George W. Bush Live From Facebook

tekgoblin writes "Facebook has just announced that George W. Bush is going to be present November 29th to answer questions about his new book, Decision Points. The discussion will happen on Facebook Live at 2PM PST."

Comments

I hope it's moderated

[d3ac0n]

Or we will be treated to pages of:
"So, how DID you blow up the World trade Center?" and "You lied, People Died!" and "What's it like to be like HITLER you babykiller!?!?!?"

Nothing like W. to bring out the loony left.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Eggplant62]

Especially since the looney left will ask all the hard questions, which Shrub will avoid by saying, "It's in the book. You should read the book."

I wouldn't expect him to actually answer anything that he could be indicted for with the actual truth.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Seriousity]

I would be more interested in seeing him squirm when asked more controversial questions, like questions about how it felt to lie in a coffin with a ribbon tied around his penis during the Skull and Bones initiation ritual (not joking, this is exactly what happens and has been confirmed by multiple sources)

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Attack DAWWG]

Are you saying there's something "loony" or wrong with objecting to soldiers dying needlessly?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Kierthos]

Exactly. Because the right never does anything loony, like comparing Obama to Hitler.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[L4t3r4lu5]

Stuff he can be indicted for is already in the mainstream press. He admitted ordering water-boarding of detainees. Water-boarding is inhumane and a form of torture. If the US recognised the authority of the ICC, he'd be in the Hague, not giving Q&A's.

Yes, I do know I've just paraphrased my sig.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too bad this is getting moderated down (I guess I shouldn't really be that surprised), but damn if that isn't true.

To be more fair, I suppose we could say that without moderation this will devolve into a shouting match between the loony left and the rabid right, but we all know full well that the type of people on a Facebook chat are much more likely to be loony left, and that this is going to devolve into 9/11 conspiracy theories.

It's actually somewhat impressive how far the left goes to attack Bush. I wondered how the Daily Show was going to manage after Obama won the election. The answer was simple: continue to attack Bush, even though he was no longer in office.

But, yeah, if you leave this to Facebookers unfiltered, this is going to be ugly.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll??

There is a loony element to ever political stripe. Left, centrist, right, whatever.

Since GWB is seen as right, few loony rights attack him... but loony lefts do. Heck, look at how the current prez has been attributed all sorts of weird things, by the loony aspect of the right!

Re:I hope it's moderated

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Even without recognizing the authority of the ICC, the US has punished users of waterboarding (both Americans and captured foreign opponents) independently, and some of the legal precedent on the subject actually comes from crackdowns on certain rather dodgy police forces which had stumbled upon this most excellent method of closing cases...

Furthermore Ronald Reagan, practically a saint among the right, was the one who pushed for the US ratification of the UN convention against torture, saying:

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Even if we have not the slightest interest in giving the ICC the time of day, we have a legal obligation to prosecute torturers we find on our soil, and in some cases to extradite them to the jurisdictions where their crimes took place, assuming extradition agreements are in place.

We can only assume that Ronald Reagan was actually a soft-on-terror deep-cover liberal...

Re:I hope it's moderated

[sco08y]

Or we will be treated to pages of:
"So, how DID you blow up the World trade Center?" and "You lied, People Died!" and "What's it like to be like HITLER you babykiller!?!?!?"

Nothing like W. to bring out the loony left.

Yup, apparently he was president for 8 years, attended hundreds of press conferences, had more people carrying signs of him as hitler, burning him in effigy, lunatics setting up camp outside his ranch, etc., but what will *really* make him squirm is asking him something they read on some idiot website.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Charliemopps]

yea no, water boarding sucks and I disagree with using it. I'd even say that we should pass a law. But it's in no way torture and calling it such diminishes what true true torture is.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

Except being waterboarded by friends who won't let you "die" isn't really scary. Try it with a stranger and nobody else around. Then you'll see what it is about. Hell, I'll volunteer... all you have to do is sign this form. :D

Re:I hope it's moderated

[intheshelter]

Only in a complete state of denial could you argue that Bush didn't deserve those slogans. He was a shitty President and did more to harm our country than any terrorist ever could. There's loony folks on both sides, but if someone is ripping on Bush then I wouldn't automatically dump them in that category. Maybe if we'd heeded some of those criticisms our country wouldn't be endlessly mired in war, financially ruined, and globally scorned by people around the world who are not infected with Tea Pary logic.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[sco08y]

I would be more interested in seeing him squirm when asked more controversial questions, like questions about how it felt to lie in a coffin with a ribbon tied around his penis during the Skull and Bones initiation ritual (not joking, this is exactly what happens and has been confirmed by multiple sources)

What is so controversial about that? And, since the book is about his presidency, how is it even remotely relevant?

Hazing used to be common practice. Then people started reporting it, bring to light the fact that it was at least idiotic, often dangerous. So we stopped hazing people, mostly. When I went through Airborne school, I got my "blood wings" even though there's a regulation specifically prohibiting it. My first jump with my unit was the "cherry jump" so my pockets were full of cherries and cherry pie, which my buddies helpfully mashed up. After I landed, I had to eat it. Thankfully, the cherry stains came out with cold water and detergent.

Since we had hazing for so long, though, there are a ton of people who went through stupid initiation rituals. Most likely, all the Democrats in office were in clubs like Skull and Bones and went through hazing, too.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[argStyopa]

"...US has punished users of waterboarding..."
I'd be curious to know of examples where the US prosecuted the waterboarders specifically for waterboarding.
I'm not being sarcastic, I'd seriously like to know some examples where this precedent was set.

I *personally* don't believe waterboarding rises (sinks?) to the level of torture, no more so than sleep denial or loud music. But we're a nation whose legal system is based in precedent - if there is a precedent of the US gov't recognizing waterboarding as torture (and I could certainly see that, given our ability to be 'flexible' when pursuing our enemies) then it's no longer a matter of some pantywaist 'claiming' waterboarding is mean, it would be the US gov't breaking it's own rules as defined by itself.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[ConceptJunkie]

Everybody who is disliked by anybody gets compared to Hitler. Get over it.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[DigiShaman]

Most people wouldn't last more than 5 seconds of water boarding, the technique is to trigger the primal fear of drowning without actually killing you. It's very effective at getting a response from an individual. From there, you can use it to extract information and sort out the truth embedded in it later. That is to say, most people would squawk just to end it!

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lasted 2 1/2 minutes!!! He was fixated on dieing for a cause, even in torture. My guess, fatigue and fear eventually set in.

Now, do we really want to get rid of water boarding? No. But I believe the commander in chief (POTUS) should have the final say-so if and when to use it. Or not.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[imogthe]

I beg your pardon? Waterboarding is not torture? I'm sorry, but by any definition you care to mention being exposed to "simulated drowning" is torture. If you read up on the practice you'll find that it's slightly more serious than someone splashing a bit of water on you. For extra points go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding and become enlightened. Yes, it doesn't involve cutting people's hands off, breaking legs, setting fire to their eyeballs or anything of a more graphical nature. However, calling it "not torture" is ignorant at best.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[ConceptJunkie]

I beg to differ. There were a lot of people on the loony right (and the unloony right) who attacked Bush.

And regarding the current President, I find the scariest things about him are not what the loony right charges, but the things that are unquestionably true but ignored, like his 20 years with a racist "church", his unprecedented efforts to suppress his own paper trail, the associations and politics of many of the "czars" and other advisors he surrounds himself with. The list goes on.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[tehcyder]

Funny, waterboarding is the only form of "torture" that Marines do to each other on weekends for fun. Not even remotely kidding. I was in the Marines, and I have friends who waterboard each other for fun.

There are people who eat broken glass, inject their cocks with cocaine and headbutt iron posts for fun, that doesn't mean it is a legitimate treatment for political prisoners.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[bluefoxlucid]

I think advanced research into improved torture methods would be nice. Waterboarding is cool because it gives the impression of suffocation and drowning; but for the most part it's harmless. It's also not terribly likely to cause deep-seated psychological problems on its own, though the overall environment can be a nightmare: a dark room, shiny lights, men in suits with implements of pain and dismemberment, locked away in a hole for months in a dirty cell with almost no food and long periods without water, sleep deprivation... yeah.

The nice thing about waterboarding is you can pretty much grab someone you're otherwise taking decent care of, strap them to an inclined board, throw a towel over their face, and start dumping water on it; the primal fear that kicks in is brutal, but rather temporary. That's "humane" enough.

What most people don't understand is how very useful and important torture is in warfare. They talk about being "humane" when dealing with people who are capturing civilian tourists and beheading them. They talk about being "sensitive" to people who have taken key roles in planning suicide bombings and plane hijacks that will kill tens, hundreds, or even thousands (WTC collapse of 2001) of people. We somehow can't accept five minutes of fear and pain in one barbaric, murdering individual in trade for the potential to save hundreds or thousands of lives, much less condone the days or weeks of beatings, druggings, psychological games, and sleep deprivation we may have to inflict to get information.

Wake up. Warfare isn't pretty. Stop being retarded. Read Musashi and Sun Tzi.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"During the Spanish-American War, a U.S. soldier, Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using "the water cure." In his review, the Army judge advocate said the charges constituted "resort to torture with a view to extort a confession." He recommended disapproval because "the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture." Yet President Theodore Roosevelt defended the practice. "The enlisted men began to use the old Filipino method: the water cure," he wrote in a 1902 letter. "Nobody was seriously damaged." A Punishable Offense In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. "All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier. Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison." From here.

As for it being torture or not, there are a couple of convenient tests(The first is Erich "Mancow" Mueller, talk radio host, attempting to refute critics of waterboarding, the second is Christopher Hitchens writing about his experience with trying it).

There are certainly even nastier ways of hurting people(which, in part, is why waterboarding is so popular, none of that pesky physical evidence) but it is apparently way less fun than it sounds, especially if it can be repeated over and over, in combination with sleep deprivation, isolation, and the like...

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Jawnn]

Funny, waterboarding is the only form of "torture" that Marines do to each other on weekends for fun. Not even remotely kidding. I was in the Marines, and I have friends who waterboard each other for fun.

I don't know which is more pathetic; your friends' idea of fun, or your complete lack of understanding of what torture really is all about. As others have observed, anything your friends do to you utterly lacks the requisite psychological dynamic that truly qualifies something as torture.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Jawnn]

Most people wouldn't last more than 5 seconds [citation needed] of water boarding, the technique is to trigger the primal fear of drowning without actually killing you. It's very effective at getting a response from an individual.

A "response" yes. People will say anything to make truly effective torture stop. The truth has little to do with it. As such, warterboarding is well established as a way of coercing false confessions and if necessary, ginning up false "intelligence" to support your desired course of action. As a means of reaching "truth", torture is shit.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Given that he was waterboarded at least 183 times, according to official figures, I imagine he got lots of practice(or fell into the increasingly unresponsive state that looks a lot like broken compliance; but is actually pretty useless because the suspect is too shot to tell you what you want to know, or even lie about it, they just sort of collapse into profound lethargy)...

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

i guess the fact that you have sex with your girlfriend means that prison rape is okay.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Chelloveck]

It isn't torture when the good guys do it to the bad guys. Then it's simply "aggressive intelligence gathering". Come on, have you learned nothing from Jack Bauer?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[ByOhTek]

Sorry, but even most moderates don't like Bush, quite a few conservatives too.

It's not just the loony left. There's plenty of good complaints about him, and it'll be interesting to see which ones show up, and how he responds.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Are you one of those who have managed to ignore the steady stream of FBI and other professional interrogators who claim that torture is, at best, no more effective that conventional techniques and, at worst, actually directly counterproductive, along with causing you to stoop to your enemy's level?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[ByOhTek]

I'm sorry, but I can't think of ANYONE, including some truly good and decent people, who don't have some whacked-out-crazy associates. That's hardly something to criticize someone for.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[ExtremePhobia]

Sleep deprivation and loud music both strike me as forms of torture. Are they not legally considered that? I was under the impression that torture was causing pain and discomfort and possible permanent damage in a controlled setting (otherwise it's just assault or something).

Sleep deprivation can cause massive headaches, hallucination, and if prolonged it can cause death.

Loud music can cause headaches, ear aches, disorientation, dizziness, and permanent deafness if exposed too much. And I'm assuming we're talking about something more than what people subject themselves to or it wouldn't be particularly effective.

That isn't torture?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[tehcyder]

yea no, water boarding sucks and I disagree with using it. I'd even say that we should pass a law. But it's in no way torture and calling it such diminishes what true true torture is.

Torture is the infliction of severe physical or mental pain on someone in order to force them to talk. You can't just change the definition to something like "only things which leave permanent physical damage" as some people here try to do.

Waterboarding is a combination of physical and mental torture, there is both a physical and mental sensation of imminent death unless you talk.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[DigiShaman]

The most successful soldiers have already accepted they are already dead on the battlefield. The fact they are still alive is a momentary extended gift of life. When you have that mindset along with religious zeal, toddling along 183 times doesn't seem all that impressive anymore. But you're right. The human body eventually says otherwise. Laws of physics/biology and all that notwithstanding.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[rednip]

It might surprise you to find out that there is a whole subgroup of people who enjoy torture, perhaps we just need to give the detainees 'safe-words'. Also, one doesn't have to be into BDSM to be a Marine, but I'm told that it helps.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[tehcyder]

Hell, just look at the number of comments on this very article asking stupid questions about "the real reason" we went to war with Iraq, despite the fact that the reasons for going to war with Iraq are very, very well documented.

The point is that the reasons given at the time (i.e. Saddam Hussein had WMD's capable of attacking the US/UK) turned out to be false, and that the US/UK governments knew this in advance.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

Good lord, dude. You reply would fit better against the "looney left" rant. Kierthos simple pointed out that both sides suck balls.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[MindlessAutomata]

Ever see the movie Salo? That's exactly what your quote reminded me of. The Marines are just like the libertine fascists, enjoying bum fuckery and shit-eating.//

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, one is a charismatic man, elected amidst economic troubles, who after being elected proceeded to dismantle the civil liberties of his countrymen, and the other is Hitler.

Except I you're right, they really aren't comparable: as I recall, Hitler actually solved some of Germany's problems before heading down the whole "Holocaust" route.

Obama has simply sold the US into an inevitable financial ruin, and started the nation down the path to a complete destruction of its healthcare system. And if you think I'm full of it, just look at Massachusetts and the results there: emergency room visits are way up, healthcare costs are way up, actual services provided are way down, and the number of doctors is falling (no tort reform). Thanks to Obama, that's going to happen throughout the entire nation now. (And don't call what Massachusetts' Obamacare-light "Romneycare" - the democrats in Massachusetts completely perverted his plan, and they're what destroyed it.)

So calling Obama "Hitler" is a bit unfair. To Hitler.

And, no, I don't think Obama will start rounding up Jews and putting them in camps. Term limits will kick him out well before he has a chance to create copyright infringers' camps.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[dbIII]

We called it torture when the North Koreans did it to prepare prisoners for show trials, because it is. Then utter bastards in the realms of unaccountable spooks (not marines) took notice, learnt how to do it and used it at GITMO and other places for what looked like was going to be the same thing. In the end we only had a few pointless show trials that nobody really was convinced by at the cost of a whole lot of evil and the USA losing the high moral ground everywhere. Those same evil bastards are still in the system, picked up lots of tricks from the Saddams torturers, and will probably ply their trade at home some day just like some of the French veterans of Algeria did.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[dbIII]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lasted 2 1/2 minutes

And he still fed us complete bullshit after that. It's not an interrogation technique. It's just another way to spread fear. The KGB knew that very well and that's why they used it since they just needed to match the number of crimes to bodies and didn't care whose body it was. The North Koreans knew it very well and they gave us the waterboard technique as part of the tortures they used to break prisoners before show trials.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

"valid questions about Obamacare and his **birth certificate** will never be heard in the noise."

Valid questions about his birth certificate?!?!?! Those were answered LONG ago but you've been too damn busy putting your fingers in your ears shouting "I can't hear you!! I can't hear you!! LALALALALAALALALAALALA!!". Seriously, there aren't any valid questions about this that haven't already been answered. You may not like the answers but they're more valid than the questions. I won't even address the health care issue since it's pretty obvious that you're doing your best to keep from using the terms 'socialism' and 'communism'.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[ConceptJunkie]

At some point there's a threshold when you start to wonder why the person chooses and/or attracts so many of them.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Doc Ruby]

Your Marines friends, if they even exist, sound like excellent torturers. We used to have people like you denying that Marines would ever torture someone. Thank you for explaining that torture is embraced by Marines, instead of being rejected as cruel, counterproductive and illegal by sane people upholding their duty to protect the Constitution.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because apparently Hawaii used laser printers 50 years ago, using a font that wasn't created until until 30 years ago. Right.

Obama has never been able to produce an original, unaltered, uncensored birth CERTIFICATE from Hawaii. Until he does, the questions remain valid.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[CarbonShell]

But you do not get it.
Foreigners are tried for torture and punished.
Americans are tried for 'Dereliction of duty' or some other BS and punished for that. Slap on the hand for the bad press and not GTF out.

Americans trying an American soldier?
Are you kidding?

I remember a docu about the taxi driver that got sacked and tortured and murdered.
You think they even MENTIONED him during the trial?
Do you think 'torture' or 'murder' was even brought up?
Nope!

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Doc Ruby]

When foreigners thought the US didn't torture people, because it rarely did and punished the torturers when they were exposed, foreigners were more likely to surrender instead of fighting to the death, and to cooperate with US forces instead of cooperating with the US' enemies.

Now that people like you have converted torture into "just another weapon", we don't get that cooperation. Instead we get foreigners and even Americans recruited by the US' enemies because we are nothing more than torturers.

Torturers of many people who aren't guilty of anything except being easy to capture and to abuse.

Congratulations: you've destroyed one of the US' most effective defenses, established by centuries of restraint since George Washington. Along with our own knowledge that we're better than our enemies. The wars in which the US was better than that are the ones we've won. The ones in which the US wasn't better than that are the one's we've lost. Including the current Terror War that you people have been losing at every step.

Rather than talk tough and recommend cliche strategy books that have evidently taught you nothing, why don't you join the military and go to Afghanistan?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Dare nMc]

is 20 years with a racist "church"

Sounds like most church's, Although W. Bush only found religion in 1985, he chose southern Methodist, it has to be one of the more racist churchs, excluding "black churchs", from gatherings with the white churchs until 1968, and the first black bishop in 1980. Pretty typical of all southern "white" churches, Although the Methodist church admitted their racist past, and repented for their actions, even money if W's church agrees.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Concerned Onlooker]

I've always been puzzled by the Marines use of the word "honor." As the phrase goes, I do not think that word means what they think it means.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[lavagolemking]

Waterboarding does cause permanent harm. That kind of conditioning leaves prisoners with a pervasive fear of water falling on them, which then generalizes to other similar forms. I'm pretty sure being unable to go outside when it rains without collapsing in fear would qualify as "clinically significant distress" and that kind of conditioning isn't something you can just magically extinguish in any reasonable amount of time. It's like a very severe case of agoraphobia, artificially inflicted on you.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Concerned Onlooker]

You weren't really paying attention from 2000 to 2008, were you?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Monkeedude1212]

Exactly.

If anything, he's only confirmed that his friends probably have some psychological disorder from serving in the army where preforming torture on captives has caused serious damage to their mental state, to the point where they find torturing each other enjoyable.

I'm no psychologist, but I do read up on it from time to time. These guys were probably regular morally decent men at one point - and after given the order to torture, none of them really WANTED to do it. Someone likely did (their CO or someone unafraid of such things) - and they all initially felt some subconcious remorse. Identifying with the victim, they now enact fantasies of torture, where they are reliving that traumatizing moment for each of them - and they don't mind doing it because they all enjoy it with each other.

Seriously - his friends should go seek therapy. I am not kidding.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[careysub]

"...US has punished users of waterboarding..." I'd be curious to know of examples where the US prosecuted the waterboarders specifically for waterboarding. I'm not being sarcastic, I'd seriously like to know some examples where this precedent was set.

I *personally* don't believe waterboarding rises (sinks?) to the level of torture, no more so than sleep denial or loud music....

Although it is often described as "simulated drowning" (by media faithfully following Bush Administration spin) water boarding is actual drowning - merely interrupted before the victim suffers irreparable harm.

Water boarding thus fails even the "Yoo standard" (carefully assembled to support Bush's desire to waterboard) which is that it is torture if the victim experiences "the threat of imminent death". It is similar to the use of interrupted hanging as an interrogation method.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[oodaloop]

Yeah, I guess my 14 years in the intelligence community and my trip to GTMO to train interrogators at Camp Delta haven't prepared me for "what torture really is all about" as...what do you do again? Help desk? Programmer?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[windcask]

I've always been puzzled by the Marines use of the word "honor." As the phrase goes, I do not think that word means what they think it means.

And I have a couple of words for you: Unbridled disrespect.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[oodaloop]

So it really doesn't even matter what the evidence is, you're still going to hold the same position. Awesome.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Rockoon]

The stand-up comedian Emo Philips had a nice joke about the church and it was voted The Best God Joke Ever

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Spleenl3oy]

You do realize that there is a difference between "the water cure" and waterboarding right? The water cure involves forcing the recipient to drink large quantities of water resulting in gastric distension and can lead to death. The Japanese when using this during WWII would then smack the recipient's belly and cause the stomach to burst. Waterboarding involves running water over the face of the recipient, simulating drowning, not forcing them to drink it.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, because your evidence (even if it does exist) is coupled with your bad "logic". It doesn't prove what you say. As so many others have explained in response to your post.

What's awesome is how complete you Republicans are encased in denial/projection. Your evidence is easily shown not to support your conclusion, and easily shown to support the conclusion that debunks you. To which you respond that I am not swayed by the evidence, when that is precisely your problem and not mine. Really, though, the word is "awful". You Republicans are truly awful. You're not even good torturers. Where's Binladen?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Are you saying the US *doesn't* recognise the authority of the Internet Chess Club? Inconceivable!

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys were probably regular morally decent men at one point

Impossible. They joined the military.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Concerned Onlooker]

As in for raped and murdered civilians?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[argStyopa]

To imply that the US won't/doesn't try its soldiers is simply absurd.

There are ample cases in US history - from current all the way back the Revolutionary War - of the US gov't trying US soldiers for all sorts of crimes.

Now, you might contend that the US is RELUCTANT to try its soldiers, and have a point.
Even there, I'd argue that where the blame is clear, no, the US military has actually been fairly swift to try some soldiers.

Where the evidence is sketchy or brought forward by people whose personal agenda is clearly anti-US or anti-military, then I believe that they do investigate/explain/exonerate to a point that might be overcorrecting.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[oodaloop]

You Republicans are truly awful

I voted for Nader. But hey, since everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, why bother with troublesome facts? Like I said, it doesn't make a difference anyway, and you proved my point again.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[argStyopa]

IANAL but I'd guess not.

Part of the problem with most 'broad' definitions of torture is that they don't take much extrapolation to see it in real life, and then you start to question the basic functions of everyday life.

The guy next door has Rick Astly blasting "on 11" 24/7, thus providing both sleep deprivation and loud music.
Can I really prosecute him for TORTURE?

Medical students are often required to work bizarre-long hours to force them to get used to operating without lack of sleep or in conditions where their rest is impaired (I guess) - are their teachers guilty of Geneva-convention torture?

It seems to me obvious that electrodes to the testicles IS indeed torture. Having wooden splinters shoved up your fingernails = torture. To some other people waterboarding is no doubt equally "obviously" torture, though it isn't to me - making the subject really, really scared doesn't cross the line for me.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[lysdexia]

Hazing can run the gamut from "Aw! You ASSHOLES!" to really, really horrible.

On the left end of the scale: ask a coal miner about "greasing" sometime. Generally an "oiler" (someone in charge of keeping equipment lubed) will sidle up to a newbie and inject a generous portion of grease into whatever opening in newbie's clothing happens to be gapped open at the time. Points are awarded for doing the greasing while engaging the newbie in conversation. My dad said the best thing about women entering the mining work force in the `70's was one female oiler's ability to ask "ditzy" questions of a new miner while filling every pocket of his Carhartts with grease and walk away before he noticed it. Not much fun working the rest of your shift with a pocket full of grease. :-)

Skydiving, coal mining, anything with a fairly high degree of shared danger seems to tend toward this sort of silly, harmless behavior. A pocket full of crushed fruit is way preferable to looking like a pocket full of crushed fruit if your chute "tampons" on the way down. Gallows humor is a lot easier for most people than saying "I'm really fucking scared every time I (jumpfromthisplane|godowninthishole) too. I'm here for you".

Vis. "bad hazing" My scientific wild-ass guess is, if your group doesn't run many real risks to life and limb, then you try and substitute it in the ritual it's self.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting.

You know, when I will come home tonight, I'll spend a nice evening with my partner, and said evening will end with a nice romp in bed. To put it more bluntly, we'll have sex, and we'll enjoy it.

Now think about people being raped in prison. Some people are claiming that that's bad and that we need to do something, but not so, say I; after all, having sex is what people all over the world do to each other for fun.

If you see why my reasoning would be flawed if I said this (which, needless to say, I don't!), then I'm sure you can see why your reasoning is flawed here as well.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[oodaloop]

I really just can't let this ludicrous attempt at logic stand. You're projecting your hate of Republicans on me, a liberal Nader supporter, and accuse me of being in denial and not properly using evidence. Ironic much? To which you add some drivel about torture and bin Laden, as if the two are somehow related. We know where he is. In a sovereign nuclear nation that does not want us there. Would you like us to invade Pakistan? Maybe if Obama invades a country it'll better than if mean 'ol Bush does it, right?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[phrackwulf]

You leave mein fuhrer out of this! I would point out this whole series of posts is very insensitive to Nazi's.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[cpghost]

Especially since the looney left will ask all the hard questions, which Shrub will avoid by saying, "It's in the book. You should read the book."

We techies are not the only ones to be entitled to semi-rudely RTFM newbies...

Re:I hope it's moderated

[ByOhTek]

And given the number of associates he has in total, he's hardly there.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[locallyunscene]

And regarding the current President, I find the scariest things about him are not what the loony right charges, but the things that are unquestionably true but ignored, like his 20 years with a racist "church", his unprecedented efforts to suppress his own paper trail, the associations and politics of many of the "czars" and other advisors he surrounds himself with. The list goes on.

They're ignored because the first is a personal attack unrelated to policy, "guilt by association" style. The second is an unverifiable claim. The third is a trick of words because Obama has not had more "czars" than past presidents.

The scariest thing about him is that he's done hardly anything to change the course on 4th amendment rights. We still have the Patriot Act, he's expanded the attacks using drones to include U.S. citizens, and right would rather talk about the stuff you bring up and "death panels" than have substantive discussion.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confused. The reason that your neighbor blasting Rick Astly on 11 24/7 isn't torture is that he doesn't have you in his physical custody. In much the same way that locking his basement isn't imprisoning you as long as you're not in his basement at the time. If your neighbor is depriving you of sleep, and causing a public disturbance, it is actually a crime, and you can report him to the police and they'll tell him to stop and arrest him for disturbing the peace if he doesn't. If it's really so bad that it's causing you real harm and you can show that he's doing it on purpose to harm you, then they'll arrest him for assault. If he has you locked in a room while he's doing it, then, provided you can get the police to come by, then they'll arrest him for kidnapping and for torture, although the specific charge will vary by jurisdiction. If your neighbor has some sort of legal right to hold you, let's say because you broke into his house, and his jurisdiction allows him to tie you up and hold him for the police, then if he put speakers next to your head and played Rick Astly at 11 until the police got there, then that's similarly torture. Of course, we're getting into territory where the police probably won't arrest him because they may think you deserved it. If he waterboarded you while the police were on the way, they would probably arrest him. If he started cutting off pieces of you during the wait, you can be pretty darn sure they'd arrest him. Similarly, if it's the police who are holding you, with a legal right to do so, blasting music at high volume into your cell would be torture, as would waterboarding and cutting bits off. As the police, they're unlikely to arrest themselves, so unless they were cutting bits off (and maybe even then) your only recourse might be a civil suit, and they might never face criminal punishment. This isn't because what they were doing wasn't torture, it's just because the world is unjust.

Essentially, anything that anyone holding you, even when they're holding you legally, does to you to intentionally make you uncomfortable and harm you is torture. This shouldn't be a difficult concept. Before trial, they're holding you for your innocence or guilt to be determined. They are not meant to be punishing you, just holding you, and therefore they should only use measures required to do that. Sadly, a lot of people seem to be really heavily vested in the bully mentality and think that establishing dominance over people through mistreatment is a great way to keep them in line and not causing trouble. Just about every reasonable study on this shows that it's a load of bullshit and abusing people makes them act out more rather than less, but that doesn't seem to stop it from happening. Simple things like turning the thermostat down or up to an uncomfortable level seem to not be considered a form of torture by many people, even though they can cause death (consider a skinny, but non-athletic teenage girl with virtually no body fat in a tank top and shorts being kept at 50 degrees, hypothermia really can result, similar for the elderly or people who are sick or just unhealthy). Even people who don't think such things are torture have to class such actions as something, clearly they're not a necessary part of holding someone. The same thing applies after conviction. Prison may be in part about punishment, but "cruel and unusual" is specifically excluded. The punishment is spelled out in the sentence and may include death, imprisonment, counseling, etc. but never includes many of the horrible things that are done to people in prison. And, hey, here's a clue, if it's too "cruel and unusual" to be used as a form of punishment, it clearly shouldn't be used as a form of interrogation either.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[dogmatixpsych]

Yes, waterboarding is inhumane but it is not torture (although some people are defining it as torture in the wake of the waterboarding). FYI, I am very much opposed to waterboarding but let's not beg the question by calling it torture when that is what is still under discussion.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[dogmatixpsych]

Appealing to Wikipedia doesn't count as authoritative (especially since the current page was written after the controversy erupted); at least link to the primary sources. In any case, hindsight is 20/20. Yes, I'm opposed to waterboarding but you don't have to be ignorant to believe that it is not torture. That's part of what the controversy is about - whether or not it is torture.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, waterboarding is the only form of "torture" that Marines do to each other on weekends for fun. Not even remotely kidding. I was in the Marines, and I have friends who waterboard each other for fun.

M.A.R.I.N.E:
Muscles Are Required- Intelligence Not Essential.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[MachineShedFred]

Psh. The political Right is compared to Nazism. The Left is compared to Stalin.

Get it right!

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, most of my acquaintances have sex for fun. Therefore, by your logic, they shouldn't mind being locked in a room and having sex forced on them and it certainly shouldn't be considered rape. You can find some people who will do nearly anything all the way up to things like amputation and maybe even death for some sort of gratification. That doesn't mean forcing those sorts of people isn't torture just because some people like them. For that matter, even the people who will voluntarily allow themselves to be flogged until skin is falling off their backs generally are going to be opposed to such treatment being applied to them involuntarily. As I pointed out above, even things that are nearly universally enjoyable, such as sex, are nearly universally deplored if they are administered by force. This should not be a difficult concept. Do you need it driven home any more? Ok:

Some people will pay for boxing lessons, or martial arts lessons, or wrestling lessons in which they are punched and kicked and wrestled into submission and that's ok. Grabbing someone off the street and punching them and kicking them and wrestling them to submission is not ok. Some people will pay big money for drug experiences. Jabbing a syringe full of heroin into someone else without them asking you to is not ok. Some people want to die and seek assisted suicide. Helping people who do not want to do so to die is not ok. A number of women want to have children and buy sperm and have it put inside them so they can get pregnant. Putting sperm, by whatever means, into women who don't want to get pregnant so that they do, in fact, get pregnant is not ok. Some people want their houses demolished. Demolishing the house of someone who doesn't want it demolished is not ok.

Do you get the message on this? Do you understand. Can you cram it through your thick skull?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[windcask]

Since when do the actions of a few mentally unstable individuals determine the judgment of a whole? But as far as you're concerned, Bush may as well have raped and murdered every one of them himself, right? There's no talking sense into people when they've convinced themselves of what they want to hear...

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

You've mentioned your sig in a couple of posts - I don't see it on your messages or anywhere actually. It isn't displayed.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Concerned Onlooker]

C'mon. A Marine is loyal first and foremost to the Marines. One can never forget that in the end they are simply hired killers.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[windcask]

How is one supposed to forget what is bullshit in the first place? Your comments are beneath contempt. The Marines fight and die to protect this country and for that they have my eternal gratitude and respect (as opposed to foul-mouthed anonymous little jerkoffs on the internet, which garner the opposite).

Re:I hope it's moderated

[geck4o]

The details of his initiation into the Skull and Bones are more controversial in your opinion than ordering the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan on a pretext and personally authorising torture and execution? Seriously?

Re:I hope it's moderated

[L4t3r4lu5]

It is simulated drowning. Drowning is an horrifically painful experience, and your body has some extremely strong reflexes to try and prevent it.

If you've ever by mistake sucked down a little water while swimming, it's a lot like that. Only your hands are tied down, you're on your back with your nose and mouth exposed, and you're doing it until the guy pouring water on your head is satisfied that you've nothing more to tell him. That's torture.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[CarbonShell]

Reread my post.
I mention they are not tried for the same things that foreigners would be tried for.

The example was:
Foreigner: torture
American: 'Dereliction of duty' or some other BS

As were show in many (no I have not researched ALL of them) trials of US military personnel.

Also as shown by my mention the 'taxi cab to hell' kangaroo trial where the victim was NEVER mentioned.
They were not tried for what they did to the poor man, but other crap.

It is like trying a rapist for 'sex with a superior officer'.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I guess my 14 years in the intelligence community and my trip to GTMO to train interrogators at Camp Delta haven't prepared me for "what torture really is all about" as...what do you do again? Help desk? Programmer?

It's hilarious that you actually think someone believes that tripe of yours. Thanks for the laugh. :-)

Re:I hope it's moderated

[SmarterThanMe]

The guy next door has Rick Astly blasting "on 11" 24/7, thus providing both sleep deprivation and loud music. Can I really prosecute him for TORTURE?

Can you escape the noise by walking away? Or are you confined to your house in some way? Do you have the protection of local planning laws or do you live in some sort of anarchic community?

Pffft.

Re:I hope it's moderated

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a transparent liar.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't see this over the Internet, but I assume you've got a teabag tied on your ear and a "LISTEN TO ME" sign in your hand.

whatcouldpossiblygowrong

[Darth_brooks]

I'm sure this will be a quiet affair. Well balanced, with well thought out talking points and few interruptions.

Also, could someone ring the nurse for me? The pink elephants have begun playing the banjo again...

Re:whatcouldpossiblygowrong

[Anonymous Coward]

4chan is going to have a field day!

Re:whatcouldpossiblygowrong

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/eddgg/get_the_bush_off_facebook/

Just saying People, we put them in power and let them walk all over us.

We can fix this as a worldwide community.

Re:whatcouldpossiblygowrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just get this via my lamebook rss feed. http://www.lamebook.com/

Re:whatcouldpossiblygowrong

[beav007]

The most important question to ask in the interest of keeping a fair and balanced presentation:

Does Facebook have a shoe-throwing app?

I hope they don't flake out

[Anonymous Coward]

So George, how does it feel to get away with war crimes?

Question #1

[Anonymous Coward]

After adding over $1T to the federal deficit to fund a sham war in Iraq that has cost over 4400 American lives (http://antiwar.com/casualties/) and over 100,000 civilian casualties (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) -- how do you sleep at night?

Re:Question #1

[Anonymous Coward]

how do you sleep at night?

Very comfortably, atop mountains of freshly minted one-hundred dollar bills.

Re:Question #1

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In the immortal words of Henry Kissinger, another highly successful war criminal, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac". I'm guessing that sleeping isn't a huge problem. (no, sorry, the eyebleach required to efface that mental image is sold separately...)

Re:Question #1

[Anonymous Coward]

coins are minted, notes and bills are printed.

Re:Question #1

[russotto]

After adding over $1T to the federal deficit to fund a sham war in Iraq that has cost over 4400 American lives (http://antiwar.com/casualties/) and over 100,000 civilian casualties (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) -- how do you sleep at night?

W: Like a baby. Next question?

Re:Question #1

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood why people think it's so earth shattering to bring out casualty numbers for Iraq/Afghanistan, because they're so incredibly LOW compared to other armed conflicts throughout the world in the past 50 some odd years. Remember, this is over the course of nearly ten years. You'd think people would be more upset about heart disease, cancer, AIDs in Africa, or drunk driving. Hell, Bush gave AIDs campaigns so much fucking money it's likely he saved more lives that way than were lost in total in Afghanistan and Iraq so far.

Re:Question #1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I sleep very well each and every night because I know I was chosen by God(tm) to do what I did."

- George "Dubya" Bush

Re:Question #1

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great that the Iraq War casualties are so low. Only 4,287 dead and 30,182 wounded. Of course that's not all the expected casualties. As of 2008, 20% of the 1.6 million vets from both wars are suffering from PTSD and it is expected that their post-combat suicide rate will produce more deaths than those KIA. Then there's the under/untreated TBI injuries, estimated at one in five soldiers. Then there's the little matter of the Iraqis, who have suffered anything from 100,000 dead to 650,000 excess dead (from just 2003-06) as reported in The Lancet. Then there's the cost of the war to the USA, estimated at $2.4 trillion by the Congressional Budget Office but this number is thought by other experts to be overly optimistic. For example, Joseph Stiglitz has estimated the cost to be higher than $3 trillion. Then there's the cost to Iraq. It was one of the most developed nations in the Middle East prior to the war, with ~90% of urban and ~50% of rural citizens enjoying access to modern water supply systems. Now, open sewers. Garbage pickup went from being efficient to being suicide by IED. Electricity has yet to match pre-war levels. One in three Iraqis now lives in poverty. Sectarian violence is still rampant. And we gave Islamic terrorist organizations a massive PR coup and recruitment tool with not only the invasion and occupation, but also the national disgrace of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, assorted covert torture destinations, and secret renditions. All this for a war that was in the planning stage by Sept, 2000. That's before the inauguration, and nearly a year before the 9/11 attacks. It was supported by intelligence that was badly out of date, circumstantial, and in many cases transparently fabricated like the yellowcake/spy outing scandal; the 81 mm aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment (which turned out to be tubes for conventional rocket bodies very similar to our own and wholly unsuitable to uranium enrichment and was pointed out in the original, unaltered intelligence reports that only White House officials got to see at the time but red-lined my bullshit meter when Powell mentioned it in 2003); and the laughably insane sooper sekrit anthrax production semi fucking trailers which was over the top obvious bullshit to anybody with minimal training in molecular biology. But you're right, we should be thankful that life-long fuckup W didn't fuck it up even worse.

As for AIDS, President Bush let ideology trump reality and wasted the money on a program that was at best ineffectual: "One of the White House's major aid initiatives, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), has wasted much of its funds on scientifically questionable programs designed to please American religious conservatives. Though studies show that only a comprehensive approach, including condom distribution, sexual education, and antiretrovirals, could reduce HIV, the White House insisted that PEPFAR spend one-third of its behavioral prevention budget on programs that promote abstinence until marriage. It also refused to let PEPFAR money go for programs like needle exchanges and aggressive condom promotion. Recipient nations had to sign an American pledge vowing to oppose prostitution, even though prostitutes are major carriers of HIV in Africa, and signing the pledge could scare PEPFAR recipients out of helping sex workers. Virtually no other major multinational donor agreed with PEPFAR's strategy. Even the administration's own inspector general responsible for overseeing aid couldn't prove that its methods had worked." As reported by CBS News. Heckuva job, heckuva job.

Re:Question #1

[Anonymous Coward]

The AIDs thing was mostly just a troll, but you completely ignored my primary point: Less people have died in these 2 wars than in the majority of previous wars since WW2, including civilians. Trying to boost the numbers by adding things like PTSD suicides doesn't really cut it because you'd have to add those numbers to the other wars too, which would likely just make the Iraq/Afghan numbers look even smaller. We've used technology and strategy to minimize casualties all around and been highly successful at it. It's something that should be applauded (generally, not saying GWB should even necessarily get any credit for it) rather than demonized.

Re:Question #1

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not "boosting" anything. I am providing a fuller account of the true cost of this senseless, pointless, and unjustifiable war. To point out that our smart bombs slaughter fewer innocent people, or that the soldier who could have been turned into hamburger by an IED is instead alive and walking about thanks to body armor and a new pair of C-legs is one thing. But your post didn't do that. Not only did your post make no mention of our technological wonders or point out the psychopathy surrounding the war's instigation, it made light of the sacrifice of those who have fought there, mocked the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis, and ignored as inconsequential the continuing suffering of millions more Iraqis living in a destroyed country.

moderated questions

[He who knows]

Only certain questions will be selected and they will probally be ones he already has an answer prepared for.

Re:moderated questions

[company suckup]

Only certain questions will be selected and they will probally be ones he already has an answer prepared for.

He was kept in a bubble from the time he first ran for office. In his re-selection bid rally attendees had to sign an oath of loyalty just to get in to see him. This affair will be very tightly scripted with no time allowed for anything other than softball questions.

Re:moderated questions

[tehcyder]

Only certain questions will be selected and they will probally be ones he already has an answer prepared for.

No. Fucking. Shit.

The Question I'd Put to Him

[Greyfox]

"Was your invasion of Iraq entirely to prove that you could do something your father couldn't, to depose Saddam Hussein?" If the answer to that was in any form affirmative, my follow up would be "At any point after you did so, did you realize that he didn't go that extra 20 miles back in the 90's because he realized what would happen if he did?" That's the one question I'd love to have answered from his administration. I can't imagine that the rest of his administration would put on such a dog and pony show and ruin their own careers to advance such a simplistic goal, but "We need a distraction from the fact that we haven't caught Bin Laden yet," really isn't that much better.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Ephemeriis]

Good question...

But what makes you think you'd get anything other than a carefully sanitized political answer?

I mean... It isn't like you're the first one to come up with this question. I've see in, and variations on it, asked countless times. And the answer has always been some vague form of "no".

Now, I'm not certain that "no" is a lie... It may very well be that he had other motivations. But the vague and political nature of the non-answer always leaves me feeling like there's more to the story.

I'd love to get a straight answer out of him. Hell, I'd love to get a straight answer out of just about any politician. But I don't think this Facebook interview thing is going to suddenly grant my wishes.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

"At any point after you did so, did you realize that he didn't go that extra 20 miles back in the 90's because he realized what would happen if he did?"

You're one of those people who still don't understand why we have troops in Afganistan I bet.

The number of ahistorical people on Slashdot still floors me to this day.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[dkleinsc]

The short version: "So why did we invade Iraq, really?" If I had an interview with him, that's what I'd ask. And I'd keep asking it until he'd exhausted his BS answers, and finally got to the truth.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he'd just keep repeating the same answer. He might even actually believe it?

"WHAT IS ONE PLUS ONE?"
"TWO."
"WHAT IS ONE PLUS ONE?"
"TWO!"
"WHAT IS ONE PLUS ONE?"
"TWO!!"

etc if he really believes what he says.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, "the truth" being whatever you predetermine it to be?

Let's be honest, the guy had a ton of intelligence on his side that you'll never even begin to scratch the surface of. Even the most straight forward international affairs doubtlessly have considerations that you can not even begin to touch on. Stop acting like you understand all the relationships out there that lead to the foreign policy of any nation.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[burris]

I guess the fact that Iraq floats on a sea of oil and deposing the existing government also have the ancillary benefit of being a huge windfall for White-House and Congress "defense" industry cronies never entered your foolish mind.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[DoofusOfDeath]

I'd love to get a straight answer out of him. Hell, I'd love to get a straight answer out of just about any politician.

Well, he couldn't really object if you tried waterboarding him.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the book, he actually talks about a number of the big decisions he made as president.

Like the guy or not, I found his book to be much more open and revealing than Clinton's "My Life".

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[elrous0]

I suspect the real answer is "Because Dick Cheney said so." Cheney and Rumsfeld were the two with the hard-ons for Iraq. Bush Jr. was just a weak-minded dupe to them. And he pretty much stayed that way until 2006, when he finally realized (way too late) that listening to them might not be in his best interest. To my mind, Bush isn't evil so much as a simple fool.

You don't fault a moron for being used by much smarter (and much more sinister) men. You just pity him.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[oodaloop]

*Sigh* Hey, maybe it actually had something to do with Iraq being connected to Al Qaeda or something. Try looking around, like here:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=iraq+al+qaeda

First link there is pretty good.

Or this one: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=iraq+wtc+1993

Or this one: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=iraq+okc

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[tehcyder]

You're one of those people who still don't understand why we have troops in Afganistan I bet.

Kindly elucidate then, because I have no idea other than the fact that the Taliban were seen as friends of Al Qaeda, and the US was desperate to be seen to do something tough after 9/11.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[tehcyder]

Let's be honest, the guy had a ton of intelligence on his side

For a second there I misread you and thought you were saying George W Bush was intelligent.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[khallow]

The short version: "So why did we invade Iraq, really?" If I had an interview with him, that's what I'd ask. And I'd keep asking it until he'd exhausted his BS answers, and finally got to the truth.

And are you going to pout when he walks out rather than put up with your nonsense?

Let me put it this way, you aren't likely to get anything other than the "BS answers" unless you can do "enhanced interrogation techniques" on him. Even then, it's not unlikely that those BS answers are why he did it. For me, the more interesting targets are the people who changed their stories when the old ones grew stale. For example, I knew the US couldn't find WMDs in Iraq when in April, 2003 Wolfowitz changed his story from the WMD one to "freeing Iraq for democracy".

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[dbIII]

Remember at the time he was pushing hard to be a "popular wartime President" and Afganistan wasn't the huge WWII style drama in the papers every day he expected. Think back to that and it puts the fly in, the clown suit which was not like any real uniform and the "mission accomplished" banner in perspective. It looked like a war for popularity with a side benefit that a lot of people he owed favours to got to make HUGE profits at the expense of the US taxpayer. It's astonishing how much money is just lost and not accounted for with no excuse of it going on anything that should be remotely considered secret or even military purposes - just shipped out and blatantly stolen in the chaos.
That's what I think the playboy Prince wanted, to be remembered as a popular wartime President so he started a popular war to do it.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Legion303]

If you watched the 2004 presidential debates, you'd know he never exhausts his BS answers. Ask him a question and he'll just keep repeating very minor variations on the same answer until you get tired of asking. He's like a bipedal, autistic pit bull.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Shajenko42]

Good question...

But what makes you think you'd get anything other than a carefully sanitized political answer?

I seriously doubt the question would even make it to him - I'm sure he has people screening them.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny enough, your links don't say what you think they say. For example, the "iraq wtc1993" search's number 2 hit (which was Wikipedia) said "Kenneth Pollack of the State Department stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing."

Shit, there are hundreds of conspiracy theories. I believe they're still looking for anything more relevant than old-ass mustard gas to "prove" that we were justified in invading Iraq for any reason other than our own selfish interests. That doesn't mean that your wanton desire to link terrorism with the country of Iraq is justified -- you'd have a better time proving a link to Saudi Arabia or Libya.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/IraqWarOnTerror.htm shows the list of "justifications" we have been going through, in case you're interested in a retrospective.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[dbIII]

He actually is, but it did wonders for his image to look like one of the dumbest guys in Texas and pretend he'd never been near Harvard. The "Family Ranch" was a true insult to everyone. We all knew his father didn't raise cattle.
The real problem was not intelligence or lack thereof, but major character flaws and never having to face a real challenge in his life. Remember that he became a success in business at the time when daddy was giving him a big hand from Washington and people were worried that such corruption would damage the Presidency? That's what made him the playboy Prince with an attitude of entitlement forever on holiday instead of a President. He just did not understand the concept that being a President is supposed to be a job and he really did nothing but play at things without understanding consequences.
Now at least he's something to point at when anyone in the USA plays with the idea of a hereditary monarchy, but it's going to be a long time before we can ignore the damage and move on.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a ridiculous question. I can't believe people honestly think that Iraq was all about George W Bush's hubris to overcome his father, or "finish what he started". Try reading some real geo-political analysis for a change instead of the left's talking points.

I won't go into too much of the analysis myself; frankly if you're too boorish to find it on your own then you won't listen to me anyways. But to shoot down that entire assumption that Iraq was all about "doing something his father couldn't", read the history of the first Gulf War. Bush's administration never wanted to take Hussein out of power, despite many people pushing the US to do so. At that time it did not fit American Grand Strategy to remove him. We went to war the first time because he needed to be taken down a peg, kept in check to keep the region stable, and he was threatening the oil supply in the Gulf which if taken over by him would destabilize the American economy. At the same time he was too useful while in power in checking Iran and keeping our so-called allies like Saudi Arabia off balance. The first Gulf War ended with him in power and Iraq's wings clipped because that's exactly what the Americans wanted it to be.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

I can answer that for you.

"No. Next question please."

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[NoDos]

"But what makes you think you'd get anything other than a carefully sanitized political answer?" What you'd get is an outright lie, like everything else that ever came out of his mouth!

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[oodaloop]

Dear AC troll, trying reading more than one link. kthxbai.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[windcask]

Call it what you will, but we need screening to keep the questions balanced between softballs and hateful, belligerent attacks.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[windcask]

The short version: "So why did we invade Iraq, really?" If I had an interview with him, that's what I'd ask. And I'd keep asking it until he'd exhausted his BS answers, and finally got to the truth.

Or you could just read his book. But you'll never believe anything he says anyway, so why bother asking him? You won't accept anything but what you want to hear.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[windcask]

The real problem was not intelligence or lack thereof, but major character flaws and never having to face a real challenge in his life.

Like quitting a 20-year drinking habit cold turkey. Or starting an oil business. Or learning to fly a fighter jet. Or graduating from Yale. Or Harvard. Or starting his own oil company while living in a shack in an alley in West Texas. Or managing a major league baseball team. Or being a governor.

George W. Bush didn't exactly rise from the gutter, but he faced his share of challenges over the years.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

Or after the second time asking that, he'd just say 'ask something else or this interview is over'.

heh... Captcha: Bluffs

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[argStyopa]

Hardly interesting, you pretty clearly already have convinced yourself of the answer before you even say the question.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[RightSaidFred99]

Because they were training there, dipshit, and receiving material support.

Similarly, what do you think will happen if some terrorist steals a nuclear weapon from Pakistan (or someday, Iran)? You think we won't respond with nuclear force on the country whose nuke was used, no matter who used it? Ridiculous.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

Errr, I don't think the poster you're replying to actually disagrees with you. Bush Sr. knew that it wasn't in the best interests of the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq. The question, which you completely avoid, was why did Bush Jr. think it was a good idea to do it when his father didn't? Hubris and getting himself into the history books for doing what his father hadn't seems to be one of the explanations. Of course, there are just about always multiple reasons why anyone does anything big, so clearly there's no simple answer. Nevertheless, you're dodging the question and attacking your opponent on a point that he doesn't even disagree with you on. From just about any objective viewpoint, the ongoing Iraq war has not been a good thing in any way for the United States, and your average Iraqi would probably be better off if it had never happened either. It's been a windfall for Iran, of course, but why that would be desirable for the US I don't know.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

His dad has stated that he REGRETS not going that last twenty miles... He didn't go it because he listened to the wankers crying about 1,000+ to 1 casualty rations and how unfair it was.

Iraq broke the cease fire agreement...period. Clinton just didn't have the balls to do anything about it.

Re:The Question I'd Put to Him

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the need to hit on Bush for the Iraq invasion, but you phrased the question in a way that allows any politician to talk there way out of. You need to rephrase the question so he can't invoke the fact that Iraq is stabilizing today as a way to justify invading.

It's just like when the potheads finally got their chance to ask Obama about legalizing pot, they phrased the question "Do you favor legalizing pot, particularly when considering that it could be taxed and generate revenue to assist with deficit problems?" So Obama responds, "No, I don't think legalizing pot is a good way to reduce the deficit", allowing him to avoid answering the question.

Petrol?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any petrol on Facebook?

Keep the Aspidistra Flying

[paiute]

Bush on Facebook? I feel like I am a character trapped in an Orwell novel still in its first revision.

Grammar overload

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason this story reminds me of a rare error message I got the other day

There are too many spelling or grammatical errors in "Filename.docx" to continue displaying them. ..."

Rarely is the questioned asked

[airfoobar]

Is our children learning?

Re:Rarely is the questioned asked

[c0lo]

Is our children learning?

No, they aren't. They will still continue to use FB, in spite of another proof of predatory behavior: Bush will be there to sell his book.

Re:Rarely is the questioned asked

[airfoobar]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+our+children+learning%3F

Too obscure, perhaps?

Re:Rarely is the questioned asked

[ConceptJunkie]

Our children is learning... and they will grow up and gather from all 57 states (even those who speak Austrian) to serve their country in the military by becoming corpsemen. And on Memorial Day we will gather around and offer thanks to those fallen members of the military among us. Unless it's above our pay grade, in which case we can treat asthma with a breathalyzer.

Re:Rarely is the questioned asked

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Is our children learning?

At least one is not.

Re:Rarely is the questioned asked

[LynnwoodRooster]

Truly epic, sir, truly epic - well done!

Re:Rarely is the questioned asked

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL!!!!!!! Holy shit, man! You're a fucking comic genius. How the fuck did you link to lmgtfy.com AND include the search query?! I can do that if I link to google.com, but not lmgtfy.com... Man, this is like the first time I've ever seen that one. Would be even funnier if it was lmfgtfy.com and you included the word "FUCKING" "let me" and "Google".

You're fucking brilliant, man!

Re:Rarely is the questioned asked

[airfoobar]

Why, thank you. I'm proud to have appealed to a sense of humour as refined as yours.

I hope he's prepared!

[scjohnno]

He'd better make sure he has the Shoe-Dodging app.

Re:I hope he's prepared!

[mardicas]

Get it now only 19.99!!!

History is kind to presidents

[martas]

My prediction for most common question: "Mr. President! Mr. President! How did you manage to be so super-awesome that people over the entire political spectrum, from tree-hugging hippies to gun-toting Alabama rednecks, wanted to blow you day and night?"

Re:History is kind to presidents

[SargentDU]

That sounds like a Bill Clinton question to me. The blowing part-that is. Haw Haw

Re:History is kind to presidents

[multipartmixed]

I think his answer would be "rufies"

No need

[Don_dumb]

I'd just ask him who *was* making the decisions.

As I assume it was one of the grown-ups.

Discussion?

[setheb]

It's almost amazing what passes as a discussion these days.

Interview on facebook?

[Whammy666]

He should be doing the interview from a prison cell, awaiting trial for war crimes.

Re:Interview on facebook?

[DigiShaman]

But we must never have trials for the real despots of the world. Because that would me invading countries to go get them. So when we finally do, it's the paladin who's ultimately the criminal even if it's a failed attempt? Now you understand why western civilization is doomed.

I

Re:Interview on facebook?

[KiloByte]

Sadly, even though the cause of the war is known to be falsified, there is no direct proof Bush indeed ordered that -- even though the contrary would be ridiculous.

If you want a clear-cut case, it's FISA warrantless wiretapping -- which is a federal felony to which he admitted. And paid no consequences, even though he should be sitting in prison -- preferably in the same cell as Obama who ordered the wiretapping to continue.

No softballs, please.

[Renderer of Evil]

Ask for his opinion about Farmville Subsidies.

Re:No softballs, please.

[Legion303]

No fair asking questions designed to trap idiots, liberal media!

Facebook

[Andrewkov]

One more reason I don't have a Facebook account...

Re:Facebook

[noidentity]

One more reason I don't have a Facebook account...

Even infinity reaches its limit at some point.

Re:Facebook

[Amorymeltzer]

For fear of running into ex-world leaders, or for fear of old white guys "reaching out" to young people?

Re:Facebook

[Concerned Onlooker]

Yeah, but it would be worth it to get one just to unfriend him. Or whatever it is one does on Facebook.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[sco08y]

Can't see this over the Internet, but I assume you've got a teabag tied on your ear and a "LISTEN TO ME" sign in your hand.

Well, I definitely don't; I'm a Buckley conservative. But it's pretty funny to listen to liberals trying to claim the Tea Party is nuts.

The Tea Party was formed out of anger with Bush on a broad but specific issue: excessive government spending, which was then compounded by Obama's actions. And it is far more bipartisan than establishment liberals care to acknowledge.

Bush derangement syndrome started when Bush was a candidate; the NAACP ran an ad in 2000 claiming that electing him would be like dragging James Byrd through the streets of Texas. BDS is most prominent among the truther movements, and of course includes execrable characters like Julian Assange.

There's really nothing to defend about BDS because there aren't really any coherent arguments. It's basically all the things the liberals claim the Tea Party is. I'll take the Tea Partiers, who are merely amiably chaotic, over people the left gets to hang out with any day.

Leaders (even former ones) should answer for

[Anonymous Coward]

The messes they make (or made): "With great power comes great responsibility", right?

Well, part of said responsibility is owning your own mistakes that occurred beneath your leadership... but, not in "KORPORATE AMERIKA", apparently.

(Or is someone here going to say that the USA did great during his leaderhip also and is now doing great AFTER Bush's tenure as the president, and thus the leader, of the USA?)

They've left such a mess after Bush that we have what we have now.

Is it possible to clean it up? I don't know!

However, as 1 example, is the unemployment rates (which are still bad). Imo, that's JUST how "they" want it too. After all - exports to China will STILL sell our goods... right? Wrong. There was no buying public on this planet like in the US, but only problem is - how are you going to buy goods &/or services if you don't have disposable income because all you have is a "hand-to-mouth" paying job??

The job picture is horrible out there what with all the offshoring (which that particular mess is just what "KORPORATE AMERIKA" loves, and so do republicans - keep the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer (because the poor now have masses of middle class joining them)). This particularly affects the IT sector which ought to be of note to people here on /. of all places online.

Everyone knows the middle class is being eroded (all the "FOR SALE" signs on homes in suburbia and otherwise show us all this as 1 indicator thereof), and this is the sure-fire way to do it - toss away the GOOD paying jobs that the now disappearing middle class had, and replace them at 1/10th (or less) of the wage being paid out to said former middle class and pay for offshore workers instead at a much lower wage.

That's all so that wealthy people (stockholders) keep making a quarterly dividend, and so they can buy up the homes going up on the auction block. It also makes the rest of us "slaves" with NO ability to choose (and choose a number of things).

Any fool knows that if you destroy the middle class, economically, all you have is the wealthy class running the show on all levels. It's being done, alongside our "inalienable constitutional rights" being torn apart and thrown away right as we speak, every day.

Nice legacy you left Mr. Bush. Funny, but Mr. Clinton actually left a surplus in the budget (even after his republican predecessors), and what did Bush do w/ said surplus? He - he ate it up, for "military industrial complex" spending (waste is more like it), and made it worse than ever!

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

Everyone I've ever talked to who thinks the Tea Partiers are nuts know absolutely nothing about them and are just parroting the MSM and each other.

Are there nuts among the Tea Partiers? There are nuts in every political movement, but I'd like to see a comparison of the fringe content of any Tea Party Rally with any similar liberal protest or gathering. In comparison, they are probably very tame.

BDS is real and amazing exercise in mouth-foaming bigotry and childish petulance coming from people who otherwise claim to be tolerant. There's nothing wrong with disliking President Bush and what he did, even strongly. That's not only your right, but your duty as a concerned citizen if you feel that way.

What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man. I would imagine the hooded thugs at Klan rallies would just shakes their heads sadly at one of their own acting the way too many people act regarding President Bush (along with Sarah Palin and a few others targeted by the left for derision and scorn.)

As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush, I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that.

Disagreement, dislike, protest, and harsh criticism are all legitimate and honorable actions to take in politics, but the unbridled hatred I've seen directed against President Bush (or any politician, or any _person_ for that matter) has no place in civilized society.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[tehcyder]

But it's pretty funny to listen to liberals trying to claim the Tea Party is nuts.

For those of us outside the US, it's absolutely fucking hilarious to listen to right wingers trying to claim the Tea Party isn't nuts.

Friend Me!

[Anonymous Coward]

He heard that facebook is how you get friends -- I'm not sure this is going to work the way he planned.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but you are way off. Just look at the candidates of the Tea Party. It is not just a minority in the Tea Party that is nuts. They let people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell represent the party. You don't let yourself represent by a whacko if you are not totally out there too. You cannot argue that the majority is well informed and reasonable if they allow Sarah Palin to be their spokesperson.

Briefs or boxers?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what everyone wants to know: briefs of boxers?

Re:Briefs or boxers?

[Concerned Onlooker]

We already know it's boxers. He never could get past the security briefs.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

"What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man."

Exactly! Just because he's responsible for over 100,000 deaths in an illegal war, we shouldn't forget what a nice moron he is.

I say we waterboard Bush and Cheney

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Let's see how those bastards like it.

Has to be on Facebook

[burris]

Bush's public appearances will have to be on Facebook because if he leaves the country he'll be arrested for ordering the invasion of a sovereign nation and the torture of people.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. For those of us in the US, it's just plain scary.

Actually, should be scary for you too. We'll go to prison camps if we masturbate.

They'll just bomb you.

"Decision Points" - is there a shittier book name?

[unity100]

it feels like "Commentation Fixtures". or, "Movement Cornishes" ...

are there any book names that re shittier than this ?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

Ah, yes. Two more targets of the MSM and liberals for derision and scorn above and beyond the call of reasonable criticism.

O'Donnell may be a dingbat, but Nancy Pelosi has been making dingbat comments for some 30 years or more in Congress and the left never seems to mind. Or any of dozens of others in the House and Senate who make Sarah Palin sound like a Rhodes scholar...

You need to get out of your liberal echo chamber and learn the truth that not everyone who disagrees with you is either nuts or evil.

We're supposed to be better than that.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I've read Musashi, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli. All of them claim that the end justifies the means. However, we claim as Americans to be better than that. We claim to believe in that every human being possesses certain inalienable rights by virtue of his humanity. We cannot espouse such an ideal while also claiming that in war the end justifies the means. The two are contradictory.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[russotto]

All of them claim that the end justifies the means. However, we claim as Americans to be better than that. We claim to believe in that every human being possesses certain inalienable rights by virtue of his humanity. We cannot espouse such an ideal while also claiming that in war the end justifies the means. The two are contradictory.

Sometimes the end does justify the means, or (if you're into feeling guilty) at least excuse it. If the alternatives are to use only acceptable means and be defeated by an enemy which is evil to the core, or use means you'd otherwise find unacceptable and prevail, the means are justified by the end of preventing such a defeat. You can counter that this makes you "just like" the enemy, but it doesn't. It moves you in that direction, but there's still a vast gulf between otherwise decent people who commit horrific acts in extreme situations, and any of the many examplars of evil history has provided.

And no, I don't think the torture of prisoners at Guantanemo was such a situation.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[bluefoxlucid]

However, we claim as Americans to be better than that. We claim to believe in that every human being possesses certain inalienable rights by virtue of his humanity. We cannot espouse such an ideal while also claiming that in war the end justifies the means. The two are contradictory.

Fools claim that they are "above such immoral and inhumane practices" while they stand aside impotently and allow thousands of innocents to die.

I am above killing people. If I see a suicide bomber entering a high school, should I take the moral high ground and stay out of it? Or should I pull a glock from my hip holster and put a bullet in the back of his head? That's murder, isn't it?

I am a a fan of Morihei Ueshiba. Still, you need to understand that the world is neither black and white nor conveniently built to fit your strange and mystical conception of ethics. The ends justify the means when all other means lead to worser ends. Warriors are engaged in the eternal struggle for life: when we stop fighting, we allow death, both of ourselves and of those who rely on us for protection.

We must attack our enemies directly; those who attack innocents as a form of morale pressure are cowards (we call them "terrorists," but let's have the truth eh?), even below those who simply raze the land of life as conquest. If our best means to prevent such villains from taking more lives is to beat information out of hostile captives with key knowledge, then you can take comfort in the fact that they are cowards and will not stand for long when faced with their own nightmares.

To put things straight, Musashi, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli also fantasized about a state military machine wholly concerned with the welfare of the state and the people in it. In other words, they didn't account for nightmare situations like Orwell described in 1984. We are afraid of torture because we foolishly believe that we won't have the Ministry of Love if we ban torture; but if that situation happens, we will have whatever it takes for such a party to stay in power, including underground re-education facilities.

Finally I ask: do the means justify the ends? See my above scenario about murdering a suicide bomber. Also consider: if you know the intelligence a particular captive possesses can save the lives of hundreds of civilians, are you justified in preventing the extraction of information from that captive by any means necessary? You have saved him pain and suffering, at the cost of hundreds of lives. Where is your moral high ground now?

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Did anybody ever tell you that you resemble Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men?

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[jahudabudy]

and be defeated by an enemy which is evil to the core

Yes, that is the first step in justifying any action against the enemy - dehumanizing them. When they aren't human beings, but rather evil incarnate, of course you are justified in any means necessary to defeat them! Odd how the opposition takes the exact same stance...

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[jahudabudy]

Where is your moral high ground now?

You make one completely unjustified assumption - complete knowledge. Very few people will suggest that when the decision is between an atrocity and a greater atrocity, one should forgo being the perpetrator of the lesser atrocity in order to have "clean hands". That is seldom the decision, however. It is most often a decision between committing what you know to be an atrocity in order to maybe prevent a possible future atrocity. A line must be drawn. Most would condone shooting your hypothetical suicide bomber when it becomes extremely likely he is going to murder thousands, minutes before he does so. Those exact same people would NOT condone murdering him as a 6 year old child, when the possibility that he will murder thousands is extremely tiny.

The problem is that we seem to be pushing that line back. Things we would not have condoned 40 years ago when the threat was objectively much greater are suddenly acceptable. The threat from modern terrorism is less than the threat from the Cold War, yet we as a people seem much more wiling to compromise our own ideals (i.e. humanity). It's interesting you mention the word cowards - my personal suspicion is that the terrorists have been quite successful in terrorizing us, and our own fears are what are fueling the direction we are going in.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

The bastards responsible for 9/11 weren't demons. They were human beings who couldn't find decent jobs, couldn't get laid, and lived in an unstable and authoritarian society. These conditions made them vulnerable to being manipulated by anybody who offered them an explanation for their misery and a target for their rage.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[bluefoxlucid]

I also make the assertion that things are not black and white: you are dealing with terrorist sects whom we know are planning large-scale murder. You are dealing with a known high-level strategic commander with large amounts of useful intelligence. There is an implied line between "gathering information" and "saving lives" here, although it has not yet taken solid form.

Let's talk about Go for a moment. In Go, you build shapes, vague outlines, influence. Sometimes you wall your opponent in through stones vaguely connected by the large keima (long knight's move) with neighboring support. A direct attack won't allow your opponent to cut your stones, and you can collapse and kill these stones now; however, to do so immediately is a waste of moves, and allows your opponent to play elsewhere and gain a stronger position.

To deal with this, you must make the (correct) judgment to come back here later; instead, play elsewhere to retain influence and try to keep sente. While you do this, however, you must keep an eye on the whole board position: friendly stones near your opponent's now-surrounded group may provide a way for your opponent to cut, and now your stones are in danger. Only those of high skill can recognize precisely when to connect and when to play elsewhere; and even then, the exact moment isn't entirely sure, and a better player may in fact make the cut and escape, or may take a better move when you attempt to connect early due to a perceived threat.

Once it is clear that that the enemy threatens to cut that line (i.e. make the gathering of information immaterial such that it won't save any lives), it is too late to act; yet it is extremely difficult to give a precise explanation of WHEN that moment passes and WHAT conditions show that it is time to act. These subtleties are difficult enough in Go; but when dealing with military intelligence, human torture, and warfare in general, it becomes nigh impossible. One day the imperative to know what a man knows becomes so important, so immediate, that you MUST beat it out of him; but how long can he stand to the torture? How willing is he to lie at first? How long will it take to confirm, recognize the lies, and then either work from that point to complete the truth or go back and beat the truth from him?

The question of "what" is easy. One man holds intelligence, the liberation of which will save lives. This is absolute fact: if every captured enemy talked freely, we would have a concrete plan of continuously taking prisoners-of-war as major assets. The cold war was practically won by one defector; World War 2 was won ENTIRELY by a handful of defected German scientists (so the history books say...). We KNOW the value of information.

What you are asking is the question of "when." When do we need to torture these people? When is the information they hold so damned important that we need to beat, burn, and drug it out of them? When do we need to start in order to get past their mental defenses--how long does it take to break the individual?

Military strategy is a very fine and intricate game. It unfortunately costs lives. More unfortunately, military leaders and the general public are short-sighted: the ends justify the means when we sacrifice hundreds of lives TODAY to save thousands TOMORROW, and complete RESISTANCE to terrorism would be our most effective weapon. When hostages are taken, we should abandon the welfare of the hostages; stop trying to negotiate with terrorists, go kill them and bring back the survivors. Some will die, too bad. When they realize that we will fight them at every turn, they will leave off their ineffective terror strategy. Unfortunately, we can't see letting a few people die ever any different from extracting intelligence by torture: it's so horrible and inhumane not to fight for every life, even if the fight only puts more lives in danger and loses thousands more in the long run.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[StikyPad]

The unknown is much more frightening than the known. The Cold War had a known enemy with (mostly) known tactics, though the unknown factor certainly kicked in to high gear during McCarthy's inquisition. (Anyone could be a communist! As if minority political opinions were a) somehow a threat to democracy, not to mention b) unworthy of consideration IN a democracy, no less.)

The "War on Terror" is far more abstract and ambiguous than the Cold War ever was, and the more ambiguous the threat, the more easily otherwise irrational (re)actions can be justified. "They're plotting to destroy us!" Who are "they"? Well, we don't know. How could they possibly destroy us or, in fact, do anything other than bloody our noses? Well, we don't know that either, but we have very active imaginations, and they probably do too!

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[bluefoxlucid]

The "War on Terror" is far more abstract and ambiguous than the Cold War ever was, and the more ambiguous the threat, the more easily otherwise irrational (re)actions can be justified. "They're plotting to destroy us!" Who are "they"? Well, we don't know. How could they possibly destroy us or, in fact, do anything other than bloody our noses? Well, we don't know that either, but we have very active imaginations, and they probably do too!

This is ridiculous. Warriors do not swing swords at shadows; they swing swords at assassins that come out of the shadows. Stop swinging your sword at the shadows; it makes you a pathetically easy target. The shadows are harmless, even when assassins are hiding in them; deal with the assassins when they find the courage to come out and face you.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

For starters, underground movements will use cell organization to prevent captured members from giving everything up. Also, they will use fluid plans that can be changed at a moments notice once they're compromised. I agree with you on the value of information, but completely disagree on the overwhelming value you seem to think captured terrorist cell members can provide.

Also, you wrote:

The cold war was practically won by one defector; World War 2 was won ENTIRELY by a handful of defected German scientists (so the history books say...). We KNOW the value of information.

Huh? Citation please? It sounds like a load of bull to me. The cold war wasn't "won" by any defector I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, the cold war was lost by both sides. The Soviet Union is broken up, but Russia itself is currently completely controlled by former KGB and their cronies. Meanwhile, the USA is spiraling towards potential economic collapse, or at the very least decades of economic feebleness and a loss of influence in world affairs and this downward spiral all seems to have started with the massive growth of government and the military due to the cold war. As for WW2, I was always under the impression that it was won by overwhelming hordes of angry, double crossed Russians along with a coalition of nations from all over the globe beating down the German offensive and defensive capability until they had no hope left? Or do you mean the end of the pacific branch of that war when Japan surrendered? Because if you're talking about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's probably true that they brought about a quick surrender, but the Japanese were already essentially defeated and faced the very real possibility of an invasion by overwhelming hordes of angry Russians if they didn't surrender to someone soon.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[ifiwereasculptor]

Some will die, too bad. When they realize that we will fight them at every turn, they will leave off their ineffective terror strategy.

Problem: the ones you call "terrists" are thinking exactly the same.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[russotto]

Yes, that is the first step in justifying any action against the enemy - dehumanizing them. When they aren't human beings, but rather evil incarnate, of course you are justified in any means necessary to defeat them!

There are people out there who would kill you for your beliefs. Enslave you for being of the wrong color, or of the wrong religion. Abuse you for being the wrong sex. Torture you for the sheer fun of it. Some of those people control nations and armies. If you don't want to believe that's evil, you're just a fool.

Odd how the opposition takes the exact same stance...

That two sides take symmetrical opposing stances does not mean both are wrong.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we please stop quoting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution because we all damn well know they hold no value in today's society. And yes, the ends justify the means as long as there is an utilitarianism outcome.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

We claim to believe in that every human being possesses certain inalienable rights by virtue of his humanity.

No you dont. You claim that every American does. Remember, there are 2 kinds of human: Americans and Non-Americans (trans. people and non-people).

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[bluefoxlucid]

The German nuclear scientists were mainly Jews. Besides constantly fleeing Germany at any chance they got, even the ones that stayed also refused to build a bomb; they convinced the party that a bomb would be difficult and infeasible, but nuclear power would allow them to upscale gas-to-liquid and coal-to-liquid production so as to supply enough fuel for their airforce to overwhelm the world.

Germany wanted nuclear power because the scientists there did NOT want Germany to have nuclear bombs; had they not defected, had they admitted a bomb would have such unbelievable weight on the war as to bring them victory in a single sweeping blow to London as a warning to the rest of the world, Germany may have developed H-Bombs in 3-5 years while the world still feared their nuclear arsenal. They WOULD have developed an H-Bomb in under a decade; it's too easy.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[bluefoxlucid]

No, because when terrorists attack us they create terror. America spends billions of dollars in response to a ten thousand dollar attack. The American people accept anal probes and X-rays and wire taps because they fear terrorists. Our country is still generally held together, with a gentle undertone of mass hysteria.

It's like beating a dog. The dog is slightly frightened, and you beat it more until it listens you. If you beat the dog and it gets angry, you run away. After you do this a dozen times, the dog starts to not like you the moment you show up. Eventually you realize this is a bad idea and the dog is not listening to you, and then you are afraid of the dog.

Re:We're supposed to be better than that.

[StikyPad]

It is ridiculous, yes. It wasn't my intent to defend the position, just to explain it.

Waterboarding isn't torture?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Tell that to Christopher Hitchens.

Re:Waterboarding isn't torture?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to, but I can't seem to get an appointment.

Question nr. 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you, Mr. President, a doofus?

Funny sign someone put up related to his book

[rcb1974]

We have some activist neighbors here in Ithaca, NY. They put out a sign in their front yard for motorists to see. It says, "Have you heard about Bush's new novel?"

My question

[qmaqdk]

In hindsight, failing to prevent 9/11, invading Iraq under false pretenses, and ending with the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression, do you think you did a good job as President of the United States?

Re:My question

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm....

Those terrorists were in the country for years prior to Bush's term. Do you think we should blame Clinton?

Iraq was allowed to push around UN inspectors and peace keeping forces for years without so much as a whisper from Clinton. Do you think we should blame him?

It's well known that the beginnings of the deregulation that led to shady lending on the part of banks was done under Clintons watch. Why not hold him accountable?

The bottom line is that both parties played their roll in these issues. You're going well out of your way to simplify it as much as possible and in the end you look like a fool for doing it.

Re:My question

[Doc Ruby]

Republican fool:

Clinton's administration warned Bush/Cheney that the Qaeda were going to attack soon, because Clinton's administration was actively tracking and working against the Qaeda (despite a Republican Congress waving a blue dress to interfere with bombing Qaeda camps). But Bush/Cheney dismissed those warnings, and stopped protecting us from the Qaeda. Even during 2001 Clinton holdovers and the continuing intel showed a specific attack was about to be made, and Bush/Cheney ignored it. After the attack, Bush/Cheney were interested only in how it could be used to attack Iraq. Bush/Cheney counterattacked the Qaeda only enough to mobilize the military in Iraq. Bush/Cheney let Binladen escape, even when he was within reach. So there is some blame for Clinton's failure to destroy the Qaeda. But the amount of blame for Bush/Cheney is vastly larger, especially since during Clinton's efforts the Qaeda managed to attack only one warship and two embassies. Bush/Cheney's watch saw devastating attacks in the US, and even more devastating bad responses to them.

Clinton continuously bombed Iraq during his term, which is why Iraq did not have WMD when Bush/Cheney attacked them under those lies in 2001. UN inspectors reported correctly that there were no WMD. This is your biggest fool lie.

The beginnings of the bank deregulation were made law in 1998 by the Republican Congress, led by Phil Gramm (R-TX) who in 2008 was McCain's unrepentant economic advisor, while that Congress was pressuring the president with (baseless) impeachment. Clinton deserves some blame for signing that law anyway, but under his watch the deregulation did what was promised: grew the actual wealth of the economy across most economic bands. When Bush/Cheney started managing it, and advancing it, it went totally out of control. For 8 long years they could have changed the regulations or just managed it better, but instead they sent it even more crazy. So again, Clinton deserves some blame, but vastly more blame for Bush/Cheney.

You are the fool who has simplified it more than possible to say "both parties were equal", when Bush/Cheney were vastly more to blame, and entirely to blame for actually letting it happen.

You Republicans are so crazy, evil and stupid that you'll tell these impossible lies over and over, and continue believing them yourselves.

Re:My question

[Rockoon]

I guess you missed the part where the rest of the world also thought that Iraq had WMD .. convinced enough to keep sending inspectors there, for an entire decade, looking for them.

Re:My question

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, I missed that because it didn't happen. Other countries, or rather the UN (which you Republicans always hate, except when you claim it backs you up), sent inspectors because that's how Iraq was kept from making WMD. Which is how we knew that there were no WMD. Which is what the UN reports said. Which is what so many people in America, and so many foreign governments said.

But you Republicans don't care. Bush said so, so everyone said so. And that's why we found WMD, saved the world, and the US is doing so well.

Re:My question

[Rockoon]

Why dont you know this?

Iraq admitted to growing 19,000 liters of botulism, 8,000 liters of anthrax, and and 2,000 liters of aflatoxins during the period after the first Gulf war, but only when presented with pretty much concrete evidence by UNSCOM that they did so.

This was all during repeated endless obstructions to the search teams, which did not find these WMD's.

You sir, like to revise history. If you want to live in a dishonest view of reality that is your business. The rest of the world believed that Iraq had WMD's because Saddam gave the world every reason to believe so. Not only did they manufacturer WMD's after the first Gulf War, at least some of it was eventually admitted to, presented, and destroyed.. but only when faced with irresistible proof that they existed.

Let me repeat.. the search teams failed to find those WMD's that did exist, that were manufactured after the first gulf war, that were hidden by the obstructions of Iraq, but eventually admitted to.

Re:My question

[OneAhead]

I can confirm this. I was living in a western-european country (no, not France) when it happened, and our media (who aren't puppets of the military-industrial establishment) reported things a whole lot different. Everyone in my country knew that Iraq had no WMDs left by 2003, because of the combined effort of the Clinton administration and the UN. And we knew that the Iraqi Ba'ath regimen never had any links to Al Quaeda, they even brutally repressed them. We watched with astonishment how the American media - completely critique-less of the Bush presidency since 9/11 - brainwashed the American public into believing it was a good idea to abandon the search for Bin Laden, abandon the fragile recovery process in Afghanistan, and start an baseless war in Iraq. Our government opposed the "eighteenth resolution", a standpoint backed by an overwhelming majority of our population, only to see Bush form a "coalition of the delusional". We saw it all coming, from start to finish. Analysts in our media warned us that taking Iraq would be the easy part, but that it would sink into chaos and become a true breeding ground for terrorists. That a very strong commitment was needed to make Afghanistan stable and secure, and that a second war would be detrimental. We all saw it coming years ahead. We were very upset about the things "America" was doing, and how "America" wouldn't listen to the voice of the international community; I can imagine that American tourists would probably have received a slightly less warm welcome than in other periods of history.

Now the thing you should know is I'm not talking about France - in fact my story would apply to any country in Western Europe except the UK, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria and (depending on which criterion you're using) Poland and the Czech republic. And the rest of the world was similarly mostly opposed to going to war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War
Which brings us to the following piece of advice for GP: if you ever want any hope of making a true statement about "the world", the first thing you should do is radically stop viewing any American media - most of them are rotten to the core. Start with the BBC website as a primary news source. Or, just for the sake of experiment, try that other "biased" outlet, Al-Jazeera. You'll be surprised how little bias they have compared to, say, Fox News.

100% incorrect.

[khasim]

Only certain questions will be selected and they will probally be ones he already has an answer prepared for.

You think that this will be a sham?

Son, you don't know what a sham is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

The questions and answers are already written.
The people tasked with "asking" those "questions" already have their Facebook accounts created.
Leave NOTHING to chance.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[teamhasnoi]

Tea Partiers might be perfectly sane, but when you're that willfully ignorant about *everything*, anybody's going to look crazy.

As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush, I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that.

Really? You've seen enough rage against Bush to name/quote an invented disorder about it, but 'just haven't seen any evidence' of the Right's ridiculous, over-the-top, impotent rage over having a black 'liberal' man as president? The Facebook pages, the chain emails, the snippets of AM talk radio, the hand-painted signs, the mass-produced bumper stickers, and completely context-free anti-Obama comments that just "pop-up" when talking about other, politics-free subjects, like say, the weather?

You lose your keys when they're in your hand, don't you?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

You don't have good reading comprehension, do you?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[icebraining]

Yeah, it's odd how people feel strongly when someone starts a war which hundreds of thousands of people. What's up with that?

I mean, I don't especially appreciate any of your last presidents, Obama included, but G.W.B. was more than simply a bad president.

Are you sure...

[nookalan]

....Its going to be W that answers questions, not Dick Cheney.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Saint Stephen]

You have violated the rules of Slashthink. The pre-programmed mods will respond in an automatic fashion.

Replace waterboarding with sodomy.

[khasim]

Funny, sodomy is the only form of "torture" that Marines do to each other on weekends for fun. Not even remotely kidding. I was in the Marines, and I have friends who sodomized each other for fun.

You know, while that may be true, it does not really support your implied statement.

I don't care if your friends do it to each other for fun. If you don't have a problem with it being done to unwilling participants then there is something wrong with you.

Re:Replace waterboarding with sodomy.

[sorak]

Funny, sodomy is the only form of "torture" that Marines do to each other on weekends for fun. Not even remotely kidding. I was in the Marines, and I have friends who sodomized each other for fun.

You know, while that may be true, it does not really support your implied statement.

I don't care if your friends do it to each other for fun. If you don't have a problem with it being done to unwilling participants then there is something wrong with you.

Sad how GP's activity is perfectly legal, consensual or otherwise, but your hypothetical marine's is illegal under any circumstance. (Although I do wonder if it would be closer to legal if they did it to unwilling prisoners and then pretended not to enjoy it).

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The slobbering fools are about to be unleashed

Can't see this over the Internet, but I assume you've got a teabag tied on your ear and a "LISTEN TO ME" sign in your hand.

QED

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[teamhasnoi]

Please, enlighten me. You said, "I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that."

I said, and I paraphrase, "WTF, dood. It's everywhere. Open remaining eye, and take spoon out of cup."

Wouldn't George ...

[PPH]

... be more appropriate on FacePalm?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[machinder]

Then you're not paying attention. Threats on the president's life have skyrocketed since Obama took office. Right wing politicians fantasize about "second amendment remedies." There was a national day of prayer for his death.

You're wilfully remaining ignorant if you truly believe that there was more venom directed agains Bush than against Obama.

I know that Americans tend not to care what the rest of the world thinks about your country, but most of us think your tea partiers are nuts. Here's this wishy-washy, do-little centrist president, and you lot are going on and on about his socialist communist tyranny? And you invite open racists from European nationalist organisations to speak, but then claim the Tea Party isn't racist. Your infrastructure is crumbling because no one has the political will to use tax dollars to fix it, but you're Taxed Enough Already? We all think you're nuts.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush, I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him.

You're either blind and deaf, or lying. While calling you a liar is much more satisfying, I don't know you from Adam, so I'll just assume you just don't know any better and note that the number of death threats Obama received has been 400% more than Bush; there have been active calls for imprecatory prayer against him, and I have seen more than one billboard say 'do it to him before he does it to us.' Somehow, I don't think 'do it to him before he does it to us' means 'give him universal health care.' And what are we to make of signs with Obama's family quoting a certain verse in Psalms that goes 'And may his children be orphans and may his wife be a widow?'

Yeah. Real classy. And not at ALL wishing physical harm on him. Nope.

So, which was it? Blind and deaf, or lying?

P.S. Just because liberals are no longer putting up with your shit and calling you out when you're being an asshat doesn't mean they're intolerant. It just means they're no longer putting up with your shit.

Re:"Decision Points" - is there a shittier book na

[formfeed]

He wants to be remembered as the Deciderer, so "Decision Points" is a fully adequatious choice of book entitlement.

Re:Can we give Wedgies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're being facetious to underline your point, but the best intel we've ever gotten has been from when we treated prisoners and 'persons of interest' professionally and did nothing more than talk with them. [Citation needed] but it's not that hard to find. Look up how we got information from German officers during the Second World War.

Kalid Sheik Mohammed spilled his guts before the Agency put him on a board. They got information from him by talking with him. No useful or actionable information was obtained from any prisoner or person of interest by using torture/"enhanced interrogation."

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[shutdown -p now]

Your problem is that you throw the word "liberal" around way too much as if it was some kind of insult. To begin with, there's nothing in GP's post that even indicates him as a liberal. He could just as well be a libertarian, for example.

not everyone who disagrees with you is either nuts or evil.

An advice you should consider applying to yourself.

Re:"Decision Points" - is there a shittier book na

[unity100]

Decisioner pointerers, then ....

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[funkyloki]

He may have been a bad president, but he made a great puppet!

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[fredjh]

For those of you outside the country, that's not surprising, seeing as how everything you've heard about them has been reported by the left wing mainstream media.

I got the shock of my life

[Chrisq]

I misread it as "Facebook has just announced that George W. Bush is going to be president on November 29th".

I thought that either we were stuck in a time warp or America was having some kind of Republican coup. The really bad thing is I couldn't make up my mind which would be worse.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

And liberals never associate with open racists?

I'd make a list, but it would take hours and surely go beyond the limits of a /. comment length.

Your infrastructure is crumbling because no one has the political will to use tax dollars to fix it, but you're Taxed Enough Already? We all think you're nuts.

Maybe because they are using those tax dollars to do pointless things that waste the money and fail to do any good. If the U.S. government and the States can't keep things going with close to half the GDP of the richest nation in the world, isn't it time to think the people in charge are incompetent?

Well, I guess not if you're a statist. Blind faith in government is what's nuts.

Bush or a c

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more interested to see if Bush can pass the Turing test.

Like

[gsslay]

"...now watch this drive."

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

"okay, now you've covered you ass"... [so that the] smoking gun won't be in the form of a mushroom cloud... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED... "heckuva job, brownie"...

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Doc Ruby]

Even if Pelosi were a "dingbat", that has nothing to do with how crazy are Palin and O'Donnell. No one can make Palin sound like a Rhodes scholar.

Meanwhile, "dingbat" Pelosi has successfully managed the House Speaker office for 4 years. You say she's a "dingbat" because you disagree with her. But you just demonstrated that your logic and evaluation skills don't qualify you to accuse someone else of being a dingbat.

You're just like the rest of the Teabaggers: you exploit an audience's fairness in letting you speak to say anything, no matter how nonsensical, to attack your enemies. Right down to accusing in one sentence your enemies of precisely what you just did yourself in the sentence before it. Nuts and evil.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[thijsh]

For those of us outside the US, all US politics are fucking hilarious.

FTFY

Facebook Live?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is "Facebook Live"? I thought everything on Facebook is more or less live.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Doc Ruby]

That huge Fox News and Murdoch's global sister corps is "the left wing mainstream media"?

You Republicans are so insane that you think people believe such a crude and childish lie.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[dbIII]

What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man

There's a lot of dead Americans that will never come back from Iraq and he's never been able to tell us why apart from his dance on the deck of a carrier in a clown suit. It's amazing that there is so little rage. However you'll find like many times in the past that the "fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination" is just angry words like Rush Limbaugh talking about killing Chavez. If you put a gun in his hands and put them in the same room do you really think he would do it?

Re:Are death squads torture?

[Concerned Onlooker]

Let's not forget Honduras during Reagan's rule, when he supported right wing death squads down there. How quickly people forget...

Too Late

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, way too announce this so freaken late,

  It would have been great to have 500 Million people show there disgust for the worlds biggest terrorist and delete their Facebook accounts

Bush belongs on a noose just like saddam, he is no different in any way shape or form

WAKE UP

Mr. President! Mr. President!

[orphiuchus]

What do you think about Snooki's latest legal trouble!? And what is your opinion on the rumors of 3 new Star Wars films!?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

Which GP would that be? The "Buckley conservative" or the one that made comments about "tea bags" and other silly insults.

I think it's reasonable to assume that you don't think I was referring to the "Buckley conservative".

In case you haven't noticed, the Tea Partiers are strongly libertarian, which is one of the reasons the Republicans, who are just another flavor of "big government" types were vert leery of them.

I think it's reasonable to assume the GP _is_ a liberal because he's bashing TP'ers while presenting no argument or facts, which is the usual liberal response.

Torture

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he going to answer why he tortured us personnel to shut up about the April 2001 "deal" or why the us was attacking allied countries and saying "terrorist did it?"

Somebody should ask him if we are poising cold war 2

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[teamhasnoi]

Maybe because they are using those tax dollars to do pointless things that waste the money and fail to do any good. If the U.S. government and the States can't keep things going with close to half the GDP of the richest nation in the world, isn't it time to think the people in charge are incompetent?

Like the TSA, DHS, Border Patrol, and the astronomical amount of defense spending? I look forward to the link to your comment pointing out these failures when Bush was the head cheese.

Blind faith in government is what's nuts.

We agree on something! We probably both like ice cream too!

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

No, I say she's a dingbat because she says things that are stupid. There's a difference. If you like, I can make citations, but I doubt it will matter.

There are plenty of people with whom I disagree that aren't dingbats. Please don't project on me.

Your circular argument goes in circles.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[s-whs]

As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush, I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that.

Disagreement, dislike, protest, and harsh criticism are all legitimate and honorable actions to take in politics, but the unbridled hatred I've seen directed against President Bush (or any politician, or any _person_ for that matter) has no place in civilized society.

Give me a fooking break!

George W. Bush is one of the biggest assholes I have ever seen and anything bad anyone says about is is deserved. Don't give me the crap "unbridled hatred has no place in civilized society". If society were better oranised (and/or voters or better yet the media, less stupid) such that sociopaths like him don't get elected, then you don't have such 'problems'.

The first time I saw him on TV I knew this guy was the worst a-hole I'd ever seen as he said, when the results of the elections were being recounted etc., that Gore should give up as he wanted to continue preparing for hist term. As the vote count was close, Gore could have used the same argument! These sort of reversible arguments immediately show someone is a sociopath. And that's been proven time and again by his reactions. You want to talk about civilized society? Then talk about why such a guy is not immediately taken away unfit to 'rule' anyone. Why such a guy is allowed to stand for office anywhere in any position.

Because It Worked

[Doc Ruby]

Bush/Cheney's Iraq invasion worked very successfully. It transferred $TRILLIONS into Bush/Cheney crony hands directly from war expenses. It got them reelected despite all they'd done to harm America (including the invasion itself). It drove up the price of oil to over $100 a barrel and in the neighborhood for years, gasoline to around $3-4 a gallon, which transferred more $TRILLIONS into Bush/Cheney crony hands. It demonstrated that the president can do whatever he wants, regardless of the Constitution or even a Congressional majority and successor president of the other party. It let the very rich Saudi who actually attacked us get away while we arbitrarily made war somewhere else, pleasing Saudis who are Bush/Cheney cronies, while hiding the concession to that Saudi's only specific demand: removing US troops from Saudi Arabia. It did a favor for the apocalyptic theocrats working to take over America as the Taliban took over Afghanistan, according to the script for their crusade, so they'd keep donating money, votes, volunteers and online comments. It strengthened Iran, giving credibility to Bush/Cheney cronies who want war with Iran (for all these same reasons).

WMD? Spreading democracy? Containing a dictator? That's all just propaganda. Bush/Cheney don't care about that, except that Americans believe it long enough for the scam to work. And it worked like nothing has ever worked before.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm literally laughing out loud at this. "LIBERALLLLLLLS"

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[superdude72]

That's funny, because everyone I've listened to who *doesn't* think the Tea Partiers are nuts is breathtakingly ignorant about what is going on in the world.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Impeaching a person for lying about a blow job has no place in a civilized society, or maybe it has (just for the sake of argument) then lying about WMD's, mobile antrax truck factories, fake documents to buy 'yellow cake' uranium, etc, for personal and corporate interest, then those, should they have place in a civilized society? But oh no, undribled hatred because all of those reason and more, oh no... that's not civilized.

There's more civilzation in an illegal immigrant than in Bush junior and senior combined.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[superdude72]

Not only that, they are astonishingly uneducated about a wide array of subjects, from history to economics to science.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Chapter80]

They let people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell represent the party.

I'm not taking sides in this debate, but I am curious as to exactly how a loosely organized group like the Tea Party would go about not letting individuals "represent" them. It's not like either person that you named was elected to speak on behalf of the party. Right?

Oh wait, I am talking to A/C, which is a lot like talking to myself. Anyone have a helpful reply?

Re:Can we give Wedgies?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I know you're being facetious to underline your point

Well, it's nice to see that someone noticed that.

but the best intel we've ever gotten has been from when we treated prisoners and 'persons of interest' professionally and did nothing more than talk with them. [Citation needed] but it's not that hard to find. Look up how we got information from German officers during the Second World War.

There is a documentary about The Ritchie Boys ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritchie_Boys ). They were Jewish Germans who were in the intelligence branch of the US army, who served as translators and interrogators. One of their "shticks" was to dress one up as an American officer, and the other as a Russian Officer. The American one would start the interrogation with the German officer. Then when the German officer refused to answer questions, the "Russian" one would burst into the room, and demand to have the prisoner. The American would chase the Russian out, and told the prisoner, "look, if you don't cooperate, I will have to give you over to the Russian.

It's the classic good cop / bad cop routine, but was highly effective. And it used no physical force.

My doctor has a friend who is a psychiatrist, and discussed with me once the effectiveness of "Sleep Deprivation." The psychiatrist said that when you deprive people of sleep, their mind starts going crazy: the person is awake, but is actually dreaming. They'll tell you all kinds of nonsense, and start telling the interrogator anything he wants to hear.

A lot of intelligence in World War II was gathered by simply bugging the prisoners' quarters. When they thought that nobody was listening, they divulged vital information. One specific case was the German navigation beam "Knickebein" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knickebein ). Secret recordings of German POW pilots led the British intelligence to discover that their bombing aid was hidden in a radio in the bombers, which was much more sensitive than it had to be.

Conclusion? Try to use your brain, instead of brute force.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[LynnwoodRooster]

And what if a person considers President Obama, or Vice President Biden, or Speaker Pelosi to be whackos? Does that mean the Democrat Party is totally out there, too?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, then, introduce me to some Tea Partiers that aren't nuts. Every gathering I've witnessed, every piece of tea party media, every tea party leader, the origins of the party itself all point to the same thing. The tea party ideal is entirely a handful of conservative flavored truisms layered with a lot of yelling and draped in an American flag.

A group of people that have realized that, in America, complete dissolution from reality works as a party platform. That, and, they're eager to submit their wills to powerful people and seem glad to receive their opinions from a director rather than be burdened with critical thinking. Funny, though, that the Tea party is not an actual political party. Where does it's money come from? Are their fund raisers? Is the tea party a way to funnel vast amounts of private funds in to public elections while sidestepping election law?

This isn't 'Parroting MSM' (Don't even know what the fuck MSM is) or whatever convenient rationalization you'd love to package up. This is rational, independent, observation from objective sources. If you wonder why people keep telling you the same thing.. Sometimes a duck is a duck.

Now you'll reply. "The tea party is just X people that believe that Y. What's wrong with that?"

No. It isn't. We've heard that line. Crazy is crazy, buddy.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[windcask]

Yeah, it's odd how people feel strongly when someone starts a war which hundreds of thousands of people. What's up with that?

Simplistic platitudes make the world go 'round, i.e. "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[careysub]

That huge Fox News and Murdoch's global sister corps is "the left wing mainstream media"?

You Republicans are so insane that you think people believe such a crude and childish lie.

Let me enlighten you a bit about the American Right -- it has developed a closed culture in which the right wing platitudes carefully developed by what is now an immense propaganda industry with numerous right-wing billionaires and huge international corporations (Murdoch counts as both for example) -- are accepted as self-evident and eternal truths requiring no evidence whatsoever to support. If challenged on any point there is either flat disbelieving denial, or if a comeback is offered it is typically a single well-worn out-of-context apples-and-oranges factoid (which is often actually fictional - like Reagan's racist Cadillac welfare queen fantasy) that is drilled into the faithful.

It has become a secular religion on the right, a political cult.

Let me give a personal example. I am a leader in a youth organization (not the Boy Scouts), and on a recent camp-out heard one of the dads, surrounded by a host of youngsters, in a state of genuine fury denouncing Obama for "being the only American president to refuse to sign presidential letters of congratulations to new Eagle Scouts". This was an astonishing claim to me for many reasons (Obama was a scout himself, this is outstanding free publicity that no politician would turn down, I had never heard this from any news source, etc.) so I simply asked him where he heard this (in a casual tone of voice). The result was him turning his fury on me: how dare I question what he said! At first he said it was "everywhere" then eventually he told me that he was a scout master and could not get the letters for his Eagle Scouts. A few minutes of searching later turned up that this was a false claim circulating on the right - and the Boy Scouts own website had news releases about all the letters Obama had signed and information about submitting letter requests. A little later I learned that the Dad he was no scout master and so the claimed source of his knowledge was a lie.

Although I scrupulously avoid discussing politics with this group, had expressed no view at all about Obama, had never done anything but ask about where I could find out about this claim in a non-confrontational way, and had never even contradicted him (though I did email him the link to the BSA page about how to get the letters) , at a later gathering he made a public snarky remark about how we didn't agree on politics. Basically not instantly accepting any ridiculous assertion about Obama as Gospel proved I was an "unbeliever".

The point is - the believers don't bother to look at evidence, and take all right-wing cant as an article of faith. They not only don't realize what they say is a lie, they don't care, perhaps don't even believe that such a thing as a lie exists if it supports the right-wing world view. Even if "not factual" it is some sort of "deeper truth" (the scout master lie is probably rationalized on this basis - it was more important to convince me that his claim was true than to speak truthfully since he was serving a "higher truth").

Mr. ex President

[NoDos]

I doubt if anybody still cares about that country hick war monger who should have been hung years ago! Bush's Vietnam will go down in the History books as the biggest illegal, screwed up wars of all time! The Iraqi journalist who tossed a pair of shoes at his head should have tossed a couple of grenades instead, which would have been way more effective and would have put everybody out of their misery! Stay in Texas, you imbecile and munch on your steaks everyday! Nobody gives a rat's ass about you! You caused enough damage in your life time, so give us all a break!!

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[LynnwoodRooster]

Really? You've seen enough rage against Bush to name/quote an invented disorder about it,

At the risk of Godwin-ing the discussion, Google is your friend.

You lose your keys when they're in your hand, don't you?

About that derangement syndrome, I fear for many it also extends to anyone of an alternate political bent; I believe there is empirical data quoted right here to indicate as much.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Blakey Rat]

Oh yeah. My brother, you just mention the guy's name, and he can go for *hours*.

Sarah Palin, too. I actually kind of enjoy the Palin rage, because it has so many strange, wing-nutty reasons to hate her. Like, she "failed to support" giving away rape-kits. What the hell does "failed to support" mean? I "fail to support" a thousand things every day, 99.9% of them I never even heard of.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[windcask]

And liberals never associate with open racists?

Or are former/closet racists themselves. Let us not forget our recently departed Klan Grand Dragon Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia. Or everybody's favorite reverse racist, Attorney General Eric Holder, who doesn't think that voter intimidation laws should be applied to persons who are not white.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[windcask]

There's a lot of dead Americans that will never come back from Iraq and he's never been able to tell us why apart from his dance on the deck of a carrier in a clown suit.

If you would read the book in question, as I have, he goes into great, GREAT detail about why he did what he did. He has written thousands of letters and spent time with families of the fallen in Iraq, and he truly believed in his decision and feels the weight and responsibility of his choices. I have nothing but respect for the man. And the "Mission Accomplished" banner was an unfortunately-placed backdrop for his speech, as the "Mission Accomplished" was meant for the ship's particular mission, not the overall mission in Iraq itself.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Rockoon]

Well, as you try so hard to convince us that Obama has had more death threats than Bush.. I can't help but think "maybe thats because he is doing a worse job?"

Just some food for thought.. right?

As far as your comments about things people write on signs...

Idiot writes stupid thing on a sign.. news at 11.. only on MSNBC.

MSNBC likes showing that stuff, but its not news and it certainly isnt informative in the way you want it to be. It speaks more to the quality of MSNBC as an actual source for news than anything about the group of people you want to paint.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[sdgoat]

I guess you only watch Fox News...

In comparison, they are probably very tame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8

What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsUfbjYXBrs&feature=fvst http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8R2PDmbmA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWQHRMVBjBY

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[whoop]

I'm not sure of the first reference offhand. The "Mission Accomplished" sign was referring the the aircraft carrier's mission, the longest deployment to sea. If you read TFB, he didn't make or know of the sign until he arrived on the deck. Even so, the message of the speech was that major combat operation were now over. Saddam was ousted. So, that first mission of the war was accomplished. He went on to talk about what's happening next, cleaning up, rebuilding, maintaining order.

And the Brownie line, what do you expect him to say in a public press conference? "F-U Brownie?" Brown had overseen four hurricane relief efforts in Florida the year before, and it went well. They just weren't prepared to deal with a mayor and governor who refused to do anything, make a formal request for help, or turn over operations to FEMA. The technical parts of the law are that states are in charge of cleanup, with the feds there for backup when requested. Mississippi had no problems making such formal requests, and things went smoother.

My question...

[Anonymous Coward]

"What color Crayon should I use to complete your book?"

And a follow up...

"Is it a popup book?"

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[teadrop]

Everyone I've ever talked to who thinks the Tea Partiers are nuts know absolutely nothing about them and are just parroting the MSM and each other.

I don't think the tea party are nuts, I just think they are normal irrational people like the rest of us... OK... maybe a little be more irrational than the rest of us...

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Doc Ruby]

I find your story plausible (even if there's not going to be any evidence of it). Because I agree with you on what the rightwing culture has become, and I see plenty of instances of that kind of cult among the rightwingers I encounter, not to mention the many very public examples of it.

Except that it's not a secular religion. It's a (somewhat) non-denominational religion, in that pious Christians and Jews practice it. But it is a religious political cult. It's theocracy, even if it's largely cryptotheocracy so far. Crypto in that it denies it's theocracy when directly confronted, but when "safe" (either more privately or simply in practice if not justification) it is straight out theocracy. "Everyone must obey this rule because god says so."

Sure, the theocracy is not really religious except as a way to organize people's total behavior (rather than their moral status), but that's true of all religions. Sure, its designed with the primary value of making money and holding power, but that's true of the politics, too. It's a way of life, and it's not any more secular than was feudalism under the authority of the Vatican. Indeed, America's theocrats attend church and practice religious practices more than most feudal people did.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Doc Ruby]

Actual "Bush Derangement" is you Republicans thinking people hate Bush because of some "syndrome", instead of for the ruins he left our country and our world in. Your derangement is so extreme that you think reasonable criticism and earned anger are other people's insanity. Because you are insane.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[s73v3r]

BDS is real and amazing exercise in mouth-foaming bigotry and childish petulance coming from people who otherwise claim to be tolerant.

So what do you call what's being done to Obama by Tea Partiers and Fox News?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[s73v3r]

Blind faith in government is what's nuts.

As opposed to a blind faith in the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market"?

Ask yourself this...

[windcask]

With the 300 comments in this thread, is ANYBODY's mind changed about the man? What's the point in discussing him when you're so convinced you already know everything there is to know?

Re:Ask yourself this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I think W isn't the worst president in American history. It's just that it would be very hard to argue he's worse than Andrew Johnson, the man who repeatedly tried to surrender to the Confederacy after the Union won the Civil War. Buchanan is a tough call too, the guy who failed to halt the Civil War. After that, then to me you can look at monumental Presidential failure by category (useless wars, domestic policy, foreign policy, economic policy, civil rights, civil liberties, defense of the Constitution, etc.), and while W doesn't sweep the boards as worst in every category, he at least ranks in the worst five in every single one, a feat that probably no other president can match. So there's arguments to be made as to exactly how bad he is and I could change my mind if someone made a strong enough argument. Yep, I could change my ranking of his failure from 2nd worst president of all time to the worst, or perhaps upgrade him to only 4th or 5th worst of all time--that's a pretty big jump, don't you think?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[rah1420]

Your anecdote regarding this other dad's animus against Obama's refusal to sign Eagle Scout congratulatory letters; I'm curious why you paint all right wingers with this brush of ignorance. I am an unabashed believer in conservative values, but I'm also a thinking individual who would have no problem debunking the Eagle Scout thing. People like that give the rest of us a bad name. Frankly, if he had made a similar snarky remark about me I guess I would've been relieved that his politics were different from mine; my politics are born of considered rational thought and his are born of dogma. I will be happy to debate but I won't argue; I can't afford the time.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[hairyfeet]

Sorry dude, but the Tea Party got hijacked awhile back by the mainstream Repubs and the Dems. Didn't you get the memo? And as for crazy..Sharon Angle. I actually felt sorry for the folks of NV, as they pretty much had NO choice that didn't smell up the joint.

And before you start screaming "liberal" which I personally find funny as liberal means new ideas so I don't see how it is a dirty word, I'm actually a pro isolationist "America First" type, which sadly gets NO representation from EITHER side. Silly me in thinking that US tax dollars should be spent at home instead of propping up third world dictatorships just so some multinational can get bananas for a nickel cheaper.

As for GWB, lets be honest folks and I don't care which side you consider yourself on, here was a shitty president, full stop. He blew cash like a frat boy on a coke binge while at the same time lowering taxes and starting two wars. Can you say fiscal irresponsibility? I think you can. We had the world on our side and then he blows the post 9/11 goodwill by starting a completely uncalled for war of aggression in Iraq. Whether you supported the war in Afghanistan or not (which I did, it was pretty obvious the whole country was a training camp and frankly we should have kept going into Pakistan until we had OBL's ass drug before the US courts) without following the Constitution and declaring war, allowed the terrorists to win by using PATRIOT and other power grabs to steal the very liberties he was proclaiming to protect, hell I could go on all day. He was a truly shitty president.

And before you bring up Obama allow me to say he is also a truly shitty president, with trying to claim 50,000 troops still getting shot at is "mission accomplished" when we all know Iraq is still a giant clusterfuck, not doing anything about the security theater bullshit while we have a border so leaky you could drive a bomb on a Ryder truck through the damned thing, and in fact embracing the nastiest parts like warrant-less wiretaps after lying during the campaign, lying again about don't ask don't tell, which throwing good soldiers out in a time of war because of who they sleep with is pretty fucking stupid, continuing GWB's blowing cash like a fratboy routine, etc.

Basically I give us about a decade tops before like Ireland we end up against the wall only unlike them nobody, including all those oil fiefdoms we helped to prop up, will come to our rescue. My bet is that we'll have to default, the Repubs will try to cut off all the social programs which are frankly the only things keeping the working poor from starvation and rioting in the streets, and then we will see SOME REAL CHANGE, whether for good or ill is anybody's guess. But I can tell you in the flyover states it already looks like the great depression, with signs on cars saying "looking for work, call xxx-xxxx" and whole streets abandoned and boarded up factories as far as the eye can see.

If we don't start putting Americans before the needs of multinationals this whole powderkeg is libel to blow up, although I think thanks to treasonous bribery we are probably already too far gone. To quote the great man Thomas Jefferson "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.". And sorry about the length, I'm just tired of the "liberal" "conservative" bullshit when BOTH sides are fucking us over and kissing the multinational ass as fast as they can.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[fredjh]

I find your story plausible, too, but the post in which you are responding is completely off base. I don't watch Fox News or read their website... I'm about 1000 times more likely to read CNN or something else... they all have bias, and people watch what they want to watch; people who generally lean left are not going to watch Fox, and they're only going to hear one side W.R.T. "Tea Parties."

I've never attended a tea party rally, and have no inclination to do so - I think they're just as bad as any other party, none of which suit my personal ideologies. However, I do think the MSM has shown a decidedly one sided view of them... racists (despite minority keynote speakers at many of the rallies), hate mongering revolutionists... it's just plain ridiculous. I've heard the unsubstantiated stories from people claiming to be "victims" of tea partiers, but I've actually seen and heard evidence of actual violence against the tea party supporters... none of which I have EVER seen reported on CNN or in any foreign media (which is, granted, limited).

I see this and I don't even support the tea party, and I'm not "conservative." Why are so many people blinded by their own confirmation bias? And they don't even realize it. I'm not implying you are, but a general sentiment about slashdot.

The facts are the facts... there is right wing media out there, to be sure, and I certainly won't say Fox isn't biased, but the large majority of media in the U.S. and throughout the world leans to what we would call left, and they all show bias in their reporting. Remember that bias is not necessarily lying, just showing issues from a particular point of view; if you watch National Geographic, and if the show is about lions, you want the lion to catch the gazelle to feed it's young... if it's about gazelles, you want them to escape the lions. Same facts of life from two different perspectives. News reporting is no different, you get the same facts from a particular point of view, and what they choose to report and not report makes all the difference in the world.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Buckley conservative. But it's pretty funny to listen to liberals trying to claim the Tea Party is nuts.

You mean this guy, William Buckley? Yeah, too bad that nowadays people on either side of the political spectrum usually aren't as level-headed and classy as Bill was ;)

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[fredjh]

Meanwhile, "dingbat" Pelosi has successfully managed the House Speaker office for 4 years.

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt." - Nancy Pelosi's inaugural address as speaker of the house.

And I'm not a "teabagger." I also don't like Palin, and didn't vote for McCain; well less than half my midterm votes were for republicans, and I specifically didn't vote for ones "endorsed" by the Tea Party because I don't like them, but I don't belittle them and make up crap about them either.

Both major U.S. parties are terrible and destructive to this country and the things that made it great, one is worse than the other, however.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Doc Ruby]

I'd say the party that led us into these wars, torture, domestic spying, banking collapses, and multiplied debt is worse than the party that didn't stop them. That would be the Republican Party being worse than the Democratic Party. And yet you voted for its members to take over the House this month.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you think that Obama is centrist? Goddamn, I would hate to see your definition of extremist. And if people don't want more taxes, it's because they'd just be misappropriated anyways, like they currently are.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[h4rr4r]

He truly believes in helping his buddies make money, and will let the crocodile tears flow if that makes it palatable to the American people you mean. He ordered torture, he should be on trial for war crimes.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Cinder6]

I would imagine it depends on the part of the country you live in. Here in California, I've seen nothing like what you just described, though I did see some similar stuff for Bush (including a house that had a Bush effigy hung from a tree). I wouldn't be surprised if such exists for Obama in other parts of the country, though.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Yvanhoe]

As a European, I saw the Tea Party from only two points of views :
- Complete whackos like Sarah Palin, and the other woman, what was her name ? Said it was important to spend government money to fight agaisnt masturbation or something like that... Oh, also Glenn Beck. In short, people that are spokepersons of the tea party.
- Lawrence Lessig, admittedly a liberal, that said the tea party was a great political initiative. Despite disagreement on almost every point, he agreed on the two most central points in his view : the fight against corruption and lobbying and the need for grassroots politics.

I mean, there may be something, but why, oh why in heaven's sake do you let people like Palin speak out for you ? Why don't you criticize the complete nutjobs that speak in your name ? Do you realize that it takes a person you probably consider like an enemy to explain the good things that are in this party ?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush

Yeah but a lot of people hated Bush because he was the least compassionate person on Earth. A lot of people hate Obama because he's black, but aren't man enough to say it that way for fear of looking like a bigotted jerk. So we have contrived complaints like making goverment bigger and conspiricy nuts like the birthers.

I'm not saying if you disagree with Obama it is for that reason. I am simply saying that for some who have strong feelings, that is the real underlying reason.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[fredjh]

That's right... and most of these republicans who won were not in office when we went to war (which most of the democrats voted FOR, by the way), but the economy is almost entirely democrats fault. Deficits are republicans faults (Reagan was the one who taught is deficits were great, after all).

But we can namby pamby back and and forth all day... the difference is that I see destructive policies all around, but it's mainly liberals and democrats that block legislation what would limit the destructive power the government has over us.

Saw his new book in the grocery store

[ThatsNotPudding]

It already had a 40% off sticker slapped on it.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[RightSaidFred99]

Dingbats aren't competent to run the House of Representatives.

Rubbish. All it takes to run the House is the right political connections. I suppose if that dimwit Palin runs for office (and God forbid wins) you'll say she's not a dingbat because Dingbats aren't competent to be President, right?

Pelosi is a moron, and Obama is a junior senator slash community organizer that idiots like you voted into office because it made you feel good about yourself. Let's face simple facts, at least.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[RightSaidFred99]

Illegal war? I'm no Dubya fan, though I am softening a bit on him in hindsight. But what exactly do you think the phrase "illegal war" means? You do understand that using that phrase marks you as a complete dolt, right?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[RightSaidFred99]

We all think you're nuts.

Like we care. Are you from an EU member state? I'll be eating popcorn watching the EU crumble and watching you fuckers riot at every tiny entitlement you lose over the next few decades. We'll see who's smug when the few sane EU member states decide they're crazy to continue supporting the outrageous, unsustainable spending of the rest.

"Ooooh, Sacre Bleu! They have raised zee retirement age 6 months and replaced welfare checks with zee housing and food cards! We must all riot!".

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[RightSaidFred99]

There's a lot of dead Americans that will never come back from Iraq and he's never been able to tell us why apart from his dance on the deck of a carrier in a clown suit.

It was for one of two reasons.

One, because we thought they had WMD. I find this ridiculous, and if this is truly the cause then they were incompetent boobs.

Two, because they wanted a battleground. They pulled all our enemies into Iraq and they've been focused there instead of making (more) terrorist attacks on civilians. It hasn't stopped terror attacks, but one could argue that it's slowed them. In this case, WMD was the flimsy excuse, and it's possible killing Saddam was a nice icing on the cake.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Doc Ruby]

No, most of the Republicans in the House were in office when we went to war, which means that they voted to go to war. But even if these were "new faces", what's the difference? The Republican Party is exactly the same. It never admitted its members shouldn't have voted for the invasion, never admitted Bush/Cheney lied us into war. It ran on a platform this year of "we're going to be the same", and Republicans like you voted for it. You voted for the Republicans who voted for the war, and for Bush/Cheney, too, through all those years. And you haven't changed either.

The liberals and Democrats spent the past 2 years sending banking and other regulations through Congress to limit the government, but the Republicans blocked all reregulation. Republicans have blocked everything, and will soon shut down the entire government (which is mostly working in the service of the public), just as it did the last time it had the power to do so to a Democratic president.

There are destructive policies all around. But they're mainly produced by Republicans (and by "Conservative" Democrats, the fifth column), who even abuse government illegally to to get what they want.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[RightSaidFred99]

"Pretty funny".

We elected a nobody community organizer to the office of President based on some laughable feel-good nonsense. It only gets more hilarious from there on out!

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[RightSaidFred99]

For those of us inside the US, it's absolutely fucking hilarious to watch Europeans riot as their ridiculously unsustainable form of EuroSocialism starts to unravel.

Riot, fuckers. Riot.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[fredjh]

You're just being moronic now... I clearly stated well less than half the people I voted for were republicans... that makes me a republic? That's idiotic.

The legislation the democrats sent through congress does nothing to limit government, it limits private businesses... it's unbelievable you'd pretend it's otherwise.

And the claims republicans are blocking things are also, by and large, completely disingenuous... I realize they have a knee jerk opposite reaction to democratic legislation (but then so do democrats to republicans), but unless you're only viewing completely biased media you know you are not getting the whole story when they claim "republicans" blocked anything... republicans have a minority, how can they "block" anything? But most opposition comes from the fact that so much legislation is tied to other legislation... if I were a politician of ANY party, I would not vote for bad legislation just to get good legislation passed, no matter how "emotionally" appealing it is.

Look at Pelosi's quote, after all... so when republicans refuse to pass something that has no pay-go financing, they get accused of wanting to starve poor little children or "destroy the hopes" of the unemployed (yes, I actually saw that quote).

It's unfreaking believable the bias I see and the absolute confirmation bias you have.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[careysub]

Up to plus 5, then down to "Troll"!

However the scoring ends up, I have never been so pleased to be labelled a "Troll"!

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Magnus Pym]

The `Tea Party' is a fiction that was planned and created by the far-right in anticipation of the loss of the executive branch in 2008. The planning, organization and funding started in late 2005. A bunch of far-right billionaires and republican strategists scheduled the whole thing. Fox, the hate-talk hosts and the others were primed, and the launch was kicked off after Obama was elected. If Obama had lost to McCain, we'd never have heard of the Tea Party.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[jrade]

You need to get out of your liberal echo chamber and learn the truth that not everyone who disagrees with you is either nuts or evil.

This is great advice, but can actually be generalized to both sides.

Some years ago, I came to the conclusion that one of the worst things that has happened to this world is "labels" (religion, politics, etc.). Labels tell us how we think we should think instead of just thinking on our own.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Doc Ruby]

There's a difference between "running" and "running into the ground". Under an actual moron, John Boehner, the House did little but deregulate the country into ruin.

Under Obama, we've stabilized the country in many ways against the ruin stuffed into us under Bush. Who you voted for twice because you were told that's who Republicans vote for. I felt good about myself voting for Obama, because I knew he wasn't a fool and would remain calm while managing us through the epic catastrophes you Republicans insist on doing to our country. Which is why you'll be voting for her in 2012 if that's who you Republicans pick as the next fool to afflict the country with. You'll say "but it's better than Obama". Simple facts about simpletons.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an interesting analysis of Tea Party for your consideration. [PDF, 300k] It agrees with your observation that the Tea Party was formed under Bush (as a response to the "bailout"), but the study goes on to show how the Tea Party has since changed and been used by various forces -- especially around various hot-button issues such as "healthcare reform".

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[locallyunscene]

I've never understood the "derision and scorn above and beyond the call of reasonable criticism" for Pelosi or Reid. Can you give me some examples of initiatives, legislation, or comments that describe what you're talking about?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

Too bad the Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Just think of what they could have done with that! Oh, wait...

And if Nancy Pelosi is so wonderful why is half of her own party asking for her to step down as minority leader while the Republicans are cheering her on?

It couldn't be because she's the best advertisement in the House for Republicans in decades, could it?

But around here it's impossible to criticize Democrats without being ad hominem'ed into next year, while treating President Bush, Sarah Palin, etc, like nothing short of the anti-Christ is perfectly reasonable.

My first rule of American politics is this: But anyone who talks or acts like they implicitly trust one party (of the Big Two) and finds the other absolutely "evil", and these folks talk about "Republicans" or "Democrats" the same way Robert Byrd used to talk about blacks, or Obama's "spiritual mentor" of a fifth of a century talks about whites, well, those people are idiots.

More concisely: If you prefer one party over another fine. If you think one party is inherently good and the other inherently evil, you're a moron.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

If Tea Partiers are strongly libertarian, why do they try to elect social conservatives like O'Donnell who want to legislate christian morality? Government out of the boardroom and into the bedroom sounds Republican, not libertarian. You may not like Pelosi or her policies (or, more likely, your imaginary versions of same) but she is no wingnut. I challenge you to find something really crazy she has said. And supporting socialism is not "crazy," it is a policy position you disagree with.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

Put up or shut up, give us an actual Pelosi quote that is crazy. You say,

not everyone who disagrees with you is either nuts or evil.

and yet you treat everyone who disagrees with you as nuts, or evil. Hypocrite much?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

Yeah, it's odd how people feel strongly when someone starts a war which hundreds of thousands of people. What's up with that?

Simplistic platitudes make the world go 'round, i.e. "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

And THAT was the one thing he felt bad about. Kanye West saying that was, in Bush's own words, the worst thing that happened during his presidency. The. Worst. Thing. Not Katrina. Not wars, not economic collapse, not friggen' 9/11. That one sentence from Kanye was, according to our ex president, the worst thing. That says everything about what a narcissistic, sociopathic egotist the man is.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

Make that list or shut up about it. Stop insinuating things and not backing them up. Your ultra conservative world view is not shared by most Americans, what you are saying is 'common knowledge' is accepted by only a small minority.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

Are you saying Obama is doing a worse job than Bush, or just implying it, so you don't look like a total fool? Don't be so wishy washy, if you think Bush was better than Obama, say so.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[durdur]

Starting an unnecessary war is certainly one of the worst thing you can do as President.

Claiming now, even with the all the better information we have, that it was actually a good idea, adds insult to injury.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

You know the Navy sent that banner back to Bush saying "It's not our banner, we don't want it, so we are sending it back to its owner." Pretty damn funny, IMHO. I wonder if they will put it in the Bush Museum, I mean, it is a legitimate banner and he must be very proud of it, so why not? Haha, yeah. That's not gonna happen.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

Bush ordered that banner. After the carefully staged photo op, the Navy sent it back to him saying, "We don't want this It isn't ours, so we are giving it back to the rightful owner."

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

Sorry, man, AC is reading from the talking points. You won't get any response.

I suppose the person will claim Bush "stole" the 2000 election too, which is still claimed early and often, but which is to me an even bigger sign the person is a moron.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

Right, because everyone in Iraq was just happily flying kites and minding their own business.

I won't argue the post-major-combat process was totally messed up, but it's funny how every major Democrat was on board with the idea of WMD in the years preceding and up to the point the war started: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, the list goes on and on.

But "Bush lied", yeah, whatever.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

I never said Bush didn't do those kinds of things, but Obama has only sped the process up doing it faster and harder.

We'll spend our way out of debt! Sure, why not?

They kept unemployment under 8% just like they said they would if we let them dump the better part of a trillion into "shovel-ready" jobs the President now admits that never existed.

Oh, wait.

TSA, DHS, the Border Patrol and defense spending are a small fraction of the entitlements time bomb which at its present rate of growth will exceed the entire size of the budget in a few years, but that's OK when you have _good intentions_.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[dogmatixpsych]

"Successfully" is a manner of opinion.

Further, it doesn't help to criticize someone for "attack[ing his] enemies" just after you did just that. In fact, your whole comment is ironic (you attack and then criticize the parent for attacking); hopefully it was done on purpose.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

I guess there _is_ a place in the world for spittle-spraying mouth-foaming hatred. How could I have been so foolish?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

You're right. I can't argue with ad hominem.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[rtb144]

Faith in the "Invisible Hand of the Free Market" is easy to have. People generally act in their own self interest, which is the same reason that blind faith in the government is nuts.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

You like money and sex?

We should be friends.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[ConceptJunkie]

How do you know people hate Obama because he is black? Do you have telepathy? Have you interviewed hundreds or thousands of people? Or are you just buying into the liberal strategy of playing the race card as fast and often as possible?

"Making government bigger" is a contrived complaint?

Have you seen the numbers? Between the Democrats winning Congress and Obama winning the Presidency the budget deficit increased by a factor of 7. But yeah, it's all about skin color.

The sad thing is that for people like you, there is _no_ possible criticism of Obama that wouldn't be called racist.

Who's the real racist here?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[careysub]

I find your story plausible, too, but the post in which you are responding is completely off base.... However, I do think the MSM has shown a decidedly one sided view of them... Same facts of life from two different perspectives. News reporting is no different, you get the same facts from a particular point of view, and what they choose to report and not report makes all the difference in the world.

On the other hand, Tea Party claims are typically aired without any examination of whether they are factual or not.

The MSM does not do a good job of reporting the news. It makes little effort to separate fact from non-fact and is happy to "balance" any quote with a counter-quote without examination as if they were equal. But this is quite different for having any sort of systematic bias.

If a systematic liberal bias actually existed it should be possible for research that withstands critical review to demonstrate it. The largest study attempting to address this (a meta-analysis of dozens of studies spanning decades) found no systematic bias: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/cobb/p_courses/ps411/assigned%20readings/dalessio_meta%20analyses%20media%20bias.pdf . The often cited recent study to support the claim of liberal media bias is the one of Groseclose and Milyo published in December 2005 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. This study is notable for its highly idiosyncratic classification of what was liberal and conservative - the most liberal media outlet was the Wall Street Journal, the NRA was considered a liberal organization, the ACLU was a conservative one. In general defensible research supporting a claim that a systematic liberal bias exists seems absent.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[rtb144]

Don't forget Colonel Sanders - with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face - he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Doc Ruby]

No, there's a difference between "attacking your enemies" and "say anyting, no matter how nonsensical, to attack your enemies". You Republicans will ignore everything to protect each other from criticism. Your whole cult is built on cherrypicking like that.

Hell, you don't even know what "ironic" means.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[emc]

It's the "invisible hand of the free market" that is stealing the cash out of your pocket, while you're watching Dancing with the Stars.

The whole concept of the "invisible hand" is a joke. People act in their own best interest, not in the interests of anyone else.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Foobar of Borg]

I've never understood the "derision and scorn above and beyond the call of reasonable criticism" for Pelosi or Reid. Can you give me some examples of initiatives, legislation, or comments that describe what you're talking about?

Fux News, Rush Limbaugh, et al. tell them to hate Pelosi and Reid, so they do. It gives them a face to vent at during the standard Two Minutes Hate they undergo.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Magius_AR]

Sorry but you are way off. Just look at the candidates of the Tea Party. It is not just a minority in the Tea Party that is nuts. They let people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell represent the party.

I challenge you to name two other tea party candidates without looking them up on the internet. I bet you can't. I bet you also have no idea what those candidates stand for or what kind of people they are. As the OP said, you're just parrotting what the hype machine (be it other buddies with similar views, the media, or left-leaning blogs) focuses on. Two morons do not comprise an entire movement, no matter how much they're spotlighted and focused on.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Rockoon]

Are you saying Obama is doing a worse job than Bush, or just implying it, so you don't look like a total fool?

I'm saying that greater numbers of death threats could imply that he is doing a worse job.

Sometimes groups assess situations better than individuals. Such a statistic would be a sampling of society as a whole, and it could certainly be argued that it carries more weight than individual opinion.

As for me personally.. I think the democrat monopoly of house, senate, and oval office combined has not done as good a job as any period in history where there wasnt such a one-sided monopoly.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[icebraining]

Right, because everyone in Iraq was just happily flying kites and minding their own business.

No, but they were dying by the dozens each die like after the invasion. Everyone knew what was going to happen - hell, listen to Dick Cheney in '93. He knew it would be a disaster.

I won't argue the post-major-combat process was totally messed up, but it's funny how every major Democrat was on board with the idea of WMD in the years preceding and up to the point the war started: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, the list goes on and on.

And why should I care about what democrats thought. I'm Portuguese, and we disagreed, as did plenty of Europe.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[sco08y]

Then you're not paying attention. Threats on the president's life have skyrocketed since Obama took office. Right wing politicians fantasize about "second amendment remedies." There was a national day of prayer for his death.

Bullshit.

You're wilfully remaining ignorant if you truly believe that there was more venom directed agains Bush than against Obama.

Bullshit. Show me *anything* like this. And you haven't been in this country where you could actually see the *constant* hatred of Bush. You'd go to a theater or a musical piece and they'd just stop to spend a few minutes bashing the president. I had lecturers who couldn't resist insulting him, even when it was completely irrelevant.

I supported Bush initially assuming that he'd be a one termer who wouldn't do much. Then I was stuck constantly defending against these insane attacks. People were completely out of their gourd over the guy. One guy claimed that I was a chickenhawk for supporting Bush, and this was after I had already signed enlistment papers for the Army. I was accused of being a "torture apologist" because I defended waterboarding, something that our own guys go through in SERE school all the time.

The worst Obama gets are people who claim he didn't file his birth certificate. Bush had a 24 year CBS anchor take his career down in flames, desperately trying to prove that he missed drill at the national guard.

I know that Americans tend not to care what the rest of the world thinks about your country

That we can agree on. Here's the thing: you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You get a sliver of headlines of American news filtered through editors whose sole incentive is to get you fired up.

So, please, shut the fuck up and take care of the problems in whatever country you're from before subjecting me to your ignorant lectures about the mental faculties of my fellow Americans whom you have never met.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

Are you saying it could imply that he is doing a worse job, or are you implying it? Rather than implying it, you could clarify and say "I think the fact that Obama is getting more death threats is an indication he is doing a worse job than Bush." or something. I bet you won't say that, because you know it to be false, and you don't want to sound like an idiot. I bet you will keep on implying it, though, because you don't like Obama.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[s4m7]

BDS is real and amazing exercise in mouth-foaming bigotry and childish petulance coming from people who otherwise claim to be tolerant. There's nothing wrong with disliking President Bush and what he did, even strongly. That's not only your right, but your duty as a concerned citizen if you feel that way.

What amazes me on a daily basis is the sheer level of mindless, childish, unchecked rage expressed at the man. I would imagine the hooded thugs at Klan rallies would just shakes their heads sadly at one of their own acting the way too many people act regarding President Bush (along with Sarah Palin and a few others targeted by the left for derision and scorn.)

Klan rallies? you're comparing people who firebomb churches and hang people for being the wrong color to some people calling for a man's criminal prosecution for war crimes... do I even need to point out how crazy that is?

As strongly as people feel about President Obama, and there is as much _strong_ feelings against him as there ever were for President Bush, I've never heard anyone wish physical harm on him. I've never heard of people in the media fantasizing on the airwaves about his assassination or any of the many other reprehensible things that were directed towards Bush, and seemingly accepted as perfectly reasonable by people I would think are above all that.

Disagreement, dislike, protest, and harsh criticism are all legitimate and honorable actions to take in politics, but the unbridled hatred I've seen directed against President Bush (or any politician, or any _person_ for that matter) has no place in civilized society.

First of all, consider that actual death threats on Obama are up 400% over the previous president. (i'd cite something but it's easy enough to google) People on the airwaves regularly question his nationality, religion, and whether or not he's a "socialist." before the man was even elected someone shouted "kill him" at a mccain rally and NOBODY BLINKED. Yes there is reason to dislike Obama. There's reason to dislike any politician that doesn't go along with what you personally want. But most of the criticism of Obama comes in two flavors: 1) he's "not one of us" and 2) he's spending our country into oblivion. Regan and both bushes did #2 and #1 is just code for "he's black". So when the tea partiers say they're for smaller goverment and fiscal responsibility, and then turn around and vote republican when their dark-horse candidate fails to deliver the voter turnout, I don't think they're crazy, I just think they're willfully ignorant of history.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tea Party is like a mob that is forming, and Sarah Palin ran in front of it, and called herself a leader.

It's been done many times before, by great leaders!

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Rockoon]

If you quoted me, you would see that I said could imply. You didnt quote me, but then ask if I meant could or does.

You are suggesting that I would limit myself only to could because I (a) believe the theory its wrong, or (b) believe it would make me sound like an idiot.

Such false dichotomy.

(c) I know that I do not know.

Apparently the idea that someone would know that they do not know, and for that reason alone will not claim that they do know for that very reason, is foreign to you.

Knowing that I do not know and speaking in a manner consistent with that knowledge is actually the sign of my honest, rational thinking on the matter. You not seeing this possibility is a sign of your tendency to dichotomize everything.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[windcask]

Gee, what was I thinking, trying to make a Bush-hater listen to reason? Nevermind; you're right. About everything. Always. The US is nothing but an imperialist state hell-bent on imposing their values on a cowering world, and Bush is Hitler/Satan/et cetera.

And I'm sure you're going to run right out and get that book, right? Probably not; it might tamper with your carefully constructed version of reality.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

If you don't know, why bring it up?

Let me quote you:

Well, as you try so hard to convince us that Obama has had more death threats than Bush.. I can't help but think "maybe thats because he is doing a worse job?"

You can't help but think? Sounds different from "I don't know." We both know what you were doing there. Don't try to weasel out of it. You just don't like being called out on it.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[windcask]

That says everything about what a narcissistic, sociopathic egotist the man is.

Narcissism? Sociopathy? Not sure how you arrive at those two derisions. But again, if you actually read his book, you would read that he and his father have worked their entire lives to create opportunities for minorities, and to do the best he could with Katrina and have not just Kanye, but the media as a whole portray his handling of the incident as racially motivated was a huge blow.

But like I'm going to change your mind, anyway.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[windcask]

[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED.]

Even if he did, the banner was for the ship, not for him.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[locallyunscene]

When talking about the Tea Party I think it's helpful to think of it in two ways. There's an amorphous "the Tea Party Movement" which many Americans project their generic anger at gov't spending and corruption on to, and then there's The Tea Party Express. This is the most public, legislatively powerful, and well funded entity of the Tea Party. It's mainly funded by the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch and is the entity that supported most(if not all) of the "Tea Party Candidates" that ran in the primaries and elections. It also has Sarah Palin as one of its spokespersons.

This is why many observers consider "The Tea Party Movement" to be co-opted. Its most powerful entities are the same ones that helped neo-conservative Republicans get elected in the past, and its spokespeople are cut from the same mold.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

Of course he claims to have worked for minorities, but Bush and his father only worked for one set of minorities: the filthy rich. The truth is, he doesn't care about poor people, and a lot of minorities happen to be poor.

Seriously, though, whatever the reason he said it, it is pretty pathetic for him to claim that is the worst thing that happened during his presidency.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[windcask]

Of course he claims to have worked for minorities, but Bush and his father only worked for one set of minorities: the filthy rich.

Your ridiculous platitudes make me sick. Show me one shred of evidence to back up your claim that he only cares about the rich. This is a man who spent us into a hole providing AIDS funds for Africa. Tax cuts and deregulation are just what Republicans (as I am damn proud to be) believe is best for the economy. Let businesses keep more money so they can spend it on growing and hiring. If you want to spin that and say it's about letting the filthy rich keep more money, that's your right, but don't think I buy into it for one second.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050302138.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-11-17-banner17_ST_N.htm

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/19/bush-library-may-show-mission-accomplished-banner-from-2003-ir/

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-10-28/politics/mission.accomplished_1_aircraft-carrier-conrad-chun-banner?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/05/01/who-was-responsible-for-the-mission-accomplished-banner/

You will note that Rumsfeld has admitted the banner was made by White House staff, and reflected wording from Bush's speech. Bush's production manager flew out to the ship five days earlier, checking every detail for his boss's triumphant deck-swagger in a flight suit. Being the commander in chief, if Bush told the Navy "Take the rap for me on this," they had no choice but to say, "Yeah, we asked for the banner."

And you openly display your pride in the man. Unbelievable.

Do you even read/listen/watch the news?

[dbIII]

but one could argue that it's slowed them

The evidence of nearly daily suicide bombings since then argues very loudly otherwise.

Re:Do you even read/listen/watch the news?

[RightSaidFred99]

On American soil? Yeah, not so many...

Re:Do you even read/listen/watch the news?

[dbIII]

Nice shift of the goalposts to add the new condition that it has to be on US soil. You win your fucking stupid little game that you should have grown out of before you left school.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

You guys love tax cuts for the rich, you will note Republicans want to repeal the tax cuts for the middle class.

As for AIDS funding, our paltry donations were hardly enough to have bankrupted Vanuatu. Nine billion? Chump change. And Bush did it? Wow, amazing how congress was to blame for going to war and ruining the economy, but for THIS, Bush gets credit. Did we come close to meeting the UN goals for aid to Africa of 0.7% of GNI? No. Did other countries? Yes, they did.

http://www.oecd.org/document/49/0,2340,en_2649_201185_38341265_1_1_1_1,00.html

Letting business keep more money would only help if business invested it in creating new jobs in America, but there is no demand here, and so despite record profits for Wall Street this year, we have seen no real increase in job creation. The rich hoard the money, spend it on luxuries manufactured overseas, or invest it overseas where desperate workers are ready for the slaughter.

It is ALL about giving the filthy rich the wealth created by the productive class, that is, the working class that creates all real tangible value. All Republican policies have the same goal: making the poor more desperate so they will accept even worse mistreatment from their bosses. Republicans are "cheap labor conservatives" as their policies are designed to provide the rich with cheap labor, be it here or overseas.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[dbIII]

carefully constructed version of reality

What do you think the book is then? It's an attempt to make a failure of a President look good and give excuses as to why he could do very little other than keep a seat warm and get treated like the royalty he really wanted to be. All I've heard so far is bullshit like: I couldn't do X because I didn't have the absolute power of a fucking medieval monarch so I didn't even try like every other President before me has done.
Go on then, give me his good reason. Nothing honest or coherent has made it into the newspapers in the last decade so you'll have the scoop.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[windcask]

First article:

After Woodward's book came out, Bartlett said, he went back to the files. "I looked at every draft of the speech, every draft that was sent to the principals, the Cabinet secretaries," he said. "There was never 'mission accomplished' in any draft of the speech." Rumsfeld could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Second article:

The White House later acknowledged that it had provided the banner at the Navy's request.

Third article simply states that the banner is going back to the Bush library. So what?

Fourth article:

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.

Fifth article is an opinion piece in a blog with no sources. How is that a citation exactly?

There is not one mention in any of those first four articles even insinuating that Bush personally ordered that sign. The debate was whether or not his staff ordered it, and it seems as though it was the Navy's idea and the White House made it.

I'm not impressed by your skills at copying and pasting random articles from a Google search into a browser. Don't think I can't see through your bullshit, you fucking snake.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[windcask]

Go on then, give me his good reason.

Why, so you can spin it and beat me over the head with it? I'm not playing your game.

It's an attempt to make a failure of a President look good and give excuses as to why he could do very little other than keep a seat warm and get treated like the royalty he really wanted to be Bush is a egotistic black-hating terrorist blah blah BLAHAHGH

There is no evidence to back up any of what you're asserting. Where Obama's votes have been ALL along party lines, Bush enjoyed bipartisan support for most of his major initiatives for the first six years. He accomplished a hell of a lot more than Obama has, and with more support (that is, if you consider Obamacare and the stimulus package "accomplishments").

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[h4rr4r]

I will not make an evil man richer, yeah I truly am a nut.

The USA is a wonderful nation and that asshole made our friends hate us. I hate him for what he did to my proud nation, rather than rebuild the towers and laugh off some pathetic cave dwellers he used it as a chance to get his buddies rich and revenge on the man who dared order a hit on his daddy.

He ordered torture, he deserves a trial and then a short drop and a sudden stop.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[jwhitener]

Don't various tea party rallies around the country actively try to recruit Sarah Palin to give speeches?

Likewise, the primary wins of O'Donnell and Joe Miller, due to people who admit to supporting the tea party, clearly shows that these are in fact the desired representatives of many in the tea party (for those states).

Is this a 'real' tea party organization? http://teapartypatriots.org

If so, they seem to think that the recent election was a "win" for them. If so, the new freshman republicans do represent their views. Now, have you seen those views? Look up some of the things that people like Allen West are saying. Or anti-evolution reps like Sandy Adams from Florida.

None of them believe that global warning is an issue (for various reasons), most are extremely close to fundamentalist christians, etc..

I know you aren't taking sides, but I thought I'd point out that yes, Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell do represent, by request of the tea party, the tea party.

And to various posters above claiming that the tea party, overall, isn't nuts, I'd say this: The stated general principles, smaller government, more freedom, free-markets, etc.. are all sane ideas worth talking about. The problem is that those sane ideas normally come along with a host of idiotic, ignorant, and sometimes scary ideas.

There don't seem to be very many true conservatives in existence (at least in the public spotlight) anymore. The republicans were so effective at pushing the country to the right, that I believe they have permanently injured their party's ability to govern. Take the START treaty for example.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[jwhitener]

I'm curious what Obama has done (besides stretch timetables which you mentioned) that puts him anywhere near the same level of "crappiness" as GWB? There are some pretty long lists of accomplishments in the first two years. For instance: google for list of obama accomplishments. The first link thehistoricalcontext. (I'd paste the link but for some reason chrome in ubuntu 8.04 is acting weird right now....)

Assuming your issues aren't things like "health care reform was socialism grr grr bark bark". If that's the issue, don't bother responding. I'm tired of that debate hehe:) I'm a public option type person so I don't like how health care ended up either.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tea Party was formed out of anger with Bush on a broad but specific issue: excessive government spending, which was then compounded by Obama's actions. And it is far more bipartisan than establishment liberals care to acknowledge.

The Tea Party will never be taken serious until they acknowledge that the Defense budget of the US is grossly oversized and represents excessive government spending (small goverment my ass). Spending that mightily dwarfs the programs that the Tea Party rails against.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Concerned Onlooker]

Pre-emptive invasion on baseless grounds. We were not under attack, nor likely to become under attack by Iraq. It was basically a home invasion.

"A war of aggression is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a war crime under the customary international law."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_war

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[dbIII]

Why, so you can spin it and beat me over the head with it?

No, simply because I've heard nothing but the WMD crap and the fake link to Bin Laden, so I've heard nothing but lies. If you have something real I'll listen.
Forget about Obama, I'm talking about Bush jnr, not Hoover, Ford, Washington, Carter, Reagan or whoever. Nice touch with adding the "egotistic black-hating terrorist", now that you've had you little tantrum let's calm down and get back to how you told us he had good reasons that were presumably in the national interest. Somehow I completely missed them before but your heard them - care to share this information?

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[dbIII]

One funny thing about libertarianism is that apart from a small number of very strict government controls China fits their ideology perfectly. After all it's "might makes right" personified.
Want to start a coal mine and take guys off the street to work there for the minimum that anyone will accept with no pesky government paperwork to fill out or safety standards to comply to? In China you can do that and more! The government doesn't stop you living the libertarian dream so long as you don't say bad things about the government and respect their bigger guns. Think about that the next time a libertarian cries "commie" when somebody advocates Christian charity.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[sumdumass]

If Tea Partiers are strongly libertarian, why do they try to elect social conservatives like O'Donnell who want to legislate christian morality?

What exactly has she said on the campaign trail or off while she was running to make you think that?

Here is a hint to why people supported them, because they were the only ones who stepped up to run against the established set of candidates. It's somewhat of an anybody but them attitude until they get to know some of the people.

Wish he would have done this when

[singlevalley]

he was still the president :)

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[RightSaidFred99]

The US and the UK made legal justifications. Nobody has been able to disprove or counter them. This "illegal war" claim mostly goes to show the idiocy of pretending war is anything but might makes right. If Iran invaded their neighbor, it's illegal because we can smash them. If the US or Russia does it, it's legal because nobody can do a fucking thing about it.

Second, nobody gives a fuck about international law and the war was authorized by US law. According to US law it was a legal action, as a US citizen I don't care what anyone else says.

I was strongly opposed to it as well but looking back I think the real goal was to create a battleground to draw many of our enemies to instead of having to fight them all over the world.

If you want to use Wiki links, how about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[hairyfeet]

Actually I'd say the "healthcare reform" was a load of horseshit because he did ZERO to stop runaway pricing by the drug companies, ZERO to lower healthcare costs or to give us a single payer option, in short it was an insurance industry wish list. Frankly my grandfather was a socialist, so that word don't scare me. He believed ALL MEN had the basic human right to a roof over their heads, food in their belly, clothes on their backs, and to be able to get medicine when they were sick. Any more than that get off your ass and earn it. He was also a big supporter of what today we would call "workfare" where able bodied men who couldn't get a job worked on WPA style infrastructure improvements.

Now as for why Obama is a shitty president? Let me count the ways: Lied about doing something about lobbyists by filling his depts plumb full of the bastards, pretty much hasn't meant an ACTA style backroom deal he didn't like, sold himself as the modern web president and then and went and pushed for bullshit like Internet kill switches, says outsourcing isn't a problem while my friends are forced to train their soon to be offshore H1-B replacements, kisses ass to Pakistan while they use OUR OWN MONEY to pay "bounties" on the heads of dead Americans, hasn't done a damned thing about all the money we piss down third world dictatorships with handouts, lied about don't ask don't tell, need I go on?

I'm sure you can point out some good things he has done, and for every one I can point out a dozen shitty ones. He has lied, he has embraced every nasty program like warrantless wiretaps, and continues to blow through cash like shit through a goose without doing jack shit about waste or worthless programs like the new fighter jet, when our enemies both current and possible future are flying either old soviet era shit or even worse our F15s and F16s thanks to the state dept letting the MIC sell to just about anyone with a checkbook. So I'm sorry pal, but that makes him a shitty president in my book and just because the thought of Caribou Barbie being one heart attack away from the button made sure the Repubs wouldn't win doesn't make him any less shitty.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[jwhitener]

I'll look into the claims you raised later (and comment), but I'm curious if you can point to a president that you think was good?

If you cannot find striking differences between Obama and GWB I truly am curious if you think that any president in our history has been beneficial for the average american.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[hairyfeet]

Good presidents, okay...Clinton on the economy, even though he was still too much of a corporate suckup, both Roosevelts were good, LBJ on domestic but NOT foreign issues, and Ike for trying to stand up to the MIC. But sadly since FDR you won't find any that put America FIRST, as they all cared too much about spreading American "influence" on the rest of the world whether they wanted it or not. I believe that ALL foreign bases should be closed, that ALL foreign aid should be stopped, and that the LIE that is "free trade" be ended. Free Trade is a lie simply because everyone puts up many barriers to our products, such as China rigging their price of currency, while we bend over and take it. I also believe that the Fed should be shut down and the "free market" heavily regulated, with Glass Stegall replaced first thing ASAP. For the last 20 years our leaders have done pretty much anything the multinationals has ever asked, and now we see exactly what that gets you, ala Ireland. That WILL be us in less than a decade, mark my words.

as for what I said about Obama, feel free to Google away. I wish they weren't true, especially Pakistan offering bounties on Americans with OUR MONEY, but sadly it is 100% true. you simply cannot buy loyalty or friendship, no matter how much Yankee dollars you throw at them. And as we saw with the healthcare debate Obama is as wishy washy as Carter and couldn't even get a decent bill passed with a super majority. You can dislike the repubs policies all you want, which I do as they've become nothing but "corporation yay!" but you do have to respect the fact that they stick together. You can't get a dozen democrats in a room and even get them to agree on what to have for breakfast. Mark my words the economy WILL continue to go down like the Titanic, all their "jobless recovery" bullshit won't fly when people are out of work, and unless the repubs run Caribou Barbie or Bobby "fuck the poor!" Jindahl the repubs are gonna take the presidency easily, simply because Obama hasn't done jack shit about the economy. If he was smart he'd admit we are in the shit and start immediate WPA style programs to run fiber to every home and replace our failing infrastructure, but instead we'll get ACTA and other worthless for the populace BS. Wish it weren't so, but his hope and change appears to be hoping you don't notice the only change is from an R to a D on the door. Otherwise it is pretty much same shit, different day.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

Okay, if you want to say his staff did it without his say so, I'll accept that as a possibility. Means he was responsible, in any case, unless you are saying the president is not responsible for thew actions of his staff.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[spun]

Have you never seen her appearances on, uh, any media whatsoever? She wants to legislate against homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research and anything else the voice in her head that she calls "lord" tells her to. She HAS said she won't try to legislate against masturbation, despite her previous position on the matter. So, yay for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O'Donnell

Just read her positions, she is a hard core xtian wingnut.

Who is going to read the questions to him?

[Anonymous Coward]

And who is going to type the response? Or is he just gonna guess at what those words are on the screen and answer the question from the gut.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[sumdumass]

Have you read your own link? In it is says she claimed that she would govern on the constitution not her personal beliefs. So she is anti abortion, anti- stem cell and anti-human cloning, most republicans are.

I didn't see where it said her political stance while running for office was against homosexual marriage but that too is something the right seems to agree with. Hell, I'm against gay marriage based only on the principle that it creates a special right or privilege not already allowed in an exception to rights already present. Everyone, gay, straight, dwarf, giant, red, blue, religious or not or whatever has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex once they reach a certain age. If you chose to act differently, don't tell me you have that as a right. Note, I didn't say being gay was a choice (it is, mostly unconsciously though so the choice is separated a bit), I said that acting a certain way that was different was a choice.

All in all, with one exception to voices in her head that I didn't see referenced anywhere, that she wanted to legislate christian morality- specifically when she said she would legislate according to the constitution and not her personal beliefs nor did I see where she is much different then other conservative candidates. It wasn't until after she won the primary that all the shit she did in the past started coming to light and scaring you.

Re:Cue Bush Derangement Syndrome

[dbIII]

Still waiting.