Bush Farewell Address

[smahoo]

As I watched Bush's speech last night, I couldn't help but feel even further betrayed by his lack of candor for the sorry state of his presidency. The congratulatory remarks to Cheney made me sick. These two have perpetrated a systematic destruction of the world's economy and are responsible for the loss of over 4000 of America's finest in a war that should've never been fought.

It is my hope that the Justice Department under AG Holder and the guidance of President Obama, will persue an investigation into possible war crimes alledged against the Bush administration and that the law will be enforced against all involved.

As Chris Matthews said after the address, if you keep your own score, the card can look as good as you want it to.

What did you think???

[Stax]

I think war crimes are a big, big stretch. He's a guy who thinks he's done what is right and that ultimately, once the fire has died down, people will see that. I think he's quite quite wrong, but that's what he thinks.

[redsox39]

What did you think???


I think you are a partisan Hack. While I have many problems with Bush, asking for war crime charges is so over the top, it betrays your portrayal of having a level head.

[Morfin]

Bush gave his Farewell address. And to him, I give the following:

Ol9_0schMHs

[redsox39]

It that the Lawrence Welk show? I think grandma used to make me watch that!

Edit: Finished watching! It is the LW show! I love me some Polka!

[TylerDurden]

I think war crimes are a big, big stretch. He's a guy who thinks he's done what is right and that ultimately, once the fire has died down, people will see that. I think he's quite quite wrong, but that's what he thinks.

i would agree, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. hopefully the next president doesn't look at the rest of the world as an extension of his back yard, and we can keep to ourselves for a while. that might be a nice change of pace.

[Archangel]

I think you are a partisan Hack. While I have many problems with Bush, asking for war crime charges is so over the top, it betrays your portrayal of having a level head.

Oh, so lying about a war's motivation, utterly mismanaging a conflict, causing the death of 100,000 people, letting a country sink into anarchy, having prisoners tortured, and letting mercenaries run around murdering people with no accountability are GOOD things when you're objective and level-headed?

[Hoser]

Did you expect him to get up there and say, "Hi everybody, I just wanted to say, I sucked. I was horrible, I fucked everything up. Every single person involved with my presidency was a moron and we didn't do shit".

Of course he is going to highlight his achievements, of course he is going to give praise to those around him, even if it wasn't all that deserved.

[redsox39]

Oh, so lying about a war's motivation, utterly mismanaging a conflict, causing the death of 100,000 people, letting a country sink into anarchy, having prisoners tortured, and letting mercenaries run around murdering people with no accountability are GOOD things when you're objective and level-headed?


No one wanted to Haul LBJ or the democrats for going into Veitnam and killing way more people than that, including 50,000 americans. No one was calling for JFK for War crimes or impeachment as his drug use lead us to the brink of Nuclear war. No one gave a shit when Clinton bombed Civilian villiages in the Bosnia-Serbia-Slavic crap.

Now I know you are just going to explain how these guys were better at this and that, which might be true, but don't be giving me no war crime bullshit. Hell, throughout Vietnam there were atrocities, but no one but the people with boots on the ground got any shit for that. But Bush, well, Bush caused 100,000 people to die in Iraq, he cause Katrina because he hates teh blacks, his enviromental policies contributed to the Tsunami, and in General, his farts made Washington, DC, a formerly wonderful disneyland of truth and honesty, smell bad.

Jesus Christ, if this isn't partisan hack bullshit arch, I have no idea what is...

War Crimes, yeah,
Bush = Milosivich (Sp?)
Bush = Saddam
Bush = Hitler

Seriously, get off the high horse, he is gone in 4 days, then you will have to find someone else to be your scape goat for every problem in the entire world, lord knows it can't be the president again who is going to usher in the Utopian States of America.

[Stax]

No one wanted to Haul LBJ or the democrats for going into Veitnam and killing way more people than that, including 50,000 americans.

Because that war was the product of multiple presidents.

No one was calling for JFK for War crimes or impeachment as his drug use lead us to the brink of Nuclear war.

JFK's drug use, k.

[redsox39]

Because that war was the product of multiple presidents.





Good then, according to Stax, on January 20th, either Iraq is no longer Bush's fault, or we can start blaming Obama for it too.

I mean, this will be the product of Multiple presidents. Seriously.

[redsox39]

JFK's drug use, k.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the world was taken to the brink of nuclear war by a President who mixed mood-modulating steroids [for his Addison's disease] and amphetamines (http://www.amphetamines.com/refs/index.html). Kennedy also took meperidine (http://opioids.com/meperidine/index.html) (Demerol), methadone (http://opioids.com/methadone/scarestory.html) (Dolophine), methylphenidate (http://www.amphetamines.com/methylphenidate/ritalinkid.html) (Ritalin), meprobamate (http://www.biopsychiatry.com/meprobamate/index.html) (Miltown), chlordiazepoxide (http://www.biopsychiatry.com/librium.htm) (Librium), miscellaneous barbiturates (http://www.amphetamines.com/dexamyl.html) and thyroid (http://www.biopsychiatry.com/thyroidt3t4.htm) hormone - though not all at the same time. A 1972 New York Times report quotes a doctor treating Kennedy who allegedly warned him about amphetamine use: "no President with his finger on the red button has any business taking stuff like that."


Sorry, I forget we aren't supposed to talk about thing like this unless it is a Republican...Must be that New York Times throwing him under the bus...

[Stax]

Good then, according to Stax, on January 20th, either Iraq is no longer Bush's fault, or we can start blaming Obama for it too.

I mean, this will be the product of Multiple presidents. Seriously.

LBJ elevated it, but he did not start it. Nixon claimed would end it and did not (in fact briefly elevating it himself). If Obama starts strengthening our presence in Iraq, yes you can. If he starts pulling out, no.

Vietnam can trace fault all the way back to Truman for our involvement in the Far East and support for the French in their conflict. Iraq is Bush's baby.

[Stax]

Sorry, I forget we aren't supposed to talk about thing like this unless it is a Republican...Must be that New York Times throwing him under the bus...

And that Cuban Missile Crisis ended badly? JFK was the hotheaded one in that situation, as the guy pushing NOT to invade? Man, I must be reading some dumb history books.

[redsox39]

And that Cuban Missile Crisis ended badly? JFK was the hotheaded one in that situation, as the guy pushing NOT to invade? Man, I must be reading some dumb history books.

It should have never gotten to that point! The whole "He led us to the brink of Nuclear War" was the fact that the CMC had to happen.

I mean, we won't even get into his mob connections, the Bay of Pigs where he let thousands of Pro-american cubans get slaughtered and imprisoned and tourtured for no reason...

Or his war record...

Sorry, white wash him all you want, but if he doesn't take 2 (or 1 or 3 depending on what you believe) to the dome, he goes down as a fucking horrible president.

But hey, he put man on the moon, which I do appreciate.

But this isn't about JFK, it is about you just taking a hard stand on whatever popular opinion is prevelant! Good job man!

My favorite part was you laughing at the Drug use, because you had no fucking clue. JFK is wrapped in a flowery veil and viewed with rose colored glasses and people like you just eat it up because CW tells you to.

ahhh...Camelot...

[TylerDurden]

my favorite argument amongst all of this is "bush did shit no worse than this person, this person or this person," despite the fact that persons a, b, and c didn't serve in a time when their actions could be viewed, heard and digested in fifty-six milliseconds (the average time it takes a browser to load a web page) from anywhere in the world.

so although i'm sure every president this country has ever had has done their fair share of heinous bullshit it wasn't broadcast to every television, computer and cell phone on the planet the minute they did it. thus every connected citizen in even a semi-developed country hears, reads, watches, and learns of what we do, via our elected officials, every second of every day. and this isn't something new, either. anyone going into that position has an obligation to consider the public image of this country more than ever before simply by virtue of technology.

so even though previous presidents probably pulled the same exact bullshit in myriad ways, bush will be remembered most of all. he has fucking decimated this country's credibility on the world stage, and is guilty of being a rogue; a maverick. and not in a good way. we all exist on this planet together, and we'll all die on this planet together unless there are ground rules set and followed. world leaders routinely do whatever the fuck they want, but bush did this openly and with a brash arrogance and disregard for the consequences.

leave former presidents and their supposed actions out of the argument; they lived in a different time and haven't been relevant since that time.

[smahoo]

After reading the above posts there appears to be a need for clarification.

1. The allegations of war crimes against members of the Bush administration appear trace back to the Pressident and Vice President. Because of that, an investigation into those allegations is proper. A substantial difference from redsox' spewings of LBJ, JFK and others.

2. As such, the United States Justice Department, has an obligation to persue, investigate and prosecute any crimes committed to the fullest extent of the law. Those who were charged with war crimes during the Vietnam era (torturers, Lt. Calley, etc.) were properly court martialed and sentenced for those crimes.

3. Calling for the torture of prisoners is a war crime. Illegally detaining individuals without formal charges brought is a crime. The fact that the Bush administrations own officials state that prosecution of a known terrorist is compromised because his treatment while being interrogated meets the legal definition of torture is reason enough to launch an investigation.

4. That the President asked for what methods could be deployed while interrogating detainees and of their legality merits investigation. The fact that the President and/or Vice President may have received bad legal council doesn't exonerate them from their culpability in this matter.

The world is looking to the United States to practice what they preach. Let's hope we do.

[Stax]

It should have never gotten to that point! The whole "He led us to the brink of Nuclear War" was the fact that the CMC had to happen.

As opposed to... He was supposed to psychically predict, before any intelligence experts, that nukes were on their way to Cuba and should be stopped?

I mean, we won't even get into his mob connections,

Good, because they're a silly thing to talk about.

the Bay of Pigs where he let thousands of Pro-american cubans get slaughtered and imprisoned and tourtured for no reason...

Yes, that is a big, horrible moment in his presidency.

Or his war record...

Where he was a hero?

Sorry, white wash him all you want, but if he doesn't take 2 (or 1 or 3 depending on what you believe) to the dome, he goes down as a fucking horrible president.

Positives: Cuban Missile Crisis, all the Civil Rights legislation under LBJ would've been his (if not for the assassination), end to Eisenhower's more frightening entirely-nuke based foreign policy, Space Race
Negatives: Bay of Pigs
Double-extra-positive: Fucking Marilyn Monroe

But this isn't about JFK, it is about you just taking a hard stand on whatever popular opinion is prevelant! Good job man!

Yep, that's totally what I'm doing. What with defending Bush in my first post in this thread. That's a very popular opinion.

[Archangel]

So calling Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, or the Blackwater massacres a fucking blight on the face of civilisation makes me a liberal?

[Morfin]

Since we are digressing so much, let me add my two cents.

As much as I am not a big Kennedy fan, the Bay of Pigs, while occurring during his watch, was not of his doing. This was a CIA operation started and conceived during Eisenhower's presidency, and Eisenhower (and Nixon) approved it.

Once out of the vice-presidency, Nixon was terrified of the prospect that his involvement with the Bay of Pigs would become known. In fact, during the initial Watergate cover-up, Nixon's obstruction of justice was that he wanted the FBI's investigation of the matter stopped so they would not figure out that the Cubans involved in the Watergate break-in had a role in the Bay of Pigs. This was why the hush money (in Nixon's mind) to be paid to the Cuban's was so vital -- not because he was worried so much about the Watergate break-in itself, but he was more worried (at that time) about the Cubans opening their mouths about the Bay of Pigs. It was this fear that led Nixon's attempt to derail the FBI investigation by having his people tell the FBI to drop the investigation because it was a CIA matter.

Okay, now return to your Bush and JFK bashing debate.

[vasili denisov]

I think war crimes are a big, big stretch. He's a guy who thinks he's done what is right and that ultimately, once the fire has died down, people will see that. I think he's quite quite wrong, but that's what he thinks.
Instead of looking at a broad set of issues which could lead to a prosecution for war crimes, I'll just focus on one: torture. The point that a man thinks he is in the right when committing acts which violate the law is of course, no defense. The only question is whether such acts are defensible, given the context, say, self-defense.

So, the question is whether the president explicitly authourized torture. We know that cabinet level officials frequently discussed and approved harsh interrogation techniques (source (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=aspr2002harshinterrogation#aspr20 02harshinterrogation)); we know that a memo was drawn up by Justice approving torture of suspects (source (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=torture,_rendition,_and_other_abu ses_against_captives_in_iraq,_afghanistan,_and_els ewhere_1100#torture,_rendition,_and_other_abuses_a gainst_captives_in_iraq,_afghanistan,_and_elsewher e_1100)); that the justice department issued a second memo giving clearance to the CIA to use torture techniques (source (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=torture,_rendition,_and_other_abu ses_against_captives_in_iraq,_afghanistan,_and_els ewhere_862#torture,_rendition,_and_other_abuses_ag ainst_captives_in_iraq,_afghanistan,_and_elsewhere _862)); and that administration lawyers gave a green light for torture techniques to be used at Guantanamo (source (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a092502greenlight#a092502greenlig ht)).

So, then the only question is: did the cabinet and justice act entirely independently of the president, or did all these actions have top level executive authourity? If there was such authourity, then the president is guilty of war crimes. Whether such a prosecution is possible or not, is another question. Bear in mind, though, that if such a prosecution is not possible because it would tear the country apart, that any president may then have blanket immunity to violate whatever international norms, fully confident that he will escape any prosecution for such acts, because the prosecution would tear the country apart.

I don't believe any of the acts of previous presidents cited rises to the level of war crimes, but the way I look at it, this is ultimately a dead-end distraction. I think the following demonstrates the flaw in the reasoning:



Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, during a time when slavery was considered horrific enough that slave trading was banned in parts of the world and slave traders were prosecuted (there was a sense that owning slaves violated natural law)
Thomas Jefferson, who committed a great crime at least by our contemporary standards, was never prosecuted
Since Thomas Jefferson was never prosecuted for his crimes, no president should ever be prosecuted for their crimes

[Stax]

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, during a time when slavery was considered horrific enough that slave trading was banned in parts of the world and slave traders were prosecuted (there was a sense that owning slaves violated natural law)
Thomas Jefferson, who committed a great crime at least by our contemporary standards, was never prosecuted
Since Thomas Jefferson was never prosecuted for his crimes, no president should ever be prosecuted for their crimes


I don't follow how that has any bearing on the discussion at hand. Jefferson violated no American law. If Bush took actions which violated the Geneva Convention (which, as a treaty the US is a signatory to, is of equal standing to the Constitution in American law) he took actions that most CERTAINLY violated the law. I don't think it's proveable that he did, but the Jefferson comparison is an odd one.

[Hanover Fist]

Once again it comes down to the point of how you determine what "torture" is. What is the line between torture and interrogation, I personally don't feel that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud music and being cold constitute torture seeing as how they are all methods used to train our very own troops. Now if you have evidence of us pulling out fingernails, electrocuting, mutilating, or doing actual torture then I might think you have a point.

[TylerDurden]

I don't follow how that has any bearing on the discussion at hand. Jefferson violated no American law. If Bush took actions which violated the Geneva Convention (which, as a treaty the US is a signatory to, is of equal standing to the Constitution in American law) he took actions that most CERTAINLY violated the law. I don't think it's proveable that he did, but the Jefferson comparison is an odd one.

vasili made some outstanding points, but immediately lost me with the jefferson analogy. prosecuting bush is as much a means of atonement to the rest of the world as it is about holding a man accountable for his actions.

just as the individual states, counties, and municipalities hold elections to put power in the hands of a few as means of representation for the inhabitants of those places to the larger structure, so do we elect the president as a means of representation to the world. the current situation is by no means analogous to the time of jefferson because the world climate has changed. even if it hadn't, society must evolve. it used to take days, weeks, or longer just to communicate between the original colonies; months to the location of the actual gov't (england). we've obviously evolved past that, and it's time to evolve past the point of allowing our elected officials to write blank checks on our behalf simply because they're in the position they're in.

i would much rather this country focus on getting ourselves well after eight years of sickness, but it'd be nice to let the rest of the world sign our collective cast as well. like i said, it's as much about a gesture to everyone else as it is about holding him accountable and as an example for future would-be assholes.

[Morfin]

Such a "gesture" is virtually unthinkable. I dislike Bush/Cheney as much as the next guy. But to subject a former U.S. President to such a political witchhunt is fun to talk about but could never be done. Yes, in my mind, there was torture. But, although not the best of arguments, there is an argument that what was done was not torture and was not a Geneva Convention violation.

And to what purpose? And do we bring Blair into it, too. I mean he went along with the invasion; he knew about Gitmo; he must have known what was going on; did he break away from Bush or tacitly go along?

While the academic discussion is somewhat interesting, the fact that it never will happen is another thing.

[redsox39]

After reading the above posts there appears to be a need for clarification.

1. The allegations of war crimes against members of the Bush administration appear trace back to the Pressident and Vice President. Because of that, an investigation into those allegations is proper. A substantial difference from redsox' spewings of LBJ, JFK and others.. Really? why? Because the press didn't do then what they do now, and you know it. Not saying it was right or wrong, but for the most part, the press was on the same team, played by the rules the White house set up for them, and there were no computers. And as far as Bay of Pigs went, that was JFK's fault, 100%.

2. As such, the United States Justice Department, has an obligation to persue, investigate and prosecute any crimes committed to the fullest extent of the law. Those who were charged with war crimes during the Vietnam era (torturers, Lt. Calley, etc.) were properly court martialed and sentenced for those crimes. .

Yeah, once again, boots on the ground were held liable for orders that came apparently from thin air. Just sounded fun to kill people that day. They definetly were never told to get rid of a village by the higher ups.

3. Calling for the torture of prisoners is a war crime. Illegally detaining individuals without formal charges brought is a crime. The fact that the Bush administrations own officials state that prosecution of a known terrorist is compromised because his treatment while being interrogated meets the legal definition of torture is reason enough to launch an investigation. .

But only when Bush does it, right? I guess you missed the whole Cold war...

4. That the President asked for what methods could be deployed while interrogating detainees and of their legality merits investigation.

I guess he should have just done it without checking then? I mean, Seriously? The man tries to follow the law and now you wan to investigate that too? Seriously, get your hard on for Bush out of here, and before you judge him, at least compare him to the guys in the last 50 years or so. We as a society are so stuck in the future we forget about the past and only remember what is convienient for the time. You are trying to crucify a man who number one goal was to keep you from being a terrorist statistic. Maybe you didn't want to be protected, or would have liked to use different methods, but the fact remains, he was elected, and he did what he thought was best for the Nation.

Yeah, he made some fuck ups, but you can't have it both ways. Either he is so fucking stupid he can't complete a sentence, or he is so fucking evil and sinister that he pulled off some scheme's that make Hitler jealous, which is it? Both right? *sigh*

[TylerDurden]

Such a "gesture" is virtually unthinkable. I dislike Bush/Cheney as much as the next guy. But to subject a former U.S. President to such a political witchhunt is fun to talk about but could never be done.

and while i understand your point, perhaps we do need need a political witchhunt if for no other reason than to put every politician on notice: if we catch you being deceptive or misrepresenting us in any way, we're comin' for that ass. and to remind the rest of the world what this country is built on, for, and around: we, the fucking people.

And to what purpose? And do we bring Blair into it, too. I mean he went along with the invasion; he knew about Gitmo; he must have known what was going on; did he break away from Bush or tacitly go along?

we didn't elect blair. the brits did. if they find it in their best interests, let them handle it. or, in the process of dealing with our own ill-tempered child we open a dialogue with them and say, "hey, we were getting ready to publicly roast our former president. perhaps you'd like to join us in roasting your former prime minister?" if they say no, they say no. either way, we're sending a message.

You are trying to crucify a man who number one goal was to keep you from being a terrorist statistic. Maybe you didn't want to be protected, or would have liked to use different methods, but the fact remains, he was elected, and he did what he thought was best for the Nation.

with this sentiment it's a shame all we have to go on for proof of his intentions is his word, which is worth what, exactly? just sayin'. furthermore, i believe i've already stated that good intentions aren't enough to justify one's actions. and it's not as though all he had to go on was a "good vibe".

Yeah, he made some fuck ups, but you can't have it both ways. Either he is so fucking stupid he can't complete a sentence, or he is so fucking evil and sinister that he pulled off some scheme's that make Hitler jealous, which is it? Both right? *sigh*

so in order to have a desire to abuse a post or position, one must be smart? corruption and greed is prevalent everywhere, regardless of your intelligence. oddly, there is a correlation between the two: the fucking dumber you are, the more obvious it is to everyone else. or didn't you get the memo? *sigh*

[redsox39]

and while i understand your point, perhaps we do need need a political witchhunt if for no other reason than to put every politician on notice: if we catch you being deceptive or misrepresenting us in any way, we're comin' for that ass. and to remind the rest of the world what this country is built on, for, and around: we, the fucking people.




On this angle, I actually might go along with it...but I have to be honest, this just seems like partisan Bullshit still.

[TylerDurden]

On this angle, I actually might go along with it...but I have to be honest, this just seems like partisan Bullshit still.

oh, i'm sorry. would it have tasted better if i suggested that we do this to obama if he fucks around, too?

[BIG PIZZLE]

I think war crimes are a big, big stretch. He's a guy who thinks he's done what is right and that ultimately, once the fire has died down, people will see that. I think he's quite quite wrong, but that's what he thinks.

In the most sympathetic light, assuming that he's not an arrogant liar, Bush is a guy who tried to do the right thing but fucked up horribly. It's great that he's the "Decider" but he has to be held accountable for his horrible decisions.

On this angle, I actually might go along with it...but I have to be honest, this just seems like partisan Bullshit still.

Unless I'm wrong "Partisan" is when one party disagrees with another out of blind allegance to their party. Last time I checked, democrats arent the only ones who think Bush is a toolbag.

[redsox39]

oh, i'm sorry. would it have tasted better if i suggested that we do this to obama if he fucks around, too?


Probably, but you will never get near the support for that no matter how bad he fucks up.

It would be Racist anyways...so actually, go after Bush, so when we have to go after Obama, there will be a "president", lol.

[Hodge]

... But to subject a former U.S. President to such a political witchhunt is fun to talk about but could never be done...
I'm probably not contributing a whole lot and it's not fair to say they were on the same level as far as corruptness, but isn't this what was done to Saddam Hussein? He wasn't a former US president but he was a former head of state.

A lot of parallels can be drawn between the two: war crimes? check, crimes against their own people? check, unwarranted invasion of another country? check,...

[BIG PIZZLE]

Once again it comes down to the point of how you determine what "torture" is. What is the line between torture and interrogation, I personally don't feel that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud music and being cold constitute torture seeing as how they are all methods used to train our very own troops. Now if you have evidence of us pulling out fingernails, electrocuting, mutilating, or doing actual torture then I might think you have a point.

I disagree with this based on one observation. Many of these "enemy combatants" are willing to die for their cause without question. What is being done to them so that they speak against a cause that they are willing to die for must be brutal. Call it what you want but it has to be gruling, cruel, unusual and designed to elicit anguish. They should at least get a little Amir Diab.

[redsox39]

Unless I'm wrong "Partisan" is when one party disagrees with another out of blind allegance to their party. Last time I checked, democrats arent the only ones who think Bush is a toolbag.

...but for the most part are the only ones looking for him to be crucified...

[smahoo]

not crucified, just accountable

[Morfin]

I repeat my question: To what end?

And don't you think that Obama would pardon him before Congress took any action, as Ford did with Nixon?

[smahoo]

Accountable to the people for not upholding the laws of the United States which he was sworn to do on 2 occasions. Are you people really this thick???

And no Obama will not pardon him

[Morfin]

Accountable to the people for not upholding the laws of the United States which he was sworn to do on 2 occasions. Are you people really this thick???

And no Obama will not pardon him

Apparently I am because I disagree with you with every fiber of my old, liver-spotted, calloused, senile being.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Accountable to the people for not upholding the laws of the United States which he was sworn to do on 2 occasions. Are you people really this thick???

And no Obama will not pardon him

Dude, dont be rediculous.

[smahoo]

^ back at ya....

its really not that complicated. the question is, did the president and/or vice president order illegal acts to be performed under the guise of national security. if so, they should be prosecuted. period.

the argument that terrorist combatants are not representing a sovereign nation and are therefore excluded from the protections of the geneva conventions rule of warfare is the issue. nothing else.

[TylerDurden]

^ back at ya....

its really not that complicated. the question is, did the president and/or vice president order illegal acts to be performed under the guise of national security. if so, they should be prosecuted. period.

the argument that terrorist combatants are not representing a sovereign nation and are therefore excluded from the protections of the geneva conventions rule of warfare is the issue. nothing else.

good points, but continuing to argue this will be futile. the american public lacks the fucking sand to follow through with it.

[Rover]

Accountable to the people for not upholding the laws of the United States which he was sworn to do on 2 occasions. Are you people really this thick???

And no Obama will not pardon himWhich laws?

If you say the "Geneva Convention" you're an idiot. You can't pick and choose, which part of the Geneva treaty you follow. All of it applies or none of it does. Islamic militants don't wear uniforms and they don't avoid using churches/mosques/schools/hospitals for shelter. Geneva rules only apply if everyone is playing by the same rules. Look at the Geneva conventions. I mean actually look at them and read them. Signatories are only bound by the rules as long as everyone plays by them. Once one side stops following the rules, all bets are off.

Remind me again, which of the Geneva conventions did the islamic militants follow.

Also, Bush had legal opinion after legal opinion that gave him the ability to do what he did. Congress is just as much at fault for beating on the war drums as Bush was. There's just too much bleeding heart, revisionist bullshit going on here.

But whatever, keep on blaming Bush for everything that's wrong with the world. I'm sure things will be awesomely awesome at noon on Tuesday.

[Morfin]

the argument that terrorist combatants are not representing a sovereign nation and are therefore excluded from the protections of the geneva conventions rule of warfare is the issue. nothing else.

You're right: that is the issue. And it is by no means clear-cut. If you think it is, then you need to re-read articles on the matter. I, personally, think that the Geneva Convention does apply and, even if it technically doesn't, that we, as the U.S. and Big Brother to all, should have magnanimously followed it anyway.

But, just because Bush and his boys believed differently does not mean that their belief was criminal.

And, you should understand this: If Congress or the World is going to take the leader of any country -- especially of a First World country -- and put him/her on trial for war crimes, they better be abso-fucking-lutely sure that they have the guy nailed. Because otherwise, it'll get all bogged down in politics and public sentiment that the past is the past. Reference: Clinton Impeachment. And the issue of whether the Geneva Convention applies or not, does not qualify as a slam-dunk.

[smahoo]

^^ yes, things will be awesomely awesome at noon on tuesday. we agree on that.
the rest of your post, not so much

[andora]

Bush did his best for the American people. It wasnt one persons decision but a number of. In AFrica due to his foreign policy, he's actually a hero there. For the first time, it appeared America cared and they did a lot to help our causes. Big ups to him.

I think under the circumstances around his 8 year term, anyone would of gone down the same road regarding Iraq etc

[Stax]

Which laws?

If you say the "Geneva Convention" you're an idiot. You can't pick and choose, which part of the Geneva treaty you follow. All of it applies or none of it does. Islamic militants don't wear uniforms and they don't avoid using churches/mosques/schools/hospitals for shelter. Geneva rules only apply if everyone is playing by the same rules. Look at the Geneva conventions. I mean actually look at them and read them. Signatories are only bound by the rules as long as everyone plays by them. Once one side stops following the rules, all bets are off.


"The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[2]"

The 'enemy combatant' garbage the Bush administration dreamed up is just that, garbage they dreamed up.

[Claydon]

I will be very curious to see how many obama freaks on here will excuse obama when he makes use of certain tools bush/cheney have put in place.

[Bill Paxton]

Bush did his best for the American people. It wasnt one persons decision but a number of. In AFrica due to his foreign policy, he's actually a hero there. For the first time, it appeared America cared and they did a lot to help our causes. Big ups to him.

I think under the circumstances around his 8 year term, anyone would of gone down the same road regarding Iraq etc

If thats his best, i'd hate to have seen his two terms at half assed.

[Stax]

Bush did his best for the American people. It wasnt one persons decision but a number of. In AFrica due to his foreign policy, he's actually a hero there. For the first time, it appeared America cared and they did a lot to help our causes. Big ups to him.

I think under the circumstances around his 8 year term, anyone would of gone down the same road regarding Iraq etc

I think you're very wrong, since there's absolutely no logical reason for anyone who didn't come in with an administration loaded with people looking for regime change in Iraq to pursue war in Iraq.

[TylerDurden]

In AFrica due to his foreign policy, he's actually a hero there.

and nowhere else.

I think under the circumstances around his 8 year term, anyone would of gone down the same road regarding Iraq etc

not so much.

[Yelram]

not so much

Brilliant thesis there. How long did it take you to come up with that. Did you happen to forget that fucking congress voted for the war? Clinton supported the idea of regime change in Iraq, he just didnt have the political ballsack to go through with it. Saddam Hussein was a problem caused directly by US foreign policy. We funded him, we armed him, and we were going to allow the country to be handed down to his sons.

[Stax]

Brilliant thesis there. How long did it take you to come up with that. Did you happen to forget that fucking congress voted for the war? Clinton supported the idea of regime change in Iraq, he just didnt have the political ballsack to go through with it. Saddam Hussein was a problem caused directly by US foreign policy. We funded him, we armed him, and we were going to allow the country to be handed down to his sons.

She supported the idea of regime change with the flawed intel she was given by the administration clear of all the behind-closed-doors issues people had with it. And, of course, she saw her presidential coronation knocked off course almost entirely over that issue anyways.

EDIT - Oh, you meant old Bill Clinton? He bombed them, keeping their weapons programs under control (evidenced by there being none) without committing thousands of ground troops.

[Yelram]

She supported the idea of regime change with the flawed intel she was given by the administration clear of all the behind-closed-doors issues people had with it. And, of course, she saw her presidential coronation knocked off course almost entirely over that issue anyways.

EDIT - Oh, you meant old Bill Clinton? He bombed them, keeping their weapons programs under control (evidenced by there being none) without committing thousands of ground troops.


Right, he accomplished nothing, and bombed an aspirin factory. The amount of Iraqis starved during the sanctions > amount killed in Iraq war.

[TylerDurden]

Brilliant thesis there. How long did it take you to come up with that. Did you happen to forget that fucking congress voted for the war? Clinton supported the idea of regime change in Iraq, he just didnt have the political ballsack to go through with it. Saddam Hussein was a problem caused directly by US foreign policy. We funded him, we armed him, and we were going to allow the country to be handed down to his sons.

good job on reading the rest of the thread. my six-year-old son does this shit all the time: walk into an already-in-progress discussion, take what he first hears out of context, and works with that only to find out that he's completely missed the meat of the conversation. although he pardons himself before so rudely interrupting, so i guess he's got one up on you.

[smahoo]

pwnd.....nice work

[Hanover Fist]

"The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[2]"

The 'enemy combatant' garbage the Bush administration dreamed up is just that, garbage they dreamed up.

Actually it was coined by the Supreme Court in 1942 for the trial of german unlawful combatants during WWII (ex parte Quirin).

A little cut and paste from that decision:

This decision states:
“ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. ”

[BIG PIZZLE]

In AFrica due to his foreign policy, he's actually a hero there.

He's a hero there b/c he just threw a lot of money into the continent. Money that the US doesnt have.

Also...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xISnDjzyJW8/SKXrng2Wd3I/AAAAAAAAAA0/ANhLBvufoes/s1600/gods1.jpg

[freegood]

No one is going to try any senior American official. Not the UN, the Hague, or the ICC. Keep dreaming.

It'd be nice to follow the rule of law for once in the past 8 years, but it looks like Cheney and his Cronies will get off Libby free.


If thats his best, i'd hate to have seen his two terms at half assed.

He would govern at Crawford Ranch and play golf at the White House.

Maybe that would have been a better thing...

[vasili denisov]

I don't follow how that has any bearing on the discussion at hand. Jefferson violated no American law. If Bush took actions which violated the Geneva Convention (which, as a treaty the US is a signatory to, is of equal standing to the Constitution in American law) he took actions that most CERTAINLY violated the law. I don't think it's proveable that he did, but the Jefferson comparison is an odd one.
You're right, it was a lousy analogy. I was reacting to the citation of various acts by various presidents which I'm guessing were to be considered egregious offenses, actions which were only later legislated against. Put more simply, however, as a citizen, if you violate the law, you are liable; that others in the past violated the law and were not prosecuted is a legitimate defense. This is just a case of making political actors liable in the same manner.
Once again it comes down to the point of how you determine what "torture" is. What is the line between torture and interrogation, I personally don't feel that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud music and being cold constitute torture seeing as how they are all methods used to train our very own troops. Now if you have evidence of us pulling out fingernails, electrocuting, mutilating, or doing actual torture then I might think you have a point.
The geneva convention makes this clear to avoid having varied definitions of torture. Torture is defined to include corporal punishment, which is the deliberate infliction of pain. Sleep deprivation and forcing a person to stand in a position are extraordinarily effective and were widely used in interrogations in the Soviet Union. Extensive description of this is given by Robert Conquest in The Great Terror, and he unreservedly considers it torture.
Which laws?

If you say the "Geneva Convention" you're an idiot. You can't pick and choose, which part of the Geneva treaty you follow. All of it applies or none of it does. Islamic militants don't wear uniforms and they don't avoid using churches/mosques/schools/hospitals for shelter. Geneva rules only apply if everyone is playing by the same rules. Look at the Geneva conventions. I mean actually look at them and read them. Signatories are only bound by the rules as long as everyone plays by them. Once one side stops following the rules, all bets are off.

I may be an idiot, but I do say "Geneva Convention", and I question how closely you've looked at them. In the footnotes of the convention, the following point is made clear:

In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.
The actions of another party do not allow the other party to violate the convention. If that were the case, the torture by one party of an individual would give license to the other party to bomb whatever civilians they wanted; they could even engage in such unfettered combat simply on the basis that "oh, we thought they violated the convention and that we could then too. Whoops!"
Such a "gesture" is virtually unthinkable. I dislike Bush/Cheney as much as the next guy. But to subject a former U.S. President to such a political witchhunt is fun to talk about but could never be done. Yes, in my mind, there was torture. But, although not the best of arguments, there is an argument that what was done was not torture and was not a Geneva Convention violation.

And to what purpose? And do we bring Blair into it, too. I mean he went along with the invasion; he knew about Gitmo; he must have known what was going on; did he break away from Bush or tacitly go along?

I'll deal with the second part of the argument first, and say, that you can make the prosecution simple, and indict the individual who gave final authourity, and that's the president. A legal brief was drawn up specifically stating that congress should have no power to restrict a president's actions in wartime. If he's going to assume such great powers, he can assume the accompanying responsibility as well.

Do I think such a prosecution for war crimes will go ahead? No. But I want to make clear the case for such crimes. I think it's a strong case, not a loose change 9/11 was a hoax case. That such a prosecution could not go ahead because it's unthinkable that a US president could be subject to such a "witch hunt" is a telling one. There is such a thing as international accountability that has nothing to do with witchhunts or partisan fighting, and simply, that all parties must hold to the letter of the law. They cannot engage in whatever practices they feel like. If that discourages Obama from violating international law, bully for that.

As for it being unthinkable that the head of the US could realistically be held to account, I ask, why? Does a nation's power determine its degree of liability to international law? If that is the case, then any weak power which engages in conflict with the US, either directly or against one of its allies, has no diplomatic interest in following Geneva, because they know they can be prosecuted for its violation while their counterparts never will.

[Morfin]

Vasili,

My use of the term "gesture" was based on this post:

i would much rather this country focus on getting ourselves well after eight years of sickness, but it'd be nice to let the rest of the world sign our collective cast as well. like i said, it's as much about a gesture to everyone else as it is about holding him accountable and as an example for future would-be assholes.

I am not arguing that the President should not be held accountable. My comment was that the argument on the applicability of the Geneva Convention is debatable (I believe the stronger argument is there was a violation, but there is an argument on Bush's side). My belief is that to bring the person referred to as "The Most Powerful Man In The World" -- the U.S. President -- up on War Crimes charges, the Congress, the World, better be absolutely sure that they are going to win and win big. Where there is a plausible argument for the defense, the chance of a conviction is dramatically lessened because of the concern over the precedence, PR, and the effect a conviction or an acquittal would have on worldwide politics.

[gillkonam]

I got a friend who is a bartender, and I am one of those pussies who doesn't drink. On the day of days, I will be drinking Adios Motherfuckers until I pass out at this bar. Then probably, you know, gamble. Oh I'll say its for Obama, but I'll puke for the asshole on his way out.

[BIG PIZZLE]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/215973/january-15-2009/bush-and-the-press

[IdiotBrain]

Love him or hate him, we haven't had any deaths on our soil caused by Terrorists since 9/11

[vasili denisov]

My belief is that to bring the person referred to as "The Most Powerful Man In The World" -- the U.S. President -- up on War Crimes charges, the Congress, the World, better be absolutely sure that they are going to win and win big. Where there is a plausible argument for the defense, the chance of a conviction is dramatically lessened because of the concern over the precedence, PR, and the effect a conviction or an acquittal would have on worldwide politics.
I don't doubt that your belief is well grounded and realistic. My point, is that this pre-eminent status of the United States grants implicit immunity to what should be a necessary accountability, that a head of a smaller state cannot call on. I'm not speaking in terms of the bullying power of wealth or size; that such an indictment of the head of the foremost state of the world would be extraordinarily destabilizing gives protection that it should not.

I believe, that were this a matter of a smaller, less powerful state, there are dots that can easily be connected, that the CIA, which has so often acted as the lapdog of the executive, does not suddenly engage in torture independently. That the judiciary, which too often also took its bidding from the executive, did not draw up torture memos on its own, but at the command of others, which can directly be traced up to the president.

I'm sorry that this has become the province of partisans, because I'd say this is ultimately a violation of core conservative belief. That there is the possibility of great brutality in human nature, that there should be laws to govern our brutal natures, and that all persons must comply with these laws, that you don't get to flout them when emotion gets the better of you and you think your cause is righteous. That the executive should take on so much power and responsibility, unrestricted by congress, with the judiciary its crown bearer in this self-anointing, is in direct contradiction of the principles of Jeffersonian republicanism.

[heelsguy]

Oh, so lying about a war's motivation, utterly mismanaging a conflict, causing the death of 100,000 people, letting a country sink into anarchy, having prisoners tortured, and letting mercenaries run around murdering people with no accountability are GOOD things when you're objective and level-headed?


I am getting sick of hearing this bullshit about Bush "lying about a war's motivation". Bush never lied. he relied on expert's opinions about WOMD. now you can say he RUSHED with that info too quickly, but remember the UN inspectors at that same time were not being allowed to look around.

he never lied. not once can you show me one time where he has been caught in a lie. considering 8 years, that is remarkable for any president.

[Archangel]

How's the Kool-Aid taste?

[heelsguy]

How's the Kool-Aid taste?

you tell me, Arch. meanwhile, I am still waiting for an exmaple where Bush lied.

[Yelram]

good job on reading the rest of the thread. my six-year-old son does this shit all the time: walk into an already-in-progress discussion, take what he first hears out of context, and works with that only to find out that he's completely missed the meat of the conversation. although he pardons himself before so rudely interrupting, so i guess he's got one up on you.

How exactly was it out of context? Someone said, "its very likely any other president would have led us down the same road, you said "not so much", I didnt realize there was some brilliant "meat" to your comment that you left out of this thread, is there some special place I can go and read this secret information? Because I read the whole thread, and I still think you are a fucking piece of shit who's points are about as useless as your life. Your only retribution in this thread, is that you arent quite as fucking retarded as Smahoo.

[noahsdove]

Im not even going to get into this one. Fuck him. He deserves what he leaves behind which is nothing. I think he needs to go on unemployment now that the fucker isnt working so he can see what he did to America

[Whiffleball]

Love him or hate him, we haven't had any deaths on our soil caused by Terrorists since 9/11

I hired a babysitter once to babysit my eight kids (I am redneck trailer trash lol) while I went out to go and see The Last Samurai

While she was in the master bedroom fingerbanging herself to the Backstreet Boys, one of my kids left the house, was playing in the street and got run over by a bus. My other kids told the babysitter about it; she fingered herself for a little longer but eventually came out

the babysitter realized what had happened, locked all the remaining kids in the basement without telling them what was going on. she then made herself a baloney sandwich and watched a CSI marathon on SPIKE.

some of my friends say I should I have charged her with abuse and negligence but I figure that since none of the other kids died under her watch she did a pretty good job, would hire again

(oh there was also a flood in the basement and my mulatto kids drowned, plus she used my kids to assault an innocent Arab she saw on the street, but when I say "kept my kids safe" I mean from terrorist buses, not natural disasters or attacking people)

5WztB6HzXxI

On the morning of September 11, 2001, President Bush was about to begin reading the story along with a group of schoolchildren at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota County, Florida when White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card informed him that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. Bush remained and followed along as the children read the book aloud, and remained with them for more than seven minutes more. Bush's critics, notably Michael Moore in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, have argued that the fact that Bush continued reading the book after being notified that the attack was ongoing shows that he was indecisive. After spending about twenty minutes with the children, Bush was scheduled to give a short press conference at about 9:30. At the conference inside the school, Bush made his first speech about the attacks and was later taken to a secure location by the Secret Service aboard Air Force One before returning to the White House later that evening. According to Bill Sammon in Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House, Bush's Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was in the back of the classroom holding a pad on which he had written "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET."

Osama bin Laden made reference to the story in a videotaped speech released just prior to the 2004 U.S. presidential election, claiming that Bush's reading of the book had given the hijackers more than enough time to carry out the attacks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat)

oXCr9OCNHgk

On January 14, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush emerged in front of a press conference with a very prominent broken blood vessel welt on his cheek, and said that he had choked on a pretzel while watching television the day before. Bush had reportedly been sitting on his couch, 90 minutes into watching an NFL football Miami vs. Baltimore play-off game on television, when he choked on the pretzel, falling to the ground, injuring himself, and briefly losing consciousness before awakening to see his dogs Barney and Spot showing alarm at his state. Laura Bush was reportedly in the adjoining room at the time, and Bush was alone watching the football game.

His physical injuries consisted of a scrape and bruise across his cheek and lower lip, injured by his glasses when he fell from the couch. He was attended by a physician following the incident. United States Air Force physician Dr. Richard Tubb, who performed the follow-up examination, theorized that the food morsel may have stimulated a nerve, upon becoming lodged in the President's throat. The incident did not affect the President's scheduled flight the following day, and as a joke he had a bag of pretzels sent back to the media pool aboard Air Force One with a note scrawled on the bag, "Chew slowly", once the plane was en route.

The following day, Bush twice addressed press reporters joking that he should have listened to his mother and "chewed before he swallowed." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_pretzel_incident)

Z3p9y_OEAdc

It's a ritual when President Bush golfs: As he gets ready to tee off, reporters toss out a few questions about the news of the day from their perches on a nearby sand trap. This morning, Bush wasn't waiting. He sprang from his golf cart at 6:15 a.m. and said he was "distressed to hear about the latest suicide bombers in Israel."

Just over four hours before, as Bush slept at his parents' seaside retreat, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a bus in Israel, killing nine passengers.

Bush, wearing khakis and a knit shirt, was holding a driver in his gloved left hand. The rest of his foursome, including his father, former president George H.W. Bush, was waiting. However incongruous the setting, the president plunged ahead. "There are a few killers who want to stop the peace process that we have started, and we must not let them," he said. "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers."

His business out of the way, Bush barely paused for breath before saying, "Thank you. Now watch this drive." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43789-2002Aug4?language=printer)

eKgPY1adc0A

You've got to understand there are some in this world that simply do not adhere to the ideals we believe in. In Iraq, they don't put their hand over their heart and say, "Liberty and justice for all." They don't believe in liberty. The dictator who runs Iraq doesn't believe in justice. He only believes in liberty and justice for those who he decides get liberty and justice.

There's a lot of talk about Iraq on our TV screens, and there should be, because we're trying to figure out how best to make the world a peaceful place. There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. You've got to understand the nature of the regime we're dealing with. This is a man who has delayed, denied, deceived the world. For the sake of liberty and justice for all, the United Nations Security Council must act, must act in way to hold this regime to account, must not be fooled, must be relevant to keep the peace. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-7.html)

[Whiffleball]

fFVfzYLmunw

"Mission Accomplished," a phrase associated with completing a mission, is in recent years particularly associated with a sign displayed on USS Abraham Lincoln during a televised address by United States President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003.

Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq. While this statement did coincide with an end to the conventional phase of the war, Bush's assertion — and the sign itself — became controversial after guerilla warfare in Iraq increased during the Iraqi insurgency. The vast majority of casualties, among both coalition (approximately 98.3% as of October 2008) and Iraqi combatants, and among Iraqi civilians, has occurred since the speech. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished)

B5xVRXLgLxw

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st century at a gathering of minority journalists he responded: “Tribal sovereignty means that. It’s sovereign. You’re a … you’re a … you’ve been given sovereignty and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity.” Jesse Jackson makes light of Bush’s remarks at the conference and we speak with Mark Trahant, the reporter who asked Bush the question. [includes rush transcript] (http://www.democracynow.org/2004/8/10/bush_on_native_american_issues_tribal)

SHjIb6trxBI

President George W Bush tried to make a quick exit from a news conference in Beijing on Sunday - only to find himself thwarted by locked doors.

After answering just six questions from a group of US reporters, the president strode away heading towards the door.

President Bush tugged at both handles on the double doors before admitting: "I was trying to escape. Obviously, it didn't work." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4454738.stm)

qSOOCos6Es4

Vladimir Putin delivered a barbed retort to George Bush's muted criticism of Russia's democratic record yesterday when he told reporters at a joint press conference that he did not want to head a democracy like Iraq's.

The remark, which raised a loud laugh from the assembled press pool, capped a joint appearance that exposed how relations between the two men have become strained in the past two years, since Washington began criticising Putin's iron grip on Russia's media and politics.

Bush said that, during two hours of discussions, 'I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion. I told [Putin] a lot of people in our country ... would hope that Russia would do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian style of democracy.'

Putin replied, smiling: 'I'll be honest with you: we, of course, would not want to have a democracy like in Iraq.' Bush interrupted to say 'Just wait' - a reference to Iraq's democracy being in its infancy - before Putin continued: 'Nobody knows better than us how we can strengthen our own nation. But we know for sure that we cannot strengthen our nation without developing democratic institutions. And this is the path that we'll certainly take; but certainly we will do this by ourselves.' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/16/g8.patrickwintour)

eTQY1Aw9zcs

President Bush has revealed a policy change during a visit by German leader Angela Merkel - no more back rubs.

Mr Bush raised eyebrows last July at the G8 summit in Russia, when he walked up behind a seated Mrs Merkel and briefly massaged her shoulders.

She initially threw her arms up and grimaced, then smiled when he let go.

"No back rubs," a smiling Mr Bush joked as the two leaders ended a joint news conference after talks at the White House in Washington. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6233919.stm)

(No YouTube)

President George Bush signed off with a defiant farewell over his refusal to accept global climate change targets at his last G8 summit.

As he prepared to fly out from Japan, he told his fellow leaders: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

President Bush made the private joke in the summit's closing session, senior sources said yesterday. His remarks were taken as a two-fingered salute from the President from Texas who is wedded to the oil industry. He had given some ground at the summit by saying he would "seriously consider" a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/bush-to-g8-goodbye-from-the-worlds-biggest-polluter-863911.html)

[Morfin]

Do you feel better now? Good to get all that out? Good. Glad that we here at GMF could serve the role of toilet while you shit all over. The length and breadth of your two posts demonstrates a level of obsessiveness that is nothing short of pathetic.

[Debo]

How come nobody talks about the Berlin wall going up during JFK's time in office?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/berlin.htm

[Debo]

Post

If we followed you around with a camera for eight years, I am pretty sure that your list would be quite impressive.

[Hanover Fist]

Alaska senator Murkowski has petitioned Bush to pardon Ted Stevens. If he fucking dares to pardon that piece of shit I will lose most of the respect I have left for the man. He doesn't need to go all Clinton in his last days in office, Ted Stevens needs to serve the remainder of his pitiful life in jail where he belongs.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Love him or hate him, we haven't had any deaths on our soil caused by Terrorists since 9/11

Correct me if I'm wrong but the last time we had "terrorist deaths" on our soil before 9/11 was WWII right? And that's not counting all the american wackos that blew shit up. There werent any terrorist deaths on our soil when clinton was president or when Bush I was president or all those other dudes that came before them. Isnt the president's job to do the very thing that you are citing as his greatest achievement? How low is the bar you have just set? Do you give a grocery bagger a standing ovation everytime he double bags your milk?

[redsox39]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the last time we had "terrorist deaths" on our soil before 9/11 was WWII right? And that's not counting all the american wackos that blew shit up. There werent any terrorist deaths on our soil when clinton was president or when Bush I was president or all those other dudes that came before them. Isnt the president's job to do the very thing that you are citing as his greatest achievement? How low is the bar you have just set? Do you give a grocery bagger a standing ovation everytime he double bags your milk?

No, we had a few under Clinton. The World Trade center even...Jesus...Blind eye much?
However, great analogy!

[BIG PIZZLE]

Wasnt that white people?

[Phil Theehor]

Not the first time.