History How will history judge President George W. Bush?

[edward]

Indeed, the subsequent cases of Ex parte Merryman (1861) and Ex parte Milligan (1866) were relevant in the ruling of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004).

By the way, I do not watch/listen to any political personalities; I find they partake in sensationalism. In the case of Olbermann, and I am paraphrasing of course, "Fearmongers govern this country, run for the hills!"

I hope you see the irony.

I do see the irony to a degree, but Lincoln was faced with a domestic situation totally unlike anything that we have seen since the civil war.

From you link: The difference between then and now is obvious.

Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps. Once the first prisoner of war camp was liberated they planned to use the liberated soldiers to help fight against the Government of Indiana and free other camps of Confederate soldiers. The plan was leaked and went to court, while in court they were sentenced to hang by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War ended. Milligan also attempted to take over the state governments of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.

I don't watch much television myself. But I do try to watch enough to be aware of what is presented to the general public. In so much as most everything presented to the public about Iraq and WMD was one big fear propaganda machine, I thought it might be a wise idea to see for myself.

I was quite surprised by Olberman's rant. I have never seen him on television. Ironically it was one of the first links that came up when I googled: "worst president ever". perhaps he should be labeled "the anti Rush".

But as I stated in other posts, it is not just about the administration and habeas corpus, it is everything that they have done under their dark shroud of secrecy and their total disregard for the congress.

 

[devil-fire]

No, devilfire made the comment Obviously that's a ludicrous statement considering that the US has troops all over the world. So, how many foreign troops occupy US territories that would be at the same risk?

I'm not sure how the number of non-American troops on American lands has anything to do with the punitive actions imposed by the USA on countries that subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court. one thing i can recall off the top of my head is that the USA said they will withdraw peacekeeping forces from countries that sign, so if the government of Sudan wanted to have some generals brought to trial in the ICC, the USA would no longer be part of any peace keeping in Sudan.

to the best of my knowledge though, zero foreign soldiers are occupying US lands outside maybe some duties to do with embassies.

 

[nishu1988]

is anybody from USA here, i mean an American! i would like to hear from him about this topic that if George Bush so controversial, then why did these people elected him for the second time.....please do reply if anybody here from USA

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

is anybody from USA here, i mean an American! i would like to hear from him about this topic that if George Bush so controversial, then why did these people elected him for the second time.....please do reply if anybody here from USA

Bush was elected because Al Gore and John Kerry where the other options. It's a lose lose either way, but admittedly Al and John are lesser evils.

 

[BobG]

Bush was elected because Al Gore and John Kerry where the other options. It's a lose lose either way, but admittedly Al and John are lesser evils.

Both were mediocre, but they were running against Bush.

In the Bush-Kerry election, the top four issues, in order, were moral values, the economy, terrorism, and Iraq. Bush and Kerry split the four categories. Among those whose top priority was moral values and terrorism, Bush won. Among those whose top priority was the economy and Iraq, Kerry won. The difference is that Bush received 80 and 86 percent among voters that considered moral values and terrorism the top priority. Kerry only received 82 and 74 percent in his two strong categories.

By attributes, 91% who considered religious faith a president's most important trait voted for Bush and 91% who considered intelligence a president's most important trait voted for Kerry. Unfortunately, more people consider religious faith important than intelligence (8% to 7%). That didn't really decide the election, though.

Among the four most important traits, Kerry won 95% of the largest group, "will bring change", but Bush won the next three most important traits: clear stand on issues, strong leader, honest and trustworthy.

The 'flip-flop' nickname and the Swift Boat Ads had a devastating effect on Kerry's image. Bush appeared natural and strong. Kerry appeared fake and weak.

Most white, married males over 30 voted for Bush while most people under 30 voted for Kerry. I think Abby Hoffman said something about that a long time ago, but people quit listening to him somewhere around the time he turned into a white, married male over 30.

http://www.multied.com/elections/2004/2004mainelec/exitpolls/Exit.html

 

[Pythagorean]

With having read only the title, I wondered to myself:

How will history judge the people that voted for Bush two times in a row?

 

[Astronuc]

Daily Show: Bush’s Magical History Tour

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/24/daily-show-bushs-magical-history-tour/

Last night Jon took President Bush to task for the disgusting distortion of history he employed Wednesday to justify his endless war in Iraq. Little does Bush know (not surprising), we keep the tapes from earlier in his presidency where he dismissed outright the Iraq-Vietnam comparison. The shameless propaganda knows no limits.

 

[Werg22]

The only mistake Nixon made was to get caught.

 

[Curious6]

History will judge Bush on the outcome of the Iraq war.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How will history judge the people that voted for Bush two times in a row?

I know that is when many people like me lost all faith in this country.

I will never say the pledge or fly a flag again. If I have a practical way to leave, I will. At this point the only thing that can turn this around for me is the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. If that doesn't happen, then I believe that the US system, and esp the people, have failed. I have talked with or heard many people who feel the same way.

There was a time when I was willling to die for my country. So for me, that's how much damage Bush and his supporters have done, and that's how they will be remembered.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If I have a practical way to leave, I will.

I'll help you pack.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Typical of why this country has failed, clearly a Bush supporter.

Keep up the good work and maybe you will alienate another third of the country [along with most of the rest of the world]. Then you won't be worried about the civil war in Iraq as you'll have one at home.

 

[Gokul43201]

Typical of why this country has failed, clearly a Bush supporter.

Keep up the good work and maybe you will alienate another third of the country [along with most of the rest of the world]. Then you won't be worried about the civil war in Iraq as you'll have one at home.

Is this directed at jimmy?

 

[Loren Booda]

jimmysnyder

I'll help you pack.

Good intentioned but ambiguous wording concerning a passionate subject.

 

[Futobingoro]

Typical of why this country has failed, clearly a Bush supporter.

I hope this isn't "us vs. them" rhetoric. It would be quite ironic.

In spite of all the grim predictions of many of the people in this forum (economy crashes, imminent security breaches, Iraq's plummet into civil war and the creation of a 1984-esque totalitarian state), the United States has not deteriorated into a place not worth living in.

Seriously, it's summer. Go out and have a picnic, hit the beach or go on vacation like almost everyone else. That doesn't mean you have to ignore things you disagree with. All I'm saying is that a lot of the gloomy people in this country are making themselves more gloomy than they need to be. It's one matter to disagree with the current government, but it's something entirely different when you shout from a mountaintop about how depressed you are about the future of the country, and then point out all the people who are now just as depressed as you are.

No matter how narrow the odds, a person who thinks he has a good idea should always be in an optimistic and constructive mindset. It's those who eventually develop defeatistism who are selfishly lying in wait just so they can say, "I told you so." When asked why they don't continue their efforts they usually say, "At this point it isn't worth it anymore." Perhaps those who think the fates of their fellow Americans "aren't worth it" don't deserve to be happy after all.

 

[edward]

Or sit back and watch "The Bush Family Fortunes" as seen on the BBC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8187301869971500776&q=bin+laden+family+bush+family&total=156&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Or watch a much shorter program about How the 04 election was stolen, First boradcast on BBC and Later on PBS.



Or get a quick laugh out of this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1898524803699317196&q=bush+apec+opec&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Typical of why this country has failed, clearly a Bush supporter.

Keep up the good work and maybe you will alienate another third of the country [along with most of the rest of the world]. Then you won't be worried about the civil war in Iraq as you'll have one at home.

According to post #60 you lost all faith in this country not so much because of Bush but rather the people who voted for him. That would be me. So don't tell me I alienate you, you alienate me.

When you say practical, I assume you mean when the money is right. Just so you'll know, I lived in Japan for 9 years on a whim. In my opinion, I have the courage of my whims more than you do of your convictions.

I can't wait for you to tell us which new country you are willing to die for. Perhaps we'll invade it and you'll get your chance. In the meantime chew on this. The people didn't vote for Bush, they voted for Kerry. Bush won in the electoral college. In going you will increase the average intelligence of both our countries.

 

[blazes816]

I am new to politics. I haven't read, or listened to anything political, pretty much ever. So I don't know what Bush has done that was wrong. I've heard a few different things that make no sense to me.

A) Bush is stupid.
- Did he not graduate from both Yale and Harvard? I know a lot of extremely smart people that have a very hard time speaking to people and sound like idiots

B) He declared war without congress
- There hasn't been a declared war since WWII.

C) He lied about weapons of mass destruction
- But I've seen and heard people such as Gore, Kerry, and Clinton say that they too believed there were WMDs in Iraq.

I'm not saying I like him, I'm saying I don't know why not too. I'd love to hear your responses.

 

[Pre-AlgebraDude]

Worst president in U.S. history, known for one of the biggest military blunders, wreck of a foreign policy, and all-around clueless rube from The Lone Star State. And to the one who said Nixon was worse, however crooked he might've been, Nixon was actually quite good at handling foreigners. By the way it will take us years to recover from the huge blow Bush has dealt our economy. You know the national debt is over $8 TRILLION (and very rapidly approaching $9 TRILLION?!)?! That made me SICK when I read that...

 

[edward]

I am new to politics. I haven't read, or listened to anything political, pretty much ever. So I don't know what Bush has done that was wrong.

I'm not saying I like him, I'm saying I don't know why not too. I'd love to hear your responses.

The responses you are asking for have been posted hundreds of times over on this forum. So let's cut to the chase You need better sources of information.

Try starting here, and don't turn around and say that you don't have the time to watch.
If you truly want to know the truth , you will find time.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

There are getting to be more spooks on this forum than at cemetery.

 

[blazes816]

I will say that I don't have time to watch tonight, however tomorrow I will.

 

[Loren Booda]

blazes816

A) Bush is stupid.
- Did he not graduate from both Yale and Harvard? I know a lot of extremely smart people that have a very hard time speaking to people and sound like idiots

Having attended Yale, I can attest that it matriculates its share of the unworthy.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Having attended Yale, I can attest that it matriculates its share of the unworthy.

And graduates them too I suppose. Bush compared himself to William F. Buckley with something like: "We were in school together, he wrote a book, I read one." (not a direct quote)

 

[Gokul43201]

A) Bush is stupid.
- Did he not graduate from both Yale and Harvard?

Even if Yale and Harvard were true meritocracies, that would still only demonstrate that Bush was not stupid 30 years ago. As is common knowledge, they are not.

B) He declared war without congress
- There hasn't been a declared war since WWII.

Yet, the signing statements that he tacked on to the two AUMFs (Authorization of Military Force - Afghanistan and Iraq) claim protections from the War Powers Resolution.

C) He lied about weapons of mass destruction
- But I've seen and heard people such as Gore, Kerry, and Clinton say that they too believed there were WMDs in Iraq.

It is one thing to "believe" Saddam had WMDs, another thing entirely to believe he had reconstituted a WMD program, and a whole different deal to know this with the certainty it takes to launch a military operation that costs half a trillion dollars and results in hundreds of thousands of dead people and millions of displaced refugees.

Gore, Kerry and Clinton didn't cook up stories about aluminum tubes, exports to Niger, chemical weapons trucks, and imminent nuclear destruction in the form of a mushroom cloud!

...all this after the CIA told him that Saddam did not have WMDs.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/04/60_minutes_bush.html

I'm not saying I like him, I'm saying I don't know why not too.

There are dozens of very good reasons, but going into them would be mostly reiterating things that have been said here many times before. In any case, it takes a lot more involvement in the political situation to appreciate many of these reasons.

 

[asd1249jf]

I am new to politics. I haven't read, or listened to anything political, pretty much ever. So I don't know what Bush has done that was wrong. I've heard a few different things that make no sense to me.

A) Bush is stupid.
- Did he not graduate from both Yale and Harvard? I know a lot of extremely smart people that have a very hard time speaking to people and sound like idiots

B) He declared war without congress
- There hasn't been a declared war since WWII.

C) He lied about weapons of mass destruction
- But I've seen and heard people such as Gore, Kerry, and Clinton say that they too believed there were WMDs in Iraq.

I'm not saying I like him, I'm saying I don't know why not too. I'd love to hear your responses.

A) Bush is stupid.
- Did he not graduate from both Yale and Harvard? I know a lot of extremely smart people that have a very hard time speaking to people and sound like idiots

Yes he entered Yale with C- average, around 2.0 GPA. How does someone enter such prestigious school with 2.0? Hmm.. I'll leave it up to your imagination

He declared war without congress
- There hasn't been a declared war since WWII.

Right, but does that still give him the right to go into the war without declaring it? What about the war power resolution?

He lied about weapons of mass destruction
- But I've seen and heard people such as Gore, Kerry, and Clinton say that they too believed there were WMDs in Iraq.

Bush didn't just believe it. He was certain that Iraq had WMDs yet upto this date, they found none and started coming up with excuses like IT'S IN SYRIA.

Just imagine why the world hates Bush.

 

[edward]

The Nexus Of Terrorism And Politics

I was looking for something else and came on this youtube video. Not exactly serendipity but could it be true?

The premise of the newscast is that in many cases where there was a down turn for Bush or his administration there was a corresponding terrorist threat or alert. The video lists ten. It is not a good way to leave a positive legacy.

 

[Astronuc]

How will history judge President George W. Bush?

Failure, and an unmitigated failure at that.

 

[J77]

Puppet?

 

[kach22i]

It will be finally validated that he stole not one, but two national elections and only posed as the president. Illegitimate and rogue his administration answered to no one and brought havoc to everything they touched making their friends very rich in the process.

 

[rewebster]

well, it hasn't been 'spoken' about much, or even written about such--and maybe for good reasons--but I think ' the supporters of the war' ---I mean the ones that are removed by 4 to 5 'degrees of freedom' ---are looking at Iraq more in the way of South Korea rather than Viet Nam 'NOW'. --And the reason they don't is to look at 'how long' it took for South Korea to develop an industrialized, economic, and socially integrated part of the 'world complex'---what?--say, 50 years?---no one, no one wants to think of the 'time' in those scales, but I think that may be one of the 'goals' (now). I haven't seen or heard this analogy, but I think it may be a possibility--I don't think (if this is 'one' possible reason (in the deep recesses of long term world stability) why we are there) its 'not' a impossibility---but bush may have 'unconsciously' initiated it ("he (Saddam) tried to kill my dad!")

 

[IMP]

Worst pres ever. We lost more freedom under his administration than all the presidents before him combined.
Vote Ron Paul.

 

[wildman]

Johnson was the worst. His foreign policy was far worse than Bush’s. Vietnam killed about 50,000 Americans and 3 million Viets. Bush will have to go a long way before equaling that number.

Johnson’s domestic policy looked good at the time but it really was a disaster also. The inflation under Nixon, Ford, Carter and the first term of Reagan was really caused by the wild out of control spending by Johnson.

Carter is not given the credit he deserves. He is well respected in Latin America and in the Middle East for what he did as a President. He was (and still is) very good at negotiating (Camp David has held until today). Really Iran was his only failure and that really wasn’t his doing. Domestically, he had the nerve to do what had to be done to end inflation. Reagan took the credit for that but really was largely Carter’s doing.

Bush is a lot like Johnson. Not as bad, but in the same league. The World economy is going to suffer the next few years for what Bush has done.

 

[Astronuc]

Bush Asks for $46 Billion More for Wars

(AP, Oct 22) - President Bush asked Congress on Monday for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and finance other national security needs. "We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done," Bush said.

The figure brings to $196.4 billion the total requested by the administration for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for the budget year that started Oct. 1. It includes $189.3 billion for the Defense Department, $6.9 billion for the State Department and $200 million for other agencies.

To date, Congress has already provided more than $455 billion for the Iraq war, with stepped-up military operations running about $10 billion a month. The war has claimed the lives of more than 3,830 members of the U.S. military and more than 73,000 Iraqi civilians.

Well - $1 billion for GW and $1 billion for Dick, . . . .

 

[rewebster]

Bush is planning on getting rid of his secret service. He said as long as Blackwater has 'immunity' , he may be able to get some of his own bills passed in Congress again.

 

[mormonator_rm]

I will not say where my personal stance falls on this, but I will say this:

If even half (or less) of the negative things said about George W. Bush were, or are, in fact, true, then the following steps should be taken, as they ought to be the duty of the government's checks and balances, in theory;

1) George W. Bush should be independently investigated, impeached, and convicted of crimes against this nation and against humanity, and subsequently removed from office.

2) George W. Bush should have any rights or "immunity" revoked, and should be further turned over to an international tribunal... and I don't care how "embarrassing" that would be to America; if you believe in honesty and truth, and these things said of him were, or are, indeed true, then "embarrassment" is the least of our worries... where he would be further convicted of war crimes and other depravity against humanity and the world.

3) George W. Bush should either; a) be summarily executed in accordance with any national or international law that may be brought to bear in his case, or b) spend the rest of his natural life in prison, preferably in solitary confinement.

The abuse of power is something that must be avoided (and punished, if it comes to that point) at all costs. If the Democrats and Republicans, or the people of America or any people who may claim to be genuinely oppressed by George W. Bush's decisions, would take real corrective action to remove George W. Bush from power and hold him accountable for the alleged abuses of power, then I would be more inclined to listen to their arguements. Instead, everyone just talks about how he loves "sending our troops to have their heads blown off", when they could be bringing real investigations and a real impeachment hearing to the attention of the public. I worry that this could just be a PR game to try to make the Bush Administration "irrelevant", rather than fighting the alleged "evil" of Bush directly, the way it should be done if he has actually committed a criminal abuse of power. And abuse of power is a criminal act. If you are going to tell me that we should be playing PR games because "Bush must go, but we will not hold him accountable for anything; we just want him out of power", then you are not being honest with me, with yourself, or with the world community at large. Until somebody actually does something to remove him from office, whether by the rule of law or by an act of force, I will have no choice but to refrain from finding true merit in these allegations. Although many of the theories and allegations may be plausible, I have not yet seen a backed effort to act on those allegations in the proper channels.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The problem is not that Bush is innocent. The problem is that the system has failed and we have lowered the bar as far as it will go.

 

[Astronuc]

A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency (Hardcover)
by Glenn Greenwald (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307354199/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Well he got the part right about Bush's evil mentality.

Bush's rise and fall are most evident in the 2002 election, which brought him control of both houses of Congress, and the 2006 election, which reversed that triumph. The president's chosen Manichean worldview and his rigid refusal to consider other viewpoints have resulted in a disastrous administration and damage the nation will be living with for generations, according to Greenwald (How Would a Patriot Act? 2006). Greenwald begins by documenting Bush's political collapse and then explores the core beliefs that have driven Bush's decision making, as well as the broader philosophical and political dangers of such strong convictions. He details how the president's absolutist moralistic worldview, the simple identification of good and evil, overshadowed decisions that required more nuanced views in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Advisors with other points of view were ignored as Bush's strong ends-justify-the-means approach resulted in such decidedly un-American practices as indefinite detentions, use of torture, and preemptive war. This is a compelling examination of how moral beliefs can drive political decisions, with disastrous consequences.

not to mention kidnapping.


It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush (Hardcover)
by Joe Conason (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0312356056/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Key Phrases: unitary presidency, religious rightists, torture memo, . . .

From Publishers Weekly

Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel It Can't Happen Here envisaged a right-wing populist president, advised by a cunning political strategist and backed by a cynical alliance of religious fundamentalists and corporations, who uses security threats to consolidate dictatorial powers, destroy civil liberties and establish folksy fascism. This is a virtual blueprint for the current Bush administration, a "corrupt and authoritarian ruling clique" that accords the president "the prerogatives of a king," argues political columnist Conason (Big Lies) in this lively, if overwrought, j'accuse.

He surveys a long list of what he sees as Bush administration affronts to freedom and democracy: military tribunals, torture, warrantless wiretapping, politically motivated terrorism alerts, a war based on fraudulent pretexts, the Abramoff scandals, the handover of policy making to business interests and Christian zealots, tight secrecy coupled with a dissemination of propaganda through the right-wing media and a lawless contempt for constitutional constraints on the presidency. . . . (Mar. 1)

The all volunteer army was supposed to save money. At over $150 billion/yr now, that doesn't seem like saving money.

And then there is the matter of hiring an army of mercenaries. Where does one put 10's of thousands of mercenaries after the war. Or is the plan to continue war indefinitely?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The title should be changed to "It Did Happen Here".

 

[mormonator_rm]

The problem is not that Bush is innocent. The problem is that the system has failed and we have lowered the bar as far as it will go.

The first line is debateable, the second is absolutely true.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The all volunteer army was supposed to save money.

I thought it was a reaction to the unfair way conscription was carried out during the Vietnam war.