Your summary of the Bush presidency (2001-2009)

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Right or wrong, he is the epitome of a decisive executive, something Carter was not.

He was also criticized for giving Panama control over the canal; and also the whole Iranian Embassy hostage thing.

This is what I meant in the direct comparison of Bush and Carter. I view Carter as the weakest president we have had in a long time. I view Bush as one of the strongest. In no way am I stating that I agree or disagree with either of their decisions, but Bush at least made decisive decisions...

As did General Custer, look how that turned out.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Right or wrong, he is the epitome of a decisive executive, something Carter was not.

He was also criticized for giving Panama control over the canal; and also the whole Iranian Embassy hostage thing.

This is what I meant in the direct comparison of Bush and Carter. I view Carter as the weakest president we have had in a long time. I view Bush as one of the strongest. In no way am I stating that I agree or disagree with either of their decisions, but Bush at least made decisive decisions...

I don't know.. if you look at Afghanistan, Bush decided to invade/attack but still failed to kill bin Laden. Yet he committed many more troops and resources to Iraq (which was obviously his priority) and they had nothing to do with the reason (for public consumption/9/11) we were going to war. He was not decisive enough in Afghanistan IMO. I won't argue with you about Carters decisiveness, I am not that familiar with him but am aware of his failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

In no way am I stating that I agree or disagree with either of their decisions, but Bush at least made decisive decisions...

The same was true of Hitler for the same reasons. WTF good are "decisive decisions" when they're piss poor wrong... and oh yeah.. FUCKING CRIMINAL? :shocked:

George W. Bush and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers. war criminals, war profiteers and total incompetents should be tried and convicted for their crimes. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So let say your family is on a trip to Chicago's Sear tower and it got terrorist attack and everyone die. If wiretapping can help prevent this, would you still say that your privacy is more important specially if you got nothing to hide from the government? You might call this hindsight 20/20, but it really isn't.

you need to read the book 1984

 

[smokeyjoe]

I think naiveté pervades those who think the government won't use what is and what is not in its' power to control its' people, body and mind; it is an inherent quality in any form.

 

[budafied]

A presidency that will be remembered much better in history than the liberal media has made it out to be in the last nine years.






(not saying it was perfect, but people saying he's the worst ever and should be tried for treason are a bit ridiculous)

 

[Illusio]

I Love Lamp!

 

[budafied]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So let say your family is on a trip to Chicago's Sear tower and it got terrorist attack and everyone die. If wiretapping can help prevent this, would you still say that your privacy is more important specially if you got nothing to hide from the government? You might call this hindsight 20/20, but it really isn't.

you need to read the book 1984

TITCR. Most liberals dont really care about the infringement of individual rights, but that was one of my main problems with this administration, although I still think it wasn't nearly as bad as most liberals think it was.




And for the last time, Obama has no record proving he will change anything i Washington for the better. He did nothing on his way to the White House, and now people are saying he'll be the greatest in history, I mean be serious....

 

[Taejin]

Fucking fail.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

In no way am I stating that I agree or disagree with either of their decisions, but Bush at least made decisive decisions...

The same was true of Hitler for the same reasons. WTF good are 'decisive decisions" when they're piss poor wrong... and oh yeah.. FUCKING CRIMINAL? :shocked:

George W. Bush and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers. war criminals, war profiteers and total incompetents should be tried and convicted for their crimes. :thumbsdown: :|

I am well aware of your views on the man. This has little to do with the topic at hand. If you wish to debate intelligently on who was more of an executive leader, Carter or Bush, then we can continue. Otherwise, if you wish to keep foaming at the mouth, then there is nothing to discuss.

Oh, and I am glad to see Godwin's Law is still alive and well.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JS80
Obama will be worse.

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
After 4 years of Obama we will want him back.

You can't come up with a single line to praise for GWB so you smear Obama before he's been elected? How trollish. I guess you're like the morons I see still proudly bearing W04 and Bush/Cheney stickers on your cars.

My sentence: GWB did more to harm this country than any president before him.

W = Worst ever

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: JS80
Obama will be worse.

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
After 4 years of Obama we will want him back.

You can't come up with a single line to praise for GWB so you smear Obama before he's been elected? How trollish. I guess you're like the morons I see still proudly bearing W04 and Bush/Cheney stickers on your cars.

My sentence: GWB did more to harm this country than any president before him.

W = Worst ever

I find your post more of a trolling. The praise is there, you fail to recognize it. The praise is that GWB will be remembered as a better president then Obama. Will this be the case? I don't know (and I personally doubt it). Nice ad hominem on the drivers by the way. I see you don't mention the Kerry in '04 stickers that still exist on cars, and I am sure you can find old bumper stickers from prior elections.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
I won't argue with you about Carters decisiveness, I am not that familiar with him but am aware of his failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran.

Err, Carter made a big decision to invade Iran with a secret operation, the military screwed that one up bigtime by crashing a helicopter into a c-130. If anything it took cajones to trust the military not to mess up that one and make him look bad/risk death of the hostages.


If Bush had sent in Delta to take out Saddam then we can talk about tough decisions, but he didn't -he cowardly invaded a toothless country already bombed out for a decade costing many many lives of civilians and our troops.
And didn't even find the WMD he touted that were there to justify it.
Fuck him, the man turns anything he touches to shit his whole life.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Oh, and I am glad to see Godwin's Law is still alive and well.

Ha! I didn't know about this law, I had to google it.. pretty hilarious though.

 

[Eeezee]

Bush is the definition of a failed administration.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: budafied

(not saying it was perfect, but people saying he's the worst ever and should be tried for treason are a bit ridiculous)

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention for the last eight years.

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Here's another definition:

trea·son

(tre'z?n)
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
   
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

If you don't consider offering only a continuous string of ever changing lies as justification for taking the nation into a war that has squandered thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars in current and future debt, or illegal, unconstitutional unwarranted spying against American citizens to be a betrayal of trust or confidence, please tell us what it is. :shocked:

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution provides that each president shall recite the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Vice President also swears of affirms a similar oath. Since the day Bush and Cheney took office, they and their henchmen have waged an aggressive war against the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

Instead of upholding and defending the Constitution, and well before the FISA law was rewritten, your Traitor In Chief and his gang were shredding the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by that document with illegal domestic spying.

AT&T Whistle-Blower's Evidence
05.17.06

Former AT&T technician Mark Klein is the key witness in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class-action lawsuit against the company, which alleges that AT&T illegally cooperated in an illegal National Security Agency domestic-surveillance program.

In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case.

In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities.

The physical arrangement, the timing of its construction, the government-imposed secrecy surrounding it, and other factors all strongly suggest that its origins are rooted in the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness (TIA) program which brought forth vigorous protests from defenders of constitutionally protected civil liberties last year:

"As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant." The New York Times, 9 November 2002

To mollify critics, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) spokesmen have repeatedly asserted that they are only conducting "research" using "artificial synthetic data" or information from "normal DOD intelligence channels" and hence there are "no U.S. citizen privacy implications" (Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General report on TIA, December 12, 2003). They also changed the name of the program to "Terrorism Information Awareness" to make it more politically palatable. But feeling the heat, Congress made a big show of allegedly cutting off funding for TIA in late 2003, and the political fallout resulted in Adm. Poindexter's abrupt resignation last August. However, the fine print reveals that Congress eliminated funding only for "the majority of the TIA components," allowing several "components" to continue (DOD, ibid). The essential hardware elements of a TIA-type spy program are being surreptitiously slipped into "real world" telecommunications offices.

In San Francisco the "secret room" is Room 641A at 611 Folsom Street, the site of a large SBC phone building, three floors of which are occupied by AT&T. High-speed fiber-optic circuits come in on the 8th floor and run down to the 7th floor where they connect to routers for AT&T's WorldNet service, part of the latter's vital "Common Backbone." In order to snoop on these circuits, a special cabinet was installed and cabled to the "secret room" on the 6th floor to monitor the information going through the circuits. (The location code of the cabinet is 070177.04, which denotes the 7th floor, aisle 177 and bay 04.) The "secret room" itself is roughly 24-by-48 feet, containing perhaps a dozen cabinets including such equipment as Sun servers and two Juniper routers, plus an industrial-size air conditioner.

The normal work force of unionized technicians in the office are forbidden to enter the "secret room," which has a special combination lock on the main door. The telltale sign of an illicit government spy operation is the fact that only people with security clearance from the National Security Agency can enter this room. In practice this has meant that only one management-level technician works in there. Ironically, the one who set up the room was laid off in late 2003 in one of the company's endless "downsizings," but he was quickly replaced by another.

Plans for the "secret room" were fully drawn up by December 2002, curiously only four months after Darpa started awarding contracts for TIA. One 60-page document, identified as coming from "AT&T Labs Connectivity & Net Services" and authored by the labs' consultant Mathew F. Casamassima, is titled Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco and dated 12/10/02. (See sample PDF 1-4.) This document addresses the special problem of trying to spy on fiber-optic circuits. Unlike copper wire circuits which emit electromagnetic fields that can be tapped into without disturbing the circuits, fiber-optic circuits do not "leak" their light signals. In order to monitor such communications, one has to physically cut into the fiber somehow and divert a portion of the light signal to see the information.

How is that not a violation of their oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"

How is that not a "violation of allegiance toward one's country" or "the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies?"

Even if you don't believe that in so doing, they have committed treason, they have most definitely violated their oaths of office. :|

And that's before we get to charging them with murder. As of 1/12/09, 4,226 American troops have died, and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life in the Bushwhackos' war of lies in Iraq.

AFIC, that's grounds to charge them with 4,226 counts of murder. Now, before you go further into denial, you should consider that another of their crimes, lying to Congress, is a felony regardless of whether such lies are told under oath, and that directly supports charging them with murder under two theories of the crime:

1. Callous, Reckless or Wanton Disregard or Depraved Indifference

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. For example, under New York State Law:

MURDER SECOND DEGREE
(A-I Felony)
(Depraved Indifference Murder)
PENAL LAW 125.25(2)
(Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)
(Revised December 12, 2006)

Under our law, a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of that person [or of a third person].

The deaths of every American in Iraq are direct, foreseeable consequences of the Bushwhackos' felonious LIES to Congress. In his published statement, George McGovern said:

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the adminstration started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from thousands of cases of mere negligent homicide, another criminal offense, to murder? :shocked:

2. The Felony-Murder Rule

A RULE OF LAW that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.

The felony-murder rule originated in England under the COMMON LAW. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a ROBBERY accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Today most jurisdictions have limited the rule by requiring that the felony must be a dangerous one or that the killing is foreseeable, or both. Statutes that restrict the application of the rule to dangerous felonies usually enumerate the crimes. BURGLARY, KIDNAPPING, rape, and robbery are typical felonies that invoke the rule. Under a number of statutes, the felony must be a proximate cause of the death. In other words, the killing must have been a natural and direct consequence of the felony.

The Bushwhackos LIED TO CONGRESS to pimp their war, which is a felony even if it not done under oath. Starting any war is obviously dangerous, and as stated, death is a foreseeable consequence of war. The deaths of every American in Iraq were direct, foreseeable consequences of the administration's felonious lies to Congress.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: her209
If Bush/Cheney were politicians in any other country, they'd be tried on war crimes and human rights violations.

This is absolutely true and Osama Bin Laden will be hailed as a national hero! Hamas as the saints and sacrificial lambs for the liberation of Palestine. Iran and the rest of the Middle East as countries of peace while the USA is the country of everlasting sin!

Now are you feeling better? If yes, then it's time to wake up and smell reality! If no, then you are FUBAR! Go see a head doctor.

Torture is a war crime and a human rights violation you moron. Bush and Cheney are guilty of setting up torture facilities and sending prisoners (including noncombatants) to be tortured. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: JS80
Obama will be worse.

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
After 4 years of Obama we will want him back.

You can't come up with a single line to praise for GWB so you smear Obama before he's been elected? How trollish. I guess you're like the morons I see still proudly bearing W04 and Bush/Cheney stickers on your cars.

My sentence: GWB did more to harm this country than any president before him.

W = Worst ever

I find your post more of a trolling. The praise is there, you fail to recognize it. The praise is that GWB will be remembered as a better president then Obama. Will this be the case? I don't know (and I personally doubt it). Nice ad hominem on the drivers by the way. I see you don't mention the Kerry in '04 stickers that still exist on cars, and I am sure you can find old bumper stickers from prior elections.

After eight years, these two hacks should be able to find something specific to praise. Just one little thing that Bush did right, if only so they can point to it later and say that Obama didn't even do that.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
I won't argue with you about Carters decisiveness, I am not that familiar with him but am aware of his failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran.

Err, Carter made a big decision to invade Iran with a secret operation, the military screwed that one up bigtime by crashing a helicopter into a c-130. If anything it took cajones to trust the military not to mess up that one and make him look bad/risk death of the hostages.
Far more big decision making then to outright invade a country already worn down by a decade of sanctions/bombings.

If Bush had sent in Delta to take out Saddam then we can talk about tough decisions, but he didn't he cowardly invaded a already decade long bombed out country costing many many lives.

Well, I think you are taking my quote and ultimately the small argument me and Possessed Freak were having out of context, but no big deal.

If you read everything, what I originally said was that a president's legacy is usually determined by how the economy was under their reign and how well America faired militarily. I did not correlate the failure in Iran with any decisiveness or lack there of from Carter.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: budafied

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So let say your family is on a trip to Chicago's Sear tower and it got terrorist attack and everyone die. If wiretapping can help prevent this, would you still say that your privacy is more important specially if you got nothing to hide from the government? You might call this hindsight 20/20, but it really isn't.

you need to read the book 1984

TITCR. Most liberals dont really care about the infringement of individual rights, but that was one of my main problems with this administration, although I still think it wasn't nearly as bad as most liberals think it was.




And for the last time, Obama has no record proving he will change anything i Washington for the better. He did nothing on his way to the White House, and now people are saying he'll be the greatest in history, I mean be serious....

your ignorance is blinding. to say that most liberals don't care about individual rights infringement is completely false. nothing more than an empty right wing political talking point. last i checked it was Republicans that hated the ACLU so much and GWB who was stripping our individual and human rights. a primary reason the Republican party was able to hold power for the past eight years is that no individual opinion was allowed. there was a strict set of 'morals' they all blindly followed and then watched their leader destroy those very 'morals'.

this thread has nothing to do with Obama, but since you bring him up for no reason...Obama has not even been sworn in, give it up. GWB had "no record proving he will change anything i Washington for the better" before he was POTUS and you did not hear liberals bitching about it.

 

[heyheybooboo]

It's great to see the 20%'ers defend Commander Codpiece.

"" Bush prevented Saddam from nuking Kansas ""

"" Bush stopped those dirty brown people who only want our white women ""

"" Bush saved us a bundle because the Fed gov't would have wasted that $6 trillion of new debt, anyway ""

"" Think of the poor hungry children we can now feed because of the 100K+ dead in Iraq from The Bush War ""

"" Carter was worst than Bush because he gave away the Panama Canal ""



:laugh:



Keep 'em coming, folks ...

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: Harvey edited out a lot of things I find agreeable

Further evidence that some people might not be aware of regarding Cheney and his propensity for contrived warfare!

"In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran."

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66157/

There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don?t we build ? we in our shipyard ? build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can?t have Americans killing Americans. That?s the kind of ? that?s the level of stuff we?re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/...proposal-for-iran-war/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...PbtF3o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...zfSz0o&feature=related

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
So let say your family is on a trip to Chicago's Sear tower and it got terrorist attack and everyone die. If wiretapping can help prevent this, would you still say that your privacy is more important specially if you got nothing to hide from the government? You might call this hindsight 20/20, but it really isn't.

Please oh please, you and anyone else standing behind the tired "Nothing to Hide" argument, please read THIS.

 

[filetitan]

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: senseamp
Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over

This was 8 years ago, how prophetic.

mission accomplished!

+1

 

[piasabird]

No more terrorist attacks.

I wonder how many of the next guy's appointees will fail in the approval process or just not get on the agenda for 12 month's.