News Is george w bush the worst president ever?

[vanesch]

Ok, I read through those, and even though I understand there are subtleties of diplomatic meetings, I still maintain that such language falls far short of condemnation.

So what would such a condemnation have brought us ? The damage was done. The only thing such a condemnation would have effected, would have been a still more internationally isolated position by the "coalition of the willing", making the all too obvious difficult cleanup afterwards even more difficult. And fairly, I don't think many countries were willing to suffer even more bad relations with the US, which has, no matter how, often a strong influence on the local economy. If you see that just because of stating publicly their opposition, Condy had said that "they would punish France, ignore Germany, and pardon Russia", you see how hard-headed the US administration (and, let's face it, the American public in general) was at that point. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4231895.stm)
Also, a condemnation from the UN would have made it more difficult for the UN to play any role in an eventual reconstruction afterwards, and the UN would have ridiculed itself a bit more if - as was very likely - the belligerents would have put that condemnation next to them.
There was not much to win with a condemnation of the invasion after the fact.

Also, nobody knew the outcome (although many feared what has actually happened) with certainty. Imagine that the conflict were short, imagine that Iraqi children were waving US flags upon "liberation", and imagine that WMD were finally found. Very unlikely, but not totally impossible - after all, it might have been that the US REALLY had some intelligence information it didn't want to share and knew more than all the rest of the world (as the US administration claimed). In that case, such a condemnation would have been the terminal shot for the UN, and the diplomatic (and economic) end of the silly countries that would have put it forward.

 

[seycyrus]

Also, nobody knew the outcome (although many feared what has actually happened) with certainty. Imagine that the conflict were short, imagine that Iraqi children were waving US flags upon "liberation", and imagine that WMD were finally found...

Aha!

They didn't know the outcome, that sums it up.

I'm not going to reread this entire thread, but I believe my major contention was along those lines.

 

[BobG]

If starting a unnecessary war for personal reasons is not a black stain then what is? Bush must be the first president to use US forces to resolve a personal vendetta. IMHO This makes him, as Ivan said a war criminal.

Oh man, what was the UN and the rest of the world doing when all this was going on?

Where were those purveyors of liberty (Russia, China, France and Germany) at the time? They must have been forcibly removed from their seats in the UN.

For their was not a single resolution offered that condemned the US action.

Aha!

They didn't know the outcome, that sums it up.

I'm not going to reread this entire thread, but I believe my major contention was along those lines.

Your contention is that Bush isn't a war criminal? (Not being sarcastic; it was just such a long round about route.)

I guess that's a reasonable contention to make since both Ivan and Interval accused him of being one. It just seemed a strange defense for the question, "Is George Bush the worst President ever?" so long after Ivan and Interval's accusations had been forgotten (by me at least).

 

[russ_watters]

Old thread, recently resurrected (not by seycyrus) and seycyrus wasn't around for that.

In any case, if Bush being a war criminal would be an argument for calling him the worst President ever, showing that he isn't nullifies that argument. Of course, that isn't to say a similar, but more reasonable argument couldn't be made. Ie, whether it was strictly illegal or not, Bush certainly flouted the intent/authority of the UN. Of course, the single good foreign policy act I give Clinton credit for was also flouting the intent/authority of the UN. So just going against the wishes of the UN doesn't automatically make an act wrong.

What are we to do with a head of state who is responsible for the deaths of many innocent people, who has never been elected to office by a majority of citizens, and who rules by force and deceit? Will the war crimes tribunal at the Hague bring him to justice?

It's unlikely, because the man is President Clinton.

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0699c.asp

See, it's fun to accuse American Presidents of war crimes! Happens all the time...means very little.

Oh, and don't forget Bush's War Powers Resolution violation:

It's too bad the Republicans wasted impeachment on perjury over Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Clinton's conduct in the Yugoslavia war and its aftermath make his Lewinsky conduct look like Boy Scout stuff. That the U.S. government is unbounded by law has been most recently demonstrated by a federal court's dismissal of a suit by a U.S. congressman charging that Mr. Clinton has flouted the War Powers Resolution. Under that law, a war that has not been declared by Congress must end after 60 days. A court dismissed the suit, arguing that Congress appropriated money for the war. The law says nothing about appropriations. Another shovel of dirt has been tossed on the rule of law.

 

[vanesch]

Aha!

They didn't know the outcome, that sums it up.

They didn't know the outcome with certainty. As I said, the US administration had been telling people all the time that they had indisputable intelligence. At the UN meeting they were going to show it (the aluminum tubes and the picture of a truck) which was clearly not "indisputable intelligence". So maybe they held it back. Maybe they did have something they didn't want to share. That left some doubt about the WMD part. The doubt came from the attitude of the US administration: they must know something others didn't. They for sure were not going to take the risk to invade and not find them! (visibly they did...) About the popular reaction to the invasion, it was highly improbable, but in the case the act was swift with few casualties, and depending on the handling of the diplomacy behind it, it was not totally unthinkable that getting rid of Saddam would have been appreciated by at least the Chiites and the Kurds.

So although fairly improbable that this was going to happen, it was not excluded. And I think nobody wanted to take the risk (even a small one) to attack the US in the UN because of the tragic effect it would have had if ever this small possibility showed up. It wasn't worth it. There was nothing to win and there was a small risk of a big blunder.

 

[Poop-Loops]

See, it's fun to accuse American Presidents of war crimes! Happens all the time...means very little.

Yes, because people are complacent. If being a crappy president actually held any repercussions, things would be different. I wouldn't mind seeing a few heads roll.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

See, it's fun to accuse American Presidents of war crimes! Happens all the time...means very little.

The difference is that between 30 and 50% of the country want Bush impeached.
http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

In fact one the biggest complaints against the Democrats by Democrats was that they didn't prosecute Bush and Cheney.

What is sad is how supporters of a war criminal can rationalize any crime.

 

[russ_watters]

The difference is that between 30 and 50% of the country want Bush impeached.
http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

And yet, the Democratic congress doesn't do it. Odd.

In fact one the biggest complaints against the Democrats by Democrats was that they didn't prosecute Bush and Cheney.

I think that just means that a lot of Democrats are pretty extreme. It's supposed to be the other way around: the politicians kowtow to the extremists who generate the most passion and money, but the majority is supposed bo be more reasonable/moderate.

What is sad is how supporters of a war criminal can rationalize any crime.

I guess, but I still liked what Clinton did for Kosovo, even if you think I'm rationalizing it.

 

[Gokul43201]

I guess, but I still liked what Clinton did for Kosovo, even if you think I'm rationalizing it.

I didn't know that Clinton politicized the intelligence agencies and sold the Kosovo effort to the people with massaged intel and bogus estimates. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some of that. It's always a hard sell to make a case for war...especially one that doesn't prevent the imminent mushroom cloud from appearing on US soil.

 

[rewebster]

Alternate title for thread:

The Selling off of America and America's health by the Republican party, Bush, and, to some extent, Congress to the highest campaign contributer.

example: BPA (Bisphenol A) there's was a good segment on Moyer's Journal that just ended

 

[Poop-Loops]

And yet, the Democratic congress doesn't do it. Odd. I think that just means that a lot of Democrats are pretty extreme.

Holding someone accountable to lying a country into war, eroding the laws on which it was founded, politicizing branches of government that are supposed to stay neutral and otherwise ruining the country?

Yeah, frickin' extreme right there.

 

[BobG]

Old thread, recently resurrected (not by seycyrus) and seycyrus wasn't around for that.

In any case, if Bush being a war criminal would be an argument for calling him the worst President ever, showing that he isn't nullifies that argument. Of course, that isn't to say a similar, but more reasonable argument couldn't be made. Ie, whether it was strictly illegal or not, Bush certainly flouted the intent/authority of the UN. Of course, the single good foreign policy act I give Clinton credit for was also flouting the intent/authority of the UN. So just going against the wishes of the UN doesn't automatically make an act wrong. http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0699c.asp

I agree with the spirit at least (actually, I never saw what the US had to gain by getting involved in Bosnia/Kosovo at all).

If Iraq had WMDs, there was nothing wrong with the US invading, regardless of how the UN felt about it. It's the bungling of the UN issue that's bad, not the invasion, and bungling things in the UN is not a war crime.

Technically, at least a few members of the government could be liable for war crimes for violating the Geneva Convention and laws of armed conflict, though. One problem with using military comissions to resolve cases involving Guantanamo detainees is that the military isn't exempt from the laws of armed conflict. The military might never resolve a single case. The military judges and military prosecutors keep resisting against breaking some long standing rules of military justice.

Aside from the spin, which may or may not be true (although the reluctance of the military does lend some credence to the spin):

The Supreme Court, then, is hardly the only thing standing between the president and kangaroo convictions at Guantanamo. The truth is that the best thing the commissions have going for them right now are the lawyers and judges in uniform who have, albeit reluctantly, refused to play along. If they'd been out on the battlefield, they'd have killed any detainee they met as an enemy. But they're not willing to see them killed in the wake of a sham trial. That's not because they value the lives of terrorists over the lives of Americans or because they value legal formalism over the exigencies of war. It's because they come out of a long military tradition of legal integrity and independence.

You had some interrogation methods that were certainly beyond anything the military could use and you have detainees that the military can't try and still stay within their own rules. That isn't a positive sign for the overall legality of how the detainee issue has been handled.

 

[rewebster]

The dems still don't hold enough votes to override Bush's vetos (I haven't looked it up but, I think Bush only vetoed one bill before the Dems got in).

The big bad thing about impeaching Bush would be--Who would end up being Pres IF he was impeached? Who's to say we don't have the lesser of two evils as it is, right now?

Poops-loop---don't leave the country just yet---Whoever wins, it (I hope) can't be as corrupt as it has been for the last seven years.

You can tell if a repub is 'a little more honest' than the 'other' repubs if he talks about how many rats have left the stinking ship over the last five years.