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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Huh?

I'm pretty sure that one of the things I learned in middle school civics is that the Congress is one of the checks and balances of Presidential power.

Kind of like how they were consulted for wiretapping? For illegal extradition? For offshore internent camps? For military actions across the pakistani border? The congress acts as a check and balance for most non wartime activities, one of the things Bush and his administration was known for is the belief that the president has carte blanche to do whatever he deems necessary to protect the country during wartime without congressional or court approval. It constantly provoked the ire of constitutionalists and the courts.

Who doesn't understand what, now? "Congress exists to rubber stamp or revise things"? Did you type that with a straight face?

Yes, because thats what they do. They receive documents that they either aprove, deny, or revise. Thats how they perform their "checks and balances". They also perform inquiries, investigations, and write a lot of requests but those actions can be blocked by the commander in chief (and were for most of the war). I'm sorry if they didn't actually teach you very much in middle school, don't worry, once you get into high school you start learning the good stuff.

I'm sure that all of those back-pedaling opportunists are also using the same cop-out spin tactic, but the truth is that they voted for it. Not that your premise is even all that sound, since we can't know whether or not the Administration knowingly lied about anything.

Yes, we can.

"In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to reexamine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. A major part of this program was a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and headed by Douglas Feith to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. The questionable intelligence acquired by the OSP was "stovepiped" to Cheney and presented to the public."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/etc/script.html

At this point there are probably a few dozen books you could read about it.

But I don't think you will.

I don't like how the war has gone over the last few years either, but let's keep it real in here for a minute.

Thats all on you broderbun.

You knowledge of how Congress works lacks several additional details. At any point Congress could pass a law mandating a stopping any of those activities. Indeed the War Powers Act is such legislation. More importantly, they could have yanked funding which would have stopped activities in a heartbeat. THATS how the checks and balances work.

Whilst a degree of backstory is useful, perhaps even necessary in parts, the topic for discussion in this thread is to do with what America has left behind in Iraq, not a rehashing for the 12,346th time of the why they went there.

I appreciate that there will have to be slight divergent onto related topics, but this is going well off topic.

I suspect it is far, far too early to see what America ( and the other countries) have left behind, but let's at least see if we can go anywhere with the actual topic.

Messrs, 'Rain & 'gorath, leave this is directed at the pair of you especially here, alas.

There is no denying that Bush and Blair were both economical avec le actualitie in preparing thier countries and legislatures for a war decision.

In both cases, they were not unanimously supported either by the population or the representatives, but they got their votes through, thus spreading the responsibility.

I would venture to argue that this had to be done precisely because the casus belli was so weak.

Exactly why this happened in individual cases is not important. We have to understand that people do things for all kinds of stupid and selfish reasons.

The important thing is whether we can now recognise if the decision taken was a good one or a bad one, so that in future we can improve our decisions.

Anyone who thinks we are finished with the middle east and violent extreme Islamism is sadly mistaken.

I know that you're at least smart enough to know that for every "I hate Dubya" book you pull out of your ass there's another book out there that would say the exact opposite.

brohemoth.

If every book, no matter the author or content, that disagrees with your worldview concerning the lack of culpability over operation Iraqi Freedom is an "I hate Dubya" tome then you're not going to come out of this decade particularly well educated.

Broseidon.

You knowledge of how Congress works lacks several additional details. At any point Congress could pass a law mandating a stopping any of those activities. Indeed the War Powers Act is such legislation. More importantly, they could have yanked funding which would have stopped activities in a heartbeat. THATS how the checks and balances work.

Unless they mime the budgets then it would appear that that was covered when I stated that they rubber stamp, revise, or deny documents. Thanks for playing though, how 'bout you spin the wheel again?

I suspect it is far, far too early to see what America ( and the other countries) have left behind, but let's at least see if we can go anywhere with the actual topic.


Messrs, 'Rain & 'gorath, leave this is directed at the pair of you especially here, alas.

You can't let the opposition get in the last word when I'm outnumbered! Besides, I believe that the run up to the war and it's prosecution at least in it's early stages are an important part of the consideration when concerning it's presence and future. People frame their knowledge of the current with their knowledge of the past, and when interested parties in Iraq and at home seek someone to blame for the inevitable fallout from the conflict, however that comes, it will be through the lens of it's beginning to it's end. Not simply the snapshot reality of the current. It would be nice though if we could make it a more encompassing conversation though, arguing about it being bushes war is a bit too single minded for useful consideration of the whole of the event.

I'll be good .

Kilkrazy wrote:There is no denying that Bush and Blair were both economical avec le actualitie in preparing thier countries and legislatures for a war decision.

In both cases, they were not unanimously supported either by the population or the representatives, but they got their votes through, thus spreading the responsibility.

I would venture to argue that this had to be done precisely because the casus belli was so weak.

Exactly why this happened in individual cases is not important. We have to understand that people do things for all kinds of stupid and selfish reasons.

The important thing is whether we can now recognise if the decision taken was a good one or a bad one, so that in future we can improve our decisions.

Anyone who thinks we are finished with the middle east and violent extreme Islamism is sadly mistaken.

Hey Mod listen to the warning from the, er other Mod! Stay OT! Mod fight!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I know that you're at least smart enough to know that for every "I hate Dubya" book you pull out of your ass there's another book out there that would say the exact opposite.

brohemoth.

If every book, no matter the author or content, that disagrees with your worldview concerning the lack of culpability over operation Iraqi Freedom is an "I hate Dubya" tome then you're not going to come out of this decade particularly well educated.

Broseidon.

You knowledge of how Congress works lacks several additional details. At any point Congress could pass a law mandating a stopping any of those activities. Indeed the War Powers Act is such legislation. More importantly, they could have yanked funding which would have stopped activities in a heartbeat. THATS how the checks and balances work.

Unless they mime the budgets then it would appear that that was covered when I stated that they rubber stamp, revise, or deny documents. Thanks for playing though, how 'bout you spin the wheel again?

I suspect it is far, far too early to see what America ( and the other countries) have left behind, but let's at least see if we can go anywhere with the actual topic.


Messrs, 'Rain & 'gorath, leave this is directed at the pair of you especially here, alas.

You can't let the opposition get in the last word when I'm outnumbered! Besides, I believe that the run up to the war and it's prosecution at least in it's early stages are an important part of the consideration when concerning it's presence and future. People frame their knowledge of the current with their knowledge of the past, and when interested parties in Iraq and at home seek someone to blame for the inevitable fallout from the conflict, however that comes, it will be through the lens of it's beginning to it's end. Not simply the snapshot reality of the current. It would be nice though if we could make it a more encompassing conversation though, arguing about it being bushes war is a bit too single minded for useful consideration of the whole of the event.

I'll be good .

ANNH! Wrong again. Congress proposes spending bills. they can unilaterally pass a veto proof majority spending bill in about 7 minutes. 6 if they are heading out for the weekend.

ANNH! Wrong again. Congress proposes spending bills. they can unilaterally pass a veto proof majority spending bill in about 7 minutes. 6 if they are heading out for the weekend.

I fail to see how that contradicts what I said. I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Phryxis wrote:
The only options there were to remove the sanctions, thus destroying the credibility of sanctions as a negotiating tool for all future situations, or to remove Saddam directly.

The express goal of the sanctions was the removal of WMDs from Iraqi control. This had been accomplished during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration maintained the sanctions because the neoconservative agenda involved removing Saddam from power. Given that Iraq did not possess WMDs, the sanctions could have been dropped at any time without compromising their future legitimacy; even considering the Iraq Liberation Act.

Phryxis wrote:
The latter choice was a fairly direct and logical continuation of AMERICAN foreign policy.

That doesn't necessarily indicate that it was the correct choice. American foreign policy tends to be aggressive by nature; particularly the neoconservative brand of American foreign policy. However, there is no self-evident reason to continue down a given path of decision making. Any change in position, even one that continues along a previous course, necessitates an evaluation of the possible outcomes of the change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ANNH! Wrong again. Congress proposes spending bills. they can unilaterally pass a veto proof majority spending bill in about 7 minutes. 6 if they are heading out for the weekend.

I fail to see how that contradicts what I said. I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure its exactly the same thing you said.

I'm also pretty sure that Frazzled designs most of his posts to be inflammatory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Bill Clinton had been bombing them for years because they kept lighting up and shooting at our aircraft-which was an immediate restart of hostilities.

By "for years" do you mean "twice"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Thats a police action.

No, no it isn't. The very suggestion is ludicrous. Police action is a term for military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war. The euphemism didn't even exist prior to the Cold War.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Standard Huffington Post nonsense and a convenient excuse. Bill Clinton had been bombing them for years because they kept lighting up and shooting at our aircraft-which was an immediate restart of hostilities.

The excuse stinks of Obama whining like a little boy that everything's someone else's fault.

Wait, what? Its "Standard Huntington Post nonsense" to suggest that the Commander in Chief (the office of which Congress almost always defers to in matters of war) bears more responsibility for military action than Congress?

Note also that Shuma didn't absolve any part of the government from blame, he merely claimed that the Commander in Chief, the person who directly oversees the military, deserves more of it than the group that, historically, rubber stamps his decisions.

Its almost like you don't read anything before responding to it.

Phryxis wrote:

A nuke will let you go back in time and get rid of one slightly stupid President?

Would it provoke too much arguing if I were to suggest that pretty much ANY American President was going to go to war in Iraq after 9/11?

I would point to heavy non-partisan support he got heading into the thing as evidence that pretty much everyone wanted to go attack something.

It's a shame that people like to blame "our" decisions on Bush.

Excellent point. As I recall at the time, everyone was clapping hands and yelling hooray for Bush.

Relapse wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

A nuke will let you go back in time and get rid of one slightly stupid President?

Would it provoke too much arguing if I were to suggest that pretty much ANY American President was going to go to war in Iraq after 9/11?

I would point to heavy non-partisan support he got heading into the thing as evidence that pretty much everyone wanted to go attack something.

It's a shame that people like to blame "our" decisions on Bush.

Excellent point. As I recall at the time, everyone was clapping hands and yelling hooray for Bush.

I think a better point would be to note that they would have clapped and hooped and hollered about any mideastern or southasian country invasion when the administration trumps up fake WMD reports, fake Al-Queda ties, and a fake recent history in a region of the world that the vast majority of Americans know truly little about.

Relapse wrote:
Excellent point. As I recall at the time, everyone was clapping hands and yelling hooray for Bush.

The final vote was a 60/40 split yea/nay. Hardly 'everyone', even in a generalized sense.

Personally, I doubt that most Democratic President's would have invaded Iraq. The reaction to the decision by former Democratic politicians and appointees was almost universally negative.

I do, however, agree that most Republican Presidents would have invaded Iraq. If nothing else, the majority of the Republican foreign policy establishment heavily favored foreign interventionism.

Blame where blame is deserved, but all is not equal.

Clearly, no one person is more responsible for the decision to go to war in Iraq than George W. Bush. But this was an AMERICAN war, as I said. It's born out of American foreign policy that spans decades, numerous Presidents, Democrats and Republicans. To simply blame it on Bush is not insightful, nor is it valuable.

Iraq is one of the greatest policy mistakes of our generation

To say this now, before history has had its say, is profoundly ignorant. It could be that you'll be proven right. It's quite likely, in fact, that the outcome will prove less favorable than was hoped or promised. But the outcome has not been decided yet, and the fact that you don't know that demonstrates that you're a broken clock, and correct only by chance.

failure that should be unconchinable in a president

Yes. Quite. He's so evil, he's almost diablobilical. My rage with him is so profound, it's almost rendering me unconchis. Seriously, dude, for a professional whiny pedant, I'd think you'd have the correct spelling of unconscionable in your toolbox.

Thats the exact kind of thing you impeach people for

No. It's not. You do NOT impeach people for policy decisions. You don't even impeach them for lying or misleading the public. You impeach them for breaking the law, and even then, you should only do it when they break the law in a way that's material to the conduct of their Presidential duties.

That's why I have never supported the impeachment of Clinton. Even though he broke the law, it was not relevant to his duties as President. It only served to create rancor, and to confuse partisan zealots like you as to what the actual purpose of impeachment is.

I don't think Bush is a special idiot, but I generally think that the American public is somewhat dim and easily led astray by bright lights cheery smiles and an "enemy" to shake our fists at, and he wanted to finish his daddies war.

So I'm a troll, and I'm sticking my head in the sand, because the REAL insight here is that "Americans are dumb" and "Bush wanted to finish daddy's war." Deep thinking, dude. I'm pretty sure dogma isn't going to invite you to any NSA cocktail parties with insights like that.

Bush was perhaps the most extreme example we've seen of this, but he isn't the only case, and he certainly won't be the last.

I'm pretty sure you just implied that GWB was politically skilled. I'm pretty sure that's a suggestion so wrong that everything written within three paragraphs of it is also wrong by association.

I mean, come on, dude. I don't hate GWB like most of these bandwagoners, but the guy was not "politically skilled."

It's about understanding power dynamics and how people with strict control on information can frame a debate.

It's also about understanding foreign policy. If you're dwelling on how a war was sold to the public, you're pretty far from understanding what foreign policy is about. It's virtually NEVER about the mainstream narrative. It's never a mystery, it's never hard to understand, it's just not the popular narrative.

Iraq was about "cleaning up our problems." 9/11 made those problems much more obvious and pressing.

We have sanctions on Iran right now. At some point they'll result in a shortage that'll get somebody killed. When do we invade?

You wouldn't employ sanctions if the presumed outcome was always invasion.

There's a lot going on. It's not just "sanctions then invade." The sanctions provide a framework/context for many things to happen besides Iranians not having bluejeans. It's a chance to rally/demonstrate international support. If China and Russia can be brought on board with the sanctions, shown to be in agreement with their terms and scope, that sends a message to Iran.

The sanctions are part of an international diplomatic process. They're not just a "save the date" card for a subsequent invasion.

Frazzled wrote:Sebster's Aussie.

Yep, and you didn't respond to my post. It was hidden away at the bottom of a long post to Phryxis, so you might have missed it.

Clearly, no one person is more responsible for the decision to go to war in Iraq than George W. Bush. But this was an AMERICAN war, as I said. It's born out of American foreign policy that spans decades, numerous Presidents, Democrats and Republicans. To simply blame it on Bush is not insightful, nor is it valuable.

And this article didn't strive to imply that the war, which was hardly popular from it's inception, was bushes folly alone. It's not like he is millions of people. I was arguing primiarilly against the concept that it was a war anyone would have fought, and I personally don't believe that the majority of presidential candidates would have engaged in the theatre in the same way.

To say this now, before history has had its say, is profoundly ignorant. It could be that you'll be proven right. It's quite likely, in fact, that the outcome will prove less favorable than was hoped or promised. But the outcome has not been decided yet, and the fact that you don't know that demonstrates that you're a broken clock, and correct only by chance.

I don't know the future? Thanks for reminding me!

Yes. Quite. He's so evil, he's almost diablobilical. My rage with him is so profound, it's almost rendering me unconchis. Seriously, dude, for a professional whiny pedant, I'd think you'd have the correct spelling of unconscionable in your toolbox.

I like conch shells? The level of ineptitude is unconscionable, not really the decision making. To chose political gains (loading the diplomatic missions in iraq with untrained party loyalists and firing generals who speak out for instance) is.

No. It's not. You do NOT impeach people for policy decisions. You don't even impeach them for lying or misleading the public. You impeach them for breaking the law, and even then, you should only do it when they break the law in a way that's material to the conduct of their Presidential duties.

George Bush broke the law numerous times while in office. He was renowned for it. His battles with the courts concerning constitutional matters as well as unlawful orders given and unethical content (which is illegal pending an inquiry) were a hallmark of his presidential style. Remember Dick Cheneys roving CIA hit squad and his invisible giant safe in his office? Also I would argue that lying to the public to incite an unlawful war is in fact illegal.

That's why I have never supported the impeachment of Clinton. Even though he broke the law, it was not relevant to his duties as President. It only served to create rancor, and to confuse partisan zealots like you as to what the actual purpose of impeachment is.

Which is why impeachment for bush would be far more poignant. He actually did things to deserve it that cost this country dearly in the short and most likely the long term.

So I'm a troll, and I'm sticking my head in the sand, because the REAL insight here is that "Americans are dumb" and "Bush wanted to finish daddy's war." Deep thinking, dude. I'm pretty sure dogma isn't going to invite you to any NSA cocktail parties with insights like that.

You're a troll for initially trying to put words in my mouth and because you do it constantly no matter what we're talking about or really who you are responding too. I've never hidden my disdain for the general ineptitude of the american populace concerning how many opportunities it has to improve itself.

And this article didn't strive to imply that the war, which was hardly popular from it's inception, was bushes folly alone.

No, it didn't. You did. I realize you think Bush was foolish, and in a minority. The problem is that there was a reasonable basis for his decision, and it was supported by a majority at the time.

Say what you will, but I'm not going to dismiss the political/rhetorical convenience of blaming everything on Bush.

I don't know the future? Thanks for reminding me!

No problem. I find that you frequently need to be reminded of things you don't know. It's just an added bonus that you're so enthusiastically thankful.

To chose political gains (loading the diplomatic missions in iraq with untrained party loyalists and firing generals who speak out for instance) is.

I wonder what Stanley McChrystal would think of your perceptions? No, I know, McChrystal needed to go, and Obama had no choice. The guys Bush got rid of, they were just honorable whistleblowers. I always forget, dissent is only for the left.

Politicians hook up their friends. Republicans do it, Democrats do it. Oh, I know. Republicans do it RECKLESSLY and with CRITICAL POSITIONS! If you say so.

George Bush broke the law numerous times while in office.

So we're substituting your personal opinion for actual legal findings? Cool.

Also I would argue that lying to the public to incite an unlawful war is in fact illegal.

Ok, and you'd be wrong. I guess in addition to reminding you all the things you don't know, I need to remind you what you're not: a lawyer.

But please, point out the legal statute that says a President can't lie. While you're at it, point out the part that says "especially when it matters."

No, it didn't. You did. I realize you think Bush was foolish, and in a minority. The problem is that there was a reasonable basis for his decision, and it was supported by a majority at the time.

Say what you will, but I'm not going to dismiss the political/rhetorical convenience of blaming everything on Bush.

I'm rebuking the idea that he isn't the most culpable person. Many people had a hand, but he had the final say in nearly every matter concerned. He isn't without a much larger share of blame for the events than anyone else, logically he is the first most will point too. Personally I would lay a larger piece of the pie on Rumsfeld, but without knowing the day to day interior politics of the Bush whitehouse it falls on the commander himself. It's not convenience to blame everything on Bush, I would just as strongly rebuke any standing political leader that was for the Iraq war at the time.

No problem. I find that you frequently need to be reminded of things you don't know. It's just an added bonus that you're so enthusiastically thankful.

Glad we've covered this. Next time I need to be flamed pointlessly I'll shoot you a PM!

I wonder what Stanley McChrystal would think of your perceptions?

He broke chain of command and insulted his superiors in a public venue on a major publication. The military plays by different standards and his removal was precipitated by his own poor judgement. The placement of unqualified loyalists into positions of power in Iraq was precipitated by the poor judgement of those that put them there. Obama had a few choices, he could keep the general around with the air of hostility he generated or they could replace him with a much more successful commander. They chose the latter and decided to absorb the brunt of the political fallout it generated. Mchrystal was good, but the situation in afghanistan wasn't.

No, I know, McChrystal needed to go, and Obama had no choice. The guys Bush got rid of, they were just honorable whistleblowers. I always forget, dissent is only for the left.

Mchrystal was let go for calling his superiors names, Shinseki was let go for noting that the mission was woefully ill prepared for what it was going to face. If you can't see the difference then... Actually, no. I'm just not surprised. You often seem to lack the ability to understand the "subtle" differences between things that are very visibly different.

Politicians hook up their friends. Republicans do it, Democrats do it. Oh, I know. Republicans do it RECKLESSLY and with CRITICAL POSITIONS! If you say so.

Because Obama is rushing to load up the mideastern consulates with party loyalists straight out of college. Yeah. Right. Good one buddy!

Does it occur to you that there are actual causes for the endemic and chronic failure in the reconstruction and administration efforts in both Iraq and afghanistan? Or do you think such a poor job was being done because it's hot down there?

So we're substituting your personal opinion for actual legal findings? Cool.

Mine and the supreme, legislative, and lower courts. Military courts too actually. Really just courts. It's courts that we're using the legal findings for.

I know you don't like those though, so I understand your reticence to accept them.

Ok, and you'd be wrong.

I think the term "unlawful war" would mean that I'm right by the definition of unlawful, but constitutional and governmental law doesn't really result in penalties all the time.

I guess in addition to reminding you all the things you don't know, I need to remind you what you're not: a lawyer.

I'm also not a fish, but I can still see that you're drowning here.

But please, point out the legal statute that says a President can't lie. While you're at it, point out the part that says "especially when it matters."

Depends on what laws you wish to use. The actions of his administration broke a significant number of federal laws, but they did it in a matter that can not be prosecuted. Torture? Illegal. Knowingly allowing torture? Illegal. Knowingly allowing torture of enemy combatants? Illegal. Being a president? Plausible deniability through the reclassification of what constitutes torture. Wiretapping without a warrant? Illegal. Being party to wiretapping without a warrant? Illegal. Being a president? Plausible deniability and the ability to delay the courts and to tie the issue indefinitely until wiretapping is later legalized on case by case basis by a secret judge.

Most people understand the concept of presidential platitudes and the ways in which a president cant break numerous laws while walking away from it without blinking an eye. It takes a casual perusal of the average news story during the bush administration to see how he was doing it.

As for lying to the public, I stated "Lying to the public to incite an unlawful war". Lying to the public in matters of national security is something civilians are tried for often. If the fething balloon kids parents get jail time for pretending their kid got whisked away into the sky why is an elected leader immune when his decision cost hundreds of thousands of deaths both directly and indirectly while costing the nation billions and significant lost prestige and power? I mean, I know that helicopter they used to search for the boy was pricey, but I think it's a little less then comparable when you look at how much was spent overall.

Mchrystal was let go for calling his superiors names, Shinseki was let go for noting that the mission was woefully ill prepared for what it was going to face.

Actually, in the terms you're describing it, I'd say Shinseki was the worse of the two. In actual reality, I don't think it was that way, but in your own words, it certainly is.

I'd rather a General was rude than he was publicly questioning the decisions/preparation going into war. The former is merely unprofessional, the latter severely undermines public confidence.

In reality, I agree that McChrystal put himself in a very poor position, and Shinseki did less so, but I think it's convenient that you find McChrystal's dismissal to be TOTALLY understandable and Shinseki's to be so out of line as to draw Bush's ethics into question.

In my eyes, they're both cases of Generals being dismissed for not showing the attitude their commander in chief needed. It's funny, though, how when I find the choices of Obama and Bush to be pretty similar, I'm an extremist. When you find Obama to be justifiable, and Bush to be "unconshinible," you're the rational one.

I think the term "unlawful war" would mean that I'm right by the definition of unlawful, but constitutional and governmental law doesn't really result in penalties all the time.

So because you saw a sign that said "illegal war" on it, you think that means something? It doesn't.

The war was not unlawful. If you'd like to show me where it violated law, I'd be happy to laugh at you and remind you again of all the things you don't know.

You literally don't know the difference between legal findings and coffee shop rhetoric.

The actions of his administration broke a significant number of federal laws, but they did it in a matter that can not be prosecuted.

Ahh, right, the old "illegal, but can't be prosecuted," situation. Look, dude, you're pretending that rhetoric is legal basis. Some people sought to block some of Bush's policy on legal grounds. That doesn't make it illegal. It means that some people wanted to challenge the idea that it was.

For example, Obama got his Obamacare, and certain state governments are trying to get rulings that block elements of it. By your logic, Obama has broken the law. Only, he hasn't.

The entire concept of judicial review is less than foundational. It's certainly how things are run today, but originally the idea was that legislators decided what was law, and if they said it was law, that made it legal. The fact is, "who says what the law is" is actually a complicated question in government, and it's not just "whoever wins gets to call the other guy a criminal."

Bush's lawyers would argue that they didn't torture. Bush's lawyers would argue that they didn't use illegal wiretaps. These are complex matters, that you're trying to treat like pot possession. "The law" is different when you're in the business of authoring it or executing on it. In many cases you will be expected to do things before it's officially determined if it's even legal. You have your legal counsel publish an opinion, then you do it. If it's subsequently decided that it was not legal, then a law may be written on the subject, an executive order may be drafted, and precedent is set.

But before there's any of that, there's just "do what you're going to do, and publish an opinion." Overturning the opinion doesn't equal "you criminal." I know you love the rhetorical weight of calling people criminals, but it's not reality.

Your ignornance on the subject doesn't make GWB a lawbreaker. It makes you ignorant.

If the fething balloon kids parents get jail time for pretending their kid got whisked away into the sky why is an elected leader immune when his decision cost hundreds of thousands of deaths both directly and indirectly while costing the nation billions and significant lost prestige and power?

Ok, got it. Your musings on "how it aughta be" is now the basis for our legal code. You better let Eric Holder know when you're available to fill him in on all your ideas.

Even if lying were illegal, and it's not, Bush didn't lie. He just presented his slanted version of the facts, which led to his desired conclusion. You're two degrees removed from reality. Lying's not illegal. No lie was told.

You want to criminalize rhetoric you don't like. For somebody who deals almost exclusively in very dubious rhetoric, that seems like an unwise stance to take.

Actually, in the terms you're describing it, I'd say Shinseki was the worse of the two. In actual reality, I don't think it was that way, but in your own words, it certainly is.

I'd rather a General was rude than he was publicly questioning the decisions/preparation going into war. The former is merely unprofessional, the latter severely undermines public confidence.

In reality, I agree that McChrystal put himself in a very poor position, and Shinseki did less so, but I think it's convenient that you find McChrystal's dismissal to be TOTALLY understandable and Shinseki's to be so out of line as to draw Bush's ethics into question.

Shinseki was doing his job and providing a sincere military analysis that was later proven right. McChrystal was being a tool and calling his superiors names in rolling stone magazine. Like I said though, I didn't really expect you to understand the vast differences between them. You have an axe to grind and a man to defend.

In my eyes, they're both cases of Generals being dismissed for not showing the attitude their commander in chief needed. It's funny, though, how when I find the choices of Obama and Bush to be pretty similar, I'm an extremist. When you find Obama to be justifiable, and Bush to be "unconshinible," you're the rational one.

Yes. I am.

So because you saw a sign that said "illegal war" on it, you think that means something? It doesn't.

The war was not unlawful. If you'd like to show me where it violated law, I'd be happy to laugh at you and remind you again of all the things you don't know.

You literally don't know the difference between legal findings and coffee shop rhetoric.

With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[9] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:
“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” [10]
This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[11]
Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq.[9]
The US and UK governments, along with others, stated (as is detailed in the first four paragraphs of the joint resolution)[12] that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and not a war of aggression as the US and UK were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion.[13][14] Some International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the US-based National Lawyers' Guild,[15] a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the US-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy have found this legal rationale to be untenable, and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal.[16][17][18]
The ICC can find only individuals to have committed crimes, not governments.[19] However, the unauthorized use of force or threat of use of force by a member state of the UN violates the UN Charter.[9]

Not that you care about the U.N.

Ahh, right, the old "illegal, but can't be prosecuted," situation. Look, dude, you're pretending that rhetoric is legal basis. Some people sought to block some of Bush's policy on legal grounds. That doesn't make it illegal. It means that some people wanted to challenge the idea that it was.

For example, Obama got his Obamacare, and certain state governments are trying to get rulings that block elements of it. By your logic, Obama has broken the law. Only, he hasn't.

The writing of a law, and the taking of actions that are unlawful are different things. I think you're being kind of dumb here. Are you doing it intentionally?

The entire concept of judicial review is less than foundational. It's certainly how things are run today, but originally the idea was that legislators decided what was law, and if they said it was law, that made it legal. The fact is, "who says what the law is" is actually a complicated question in government, and it's not just "whoever wins gets to call the other guy a criminal."

I know, which is why I insist that bush and his administration performed illegal actions. If it was "whoever wins gets to call the other guy a criminal" I would just throw up my hands and declare him the winner.

Bush's lawyers would argue that they didn't torture. Bush's lawyers would argue that they didn't use illegal wiretaps. These are complex matters, that you're trying to treat like pot possession.

They are very simple matters with very complex legal proceedings tied to them. The question of whether torture was committed is far less central to the question of whether it was knowingly done (which it has now been proven is so by certain cabinet members) and even less prudent then the question of what constitutes torture. However these questions are only prudent specifically because the activities were being engaged in. The wiretapping issue is even less gray, with bush knowingly approving of it for months before any sort of judicial review even touched it.

"The law" is different when you're in the business of authoring it or executing on it. In many cases you will be expected to do things before it's officially determined if it's even legal. You have your legal counsel publish an opinion, then you do it. If it's subsequently decided that it was not legal, then a law may be written on the subject, an executive order may be drafted, and precedent is set.

Except both wiretapping without a warrant and torture have been illegal for a very long time. They broke the law then sought to change it. That's not how U.S. law works.

But before there's any of that, there's just "do what you're going to do, and publish an opinion." Overturning the opinion doesn't equal "you criminal." I know you love the rhetorical weight of calling people criminals, but it's not reality.

A criminal is someone that has committed a crime. You can be a criminal without being prosecuted. It's a term based more in the absolutes of reality, kind of like how something can be red even if you aren't looking at it. I believe they have committed a crime (well, several). Criminal is not strictly a legal term. They are suspects in ongoing legal reviews, and they have been found guilty of unethical practices (especially in Cheneys case). However without prosecution they are not convicts or felons. I would have used more concrete terms if they were warranted. They weren't and I did not.

but thanks for trying to straighten me out. Maybe next time you'll read my posts at the grade level required to parse the language appropriately.

Your ignornance on the subject doesn't make GWB a lawbreaker. It makes you ignorant.

Says captain indefensible ad-hominim man with the power to obfuscate opinions and pretend that agression equates to righteous indigence borne from truthful knowledge.

Ok, got it. Your musings on "how it aughta be" is now the basis for our legal code. You better let Eric Holder know when you're available to fill him in on all your ideas.

Oh. Ok. You really do just lack such a basic level of grade school education that you think that conviction under a court of law is the only way someone can commit a crime. You should probably take some logical theory classes at some point, you're really missing out there.

Even if lying were illegal, and it's not, Bush didn't lie. He just presented his slanted version of the facts, which led to his desired conclusion. You're two degrees removed from reality. Lying's not illegal. No lie was told.

Presenting intentionally falsified national security information to congress is a crime. It has been for a long time. Plenty of lies were told by quite a few people. Lies are lies when they aren't true. Much of what was told was a lie. The bits and pieces that were intentionally falsified or intentionally made misleading are far more important than the general volume of lies. Unintentional mistruths are a fact of life, the misrepresentation of critical security information that leads the country directly into war is a treasonous act.

You want to criminalize rhetoric you don't like. For somebody who deals almost exclusively in very dubious rhetoric, that seems like an unwise stance to take.

I don't want do to anything, I don't have any classes tomorrow. Thats not true. I want to play starcraft.

Not that you care about the U.N.

Well, no, I don't really care about the UN, but despite not caring about it, I can tell the difference between it and: "Some International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the US-based National Lawyers' Guild, a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the US-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy have found this legal rationale to be untenable, and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal"

Obviously you can't. But thanks for proving my point. People can have an opinion. It doesn't make something legal or illegal. It means that in THEIR OPINION, it's illegal.

In the opinion of the Birthers, Obama isn't a legal US President. Who cares?

The wiretapping issue is even less gray, with bush knowingly approving of it for months before any sort of judicial review even touched it.

Again, in the opinion of the Bush administration the wiretapping was legal. In the opinion of the Bush administration there was no torture. They felt that they were NOT breaking any laws.

I don't deny that there's a debate. I deny that there has been a final ruling on this issue. Judges have agreed with your position, judges have disagreed with your position.

I can repeat this, but you're not listening. You want to call people "criminals" and you're going to repeat yourself until I get bored of reminding you what reality looks like.

You really do just lack such a basic level of grade school education that you think that conviction under a court of law is the only way someone can commit a crime.

If you can't defeat my arguments, make up ones for me, and argue with those, eh?

You just sloppily suggested that it seems to you that if falsifying statements to a police officer is a crime, then falsifying rhetoric to the American people DEFINITELY should be a crime. Your legal basis was "it seems like it aughta be illegal."

When I pointed out how infantile that is, you said "I know you are, but what am I." And I already told you. Infantile.

Plenty of lies were told by quite a few people.

Do we need to review what a "lie" is? Obama said that if we had a stimulus package, unemployment wouldn't go over 8%. It did. He was wrong. Impeachment time?

Nope.

Unintentional mistruths are a fact of life, the misrepresentation of critical security information that leads the country directly into war is a treasonous act.

But, yeah, I'm sure you can prove that many in the Bush administration told inentional mistruths. I know you don't believe me, but in addition to not being a lawyer, you're also not a mind reader.

And treason? What enemy was aided and comforted?

Or did we just catch you throwing around empty rhetoric again?

I think we did, little buddy.

Well, no, I don't really care about the UN, but despite not caring about it, I can tell the difference between it and: "Some International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the US-based National Lawyers' Guild, a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the US-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy have found this legal rationale to be untenable, and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal"

The inquiry as to the lagality of the war could easily be brought before the security council, and it's unlikely that without the veto power (which the U.S. has) the war would be considered illegal. But then, by that logic we could have demolished canada and done the same. The heuristics of international conflict legality is a labarynthian process with a giant topkill called the veto vote at the top. It doesn't make it actually "legal" it just makes the world unable to enforce it's own laws.

Obviously you can't. But thanks for proving my point. People can have an opinion. It doesn't make something legal or illegal. It means that in THEIR OPINION, it's illegal.

Snore. Keep treading that logical loop buddy. Things can only be illegal once prosecuted, got it. Looks like every bank robber to ever escape, every murderer to ever go free, and every nation to impune on the soveregnity of another without reprisal are all innocent because they weren't found guilty by whatever law system they were local too. Glad to know that in phryxis' world as long as I can get away with it it can't be illegal.

In the opinion of the Birthers, Obama isn't a legal US President. Who cares?

Doublesnore.

Again, in the opinion of the Bush administration the wiretapping was legal. In the opinion of the Bush administration there was no torture. They felt that they were NOT breaking any laws.

That doesn't actually matter. Their opinions are irrelevant, only the laws. They were found to have acted unjustly in the wiretapping case and the supreme court has repeatedly rebuked their right to torture. That means it's illegal. That means when they did it it was illegal (since it was) and it still is. They don't will law into being.

I don't deny that there's a debate. I deny that there has been a final ruling on this issue. Judges have agreed with your position, judges have disagreed with your position.

More have agreed then disagreed and the concept of violating law and then defending the act in court through loopholes and "national security" (wiretapping without a warrant is still illegal) is not one that holds up in court (it just never makes it there to be cast down). The reason charges have never been levied is because of the power of the state secrets and patriot acts to shut down legal proceedings indefinitely. Is it legal simply because they have the power to shut down the courts?

If you can't defeat my arguments, make up ones for me, and argue with those, eh?

You've been restating the same argument of precedence post facto the entire time. It's been wrong the entire time. I've defeated it numerous times. You just don't actually care. Lawmaking doesn't work that way and the only reason it was gotten away with is through interference in the courts.

You just sloppily suggested that it seems to you that if falsifying statements to a police officer is a crime, then falsifying rhetoric to the American people DEFINITELY should be a crime. Your legal basis was "it seems like it aughta be illegal."

Except it's actually treason under the circumstances of national security and war to intentionally mislead congress and the American people in such a way by arguably every definition of the term in this situation.

When I pointed out how infantile that is, you said "I know you are, but what am I." And I already told you. Infantile.

Snore again. You haven't pointed anything out. You don't have a very firm grasp of either american lawmaking or jurisprudence.

But, yeah, I'm sure you can prove that many in the Bush administration told inentional mistruths. I know you don't believe me, but in addition to not being a lawyer, you're also not a mind reader.

It's been fairly well proven that they were aware of the spurious nature of the intel and that it was designed to produce the truths they wanted despite an intentional lack of credibility.

And treason? What enemy was aided and comforted?

Depending on who you would classify as an enemy, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, China, and venezuela among others. Iran specifically has been greatly aided by the conflict and is a proclaimed enemy of this state. It is also a treasonous act to bring war on America which is arguable in it's definition (only previously used for civil war convictions) but through which a disastrous war under falsified pretenses could under some definitions be considered.

Or did we just catch you throwing around empty rhetoric again?

I think we did, little buddy.

Snorlax.

Snorlax was my most favourites pokemon!

Actually in matters of politics it is irrelevant whether an executive deliberately told lies or merely contrived a situation in which the evidence he relied on could be plausibly presented as being derived from third party sources which were believe to be reliable, but actually turned out not to be.

In this case, Bush's reliance on Blair's "dodgy dossier" as part of the evidence for promotion of war.

The key point is whether people believed him then, and how they feel about that now the true situation has been exposed.

see more Funny Graphs

Kilkrazy wrote:

The key point is whether people believed him then, and how they feel about that now the true situation has been exposed.

Bush has higher poll numbers than Obama...

I think that tells it's own story...

reds8n wrote:
see more Funny Graphs

More astute political commentary has never been penned.

CT GAMER wrote:So yes, your right greed, self-centered grand standing and shot-sighted flag waving is not limited to any one party...

...you preach madness.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The key point is whether people believed him then, and how they feel about that now the true situation has been exposed.

Bush has higher poll numbers than Obama...

He didn't two years ago.

The main reason Obama won was because he wasn't Bush or Republican.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The key point is whether people believed him then, and how they feel about that now the true situation has been exposed.

Bush has higher poll numbers than Obama...

He didn't two years ago.

The main reason Obama won was because he wasn't Bush or Republican.

He does now. In the words of the immortal bard: Miss me yet?

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The key point is whether people believed him then, and how they feel about that now the true situation has been exposed.

Bush has higher poll numbers than Obama...

He didn't two years ago.

The main reason Obama won was because he wasn't Bush or Republican.

He does now. In the words of the immortal bard: Miss me yet?

Bush doesn't have poll numbers now. I think your either trolling (likely) or are confused (also likely).

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The key point is whether people believed him then, and how they feel about that now the true situation has been exposed.

Bush has higher poll numbers than Obama...

He didn't two years ago.

The main reason Obama won was because he wasn't Bush or Republican.

He does now. In the words of the immortal bard: Miss me yet?

Bush doesn't have poll numbers now. I think your either trolling (likely) or are confused (also likely).

There have been polls recently on who you would rather have in the white house. Evidently that hope and change thing isn't working out.

I'll explain the point in easily understandable terms.

Let's suppose there's a tramp who has got a couple of litre cans of sterno.

One of his tramp friends uses half a litre to light a camp stove. His first can of sterno is now half full.

Another of his tramp friends opens the other can and drinks three quarters of it, so it is only a quarter full.

You'll notice that the second can is lower than the first one, although the reason why is completely different.

Just because it is lower doesn't mean it was fine for the first tramp to waste good sterno on cooking, when he could have got a nutritious meal at McDonalds for just a dollar.