Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Slobodan Milosevic, Francisco Franco, Ismail Pasha, Benito Mussolini, Idi Amin, Mao Tse-tung, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Leopold 2, Kim Il Sung, or George W. Bush? Me - I'm kinda leaning toward Georgie.
40 comments:
You are comparing Bush to all these other people because...?
He doesn't think an illegal invasion, lying about WMD, violating the Geneva convention, or hundreds of thousands in collateral damage is that big a deal.
Toss up, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, and BHO.
LMAO...
:)
None of what WD said about Bush is true.
George was/is not evil. The question that intrigues me is which of that motely crew was the
MOST evil....
All of what I said about Bush is true.
Also, in regards to what BB-Idaho said... I think most people who commit evil acts do not consider themselves to be evil. I say you know who is evil by their actions, and bush's actions were very evil.
The actual experts and authorities disagree about the stuff you made up about Bush. I go with them instead of the cranks.
As usual, wd lies about my record. I was against the Iraq War FROM DAY ONE; MEANING that I was against it BEFORE Biden, BEFORE Clinton, and BEFORE Kerry. I'm just not sure that what Mr. Bush did rises to the level of a war crime (the fact that neither did Clinton and NATO get permission from the U.N. for their military action, either, Mr. Obama bombing the snot out of Northern Pakistan, etc.), that's all.............As for Mr. Bush "lying", I don't know if he lied or he didn't. Lying would have been him knowing that Iraq didn't have WMD and then trying to con the American people into thinking that they did. I tend to think more along the lines of what Thomas Ricks, Richard Haas, and Scott McClellan said when they talked about group-think and cherry-picking. No, it isn't as sexy or inflammatory as Mr. Bush being a war criminal but it's certainly a hell of a lot saner.
Will said: "the fact that neither did Clinton and NATO get permission from the U.N. for their military action"
On this, WD is a dipping/dodging/diving person with no credibility. Remember when he went on and on about how, in his own personal view Bush was a war criminal for ordering action against Iraq without the UN approval??
Yet, when it was pointed out that Clinton went against Serbia without UN approval, he entirely dropped the UN thing and shifted to a vague "international body" instead, so he could support Clinton's action by mentioning NATO now. His ignorant, personal interpretation of international law crumbled to dust. Well, honestly, it already was dust. It stood entirely on imagination and support from this guy
Will said: "No, it isn't as sexy or inflammatory as Mr. Bush being a war criminal but it's certainly a hell of a lot saner."
You sure have a lot of credibility when it comes to criticizing Bush, since you are quite capable of expressing informed differences with his policy without making silly false accusations.
It's a lot more effective when you criticize Bush as you are doing, Will, without lying about him.
Ricks, Haas, and McClellan all wrote books that were highly critical of the Bush administration. But they all did it in a responsible way and veered clear of wd caliber hyperbole. That, in my opinion, is clearly the better way to go.
Oh, and he's also very silent about Mr. Obama and his "war crimes". Let us not forget about that hypocrisy.
Oh yes. For example, Obama sent 20,000 troops into Afghanistan without the UN's approval ("the surge"). Like with Clinton, WD does not rant "war criminal" because the leader happens to be a liberal Democrat.
Obama is definitely a Democrat. A liberal is questionable. He talks like a liberal, but his actions are not liberal.
He's basically carried out 90% of Mr. Bush's foreign and anti-terror policies and you're a commendable progressive for pointing this out, Jerry.
I point out the same thing, am I commendable?
And Jerry, be prepared for some push back from dmarks. He thinks all Democrats that aren't DINOs are Liberal.
True, w-d. You have pointed it out mant times. I just beat you to iit this time.
yes wd you are commendable on those times your are right.
dmarks lied: His ignorant, personal interpretation of international law crumbled to dust [because] It stood entirely on imagination and support from [Francis Boyle].
This is where your lies crumble to dust dmarks. I admit to citing Francis Boyle, but my "personal interpretation" of international law never stood entirely on support from Mr. Boyle. I cited the actual UN articles bush violated. The language is clear and requires no "interpertation". Also, I've given MULTIPLE reasons why bush is a war criminal. My argument has never stood "entirely" on the singular fact that bush invaded Iraq without UN authorization.
bush lying about WMD is another fact in the case against bush. Will is wrong about whether or not we can know with certainy if bush was lying. We do know bush lied because the UN weapons inspectors on the ground at the SAME TIME bush was demanding that Iraq "disarm" were reporting that they were NOT finding WMD. The IAEA said they needed a little more time to complete their inspections... but bush said no and told them to get out because the bombing would begin soon. This PROVES that, not only was bush not interested in the truth, but he wanted to cover it up.
For anyone interested in my full case against bush, read my post on the subject here.
dmarks muzzily said: Obama sent 20,000 troops into Afghanistan without the UN's approval ("the surge").
This statement proves how ignorant you are on this issue. The US doesn't need UN authorization regarding number of troops deployed. Also, the UN approved the Afghanistan invasion at the last minute because they realized bush wasn't going to listen to them, and they wanted to have a some say regarding how the war was conducted.
Will: Oh, and he's also very silent about Mr. Obama and his "war crimes". Let us not forget about that hypocrisy.
I have not been "very silent". You criticized Noam Chomsky for declaring Obama a war criminal, and I defended Mr. Chomsky. That isn't being silent.
Will: As usual, wd lies about my record.
You misread my comment. I didn't say you were an Iraq war supporter. You should be more careful when throwing around the "lie" charge.
Will: ...Scott McClellan said when they talked about group-think and cherry-picking.
The Guardian: George Bush's former press secretary Scott McClellan has admitted that the Iraq war was "unnecessary" and a "strategic blunder" that was sold to the American people through a manipulative propaganda campaign.
Wd said: "My argument has never stood "entirely" on the singular fact that bush invaded Iraq without UN authorization."
It stood mostly on him.. the same man who has also called Alan Derschowitz a war criminal.
"I cited the actual UN articles bush violated."
Yet, he did not violate any of them. The idea that he has exists in your imagination, and not in reality, and certainly not with the International Criminal Court or UN ... the actual knowledgable qualified bodies... which consider amateur fabricated interpretations such as yours beneath contempt or consideration. Your interepretation has been rejected by the adults involved.
"ush lying about WMD is another fact in the case against bush."
Yet, he didn't You are making something up in a failed attempt to build a false case.
"Also, I've given MULTIPLE reasons why bush is a war criminal"
Real world correction: You have attempted, but everything you bring up is baseless and rejected by those who unlike you, aren't armchair cranks with delusions of grandeur.
"The US doesn't need UN authorization regarding number of troops deployed"
It is just more proof that your attempted and failed case against Bush isn't based on any consistency, and is likely based on whether or not he has a (D) or an (R) against his name. You are shifting the target. You slandered Bush repeatedly and even called for his murder because he sent troops into Afghanistan without UN approval. Obama does it and you created double, triple, quadruple standards.
You quoted McClellan: "George Bush's former press secretary Scott McClellan has admitted that the Iraq war was "unnecessary" and a "strategic blunder" that was sold to the American people through a manipulative propaganda campaign"
He is entitled to his opinion, but the last part is a paranoid lie that only a feeble mind could come up with or believe.
And yes I am sure Will can have a reasonable discussion of Bush's strategic blunder without Will ignoring the UN charter and making up imaginary parts of it... which is what WD does.
WD's as bitter as a cup of 7-11
coffee.
"exists in your imagination" = facts dmarks doesn't like.
I stand by everything I wrote. Further discussion with you on this topic is pointless, as you live in your own imaginary world where facts and the truth are whatever you say they are.
dmarks: It stood mostly on him. the same man who has also called Alan Derschowitz a war criminal.
It stands "mostly" on him only in your imagination. Because you need my case against bush to stand mostly on him to support your straw man argument.
dmarks: Your interepretation has been rejected by the adults involved.
ad hominem, and proof of how feeble your defense of bush is. If it were stronger you wouldn't need the ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments.
"Unnecessary" and "strategic blunder" were McClellan's words, wd. "Manipulative propaganda campaign" - those are The Guardian's. Sorry. Nice try, though. And you DID lie. You said that I didn't care about the Iraq War and I obviously cared more about it than 20 something Democratic Senators who voted for it.......And you're trying to have it both ways with Obama. You say that you agree with Chomsky but you can never quite spit it out yourself, "Obama is a war criminal."
You're lying about me lying Will. I did not say you didn't care, I said you didn't think it was "that big a deal". Your idiotic post title PROVES it. The ENTIRE POINT of your post was to minimize bush's crimes (by comparing him to others who did worse).
As for your charge regarding me "wanting it both ways", you're wrong about that as well. First of all, Obama didn't lie us into a war like bush. Obama hasn't authorized torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions like bush. Simply saying they are both "war criminals" AGAIN minimizes bush's crimes.
That's your territory.
If you want to make the case that Obama is a war criminal go ahead and do it. I'm not stopping you. Maybe I'll agree.
Obama is still doing the rendition (the out of sight, out of mind torture), wd. He also sextupled the drone attacks to the tune of thousands of dead Pakistani civilians. And I DO think that the Iraq War was a big deal, to the point that I, too, would use the terms, "unnecessary" and "strategic blunder".
w-d,
I like your use of a lower case b for bush. I have a tendency to do similar when I mention republicans.
dmarks: ...the last part is a paranoid lie that only a feeble mind could come up with or believe.
Scott McClellan: The administration was not "open and forthright on Iraq".
If the administration was not "open and forthright" does that not imply deception? Or is Scotty one of those with a "feeble mind"?
Calling bush's sales pitch for the Iraq war a "manipulative propaganda campaign" is actually the straight-up truth. Only a feeble mind could believe there was no deception involved.
Will: "Unnecessary" and "strategic blunder" were McClellan's words, wd. "Manipulative propaganda campaign" - those are The Guardian's. Sorry. Nice try, though.
Nice try?! It might not be a direct quote, but it is my impression that it's a paraphrase based on what he said in his book (The "not open and forthright" statement).
Jerry Critter: w-d, I like your use of a lower case b for bush.
Only one other person has ever mentioned it, but YES, I do it on purpose.
I would prefer to use Mr. McClellan's direct words as opposed to yours or the Guardian's paraphrasing, thank you.
I gave you his exact words. He said the bush administration was not open and forthright. That is different from "manipulative propaganda campaign" HOW?
Sounds like an extremely fair paraphrase to me. You're splitting hairs because you think bush's crimes aren't that big a deal... just like I originally said. I didn't lie.
Give me the full, exact quote.......And I'm still not exactly what these crimes are. Not first having a U.N. resolution? Well, that would make LBJ, Clinton, and Obama war criminals, too. The fact that the enterprise went poorly? You can't get any more poorly than Vietnam. The fact that Bush emphasized certain intelligence and not other intelligence? You say that he lied but maybe he actually believed that Saddam had wmd and was simply wrong. The fact that there have been 100,000 plus civilian deaths? According to Human Tights Watch, only 2,363 civilian deaths have been the result of U.S. air-strikes. The vast, VAST, percentage of Iraqi deaths have resulted from Iraqis killing other Iraqis. Yes, we opened up the cork and that was stupid, but the Sunnis and Shia despise each other and it would have happened eventually. Bush fucked up but to put him in the same category as Saddam Hussein, Hitler, and Leopold is exceedingly dumb, IMO.
Will: Give me the full, exact quote
I don't own his book. In any case, the quote I gave is enough to determine that he's saying the bush administration decided beforehand to go to way and ignored evidence that didn't support their case. I call that lying. Perhaps they lied to themselves and really believed the BS they were spinning... but they were still lying.
The UN inspectors on the ground at the time bush was calling for Iraq to disarm said they were finding no WMD. bush told them to get out because he was about to unleash "shock and awe".
bush lied about WMD. The UN said don't invade. Then they said there was no WMD. It's both of these actions (together) that make him a war criminal.
And it wasn't 100k people who have been killed, it is 1.4 million. Perhaps bush isn't as bad as Hitler, but he's still a war criminal.
"Perhaps Bush isn't as bad as Hitler, but he's still a war criminal." Wow, magnanimous.......And according to Thomas Ricks's book, "Fiasco" (hardly a complimentary missive on Bush), the regime change components of the Bush administration were actually losing the argument and it was only after 9/11 that they finally started getting some traction.......And in order for Mr. Bush to be guilty of lying in the ACTUAL sense of the term, you would also have to prove that he he knew that Saddam didn't have wmd and then purposefully told the American people otherwise. Yes, he was clearly wrong but you cannot prove that he was lying (or at least you haven't proven it to me).......And these are the numbers from reputable sources on Iraqi civilian deaths; Iraq Body Count - 116,000, AP - 110,000, Iraq Family Health Survey - 151,000, and Wiki Leaks Iraq War Logs - 109,000. I mean, I don't know where you got the 1.4 million but it does seem a little extreme.
"Perhaps Bush isn't as bad as Hitler, but he's still a war criminal." So, is this kind like saying that "perhaps Mr. Obama isn't as bad as Bush, but he's still a war criminal."?
Will: And in order for Mr. Bush to be guilty of lying in the ACTUAL sense of the term, you would also have to prove that he he knew that Saddam didn't have wmd and then purposefully told the American people otherwise.
So, absent a non-existent mind reading device, there is no way you'd EVER conclude he lied? That's idiotic. These kind of questions and asked and answered everyday in trials around the US.
And the fact that bush lied is incredibly obvious, as the weapons inspectors on the ground at the time said there was no WMD.
The 1.4 million dead is an (scientifically arrived at) estimate from the respected medical journal the Lancet. Not all bodies in war end up in morgues where they can be counted. War is messy and chaotic.
As to whether or not Obama is a war criminal, I'm not convinced. I previously told you that I'd be willing to consider the evidence if you presented it, but you declined to do so.
No, wd, it's not idiotic. It's the legal definition of perjury.......And the fact that the weapons inspectors were right and Bush wrong doesn't prove that Bush lied. It proved that they were right and Bush was wrong.......And the other sources aren't "scientific"? Just the Lancet is scientific abd the others are wrong? Come on, man!......And I've made the case, the same shit that Chomsky said when he said that in many ways Obama was worse than Bush and you said that he had made "some good points".
Since mind reading is impossible, that means you believe nobody has EVER been convicted of perjury? That REALLY is idiotic.
The other sources count bodies in morgues. Like I just said, not all bodies show up in morgues. In fact, only a portion of them do.
And no, you've brought up a few issues, but you've never detailed the entire case.
From Wikipedia - "On February 3, 2009, the Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) announced that an 8-month investigation found the author of the 2006 Lancet survey, Dr. Gilbert Burnham, had violated the Association's Code of Professional Ethics & Practices for repeatedly refusing to disclose essential facts about his research. "Dr. Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research," said Mary Losch, chair of the association’s Standards Committee." And the Lancet research was also criticized for radically underestimating the pre-war death rate, the fact that Hussein persecuted his people by putting them in prison, executing them, etc..............And I don't believe that you're correct in saying that the other sources relied exclusively on morgues. They also utilized surveys and family interviews, I believe.
And, no, wd, people get convicted of perjury all the time. The authorities prove their cases by inconsistent testimony, first-hand eye witness accounts, paper trails, etc.. It's exceedingly hard but it's doable.
Will quoting Wikipedia: AAPOR [says] author of the 2006 Lancet survey... violated the Association's Code of Professional Ethics & Practices for repeatedly refusing to disclose essential facts about his research
From Wikipedia: According to New Scientist's investigation Burnham has sent his data and methods to other researchers, who found it sufficient. A spokesman for the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, where Burnham works, says the school advised him not to send his data to AAPOR, as the group has no authority to judge the research. The "correct forum", it says, is the scientific literature. [end Wikipedia quote]
Dr. Gilbert Burnham isn't a member of the AAPOR and therefore isn't bound by it's Code of Professional Ethics & Practices.
Will: ...people get convicted of perjury all the time.
Well then it's George bush by his lonesome, out of all the people on the entire planet, for whom determining whether he lied or not is impossible???
No, wd, you just need to get testimony from people who Bush may have spoken to, emails or other documentation in which Mr. Bush may have incriminated himself, stuff like that. It's really exceedingly elemental......."Not bound by its code of professional ethics and practices" indeed.
Post a Comment