The Bush Presidency: The Historians (Start to) Weigh In

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milton Well, I have some "better, more equitable solution(s) in mind": I am for the rule of law (that means no bombing, invading and occupying sovereign nations, or sending their citizens to rot in illegal concentration camps. Torture is right out, too). I am for China, India, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the USA joining the civilized world in recognizing and supporting the International Criminal Court. I am for China, India, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the USA (hmm, see a pattern here?) signing the Ottawa Treaty (aka the Mine-Ban Treaty). P.S. Finally, I am for countries sorting out their problems peacefully. That goes for imaginary problems (e.g., WMD) as well.

I don't disagree with these positions, but I am curious about few implantation problems.
#1 Lets say a country is torturing/murdering/starving its citizens. Is it ok for one country or group of countries to use force to stop their suffering? Or is acceptable for a country to torture/murder/starve their own citizen but unacceptable for outside country to do it?
#2 The ICC is a nice concept but as we all know from Law and Order (I assume Canadians get the show) the Criminal Justice system consists of two equal branches the prosecutors and the police. Of what use is the ICC without police? As a bonus question can you name any War Criminal prosecuted successful by the ICC that didn't get to the court as direct or indirect result of US action?

[Wags]

USA Today - Iraqi PM: Talks with U.S. on security deal hit 'dead end'

Iraqi PM: Talks with U.S. on security deal hit impasse - USATODAY.com

Excerpts from article

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Friday that the talks with the United States on a longterm security agreement between the two nations have reached a "dead end."

Al-Maliki said the talks slumped because each side refused the other's demands.

The initial framework agreed upon was to have been an accord "between two completely sovereign states, al-Maliki said. But he added, the U.S. proposals "do not take into consideration Iraq's sovereignty."

The prime minister, who spoke to reporters during a visit to neighboring Jordan, said, referring to the American demands, that "this is not acceptable."

The U.S. demands "violate Iraqi sovereignty. At the end, we reached a dead end."

Iraqi opposition to the deal has mainly focused on concerns that the agreement would cement American military, political and economic domination of Iraq.

End of excerpts.

Another example of Mr. Bush trying to add to his legacy.

It appears that Mr. Bush's attempts to enter into an agreement with Iraq without the approval from Congress has backfired.:confused:

It is becoming clear that the Iraqi's do not want us in their country.

God Bless Us All

[Milton]

Hi Clif,

#1 The legal relationship between sovereignty and human rights is a difficult question, and I am not an expert in public international law. But FWIW, I will do my best to provide a quick answer.

No, I don't think it is acceptable for one country or a small group of countries ("coalition of the willing") to invade another country that is arguably mistreating elements of its domestic population. The problem with unilateral action is that it is all too easy to cite examples of human rights abuses as pretexts for aggressive war. E.g.:

• the 1938 partitioning of Czechoslovakia was based upon alleged maltreatment of Sudeten Germans (see generally WW2DB: Annexation of Sudetenland);
• the 1983 invasion of Greneda was based upon alleged threats to American medical students [see generally The US Invasion of Grenada: A Twenty Year Retrospective - Empire? - Global Policy Forum);
• the 2003 invasion of Iraq was retroactively justified by the plight of the Kurds (see generally Human Rights Watch World Report 2004: War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention).

The United Nations is an imperfect organization, to be sure, but the best multinational organization we have. And only the U.N. has the legal right to sanction de facto suspension of a sovereign nation’s governing authority.

#2 I don't watch television, so I don't know anything about "Law and Order". To address your two questions:

(1) Enforcement and adjudication are separate issues, and possible enforcement limitations are no reason not to support the Court. And of course, the failure of certain powerful rogue nations to recognize the Court make enforcement all the more problematic.

(2) The ICC was formed on March 11, 2003, and has not had time to convict anyone (the wheels of justice grind slowly, especially in international situations!). To date, the Court has issued arrest warrants involving alleged crimes in four African countries (see further Cases before the International Criminal Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). To the best of my knowledge, America had no involvement in bringing any of those cases before the Court.

[BunsGettingFirm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zipper Read some of my past posts youbet. My father worked for a U.S. railway in Southern ON. My mother still gets a monthly cheque from the U.S. Railway Retirement Board. The exchange rate at par for her means a lot less $$$$. I think there will be a union between Canada and the U.S. by the end of the century, and I'm on record as favouring it. It is Bush that I can't stand. And your defending him says more about you than me.

Please don't ruin a good thing. I vote for keeping the two separate. You have never lived in the U.S. Trust me, you don't want some fire and brimstone type rewriting all your town regulations.

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milton No, I don't think it is acceptable for one country or a small group of countries ("coalition of the willing") to invade another country that is arguably mistreating elements of its domestic population. The problem with unilateral action is that it is all too easy to cite examples of human rights abuses as pretexts for aggressive war.

Ok...you believe in isolationism... that is fine... lots of folks believe in that as well. I might even agree to some extent. But I also believe that being in isolation only gets you so far. I find it hard to believe, that you belive that there are no circumstances in which an invasion of another country is neccessary.
As a hypothetical situation... You are passing a home in your neighborhood and hear screams of pain comming from inside. Do you keep walking, and not call the police to come out and "invade" the man's home to see what is going on? If a man is comming down the street at me with a baseball bat in hand, and in a manacing manner, do I really have to wait for him to take a swing at me, before I can be "certain" that the man intends me harm?
I view the invasion of another country in the same way. Now it can be debated under what circumstances are valid, and which are not, but to say never I think is a bit of a stretch....

[Milton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Ok...you believe in isolationism.

No. I didn't say that. Please re-read my earlier post, carefully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 I find it hard to believe, that you belive that there are no circumstances in which an invasion of another country is neccessary.

You find it hard to believe because (again) I didn't say it. You have drawn an incorrect inference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 to say never I think is a bit of a stretch.

"Never" is your word, not mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 As a hypothetical situation... You are passing a home in your neighborhood and hear screams of pain comming from inside. Do you keep walking, and not call the police to come out and "invade" the man's home to see what is going on?

Calling the police is a good idea. Taking it upon yourself to break down the door and rush inside (only to find out that the cries of pain are coming from a television turned way up by a deaf old lady) is a bad idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 If a man is comming down the street at me with a baseball bat in hand, and in a manacing manner, do I really have to wait for him to take a swing at me, before I can be "certain" that the man intends me harm?

Well, you can be certain about whatever you wish. But if you simply produce a .357 and shoot the man dead without any discussion and before he has commited any overt act, you will have a difficult time evading a murder conviction.

P.S. Did you actually read my previous post, or did you just substitute your own contents so that you'd have a straw man to argue with?

[RDamien]

My quick 2 cents... dont want to get into politics on this board, it's too heated a topic heh.

So, it all comes down to how Iraq turns out historically. If they go on to have a stable democracy at virtually any point in the next 20-50 years that can be traced back to these events, i think Bush has a dramatic turn around by virtue of that alone. Should democracy spread in the ME, it's magnified by that much more.

That said, it's a huge "if". Beyond that, his spending was atrocious. His Veto non existent. Afghanistan was a net plus but certainly could have gone more smoothly and efficiently had we not gone into Iraq. He did next to nothing on energy independence just as his predecessors failed to do. I give him points for trying on Social Security but ultimately that failed, although not directly his fault.

Points for tax cuts. Points for taking bold, unpopular but I feel necessary steps to keep the nation safe AND then slowly walking things back a bit when the immediate threat subsided.

But yes, Iraq. That's his legacy, good or bad. Exceptional beginning, terrible middle, starting to turn around and the final chapters are still unwritten.

[Rustic23]

Rdamien,
I agree, however, unless there is a complete collapse of the economy, I don't see 'his' spending as a historical issue. I can not name one account that history talks about a President's spending. Congress maybe, as it is Congress that appropriates money. I remember having a discussion when the National Debt topped a trillion dollars and deficit spending was 'out of control'. I don't remember who was President at the time, and as far as History goes he would seem like a real spend thrift now.

[Wags]

Another crown jewel in Mr. Bush's legacy.

ABC News Political Punch - Retired Gen. Taguba: Bush Administration Committed "War Crimes"

Political Punch

God Bless Us All

[Wags]

The Boston Channel.com = Bush Admits He Approved Use Of Torture

Bush Admits He Approved Use Of Torture - Helen Thomas News Story - WCVB Boston

Excerpts from the article

WASHINGTON -- The American people have heard President George W. Bush and his spokespersons say many times that the U.S. government does not engage in torture.

Whether Bush was believed or not is another story -- especially in light of the photographic evidence of the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, the prison near Baghdad. It’s understood that many of the photos are too sadistically graphic to be made public.


Still, the official U.S. denials of torture continued until earlier this month when Bush acknowledged in an interview with ABC-TV that he knew about and approved “enhanced interrogation” of detainees, including “waterboarding” or simulated drowning.

“As a matter of fact,” Bush added, “I told the country we did that. And I told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it.” The president added, “I didn’t have any problems at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheik Mohammed knew.”

Surely this president is also aware of the U.S. commitment to international treaties barring “cruel and inhumane” treatment of prisoners.

End of excerpts.

Another fine nugget of a turd to add to Mr. Bush's legacy.

Mr. Bush's admission along with the recent Supreme Court ruling can not enhance his legacy.

Breitbart.com = Bush disagrees with court's Guantanamo ruling

Bush disagrees with court's Guantanamo ruling

God Bless Us All

[Wags]

International Herald Tribute - San Francisco may name sewage treatment plant after Bush

San Francisco may name sewage treatment plant after Bush - International Herald Tribune

Excerpts from the article

AN FRANCISCO: Reagan has his highways. Lincoln has his memorial. Washington has the capital, and a state, too. But President George W. Bush may soon be the sole president to have a memorial named after him that you can contribute to from the bathroom.

From the Department of Damned-With-Faint-Praise, a group going by the regal-sounding name of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is planning to ask voters here to change the name of a prize-winning water-treatment plant on the shoreline to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

The plan - hatched, naturally, in a bar - would place a vote on the November ballot to provide "an appropriate honor for a truly unique president."

End of excerpts.

Another fine nugent in Mr. Bush's legacy.

If it passes and they do name the sewer plant in Mr Bush's name this just might be the lasting legacy of how America and the world viewed his 2 terms as the most powerful man in the world (the great Keith Olbermann would be proud).

Only in America.

God Bless Us All

[unclemick]

Hmmm - time will tell whether he beats out my pal - Harry S (he lost China) Truman.

The problem with Bush - I was 'born' a Democrat and he ain't one.

Now Harry on the other hand.

heh heh heh - yep the weather's bad outside right now. .

[Wags]

"Give em Hell" Harry might have lost China but at least he did not have a sewage plant named in his honor.

As for Mr. Bush to bad they do not have an out house at the White House maybe that could be named after him.

YouTube - outhouse prank

With the good city of S.F being perceived as a liberal city I would say that the chances are pretty darn good that we just might see the "George W. Bush Sewage Plant." I wonder if they will have a picture of Laura, the twins and Mr. Bush in the hall entrance (sort of like they have the wanted posters in the post offices).

Great men deserve great honors.

I do hope that everyone has a nice day and even a nicer night.

God Bless Us All

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags International Herald Tribute - San Francisco may name sewage treatment plant after Bush San Francisco may name sewage treatment plant after Bush - International Herald Tribune Another fine nugent in Mr. Bush's legacy. If it passes and they do name the sewer plant in Mr Bush's name this just might be the lasting legacy of how America and the world viewed his 2 terms as the most powerful man in the world (the great Keith Olbermann would be proud). Only in America.

Well here is another take on this. As mentioned in the article, the plant is an award winning design. Look at this:

SFWATER.ORG : Descriptions of Treatment Processes at Oceanside Plant

Quote:

Cogeneration is the process of converting one form of energy into other forms of energy. In the case of a wastewater treatment plant, a cogeneration facility converts methane gas (a byproduct of the digestion process) into electricity and hot water. At the Oceanside Plant there are two Waukesha Engine-Generator sets. Each set produces 550 kilowatts for a total of 1100 kilowatts. The hot water is also utilized to heat the digesters. The electricity feeds power back to the Primary Switching Station. All electricity produced by the Engine-Generator is utilized within the Oceanside Plant. Heat is added to the hot water return system via heat exchangers in the engine cooling loop. The hot water return water is then fed into the boilers that provide hot water to the digesters. The boilers are fueled by digester gas.

Cleaning up the city's waste water is an important job, an important environmental challenge, and this one is taking that very powerful greenhouse gas, methane, and converting into energy for the plant. 1.1 MegaWatts!

So, this is in keeping with the view of RDamien's post

Quote:

Points for taking bold, unpopular but I feel necessary steps

It would be an honor, really. Maybe if the pseudo-environmentalist, AL Gore, catches wind of this great reduction in dangerous methane, he will be fighting to get his name on the referendum! Gore could get left behind by Bush again. What irony!

If it is meant as a slam, I'm sure the Republicans could come up with some 'honors' for President Clinton - hopefully, they will not be as petty as that, and as disrespectful of the taxpayer's dollars. It costs money to put something on a referendum, and to change signs, etc. silly, silly, silly.

-ERD50

edit/add: My translation of the article - 'We couldn't win a democratically held election, so we will just get pissy about it. And damn the other side if they attempted something like this'. IMO, they should just move to Canada, and leave that excellent waste treatment plant for the rest of SF.

[unclemick]

edit/add: My translation of the article - 'We couldn't win a democratically held election, so we will just get pissy about it. And damn the other side if they attempted something like this'. IMO, they should just move to Canada, and leave that excellent waste treatment plant for the rest of SF.[/quote]

My translation - poo gets no respect. All poo is equal - Democratic, Republican, Canadian. Instead of deporting the 17% of SF who voted wrong to Canada - we need to get Canadians down here(while the Canadian dollar is strong) to spend (and poo).

And perhaps give guided tours so the poor misunderstood human turd gets it's proper respect and not get drug into cheap partisan politics.

heh heh heh - BTW poo wise the plant could have been done better. .

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclemick - we need to get Canadians down here(while the Canadian dollar is strong) to spend (and poo). .

Hah! They already export their oil to us, let's get their methane, too! -ERD50

[Wags]

The Bush Legacy?

YouTube - The Bush Legacy

Who is more to blame Mr. Bush for having taken these actions or Congress for allowing Mr. Bush to have a free hand to do them?

God Bless Us All

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags Who is more to blame Mr. Bush for having taken these actions or Congress for allowing Mr. Bush to have a free hand to do them?

Why not blame the Democrats for not putting up a candidate that was strong enough to take a strong majority of the popular and Electoral College vote?

I mean, considering how weak so many people seem to think GW is/was - it should have been a cake-walk - no?

-ERD50

[Wags]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Why not blame the Democrats for not putting up a candidate that was strong enough to take a strong majority of the popular and Electoral College vote? I mean, considering how weak so many people seem to think GW is/was - it should have been a cake-walk - no? -ERD50

The Democrats are to blame for under estimating Mr. Bush and thus neither election was a cake walk.

I do not believe that the Democrats did the necessary ground work and leg work in the states that they could have or should have won. For example Mr. Gore should have won his home state of Tennessee.

Bless Us All

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags I do not believe that the Democrats did the necessary ground work and leg work in the states that they could have or should have won. For example Mr. Gore should have won his home state of Tennessee. Bless Us All

The fact that the "Great" Al Gore couldn't even carry HIS HOME STATE means he deserved to lose......... What Presidential candidiate can't carry HIS/HER OWN STATE??