13 Reasons To Be Glad Bush Is No Longer President by Think Progress

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:

I do not for a moment believe you have read the entirety of a 576 page report.

But even if we stick to just the summary of "yes, waterboarding is torture, and yes, bush/cheney are responsible for authorizing it", exactly what part are you refuting?

It took me a couple of days to actually read it dude... did you?

This report doesn't advocate anyone to be prosecuted...

Political face-saving. Nixon was pardoned for his crimes, too.

Nice try bucko... try reading it some more.

Whembly wrote:Do you really believe that we employ sadists and enjoy doing these things? I get the feeling that the anti-Bushies get off of the idea that the administrations were lawless psychopaths who enjoys butchering the enemy

Sadists? No. Well, not Bush. I'm not sure about Cheney. I suspect he's more in the morally-bankrupt camp than he is in the gains-sexual-pleasure camp.

Morally bankrkupt?? Wow...

Whembly wrote:Perhaps that is why there is so little will on the part of Obama and co. to more aggressively pursue his predecessor. Too many members of Congress, of both parties, and President Clinton himself, authorized the very things that Bush/Cheney did, and they do not want to face that inconvenient fact.

But we're not discussing Clinton or Obama. We're discussing Bush. I do not understand why you have so much difficulty in seeing things in a non-binary fashion. "But they did it too" does not make a bad action less bad.

*sigh*
I guess there's nothing for us to discuss.

There are other interesting things to discuss in this report (ie, how Gitmo was even debated in the report), but you're not interested in that.

**azazel the cat**

No, I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in staying on-topic, which in this case involves debunking a hardcore Bush apologist.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
No, I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in staying on-topic, which in this case involves debunking a hardcore Bush apologist.

Me?!?! A hardcore Bush apologist?

Bwahahahhahaha!!!!

Whooooooooo...

Funny man!

So... back on topic. Provide evidence YOU believe would indict Bush (or anyone for that matter) for war crimes.

**azazel the cat**

That's not my job. This is a question of "should history view this guy as being favourable".

Waterboarding is torture.
Bush authorized waterboarding.
Therefore, Bush authorized torture.

So no, history will not be favourable to Bush (note, being "more favourable than when he left office" is not "favourable". "Favourable" is greater than 50% approval. He will never get that; he'll be lucky to have Nixon's 40%.)

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
That's not my job. This is a question of "should history view this guy as being favourable".

Waterboarding is torture.
Bush authorized waterboarding.
Therefore, Bush authorized torture.

So no, history will not be favourable to Bush (note, being "more favourable than when he left office" is not "favourable". "Favourable" is greater than 50% approval. He will never get that; he'll be lucky to have Nixon's 40%.)

Fine.

We'll see, eh?

**Frazzled**

azazel the cat wrote:
That's not my job. This is a question of "should history view this guy as being favourable".

Waterboarding is torture.
Bush authorized waterboarding.
Therefore, Bush authorized torture.

So no, history will not be favourable to Bush (note, being "more favourable than when he left office" is not "favourable". "Favourable" is greater than 50% approval. He will never get that; he'll be lucky to have Nixon's 40%.)

Is it worse to waterboard someone for info, or drop a guided bomb on him?

**Grey Templar**

I would say its also better than burning brands, the rack, or other unpleasant methods of torture. Waterboarding is fairly mild compared to those.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
I would say its also better than burning brands, the rack, or other unpleasant methods of torture. Waterboarding is fairly mild compared to those.

That doesn't mean that it isn't torture.

**Frazzled**

But which is worse?

**Grey Templar**

True, but I see torture as being one of many necessary evils. We can at least use less barbaric methods than anyone else.

**whembly**

Back to the OP...

At least he ain't 'fraid of get'n down:

First time I saw that, I lol'ed so hard.

He's just a walking SNL skit.

**Jihadin**

When did the policy changed? The "torture" aspect. When Obama went into office right? So the entire time the "torture" during Bush Admin was condone by both sides. I sure don't remember either party raising Caine to prosecute Bush/Cheney and whoever else were a party to that in that eight years and AFTER. I know Obama made it a political point when he ran for Pres. Yet he didn't say anything nor fought tooth and nail to make it right while he was senator. Democrats and Republicans are guilty of the charge of condoning torture till it became a positive political point.

Its torture for me to read words like "Boy-o" or "Buck-o". Seriously....torture for me.......

Less barbaric way is to turn them over to their gov't. Intell obtain after that no problem. How was it obtain...its their country

**Seaward**

Jihadin wrote:
When did the policy changed? The "torture" aspect. When Obama went into office right?

Officially, yes.

We're just better at concealing it now.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

EDIT: don't you mean "credible"? (I know, I know...)

No, I meant "incredible". As in you claimed that the report was "incredible" due to its origination in a think tank.

whembly wrote:

I concur... I was just bringing to attention that just because it claims to be "bipartisan" doesn't make it so. The ACLU and such advocacy group always need to be scrutinized because they're an advocacy group. amirite?

Very much so, but if there is good evidence that the organization is bipartisan (there are significant members of the Constitution Project from both parties), then claiming that it might not be is just a lame attempt dodging the point.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

EDIT: don't you mean "credible"? (I know, I know...)

No, I meant "incredible". As in you claimed that the report was "incredible" due to its origination in a think tank.

I know! Sorry I wasn't clear.

whembly wrote:

I concur... I was just bringing to attention that just because it claims to be "bipartisan" doesn't make it so. The ACLU and such advocacy group always need to be scrutinized because they're an advocacy group. amirite?

Very much so, but if there is good evidence that the organization is bipartisan (there are significant members of the Constitution Project from both parties), then claiming that it might not be is just a lame attempt dodging the point.

That's just it... I wasn't dodging the point.

Did you read it? It's actually pretty good...

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

That's just it... I wasn't dodging the point.

You weren't trying to, but that's what you did anyway. And that might be the worst thing.

whembly wrote:

Did you read it? It's actually pretty good...

Yes, I did. It indicts the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations. It is very much the production of a group that has shown itself to be quite libertarian.

**LoneLictor**

azazel the cat wrote:But we're not discussing Clinton or Obama. We're discussing Bush. I do not understand why you have so much difficulty in seeing things in a non-binary fashion. "But they did it too" does not make a bad action less bad.

Congrats azazel, you've earned an exalt. OT could use more users like you.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

That's just it... I wasn't dodging the point.

You weren't trying to, but that's what you did anyway. And that might be the worst thing.

um... okay?

whembly wrote:

Did you read it? It's actually pretty good...

Yes, I did. It indicts the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations. It is very much the production of a group that has shown itself to be quite libertarian.

Yup and Yup.

Now what?

**azazel the cat**

LoneLictor wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:But we're not discussing Clinton or Obama. We're discussing Bush. I do not understand why you have so much difficulty in seeing things in a non-binary fashion. "But they did it too" does not make a bad action less bad.

Congrats azazel, you've earned an exalt. OT could use more users like you.

Thank you, sir.

**Jihadin**

Wait a bit....people be coming to defend Obama and Clinton from this. Which I believe the next slam will be the Drones and the kill list...Bush put in place and Obama expanded on....wait....hey Brassscorpian...go ahead and post few of those articles lol

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

EDIT: don't you mean "credible"? (I know, I know...)

No, I meant "incredible". As in you claimed that the report was "incredible" due to its origination in a think tank.

Now Dogma if you start arguing about "incredible" you need to do it in a bad Steve Martin French accent and say "in..cred deeeee BLAH!"

and then follow it with shouting AMBURGAH!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Wait a bit....people be coming to defend Obama and Clinton from this. Which I believe the next slam will be the Drones and the kill list...Bush put in place and Obama expanded on....wait....hey Brassscorpian...go ahead and post few of those articles lol

I already asked that. Is it worse to dunk them under water or bomb them with your flying tonka toy of doom?

**Jihadin**

Leaning towards the Tonka Toy of Doom

**Kilkrazy**

It would be interesting to see the correlation if any between political alignment and preferred method of torture or bombing.

**Frazzled**

But which is worse?

**Jihadin**

Didn't Republicans have the Senate when the "Torture Law" was passed along with the ability of the US military to apprehend and imprison terrorists awaiting trial? Now that the Democrats have the senate the Torture Law was removed(?) and investigated indepth for possible prosecution. No one went to jail but then though...Drone Strikes legality and target list became a hot issue that shoved the torture to the back burner.

edit

WHen I got water boarded I knew there was an "end" coming. I just had to last 30-45 min...lasted longer then what you think. That way they get a mind Frak in on you to. Worst part was the last two min when they go all out. Sleep depreivation was the worse. Racking the sand and standing asleep was funny. Your incoherent. You see things....you talk to yourself and convince yourself of all sorts of silliness. Most time though its "Why did I volunteer for this BS..."......."Oh ya....Carreer Progression". Barney though....fear the Barney...they bring out Barney then someone going to get roughed up for 24 hrs....hope your number is not called...another thing...you don't have names you have numbers....BTW they only speak english when your in the hot seat. majority of time its whatever they need to practice on. You will get a taste of pain. Holding DR8 wire and someone on the other end of the wire with a TA312 field phone.....Its to teach you what to expect...and what NOT TO DO OR SAY THAT MIGHT GET YOU EXECUTED. Everyone has a breaking point. Everyone, Sleep Deprievation is the best way to obtain info IMHO. Because extreme amount of pain the insurgent will say or agree to anything to make it stop. Example...same they use on us. Spanish Inquisition. Its not reliable because the individual is now giving up everyone and signing confessions so the pain can stop.

**BrassScorpion**

The lies just keep piling up when it comes to trying to polish the image of the turd known as,"W".

http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/real-time-with-bill-maher-blog/2013/5/1/derision-points.html

Derision Points
May 1, 2013

By Bill Maher

Why do the taxpayers have to foot the bill for polishing George W. Bush's image?

Dubya calls his new presidential library, which opens to the public today, "a place to lay out facts." I call it a 250 million dollar revisionist history lesson. The museum pays tribute to all of President Bush's greatest failures, from Iraq to Hurricane Katrina. Visitors can pull up briefing materials, videos and maps on a glass-topped Defending Freedom Table, right next to the Choking-On-A-Pretzel Recliner.

According to the New York Times, the Iraq War exhibit says that, "No stockpiles of W.M.D. were found.” But then adds, “Post-invasion inspections confirmed that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to resume production of W.M.D." I'm sorry, but I don't remember that. How can he resume production of something that was never there in the first place?

Then there's something called the Decision Points Theater:

In a new brick-and-limestone museum, visitors to an interactive theater will be presented with the stark choices that confronted the nation's 43rd president: invade Iraq or leave Saddam Hussein in power? Deploy federal troops after Hurricane Katrina or rely on local forces? Bail out Wall Street or let the banks fail?

Invade Iraq or leave Saddam in power? Who was demanding Bush make that choice? Nobody who wasn't insane.

It's like one of the questions in that "Would You Rather" game the kids like to play. Would you rather have your ass in the front, or a nose shaped exactly like a penis? You know, one of those "stark choices." Leaving Saddam in power wasn't a choice Bush had to make any more than leaving Tony Blair in power was.

But what's really galling is that, like with all presidential libraries, US taxpayers are on the hook for the day-to-day operating costs of Bush's Selfie Memorial. According to USA Today, "the federal government will spend more than $68.7 million this year on programming, operations and maintenance of 13 presidential libraries."

If you're looking for entitlements to cut, let's start with building shrines to douchebags. George W. Bush was not King Tut; he was President of the United States, and a lousy one at that.
[//quote]

**Andrew1975**

I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded by someone else.

**whembly**

Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded someone else.

Presidential Libraries are the norm... so... much a do about nuthing.

**azazel the cat**

whembly wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded someone else.

Presidential Libraries are the norm... so... much a do about nuthing.

Yeah, but isn't there a difference between a library and a shrine to him?

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not a Bush hater, but I do wonder why we have to build him a Library and pay for it's operations. Is seams to me that vanity projects like this should be funded someone else.

Presidential Libraries are the norm... so... much a do about nuthing.

Yeah, but isn't there a difference between a library and a shrine to him?

Well... they're all "shrine-ish"...

*shrugs*

I'll be honest, I've only been to the Truman Library and Clinton's Library. My take was, at least the two places I visited, were a "historical chest thumping" of the awesome presidency.