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.

Abuse of power... and what's even better, it's recorded in virtually every newspaper archive from that period. I never claimed he wasn't; I just asserted that, if everyone has to play by the rules, they apply even to special prosecutors.

Bush - Great President, or Greatest President? - Stephen Colbert

Frazzled wrote:
2. Starr committed an illegal act? Cool prove it. But Clinton's still guilty.

Of lying during a special investigation into a non-criminal act? Sorry, but the whole affair smacked of a witch hunt. Had he not lied what would have been the result of the inquisition? That he committed adulturey? Ok, so now we know the President cheats on his wife, where does that lead?

Ahtman wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:The special prosecutor overstepped his authority and should have been slapped down for it

Yeah, but Clinton still lied under oath, which is still against the law, and he knew better. They are connected, but unrelated problems.

There is a difference between Clinton, who lied to protect his family and the intern from unwarranted public intrusion into private lives, and Bush, who got other people to lie on his behalf (such as let's face it, Blair) to get the USA into an unnecessary war that has cost huge amounts of lives and treasure.

You guys are laughable. Ken Starr had nothing to do with Bill Clintons' lieing. He was impeached after lieing in a sworn deposition from the Paula Jones lawsuit. This was a lawsuit brought about by a citizen of the United States, not the Republicans. This was a lawsuit of Sexual Harrasment. The man lied at the trial and tried to get away with it. If he lied to the judge, what else would he lie about.

You win.

Bush is a great president. They should name an airport after him.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote:The special prosecutor overstepped his authority and should have been slapped down for it

Yeah, but Clinton still lied under oath, which is still against the law, and he knew better. They are connected, but unrelated problems.

There is a difference between Clinton, who lied to protect his family and the intern from unwarranted public intrusion into private lives, and Bush, who got other people to lie on his behalf (such as let's face it, Blair) to get the USA into an unnecessary war that has cost huge amounts of lives and treasure.

Bush didn't lie. A lie is knowingly telling at statement that is false. Before Bush was President the world thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Hell we gave some to him. Saddam lied about having the weapons to his own people and the world. He thought it would protect him. It didn't. We have not lost huge amounts of lives. That is false. More people die of car crashes in the US in one year than have dies in Iraq in 5 years. Whine about the automobile, but it doesn't suit your world view.

Kilkrazy wrote:You win.

Bush is a great president. They should name an airport after him.

Ahhh always the extremes and never the middle ground. Very mature.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Bush didn't lie. A lie is knowingly telling at statement that is false. Before Bush was President the world thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

No, they didn't. Read this.

As a result of the U.S. and British campaign, and after prolonged negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members, the United Nations declared that Iraq would have to accept even more intrusive inspections than under the previous inspection regime - to be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - or face "serious consequences." Iraq agreed to accept the U.N. decision and inspections resumed in late November 2002. On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted its 12,000 page declaration, which claimed that it had no current WMD programs. Intelligence analysts from the United States and other nations immediately began to scrutinize the document, and senior U.S. officials quickly rejected the claims

So, yes, Bush lied through his teeth.

If you want more details, read this.

Bush should not have been impeached, distortion is part of politics. His inability to do it convincingly is indicative of his incompetence, not his criminality. Similarly, Clinton's impeachment was a joke. Special investigations into non-criminal matters are witch hunts, nothing more.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Hell we gave some to him.

And then destroyed them after Gulf War 2, or Iraq War 1 if you prefer that nomenclature, and I suspect you do. Read this.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Saddam lied about having the weapons to his own people and the world.

And he lost his nation to US no-fly zones as a result. Saddam was not in control of his nation at any point following Desert Storm.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd07.pdf

DarthDiggler wrote:
He thought it would protect him. It didn't. We have not lost huge amounts of lives. That is false. More people die of car crashes in the US in one year than have dies in Iraq in 5 years. Whine about the automobile, but it doesn't suit your world view.

Nope, we haven't lost huge a amount of lives. But the decision to invade without pretense has had an incredibly negative affect on our relations within the region. Not to mention the stupidity of declaring a war without appreciating that the economy was likely to completely undercut any public support that war had.

Bush doing nothing about Katrina isn't the whole story. FEMA asked the state and local governments if they wanted help, they waited and piddled about and said no. FEMA asked again, again they said no. Then FEMA finally stepped in was it was obvious that the state and local governments couldn't handle it. Conversely, if FEMA just rushed in and took over the emergency, the Bush admin would have been criticized for tossing aside the state and local government and subjugating them to the federal will. There were lots of mistakes related to Katrina, they weren't all Bush's fault, and I think very few of them were. Congress is the arm that refused to give the Corps of Engineers adequate funding, over the 30 years, to maintain an adequate levee system.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You win.

Bush is a great president. They should name an airport after him.

Ahhh always the extremes and never the middle ground. Very mature.

Oh wait, he's not joking about Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport?


Dietrich just stop, your facts are not convenient...

dietrich wrote:Conversely, if FEMA just rushed in and took over the emergency, the Bush admin would have been criticized for tossing aside the state and local government and subjugating them to the federal will.

I sincerely doubt that.

But you are correct, Katrina isn't something that can really be laid at Bush's feet.

Fraz: Who is accountable for cockups in the US? Blame seems to trickle downwards these days (regardless of party affiliation) to the lowly staffer and/or analyst, from federal back to the states and municipal levels. There's the saying that gak flows downhill, but the buck should stop somewhere. Integrity seems to be a value that is long absent from the corridors of power.

I love these threads. "your president is worse than my president" is about one or two steps above "my dad can beat up your dad" in terms of intelligent debate.

let's start with the Original article. Of course it's petty and disrespectful to name the plant after Bush. Like it or not Bush was democratically elected and made hard decisions. He might be wrong, he might be right, but it's improper to categorize the man as a buffoon or an ogre. Dissent is American, but hatred (not matter how justified you may think it) is not appropriate.

Of course, the article goes on safari a bit and turns it from "we shouldn't be disrespectful of any president" and veers into trying to defend Bush's record. If a President deserves respect simply because he makes hard choices (which I agree with) then you don't need to try to tell me that Bush wasn't that bad, or made right choices, or will be vindicated the same way Truman was. Carter made a series of bad calls, blown calls, and wimpy calls. History still sees him as a bit of wet blanket who couldn't lead. He was disliked at the time and not overly lauded now, but he deserves respect because he did what he felt was right. Bush deserves the same, but I still don't agree with his positions. I would point out that calling Bush's actions after 2004 "trying to reach across the aisle" a bit laughable. Bush wasn't decried because he tried to work with both Dems and the GOP: he gets bashed for trying to work with neither of them.

As to the more difficult question of "Is/was Bush a bad president," personally I can't say with any certainty. I know what I think (that he was not very good) but I neither have the long view of history nor the information he had all along that might change my mind. Frankly these debates break down into advocacy of ones favored candidate, and the arguement simply ring true to the choir, hollow the unconverted, and absolutly false to the other side.

Liberal media bias: is this a security blanket for the right, or is this actually real? I honestly can't tell. I know what I think: which is that war with Iraq didn't seem necessary, but Bush told us it was. War in Iraq has been long, costly, and deadly, and Bush didn't exactly bring any of that up leading up to the war. The war in Iraq seems like a personal quest or vendetta of Bush's, and there are some staff aides and some documents that seem to support that.

One of the great parodoxes of Clinton was that despite being a brilliant man and a well school lawyer, he perjured himself in a deoposition. That is a huge deal in the legal world, and as many right wing commentators point out: is a sign he can't be trusted, is a felony, and why would we keep a dishonest felon as president. They then spin around and point out (correctly) that GWB never committed a crime and is being lambasted, while Bubba lied under oath and was adored.

Well, this is where morality comes into play. Is it immoral to lie under oath? Of course it is. But in the context of an intensely partisan prosecution perpetrated by people who, incidentally, hated and disrespected Clinton a great deal, isn't at least a little understandable why the guy would lie? And more importantly: did this change the fact that he was, at the least, a fine caretaker president? I think most American's, even those shocked by Clinton's actions understood why he did what he did. those that didn't are in the hard core of the populace that will always dislike a liberal democrat.

Now, turning this scale to Bush, we have moral problems that do, unfortunately, impact his legacy as a president, not just as a leader. Guantanamo Bay, the wiretapping, a right wing social agenda, and the war in Iraq all point to moral decisions that people aren't only uncomfortable with, but are part of his job. So, there is I think an actual reason the moderates that didn't smear Clinton aren't big Bush fans.

Frazzled wrote:Dietrich just stop, your "facts" are not convenient...

Sorry, had to fix that for you. Hey, I'm answering at work and not taking time to look up references - a lot like most politicians.

I think the media has been too harsh on Bush. And I think if he was a democrat, he would have gotten a pass. We can't measure his success or failure now, only 20 years from now. And if Obama has a good 4-8 years, it'll make Bush look worse. If terrorists attack the US again, Bush will look better. If there's another natural disaster on the level of Katrina, and FEMA is even more inept, Bush looks better. If FEMA responds and is organized, he looks worse (even if the reason they're more organized was because of the poor response to Katrina).

James Buchanan, at the end of his presidency, could claim, "keeping us out of civil war for four years." The Civil War didn't happen because Lincoln was president, there were a lot of things that went into the Confederacy succeeding from the Union. Lincoln pushed the issue over the edge, but it didn't occur just due to him.

I don't think that Bush will ever been seen on the level as Lincoln (or within several levels). But, Lincoln looks a lot better 140 years later than he did in his time. Maybe in 100 years, Bush will rise to the level of mediocre.

This is the problem with life. It doesn't have a saved game that you can go back to and see "what happens if I do this instead". At the time, it's awful hard to know what was the best decision. It's a lot easier with some perspective and having the inside info on the other guy available.

At the time, the Tet Offensive was seen as a big victory for the NVA and VC. It was in a lot of ways, but it also broke the ability of the NVA to continue to wage war due to their casualties. The VC took the brunt of the fighting from then forward. If the US had realized that the NVA exhausted a lot of its manpower during Tet, there would have been a different perception at the time.

Don't forget, the history books are written by the victors.

dogma wrote:

dietrich wrote:Conversely, if FEMA just rushed in and took over the emergency, the Bush admin would have been criticized for tossing aside the state and local government and subjugating them to the federal will.

I sincerely doubt that.

But you are correct, Katrina isn't something that can really be laid at Bush's feet.

I don't. America is pretty strong on State's Rights, and properly so - that's what our Constitution requires.

In the case of natural disasters, Federal assistance can *only* properly (i.e. legally, Constitutionally) be provided at the request of the Governor / Mayor - someone always has to ask before the Feds can act.

WRT Katrina, the state & locals failed to request in a timely fashion.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

dogma wrote:

dietrich wrote:Conversely, if FEMA just rushed in and took over the emergency, the Bush admin would have been criticized for tossing aside the state and local government and subjugating them to the federal will.

I sincerely doubt that.

But you are correct, Katrina isn't something that can really be laid at Bush's feet.

I don't. America is pretty strong on State's Rights, and properly so - that's what our Constitution requires.

In the case of natural disasters, Federal assistance can *only* properly (i.e. legally, Constitutionally) be provided at the request of the Governor / Mayor - someone always has to ask before the Feds can act.

WRT Katrina, the state & locals failed to request in a timely fashion.

Oh, I'm aware of that. But how much negative press do you honestly feel would have been directed towards Bush for forcing the issue? In general, allowing people to suffer will always generate more negative press than adhering to established law. Especially in light of the fact that he was willing to overlook other issues of sovereignty with respect to Iraq.

Eh.
If terrorists attack during the first six months of Obama's presidency...
Pretty much says Bush cocked it up alot more than people thought.

It has nothing to do with giving Democrats a pass, or particular bias.

It shows that Bush really did just twiddle his thumbs these last months of his Presidency and did his best to screw it up for the next guy.

Iraq ceded a large portion of its sovereignty as a result of Gulf 1. They signed a document agreeing to such. Failure to abide by those terms places them in material breach, ergo forfeiture of sovereignty.

It's strange, but if there was a terrorist attack in Ireland again anytime soon, I wouldn't blame any of the governments (ie. the republic, the north and the mainland british government) involved. I'd blame the terrorists themselves.
It seems odd to me that Obama could be blamed for that, or that Bush could be praised for the lack of attacks. I mean, the first attack happened during his term, and it wasn't his fault. If a similar attack happened in Obama's first term, why would it be Obama's fault?
As for respect for the office of the president, I don't feel it's important. It's more important to have respect for society than any position within it. But Ireland is very different to the US in terms of society and government.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Iraq ceded a large portion of its sovereignty as a result of Gulf 1. They signed a document agreeing to such. Failure to abide by those terms places them in material breach, ergo forfeiture of sovereignty.

You clearly do not understand sovereignty. Sovereignty is the right of a given state to engage in free choice with respect to prior agreements. Iraq signed a non-aggression treaty with the UN, not the United States, with which it fully complied. The US simply decided it was inconvenient to abide that treaty and, while ignoring all relevant intelligence data, invaded Iraq in an unequivocal violation of their rights as a recognized nation-state.

With regard to further Terrorist Attacks, I would like to assure you all that, judging from the July 7th Bombings in London, and the failed July 21st bombings, that they are pretty incompetent.

Time and again, they get rumbled. Funding must be running short, as they are allegedly turning to Credit Card Fraud to pay for their wares, which is just another easily traced activity. Any money the organisations have (yes, organisations. Al Qaeda is more of a philosophy than anything) is tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only reason 9/11 worked, was that the US was caught with it's pants down, and got one hell of a wake up call that yes, global terrorism does exist. And now we are on to them, they are pretty much stuffed. I mean, look at Richard Reed, the Shoe Bomber. Beaten up by passengers on his flight after failing to set off his bomb. Or Glasgow Airport, which also failed.

They are desperate, incompetent and pretty lame as Terrorists go.

Sovereignty is NOT the right to pick and choose which agreements will be honored. Sovereignty is the right to govern.

Iraq ceded airspace / overflight rights (i.e. part of sovereignty), along with assenting to inspectiion by extra-sovereign powers, and then violated those terms of the agreement.

DarthDiggler wrote:

dogma wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
No we were talking about attacks on American targets. Iraq and Afghanistan are wars.

American soldiers aren't American targets? Because if that's the case then you also have to disqualify the attack on the Cole, and the Khobar Towers bombing. Embassies are dubiously civilian these days, but I'll grant you that.

I said they were WARS. Stop putting words in other peoples mouths to spout off your partisan ideals. Step outside the classroom and into the real world please.

NEWSFLASH Dateline 2003

Iraqi Army defeated; American troops take Baghdad.

I can provide links.

The war ended in 2003. Occupation began in 2003. THere is a difference between the two states, and it's a big one. American Forces are capable of winning almost any war they fight (it remains to be seen if certain opponent's could generate a world ending draw). There aren't enough American troops to occuppy a nation.

NEWSFLASH Dateline

And for the record that is the real world. In a war you face an organized group. In an occupation you control the majority of the nation and have to deal with small units of enemies, typically poorly armed, but capable of blending with the remainder of the population. Historically the way to win an occupation is to outnumber the oppossing force and either outbreed or outkill them. Any other effort results in your forces eventual destruction.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Sovereignty is NOT the right to pick and choose which agreements will be honored. Sovereignty is the right to govern.

That isn't what I said. I said sovereignty is the right to free choice (or government) with respect to (or according to) prior agreements. Iraq did not, at any point, cede sovereignty to any other state. Treaties are not a concessions of sovereign authority, they are a manifestation of it.

Oh yeah, many nations freely renege on previous accords with other states without it neagtively affecting their sovereign claim. You live within the borders of one of the single worst offenders in that regard.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Iraq ceded airspace / overflight rights (i.e. part of sovereignty), along with assenting to inspectiion by extra-sovereign powers, and then violated those terms of the agreement.

Again, those are not concessions of sovereignty.

Either way, the Iraqis did not violate any part of the agreements to which they were bound. Read the report I linked to above. Iraq never violated the agreements imposed upon it after Desert Storm. The US said that it did, but those allegations have all proven entirely false.

I'll admit, I got bored of reading all this about half way thru the second page... I still wanted to chime in and say that you can't really be sure Bush is being bashed more than ever before. You hear from historians on various shows when they respond to the accusations that this was the most negative campaign in history and it's nonsense, campaigns in the past were FAR more negative, saying things that not even Rove could get away with now days. The difference? A much more widespread media.

Just because you hear more of the Bush bashing, doesn't mean there actually IS more Bush bashing.

DarthDiggler wrote:Bush didn't lie. A lie is knowingly telling at statement that is false. Before Bush was President the world thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Hell we gave some to him. Saddam lied about having the weapons to his own people and the world. He thought it would protect him. It didn't. We have not lost huge amounts of lives. That is false. More people die of car crashes in the US in one year than have dies in Iraq in 5 years. Whine about the automobile, but it doesn't suit your world view.

So you're willing to disregard the minimum half million, possibly one million dead Iraqis, but you aren't willing to disregard a guy lying about a blow job?

This is what's left of the Republican political debate and it is absurd.

personally i dont think bush could have pprevented 9/11 and the blame does not lie with him
this situation couuld have been easily prevented if the america had not droped afganastan like a hot potato after the russians left
however bush did make many large mistakes in his managment of the wars and the american people allowed him to do it out of fear
first read uup on history NO ONE WILL SUCEED IN HOLDING AFGHANASTAN we should no this we caused the last one
also about disrespecting the president i say that has to be the dumbest thing ive ever heard
so im not allowed to say what i think because its unpleasent to someone
are we going to stop people saying anything that could be viewed as offensive

You're allowed say what you want, I think people are annoyed about naming a sewage treatment plant after him.
As an ecologist, I'm all for sewage treatment and see it as a vital part of any infastructure. I'd be happy enough to have one named after me. But then I don't have wierd ideas about excrement being worthless.