• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

George W. Bush, war criminal

  • Thread starter angellous_evangellous
  • Start date
If that's the way you see it.

In reality, Bush (and later Obama) carefully and constantly distinguished between Islam as practiced by the vast majority of Muslims and the fanatic minority. You can google it if you like, but most of these were collected by a site maintained by Muslim Republicans (!). Here it is

You can search if you like for some policy statement condemning Islam out of hand, but you won't find it. The 'crusade' against Islam exists only in the minds of the reactionary Left.

Or do you think the campaign against Nazis was secretly a condemnation of all Germans?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Glasses won't do you any good. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Just look around at what's going on in the world.
And yet you are unable (or is it unwilling) to look at what has been presented to you in this thread...:rolleyes:

Hypocrite much?
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
... On September 12, 2001, the consensus of reasoned opinion was that there was going to be a long series of terrorist attacks around the world, in various countries.

... Throughout Bush's term, society continued to be more and more open.

... there was no one whose freedom of speech was prohibited or even inhibited.

... Our European friends might be interested to know that the regimes they are accustomed to living under are considerably more invasive than the US before or after the Patriot Act.

... There was no warrantless wiretapping in violation of the Constitution.

... The Iraqi War was started on the basis of faulty intelligence, evaluated in good faith ...
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:
There remains, however, the possibility that Bush got the Big Thing right - that the changes he and Tony Blair initiated in the Middle East are positive and ongoing. Faulty intelligence didn't change Iraq into the Netherlands or Saddam Hussein into Queen Wilhelmina. The regime change as such was a big step forward for the Iraqi people. The creation of a successful democracy there will be a major step forward for progressive Muslims. It is an intuitive certainty that its example has had some positive influence on events in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere. How much I don't know.
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.

... They have literally reinvented the old apologia for fascism, that Mussolini at least made the trains run on the time.
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.

There are all sorts of things to dislike and disapprove about Bush without inventing myth to justify raw loathing.
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?
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
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.

Come on, Proud. We've only had state legislators pass ridiculous bills that prohibit the building of mosques or the implementation of Sharia law.

As I'm sure Genuine Realist will tell you - that's just good government.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Come on, Proud. We've only had state legislators pass ridiculous bills that prohibit the building of mosques or the implementation of Sharia law.

As I'm sure Genuine Realist will tell you - that's just good government.
But such prohibitions do not actually effect anyone...:rolleyes:

AND they have considerably reduced terrorism!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Recently, the House voter not to extend certain portions of the Patriot Act. This was led by both Liberal Democrats in opposition to Obama's promise to sign the extention, and by the freshman Libertarian Republicans.

And if you think "the Patriot Act says no such thing", then you are ignorant of what is contained in the Act itself.

You seem to concentrate what it has been used for so far that you know of, not what it allows.

Legislation, particularly criminal legislation, gets tweaked all the time. In addition, some parts of the Patriot Act had sunset provisions. Note that Obama's DOJ wanted the extension - so why is this a Bush thing?

I took a look at the Patriot Act back in 2002, when I was still prosecuting. (I have also been a public defender.)The major substantive aspect was the application of certain statutory procedures, already in effect for drug cartels. to terrorist organizations. It didn't change underlying Constitutional law, and it didn't try to. Criminal procedural statutes get amended all the time, year in and year out, sometimes liberalized, sometimes reduced. The Patriot Act was just one more, enacted in response to a national trauma, but hardly the open door to a police state. It just isn't that significant.

Your liberties haven't been diminished in the slightest.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Legislation, particularly criminal legislation, gets tweaked all the time. In addition, some parts of the Patriot Act had sunset provisions. Note that Obama's DOJ wanted the extension - so why is this a Bush thing?
I notice you ignored the fact that I included Obamas endorsement in my condemnation.

I took a look at the Patriot Act back in 2002, when I was still prosecuting. (I have also been a public defender.)The major substantive aspect was the application of certain statutory procedures, already in effect for drug cartels. to terrorist organizations. It didn't change underlying Constitutional law, and it didn't try to. Criminal procedural statutes get amended all the time, year in and year out, sometimes liberalized, sometimes reduced. The Patriot Act was just one more, enacted in response to a national trauma, but hardly the open door to a police state. It just isn't that significant.

Your liberties haven't been diminished in the slightest.
Due Process.
I am sure that is a term you are familiar with.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
The Patriot Act gives the government the right to eavesdrop on phone and internet. Nah, our rights aren't being imposed upon at all :sarcasm:
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
I guess Realist has a certain point, many of the times certain provisions of the Patriot Act have come before the courts, they have ruled them unconstitutional.
 
The Patriot Act gives the government the right to eavesdrop on phone and internet. Nah, our rights aren't being imposed upon at all :sarcasm:

It already had them, given an adequate showing of probable cause.

But I have made my points. I think Iraq is going to succeed. I think it's going to have a powerful influence on other democratic ventures in the Middle East.
I think in a few years some of you are going to realize you were on the wrong side of history. That's the fate of the reactionary.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
I guess Realist has a certain point, many of the times certain provisions of the Patriot Act have come before the courts, they have ruled them unconstitutional.
Two items of note.
First, your qualifier is correct - "many of the times" - but not all.
Second - there are (undoubtedly) times where the question is never brought to court.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
It already had them, given an adequate showing of probable cause.

But I have made my points. I think Iraq is going to succeed. I think it's going to have a powerful influence on other democratic ventures in the Middle East.
I think in a few years some of you are going to realize you were on the wrong side of history. That's the fate of the reactionary.

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.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
The Patriot Act gives the government the right to eavesdrop on phone and internet. Nah, our rights aren't being imposed upon at all :sarcasm:
Seems to me his argument is more along the lines that since he doe snot personally know anyone who has their rights ignored due to the Patriot Act, then there has not been anyone, anywhere who has their rights ignored by the Patriot Act.

I mean, Jose Padilla does not exist.
Nor does Ashton Lundeby.
or Eliot Spitzer.
Or Brandon Mayfield.

the list goes on...
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
But I have made my points. I think Iraq is going to succeed. I think it's going to have a powerful influence on other democratic ventures in the Middle East.
I think in a few years some of you are going to realize you were on the wrong side of history. That's the fate of the reactionary.
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.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
...
I mean, Jose Padilla does not exist.
Nor does Ashton Lundeby.
or Eliot Spitzer.
Or Brandon Mayfield.

the list goes on...

Well, those people don't count, Mesty. Everyone on your list is either a liberal, or at the very least, needed to have their rights violated. Genuine is only speaking on behalf of conservatives - you know - the people that really count.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
It already had them, given an adequate showing of probable cause.
Now with the Patriot Act, they need not show anything to anyone before or after they ease drop on whomever they want.

Sad that you think this is a good thing.

But I have made my points.
Not really.
You made some claims that were refuted and you just flat out denied and or ignored the refutation.

I think Iraq is going to succeed.
Succeed?
really?
Just when do you think they will find the WMD?

I think it's going to have a powerful influence on other democratic ventures in the Middle East.
It already has.
Just not in the way you would like to believe.

I think in a few years some of you are going to realize you were on the wrong side of history.
Oh, I hope you are right.
However, given the facts that you blatantly ignore, I doubt you are even close.

That's the fate of the reactionary.
I bet your next thread will be about how the Holocaust never happened, am I right?
 
Top