Are you giving him a pass on stem cell research, freedom of speech, gay marriage, privacy, civil liberties, etc?
We weren’t married to Vietnam until after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which happened under Johnson’s watch (if it, ahem, happened at all, that is.) He was a good domestic president IMO but don’t blame Kennedy for his foreign policy; it sucked as bad as Bush’s, all on its own.
How are you defining “in” Japan? Because, really, we’re still there. The difference is that they were allied with an expansionist super-power and actively attacking and conquering other countries. They also, if you recall, BOMBED ONE OF OUR FUCKING SHIPYARDS. I don’t remember the Iraqi army crossing their own borders since, oh, 1991 or so, and for the life of me I can’t remember them preemptively attacking us. Care to draw any other parallels between WWII Japan and 21st century Iraq? I’m eager to hear.
I think that would depend on the sort of foreign assassin. A lone nutcase, or even a small group of private nutcases, is the same whether they’re yanks or furriners. But an agent in the employ of, say, North Korea is not the same as one in the employ of Saudi Arabia which is not NEARLY as bad as one in the employ of France which PALES in comparison to one working for China.
This can be parsed to imply that you don’t think Oklahoma City was a home-grown plot; may I assume that is inadvertent?
In my opinion of course, the enormous panoply of lies to Congress, the UN, the US people, and the rest of the world to trigger the invasion of Iraq, and hence fomenting tens of thousands of unneccessary deaths - I believe that he, his adminstration, and Tony Blair and his, has indirect responsibility for these. (I know many disagree with me, but don’t want to derail this thread about that.)
I can get behind that one, too. Perhaps I should reconsider.
No, I think he screwed those up too. But I picked the four biggest things of the Bush presidency. I personally predict he’s going to go 0-4, but if we do get lucky and things work out, Bush will be remembered for those things and the other items will be forgotten by history.
The Bush presidency will be judged by Iraq. But it’s unfair to say that he’ll only be judged by Iraq if it’s a failure. If somehow, despite all the current evidence of failure, the Iraq invasion turns out to be a success, then the Bush presidency should still be judged by Iraq and its reputation should rise accordingly.
I’m not one of the kneejerk partisans who refuses to admit there’s any possibility of Bush ever doing the right thing. Those people are as foolish as their kneejerk partisan counterparts who refuse to admit there’s any possibility of Bush doing the wrong thing. When I decide that the Bush presidency is a failure, it’s because I’ve tried to objectively judge the evidence and that’s the impartial conclusion I’ve reached.
Well I’m no US constitutional expert, but if what he has done is entirely legal, I think you need to dig up the Founding Fathers and have a word about your constitution…
There is a difference between “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” I agree that Mr. Bush seems hell-bent on buttfucking the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean he has violated statutes in such a way that he would be susceptible to imprisonment upon removal from office.
Hasn’t he ever been under oath at any time while lying about WMD? I know there was a failed Democrat bid for impeachment. On what grounds were they going to attempt to impeach him?
None of the facts, of course, alter my wish to see him impeached on moral grounds, even though it may just be a fantasy…
I disagree. The roots of Vietnam lay with Kennedy. Johnson was just following through on what Kennedy started after all, and trying to go by Kennedy’s play book wrt Vietnam. Even if we take it that Johnson is the root cause though, the shit still flowed through to Nixon though wrt Vietnam…and by all measures we were deeply mired by then. Sure, Johnson gets the lions share of the blame…as he probably should. Vietnam ended up a complete failure after all…50,000+ Americans dead, millions of Vietnamese, and in the end the Communists strolled in anyway, despite our back door assurances that we would come to their aid again after we withdrew if the North Vietnamese invaded formally. If Iraq goes tits up (which looks like a good bet), then the lions share of that blame will fall on GW. If somehow it pulls out though, he probably will be in for his share of historical revisionism a few decades or a century or so from now.
I agree, though I think the possibility is vanishingly small that Iraq will somehow turn around at this point. I think Bush will over all be judged by what happened/happens in Iraq, with most of the other stuff he’s done being footnotes forgotten except by historians and the occational History Channel (or its future equivelent) showing all the presidents.
Has he ever been under oath at any time during his presidency? No.
Impeachment, though, is a poltical process, and not strictly tied to the legal code. At any rate, you can always trump up some legal charges if you need to. I have no doubt that if the Dems controlle both houses of Congress there would be a serious impeachment process underway.
He wasn’t president until after that oath was taken, if you want to nitpick, but I’m sure he thinks he is upholding the constitution. You and I might disagree, but impeachment has to be about something specific.
Why? You may be right, but why do think that that issue in particular is something he doesn’t in reality care about, as opposed to any other issue he takes a position on?
I’m thinking that was not her intention. She appears (to me) to be saying that learning after the fact that a presidential assassination had been entirely domestic would not alter the gravity with which she viewed the event; similar to the way that learning that all-American Tim McVeigh was the OKC bomber didn’t lessen her view of how tragic that was.
You certainly can. In fact, any time I seem to be espousing a whack-job conspiracy-theorist’s POV that is contradicted by the known facts, you can assume it was inadvertent.
That may be true, but the fact that he exploited the issue so much in 2004 makes me want to rub it in his face when it happens. I don’t think most neocons care about any of the social issues (abortion, SSM), they just know they can harvest easy votes by paying lip service to it.
