azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Heh... we can do this all day long with EVERY.SINGLE.PRESIDENT in modern times...

This is the second dumbest thing you've said in this thread; because it's not only untrue to the degree it applies here, but it's also an abhorred logical fallacy to excuse bad actions by saying there are other bad actions: in effect, you are saying everyone involved in a gang rape isn't so bad because everyone involved was a gang rapist.

whembly wrote:Nah... history will be favorable for Bush.

And this is the dumbest thing you've said in this thread. If Bush Jr. gets away with only being regarded as Nixon 2.0, he'll be lucky.

I'm not a fan of Obama or Clinton, but their good-to-bad ratio was at least nowhere near the borderline evil-for-evil's-sake levels that the Bush Jr administration approached. Now, I naturally assume you've got nothing to justify your claim other than your standard "rah-rah-go-red-team" ideology, but I'd be honestly interested in hearing you reasoning for thinking that history will be favourable to Bush. However...

Under Bush, federal agencies eliminated regulations on predatory lending, capital requirements, and other Wall Street practices, allowing banks to engage in riskier and more destructive practices that contributed to the financial crisis that started on his watch. Bush’s Treasury Department also pushed for even further deregulation that would have given Wall Street more oversight over its own practices even after the housing collapse had begun.

This snippet is pretty disingenuous. While this is all true, the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act (I bet I spelled at least one of those wrong, but eh) during the Clinton administration is what really set the groundwork, as I believe it was what eliminated most of the oversight necessary to keep the banking institutions in line.

Frazzled wrote:I'd rather have a beer with Bush than a lecture from Obama.

Me too (well, except for the part where I don't actually drink beer). But then, I've worked with a lot of people that were great to hang out with, but whose gross incompetence would've resulted in them being dropped through a trapdoor into an incinerator like a Bond villain's lackey, if there was any way to get away with that sort of thing (Canada doesn't have right-to-work laws). I guess my runaround point is that this is one of the most terrible reasons to vote for someone that I can think of; but such is the problem of democracy's paradox.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I voted for Kinky Friedman. Some ask why? I say Why the Hell not!

With a name like that why would you not vote for them

 Frazzled wrote:
I was a cigarillo guy for a very short period of time, but it was just too meh.

 Hulksmash wrote:
considering how few Americans seem to act like adults when it comes to politics

 Da Boss wrote:
The Iraq war is the best reason to dislike bush and the bush presidency. The bush administration seems to have lied about the WMDs in Iraq, and that's a pretty damn serious thing.

That war is what history SHOULD remember.

The war in Afghanistan is slightly more understandable, even if I didn't agree with it at the time.

 Grey Templar wrote:
unlike Nam where we listened to the whiny hippies and pulled out in disgrace when we could have won.

 djones520 wrote:
Lied? The evidence was largely corraberated by British and German Intelligence.

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Heh... we can do this all day long with EVERY.SINGLE.PRESIDENT in modern times...

This is the second dumbest thing you've said in this thread; because it's not only untrue to the degree it applies here, but it's also an abhorred logical fallacy to excuse bad actions by saying there are other bad actions: in effect, you are saying everyone involved in a gang rape isn't so bad because everyone involved was a gang rapist.

Gang rape?

You win the fething dumbest award Azazel...

whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Nah... history will be favorable for Bush.

And this is the dumbest thing you've said in this thread. If Bush Jr. gets away with only being regarded as Nixon 2.0, he'll be lucky.

I'm not a fan of Obama or Clinton, but their good-to-bad ratio was at least nowhere near the borderline evil-for-evil's-sake levels that the Bush Jr administration approached. Now, I naturally assume you've got nothing to justify your claim other than your standard "rah-rah-go-red-team" ideology, but I'd be honestly interested in hearing you reasoning for thinking that history will be favourable to Bush. However...

Under Bush, federal agencies eliminated regulations on predatory lending, capital requirements, and other Wall Street practices, allowing banks to engage in riskier and more destructive practices that contributed to the financial crisis that started on his watch. Bush’s Treasury Department also pushed for even further deregulation that would have given Wall Street more oversight over its own practices even after the housing collapse had begun.

This snippet is pretty disingenuous. While this is all true, the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act (I bet I spelled at least one of those wrong, but eh) during the Clinton administration is what really set the groundwork, as I believe it was what eliminated most of the oversight necessary to keep the banking institutions in line.

I can think that one of the best fething thing you can say about Bush is that Iraq now has free elections.

Nate Silver of all people has a post on this:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/presidents-are-viewed-more-fondly-in-the-rear-view-mirror/

whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd rather have a beer with Bush than a lecture from Obama.

Me too (well, except for the part where I don't actually drink beer). But then, I've worked with a lot of people that were great to hang out with, but whose gross incompetence would've resulted in them being dropped through a trapdoor into an incinerator like a Bond villain's lackey, if there was any way to get away with that sort of thing (Canada doesn't have right-to-work laws). I guess my runaround point is that this is one of the most terrible reasons to vote for someone that I can think of; but such is the problem of democracy's paradox.

Yep... but that doesn't mean it doesn't make it true... Obama had horrible presidency policywise.. but, that gets overlooked mainly because of his charisma and brilliant political tactics.

You know what Azazel... your response really supports the meme that Leftist really hate it when conservatives talk back. Good job brah!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
unlike Nam where we listened to the whiny hippies and pulled out in disgrace when we could have won.

Say what?

 djones520 wrote:
Lied? The evidence was largely corraberated by British and German Intelligence.

The evidence was not substantial and our government did the exact same thing saying that Iraq "definitely" had WMD's when what little information saying they did was patchy and not confirmed by any other sources. Indeed, going so far as to change intelligence reports before releasing them to the press.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21786506

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes, only in Texas
http://www.google.ca/imgres?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=823&tbm=isch&tbnid=TBKtug4ZgsdsdM:&imgrefurl=http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2010/06/13/matt-labash-on-fringe-politics/book-reviews/&docid=cvWOMK6hxgmVbM&imgurl=http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/thepublicsquare/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Kinky-sticker.jpg&w=1024&h=768&ei=02p5Uf3rHOSx2QWkuoDgBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=2&vpy=265&dur=109&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=144&ty=110&page=2&tbnh=144&tbnw=228&start=33&ndsp=38&ved=1t:429,r:52,s:0,i:245

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Heh... we can do this all day long with EVERY.SINGLE.PRESIDENT in modern times...

This is the second dumbest thing you've said in this thread; because it's not only untrue to the degree it applies here, but it's also an abhorred logical fallacy to excuse bad actions by saying there are other bad actions: in effect, you are saying everyone involved in a gang rape isn't so bad because everyone involved was a gang rapist.

Gang rape?

You win the fething dumbest award Azazel...

Yes. Gang rape. The analogy is hyperbolic, but apt.

Go on. Tell me that you're not trying to downplay the horrible things the Bush administration was responsible for by saying it's okay because other administrations have also done bad things. The Bush administration is responsible for WAR CRIMES. Not even shades-of-grey ones, either. TORTURE. And you're honestly going to sit there, shrug your shoulders, and say that every administration has made some mistakes, so this one doesn't stand out?

whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Nah... history will be favorable for Bush.

And this is the dumbest thing you've said in this thread. If Bush Jr. gets away with only being regarded as Nixon 2.0, he'll be lucky.

I'm not a fan of Obama or Clinton, but their good-to-bad ratio was at least nowhere near the borderline evil-for-evil's-sake levels that the Bush Jr administration approached. Now, I naturally assume you've got nothing to justify your claim other than your standard "rah-rah-go-red-team" ideology, but I'd be honestly interested in hearing you reasoning for thinking that history will be favourable to Bush. However...

Under Bush, federal agencies eliminated regulations on predatory lending, capital requirements, and other Wall Street practices, allowing banks to engage in riskier and more destructive practices that contributed to the financial crisis that started on his watch. Bush’s Treasury Department also pushed for even further deregulation that would have given Wall Street more oversight over its own practices even after the housing collapse had begun.

This snippet is pretty disingenuous. While this is all true, the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act (I bet I spelled at least one of those wrong, but eh) during the Clinton administration is what really set the groundwork, as I believe it was what eliminated most of the oversight necessary to keep the banking institutions in line.

I can think that one of the best fething thing you can say about Bush is that Iraq now has free elections.

Nate Silver of all people has a post on this:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/presidents-are-viewed-more-fondly-in-the-rear-view-mirror/

Did you even read the article you linked? Or was that just a futile appeal to authority? Silver says that it's not news that Bush's approval rating has risen slightly; it would be news if it hadn't. As in, the historical trend is that it always increases, coupled with the fact that Bush left office with the lowest approval rating ever, his approval rating really had nowhere to go except upward. However, that does not imply, at all, that it will ever go north of 50%. Bush will end up like Nixon: a boogieman of US political folklore.

whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd rather have a beer with Bush than a lecture from Obama.

Me too (well, except for the part where I don't actually drink beer). But then, I've worked with a lot of people that were great to hang out with, but whose gross incompetence would've resulted in them being dropped through a trapdoor into an incinerator like a Bond villain's lackey, if there was any way to get away with that sort of thing (Canada doesn't have right-to-work laws). I guess my runaround point is that this is one of the most terrible reasons to vote for someone that I can think of; but such is the problem of democracy's paradox.

Yep... but that doesn't mean it doesn't make it true... Obama had horrible presidency policywise.. but, that gets overlooked mainly because of his charisma and brilliant political tactics.

You know what Azazel... your response really supports the meme that Leftist really hate it when conservatives talk back. Good job brah!

1. I'm unclear as to what you're talking about. "but that doesn't mean it doesn't make it true" is not only a double-negative, but lacks a proper noun. I have no idea to what you refer.

2. I fail to grasp the connection you're making to Obama's bad policies. My saying that Bush was incompetent is not the same as saying that Obama is supremely competent. Do you honestly view the world as being entirely binary?

3. I hate it when people say stupid things without thinking. Political affiliation appears to be strongly correlated to this event, but I'm unwilling to declare it as being causal.

 whembly wrote:
We didn't militarily lose 'Nam... just politically.

Oh goodie, I can do the linky game too!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-03/now-we-know-bush-did-not-lie-about-wmd-in-iraq.html

whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:3. I hate it when people say stupid things without thinking. Political affiliation appears to be strongly correlated to this event, but I'm unwilling to declare it as being causal.

Um... okay? o.O

So, I'm not allowed to have a dissenting opinion?

 whembly wrote:
What torture? Abu Ghraib? Or the enhance interrogation?

I just want to be clear here.

If you think he committed war crimes... the Hague would like to hear from you.

Though the US Code bans torture, Bush personally issued a memorandum six days after the September 11th attacks instructing the CIA that it could use “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists. The methods included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and “stress positions.” A recently-released bipartisan committee concluded it was “indisputable” that these techniques constituted torture, and that the highest authorities in the country bore responsibility for the creation of a torture programs at Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black sites” around the world.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
We didn't militarily lose 'Nam... just politically.

Riiiight... because the war was going well, you had control of the majority of the country and the support of the population.

Oh goodie, I can do the linky game too!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-03/now-we-know-bush-did-not-lie-about-wmd-in-iraq.html

Sure, but you link to an opinion piece, rather than an actual news article grounded in well documented and supported facts.

Looks like you just lost the game

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:3. I hate it when people say stupid things without thinking. Political affiliation appears to be strongly correlated to this event, but I'm unwilling to declare it as being causal.

Um... okay? o.O

So, I'm not allowed to have a dissenting opinion?

Of course you are. I encourage well thought-out dissenting opinions. Please note the qualifier, then see if it applies to your question:

 whembly wrote:
What torture? Abu Ghraib? Or the enhance interrogation?

I just want to be clear here.

If you think he committed war crimes... the Hague would like to hear from you.

Now, before you consider whether or not your question was well thought-out, I'll answer the question with a quote from the OP. Y'know, the reason this thread it even here:

Though the US Code bans torture, Bush personally issued a memorandum six days after the September 11th attacks instructing the CIA that it could use “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists. The methods included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and “stress positions.” A recently-released bipartisan committee concluded it was “indisputable” that these techniques constituted torture, and that the highest authorities in the country bore responsibility for the creation of a torture programs at Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black sites” around the world.

I'll even include the link to the report, and a link to a decent summary article about the report (it's quite long). And please note the last line of the article, which is in no way should mitigate the event itself (see my earlier gang rape analogy).

whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:I'll even include the link to the report, and a link to a decent summary article about the report (it's quite long). And please note the last line of the article, which is in no way should mitigate the event itself (see my earlier gang rape analogy).

Great job in finding a Think Tank brah!

Now... we should be hearing an indictment from the Hague anytime soon. Amirite?

EDIT: I saw this right off the bat:
Read the "Findings and Recommendations"
I've could've pulled any of those statements from NPR or sites like MotherJones.

Who are these people?

 kronk wrote:
So....

Was this thread a post and go from BS?

 azazel the cat wrote:

If you had bothered to read anything, you would find that your question is answered clearly in both links.

 whembly wrote:
And where's YOUR news? The link you posted supported that it was an intelligence failure... not an active attempt to LIE. By the holy emprah, why do people cling to that... there are MUCH easier things to bash bush... o.O

A direct quote from the article I linked to wrote:Designed for public consumption, it had a personal foreword by Mr Blair, who assured readers Saddam Hussein had continued to produce WMD "beyond doubt".

But, while it was never mentioned in the dossier, there was doubt. The original intelligence from MI6 and other agencies, on which the dossier was based, was clearly qualified.

The intelligence was, as the Joint Intelligence Committee noted in its original assessments, "sporadic and patchy" and "remains limited".

The exclusion of these qualifications gave the dossier a certainty that was never warranted.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:I'll even include the link to the report, and a link to a decent summary article about the report (it's quite long). And please note the last line of the article, which is in no way should mitigate the event itself (see my earlier gang rape analogy).

Great job in finding a Think Tank brah!

Now... we should be hearing an indictment from the Hague anytime soon. Amirite?

EDIT: I saw this right off the bat:
Read the "Findings and Recommendations"
I've could've pulled any of those statements from NPR or sites like MotherJones.

Who are these people?

If you had bothered to read anything, you would find that your question is answered clearly in both links.

How not to rehabilitate a failed president
By Steve Benen
-
Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:00 AM EDT
309

Associated Press

A confluence of events appears to have created a curious new talking point on the right. With former President George W. Bush's library set to open, and last week's Boston Marathon bombing still very much on the public's mind, Republican pundits see value in trying to tie the two together in the hopes of improving Bush's reputation.

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, for example, published this gem yesterday:

"Unlike Obama's tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11."

A few hours later on Fox News, Eric Bolling echoed the sentiment.

"I will tell one thing, from you 9/12/01 until the time President Obama raised his right hand January of '09, the man kept us safe. And there -- you certainly can't say that since President Obama has taken the oath of office."

When it comes to Bolling, I should note that this is an improvement from his previous stance. Two years ago, he suggested on the air that he didn't recall 9/11 at all: "America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008. I don't remember any terrorist attacks on American soil during that period of time."

I should also note that neither Rubin nor Bolling seemed to be kidding. Their comments weren't satirical or jokes intended to make Republicans appear silly.

As for the substance, there are three main angles to keep in mind. The first is the bizarre assertion that President Obama somehow deserves the blame for the bomb that killed three people in Boston last week, because he didn't "keep up safe." The argument reflects a child-like understanding of national security and is absurd on its face.

Second, though the right likes to pretend otherwise, there were terrorist attacks during Bush/Cheney's tenure -- after 9/11 -- that shouldn't be ignored. Indeed, it's a little tiresome to hear Republicans argue in effect, "Other than the deadly anthrax attacks, the attack against El Al ticket counter at LAX, the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's inability to capture those responsible for 9/11, waging an unnecessary war that inspired more terrorists, and the success terrorists had in exploiting Bush's international unpopularity, the former president's record on counter-terrorism was awesome."

And finally, I'm not sure Republican pundits have fully thought through the wisdom of the "other than 9/11" argument.

Bush received an intelligence briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, at which he was handed a memo with an important headline: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

Bush, however, was on a month-long vacation at the time. He heard the briefer out and replied, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." A month later, al Qaeda killed 3,000 people.

For Rubin and Bolling, the response is, in effect, "Yeah, but other than that, he kept us safe." The problem, of course, is that's roughly the equivalent of saying other than that iceberg, the Titanic had a pleasant voyage. Other than that one time, Pompeii didn't have to worry about the nearby volcano. Other than Booth, Lincoln enjoyed his evening at Ford's Theater.

It is, in other words, a little more difficult to airbrush catastrophic events from history.

I can appreciate the zeal with which Republican pundits want to rehabilitate Bush's poor standing, but they'll have to do better than this.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sometimes one looks right into the face of Hell and just stares for the giggles.