George W. Bush, war criminal

[Debunker]

No crusade against Islam- what would you call it then? They've pretty much demonized everything about the religion and the media also demonizes it constantly.

Proud tb Gay, who is causing all the multi culture trouble in Europe? Who is it that keep blowing people upi Seems to me that some people demonize themselves.

 

[Genuine Realist]

Which ones and where are their reports?

See my post. If the French, Germans, or Russians had different estimates, you would have heard it after the Powell speech. You didn't.

That's what I mean by critical thinking.

 

[Debunker]

And yet you are unable (or is it unwilling) to look at what has been presented to you in this thread...

Hypocrite much?

I object to your personal attack on the Realist. By default he demonstrates the stronger character and the better argument. He is not a hypocrite.

 

[Bismillah]

But think about it. Barack Obama's liberal credentials are pretty well impeccable, and he does know some law. If he continues the program, it must imply at the very least that it confers some significant benefit on the US security position, and its particulars are not all that offensive. (Both are correct, in my opinion.) At the very, very least, it requires a re-think of the earlier value judgment. You now have two administrations of very different hues that have come to the position that the program is valuable and legal.

That would be working off the basic premise that these camps are helpful

Despite the tens of thousands of hours of interrogation that have taken place at Guantánamo, very little worthwhile intelligence has been extracted. What information is left is now five years old, and it is doubtful that any Guantánamo prisoner has knowledge of a ticking bomb or a current plot.
And while the government maintains that detainees can provide a primer on jihad networks and al-Qaeda’s strategic goals, at this point, the information is likely out of date. Besides, what can be extracted from individuals who, for the most part, were the wrong people to imprison in the first place.
According to a report by Seton Hall School of Law, 86 percent of detainees were arrested by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and “handed over to the United States at a time when the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.”
Moreover, Guantánamo’s very existence has alienated potential inside sources of information. Two years ago, at a Center on Law and Security conference in Florence, Italy, two of Europe’s leading terrorism magistrates pointed out that attempts to infiltrate terrorist cells had become much more difficult in the wake of rising public anger over Guantánamo.

“is extremely damaging to all our efforts to integrate our Muslim communities.” Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of imprisonment without due process. The collateral damage of Guantánamo—the incarceration of nearly 800 individuals who are denied legal rights, who regularly report being abused and who face a lifetime of imprisonment—is incalculable. It breeds new angers and resentments, and thus new enemies.

8 Reasons to Close Guantnamo Now -- In These Times

Reports of ill-treatment of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo have become a rallying cry for anti-U.S. insurgents across the Muslim world. Getting rid of Guantanamo won't solve the problem, but – particularly if coupled with serious efforts to prevent all abuses in detention and interrogation - it will deprive them of what has become a highly evocative symbol around the world.

One of the most egregious aspects of the Guantanamo process is the fact that after being captive for three and a half years, many of the 540 detainees have still not had the benefit of a hearing to determine whether there is evidence to back their designation as enemy combatants. Some still haven't even seen a lawyer. With a fixed timeline to shut down Guantanamo, those hearings would need to happen more quickly.

First, several of America's leading national security experts and military lawyers have argued that Guantanamo Bay would be best shut down. For example, 19 year CIA veteran, Philip Giraldi, the top ranking military official of the United States, Admiral Mike Mullen, former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, one of America's most experienced anti-terror interrogators, Matthew Alexander, Former Major General, Michael Lehnert, and seven military lawyers who actually quit in Guantanamo Bay represent a short list of eminently qualified critics. These individuals possess tremendous credibility on security and legal matters, yet they are largely ignored by staunch supporters of the detention camp, who instead choose to focus their derision on "antiwar kooks", "liberal hippies", or the "Blame America first" crowd. Simply put, the aforementioned list of highly qualified individuals has publicly stated that Guantanamo Bay has tarnished America's moral credibility, reduced the likelihood of obtaining of legitimate intelligence, and served as a potent symbol for increased terrorist recruiting. In other words, as long as Guantanamo Bay is kept open, it would appear that America is less safe as it prosecutes its 'War on Terror'.

Second, strong allegations of inhumane treatment and flimsy evidence have also convinced CIA counter-terrorism specialist, Philip Giraldi, and top terrorist interrogator, Matthew Alexander, that Guantanamo Bay is generating more terrorists for the US to fight. Giraldi has even pointed out that those who are released, after several years of detention, leave embittered, enraged, and more likely to join Al-Qaeda as a result of their time in Guantanamo.

Third, as controversy rages over whether or not to try terrorists in civilian courts or military tribunals, it is rarely cited that federal civilian courts have secured approximately 200 convictions of suspected terrorists, including the "20th hijacker" and the "Shoe Bomber". However, military tribunals have only convicted three suspects, two of which have been returned to their home countries. Based strictly on the numbers, federal civilian courts are much more robust in their legal prosecution of terrorists compared to military courts.

Guantanamo Bay: is it making America safer? | CAIVN

Every intelligence service in the world thought Iraq had WMD's. And the reason I can say that with some confidence is that you would have heard a different estimate from the French or Russians at the time, who were stridently opposed to the invasion. But you didn't.

Bush bears a heavy responsibility for being wrong - but he didn't lie.

I'm not going to go back and dig through some of the books I have, but anyone with a basic understanding of the events realizes that Bush did the best he could to spin the facts and discredit and ignore those who stated their beliefs that Iraq did not posses any WMDs, including the U.N weapons inspectors and the later in depth vilification and assault on their character as the White House prepared for war.

Or the fact that baby Bush was ready to invade Iraq prior to 9/11, but then again don't let the facts get in the way of your righteous condescension.

CIA confirms Bush lied about WMDs

 

[Debunker]

When you leap to conclusions like those above, you are right to expect your post to be met with derision and contempt. You are obviously well read, and you do a good job of expressing yourself. Your breakdown comes when you reach such sweeping conclusions based on insufficient evidence, and attributing your personal feelings to the masses. Effectively, you are begging the question, by assuming your conclusion as if it were evidence to support your argument. This is witnessed in the following section:
Did you see how you did that? You start out making claims about the efficacy of Bush's policies, and by the end of the paragraph you have simply accepted your premise as the conclusion.

You make this claim in relation to "liberals". The really ironic thing is, your point is valid, but it is clearly more appropriately applied to the apologists for Bush's implementation of his "pre-emptive strike" mentality which has now come to be known as the Bush Doctrine.

So, are you now the arbiter of how much emotion others can feel toward someone? If I were the parent of a son (or daughter) that died in Iraq due to Bush's manipulation of the American electorate, I dare say that my "loathing" would be more than justified. If you disagree with someone's assessment, that's fine. On the other hand, you really have no standing on which to appoint yourself as the final judge of how they handle their feelings on the subject.

Was that contemptuous enough for you?

In good logic premises do not change and when the results match the premises, the syllogistic is very good. Liberals don't think like the Realist for he uses sound logic and you make great slips in logic by altering the premises.
But, you do not see that, do you?

Did you see how you did that? You start out making claims about the efficacy of Bush's policies, and by the end of the paragraph you have simply accepted your premise as the conclusion.

See, that is what he is supposed to do. That is sound reasoning. It is clear that you want to twist everything the Realist says to match your liberal mind set. That is not intellectual debate but a false defense of liberalism. It is significant that none of you have suggested the course of action that you would have taken if Bush's course of action was so bad. Have you anything positive to say in support of your country by suggesting a better way? I think you are still trying to escape the hook of narrow mindedness.

 

[Debunker]

Now who's being naive?
That's the beauty of the Patriot Act. If your liberties have been infringed, you'll almost certainly never know it.

But hey, we have your assurances - what more could we possibly need?

"WE the people" do not object to the Patriot Act. We are smart enough to know that our liberties must be limited in time of war and other emergencies. We the people, the majority, do no object and we the people are not stupid enough to drop our defenses to satisfy the demands of liberal like you. If you don't listen to the common sense of we the people, we vote you out.

If it is any consolation, the terrorist and all the enemies of the USA agree with you. How does it make you feel to stand on their side and against your fellow Americans? But, you can't see that. can you?

 

[Debunker]

I think the opposite. I think in the future we'll look back on Iraq as another Vietnam. What did we succeed in in Iraq? We didn't find any weapons and we certainly didn't bring Iraq to peace and stability.

hIt is a very poor thing when the strength of your political philosophy depends on the failure of your country. Do you have any ideas that would support American idealism as a way of life?

 

[Jacksnyte]

hIt is a very poor thing when the strength of your political philosophy depends on the failure of your country. Do you have any ideas that would support American idealism as a way of life?

You know, the "Us vs. Them" binary thinking model is what repeatedly gets people at odds with each other. Things are almost never as black and white as you seem to see them! Try opening your mind to the idea that there may be more than one correct way to approach a situation.

 

[Debunker]

LMAO - you have GOT to be kidding.

You spent two pages of posts demonizing anyone that had the temerity to badmouth Bush, and here, in two short paragraphs, you reduce your entire position to an admission that it's nothing more than a prediction of what you'd like to see come to pass.

If you can't see that what the Realist said is coming true, it has to be that your hardened liberal point of view turns you away from American idealism and truth. Even as we speak Iran is marching in the steets again with the cry for the freedom GWB preached. I hope the liberals will give a voice to encourage the people of Iran. But, you can't see that your liberalism is doing great damage to American idealism, can you?

Get real, brother and stop your kidding! We the people don't believe your rehtoric any more.

 

[LuisDantas]

Proud tb Gay, who is causing all the multi culture trouble in Europe?

Nationalism.

Who is it that keep blowing people upi Seems to me that some people demonize themselves.

You tell me. Who are those people?

 

[Jacksnyte]

If you can't see that what the Realist said is coming true, it has to be that your hardened liberal point of view turns you away from American idealism and truth. Even as we speak Iran is marching in the steets again with the cry for the freedom GWB preached. I hope the liberals will give a voice to encourage the people of Iran. But, you can't see that your liberalism is doing great damage to American idealism, can you?

Get real, brother and stop your kidding! We the people don't believe your rehtoric any more.

take all references to "American Idealism", and replace it with "rabble-rousing jingoism", and re-read.

 

[LuisDantas]

hIt is a very poor thing when the strength of your political philosophy depends on the failure of your country.

Yes, it is. Good thing that avoiding unnecessary wars is in no way a failure.

Do you have any ideas that would support American idealism as a way of life?

Seeking peace instead of war would hopefully be one of them...

 

[Debunker]

Genuine - the labels with which you self identify are immaterial. The bottom line is, you may end up being right. Then again, you may end up being so far out in left field that statements like those you are making receive even more ridicule than we are currently heaping on them now. Bush is held in such high disregard for a reason - he lied the US into a war. A war in which a lot of people died, and his cronies reaped untold billions of dollars in profits. He took great pride in doing things that he knew would split this country right down the middle - for his own political gain. He took a dump on the lower and middle classes for the sole purpose of enriching the very upper crust of the wealthy in this country.

In summation, history may judge him to have been right on any number of issues - but I doubt it. I highly doubt it.

I urge you to support every accusation with facts so we will al know you are speaking out of logic and not simple hate for GWB. None of the thing you say are true and only the typical liberal suspects defend your position on Bush. We the people continue to reject your liberalism for the fact you do not clearly outline what steps you would have done differently to protect our country. When are going to do this? If you know of such a better way, please show it to us. but you do not see that this is an important item of the debate, do you?

 

[LuisDantas]

Debunker, what do you have to say about this link, which our Muslim colleague presented to us in the previous page? (Thank you, btw, Bismillah)

CIA confirms Bush lied about WMDs

 

[Debunker]

If you are not going to actually read the thread before you comment...

Of course, I suspect that perhaps you are just going to jump up on the Bush Idolatry Bandwagon?
Not even going to bother to find out what was said and by whom in this thread?
Or perhaps you are honestly taking the same closed eyed, ignore what you dislike position that Realist has blatantly demonstrated in this thread?

Well, I am now reading the thread and so far, you have said nothing constructive. You have made it clear that you hate Bush. Rev., you have missed nothing new.

 

[Jacksnyte]

take all references to "American Idealism", and replace it with "rabble-rousing jingoism", and re-read.

Interestingly, I seem to be invisible in this thread :ignore:

 

[Debunker]

You mean just like the 9/11 hijackers?

Are you so numb that you think the terrorist only started plotting against us when GWB became President?

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe you lost the context of Father Heathen's post, Debunker? He was replying to Rev Rick's statement that GWB's insistence in doing what he believed in regardless of external approval was admirable.

 

[Debunker]

Is anyone besides Danmac still actually trying to argue Bush isn't guilty of breaking international laws?

We the people chose to follow American laws and we the people think our laws are mor just than international laws. While international law has always condemned the USA of terrorism and as a violator of human rights, it has too often turned its head towards the former USSR and now Russia, China N. Korea, Iran, and many other tyrannical counties. For the sake of me, I do not know why the liberals would want to subject Americans to such abuse that international law would create for us.

 

[Jacksnyte]

We the people chose to follow American laws and we the people think our laws are mor just than international laws. While international law has always condemned the USA of terrorism and as a violator of human rights, it has too often turned its head towards the former USSR and now Russia, China N. Korea, Iran, and many other tyrannical counties. For the sake of me, I do not know why the liberals would want to subject Americans to such abuse that international law would create for us.

Interestingly constant use of "we the people" here, as if by use of this wording you make your points seem more valid due to an imagined general acceptance.