There were lots of problems in the world before Bush came along and I’ve never heard anyone blame him for causing all the worlds troubles. Nevertheless, his claim to be the worst President ever is a strong one. He certainly is the worst to ever finish two terms.
He didn’t attack Iran as I pointedly predicted on these boards. He was in no position to do so after his invasion of Iraq collapsed. He didn’t blow up the moon either. Does that somehow make him a good president?
This is the man who approved a torture policy so permissive that almost nothing could be considered torture. Is this the America we know and love?
This is the man who rushed around the country in a desperate attempt to keep Terri Schaivo attached to machines, but refused to take action when New Orleans was practically destroyed.
This is the man who invaded Iraq to take out the man he thought tried to kill his dad. How many people have died in this debacle? How much will the final bill come to for us? How many WMDs did we find? How much did we lose by turning away from the real war in Afghanistan to pursue this snipe hunt?
This is the man who approved wiretapping without any kind of search warrant. There is a good chance I was among the people listened in on.
This is the guy who’s administration blacked out and rewrote our nation’s scientists findings on global warming and refused to take action to curb greenhouse emissions.
This is the guy who decided that several lines of stem cells were off limits to American scientists.
This is the guy who said that “intelligent design” should be taught in public schools.
Begging your pardon if some of us are still just a tad resentful that this fucking criminal gets off with freedom and a pension and a bodyguard and a remunerative future on the lecture circuit. :mad::mad::mad:
Any organization that hires him to speak is going to be a damn laughing-stock. Is there anyone (besides Stephe96) who actually thinks the guy was a good eloc…ecolution…lotion…a good talker?
Oh, get off it! You’re a lawyer, are you not? If I’m wrong, I apologize…no, wait, I don’t either. Whether you’re a lawyer or not, you’re certainly intelligent enough to know that unless and until Bush would be convicted of a crime, he can’t be legitimately called a criminal. Your assertion to the contrary is mere subjective, emotional and partisan hooey.
You’re half right. The judicial system can’t call him a criminal without a conviction (we’ll ignore that DUI thing). But those of us in the peanut gallery may call him any damned thing we want.
I’m unable to say what I’d like to say to the departing president since EddyTeddyFreddy would doubtless chide me again for advocating horse abuse. . . .
I’m taking a wait and see approach on the whole ‘Bush is a CRIMINAL!’ thingy. Obama is President now. The Dems control the House and Senate. So…let’s see what happens. If nothing happens in the first term I think that it will be safe to say that either Bush was guilty but that Obama and the Dems aren’t going to do anything about it (which will suck and be disappointing), or that this whole ‘Bush is a CRIMINAL!’ thingy was a meme or based on non-lawyers misunderstanding of what a crime is (this is my own personal choice based on several of the threads I’ve seen in the last 6 years). Or I suppose it could be the Bush et al are criminal genius material, able to perpetrate a crime in plain sight and get completely away with it, despite the fact that everyone ‘knows’ that he is a criminal, blah blah blah.
ETA: As for the speaking thing, you guys are kidding yourselves. Bush WILL be asked to do speeches and such and probably be highly paid to do so. Just because we here on the SD think he’s an idiot that can’t talk doesn’t mean that everyone out there agrees with our collective assessment. Not only will he be making big bucks speaking he’ll probably do at least one book about himself and his Presidency.
Ghost written almost surely. But no bull. Want to bet that before Obama’s term is out Bush has at least one book published and goes on at least one speaking tour?
Doesn’t matter to me, really. I don’t do bets like this anyway. But what I personally said is any organization that hires him to speak would be a laughing-stock, not that no organization would hire him to speak. I’m well aware that there’s still some people that think he did a heckuva job, and there’s some people whose eyes and brains glaze over at “Former President” without any thought as to what name follows it. He’ll get at least one speaking gig, surely, and it’ll provide some good fodder for the late-night shows.
Although I agree with the sentiment here, I can tell you with certainty that even if Obama signed on to the ICC today Bush wouldn’t be prosecuted there. This subject came up yesterday in my Law and Human Rights class. The ICC is a court of last resort (meaning all domestic options to prosecute have to be fully exhausted), has no jurisdiction over the US and lacks the police force necessary to compel Mr. Bush to come to the Hague. And IIRC they cannot prosecute for things that happened before a country signs on. Last but not least, there’s this legislation that would have to be overturned to prevent several international incidents:
Obama indicated that he would like the US to join the ICC (and I personally think it would a beneficial move for both parties) but it wouldn’t make any difference in regards to Bush.
Off-topic: what’s the problem with the village finding it’s idiot? The idiot belongs to the village, indicating use of a possessive, does it not? It would be the village’s idiot. If you substitute it for village do you drop the possessive? WTF?
There will be one interesting interlude. Remember the Reagan Papers? How they were due to be released to eager historians to peruse? But the Bushiviks kept manufacturing legalistic mechanisms to keep them under wraps? What, I ponder, might be the purpose in sheltering our eyes from the actions of our first animatronic President?
Frankly, I think they were hiding something. Perhaps thats another of our rabid delusions. Maybe its just modesty, an avalanche of applause from a grateful nation might be too much for them to bear.
How does this compare to Bush the Younger though? Are you predicting that Obama will with hold making The Bush Papers™ public out of a sense of protecting him from unjust public ridicule?
You are certainly free to call him a criminal if you want, but that’s a subjective call (and a largely biased one at that; there are far fewer on the right who view him as such) and it brings no weight whatsoever to bear upon the freedoms, pension and so forth that Bush enjoys and that BrainGlutton is so agitated about. As an attorney (which I’m assuming is correct since there’s been no correction since I asked) he should know that.
