Friday, June 1, 2012
On Me and George W. Bush
I never voted for Bush. I never supported Bush. I never supported the Iraq War. I never supported the nation-building/counter-insurgency enterprises in Afghanistan. I've consistently criticized Mr. Bush's foreign policy. When letter-grading the Presidents of my lifetime, I gave Mr. Bush a D. I have consistently admitted that Mr. Bush is a "bottom 10" President. Only in the warped mind of a far left lunatic like wd would a person such as me (whose only sin relative to this topic is to say that I do not think that Mr. Bush is a war criminal) ever, EVER, even remotely be seen as a "supporter of Bush". Period, end of discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Not "period, end of discussion". You're lying about what I've said, as usual. I never said you were a "supporter" of bush. I'm only reacting to the literally dozens of posts you've authored defending him. Sure, these posts contain a lot of caveats, but the point is always ultimately to defend him.
DEFENDING HIM AGAINST CHARGES OF WAR CRIMINALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!! My God, are you a lunatic.
Defending him against charges of war criminality IS in your absolutely extremist view of the world synonymous with defending him generally. Do you just not see the depravity here?
Will, you must realize that to the wd's of the world it is all about their interpretation, their way, or you're considered to be, well, to use their favorite terminology deluded.
Apparently it will take you agreeing GWB is a war criminal for wd to acknowledge you are not defending his policies or actions.
I certainly wouldn't hold my breathe if I were you waiting for wd to see anything the way you so on this issue.
RNL Or for WD to see things the UN does or the ICC does. He is the undisputed source of international law.
Will: DEFENDING HIM AGAINST CHARGES OF WAR CRIMINALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!! Will: My God, are you a lunatic.
You're a lunatic. Why does it take dozens of posts to do that? Who writes dozens of posts defending a "bottom 10" president they have given a "D" to?
Also, you've defended in regards to many other things... charges of lying, being evil, invading Afghanistan unnecessarily, how many Iraqis have been killed, being a deregulator, not caring about the poor, responsibility for Solyndra, other defenses I'm not remembering right now, etc...
dmarks: He is the undisputed source of international law.
If you want a REAL example of lunacy you need look no further. This is it. I never made such a claim, yet that does not stop dmarks from imagining that I have... many times.
Lying and being evil are kind of tied into the war criminality charge, don't ya' think? And, while I was in favor of obliterating those terrorist training camps in Afghanistan (as 99.9% of my fellow Americans were), I was totally against the mission-creep, counter-insurgency, and nation-building components and so on that one you're either wrong or lying yet again.......Does Mr. Bush in his heart care about poor people and the middle class? (Again) I don't know, I cannot read his mind, but the fact that nondefense discretionary spending and entitlement spending both skyrocketed under the fellow you cannot say that his policies were uniformly hostile (unless, of course, you're partisan, delusional fool and at that point I cannot help you).......Solyndra, yes, it started under Bush but the ultimate decisions was made under Mr. Obama's watch. Would Mr.s McCain and Bush have made the same decision? Perhaps. But the buck always stops with the person in charge. Duh.
Will: Lying and being evil are kind of tied into the war criminality charge, don't ya' think?
So, if it could be proven (to your satisfaction) that bush lied about WMD then you'd say he was a war criminal?
WD said: "...invading Afghanistan unnecessarily..."
Yeah, because, as you argued, the US refused to accept the idea of turning Bin Laden over to a terrorist-run tribunal for "justice". Not only a crazy idea in all ways, it would have established a horrible precedent for the US to have considered religious "courts" as the top authority in all matters.
"If you want a REAL example of lunacy you need look no further. This is it. I never made such a claim"
Yes, you have. Many times. You have repeatedly made a wild-ass imaginary interpretation of UN statutes/etc in claiming Bush to be a "war criminal". Something in direct contradiction to the UN and the ICC. The ICC and the UN deny Bush is a war criminal. Lack of any evidence. They know matters far more than a hate-filled partisan blogger and his wild-ass in-his-own-mind rewriting of the UN charter.
But back to the subject, WD. Your problem here is that you believe that if one thing (or more things) is bad about someone, then all things are bad, including baseless accusations based on a platform of air.
I suppose you would blubber and bellow that Will Hart is a "defender of Hitler" if he insisted that the claims that Hitler killed 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey in the 1910s.
It is clear to anyone else reading this that Will is no fan of Bush. But since he has standards and bothers to learn the facts, he thinks it is pretty stupid to assume that Bush did bad things he never actually did (such as the war crimes).
Well, wd, being that LBJ lied about never sending American troops to Vietnam and I still wouldn't call HIM a war criminal, what do you think?......dmarks, what do you mean that Hitler didn't kill all of those Armenians? The next thing that you're going to tell me is that he didn't kill all of those natives of the Congo, too.
No, Will. Bush killed all those Belgians in the Congo.
A delusional dmarks: Yeah, because, as you argued, the US refused to accept the idea of turning Bin Laden over to a terrorist-run tribunal for "justice".
I never argued this.
A delusional dmarks: Yes, you have. Many times. You have repeatedly made a wild-ass imaginary interpretation of UN statutes/etc in claiming Bush to be a "war criminal". Something in direct contradiction to the UN and the ICC. The ICC and the UN deny Bush is a war criminal.
I've asked you for the links to the statements from the UN and ICC wherein they deny bush is a war criminal. You refuse to produce them.
Because you can't. Because they exist only in your imagination.
You're the one rewriting the UN Charter. You think because bush broke the rules and wasn't punished the rules must really not say what they say.
dmarks: No, Will. Bush killed all those Belgians in the Congo.
I advise dmarks to seek psychiatric help ASAP. Delusions this strong have to be a warning sign of something very serious.
Will: ...being that LBJ lied about never sending American troops to Vietnam and I still wouldn't call HIM a war criminal...
I'd say you're devoid of moral fiber. Obviously you believe America can do whatever the hell it wants and can never be held accountable. That is for lesser countries.
WD: You have argued for turning Bin Laden over to the other terrorists for "justice" many times.
WD said: "I've asked you for the links to the statements from the UN and ICC wherein they deny bush is a war criminal."
Why are there any needed? People have made charges, and since there was absolutely no evidence, they were rejected. You are being so illogical and have justice all backwards.
Using your own logic, you are a war criminal because the UN has not spoken on it.
"Because you can't. Because they exist only in your imagination."
I am not uaing imagination. There's simply nothing to imagine.
"You're the one rewriting the UN Charter."
Um... no. I defer to the UN on it. You don't.
"You think because bush broke the rules..."
How can I think something that is not true? There's no evidence he broke the rules.
"and wasn't punished the rules must really not say what they say."
You are the only one playing silly games of making up interpretations. I'm not going there.
"I advise dmarks to seek psychiatric help ASAP."
I'm not the one with delusions about Bush. I'm not the one who hates the former President so much that he will just make up stuff in a completely-failing attempt to make him look worse.
You should follow Will for an example. He dislikes Bush for what he did, and can go on and on with valid reasons why Bush is a bad President.... without once making up silly false accusations.
dmarks: You have argued for turning Bin Laden over to the other terrorists for "justice" many times.
I've argued it zero times. Unless you're talking about how many times I've argued it in your imagination... then, yes, it most likely has been many.
dmarks: Why are there any needed? People have made charges, and since there was absolutely no evidence, they were rejected.
Circular logic from dmarks. People commit crimes all the time for which they aren't charged. It doesn't make them innocent.
Take, for instance, your claim that Elizabeth Warren plagiarized a book... but she has never been sued for plagiarism, therefore she's innocent according to your logic, right?
dmarks: I defer to the UN on it. You don't.
No you don't. You say what's in their charter doesn't mean what it says.
dmarks: How can I think something that is not true? There's no evidence he broke the rules. ...You are the only one playing silly games of making up interpretations. I'm not going there.
The evidence is the rules themselves...
Article 33: "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".
Article 39: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
dmarks, in saying bush did not break these rules, is the one reinterpreting them, not me.
dmarks: You have repeatedly made a wild-ass imaginary interpretation of UN statutes/etc in claiming Bush to be a "war criminal". Something in direct contradiction to the UN. I defer to the UN on it. You don't.
You're "deferring" to what the UN says... in your imagination. Because, in reality, the UN actually did claim bush broke the rules...
Wikipedia: On 9/16/2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion [of Iraq], said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal".
WD said: "Circular logic from dmarks. People commit crimes all the time for which they aren't charged. It doesn't make them innocent."
Except in this case, Bush committed no crimes.
Aside from this, you are now telling us if someone is not charged with something, they are guilty of it.
Will, you are right. We are arguing with a bloomin' loon.
Re Article 33 and 39l. You are an armchair attorney. Your interpretations are quite silly, and the actual experts disagree with you. As another armchair attorney myself, I can easily shoot down your irrelevant and poorly thought out points. But I don't play that game. I leave it to the experts.
Thanks for the quote from Kofi Annan. A man representing his personal opinion: one that was that at odds with the rest of the UN. Granted, he did hold a lot of weight, as the Sec. Gen. However, anyone but a boob... cough.. you would know that pontifications from UN members speaking their opinion have nothing to do with anything.
Kofi Annan's interpretation was not shared by the UN itself.
dmarks: Aside from this, you are now telling us if someone is not charged with something, they are guilty of it.
Only in your imagination. I only said it doesn't prove him innocent.
dmarks: Will, you are right. We are arguing with a bloomin' loon.
Will didn't argue with you.
dmarks: Your interpretations are quite silly...
I made no "interpretation", I simply quoted the articles. What this proves is how loony dmarks is... that he thinks an exact quote from the UN Charter is an "interpretation".
dmarks: ...one that was that at odds with the rest of the UN.
It isn't, and I can easily prove your absurd claim is wrong. If what Kofi Annan said was at odds with the rest of the UN then the UN would have approved bush's invasion. It didn't.
Your rebuke of what Kofi Annan said is a weak and transparent spin attempt. You're flailing dmarks.
"I made no interpretation, I simply quoted the articles"
Actually, in fact, despite your denial, you have given the numbers of these two articles many times as proof of Bush war crimes.
"It isn't, and I can easily prove your absurd claim is wrong."
You haven't yet, and you won't. I looked more closely at Annan's remarks. They were off the cuff during an interview. No spin necessary.
"If what Kofi Annan said was at odds with the rest of the UN then the UN would have approved bush's invasion."
There's no logic to your statement.
Face it. You have a rabid hatred of Bush for daring to win the 2000 election, and will make up any sort of lie about him as "revenge".
dmarks: ...despite your denial, you have given the numbers of these two articles many times as proof of Bush war crimes.
What "denial" are you talking about? I'll assume an imagined one, as I've have never denied my citing these two articles as proof of bush's crimes.
Also, even though I cited them many times, you've never read them! If you had you wouldn't be arguing this "interpretation" nonsense. Your argument would be that they didn't apply (for some reason).
This is proof positive that dmarks has no clue what he's talking about. He argues that my "interpretation" is wrong regarding articles from the UN Charter he hasn't read, and when I made no interpretation. You can't get much loonier!
dmarks: There's no logic to your statement.
My statement is 100 percent logical. If the rest of the UN agreed that the invasion was justified why didn't they approve it, or signal that they would approve it? Yours is the statement that contains no logic.
dmarks: You haven't yet, and you won't. I looked more closely at Annan's remarks. They were off the cuff during an interview.
I just did. Also, serious statements like bush violating the UN Charter would not be made "off the cuff". Proof of that is that he never retracted or walked the statement back. If he had that would give SOME credence to your claim of "off the cuff"... but you've provided no evidence that he did, so your "off the cuff" claim rates a "fail".
You can't simply throw out characterizations like this with zero proof. Further proof that dmarks is flailing.
dmarks: You have a rabid hatred of Bush for daring to win the 2000 election, and will make up any sort of lie about him as "revenge".
Your rabid desire is to prove bush isn't a war criminal... and you're willing to make up any sort of lie about his crimes as revenge against anyone who would dare tell the truth.
And Gore won the 2000 election. Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris stole it for GWb.
WD said: "He argues that my "interpretation" is wrong regarding articles from the UN Charter he hasn't read"
You are wrong because the UN disagrees with you.
"Also, serious statements like bush violating the UN Charter would not be made off the cuff."
Yet, he did. During a BBC interview.
Amazing, now... you see the UN as some sort of dictatorship of the secretary general. That his mumblings during interviews are now, according to you, the law of the world. No proceedings among nations, no resolutions necessary. According to you.
"And Gore won the 2000 election. Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris stole it for GWb."
One has no doubt that Jeb and Katherine voted for GWB. But they were just two votes in a majority of Florida voters who chose Bush. I already know that according to you, people are accused of "stealing" elections if they vote for someone you don't like. But it is proper to point out that the majority of Florida voters participated in this "theft" by daring to vote for the other guy.
And I know you will damn Jeb and Katherine forever for standing up for Florida's voters and refusing to let them be disenfranchised by silly attempts by Gore to overturn the election (including the notorious 'voter intent' attempt which would have counted voteless ballots as Gore votes).
wd doesn't consider Hafez al Assad, the Iranian mullahs, Muammar Gadaffi, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and the Saudi Royal family terrorists, I guess, dmarks.............And what about FDR, wd? He routinely targeted major population centers in Japan (places with absolutely no military or strategic value) all throughout WW2. Is he a frigging war criminal, too? I will say no (this, in that we were fighting for the future of Western Civilization). What do you say (Mr., I care so much about civilian casualties, wd)?
Will: Did you see it when I found a harsh anti-Saddam quote concerning Iraq and said it was from Bush.... and WD said of course Bush was lying?
Then I pointed out that I had for once done a "Trick" and the quote was really from Nancy Pelosi.
He then flip-flopped and said the quote was true.
That proved WD's complete lack of principle or consistency in these arugments.
Will, look back to your discussion on Nancy Pelosi and Schweizer and the vinyard labor. Remember how he defended Polosi in a rather extreme way? Want to bet that if it wore Boehner instead who did what Pelosi did, he'd call him every name in the book. Starting with "Boner"... as 2nd grade playground insults are a big part of his playbook.
Where was this Pelosi trick? On this thread or another one? And Mr. Schweizer actually did another book in which he nailed both Pelosi AND Boehner on insider trading in Congress. wd liked the nailing of Boehner part but obviously strongly defended Pelosi again.
Will: It was in Channeling Ray Milland. It really caught him flat flooted. He attempted to cover it with by bringing for support one of Saddam Hussein's public relations employees.
Will: Where was this Pelosi trick?
dmarks is lying. I did not flip-flop, I simply pointed out the truth, which is when Pelosi made her comments she was saying what everyone believed to be true at the time, and when bush made similar comments he knew what he was saying was a lie.
dmarks' quote from Nancy Pelosi was from 12/16/1998 and what she said was what the politicians believed to be true AT THE TIME.
But in June of 1999 weapons inspector Scott Ritter said, "When you ask the question, does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons? the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed".
Nancy Pelosi stood corrected and made no more claims about Iraq and WMD, but the TRUTH didn't stop bush... he continued making false statements about Iraq's WMD.
My catching dmarks in his lie really caught him flat-footed, which explains why he simply denies it happened... similar to a 2nd grader on the playground denying he's been tagged out when everyone saw that he was.
"But in June of 1999 weapons inspector Scott Ritter said...."
And thank you for again repeating the mistrake of quoting Saddam Hussein's own paid PR representative Scott Ritter.
There have been (nor will there ever be) any charges of Scott Ritter being corrupt. It's a baseless claim that the actual authorities reject. Of course dmarks will never accept this, seeing as he views himself as the undisputed judge of everything having to do with Afghanistan or Iraq... unfortunately the truth is that dmarks is quite nuts.
Scott Ritter was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a major terrorist kingpin to lie on his behalf. But nooooo he isn't corrupt. Not at all. Nooooo.
"unfortunately the truth is that dmarks is quite nuts."
Sticks and stones...
When presented with facts he doesn't like dmarks turns to ad hominem. It's his MO. I think it's a very good indication that what Scott Ritter said was true and dmarks knows it. Otherwise he would have disputed the information instead of going after the person who reported it. He did the same thing with Francis Boyle.
But Scott Ritter isn't the only UN weapons inspector that said Iraq was disarmed...
Mohamed ElBaradei told the UN Security Council that, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites, they found there was no evidence of resumed nuclear activities, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any related sites. He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997.
Hans Blix said the inspectors "found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament". According to Blix the open issue would be resolved in a matter of months.
Are you going to dig up some completely unrelated dirt on these two individuals as well dmarks?
The POINT is you lied about comments Nancy Pelosi made when you attributed them to bush... becaue bush wasn't president when Nancy Pelosi said what she did. When Nancy Pelosi made her comments about Saddam's WMD the politicians thought it was true, but when bush made similar comments he knew they were false.
This info you've provided regarding Scott Ritter does not change this fact. Nice diversion attempt though, dmarks.
WD said: "I think it's a very good indication that what Scott Ritter said was true and dmarks knows it."
No, I don't. Ritter was a paid liar. You know how to pick the worse people to support your case, don't you? Before, it was this antisemitic loon, whom you have since backed off from.
I also read the Blix report when it came out. He said that inspection compliance was improving, but still not there. Just improving. And these inspections were supposed to have been done almost a decade ago. Yet, Saddam was blocking them all the way up until the spring 2003 invasion.
"Are you going to dig up some completely unrelated dirt..."
No. While Ritter is not a valid source due to the very related situation of him being bribed by Saddam Hussein, the other two you mention are actually valid sources. Even when you don't like them: like when Blix says that Saddam was still not complying with the conditions of the cease-fire.
"The POINT is you lied about comments Nancy Pelosi made..."
No, I told the truth about them.
"This info you've provided regarding Scott Ritter does not change this fact. Nice diversion attempt though, dmarks."
It's very relevant. You present lies by Scott Ritter, and I point out the fact that Saddam paid him to lie. Aside from that, he attempted to rape a little girl and lied about this in a court of law... that is less relevant that his other lies, but shows he has 0 credibility.
dmarks: You present lies by Scott Ritter, and I point out the fact that Saddam paid him to lie.
I presented the truth about Iraq's WMD program as reported by a person in a position to know what was going on. You're the one who presented lies. Scott Ritter never accepted bribes from Saddam. The proof is that Scott Ritter was never charged or convicted of taking bribes. The actual authorities rejected the claims (because nobody except cranks like dmarks ever made them).
dmarks: Before, it was this antisemitic loon, whom you have since backed off from.
You lied and said my case rested entirely on statements from Francis Boyle. I did not "back off", I simply pointed out that my case did not rest completely on statements from him. And he isn't an anti-Semite or a loon.
dmarks: Even when you don't like them: like when Blix says that Saddam was still not complying with the conditions of the cease-fire.
I like what Hans Blix said, because it was the truth. Hans Blix said "...Iraq failed to comply with some of its disarmament obligations, [but] it was very hard for them to declare any weapons when they did not have any". He also said it was "his firm view that the Iraq war was illegal".
So, maybe you read Hans Blix's report, but you cherry-picked the parts you liked and ignored the parts you didn't like.
dmarks: No, I told the truth about them.
You lied. I proved that in my prior comment.
Obviously dmarks can't refute anything I said in my previous comment. I'll consider him in agreement with my (correct) assertion that bush invaded Iraq using the pretext that they had not disarmed... knowing full well that they had. In other words dmarks agrees that bush lied.
And from that one can easily conclude that the invasion was illegal and that bush is a war criminal. FINALLY he admits it! I'm stunned, actually.
Post a Comment