Posted by Watts
You're making a huge assumption assuming that the Bush Administration is lacking the ability of foresight. Everything from the war in Iraq, to the war drums beating over Iran screams of foresight. Maybe you just think it's an odd coincidence that Bush is starting to sound like Jimmy Carter three years after Iraq when energy prices are rising? Another coincidence being that the Republicans could possible use the Iran war drums a'beatin' to discredit the Democrats in the coming elections when no attack materializes?

I don't believe in coincidences. While I don't believe what the Bush Administration is doing is entirely sane, I can't believe they don't have reasons for doing what they are. We just don't know about them.

I don't have to assume. All I have to do is point at the current state of Iraq. You pretty much have to be snorting whole poppy seeds to have any illusions that any sort of foresight went into that invasion.

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Of course they had reasons for all the dumb stunts they've pulled. I was saying that, had Rumsfeld, Bush, and company taken more than a cursory look at Korea and Vietnam, they would have realized that an invasion probably wasn't such a good idea. Hell, if Bush had listened to his dad, he would have realized that.

Quote:

Hate stating the obvious, but we don't live in an ideal world. Back to Bush.

The NSA domestic spying, the Valerie Plame affair and more. All of which could have come out before the last presidential election. This leads to me to believe that Bush is nothing more then a scapegoat. For what? Who knows.

Ideal world, no. That makes it okay?

As for the NSA and security leaks, my theory? The Democrats are incompetent fuck-ups. Yes, they could have raked Bush over the coals for this back in 2004, but they didn't. Kerry didn't even put up a defense against the Swift Boat Veterans. They're just now getting around to it because elections are coming, and they need something to fight back with.

Quote:

Posted by Wesker
[stuff about Clinton]

...I hope your argument wasn't just "Clinton did it too, so that makes it okay!" Your current avatar is painfully appropriate if that's the case.

Also, excerpt was terribly vague about what precisely Clinton actually DID.

FELIPE NO

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?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

We won't know that until after the fact, now, won't we?

I am sure there was a large quantity of the population who were totally against the emancipation proclamation.
There were also a great deal of people who despised the way in which FDR dealt with many problems, and actually, that hasn't changed much. People still criticize him. But the overall view is that he did well.
Kennedy... well... I'm not sure exactly what he did aside from being known for pushing civil rights a bit.

I'm not prepared to have an extensive debate on the topic. I just think that calling Bush a crook right now is premature legacy fabrication and pointless mudslinging.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

That makes it right because...?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

When did I ever say it was right? I'm not trying to rationalize anything for anybody. I can leave that to those who have politically motivated agendas.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

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?

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. He just said that Bush did Iraq all wrong and he would have done it differently. Only now has he started to call for withdrawls. Guess he has to throw the anti-war crowd and world another carrot eh?

Originally Posted by Monkey King

I don't have to assume. All I have to do is point at the current state of Iraq.

You're assuming that things like the current state of Iraq is not going according to plan, or not part of a back up plan. Maybe some planner in the Pentagon thought it'd be easier to control Iraq by breaking it up.

Originally Posted by Monkey King

Ideal world, no. That makes it okay?

No. It should just put things into prespective.

How ya doing, buddy?

About the planning issue:
What do you reckon is more probable, that efforts like the Iraq war are the result of a large, more or less coordinated scheme or of about as many different agendas as people involved? I'm not trying to imply anything, I'd just like to hear your opinion on it.

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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 was speaking idiomatically.

One interpretation of an intentional botched invasion of Iraq is that the military is used as a destabilizing force in an oil-heavy region. Driving up the price of oil, as a result, and increasing the value of oil futures. This makes oil interests very happy, but as a result, it also encourages market shifts towards alternative methods of fuel.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII

About the planning issue:
What do you reckon is more probable, that efforts like the Iraq war are the result of a large, more or less coordinated scheme or of about as many different agendas as people involved? I'm not trying to imply anything, I'd just like to hear your opinion on it.

Neither, and both at the same time. While I have no doubts that different agendas are at work, the overall war itself was and still is conducted with a surprising degree of coordination. Talk of an "exit strategy" is a red herring. While the democrats and republicans all talk of such a "exit strategy" they are only talking in context of limited withdraws and not a complete expulsion of our military forces. Honestly I have no way of knowing either way. It's somewhere close to impossible to determine, but skepticism from the very beginning has been a problem in the matter of civil discourse.

Whether I'm right or not, I think we can all agree that the Iraq War was started and carried on without as much scrutiny as it deserved. Certainly more then just OIL. The resource, or what was once called Operation Iraqi Liberation. But that'll be up to the historians.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

I'm don't disagree. I'm just thinking along the lines of the long term causes and effects. I make frequent comparisons between to Nixon and Bush. Mostly because what Nixon did still has such far reaching consequences to this day. Now more then ever it's a common perception that our elected officials are crooks. Republicans or Democrats. This is a particularly new reevaluation completely uncommon years ago. Since immediately after Nixon resigned, it was generally assumed that the system itself was stable. It was only Nixon's fault and personal corruption which made the events of Watergate possible. In the short term, what Bush is doing is not helpful to the America or the world. As for the long term, who's to say?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

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. ^

Originally Posted by Bradylama

One interpretation of an intentional botched invasion of Iraq is that the military is used as a destabilizing force in an oil-heavy region. Driving up the price of oil, as a result, and increasing the value of oil futures. This makes oil interests very happy, but as a result, it also encourages market shifts towards alternative methods of fuel.

Another interpetation would be the that the invasion/occupation was not botched in the first place. Everything is going according to plan. We have 100,000+ troops in a strategic region at the all important time of the end of the age of cheap and abundant oil.

Was it not Dick Cheney said that the "American way of life is not negotiable."? I don't think he was kidding.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Fjordor

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.

You'll forgive people for focusing more on the current president rather than past presidents, as there's not a lot we can do about the actions of dead men.

Quote:

I'm not prepared to have an extensive debate on the topic. I just think that calling Bush a crook right now is premature legacy fabrication and pointless mudslinging.

You are mistaken sir.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I'm more concerned about Bush's being a bigot than his being a crook. As a bi-sexual woman in a serious relationship with another woman, I am offended and disgusted by Bush's ignorance (as well as the ignorance of all the bigots who agree with him).

Marriage is a matter of law, a contract. It hasn't been a matter of religion or tradition in a very long time. Banning gay marriage like he wants to goes against everything the Constitution stands for. The United States is the laughing stock of the world partly because of these antiquated social stances; it doesn't help that there are so many stupid people out there who actually agree with that nonsense.

Sorry about the tangent, folks, this is just a really sore subject for me (obviously). I'm sick of being persecuted by the country for my sexual orientation. It's morally wrong and makes me have a disliking for this country (despite being employed by it).

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.