Bush Administration-Forgive and Forget?

  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Jan 17, 2009 1:53 PM GMT
    Excellent piece by Paul Krugman why we shouldn't forgive and forget these past 8 years.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html?em
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jan 17, 2009 2:11 PM GMT
    Well a look back at history and we can see a list of those presidents that were pretty bad (or didn't do much).

    But should we blame them? I've heard many refer to the Presidents from the latter part of the 1800's as "non entities"... some like Chester Arthur (1881-85), Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881), even one of my democratic presidents like Grover Cleveland (the split president.. 1885-89, 1893-97)
    and certainly Ben Harrison (1889-93). But what was really going on at that time? I think they were overseeing this country during a time of expansion..
    It was a very different era.

    Presidents from WWII forward have been in a unique position as "Head of the World" many could argue. I think the critera for critiquing a President is much different.

    Bush supporters would argue that he made decisions that were appropriate based on the world in which we now live...... critics would say he
    bent the law (or busted in some cases) to suit events as he dictated them.

    Only history will tell.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 17, 2009 2:36 PM GMT
    <object width=">
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2009 3:39 PM GMT
    I have often felt we must lead the world by EXAMPLE. We should hold our leaders responsible for thier actions and the fall out that occurs.

    President Bush did clearly lead our nation into a war. Did he do it under false pretenses? Did he do it with intent?

    I do feel it should be looked at. If he is found to be guilty he should face the trial like any other person.

    This is the only way we cna show the world that our justice system does work for ALL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2009 3:48 PM GMT
    In a word, hell no. Oh, that's two words. Great op-ed piece. The point about political heirs eventually picking up where W left off was especially significant. Even if no one is prosecuted or thrown in jail, I think we need to expose all of the administration's mis-deeds and then set up new (or enforce existing) checks and balances to prevent a relapse in, say, 2012. (Oh, I forgot -- the world's ending that year. Eff it, then. :p )
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 17, 2009 3:48 PM GMT
    Concerning the torture debacle, Obama is going to be faced with the prospects of investigating torture claims by GITMO detainees as he seeks to close the facility and legally process the detainees. The question is, how far will he go?

    We know for a fact now that Bush authorized and substantiates his support for waterboarding. Isn't that contempt for the Geneva Code? And if Obama is too politically expedient to look past Bush an Co.'s torture transgressions, would and SHOULD The Hague or the UN open their investigations for war crimes?


    My thinking is this: If Bush can dodge impeachment through a tumultuous 8 year presidency, with all that he and his administration did, they can dodge anything. Obama will face political fallout from all over and risks his re-election if he pursues Bush & Co. I think he's scared...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2009 6:05 PM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    We know for a fact now that Bush authorized and substantiates his support for waterboarding. Isn't that contempt for the Geneva Code? And if Obama is too politically expedient to look past Bush an Co.'s torture transgressions, would and SHOULD The Hague or the UN open their investigations for war crimes?.


    That last part is something I might enjoy watching play out. If the UN tried to bring GWJ up on war crimes or some violations would be really submit to them? It's one thing to use humans rights violations as a pretext to intervene in a small ethnic conflict but bringing in the former head of one of the world more powerful nations?

    I think the UN would be in a little to deep to try something that grand. Who really listens to the UN anyways. Recently it's been little more than an organization that gives justification for war.

    I doubt the UN or any global tribunal is going to attempt to bring in Bush. Because they know the ground beneath them is made of nothing more than promises and paper.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2009 6:10 PM GMT
    Considering the US taxpayers are going to be paying for the past 8 years for the next 80, it will be very hard to forget the Bush administration! So when you fill out your taxes this year, picture George Jr. on the tax form (sort of like Marley's ghost).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2009 6:15 PM GMT
    Please, we're still reeling from the first Bush. W will be long remembered a hundred years from now. Clinton may have fucked an intern, but Bush fucked a country. Say what you want.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Jan 17, 2009 6:45 PM GMT
    The only lasting legacies from Bush/Cheney is how these two power hungry right wing oil tycoons lured our country into a costly, needless war in Iraq and that horrendous Patriot Act which clearly violates our constitutional rights to privacy. Americans rights have clearly taken a severe pounding during the past eight years all in the name of fighting terrorism which is nothing more than a lame excuse for exercising more punitive control over the American people. I say good riddance to both G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 17, 2009 10:17 PM GMT
    b4jock said "I think he was dealt a difficult hand to work with, in his defense....For the record, I hate politics. It is such an intricate and complicated topic, yet so simple. So I will declare immunity. There's my two cents."


    First, I don't know exactly what you're saying with the first statement. 9/11 was an offensive terrorist attack made successful by a complacent, self-serving lapse of defense that ignored the warnings for its own ambitions --- Iraq. That's where history will judge!!

    Second, if you want immunity from these topics, then I suggest you don't respond to them or, better yet, don't click the links!

    For all those with their heads somewhere where it's not on their shoulders, no amount of pretending, excusing, or waiting on history will make it clearer or better in judging the Bush Administration. It's not history that judges a presidency, it's the taken-for-granted taxpayers. We are responsible for the government we keep!!!! And we shall judge!
  • Thirdbeach

    Posts: 1364

    Jan 17, 2009 10:20 PM GMT
    So: I want to know, after Jan 21, 2009 what do you call George W Bush?

    President Deflect?

    President Reject?

    President Deject?

    President Eject?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 17, 2009 10:25 PM GMT
    With the way the Dallas Cowboys imploded this year, he will be their CEO. It seems like a match.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jan 18, 2009 1:04 AM GMT
    coolarmydude saidb4jock said "I think he was dealt a difficult hand to work with, in his defense....For the record, I hate politics. It is such an intricate and complicated topic, yet so simple. So I will declare immunity. There's my two cents."

    For all those with their heads somewhere where it's not on their shoulders, no amount of pretending, excusing, or waiting on history will make it clearer or better in judging the Bush Administration. It's not history that judges a presidency, it's the taken-for-granted taxpayers. We are responsible for the government we keep!!!! And we shall judge!


    You are totally right about the voters' place to judge a president, and certainy, this president has been harshly judged. However, voters can be fickle. Sometimes, they need a little space to truly put a man in perspective. Right now, people are angry.

    But they were angry after Watergate and after Nixon was pardoned. They were angry in 1951 after "the mess" Truman created in Washington. They were angry after the contraction of 1991 and the Energy Crisis of the 70's. Yet all those presidents were looked at differently after a reasonable amount of time passed. And I don't know if things for Bush Jr. will be any different.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2009 2:17 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    First, I don't know exactly what you're saying with the first statement. 9/11 was an offensive terrorist attack made successful by a complacent, self-serving lapse of defense that ignored the warnings for its own ambitions --- Iraq.
    Second, if you want immunity from these topics, then I suggest you don't respond to them or, better yet, don't click the links!
    We are responsible for the government we keep!!!! And we shall judge!


    Now I'm the one who doesn't know exactly what you're saying in your response to my first statement. Are you really suggesting that the "W" Bush administration is the sole administration responsible for 9/11 b/c of some ulterior motives in Iraq? I have no specific problems with Clinton, but is it just me or was he in office for 8 years as well? 9/11 plans were not laid out solely during Bush's time in office.

    As for me claiming immunity, maybe you need to lighten up! And yes, we are responsible for the gov't we keep, but every single U.S. president in history has had his naysayers. Obama may even have his own difficulties and unpopular moments. But then I'm sure everyone will still blame that on Bush.

    Goodnight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2009 2:20 AM GMT
    As I always say, history will judge him, all presidents make mistakes, Obama will as well, Bush had a lot to deal with, Obama will even more, so mistakes in their time in the White House are/will be no surprises. I don't hate the man, nor do I think he's a bad/evil person , anyone in here who does feel he's evil, or bad, or you have extreme hate for him, are irrelevant, and will always be hateful despicable people. unworthy of any kind of acknowledgment.

    Its all easy for you guys to sit behind your computers, in your nice homes, bitching and hating the man, putting up links to bias untrustworthy mainstream media sites, thinking its the gospel, its sad and silly. And by no means am I trying to excuse the mistakes he's made, because he sure as hell made em. I also know he's freed a lot of people, which you will hear nothing about on mainstream media, or from elite countries. He's also the only president who has done more for Africa than any other, something else you won't hear about. Its foolish, and unfair to start writing history in the present, we don't know how Iraq will turn out,if things continue as is, which is understandably slow, that can spark a great change in the Middle East in the future, we don't know, and won't until years from today

    I'm interested in seeing how things turn out years from now, and I don't want to be like the many hateful creeps out there today who judge him so harshly, and end up looking like fools if and when history shows differently. If he was a vicious hateful little man, then I could understand the extreme anger and hate for him, but he's not, so I don't have any kind of respect for those who won't let him step down respectfully, and want to continue to bash him until the end.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2009 2:31 AM GMT
    Well said, Rad_d81
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2009 3:03 AM GMT
    Rad's hot.. sorry just had to say it..

    ...well someone had to say it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2009 4:29 AM GMT
    Rad_d81 saidAs I always say, history will judge him, all presidents make mistakes, Obama will as well, Bush had a lot to deal with, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its foolish, and unfair to start writing history in the present, we don't know how Iraq will turn out,if things continue as is, which is understandably slow, that can spark a great change in the Middle East in the future, we don't know, and won't until years from today

    I'm interested in seeing how things turn out years from now, and I don't want to be like the many hateful creeps out there today who judge him so harshly, and end up looking like fools if and when history shows differently. If he was a vicious hateful little man, then I could understand the extreme anger and hate for him, but he's not, so I don't have any kind of respect for those who won't let him step down respectfully, and want to continue to bash him until the end.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why are you apologizing for him and his so called "mistakes">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Its not simply a mistake to take away Habeaus Corpus rights that have been the hallmark of free Democratic nations going back hundreds of years. That my friend is breaking our laws, and those of our treaties. (hardly simply a mistake) What does history have to do with judging this? It was done, the action broke our laws, the history is now, The imperial minded lawbreaking behind this action, Quantanamo, Sanctioning Torture, and rendering prisoners to places where the probability of their being tortured was high, or intentional, holding prisoners without charges with no end in sight. These are actions that broke our own laws, the treaties and the Conventions that our soldiers in the past have died so we could have the protections of these laws. YOU CALL THESE SIMPLY MISTAKES !!!!!! Bullshit !!!! This past week, A Republican Military judge Crawford called it like it is, she refused (several weeks or months ago) to charge bush/cheney's most cherished "HIGH VALUE" prisoner at Guantonamo because in her words he was tortured. She stated that we (the US) had lost moral authority because of this lawbreaking. A MISTAKE YOU SAY !!!!! LET HISTORY JUDGE YOU SAY !!!!! NO Fing WAY !!!!!!!! The history is here and now on these subjects, both bush, cheney, and rumsfeld have admitted approving of these law breaking sceems, and many a general, many republican senators, congressmen, right along with the democrats, Law professors, the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and on and on and on have stated that these laws broken which brought about ABU GRAIB abuses as well, are exactly why Al Quida had such a boom in recruiting men to their cause. (yes on this recuriting matter history will tell us more) The Laws were broken, and we react mamby pamby and not judge these actions as such to our own detriment. NEVER ALLOW YOUR GOVERNMENT TO DO TO ANYONE WHAT YOU DON"T WANT IT TO DO TO YOU !!!! These kind of things must be investigated, and corrected so that no furture president will ever feel comfortable doing any such thing ever again !!!! And what I've touched on here is just the begining of what this band of thugs did in the realm of breaking down our laws and our constitution. GROW SOME BALLS AND CALL A SPADE A SPADE !!!!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Jan 18, 2009 5:33 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]coolarmydude said[/cite] 9/11 was an offensive terrorist attack made successful by a complacent, self-serving lapse of defense that ignored the warnings for its own ambitions --- Iraq. That's where history will judge!!

    Your misguided opinion, but hardly fact



    Second, if you want immunity from these topics, then I suggest you don't respond to them or, better yet, don't click the links!

    For all those with their heads somewhere where it's not on their shoulders, no amount of pretending, excusing, or waiting on history will make it clearer or better in judging the Bush Administration. It's not history that judges a presidency, it's the taken-for-granted taxpayers. We are responsible for the government we keep!!!! And we shall judge!


    This goes both ways. It's so easy to criticize when you are not privy to ALL the information or facts
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 18, 2009 11:37 AM GMT
    Rad....

    These weren't "mistakes" that this man has committed
    A mistake is something that you have done or haven't done that has consequences that are basically limited to you

    This man George W Bush has some serious personal shortcomings that have plagued him for his entire life and now these shortcomings have affected the entire globe .... shortcomings that have now labeled America as a torturer a liar and a country that has no longer any standing in the world

    You can try to diminish it
    But forever his reign will be known as a black mark on this country and on those people who voted for him
    There is Nothing that this man has done that we as a country will either not have to pay for out of our own pockets or need a good moral cleansing
    He embodies that rare combination of ineptitude and social immorality
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2009 12:43 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said

    This goes both ways. It's so easy to criticize when you are not privy to ALL the information or facts


    You know, I don't know why people think that this is an argument that actually benefits them. We all make judgments in an environment of information asymmetry, you included. Your greater acceptance of the Bush administration is made in practically the same informational environment as those who criticize the Bush administration; the difference is in how we all interpret the information we have available to us, and the values context that we're putting it in.

    I don't have any problem with you making arguments about why things that the Bush administration did or did not do are good, but simply throwing out the catch-all of "it's easy to criticize, yadda yadda" really doesn't benefit you at all. Unless you're arguing that the government should publicize all the facts of every decision to the entire populace (an argument I would certainly not make), then the statement you made is probably one you shouldn't; otherwise, you're implicitly arguing for a country in which no one should ever criticize the government, because "they don't know all the facts."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2009 1:04 PM GMT
    Until I see these fuckers in orange jumpsuits at The Hague I won't be happy.

    Innocent? Fine then there's no harm in bring all the documents and testimonies to light.

    Guilty? Fine then you can pay for your crimes you committed.

    I also think that there's a whole different layer of forgiveness. There's the general US citizens forgiveness and then there's the families and individuals all over the world that have been affected and destroyed by such selfish, greedy, imperialist policies.

    Obama is a civil rights and Constitutional scholar. If he chooses to do nothing then he is a fraud. The same frauds the Congress turned out to be in being more occupied with fear-mongering their way into the next election instead of defending the Constitution.

    Should we blame them? Fuck yes. You are elected to be repsonsible and accountable - to get credit and to take blame. Presidents aren't kings. They are part of a careful design system that isn't supposed to be so easily led astray. But give the people a diet of Big Macs and fear and we'll willing follow.

    Also shaming is the sheer stupidity of the section of the voting populace that is so un-interested in anything outside their own assholes as to not correc their own mis-guided views on recent events. But talk radio will always be there to reinforce the notion that the Jews, fags, blacks, Mexicans, women - whoever - is the root cause of their problem and not stunning illiteracy and completely divorced from education.

    I argue that history doesn't 'need to tell' us anything. It already has. We have more better and faster documentation of history available to us than ever before. Maybe in one thousand years Bush will be some kind of messiah but for now we're living in the shithole he created with his backwards boondocks dickface cowboy retard alchy frat-boy politics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2009 1:21 PM GMT
    Trance24 said

    That last part is something I might enjoy watching play out. If the UN tried to bring GWJ up on war crimes or some violations would be really submit to them? It's one thing to use humans rights violations as a pretext to intervene in a small ethnic conflict but bringing in the former head of one of the world more powerful nations?

    I think the UN would be in a little to deep to try something that grand. Who really listens to the UN anyways. Recently it's been little more than an organization that gives justification for war.

    I doubt the UN or any global tribunal is going to attempt to bring in Bush. Because they know the ground beneath them is made of nothing more than promises and paper.


    You know, I'm with you in that I don't think that the UN would do this, even perhaps the ICC.

    However, there is a different recourse to action on the international stage. Under the UN Convention against Torture, nations around the world are legally obligated to investigate allegations of torture, even against citizens who are not members of their own nation. It's quite possible that a high level member of the Bush administration could, upon traveling to another country, be detained either because the country he's traveling to has decided to investigate allegations of torture, or because another allied nation submits to it a request for extradition. This was how Pinochet was eventually arrested, because upon traveling to the UK for medical care, the UK received an order for extradition from another country that the UK was legally obligated to accept. Granted, in that case there was a significant amount of coordination between the UK and, I believe it was, Spain, but there's no reason why this couldn't happen.

    From what I've read and heard, there are many high level Bush administration officials who are considering themselves persona non grata in most nations, and have essentially decided to never leave the country. The above described scenario is not in any way a small possibility.
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Jan 18, 2009 1:25 PM GMT
    Chewey_Delt said
    Trance24 said

    That last part is something I might enjoy watching play out. If the UN tried to bring GWJ up on war crimes or some violations would be really submit to them? It's one thing to use humans rights violations as a pretext to intervene in a small ethnic conflict but bringing in the former head of one of the world more powerful nations?

    I think the UN would be in a little to deep to try something that grand. Who really listens to the UN anyways. Recently it's been little more than an organization that gives justification for war.

    I doubt the UN or any global tribunal is going to attempt to bring in Bush. Because they know the ground beneath them is made of nothing more than promises and paper.


    You know, I'm with you in that I don't think that the UN would do this, even perhaps the ICC.

    However, there is a different recourse to action on the international stage. Under the UN Convention against Torture, nations around the world are legally obligated to investigate allegations of torture, even against citizens who are not members of their own nation. It's quite possible that a high level member of the Bush administration could, upon traveling to another country, be detained either because the country he's traveling to has decided to investigate allegations of torture, or because another allied nation submits to it a request for extradition. This was how Pinochet was eventually arrested, because upon traveling to the UK for medical care, the UK received an order for extradition from another country that the UK was legally obligated to accept. Granted, in that case there was a significant amount of coordination between the UK and, I believe it was, Spain, but there's no reason why this couldn't happen.

    From what I've read and heard, there are many high level Bush administration officials who are considering themselves persona non grata in most nations, and have essentially decided to never leave the country. The above described scenario is not in any way a small possibility.


    They are persona non grata in this country! I guess that means we are stuck with them!