Is george w bush the worst president ever?

[russ_watters]

mathwonk, any historian worthy of listening to will tell you that you can't get an unbiased accounting of the place in history of events that are less than about 10 or 20 years old (much less not finished!). The link Greg provided on the first page quite correctly leaves Bush off the list (regardless of if they think he deserved to be on it) because "It's too soon to judge the current one..."

Your statements there about his place in history being locked-up and decided (besides just the rank itself) are nowhere close to reality.

All that said, here, apparently, is the current opinion of historians who wish to share their opinion*: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/worstpresidents/index.htm

*That is, of course, a pretty critical flaw in the survey, especially given the subject matter. People who go out of their way to fill out such a survey tend to be passionate about it, so it is no surprise what kind of people this one attracted.

There are at least two obvious criticisms of such a survey. It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nation’s most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners.

The second criticism that is often raised of historians making such assessments of a current president is that it is far too early. We do not yet know how the things that Mr. Bush has done will work out in the future.

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

Regardless, we should revisit this thread again in 2 years and see where he is then.

 

[mheslep]

More specifically there's no link provided anywhere in this thread that even suggests any kind of historian survey.

 

[mathwonk]

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804

there are lots of them out there. several full articles by historians from columbia and princeton, and surveys of hundreds of others. it really seems pretty well agreed upon, which admittedly is unusual for a current president.

but the parallels between his behavior and that of the worst in history seem very strong, after reading some of the articles.

 

[mathwonk]

russ, you are quite correct that no one can say today what history will pronounce in future. all that is evident is that todays view by historians is very negative. it happens also to coincide with my own view, and for many of the same reasons.

It is perhaps a little like asking robert parker to predict from a barrel sample, what a wine will taste like in 25 years. and i am one who doubts his ability to do this year in and year out. but there may be vintages whose value or lack of is so clear from the beginning that his accuracy goes up.

i myself would bet money on this one.

 

[turbo]

Due to his treatment of my distant ancestors, I might have picked Andrew Jackson as the worst president until several years ago, when Bush lied about 9/11 Iraq ties, Iraq-al Qaeda ties, WMDs, yellow-cake deals with Niger, aluminum centrifuge tubes, and mobile bio-labs in order to start a war that essentially wrested French and Russian influence from the Iraq oil industry in order to pass it to his friends. He is a puke.

 

[vanesch]

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.

This is impossible. The US is one of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, of whose single veto vote is sufficient to scrap a resolution. So in order for the UN to condemn a US action, the US would have to have not vetoed it.

In fact, the UN can never do anything serious against the interest of one of these 5 members (USA, Russia, China, France, UK). Even if the 14 other members of the security council would propose any condemnation of one of these, their single veto would suffice to render it null.

 

[mheslep]

This is impossible. The US is one of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, of whose single veto vote is sufficient to scrap a resolution. So in order for the UN to condemn a US action, the US would have to have not vetoed it.

In fact, the UN can never do anything serious against the interest of one of these 5 members (USA, Russia, China, France, UK). Even if the 14 other members of the security council would propose any condemnation of one of these, their single veto would suffice to render it null.

It is not impossible to offer resolutions, several such were offered against the former Soviet Union or its client states during the cold war and vetoed by the SU. In any case the vote on Iraq in the UN Security Council on 1441 was unanimous, including temporary members: Mexico, Ireland, Bulgaria, Syria, Norway, Singapore, Colombia, Cameroon, Guinea and Mauritius.

 

[BobG]

It is not impossible to offer resolutions, several such were offered against the former Soviet Union or its client states during the cold war and vetoed by the SU. In any case the vote on Iraq in the UN Security Council on 1441 was unanimous, including temporary members: Mexico, Ireland, Bulgaria, Syria, Norway, Singapore, Colombia, Cameroon, Guinea and Mauritius.

And? http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

I take it paragraph 4 applies:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted
by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,
and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a
further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for
assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

And paragraph 11 applies:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament
obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

Which results in paragraph 12 applying:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security;

Which is why Negroponte stressed to council members that the language of the resolution contains no "hidden triggers" or "automaticity" that would allow the United States to use force against Baghdad if it fails to cooperate with the weapons inspectors. The matter will return to the council for discussions.

And, why the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock publicly confirmed this reading of the resolution, assuring that Resolution 1441 provided no "automaticity" or "hidden triggers" for an invasion without further consultation of the Security Council.

Which all lead up to Powell's presentation in Feb 2003 in an attempt to gain UN authorization for an invasion. The attempt was abandoned because France and/or Russia were likely to veto any measure to invade.

I think Powell's interpretation that the US needed to take the issue back to the UN before invading was correct, but, if you're judging the competency of the Bush administration, knowing the outcome beforehand was more important. You don't take that issue back to the UN unless you're positive you'll win your case.

You either don't invade and don't bring the issue up or invade and let the UN debate about whether UN resolutions authorized the US to do so. The way the US handled the matter was almost an admission that a unilateral invasion by the US would be illegal.

 

[quadraphonics]

This is impossible. The US is one of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, of whose single veto vote is sufficient to scrap a resolution. So in order for the UN to condemn a US action, the US would have to have not vetoed it.

That only applies to the Security Council. There is nothing to prevent the General Assembly from issuing a resolution critical of a permanent member of the Security Council.

In fact, the UN can never do anything serious against the interest of one of these 5 members (USA, Russia, China, France, UK).

Right, this is true by design. The big powers won't participate unless they're granted veto power, and the whole thing doesn't work without the big powers inside.

 

[vanesch]

It is not impossible to offer resolutions, several such were offered against the former Soviet Union or its client states during the cold war and vetoed by the SU. In any case the vote on Iraq in the UN Security Council on 1441 was unanimous, including temporary members: Mexico, Ireland, Bulgaria, Syria, Norway, Singapore, Colombia, Cameroon, Guinea and Mauritius.

You should read resolution 1441:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

Now, you have to be a hell of a lawyer to turn point 13 (last page) into a full endorsement of an all-out war and invasion!

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;

What resolution 1441 is about, is the observation that Iraq didn't comply in practice to all the requirements of previous resolutions and gives a specific list of things Iraq must do in order to comply.

Point 13. could mean anything: extra sanctions, another resolution, eventually a bombing of a suspect site, whatever. But the worse is that point 14 was:

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

meaning: the "serious consequences" was up to the UN to decide. That's what Bush tried, he wanted a resolution to declare a war on Iraq, it didn't pass (well, it wasn't submitted given that France as well as Russia had declared to use their veto, and it wasn't clear whether they would even obtain a majority).

Afterwards, Bush and co said everywhere that resolution 1441 ALREADY was sufficient to invade Iraq, and they simply "executed" a resolution of the UN. But when you read the text, this is far from evident.

 

[mheslep]

And? http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement ...

My intention was not to discuss the legalities of the UN resolutions; I posted the reference on 1441 in response to the seycyrus-vanesch chain above to indicate that other UN members had ample ability to condemn US intentions prior to the invasion and thereafter. They did not, have not offered such resolutions at the UN. They have, however, gone on to pass several 1511 like resolutions that authorize the multilateral force.

You either don't invade and don't bring the issue up or invade and let the UN debate about whether UN resolutions authorized the US to do so. The way the US handled the matter was almost an admission that a unilateral invasion by the US would be illegal.

I see the UN as a place to go and attempt to build a consensus if you can, to communicate with other nations. IANAL, but I don't believe the UN acts as a court; international law acts at least in part independently of that body. At least that is as it should be: the case for the sovereign ability of the US to use force of arms ishould lie soley with the Congress's ability to declare war, the Congress acting in concert with international law, period. And I mean that in the formal Article I sense, like it used to be before the war powers act. The Congress may very well in its wisdom decide to demand UN participation to proceed but that is solely up to them.

You should read resolution 1441:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

I have, some time ago. You should read http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1511 (2003)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC"

13. Determines that the provision of security and stability is essential to the
successful completion of the political process as outlined in paragraph 7 above and
to the ability of the United Nations to contribute effectively to that process and the
implementation of resolution 1483 (2003), and authorizes a multinational force
under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the
maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring
necessary conditions for the implementation of the timetable and programme as well
as to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq,
the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi interim
administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure;

So yes one can argue about the meaning of the pre-invasion resolutions, but not that other nations had no ability to condemn US actions at the UN.

 

[Art]

The veto of the 5 permanent members of the SC can be over-ridden under the 'Unity for Peace' clause introduced ironically by the US in 1950 (UN Resolution 377) to circumvent the Russion veto. It was also used successfully by Yugoslavia with US support against France and Britain during the Suez affair in 1956.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq the 22-member Arab Group at the United Nations, and the 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Group along with the Non-Aligned Movement of 115 nations, and several national governments, including Russia, China, Indonesia, and Jamaica, expressed their support for an emergency UNGA session under this resolution.

The US responded by issuing a démarche to it's embassies for presentation to the host countries which said

"Given the current highly charged atmosphere, the United States would regard a General Assembly session on Iraq as unhelpful and as directed against the United States. Please know that this question as well as your position on it is important to the U.S."

Taken in the context of "You're with us or you're against us," this thinly veiled threat was sufficient to cause the necessary majority of nations to back away and so the resolution was never tabled.

UN Resolution 377 (V).
Uniting for Peace, Section A
Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in emergency special session within twenty-four hours of the request therefor. Such emergency special session shall be called if requested by the Security Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority of the Members of the United Nations.

 

[vanesch]

The veto of the 5 permanent members of the SC can be over-ridden under the 'Unity for Peace' clause introduced ironically by the US in 1950 (UN Resolution 377) to circumvent the Russion veto. It was also used successfully by the Yugoslavia with US support against France and Britain during the Suez affair in 1956.

I didn't know that !

 

[BobG]

My intention was not to discuss the legalities of the UN resolutions; I posted the reference on 1441 in response to the seycyrus-vanesch chain above to indicate that other UN members had ample ability to condemn US intentions prior to the invasion and thereafter. They did not, have not offered such resolutions at the UN. They have, however, gone on to pass several 1511 like resolutions that authorize the multilateral force.

I see the UN as a place to go and attempt to build a consensus if you can, to communicate with other nations. IANAL, but I don't believe the UN acts as a court; international law acts at least in part independently of that body. At least that is as it should be: the case for the sovereign ability of the US to use force of arms ishould lie soley with the Congress's ability to declare war, the Congress acting in concert with international law, period. And I mean that in the formal Article I sense, like it used to be before the war powers act. The Congress may very well in its wisdom decide to demand UN participation to proceed but that is solely up to them.

I have, some time ago. You should read http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1511 (2003)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC"

So yes one can argue about the meaning of the pre-invasion resolutions, but not that other nations had no ability to condemn US actions at the UN.

Actually, quite a few nations did:

Pre-invasion discussions: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7685.doc.htm and http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7687.doc.htm

During the invasions: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7705.doc.htm and http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7707.doc.htm

That's beside the point if the discussion is whether Bush is the worst President. Possible outcomes, from best to worst, assuming Iraq did have WMD:

1. The threat of military force results in full compiance by Iraq (that was the supposed aim of Congress's authorization for military force)
2. The US persuades the UN to authorize military force (realistic option since the UN risks irrelevancy if the US & UK ignore the UN)
3. The US invades Iraq without going to the UN and the UN justifies the invasion after the fact (what good does it do the UN not to agree after the fact?)
4. The US invades Iraq without going to the UN and the UN decides to oversea relief efforts for refugees and the war's aftermath (pretty much the norm for most military conflicts)
5. The US invades Iraq without going to the UN and the UN officially condemns the action (virtually impossible for this to happen to the US/UK)
6. The US tries to persuade the UN to authorize force, but fails and invades anyway
7. The US tries to persuade the UN to authorize force, but the UN passes a resolution prohibiting a US invasion (no chance of happening)
8. The US tries to persuade the UN to authorize force, but fails and Iraq develops WMD with impunity
9. The US invades without UN agreement and the UN assembles a multi-national force that attempts to stop the US invasion (how impossible can impossible be?)


The actual results were 6, followed by the UN deciding to oversea relief efforts, followed by the inability to find the WMD. Bolton was a horrible choice for UN ambassador, but his opinion that the UN is a pretty toothless organization is fairly accurate. The overall impression was of an illegal invasion that emphasized just how pathetic the UN really is. Just about everyone in the world was made a little smaller by the act.

If the US couldn't win it's case and was going to invade regardless, they could have saved some face for everyone by not going to the UN in the first place. They could have based the invasion solely on how Iraq's WMD affected the US. (Or provided a better reason since the WMD reason required some WMDs to be found).

 

[seycyrus]

Actually, quite a few nations did:

Pre-invasion discussions: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7685.doc.htm and http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7687.doc.htm

During the invasions: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7705.doc.htm and http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7707.doc.htm

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.

Malaysia seems to be the one country mentioned that had the guts to say anything concrete. To counter that I offer the weighty words of Iceland!

Can you show me why a resolution condeming the US action was not proposed? Or if such is not possible, why that is so?

 

[seycyrus]

The veto of the 5 permanent members of the SC can be over-ridden under the 'Unity for Peace' clause introduced ironically by the US in 1950 (UN Resolution 377) to circumvent the Russion veto. It was also used successfully by Yugoslavia with US support against France and Britain during the Suez affair in 1956.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq the 22-member Arab Group at the United Nations, and the 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Group along with the Non-Aligned Movement of 115 nations, and several national governments, including Russia, China, Indonesia, and Jamaica, expressed their support for an emergency UNGA session under this resolution.

The US responded by issuing a démarche to it's embassies for presentation to the host countries which said Taken in the context of "You're with us or you're against us," this thinly veiled threat was sufficient to cause the necessary majority of nations to back away and so the resolution was never tabled.

You think that China, Russia and all those other countries you mentioned as a block entity could be bullied by the US? Not likely. Seen as a simple threat, a tiny nation would simply line up with it's new-found friend China and/or Russia.

 

[mheslep]

...If the US couldn't win it's case and was going to invade regardless, they could have saved some face for everyone by not going to the UN in the first place. They could have based the invasion solely on how Iraq's WMD affected the US...

Given one believes you have a very good case for action, it makes sense to go to the UN, make your case and ask for help. I do not think that if the UN defers on action that you are then blocked from taking actions you deem necessary, especially if over many years the UN agreed with you that the matter was indeed very serious and threatening, but just never resolved to take action. However, I think the 'plaintiff' should then doubly reconsider the costs of going alone, and take heed of your more respected neighbours' opinion.

 

[BobG]

Given one believes you have a very good case for action, it makes sense to go to the UN, make your case and ask for help. I do not think that if the UN defers on action that you are then blocked from taking actions you deem necessary, especially if over many years the UN agreed with you that the matter was indeed very serious and threatening, but just never resolved to take action. However, I think the 'plaintiff' should then doubly reconsider the costs of going alone, and take heed of your more respected neighbours' opinion.

I agree if you're talking about an individual in a rational society.

For professionals, there was an obligation to know ahead of time whether they would win their case. Regardless of whether the action was right or wrong, it was handled in an amateurish fashion.

They pursued a case that they didn't win.
The evidence they used in the case didn't hold up.

 

[quadraphonics]

You guys are all missing the point, which is that going to the UN, although it didn't result in UN backing, DID result in extra help. Specifically, it was the price for UK participation in the invasion. From this perspective, it is clear why a shoddy case was pursued anyway: what mattered for securing cooperation from Tony Blair was the fact of going to the UN, not the outcome, and so there's actually an incentive to spend as little time and effort on the case as possible (provided you don't think you're going to prevail, that is). The idea that a bunch of career diplomats and politicians (even in the Bush administration) are inept amateurs is ridiculous on its face.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't like Bush and I think he's certainly a very bad president but I can't say that I think anything he has done qualifies him as the "worst ever". People have short memories and don't seem to realize just how different todays values are to those of the past. Even those presidents often considered the greatest have done things that while at the time may have only been scandalous would be considered absolutely heinous by todays standards. Everything Bush has done wrong has been done before and to an exponentially worse degree as far as I can tell.

 

[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.