 |
As nuanced as you are, excon, you will enjoy this: "Barack Obama was elected partly to cleanse the temple of the Bush-Cheney stain, and in his campaign speeches he promised to reverse Cheney's efforts to seize power for the White House in the war on terror.
"It may not be so simple." Obama's Cheney Dilemma | Newsweek Politics: The Obama Presidency | Newsweek.com
Hello again, George:Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
It's true. The dufus broke it SOOOO badly, that it might NOT be fixable. Specially when there's a consensus to KEEP doing it...
I, however, being the law and order guy I am, believe that we can "preserve and protect the Constitution", AND keep us safe.
But, what do I know?
excon
During WWII The Roosevelt Adm gathered up 110,000 Japanese-Americans and sent them to interior concentration camps . The Constitution and the nations survived that and Roosevelt is considered one of the great Presidents.
Sounds all well and good from a historical perspective; but it was nightmare for Japanese-American individuals who believed that being American meant the constitution protected them too.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't know your background, but if the next wave of terrorists start looking like you and you get locked up for years without a charge being leveled against you and your tortured because you must be a lying bastard terrorist, and you have no access to the legal system; you might have a change of heart.
Hello again, tom:
What you say is true. But, Roosevelt WON a war where we actually were attacked... Nothing breeds forgiveness like success.
The dufus, on the other hand, started one war for no apparent reason, and we ain't won it yet. Oh, he had the reason he MADE up to start it, but that ain't enough... Of course, STARTING that war caused us to start losing the OTHER war... Now that the dufus has checked out, ain't nobody putting out tales that we're winning there - NOBODY!
So, now you've compared the dufus to Truman, Hoover and now Roosevelt. Aren't you stretching a little??
excon
Hello again, Tex:
*greenie*
excon
You are suggesting we use fire bombs and nukes so we can 'win' the war (as FDR and Truman)? Even you should compliment Bush on being a compassionate warrior.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
George ; I was not praising Roosevelt. I was in fact saying that much worse has happened in our history and I'm tired of George Bush being reviled for actions he took in our defense.
Ex; all the incidents be they waterboarding ;Gitmo etc were all reactions to 9-11 ;not the Iraq war .
Hello again, George:Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
Nahhh. I'm not a compassionate warrior. I'm more from the John Wayne school of warfare. Pick your enemy's well, and bomb hell out of 'em.
But, if you pick wrong, as the dufus did, compassion don't mean squat!
excon
Well, I was responding to excon, as I agree with you. Furthermore, as to Allied behavior in WWII, "The greatest "war crime" in terms of a bombing raid against Germany in the second world war was the bombing of Dresden. The Germans had tried very hard NOT to make this beautiful city a target. The Americans and English bombed it to hell, just for spite. They methodically chose a method which would assure maximum destruction. First, large incendiary bombs were dropped. This was followed by "block" busters, to spread the initial fires, and to destroy the water mains which would be needed to fight the fires. This was followed by lots of small incendiaries to spread fires over a wide area--and finally, specific pattern-bombing with 500- and 1000- pound bombs to start the "fire storms" which had so devasted Hamburg." Was Allied bombing of Germany Jan - April 1945 a war crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The U.S. started this acitivity on a grand scale in the War Between The States, not to mention its fights with native Americans. I guess Bush & Cheney have more to answer for than we expected. But I digress...
You are a cherrypicker's delight: so you are saying, might makes right?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Compassionate? Considering Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq at the start of the war and there were no WMD's to be found. How many Iraqi civilians lost their lives due to a questionable war with Iraq? Conservative estimates put the number at 100,000 dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
That's not compassion, it's incompetence which resulted in the involuntary manslaughter of 100,000 people.
(Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.
Recklessness, or willful blindness, is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An instance of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge, into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death wouldn't be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.
In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.).
TP: the war in Iraq was not proseucted to rid the country of Al-Qaeda; the fact that no WMD was located is obviated by the fact that Saddam's possession was assumed by everyone on the planet; and by the fact that Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job. He was given an ultimatum and determined on his and his country's behalf to play 'dare'. In that way, Bush is a lot like Lincoln: not a man to screw around with.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
May 1st, 2003.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
History will show that George W Bush was right
By Andrew Roberts - Telegraph.co.uk
Quote:
The American lady who called to see if I would appear on her radio programme was specific. "We're setting up a debate," she said sweetly, "and we want to know from your perspective as a historian whether George W Bush was the worst president of the 20th century, or might he be the worst president in American history?"
"I think he's a good president," I told her, which seemed to dumbfound her, and wreck my chances of appearing on her show.
In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.
The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.
At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this.
The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush
After 9/11.
The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was "all about oil", or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.
Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.
Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam's own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.
Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN's food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.
History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Mr Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an "axis of evil" of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Colonel Gaddafi's WMD programme was sitting behind glass in a museum in Oakridge, Tennessee.
By the way, that mission was accomplished. But a president should never underestimate ("assume away", as General Swarzkopf used to say) the capabilities of his enemies, in this case, the MSM. Mass media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
"I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better, or, you know, mistakes I made. Clearly putting a "Mission Accomplished" on a aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message." -Bush acknowledging this mistake.
Shall we continue to hound him from here on or shall we move on?Quote:
It's very nice that Susan Crawford can now continue her work with a clear conscience, but it seems the left has missed the point of this story entirely[/U][/URL]. We already knew that the Bush administration had ordered the use of aggressive interrogation techniques on a number of detainees, and we already knew that there was some disagreement about whether those techniques constituted torture as defined by international treaties and U.S. law. Liberals will call it torture, Bush and Cheney do not. Crawford asserts that, in her view, the aggregate effect of the otherwise legal techniques authorized by Bush was, in fact, torture. All of which does nothing to advance a solution about what to do with Mohammed al-Qahtani.
Barack Obama has come up with a clever strategy on Gitmo -- order the closure of the U.S. prison there and take the next one to eight years figuring out how best to implement the new policy. The left has given him a pass on this as they will give him a pass on just about anything for the foreseeable future, but the implication is clear: Obama has no idea what to do with men like Qahtani who pose a very real threat to the American people but cannot be convicted in federal court for the crimes they have already committed.
Obama at least seems to understand that simply attacking the Bush administration for the decisions it made in the aftermath of 9/11 will no longer suffice as a substitute for some alternative policy. His supporters haven't yet arrived at the same conclusion. There are a dozen liberal bloggers using this story as a launching pad for an attack on the war crimes of the Bush administration, but none has offered any solution to the problem that plagues Judge Crawford -- what now?
In less than a week Barack Obama will be sworn into office and Democrats will need to stop defining themselves by their opposition to George W. Bush and start arguing in favor of serious policies for keeping this country safe. For all the self-righteous talk about constitutional protections and international law and due process, the current consensus on the left would have Obama free Qahtani and prosecute Bush. If that's the outcome dictated by a principled liberalism, then liberalism won't be ascendant for very long.
Posted by Michael Goldfarb
The solution is simple really. Bring the Gitmo detainees to the US. Put them under house arrest with monitoring ankle bracelets and surveillance around the clock. Send them to a new hybrid court system that protects classified imformation but allows the detainee the right to defend himself. If the government loses the case, they could tie it up in appeals for years; and all the while the detainee would be allow a life of a sort although monitored closely until he is no longer a threat, or the organization he worked for is no longer a threat. If the government wins, they send him to prison or worse depending on the laws.
My concern is of course what if the detainee is innocent? This would allow them a life of a sort while waiting for their day in court rather than being held in a cell without hope or any freedom. I think this a reasonable compromise, will it hold up under our constitution, I doubt it.
The detainee's home countries don't want them back and I say keep your enemies close so you can keep an eye on them.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration created this mess of what to do with detainees in Gitmo. I mean even if Bush could have been elected to 4 more 4 year terms, how were THEY going to deal with detainee's; release them at 80 years old or let them die, which ever came first?
So don't blame Obama for having difficulty with this one, because the Bush administration apparently had the same exit strategy for Gitmo as they had for Iraq. Didn't McCain say, 100 years if that's what it takes?
How about you, as a show of good faith, post your home address? Or, just your home town?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
My family is less of a target to a terrorist than it is to the Child Molesters who already live in our town. So I wouldn't have a problem with that, at least the potential terrorist would have round the clock surveillance while awaiting trial.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:33 PM. |