Bush Poses Interesting Question!

[WarEagle]

Wow. Neo-Liberals sure are judgmental. I thought they all saying "Judge not lest ye be judged". It is apparent that you are full of hatred against this man. Seriously, is this going to produce anything intelligent, or will it just be a "hate Bush" thread.

Hey, c'mon. Give the libs a break. This has been a big day for them. First D. James Kennedy dies, then a Republican Congressman drops dead.

Don't spoil their party.

 

[KomissarSteve]

It is ironic that these statements exist in the same thread.

Pres. Bush should apparently be tried under the same laws which Nazis were tried under, and then be executed.

Sounds hateful to me.

Except that's not the post to which KarateCowboy was responding. Your characterization of my comment strikes me as terribly dishonest.

 

[Verv]

Except that's not the post to which KarateCowboy was responding. Your characterization of my comment strikes me as terribly dishonest.

Well, the irony is still striking that within the same thread something like that would appear.

It has to be a little embarrassing.

 

[The Bellman]

Well, the irony is still striking that within the same thread something like that would appear.

It has to be a little embarrassing.

I don't see why. One doesn't have to hate someone to think that they should be held accountable for their crimes.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Well, the irony is still striking that within the same thread something like that would appear.

It has to be a little embarrassing.

Not in the slightest. I, for one, have never claimed that there isn't irrational hatred of Bush within some (marginal) groups on the left.

Rather, what I find particularly telling that KC should assume that liberals oppose the Bush Administration because they simply hate him.

 

[Verv]

I don't see why. One doesn't have to hate someone to think that they should be held accountable for their crimes.

So you do not think that it is extreme that elected leaders making decisions with the consensus of their own congresses should be held responsible for a war?

We are talking about something that the US Congress approved and many nations followed in the suit of.

What of the others?

 

[Kalevalatar]

No!

Am I a total bore if I simply say that President Bush's whole foreign policy is a total disaster and has made the world more dangerous? It's not just that President Bush is sort of "passive" and fails to act on issues, i.e. that he would contribute to the inertia and present status quo, and not actively try to make the world a better place step by step. It's that President Bush actively makes decisions that actually make the world a worse place. Where the former POTUSes have usually danced two steps forward and one step back, President Bush every foreign policy step is backward.

I try to come up with something good to say about his foreign policy and can't find anything. And please, don't blame me: blame him. It's not my fault he cannot seem to get anything right. The only praise I can give him is that he has always been careful to make the distinction between terrorists and Muslims, at least publickly. Oh, and he has nothing but praises for the United Nations, at least, in front of the cameras.

 

[TheReasoner]

No!

Am I a total bore if I simply say that President Bush's whole foreign policy is a total disaster and has made the world more dangerous? It's not just that President Bush is sort of "passive" and fails to act on issues, i.e. that he would contribute to the inertia and present status quo, and not actively try to make the world a better place step by step. It's that President Bush actively makes decisions that actually make the world a worse place. Where the former POTUSes have usually danced two steps forward and one step back, President Bush every foreign policy step is backward.

I try to come up with something good to say about his foreign policy and can't find anything. And please, don't blame me: blame him. It's not my fault he cannot seem to get anything right. The only praise I can give him is that he has always been careful to make the distinction between terrorists and Muslims, at least publickly. Oh, and he has nothing but praises for the United Nations, at least, in front of the cameras.

Washington post: He's the worst ever

Donald Trump: "Bush is the worst president ever"

Many more can be found by a simple google search

 

[Verv]

Faith Guardian, I took the time to read some of those articles and they seem to be crap.

The poll that is used is something that History News Network devised, asking 100 and some historiansn and having 81% say that his policies are failures (apparently not many went out on the limb to say worst President ever). And from there, a lot of extrapolation and spackle is thrown together.

The Foner article in the Washington Times was more resoundingly pathetic as it failed to use any compelling facts or statistics at all.

The Trump article is a joke unto itself.

"
However, he reserved his harshest language for Bush's Iraq war. "There's only one person you can blame, and that's our current president," Trump told CNN"

Excellent position -- Pres. Bush alone rallied the entirety of our nation and the UK aux armes?

Really fabulous, Donald.

 

[Norseman]

So you do not think that it is extreme that elected leaders making decisions with the consensus of their own congresses should be held responsible for a war?

We are talking about something that the US Congress approved and many nations followed in the suit of.

What of the others?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

Every congressman who voted to initiate the war in Iraq should be tried alongside Bush. There is some question over whether he lied to them about Iraq's capabilities, and aims, which should be determined at their trials. If they knew what they were doing, they deserve to be hung for it just as much as Bush does.

Only four nations aside from the US participated in the invasion of Iraq; the United Kingom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark. The leadership of those four nations, should be tried for crimes against peace. The leadership of any of the countries involved in warcrimes during the invasion, or occupation, should be tried as well.

 

[The Bellman]

So you do not think that it is extreme that elected leaders making decisions with the consensus of their own congresses should be held responsible for a war?

We are talking about something that the US Congress approved and many nations followed in the suit of.

No, I do not think it is extreme at all. Nuremburg settled that. People are responsible for their actions, no matter who else says those actions are okay.

What of the others?

Not at issue; we are talking about Bush.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Okay, for the sake of debate I went back and tried to comply a short, off-the-top-of-my-head, incomplete list of reasons why the world after George W. Bush will be a more dangerous place and Bush's legacy a disastrous one.

[faith guardian, thanks . I'll post mine first and then go read the links you provided to see if others agree.)

1. Iraq
- the world's biggest terrorist training camp
- an al-Qaeda prime recruit point
- chaos and blood-letting that threatens the stability of the whole region, quite likely more wars to come as a direct result from President Bush's choice-of-war in Iraq -- but hey, he wanted to be the "war president" and make decisions "here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind"
- a massive refugee problem that will be with us for decades -- not with the US though, seeing as the United States of America hardly accepts in any refugees from Iraq
- the main reason behind current high oil prices and its world wide economic consequences

2. Iran
- a missed prime opportunity to engage Iran in a peaceful and meaningful way after Iran was right there in line with the rest of the world post-911, especially re: Afghanistan and Taliban
- the current sable rattling will only serve to boost the Iranian president and rally the Iranian people, even the oppposition, behind their President while doing absolutely nothing as far as nuclear non-proliferation goes, quite the contrary

3. Afghanistan
- the forgotten war -- here the POTUS has acted like an ADHD child would, rush to start something but don't have the patience to finish what you started before something new (read: Iraq) catches the eye. And now it looks like it will be a deja vu in Iraq; the mess in Iraq is boring, the same old, same old, let's move to Iran.
- poppy is growing good in Afghanistan I hear; boost for the global war on drugs, I'm sure

4. Pakistan
- shaking hands with yet another local dictator, nurturing once again a new saddam, when will they ever learn; and this time the dictator in question does actually have those nukes

5. China/Taiwan
- Just an example: Bush: the USA will defend Taiwan "whatever it takes". Bush a few months later: Taiwan is part of China and the US will not interfere in the internal affairs of China. This, I believe, is called flip-flopping? China has already drawn the conclusions
- So what is the President's policy re: China, an up-and-coming major world power? Shouldn't he have one and stick to it, and not just play hide and seek?

6. Russia
- the missile defence systems, giving the finger to old treaties: a new cold war is just what the world needs right now

7. Saudi Arabia
- that the President of the United States of America claims personal family-level realtionships with one of the world's most brutal and oppressive regimes says it all

8. Israel-Palestine
- once a year President Bush wakes up to pay a lip service to the road map, the rest of the year it's just business as usual: arming israel and giving the finger (and smirk) at the fledgling Palestinian democracy: 30 years of that, you would think even President Bush would be able to see it's not working as the cycle of violence goes on and on
- claiming to introduce democracy into ME and when the Palestinians, who claim one the few tentative democracies in the region, go ahead and excercise their democratic rights and the results do not please President Bush, does he nevertheless hail for the Palestinians and their "God-given" freedom and democracy? No. He slaps sanctions on them and does his very best to meddle with the Palestinian democracy in order to get his guy in charge. What, again, is the message President Bush thinks he's sending here?

9. Lebanon
- selling out in favour of USAian military industry so that they would not lose their sales

10. South America
- yes, let's send the message loud and clear that it's very bad when free people in free, democratic elections choose left-leaning leaders whom the President of the United States of America dislikes

11. Nuclear non-proliferation
- flirting with the idea of using nukes, building new nukes, giving the finger at old treaties, weaponizing space, rewarding rogue nuclear states for their illegal nukes, failing to secure the said Iraqi WMD's and turning Iraqi into an open market for dirty bombs -- what kind of messages does President Bush think he's sending here?

12. Post-911 world-wide sympathy, goodwill, and coming together
- a huge, wonderful, unique opportunity in the world history, an opportunity to actually chance the world for the better, and President Bush single-handedly squandered it in less than twelve months
- sound bites like "you're either with us or against us" and "bring it on" etc. may look very sexy indeed on the paper and appeal to the wannabe-comboy mind, but sound bites =/= sound policy; sound bites like this only serve to antogonize smart people who recognize the complexity of the world, whereas there's a good chance that simpeltons who actually buy into that kind of propaganda may take the President's words seriously and choose to take a stand against you and bring it on as coaxed. As they have, with known consequences

13. The US standing in the eyes of the world
- gone, and it will make it considerably harder to execute even those smart policies when their time again comes

14. Humanitarian issues
- tying humanitarian aid A) to very narrow USAian conservative interpretation of what's "moral" and B) to the issue whether a nation is nominally "with or against us" is incredibly cruel and cynic policy
- the incredibly big heart has been one of the things that has made the United States of America such a great nation; again, President Bush's chosen policy erodes that image, and image is tied to the issue of respect, and the amount of respect you hold dictates what kind of leverage you have, and the US under President Bush is losing that and fast; it will take years, if not decades, if ever to get it back; considering that the US in the past has been such a big force of good in the world, this is a huge loss for the whole world

15. The so-called war on terror or on whatever
- A war on terror that creates more terrorists and not just doubles or triples but increases manyfold the yearly global number of terrorist attacks is a war already lost

16. Overall diplomacy i.e. the very backbone of foreign policy
- Disciplining the most valuable asset in any nation's foreign policy, i.e. the diplomatic corps, for doing their job by having them transferred to Siperia -- I mean, to Iraq. These are the very people with the most valuable inside info whose job is to keep the President posted up on international affairs; yet, if the current President does not like the message you're telling him, off you go to Baghdad. During Bush presidency an unprecedented number of core US diplomatic staff has resigned. This alone will hamper the US diplomacy for a long time to come. That the US is currently lacking in experienced diplomatic staff, with several embassies short of ambassadors, and that even key posts have been filled with purely political single-minded appointees lacking any foreign experience whatsoever does not help either. That some, evidently, are even lacking basic table manners only makes the matters worse

 

[Ringo84]

Not to change the subject at hand mid-thread, but there's another aspect of the Patriot Act, wiretapping, etc that I failed to mention in my original post.

Whenever anyone has questioned not only the legality but the need for the Patriot Act and other more controversial aspects of the War On Terror, Bush has acted as though terror can't be fought at all without the Patriot Act et al.

Oh really?

Other than tie communication links between the FBI and CIA, which is admittedly a good thing, what does the Patriot Act do for us other than eliminate Constitutional rights? Surely the Patriot Act is not so absolutely vital that we could not survive without it.

Terrorism needs to be fought worldwide, but Americans should not have to lose Constitutional rights they have had since the founding of this country in order to do it. This country has been through worse threats than a ragtag band of terrorists with box cutters and survived with its foundational rights intact. We can survive that way again, providing that we do not allow a group of terrorists to redefine who we are.
Ringo

 

[Kalevalatar]

Every congressman who voted to initiate the war in Iraq should be tried alongside Bush. There is some question over whether he lied to them about Iraq's capabilities, and aims, which should be determined at their trials. If they knew what they were doing, they deserve to be hung for it just as much as Bush does.

Only four nations aside from the US participated in the invasion of Iraq; the United Kingom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark. The leadership of those four nations, should be tried for crimes against peace. The leadership of any of the countries involved in warcrimes during the invasion, or occupation, should be tried as well.

Word is former Secretary of Defence, Rumsfeld, will not be seen this side of Atlantic as long as he lives, for the war crimes charges he faces here. Not that he has any friends here to invite him over. Not terribly surprising, considering that even the current President of the United States of America does not get nearly to usual number of state visit invitations, as a photo-op with Bush is seen more like a kiss of death than a political boost these days. Once President Bush steps down, he will likely face similar charges than Rumsfeld.

 

[Verv]

1. Iraq
- the world's biggest terrorist training camp
- an al-Qaeda prime recruit point

Well, there can be a discussion concerning this being that the way of fighting their civil war involves terror. I tis outright war, so give us a break on that one.

And what of the tribesmen that are now turning on Al-Qaeda? That is significant.

- chaos and blood-letting that threatens the stability of the whole region, quite likely more wars to come as a direct result from President Bush's choice-of-war in Iraq -- but hey, he wanted to be the "war president" and make decisions "here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind"

What of the notion that other nations moderated themselves because of Bush? The idea has spread around significantly that Libya abandoned all ideas of a nuclear campaign, Syria was afraid to push issues further in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia had municipal elections and even Myanmar made changes.

- a massive refugee problem that will be with us for decades -- not with the US though, seeing as the United States of America hardly accepts in any refugees from Iraq

- the main reason behind current high oil prices and its world wide economic consequences

On the refugee issue -- many refugees from Afghanistan were repatriated quickly. From 2002 to 2005 2.2 million Afghans repatriated.

2. Iran

- a missed prime opportunity to engage Iran in a peaceful and meaningful way after Iran was right there in line with the rest of the world post-911, especially re: Afghanistan and Taliban
- the current sable rattling will only serve to boost the Iranian president and rally the Iranian people, even the oppposition, behind their President while doing absolutely nothing as far as nuclear non-proliferation goes, quite the contrary

How are we supposed to respond to them stubbornly sticking it out with their nuclear reactor and even refusing to be given a light water reactor in favor of their own controversial, enrichment plan? At one point they actually made a crucial mistake by admitting they need to enrich Uranium.. Being that in the production of the power, it is not necessary!

3. Afghanistan

- the forgotten war -- here the POTUS has acted like an ADHD child would, rush to start something but don't have the patience to finish what you started before something new (read: Iraq) catches the eye. And now it looks like it will be a deja vu in Iraq; the mess in Iraq is boring, the same old, same old, let's move to Iran.
- poppy is growing good in Afghanistan I hear; boost for the global war on drugs, I'm sure

Do you think that we ever did not have troops and intelligence focused on Afghanistan?

4. Pakistan

- shaking hands with yet another local dictator, nurturing once again a new saddam, when will they ever learn; and this time the dictator in question does actually have those nukes

Well, the local dictator is intending to have elections soon and is probably going to accept Bhutto as a Prime Minister soon in a power sharing plan. So much for dictatorship.

The guy is also President of a country which cannot even begin to hld itself together (look at the Red Mosque incidences).

5. China/Taiwan

- Just an example: Bush: the USA will defend Taiwan "whatever it takes". Bush a few months later: Taiwan is part of China and the US will not interfere in the internal affairs of China. This, I believe, is called flip-flopping? China has already drawn the conclusions
- So what is the President's policy re: China, an up-and-coming major world power? Shouldn't he have one and stick to it, and not just play hide and seek?

- We had to have two respnses; one was to Chinese flexing their muscles and the other to Taiwan; both were fair.

- We already do have a policy -- trade, and lots of it. A fair policy at that. What more is needed?

6. Russia
- the missile defence systems, giving the finger to old treaties: a new cold war is just what the world needs right now

Well, Putin is wrong to think that we should not establish ties and friendships and to basically be ready for anything.

You wawnt a comprehensive policy for China but not much to say about Russia flexing its muscles? They were depriving east europe of energy and really being quite jerks. Perhaps they need a message.

7. Saudi Arabia

- that the President of the United States of America claims personal family-level realtionships with one of the world's most brutal and oppressive regimes says it all

It is reforming and that says a lot.

You sort of want it both ways -- you want us to be endlessly flexible and to never respond to Iranian saber rattling but you want us to cold shoulder the Saudis?

8. Israel-Palestine
- once a year President Bush wakes up to pay a lip service to the road map, the rest of the year it's just business as usual: arming israel and giving the finger (and smirk) at the fledgling Palestinian democracy: 30 years of that, you would think even President Bush would be able to see it's not working as the cycle of violence goes on and on
- claiming to introduce democracy into ME and when the Palestinians, who claim one the few tentative democracies in the region, go ahead and excercise their democratic rights and the results do not please President Bush, does he nevertheless hail for the Palestinians and their "God-given" freedom and democracy? No. He slaps sanctions on them and does his very best to meddle with the Palestinian democracy in order to get his guy in charge. What, again, is the message President Bush thinks he's sending here?

Palestine as a democracy is funny.

This is Democratic Hamas.

9. Lebanon

- selling out in favour of USAian military industry so that they would not lose their sales

What exactly?

10. South America

- yes, let's send the message loud and clear that it's very bad when free people in free, democratic elections choose left-leaning leaders whom the President of the United States of America dislikes

They chose him and then he shut down their rights to broadcast, pushed for open ended terms, volunteered to be negotiators for terrorists, and my favorite, he builds his military, says that if it happened today he would have sunk the British fleet going to the Falklands and wants all of South America to have one military. The guy is utterly ridiculous and a joke.

He sounds a lot like a future dictator.

11. Nuclear non-proliferation

- flirting with the idea of using nukes, building new nukes, giving the finger at old treaties, weaponizing space, rewarding rogue nuclear states for their illegal nukes, failing to secure the said Iraqi WMD's and turning Iraqi into an open market for dirty bombs -- what kind of messages does President Bush think he's sending here?

When did we flirt with using nukes? I am also unaware of new nukes. Weaponizing space... any of that.

I remember a star wars program meant to prevent nuclear war, though.

12. Post-911 world-wide sympathy, goodwill, and coming together

- a huge, wonderful, unique opportunity in the world history, an opportunity to actually chance the world for the better, and President Bush single-handedly squandered it in less than twelve months

Make the world better? While the Arab world celebrated the attack?

Perhaps post-WWI was a good time to make the world better but... Really... There is no unique opportunity to somehow unite the world.

Perhaps Chavez will give us that opportunity with his Latin American Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles







Every congressman who voted to initiate the war in Iraq should be tried alongside Bush. There is some question over whether he lied to them about Iraq's capabilities, and aims, which should be determined at their trials. If they knew what they were doing, they deserve to be hung for it just as much as Bush does.

Only four nations aside from the US participated in the invasion of Iraq; the United Kingom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark. The leadership of those four nations, should be tried for crimes against peace. The leadership of any of the countries involved in warcrimes during the invasion, or occupation, should be tried as well.

I believe that individuals that commit crimes of such a nature or who were negligent and allowed them to happen (sorry, no matter what you say Pres. Bush should not have been doing his rounds at Abu Gharib that night no matter how much you want to blame him) should be tried.

However, it wasn't a war of aggression. No destruction of cities or towns took place unless portions were harmed out of military necessity.

These are gross exaggerations and if we followed them all of the allies would have been tried right next to the Nazis becaus thse laws essentially would make all forms of war, even the most prudent, illegal if you were the interpreter.

Not at issue; we are talking about Bush.

Fair enough.

Not to change the subject at hand mid-thread, but there's another aspect of the Patriot Act, wiretapping, etc that I failed to mention in my original post.

Whenever anyone has questioned not only the legality but the need for the Patriot Act and other more controversial aspects of the War On Terror, Bush has acted as though terror can't be fought at all without the Patriot Act et al.

Observation of terrorists would be far more difficult thus leading to more attacks. Is that what ou want?

Furthermore, even now the laws of America are far more strict than those ofa country like Britain -- are they a police state?

Word is former Secretary of Defence, Rumsfeld, will not be seen this side of Atlantic as long as he lives, for the war crimes charges he faces here. Not that he has any friends here to invite him over. Not terribly surprising, considering that even the current President of the United States of America does not get nearly to usual number of state visit invitations, as a photo-op with Bush is seen more like a kiss of death than a political boost these days. Once President Bush steps down, he will likely face similar charges than Rumsfeld.

Then that shows where our new friends are:

Asia.

I have been advocating splitting from Europe ever since I heard the anti-Afghan war rhetoric.

I really am sick of much of Europe -- we have better friends elsewhere.

You guys really, really cannot be saying something so utterly out there as to try a President who fought in a war that initially had the real support, diplomatically, of Italy, Spain, UK, Denmark and Poland, some of your own nations. I think that is utterly foolish and two-faced.

 

[Ringo84]

Well, there can be a discussion concerning this being that the way of fighting their civil war involves terror. I tis outright war, so give us a break on that one.

And what of the tribesmen that are now turning on Al-Qaeda? That is significant.


[/SIZE]

What of the notion that other nations moderated themselves because of Bush? The idea has spread around significantly that Libya abandoned all ideas of a nuclear campaign, Syria was afraid to push issues further in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia had municipal elections and even Myanmar made changes.



On the refugee issue -- many refugees from Afghanistan were repatriated quickly. From 2002 to 2005 2.2 million Afghans repatriated.



How are we supposed to respond to them stubbornly sticking it out with their nuclear reactor and even refusing to be given a light water reactor in favor of their own controversial, enrichment plan? At one point they actually made a crucial mistake by admitting they need to enrich Uranium.. Being that in the production of the power, it is not necessary!



Do you think that we ever did not have troops and intelligence focused on Afghanistan?



Well, the local dictator is intending to have elections soon and is probably going to accept Bhutto as a Prime Minister soon in a power sharing plan. So much for dictatorship.

The guy is also President of a country which cannot even begin to hld itself together (look at the Red Mosque incidences).



- We had to have two respnses; one was to Chinese flexing their muscles and the other to Taiwan; both were fair.

- We already do have a policy -- trade, and lots of it. A fair policy at that. What more is needed?


Well, Putin is wrong to think that we should not establish ties and friendships and to basically be ready for anything.

You wawnt a comprehensive policy for China but not much to say about Russia flexing its muscles? They were depriving east europe of energy and really being quite jerks. Perhaps they need a message.
[/SIZE]


It is reforming and that says a lot.

You sort of want it both ways -- you want us to be endlessly flexible and to never respond to Iranian saber rattling but you want us to cold shoulder the Saudis?



Palestine as a democracy is funny.

This is Democratic Hamas.

[/SIZE]


What exactly?



They chose him and then he shut down their rights to broadcast, pushed for open ended terms, volunteered to be negotiators for terrorists, and my favorite, he builds his military, says that if it happened today he would have sunk the British fleet going to the Falklands and wants all of South America to have one military. The guy is utterly ridiculous and a joke.

He sounds a lot like a future dictator.



When did we flirt with using nukes? I am also unaware of new nukes. Weaponizing space... any of that.

I remember a star wars program meant to prevent nuclear war, though.



Make the world better? While the Arab world celebrated the attack?

Perhaps post-WWI was a good time to make the world better but... Really... There is no unique opportunity to somehow unite the world.

Perhaps Chavez will give us that opportunity with his Latin American Army.



I believe that individuals that commit crimes of such a nature or who were negligent and allowed them to happen (sorry, no matter what you say Pres. Bush should not have been doing his rounds at Abu Gharib that night no matter how much you want to blame him) should be tried.

However, it wasn't a war of aggression. No destruction of cities or towns took place unless portions were harmed out of military necessity.

These are gross exaggerations and if we followed them all of the allies would have been tried right next to the Nazis becaus thse laws essentially would make all forms of war, even the most prudent, illegal if you were the interpreter.



Fair enough.



Observation of terrorists would be far more difficult thus leading to more attacks. Is that what ou want?

Furthermore, even now the laws of America are far more strict than those ofa country like Britain -- are they a police state?



Then that shows where our new friends are:

Asia.

I have been advocating splitting from Europe ever since I heard the anti-Afghan war rhetoric.

I really am sick of much of Europe -- we have better friends elsewhere.

You guys really, really cannot be saying something so utterly out there as to try a President who fought in a war that initially had the real support, diplomatically, of Italy, Spain, UK, Denmark and Poland, some of your own nations. I think that is utterly foolish and two-faced.

Observation of terrorists would be far more difficult thus leading to more attacks. Is that what ou want?

I want to be able to keep tabs on terrorists who want to attack us. I don't want it to be done in such a way that it treads on the rights of Americans, if at all possible (and it is possible).

Furthermore, even now the laws of America are far more strict than those ofa country like Britain -- are they a police state?

I never said that I thought that this country is a police state. I don't think that it is. Yet. If we don't continue to allow the terrorists to change our way of life by allowing them to terrorize us, we won't have to worry about it.

I understand the need for greater security and surveillance in this post 9/11 world. I don't think that those goals are necessarily met through the subversion of the principles upon which this nation was founded.
Ringo

 

[Verv]

[/size][/font]

I want to be able to keep tabs on terrorists who want to attack us. I don't want it to be done in such a way that it treads on the rights of Americans, if at all possible (and it is possible).

That is a good goal for everyone.

I never said that I thought that this country is a police state. I don't think that it is. Yet. If we don't continue to allow the terrorists to change our way of life by allowing them to terrorize us, we won't have to worry about it.

I understand the need for greater security and surveillance in this post 9/11 world. I don't think that those goals are necessarily met through the subversion of the principles upon which this nation was founded.
Ringo

I think I simply have not heard of something so convincing -- usually, when I look at a lot of the new laws concerning wire tapping I always go back to the US Attorney General.

The guy will be held accountable and prosecuted if he signs off on wiretaps for essentially everybody. He does so carefully.

And more than that, usually warrants have really strict burdens: if we are looking for terrorists we will only listen for terrorism.

If they are tapping somebody and they talk about buying a little bit of marijuana or bouncing a check, we do not really hold it against them.

I do not see the huge threat as others do.

 

[Ringo84]

That is a good goal for everyone.



I think I simply have not heard of something so convincing -- usually, when I look at a lot of the new laws concerning wire tapping I always go back to the US Attorney General.

The guy will be held accountable and prosecuted if he signs off on wiretaps for essentially everybody. He does so carefully.

And more than that, usually warrants have really strict burdens: if we are looking for terrorists we will only listen for terrorism.

If they are tapping somebody and they talk about buying a little bit of marijuana or bouncing a check, we do not really hold it against them.

I do not see the huge threat as others do.

I think I simply have not heard of something so convincing -- usually, when I look at a lot of the new laws concerning wire tapping I always go back to the US Attorney General.

The guy will be held accountable and prosecuted if he signs off on wiretaps for essentially everybody. He does so carefully.

And more than that, usually warrants have really strict burdens: if we are looking for terrorists we will only listen for terrorism.

If they are tapping somebody and they talk about buying a little bit of marijuana or bouncing a check, we do not really hold it against them.

I do not see the huge threat as others do.

I had thought that Bush/Ashcroft/etc had done away with the need for a warrant. One of the threats of the Patriot Act - or so I thought - was that no warrant would be necessary to search a house. I also thought that the wiretaps would not require a warrant.
Ringo

 

[morningstar2651]

Bush fails as a leader. He's not cut out to lead a country.

 

[Loukuss]

I hate Bush, and I'll admit it readily.

It's not because he's a Christian, though, to tell you the truth, I don't think Bush is much of a Christian.

It's not because he's a Republican and/or conservative. I don't have a problem with either one. I have a problem with extremism.

It's because of the deceitful, manipulative, underhanded and spin-filled way in which Bush has chosen not only to prosecute the War On Terror or the way in which he has chosen to treat fellow Americans who had and still have valid questions about his methods.

You do not defeat terror by showing exactly how much the terrorists have intimidated and scared us (though they have admittedly done both) by destroying the foundational freedoms upon which this nation was founded: freedom of speech, freedom from unusual search and seizure, habeas corpus. In doing that, the terrorists, in a sense, have already won. That is because there is no better way to show exactly how much you have instilled fear into a country than seeing that the citizens are willing to turn on the principles that have defined their country from the beginning in order to feel just a little bit safer.

I don't care whether Bush is the President or the Grand Poobah: he doesn't have the right to redefine or destroy this country's principles simply because of a few terrorists with box cutters. The terrorists are a danger to us. It's true that we are faced with the prospect of another 9/11. But there is no better way to fight against freedom-hating terrorists than to demonstrate to them that despite their attempt to disenfranchise and terrorize us, we are still the shining beacon of democracy - at home as well as abroad - that we always have been.

Bush may be the President, but he still must earn my respect and trust. By accusing those who questioned him in the least after 9/11 by calling them traitors, by enacting freedom-hating laws such as the Patriot Act and the wiretapping measures, by condoning torture and then attempting to justify it, by using WMD as one of the major rationales for invading Iraq when he knew that Saddam had no WMD, by spinning the Saddam-al-Qaida link and the threat posed by Saddam, and by denying reality through obfuscation and spin, Bush has earned neither my respect nor my trust. I can't respect someone who has no respect for me, the truth, or the Constitution.
Ringo

I thought this was a great post except for the "shining beacon of democracy" part. Everyone knows the US aint no democracy.
Everything else was spot on, sir.