Do you think Bush is the worst president ever?

That was very well worded. I am envious.

Smirk. Exactly. Double smirk.

Amen

Not even with rat poison? I could tell them that it is a new form of recreational drug that will “enlighten” them in 30 seconds and take away all their pain so that they are young, sexy, having sex, having fun, happy and totally like totally fulfilled all the time. I am sure no one will stop to ask any intelligent questions especially if I tell them that Bush wants to ban said drug. They will be popping it down in massive gulps and well then I guess social Darwinism will return as a theory in vogue?

“I pray thee cease thy counsel, which falls into mine ears as profitless as water in a sieve.”

In regards to torture. From VOA as reported by globalsecurity.org. Both clearly mouth peices of ther ‘liberal’ media

[quote]"DATE=7/27/05

TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT

TITLE=US / DETAINEES

NUMBER=5-57160

BYLINE=GARY THOMAS

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

CONTENT=

VOICED AT:

HEADLINE: Military Lawyers Strongly Objected to Interrogation Policy

INTRO: Newly released U.S. government documents show the nation’s top military lawyers argued strenuously against controversial interrogation methods used at U.S detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Iraq. As VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, they raised questions about the treatment of detainees in U.S military custody.

TEXT: A series of declassified memos from 2003 show that the Defense Department’s top military lawyers raised strong objections to the Justice Department’s proposed loose definition of torture.

In the separate memos, each of the top lawyers for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines or their deputy questioned the wisdom of allowing aggressive interrogation techniques. The military lawyers were part of a Pentagon working group formed to examine interrogation tactics used on people detained in the anti-terrorist effort.

Eugene Fidell, a former military lawyer and president of the National Institute of Military Justice, says they had deep reservations about the effect that might have on U.S. soldiers as well as public opinion.

/// FIDELL ACT ///

"What you see is the uniformed lawyers saying, gee, some of this strikes us as illegal, much of it strikes us as unwise, and all of it, I believe, strikes us as contrary to the interests of U.S. servicemen."

/// END ACT ///

Major General Jack Rives, Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Army, wrote that approving what he called exceptional interrogation techniques could be interpreted as giving official approval to methods that members of the armed forces had always been taught were unlawful. He wrote that some of the proposed techniques amounted to violations of civilian and military law.

However, the uniformed lawyers’ objections were overruled and the task force report was rejected by Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes.

The Bush administration has resisted attempts to put legal curbs on interrogation techniques because, officials say, they would restrict the president’s ability to fight terrorism.

Robert Turner is co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia, which happens to be located across from the street from the military’s legal center and school. Mr. Turner - who served in the Pentagon and State Department and was counsel to the President’s Intelligence Oversight Advisory Board under President Reagan - says Mr. Haynes made an erroneous but understandable decision.
[/quote]

Yes. We are at war which mean you must fight it in an intelligent way.

As for singing statements - the last president to use them very aggressively was our good buddy Mr. Nixon.

[quote]Senate Critics Say Bush Has Expanded Presidential Power
By Deborah Tate
Capitol Hill
27 June 2006

A U.S. Senate panel Tuesday held a hearing on President Bush’s use of a constitutional tool to ignore laws passed by Congress. The Bush administration defended the practice.

At issue are so-called signing statements, which President Bush has attached to laws he has signed to express his opposition to provisions in the measure.

A study by the Boston Globe newspaper says President Bush has signed some 750 such memos challenging laws passed by Congress - including a ban on the torture of U.S.-held prisoners and provisions in the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act that call for increased congressional oversight. The administration disputes that number, saying 110 such statements have been issued.

Nevertheless, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, expressed concern about the practice.

“It is a matter of separation of power,” said Arlen Specter.

Democrats said the signing statements are an example of the administration’s expansion of executive power:

Senator Dianne Feinstein is a California Democrat:

“I believe this new use of signing statements is a means to undermine and weaken the law, and that is should be a serious concern to all Americans,” said Dianne Feinstein.

Michelle Boardman, deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, defended the legality of the signing statements, and said they are nothing new:

“Every president since Eisenhower has used Constitutional signing statements,” she said.

At the White House, spokesman Tony Snow also defended President Bush’s use of such statements.

“He has tried to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as he is bound by the Constitution, but he also is enjoined by the Constitution dutifully to carry out the laws and to execute the laws of the United States,” said Tony Snow. “What the signing statements are designed to do is to make sure both of those duties are kept in balance.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will have an opportunity to question Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the issue when he appears before the panel next month
[/quote]

Don’t know enough about all the other 40+ presidents to make that call… so can’t put Bush in last place yet…

… supposedly Lincoln and Kennedy were good, Carter was a nice guy but totally ineffective

[quote=“Okami”]I think the cheerleaders/lynch mob should hold off judgement for about 10 years.
[/quote]
Exactly.

One thing is for sure, the history books are not going to write up George W. as nastily as all the little Bush-haters would like. Case in point, Nixon.

I agree about waiign 10yrs - but you sure about Nixon? The more that comes out the worse it is.

Was he? Nice I mean? I don’t think so. I think Carter was one of the most vindictive presidents that we have ever had and there is a record to back me up on this.

Did someone say…Jimmy Carter?

[quote]The Question of Carter’s Cash
In which our reporter follows the money
CLAUDIA ROSETT

Did Jimmy Carter do it for the money? That’s the question making the rounds about Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, an anti-Israeli screed recently written by the ex-president whose Carter Center has accepted millions in Arab funding.

Even in Carter’s long history of post-presidential grandstanding, this book sets fresh standards of irresponsibility. Purporting to give a balanced view of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, Carter effectively shrugs off such highly germane matters as Palestinian terrorism. The hypocrisies are boundless, and include adoring praise of the deeply oppressive, religiously intolerant Saudi regime side by side with condemnations of democratic Israel. In one section, typical of the book’s entire approach, Carter includes a “Historical Chronology,” from Biblical times to 2006, in which he dwells on events surrounding his 1978 Camp David Accords but omits the Holocaust. Kenneth W. Stein, the founder of the Carter Center’s Middle East program, resigned last month to protest the book, describing it in a letter to Fox News as “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.” As this article goes to press, more protest resignations, this time from the Carter Center’s board of councilors, appear to be in the works.

In recent weeks, a number of articles have noted that Carter’s anti-Israeli views coincide with those of some of the center’s prime financial backers, including the government of Saudi Arabia and the foundation of Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, whose offer of $10 million to New York City just after Sept. 11 was rejected by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani because it came wrapped in the suggestion that America rethink its support of Israel. Other big donors listed in the Carter Center’s annual reports include the Sultanate of Oman and the sultan himself; the government of the United Arab Emirates; and a brother of Osama bin Laden, Bakr BinLadin, “for the Saudi BinLadin Group.” Of lesser heft, but still large, are contributions from assorted development funds of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as of OPEC, whose membership includes oil-rich Arab states, Nigeria (whose government is also a big donor to the Carter Center), and Venezuela (whose anti-American strongman Hugo Chávez benefited in a 2004 election from the highly controversial monitoring efforts of the Carter Center).

A recent editorial in Investor’s Business Daily, headlined “Jimmy Carter’s Li’l Ol’ Stink Tank,” listed a number of “founders” of the Carter Center. The names were drawn from the annual reports, and included “the king of Saudi Arabia, BCCI scandal banker Agha Hasan Abedi, and Arafat pal Hasib Sabbagh.” And, writing last month in the Washington Times, terror-funding expert Rachel Ehrenfeld described links going back to the 1970s between the Carter family peanut business and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, whose Pakistani founder helped bankroll the Carter Center at least until BCCI went belly-up in 1991, busted as a global criminal enterprise.
There is, of course, much more to the Carter Center than this list implies. It is large, with assets totaling $377 million (as of 2005), an operating budget of some $46.8 million, a staff of some 150, a 200-member board of councilors, and hundreds of donors, including not only individuals and foundations, but the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. State Department. Some of the center’s work is devoted to such laudable causes as wiping out the parasitical guinea worm. Indeed, it is possible to glean from various news items and brief mentions in the center’s annual reports that some of the more intriguing donors, such as the sultan of Oman and the OPEC development fund, have been giving money for exactly such causes. According to one notation on the Carter Center website, for example, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia donated $7.6 million in 1993 to help Carter fight the guinea worm.

But notwithstanding such occasional tidbits, it’s stunningly hard to discern from the Carter Center’s public documents who is giving precisely how much, and for what. Donor names, sometimes listed only as “Anonymous,” are lumped under broad categories such as “$100,000 or more” or “$1 million or more.” There is no systematic tally of just how much “more” — no clear way to know, for example, whether Saudi money accounts for only a tad of Carter’s funding or a mighty dollop, and whether the Saudi share of total contributions has changed over the years. Neither is there any systematic disclosure of who is funding exactly what activities in the name of “waging peace,” “fighting disease,” and “building hope” — the center’s self-proclaimed missions. A reporter’s e-mail exchange with Carter Center press secretary Deanna Congileo elicits the response that none of the anonymous donors are from the Middle East, but no further details can be released without permission from the donors — which, even if granted, will take some time to obtain (stay tuned).
National review Online[/quote]

In regards to torture. From VOA as reported by globalsecurity.org. Both clearly mouth peices of ther ‘liberal’ media

[quote]"DATE=7/27/05

TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT

TITLE=US / DETAINEES

NUMBER=5-57160

BYLINE=GARY THOMAS

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

CONTENT=

VOICED AT:

HEADLINE: Military Lawyers Strongly Objected to Interrogation Policy

INTRO: Newly released U.S. government documents show the nation’s top military lawyers argued strenuously against controversial interrogation methods used at U.S detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Iraq. As VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, they raised questions about the treatment of detainees in U.S military custody.

TEXT: A series of declassified memos from 2003 show that the Defense Department’s top military lawyers raised strong objections to the Justice Department’s proposed loose definition of torture.

In the separate memos, each of the top lawyers for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines or their deputy questioned the wisdom of allowing aggressive interrogation techniques. The military lawyers were part of a Pentagon working group formed to examine interrogation tactics used on people detained in the anti-terrorist effort.

Eugene Fidell, a former military lawyer and president of the National Institute of Military Justice, says they had deep reservations about the effect that might have on U.S. soldiers as well as public opinion.

/// FIDELL ACT ///

"What you see is the uniformed lawyers saying, gee, some of this strikes us as illegal, much of it strikes us as unwise, and all of it, I believe, strikes us as contrary to the interests of U.S. servicemen."

/// END ACT ///

Major General Jack Rives, Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Army, wrote that approving what he called exceptional interrogation techniques could be interpreted as giving official approval to methods that members of the armed forces had always been taught were unlawful. He wrote that some of the proposed techniques amounted to violations of civilian and military law.

However, the uniformed lawyers’ objections were overruled and the task force report was rejected by Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes.

The Bush administration has resisted attempts to put legal curbs on interrogation techniques because, officials say, they would restrict the president’s ability to fight terrorism.

Robert Turner is co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia, which happens to be located across from the street from the military’s legal center and school. Mr. Turner - who served in the Pentagon and State Department and was counsel to the President’s Intelligence Oversight Advisory Board under President Reagan - says Mr. Haynes made an erroneous but understandable decision.
[/quote]

Yes. We are at war which mean you must fight it in an intelligent way.[/quote]

So was there a concern Fred? Or not?

Obviously, there is and was “concern,” but my concern is that others’ concerns are often immediately translated into the final say on the matter. Clearly, there are valid arguments for and against the Bush administrations policies and they are having their say in court where both sides argue their views, but the debate about such policies in court predated the Bush administration and I imagine such debates will continue after Bush leaves office. The irritation that I have which has led to a great concern on my part is that these posts here seem to assume that these debates are new and many posters appear to be unwilling to assume that the Bush administration and its supporters may have very good reasons for supporting the policies that they do. Allegations do not equal guilt. Disagreement does not lead to one side being right. Until these matters work their way through the courts, the final say on the subject is undetermined therefore one would imagine that the determination of legality or illegality of such actions is stil pending. So I think that those who are pillorying the Bush administration should wait until the matters are finalized. We hear a lot about “illegal” actions, but how can this be determined when the courts have not ruled? And such rulings and debates in court are hardly unique to only the Bush administration. Surely? Do you understand my concern?

sorry about that, just wanted to make sure everyone got that part.

Obviously, there is and was “concern,” but my concern is that others’ concerns are often immediately translated into the final say on the matter. Clearly, there are valid arguments for and against the Bush administrations policies and they are having their say in court where both sides argue their views, but the debate about such policies in court predated the Bush administration and I imagine such debates will continue after Bush leaves office. The irritation that I have which has led to a great concern on my part is that these posts here seem to assume that these debates are new and many posters appear to be unwilling to assume that the Bush administration and its supporters may have very good reasons for supporting the policies that they do. Allegations do not equal guilt. Disagreement does not lead to one side being right. Until these matters work their way through the courts, the final say on the subject is undetermined therefore one would imagine that the determination of legality or illegality of such actions is stil pending. So I think that those who are pillorying the Bush administration should wait until the matters are finalized. We hear a lot about “illegal” actions, but how can this be determined when the courts have not ruled? And such rulings and debates in court are hardly unique to only the Bush administration. Surely? Do you understand my concern?[/quote]

That’s all fine and dandy…But… is that the point that I’m making?

My point is that Bush administration has, over the objections of it’s own military lawyers, taken an very aggressive legal stance that in my eyes goes against successfully prosecuting the GWOT.

Let’s do a replay for you ‘critical thinkers’

This administration has a long track record of stifling dissent. As a result, they’ve made a lot of shit decisions.

Who the hell knows what points you and others of your ilk are attempting feebly to make. One would imagine that the main point is that you do not like Bush and the rest is just a feeble effort to throw scurrilous insults and wild accusations against him. That is the point that I would like to point to as you attempting to point out.

Oh. Now you have a point…

its not it’s. Sorry just a minor point. AND as you have said, the Bush administration has chosen not to take orders from its own (get that part) military lawyers. Now, we have seen this quote and lawyers have been quoted but I am still trying to determine from this information how many and to what degree these lawyers oppose his positions. This is such standard fare for the media. Various people are quoted and their dissent is registered as being universal and across the board. Is it?

Well that is the point isn’t it? YOU “think” that the president is being very “aggressive” and that hsi actions are counter to successful implementation of the war on terror. Having such an opinion is your right, but it does not make the president’s actions legal or illegal.

Yes, that is another important point. It is important to think and to think critically and this is where I would like to point out I believe that many posters such as yourself have failed and failed miserably but I hesitate to go against your advice lest I be found “aggressive.”

[quote]Quote:
“What you see is the uniformed lawyers saying, gee, some of this strikes us as illegal, much of it strikes us as unwise, and all of it, I believe, strikes us as contrary to the interests of U.S. servicemen.” [/quote]

How many uniformed lawyers? Which ones? All of them? and notice how much of it is put into this sentence which reinforces the majority theme but are we talking about all the uniformed lawyers. I see “the” not all. I see some and much and all of it but I do not see how many actually hold these views, what roles they play in the formulation of policy, how high their positions are and what if any political biases they may have going into this debate.

Stifling? dissent? Really? Care to explain or provide examples. Let me see. Today, I will make a decision to disagree with my boss and I will do so publicly and my boss will celebrate my dissent as my right to express myself despite clouding our organization’s message and disrupting the chain of command. But God forbid that he try to stifle anything right? haha

Perhaps, but that is open to debate. What we do know with certainty is not whether these actions are legal or illegal but that you have made a shit attempt to make your shit points, how’s that for a decision?

sorry about that, just wanted to make sure everyone got that part.[/quote]

Allegations don’t equal guilt? Holy Guantanamo! You mean Jimmy Carter might not have done it for the money?

[quote]Quote:
That’s all fine and dandy…But… is that the point that I’m making?

Who the hell knows what points you and others of your ilk are attempting feebly to make. One would imagine that the main point is that you do not like Bush and the rest is just a feeble effort to throw scurrilous insults and wild accusations against him. That is the point that I would like to point to as you attempting to point out[/quote]

My…my…So questioning the wisdom this administrations interpretation of the definition of torture is “scurrilous” and a “wild accusation” even during a time of war when our truly scurrilous enemies are looking for any scrap of legitimacy? We’ll, we just handed it to them on a silver platter. I haven’t heard a convincing argument why this interpretation of those laws was needed. Legal or not, the decision was stupid. Hopefully the White House lawyers interpretation won’t be tested in a court by some unlucky soldier or operator.

I see. Yet another media plot? This administration has been startlingly inadept at managing the media.

Sure…are you implying that the idea you hold is anything more than an opinion? I think the verdict is still out on how succesfully the GWOT is being prosecuted. Certainly our new DI Mr. Gates has some concerns. Successful is just your opinion. Certainly the sea-change in ME politics that you spoke of in 2003 / 2004 has not yet arrived.

[quote]Stifling? dissent? Really? Care to explain or provide examples[/quote] Well…we’re finally getting our unneeded troop increase aren’t we? A day late & a dollar short, but we’re getting it, (even if it is just a change in rotation dates).

Fred. “scurrilous insults”. So beneath you. The points make more sense than your blind defence of them.

I love it when Fred Smith gets all whiffled up. I can practically see his widdle feet jumping up and down in his cute widdle booties.

Everyone together now… awwwwww!

There can be a large, or a subtle, difference between opinion and fact. One should not ignore that difference when it occurs.

Not at all. Jumping to the conclusion that such actions are “illegal” before the matter has even been settled by the courts is. Assuming that the administration has the worst intentions despite being at war is. Assuming that there is no need to achieve a fine balance between getting information that may save millions of lives against protecting legitimate rights is.

Yes, to you, they are “stupid.” But apparently, your precious little understanding of the matter is all that is needed and so even discussing this in court is apparently equally “stupid” and the whole process of trying to achieve a legitimate balance is also “stupid” and given that all of this is so “stupid” much better to just jump to your conclusion which is that all of this is “illegal” despite the courts not having given a definitive and final ruling on the matter. I mean the whole constitutional process then would appear to be “stupid” in your view. Why not just wait it out and then see what those involved have to say?

Read the quote that you have provided and then answer my questions. How many of the lawyers agree with this view? What is their rank? Are any of them politically biased? I cannot tell from the information that you have provided, can you? If you cannot, then I think that you need to go back and reread those statements and not make so many assumptions based on them.

I do. For example, you may think that the actions of the president are “stupid” and that would be your opinion. You can think that his actions are “illegal” and then you would be wrong because factually such an assertion cannot be proved. See the difference?

I agree. BUT the actions of the president have not been determined as “illegal.” Get that?

I have concerns as well.

Stupid is yours. See the difference now between opinions and factual statements?

Hasn’t it?

So, you are FOR more troops? It is so hard to tell with you people. One day, not enough, the next day too many, the next day we should be committing all that we have and not doing things on the cheap and the next day we are not pulling out fast enough. Notice, however, that after the midterm election results were in, that I correctly pointed out that they would not have the slightest effect on Bush’s ability to manage our Iraq policy. In fact, I think a great many senators in particular are pleased that they can use the president as cover all while knowing that he will make the right decisions.

Were you not the one that first used “shit?” I am merely returning the favor and living in great hope that you actually understand now the difference between your opinions of the president’s policies and that such opinions do not serve as “proof” of “illegality.” I am so pleased that we all understand that now.

Whiffled? from talking to Elequa? haha

Can you also see the boot that I am putting on my right foot right now. Guess what I am going to use it for?

[quote]
Everyone together now… awwwwww! [/quote]

Awwwwww is right. Actually, no offense, but do you have any inkling about what this debate is about? Do you know what is involved in coming to a determination about the illegality or legality of certain actions as being determined by these courts? Just curious if you had any opinion (deliberate) about that. I’ll give you a hint. An opinion is sorta like kinda what Elequa has when he sorta kinda thinks that Bush’s policies are “stupid.” Now, you give it a try.

Apologies but photos to prove my point are not really my forte. Perhaps you can engage in a clever exchange of wits in that regard with MFGR? I for one would find that most amusing.