George W. Bush, war criminal

[Debunker]

We've learned now how self destructive it is to put a liar, a drunk, and a theif in charge of protecting the citizens of the USA. It is much more constructive, however, to entrust the protection of citizens in the hands of someone intelligent, sober, and capable.

So yes, it's insanely un-American to encourage GWB to "protect the citizens of the USA." All he did was instigate two ruthless wars against people who didn't even attack us. And he did succeed in lining the pockets of thousands of contractors.

You did mean to say that about JFK and LBJ didn't you? Now their war was a real patriotic war. Bushs wars just can not match those wars. Those counties in the Middle East had nothing to do with 9/11 and Iraq was living up to all its agreements with the UN. There was no reason to fight back, just let those Arabs and Muslims be. They will do the right thing in the end. America certainly will go along with you. Your problem is that you just can't get the trth out in a believable way. Damn that Fox network. Why do so many people believe Fox in place of the middle of the road NY Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN? We just can't understand it, can we.

 

[Debunker]

It had nothing to do with Bush doubling the national debt and speding more in his 8 years than all the other presidents before him combined. This kind of insane spending mades the pithy Republican polemic "tax and spend" Democrats seem more than a little trite.

Bush doubled the national debt. Clinton had a surplus budget. So much for the evils of tax and spend.

Oh! Did you approve of the spending of the last two years or not?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You did mean to say that about JFK and LBJ didn't you? Now their war was a real patriotic war. Bushs wars just can not match those wars. Those counties in the Middle East had nothing to do with 9/11 and Iraq was living up to all its agreements with the UN. There was no reason to fight back, just let those Arabs and Muslims be. They will do the right thing in the end. America certainly will go along with you. Your problem is that you just can't get the trth out in a believable way. Damn that Fox network. Why do so many people believe Fox in place of the middle of the road NY Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN? We just can't understand it, can we.

You're a real piece of work.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh! Did you approve of the spending of the last two years or not?

Oh sure. He has a blank check as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Genuine Realist]

Geez. This is worth it, I guess.

Bush didn't kill a million people in Iraq. In fact, no one killed a million people there. The 'million' number came from a study in the British medical journal Lancet back in 2004 and 2006. (Even then, the number was put at 650,000, not a million.) But the study was thoroughly debunked in the years that followed, so much so that its methodology was found to be in violation of professional ethics. Here's the link from ABC News.

Why don't you put FDR or Abraham Lincoln on the list? Responsible for a lot more deaths than the others.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You do realize that heaps upon heaps of evidence exists that contradicts every statement you make? That is not critical reasoning, that is talking out of your ***.

It's kinda cute. Just MHO.

At least Debunker doesn't insult everyone's intelligence and embarrass himself by declaring that his position is logical.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Geez. This is worth it, I guess.

Bush didn't kill a million people in Iraq. In fact, no one killed a million people there. The 'million' number came from a study in the British medical journal Lancet back in 2004 and 2006. (Even then, the number was put at 650,000, not a million.) But the study was thoroughly debunked in the years that followed, so much so that its methodology was found to be in violation of professional ethics. Here's the link from ABC News.

Why don't you put FDR or Abraham Lincoln on the list? Responsible for a lot more deaths than the others.

I said 1.2million. And I know that there are a lot of ways to count the numbers. That's the fishy thing about people liking the SOB.

 

[ninerbuff]

Hey the tea partiers have Palin, and the conservy's are enamored by Bush. Just like religion, I don't think anything will change passionate love fests of either. At this point I'm just going to support our current president. Of course there will be things I disagree with, but probably not as much as I did with Bush.

 

[Debunker]

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.

On several other threads I have tried to explain that very thing and the usual suspects that travel around the forum spouting their extremism just will not listen. Notice how they will not give one inch on GWB.

I hope you have better luck in getting that point across than I had. I think we should all team up under the banner of American idealism. What do you think about that idea?

 

[Genuine Realist]

You do realize that heaps upon heaps of evidence exists that contradicts every statement you make? That is not critical reasoning, that is talking out of your ***.

You might actually quote some of it, then, with sources.

For starters, if there were different intelligence estimates of Iraq WMD capability back in 2003, why didn't they become public? Any ideas? (Hint: The LOGICAL inference is that war opponents didn't publicize them because their own estimates were in agreement. You gotta different explanation?)

After that, you can name the persons whose opposition to Bush was prohibited or even inhibited by Bush's attack on the Constitution? (Hint: there aren't any.)

You can go on to specify the number of people in jail because of specific changes to criminal law or procedure by the Patriot Act. (Hint: there aren't any.)

Finally, you can explain why the new Iraqi state is not a consensual government, and why you hold Bush responsible for all the murders perpetrated by the 'insurgency' that fought to prevent it coming into existence. You can then tell me why Bush is responsible for these deaths, and Lincoln/FDR are not, for the wars they fought for human liberation.

Hint: it takes a little more than expressions of faith.

 

[Debunker]

Nationalism.

You tell me. Who are those people?

You are the one who lectured me on a lie? Don't you really know? You answer the question O man of Truth.

 

[Debunker]

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

No! No! You should not be ashamed of American idealism. Let's keep it.

 

[Debunker]

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

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

Is everything that easy for liberals? How you going to seek peace while they cut your throat and blow up your home land? Talk is cheap and your talk is getting very cheap as you explian what action you would take.

 

[Bismillah]

You might actually quote some of it, then, with sources.

I did go look at prior posts.

 

[Genuine Realist]

I did go look at prior posts.

Nice to know you, but my post was a rejoinder to the True Believer I quoted.

 

[Debunker]

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.

They don't seem more valid, they are more valid when they are approved by we the people. Did you ever read the Preamble of the Constitution? It is a very valid American belief and it begins with "We the people."

But I am not surprised that liberals object to this language. Liberals don't think the common citizen is smart enough to think for themselves. Just listen to the liberals on this thread tell you how stupid the people were for electing GWB. They do however get to blame Fox for messing up the news of NBC, ABC CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Isn't it sad how one network can out talk all the other networks together. Boy, that Conservative propaganda machine is so strong, it will be the ruin of our nation. Imagine, conservationism keeps saying "we the people." It is rather intimidating, isit not?

 

[Debunker]

And your leader then used that as an excuse to engage into war with an unrelated country.

I never did hear him or congress use that as an excuse. Your not twisting or making a littlle white.... no, you would not do that, you are against the smallest untruths.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What you say is important. They came through my community, knocked down all our doors, drug us into the streets, search every house and demanded we give up the terrorist. When we told the, all 150 of us, that we did know what a terrorist was, they pulled out folders on each of us and read to us all the un-American activities that each of us had participated in. It was really a bad thing and I understand the this is happening all over the USA and the conservative news media will not broadcast a word about this abuse.

Again. Get a grip and deal with reality.
Your exaggerations only serve to weaken your arguments. Simply address the fact that the Patriot Act allows the violations of liberties I addressed instead of flapping your arms around and mocking an Act which goes against the very things our founding fathers stood for.

The P.A. is so bad, why does Obama not repeal it?

I am very disappointed that he has not and hold him accountable.

 

[Debunker]

:clap

haha - the Realist is falling in right after him under the pretense of "critical thinking." :biglaugh:

Where, by the way, is your well Wes thought out plain to save the world like Bush had?l We see his plan in Iran even today, although I am sure Obama will do everything he can once again to limit GWB's influence and world policies as he can. We would, however, like to know what all you wise liberals would have done in place of GWB's actions.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If you have followed my thinking, you know I reject extremism on all sides. You hold to extremism when your political philosophy will not allow you to concede one good thing about a man that protected our country in a brave but forceful way against a foe that is relentless. Most of the things you fault GWB for happened after 9/11 and if he has been such a failure as you guys say, you should be able to tell the American people what that course of action would should have been taken.

You will not or can not do this and that is why we the people re-elected GWB for a second term. People of the USA are not extreme and like you say, they recognize the dangers of extremism. The liberals in the USA are about 20% of the voting population and at this time being, the total population does not trust the liberal will protect our well being. The liberals posting on this thread see themselves as middle of the road IMO but the rest of Americans see the political philosophy of these liberals as very extreme.

Obama may be the last president ever elected from the extreme left. If he does not move to the right, he will not be re-elected. The future of America does not rest on the left. The left is too apologetic, too weak, too anti-conservative for the majority of our country. Those are the real facts that really count and if you guys don't get off this hate Bush thing, the people will see through your animosity and never vote for you. They did vote for Bush you know, and that is a fact your criticism will not change.

Hate is extremism and there is no reason to not believe that any conservative that we the people elect, the liberals will hate him also. The American people are more fair than the liberals think and they are not going to vote for the extreme and the liberals on this thread are extreme.

Populism does not mean that one is right.
One of the flaws of Democracy.

(And honest criticism is not hate, it is honesty.)