Bush voters: are you glad you elected a war criminal?

maxpower1227 said:
Jimmy Carter?
Click to expand...

Maybe a bit of a stretch in the case of Carter. I mean, he really was a wimp, and only a one term President to boot. But he supported Indonesia during its genocidal campaign in East Timor, and he did attack Iran in the ill-fated Operation Eagle Claw.
 
BStrong said:
I seem to remember a couple of guys that on the war criminal scale might rank a bit higher than Bush, as in Roosevelt and Truman...and what was their party affiliation again?

As much as you'd wish it otherwise, nobody has a monopoly on virtue.
Click to expand...

If you have to go back to when my grandparents were small children, you have lost the argument. There are idiots that do the same thing about Jim Crow. Derp, derp, Democrats were once racists. As if that fools anybody.
 
Tony Stark said:
the fact that you have yet to address the fact that bush admittedly tortured people is noted.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that Bush tortured people. And neither do the people in a position to prosecute him for that alleged crime. I am not entirely comfortable with the whole waterboarding thing but like I said, it's a difficult position to be in. I can't say I would necessarily decide differently if I thought it might save innocent lives here or abroad.

You disagree and that's fine. At this point, though, you should stop wasting your breath with us and take it up with the Obama admin who can actually pursue this prosecution you seem to want so badly.
 
Geez Tony, really?

My position is, yeah, it would be really good to honestly know the proverbial what did he know and when did he know it. But I don't think the country is served by going down that path. It's not like the next president will learn from it. People will say, history will judge, meh, people don't give a **** about history and making the same mistakes again. They feel things are different, they're different. Historical mistakes don't apply.
 
DavidJames said:
Geez Tony, really?

My position is, yeah, it would be really good to honestly know the proverbial what did he know and when did he know it. But I don't think the country is served by going down that path. It's not like the next president will learn from it. People will say, history will judge, meh, people don't give a **** about history and making the same mistakes again. They feel things are different, they're different. Historical mistakes don't apply.
Click to expand...

These same Republicans will do the same thing again if we let them.
 
Last edited:
Nobody elected a war criminal. Even if Bush was later found to be one, which he has not to this date, he was not one when he was elected as president. The OP is based on a false premise.

Are you guys proud of yourselves for not only putting this war criminal in the White House but for re-electing him?

Are any of you willing to admit that he was a war criminal and a terrible president?
Click to expand...
Are you willing to admit you are wrong?

If you have to go back to when my grandparents were small children, you have lost the argument. There are idiots that do the same thing...
Click to expand...
Calling people idiots, directly or indirectly, is bad form, as is the quoted bit from the OP.
 
Tony Stark said:
You're factually incorrect. Water-boarding is without any doubt whatsoever torture.
Click to expand...

Sez you...and if you are correct, then why didn't the Obama admin prosecute the war crimes? Maybe it isn't as clear-cut as you think it is?
 
xjx388 said:
Sez you...and if you are correct, then why didn't the Obama admin prosecute the war crimes? Maybe it isn't as clear-cut as you think it is?
Click to expand...

Politics.

There is zero doubt whatsoever that Bush is a war criminal. Anybody who disagrees is stupid.
 
Tony Stark said:
You said that it made a difference that the President decided that it was legal. If you now disagree, OK.
Click to expand...
Of course it makes a difference that the President decided that it was legal. Just like it makes a difference that Congress decided not to challenge him. Just like it makes a difference when the Supreme Court contradicts the President's decision. Etc. When one branch of our government is unopposed in its opinions and actions by the other branches, that makes a difference.

I've already responded to your ideas of Congressional power regarding foreign policy in that thread, and I don't see any point in re-hashing that argument here. But I will say this: It has always been my position that Congress has the responsibility and the authority to check the President on foreign policy or any other policy.
 
Tony Stark said:
Politics.

There is zero doubt whatsoever that Bush is a war criminal. Anybody who disagrees is stupid.
Click to expand...

I disagree tony.

I didn't even vote for Bush, but I'm a bit of a stickler for, you know, due process and the presumption of innocence.

I guess that makes me stupid.

:rolleyes:

/what an insipid thread......
 
theprestige said:
Of course it makes a difference that the President decided that it was legal. Just like it makes a difference that Congress decided not to challenge him. Just like it makes a difference when the Supreme Court contradicts the President's decision. Etc. When one branch of our government is unopposed in its opinions and actions by the other branches, that makes a difference.

I've already responded to your ideas of Congressional power regarding foreign policy in that thread, and I don't see any point in re-hashing that argument here. But I will say this: It has always been my position that Congress has the responsibility and the authority to check the President on foreign policy or any other policy.
Click to expand...


If it is something illegal like torture clearly is, like the President you voted for admitted to doing, it does not mean that it isn't a war crime if people decide not to prosecute him. If just means that they decided not to prosecute him. I have yet to hear any argument about how torturing people isn't a war crime. Just appeals to, "he hasn't been charged yet."
 
16.5 said:
I disagree tony.

I didn't even vote for Bush, but I'm a bit of a stickler for, you know, due process and the presumption of innocence.

I guess that makes me stupid.

:rolleyes:

/what an insipid thread......
Click to expand...


I'm not a court of law, genius.
 
carlitos said:
This is why the politics sub-forum has such a reputation for quality discussion.
Click to expand...

From what I can tell, many of the members adopt a false neutrality stance. They try to pretend that each side is equal. But that's a lie. The Republicans are terrible. For evidence see what the war criminal George W Bush did to the US.

Screw that. I will not pretend that there both sides are equally wrong or whatever lie people like to tell.
 
Tony Stark said:
If you have to go back to when my grandparents were small children, you have lost the argument. There are idiots that do the same thing about Jim Crow. Derp, derp, Democrats were once racists. As if that fools anybody.
Click to expand...

Don't declare victory just yet Sparky, the people haven't spoken.

I see the problem now though, and I have to ask if you were old enough to vote for Bush...in any election...?

Pardon me if waterboarding, sleep deprivation and the other documented abuses are greater crimes than firebombing and nuking cities full of civilians and combatants alike in your world view, but if you're comfortable with excusing genocide v torture based on party affiliation, have at it.

And I didn't vote for Bush, how you like them apples?
 
16.5 said:
Tony just sarcastically called me genius.

Really?

One more solid thread Tony.

Lots of skeptical thinking there....

Lolz!
Click to expand...

Like anybody believes you didn't vote for Bush. You could not possibly be more transparent. Feel free to make an argument as for how waterboarding isn't torture. Otherwise your hero, W, is a war criminal.
 
theprestige said:
Yeah, I'm not to keen on it either. But there it is. And as you point out, it's notable that the one man with the authority to prosecute Bush for war crimes has studied the matter and declined to do so.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it's notable. US presidents have long been committing war crimes and I don't think a president has ever tried to prosecute a former president for such crimes. Plus Obama is not exactly a beacon of moral/legal virtue himself. He has a policy of murdering anyone (American citizens included) deemed an enemy based on secret evidence, secret criteria and no charge or trial. It would be great if he prosecuted Bush and then also prosecuted himself, but it's not going to happen.
 
BStrong said:
Don't declare victory just yet Sparky, the people haven't spoken.

I see the problem now though, and I have to ask if you were old enough to vote for Bush...in any election...?

Pardon me if waterboarding, sleep deprivation and the other documented abuses are greater crimes than firebombing and nuking cities full of civilians and combatants alike in your world view, but if you're comfortable with excusing genocide v torture based on party affiliation, have at it.

And I didn't vote for Bush, how you like them apples?
Click to expand...

I think that Tony thinks you are stupid, and Republicans are stupid, or something.
 
Tony Stark said:
Like anybody believes you didn't vote for Bush. You could not possibly be more transparent. Feel free to make an argument as for how waterboarding isn't torture. Otherwise your hero, W, is a war criminal.
Click to expand...

Tony's post opened with "like anybody"

Really?

One would think that is not an expression of logic, my friend.

Like anybody

Lolz!
 
Tony Stark said:
There is zero doubt that W is a war criminal.

He has admitted that his administration tortured people. See the following for proof:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/03/george-bush-us-waterboarded-terror-mastermind
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110308082.html

For proof that torture is a war crime under United States law, see:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441

Are you guys proud of yourselves for not only putting this war criminal in the White House but for re-electing him?

Are any of you willing to admit that he was a war criminal and a terrible president?

you lose if you mention Obama
Click to expand...

Every time you try to troll you just end up trolling yourself

Think about it
 
BStrong said:
Don't declare victory just yet Sparky, the people haven't spoken.

I see the problem now though, and I have to ask if you were old enough to vote for Bush...in any election...?

Pardon me if waterboarding, sleep deprivation and the other documented abuses are greater crimes than firebombing and nuking cities full of civilians and combatants alike in your world view, but if you're comfortable with excusing genocide v torture based on party affiliation, have at it.

And I didn't vote for Bush, how you like them apples?
Click to expand...


I could have voted for Bush in 2004, but thankfully, I'm not a complete idiot.. I couldn't have voted for Truman an my grandparents were small children when he became president. Few people here could have voted for him. No doubt whatsoever, plenty voted for that war criminal idiot Bush
 
Tony Stark said:
Politics.

There is zero doubt whatsoever that Bush is a war criminal. Anybody who disagrees is stupid.
Click to expand...

So if we disagree with you, we are stupid. I guess Obama and his admin are stupid. On that we agree! ;)
 
cornsail said:
I don't see how it's notable. US presidents have long been committing war crimes and I don't think a president has ever tried to prosecute a former president for such crimes. Plus Obama is not exactly a beacon of moral/legal virtue himself. He has a policy of murdering anyone (American citizens included) deemed an enemy based on secret evidence, secret criteria and no charge or trial. It would be great if he prosecuted Bush and then also prosecuted himself, but it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...



You're allowed to kill your enemies in a war. You're not allowed to torture them.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, hey, a Tony Stark thread about how Republicans are evil, and why won't they just admit they're evil, and their failure to admit they're evil is just further proof of how evil they really are.

I've never seen that before.
Click to expand...

That's odd. Because I think I have.
 
Tony Stark said:
If you have to go back to when my grandparents were small children, you have lost the argument. There are idiots that do the same thing about Jim Crow. Derp, derp, Democrats were once racists. As if that fools anybody.
Click to expand...

Isn't Obama droning innocent people who are collateral damage?

Basically Obama will approve a drone strike that is likely to kill innocents if he can kill at least 1 bad guy. I don't remember the statistics but our droning kills like 10:1 civilian:terrorist.

If I were a judge I would charge Obama before Bush.

So whats your point other than you hate Republicans?
 
xjx388 said:
So if we disagree with you, we are stupid. I guess Obama and his admin are stupid. On that we agree! ;)
Click to expand...


Obama knows that your hero W is a war criminal but decided not to prosecute him for political reasons.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Isn't Obama droning innocent people who are collateral damage?

Basically Obama will approve a drone strike that is likely to kill innocents if he can kill at least 1 bad guy. I don't remember the statistics but our droning kills like 10:1 civilian:terrorist.

If I were a judge I would charge Obama before Bush.

So whats your point other than you hate Republicans?
Click to expand...

We had this discussion before, genius. Bush killed way more people than Obama has. Your attempt to make Obama the bad buy actually makes Bush an even worse guy.
 
cornsail said:
I don't see how it's notable. US presidents have long been committing war crimes and I don't think a president has ever tried to prosecute a former president for such crimes. Plus Obama is not exactly a beacon of moral/legal virtue himself. He has a policy of murdering anyone (American citizens included) deemed an enemy based on secret evidence, secret criteria and no charge or trial. It would be great if he prosecuted Bush and then also prosecuted himself, but it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...
I think it's notable only in the narrow context of Tony's legalistic and extremely partisan argument.

I think you make some very good points. I also think that there's probably an interesting discussion to be had along the lines you indicate, especially if it set aside partisan bickering and focused more generally on the nature of the office of the Presidency, what it is good for, what we expect from it, and what standard of conduct--both open and secret--we should demand of the people that hold that office. Not in this thread, though.
 
Tony Stark said:
Obama knows that your hero W is a war criminal but decided not to prosecute him for political reasons.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see...He's participating in some kind of political conspiracy. That makes him an accessory to Bush's alleged crimes then. Are you glad you elected a war criminal? :rolleyes:
 
It is no surprise to me whatsoever that the only defense that defenders of republican war criminals have is "dems did it too." Even though their claims are mostly lies.
 
xjx388 said:
Ah, I see...He's participating in some kind of political conspiracy. That makes him an accessory to Bush's alleged crimes then. Are you glad you elected a war criminal? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not prosecuting isn't a conspiracy. Although I do find it disappointing.
 
Tony Stark said:
You're allowed to kill your enemies in a war. You're not allowed to torture them.
Click to expand...

No, actually you're not allowed to murder civilians simply because you're "in a war".

BTW, who are we at war with?
 
Tony Stark said:
You're not allowed to target them
Click to expand...

This guy worked for two Democratic Presidents:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX61.html

Asked later about the morality of the campaign, LeMay replied:

"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier."

Can you point me to the clause in the Laws of Land Warfare:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law_warfare-1956.pdf

That allows for the indiscriminate firebombing of a city? I never noticed any clause that had a separate set of laws applicable to Democrats and another only applicable to Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom