[bball2223]

Originally Posted by rocketeer

not really the truth at all, but whatever.

rly: Your right the rich didn't benefit at all from Bush's presidency. smh

[HurraKane212]

2 quick points.

1.) if you sacrifice freedom for safety then you are doomed to lose both. Civil rights are not just some fun concept that we came up with in the 60's while the hippies were on LSD, civil rights are the very fabric of our country. If you have to lose civil rights to keep safety, then you have it backwards. Safety is what allows us to enjoy civil rights (civil rights being the focus and the goal here, safety being the tool). To trade civil rights for safety is like trading a car for gasoline. The car is the real value and the gasoline is just what happens to be necessary to run the car.

2.) If Batman is gonna be a vigilante, then he should go ahead and cap the joker. He could have saved time and many lives if he'd gotten over his little complex and just ran that smiling SOB over with the Bat Cycle.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

As for President Bush, I believe he'll be vindicated by history.

When I am an old, old man, even older than John McCain, I am going to bump this thread and you will then have to admit you were very wrong back in aught-eight.

barfo

[2k]

Originally Posted by mook

One of several problems with this analogy is that Bush won't be around to re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past. The "Global War on Terror" doesn't look to be ending any time before 2009.

So Bush is leaving us with some civil rights messes that he figures some future president will fix, which seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility. Even if you think he has run the most benevolent and wise administration of all time, he's left a framework that a future president will find easier to warp into something much more sinister.

What if our next president, either McCain or Obama, turns out to be a Nixon-type, only more feisty? Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine him "vanishing" a senator or congressman traveling overseas that he doesn't agree with?

Batman broke lots of laws and cut corners, but he was always there to make sure nobody else was following in his path of lawlessness. Bush has made a mess, shrugged, and figured somebody better than him will clean up after he's gone. Which is probably what will happen, but is a dangerous way to live your life or run a country. Batman had his flaws, but he at least had follow through.

Bush started the wiretap program before the term "Global War on Terror" was coined. This was before Sept 911 and despite infiltrating the hijackers with an intelligence operative the attack wasn't prevented. You are giving the man too much credit.

[Hector]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I would argue what we did to the Japanese-Americans during WWII and the way ethnic German-Americans were treated during WWI were far worse than anything that's been done in any of our prisons that hold terrorists.

I've never read that interment included torture, have you? After they got out, Japanese found their property owned by white people. Germans were mainly just shipped out of the country, weren't they? And it was mostly German Socialists, so there was indeed a nonracial selection factor.

Originally Posted by Stepping Razor

Every American should read Jane Mayer's new book, "The Dark Side" -- it's by far the best account of what has really happened over the past 6 years, not ideological in its presentation and extensively documented. She quotes military documents and interviews to the effect that 3/4 of the people at Gitmo never should have been there in the first place. That's why we've quietly let most of them go over the years. After torturing them, of course.

She took up most of the Bill Moyers program not 5 hours ago. Her main thrust was that many Republicans within the Administration opposed torture, but were afraid to speak in the draconian atmosphere created by Bush and Cheney.

[hasoos]

Originally Posted by maxiep

As for President Bush, I believe he'll be vindicated by history. I understand my view to be in the minority. Of course, I believe we're at war and it wasn't one of our choosing.

I would argue what we did to the Japanese-Americans during WWII and the way ethnic German-Americans were treated during WWI were far worse than anything that's been done in any of our prisons that hold terrorists. Furthermore, the residents of those camps did nothing but have the wrong ethnicity, while those that reside at Gitmo and the associated facilities are there for a reason. My point is that neither Wilson nor Roosevelt are criticized first and foremost for those regrettable actions, yet that's what people choose to discuss with this president.

I, for one, am happy to have a president in the Oval Office that takes his charge to protect and defend this country regardless of opposition.

What does what was done to the Japanese Americans during WW2 have to do with rationalizing it? If anything, you just admitted the treatment they are receiving is wrong. Because you cannot rationalize one wrong with another. Both are wrong. Both are morally reprehensible, and by doing both of the above acts, we are no better than the enemies we have.

[Zybot]

Originally Posted by hasoos

What does what was done to the Japanese Americans during WW2 have to do with rationalizing it? If anything, you just admitted the treatment they are receiving is wrong. Because you cannot rationalize one wrong with another. Both are wrong. Both are morally reprehensible, and by doing both of the above acts, we are no better than the enemies we have.

I think maxiep is just pointing out that the WWII presidents are not being called out for their more heinous acts (although it has been quite a while since WWII), yet Bush is taking a lot of heat for his actions. I think a lot of public perception is based on support for the war. Bush lost significant support for the war and so he is taking heat for his decisions. But, hey, he is The Decider, isn't he? You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.

This doesn't change the fact that the internment camps were terrible and racist policies, but time does heal some wounds. In 50 years who knows how Bush will be perceived. I have a hard time seeing how Bush's war will be viewed as a good decision.

[Dan]

If Batman is Bush, then this is Batman.

[HB]

Originally Posted by maxiep

As for President Bush, I believe he'll be vindicated by history. I understand my view to be in the minority. Of course, I believe we're at war and it wasn't one of our choosing.

I, for one, am happy to have a president in the Oval Office that takes his charge to protect and defend this country regardless of opposition.

The Iraq war was definitely of Bush' choosing.

Regarding the final statement, the man who attacked America and caused the deadliest attacks on the country is still at large.

[Minstrel]

No one criticized Bush for moving against Afghanistan. There were clear links between Al Qaeda and the Taliban government. Of course, he left that war unfinished in order to pursue war with Iraq, where Hussein not only didn't have positive connection to Al Qaeda, but in fact they were known enemies. As a result, bin Laden was never captured, Afghanistan has never been secured and now the provisional government is starting to fall apart and warlords are regaining measures of control there.

Just like Batman drew it up.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by barfo

When I am an old, old man, even older than John McCain, I am going to bump this thread and you will then have to admit you were very wrong back in aught-eight.

Is that right? You have a crystal ball in your closet, do you? In that case, please tell us if the Blazers are going to win the championship any time in the next 3 years . . .

In the meantime, Bush is the only world leader who has taken on the terrorists directly and is beating them in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world. We haven't been attacked on our own soil in 7 years, so he's obviously doing something right. Not that I expect you to realize this, of course.

Bush lied, terrorists died.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Is that right? You have a crystal ball in your closet, do you? In that case, please tell us if the Blazers are going to win the championship any time in the next 3 years . . .

In the meantime, Bush is the only world leader who has taken on the terrorists directly and is beating them in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world. We haven't been attacked on our own soil in 7 years, so he's obviously doing something right. Not that I expect you to realize this, of course.

Bush lied, terrorists died.

along with a lot of innocent people that had nothing to do with anything..not to mention the 4000+ GI's who died in a war that had nothing to do with terrorists.

But hey, if you guys want to come up with catchy jingles to show how good Bush is, more power too you.