He was my kind of president. Cautious, pragmatic and a consensus builder.
By Ed Rodgers
There is a lot about President George H.W. Bush that we will miss. And the current occupant of the White House puts into vivid relief the things that we will miss the most. Our president today couldn't be more different from Bush. I hope the values that Bush brought to his distinguished career in public service won't be lost. The qualities that defined Bush are timeless, and I think they will again reemerge in American politics. As a leader and as a human being, Bush will be a role model for a long, long time. But in many ways, he was the last of an era.
If there is such thing as a divine hand guiding us, then it is likely that God made Bush to be our president during such a critical time in American history. He was the transitional leader who skillfully led the United States into the post-cold World era, and it was he who passed the baton to a new, post-world War II generation of presidents.
As a staff person in the Reagan White House, Bush's 1988 presidential campaign and the Bush 41 White House, I also saw Bush cope with changes in American politics. Specifically, he came to power at the dawn of the "permanent campaign." In today's politics, the campaigning never ends. There is no hiatus for governing once elected.
Bush thought politics - or at least campaign politics - was a seasonal business, and that it was dirty. Dirty in the sense that it was unbecoming. Being a gentleman and turning the other cheek were sometimes impossible. Campaigns can require going negative, highlighting your opponent's mistakes and flaws, and sometimes distorting your opponent's positions or statements. Bush didn't like any of it, and he wasn't particularly good at it — so he resisted being in "campaign mode," as he called it. But he was a realist, he was competitive and he wanted to win.
In 1988, I served as Lee Atwater's deputy when he was then-vice President Bush's campaign manager. Bush knew he needed people like Atwater and Roger Ailes, but he thought they belonged on a shelf, only to be deployed as needed a few months before an election. He tried to keep them on a short leash. A lot of energy was expended during the 1988 campaign trying to sell Bush on the advertisements and other initiatives that would target his opponents and rile voters with pointed messages. To say the least, Bush was a gentleman and an adult. He did not like the gritty aspects of campaigns, and he did not like hardball campaign tactics that, at times, became mean-spirited and personal. I don't think Bush ever reconciled his desire for a kinder, gentler nation with the style of the 1988 campaign that elected him.
Much will be written this week about Bush's personal grace and dignity, and it should not go unnoticed that perhaps his last act of personal generosity is directed at the incumbent president. Bush would consider it unthinkable that a sitting president would be excluded from paying respects to a former president. But it says a lot about Bush that he would make certain that the sitting president would be included at his funeral even though he does not meet Bush standards as an appropriate steward of the presidency.
The President Bush whom I was privileged to observe would have no greater hope than perhaps that the gathering for his funeral would somehow make a contribution toward strengthening the presidency, and that his memory would remind us not only what qualities are important but exactly which character traits make the best presidents.
He was in the middle of my best/worst list (excludes Kennedy and Nixon)
8. Barack Obama (worst)
7. Lyndon Johnson
6. George W Bush
5. Jimmy Carter
4. George Bush Sr.
3. Bill clinton (bad man but not bad policies and achievement)
2. Ronald Reagan
1. Donald trump (so far)
Not bad, but nothing remarkable either. Generally a decent man, but not committed to rolling back progtardism (although at the time that wasn't nearly as important)
While many in the media are praising him (much of it so they can use his grave as a prop to bash Trump) they hated him at the time, not as much as they now hate Trump, but they did hate him.
Best move--Appointing Clarence Thomas to the supreme court
Worst move--caving on his no new taxes "read my lips" promise.
One of those in your list is a war criminal.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Which one do you consider a war criminal? Lyndon Johnson?
No.
George W Bush.
Why did his father invade Iraq? Because it invaded Kuwait without reason or cause.
Yet George W Bush invades Iraq without reason or cause.
It was a war crime.
Johnson "inherited" Vietnam from Kennedy, about whom people seem to ignore that he put the US into another unjustifiable war.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
George W Bush.
Why did his father invade Iraq? Because it invaded Kuwait without reason or cause.
Yet George W Bush invades Iraq without reason or cause.
It was a war crime.
Johnson "inherited" Vietnam from Kennedy, about whom people seem to ignore that he put the US into another unjustifiable war.
The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.
The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world." For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations".
That doesn't sound illegal to me.
I admired George H.W. Bush. I am so impressed that he insisted that the current President attend his funeral. I am glad for this.
George H.W. Bush sparred often with Dan Rather.
Quote from: "@realAzhyaAryola"
So much better than McCain who used his own funeral as a prop to bash Trump. Utterly despicable.
McCain had a temper but it seems George, Sr. did not have that. If you recall, he wanted a "kinder, gentler nation."
A third George Bush could be running in the future to reside in the White House. That would be Jeb's son.
Quote from: "@realAzhyaAryola"
I Googled him Azhya..
He has an impressive c.v.
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
George W Bush.
Why did his father invade Iraq? Because it invaded Kuwait without reason or cause.
Yet George W Bush invades Iraq without reason or cause.
It was a war crime.
Johnson "inherited" Vietnam from Kennedy, about whom people seem to ignore that he put the US into another unjustifiable war.
The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.
The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world." For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations".
That doesn't sound illegal to me.
One of your neighbours comes to tell you that another neighbour is planning to burn down your house.
You go to that accused's house, beat the snot out of him, and burn HIS house down.
However, it is then learned that your informant is lying. Further, you simply took the word of the informant without verifying or corroborating, nor applying due diligence. There was no real evidence of any impending attack on your house, merely the lie of the informant.
Now, do you think you would avoid a gaol penalty by claiming your actions were "legal"?
BTW, the UN is NOT a statutory authority and cannot determine what is legal and what is not. I remind you that Israel has been in breach of UN declarations for decades, as it does not regard those declarations is legally binding. Nor does any other country.
If you wish to rely on the old "removing a dictator" excuse as a basis for legality, I assume you will approve of the US invading Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, China and every other nation ruled by "dictatorship".
It astonishes me that intelligent and knowledgeable people still think that Bush wanted to throw out a dictatorship. Bush wanted to show the world America's military power in a practical and emphatic way, and Iraq was his target of choice, because there was at least a flimsy vestige of justification. Importantly, Iraq would be a military pushover, with a population of 20 million, a ragtag army equipped with outdated weaponry and supported by an air force just barely better than biplanes. Iraq also had lots of oil, with which it could repay America's magnanimity once a "democratic" government was formed.
It was also an excellent opportunity to field test its modern weaponry on the battlefield (just as Russia is doing in Syria).
Bush is a war criminal, and he knows it. That is why he has not, to this day, ever left the continental USA since leaving office, for fear of being arrested and charged in the Hague.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Bush is a war criminal, and he knows it. That is why he has not, to this day, ever left the continental USA since leaving office, for fear of being arrested and charged in the Hague.
To be a criminal, one has to break the law. He fulfilled domestic requirements and international protocols. Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution. Iraq refused to comply with UNSCOM which lead to Resolution 1441
Quote
The ICC "has not issued warrants for any American citizen, let alone for Bush, Cheney, or anyone else," said Anthony Clark Arend, Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service.
Bush visited Haiti as part of an effort by the charitable foundation he co-founded with former President Bill Clinton after a devastating earthquake in the Caribbean nation. And Bush also joined Clinton at a regional economic summit held in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Cheney, meanwhile, has gone to British Columbia to promote his book, In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir.
Bush and Cheney don't travel abroad much because of protests not warrants.
And so we are clear, I did not support the Iraq invasion and regime change. It destabilized the region even more than it already was. But, invading Iraq was carried out legally.
By that criteria, would you please explain what a "legal" war is?
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Internationally, a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Domestically, without authorization from congress.
I just Googled about George W Bush and it seems Gaon is correct.
And I do not dispute what he said; there is no arrest warrant outstanding AT THIS TIME.
It takes about an hour to procure an arrest warrant from a judge when an information is submitted that a person is accused of a serious crime.
They are perfectly able to visit Europe. However, to do so would leave themselves open to the risk of an unfriendly government lodging a formal complaint with the War Crimes Tribunal, who would then obtain a warrant if the information is approved by a judge of the court.
Nations do not issue warrants. Courts do. And there is ample evidence that Bush prosecuted a war without due cause.
Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld visited Germany. Bush was scheduled to travel to Switzerland, but cancelled when it became clear there would be mass protests.
If Ross Perot hadn't ran for president, Bush 41 would have been reelected.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
8. Barack Obama (worst)
7. Lyndon Johnson
6. George W Bush
5. Jimmy Carter
4. George Bush
3. Bill clinton (bad man but not bad policies and achievement)
2. Ronald Reagan
1. Donald trump (so far)
Not bad, but nothing remarkable either. Generally a decent man, but not committed to rolling back progtardism (although at the time that wasn't nearly as important)
While many in the media are praising him (much of it so they can use his grave as a prop to bash Trump) they hated him at the time, not as much as they now hate Trump, but they did hate him.
Best move--Appointing Clarence Thomas to the supreme court
Worst move--caving on his no new taxes "read my lips" promise.
Officially at least, George HW Bush was never 'Senior'
He was known as George Herbert Walker Bush
His son was known as George Walker Bush.
Hence neither had the designation of Junior nor Senior because their middle names were not entirely the same.
Bush 41 was no Barry Goldwater. He was not very conservative.
Quote from: "Thiel"
It's been said that Pat Buchanan doing so well in the Republican primaries was the reason Bush lost in 92.
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
8. Barack Obama (worst)
7. Lyndon Johnson
6. George W Bush
5. Jimmy Carter
4. George Bush Sr.
3. Bill clinton (bad man but not bad policies and achievement)
2. Ronald Reagan
1. Donald trump (so far)
Not bad, but nothing remarkable either. Generally a decent man, but not committed to rolling back progtardism (although at the time that wasn't nearly as important)
While many in the media are praising him (much of it so they can use his grave as a prop to bash Trump) they hated him at the time, not as much as they now hate Trump, but they did hate him.
Best move--Appointing Clarence Thomas to the supreme court
Worst move--caving on his no new taxes "read my lips" promise.
I couldn't stand either Bush president or any of them on that list except for Donald Trump.
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Internationally, a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Domestically, without authorization from congress.
Wrong on both counts.
A UN mandate is irrelevant. It may mitigate a war, but a war can still be unjustified despite UN approval...as I have cited in my example...approval based on lies is not lawful approval at both criminal and international law.
Approval by the elected assembly also does not validate war. Hitler had the approval of Germany's parliament. Kim Il Sung has 100% approval of the North Korean assembly. Saddam Hussein had the full support of Iraq's public assembly.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
George W Bush.
Why did his father invade Iraq? Because it invaded Kuwait without reason or cause.
Yet George W Bush invades Iraq without reason or cause.
It was a war crime.
Johnson "inherited" Vietnam from Kennedy, about whom people seem to ignore that he put the US into another unjustifiable war.
No. While there was a military buildup in Vietnam under the Kennedy administration, he did not actually authorize military force there. That was Johnson who initiated military action after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Johnson and his advisers alleged that North Vietnam provoked that incident but these allegations later proved to be false.
So the Vietnam War became Lyndon Johnson's baby. He escalated it not Kennedy.
If we applied your logic, then Eisenhower is also blameworthy since American involvement in Vietnam began under him. I believe his predecessor Harry Trumsn was a staunch supporter of the Vietnam War.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Internationally, a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Domestically, without authorization from congress.
Wrong on both counts.
A UN mandate is irrelevant. It may mitigate a war, but a war can still be unjustified despite UN approval...as I have cited in my example...approval based on lies is not lawful approval at both criminal and international law.
Approval by the elected assembly also does not validate war. Hitler had the approval of Germany's parliament. Kim Il Sung has 100% approval of the North Korean assembly. Saddam Hussein had the full support of Iraq's public assembly.
The Third Reich and North Korea are rubber stamp parliaments.
I did check and it seems Gaon is correct that the UN Security Council has the ability to rule on the legality of the war.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Internationally, a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Domestically, without authorization from congress.
Wrong on both counts.
A UN mandate is irrelevant. It may mitigate a war, but a war can still be unjustified despite UN approval...as I have cited in my example...approval based on lies is not lawful approval at both criminal and international law.
Approval by the elected assembly also does not validate war. Hitler had the approval of Germany's parliament. Kim Il Sung has 100% approval of the North Korean assembly. Saddam Hussein had the full support of Iraq's public assembly.
The Third Reich and North Korea are rubber stamp parliaments.
I did check and it seems Gaon is correct that the UN Security Council has the ability to rule on the legality of the war.
The legality of war internationally as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, lies exclusively with the UN Security Council. America and the UK have veto power. What are the chances they would ever declare the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime illegal.
Universally, whether or not anyone likes it, the older George was always referred to as George Sr. or simply George H.W. Bush.
Quote from: "@realAzhyaAryola"
Or forty one.
GHWB 41
Codename: Timberwolf
Quote from: "@realAzhyaAryola"
Codename: Timberwolf
That's interesting Azhya, I didn't know that.
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Internationally, a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Domestically, without authorization from congress.
Wrong on both counts.
A UN mandate is irrelevant. It may mitigate a war, but a war can still be unjustified despite UN approval...as I have cited in my example...approval based on lies is not lawful approval at both criminal and international law.
Approval by the elected assembly also does not validate war. Hitler had the approval of Germany's parliament. Kim Il Sung has 100% approval of the North Korean assembly. Saddam Hussein had the full support of Iraq's public assembly.
The Third Reich and North Korea are rubber stamp parliaments.
I did check and it seems Gaon is correct that the UN Security Council has the ability to rule on the legality of the war.
The legality of war internationally as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, lies exclusively with the UN Security Council. America and the UK have veto power. What are the chances they would ever declare the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime illegal.
The UN can rule on the moon being a sovereign state with a seat on the Council...but that does not make anything legal.
As I have already cited, if UN declarations were a matter of law, when will Israel be prosecuted for contravention of a number of UN declarations??
The UN has NO statutory authority. None. Therefore, it can "rule" on whatever it chooses...that rule is not binding on any nation or individual.
The International Criminal Court acts independently of the UN. Therefore, matters concerning war crimes can be referred to it by individual States, circumventing the UN. The UN may also refer matters to the Court.
However, what is clear is that the Court only pursues the less powerful and weaker State leaders, rather than heads of State of the larger nations. It is perfectly feasible for the government of Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan to refer the American President to the ICC, and if they are satisfied a crime has been committed, a warrant can be issued without any UN involvement.
Equally, Putin should be charged for attacking Georgia and the Ukraine. Kim should be charged for shelling South Korea.
But there is no doubt that America's attack on Iraq was unprovoked, illegal and criminal in nature.
Just my two cents on the war crimes stuff
When the first Iraq Gulf war was over in '91 a ceasefire agreement was agreed to by Saddam Hussein. Among other things he would allow inspections.
Towards the end he was refusing inspections. So he basically broke the cease fire agreement. You break the ceasefire, and the war is back on.
---
Was it immoral? Saddam was a bad guy. Among other mass murders committed, he gassed the Kurds by the thousands There was nothing wrong with taking him out EXCEPT...
It was strategically a bad move. Bush could have just bombed the sites Hussein was refusing to allow inspection of. BUT he didn't want to, because he thought that if a democracy was created in the ME that other people there would want democracy too and it would catch on all over the ME. Of course this was ignorant of Muslim culture and it failed, creating a vacuum of power filled by even worse people vying for control of the country.
BTW I have to wonder-- were Obama's attacks in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Syria legal? For a guy who won a nobel peace prize he sure liked war a lot.
"During the renewed inspections beginning in November 2002, Blix found no stockpiles of WMD and noted the "proactive" but not always "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441".
Saddam complied with the inspections, which uncovered NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction. None.
There was no basis for war. All evidence provided by the US was false, and worse, it was clear that due diligence as to the source of the information was either never applied, or was ignored.
A country of 20 million people, with no longreach military force, was NOT a threat to the US or ANY of it's allies.
Nobody can deny, based on evidence, that America's war on Iraq was a response to the 9/11 terror strike which had NO connection to Iraq. Bush and his cronies needed to make an example of someone, and Hussein was it. That is an illegal war.
Even the British government acknowledges that there was no lawful, moral or reasonable justification to attack Iraq.
If America relies on the argument that "Saddam was a bad man", then why has it not invaded a dozen other countries...in particular North Korea...that are ruled by bad men WITH WMD's? The answer is clear; there would be too many killed. Bush was relying on a rapid collapse and capitulation of the Iraqi army which eventuated. He failed to grasp, as so many before him have failed to grasp that overcoming a military force is one thing...occupying a country is quite another.
The war was illegal. Bush should be prosecuted.
Overall I'd give HWBush about B- grade as President which was above average.
His critics described him as a mediocre President & his economic performance as dismal.
I know he was assailed and vilified by many in his party for breaking his no new taxes pledge.
HW Bush was also dealt a poor hand because he came in at the end of the cold war & when the stimulus of tax cuts during the Reagan years had run their course. So he suddenly inherited a huge pile of debt as the national debt tripled under his predecessor Reagan. I know he was at odds with Reagan over the debt & tax cut policies which he called Voodoo economics.
He deserves credit for winning the Gulf War & doing so with a minimal loss of American lives & making other nations pay for it. So from a diplomatic standpoint it was a stroke of genius.
Also his brand of compassionate conservativism tho well intentioned was sorely out of step with the times as the baby boom post world war II generation gravitated away from him & chose Bill Clinton instead. Probably HW Bush's greatest fault was that he became seen as yesterday's man & his values were more in keeping with an Ozzie & Harriet generation.
At the same time this did not lower his achievements as President. He was out of step with the times even tho some of the medicine & values he promoted are what his nation may have needed.
Above all he should be remembered as part of America's last great generation who weathered and endured the Grest Depression & World War II. Their sacrifice as well as his enabled the USA to prosper following the 2nd World War. HW Bush was no less a war hero, a warrior who selflessly served his country & put his life in harm's way and on the line in perhaps history's greatest military conflict and the USA's most spectacular triumph.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Quote from: "Gaon"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Internationally, a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Domestically, without authorization from congress.
Wrong on both counts.
A UN mandate is irrelevant. It may mitigate a war, but a war can still be unjustified despite UN approval...as I have cited in my example...approval based on lies is not lawful approval at both criminal and international law.
Approval by the elected assembly also does not validate war. Hitler had the approval of Germany's parliament. Kim Il Sung has 100% approval of the North Korean assembly. Saddam Hussein had the full support of Iraq's public assembly.
The Third Reich and North Korea are rubber stamp parliaments.
I did check and it seems Gaon is correct that the UN Security Council has the ability to rule on the legality of the war.
The legality of war internationally as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, lies exclusively with the UN Security Council. America and the UK have veto power. What are the chances they would ever declare the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime illegal.
As I have already cited, if UN declarations were a matter of law, when will Israel be prosecuted for contravention of a number of UN declarations??
The UN has NO statutory authority. None. Therefore, it can "rule" on whatever it chooses...that rule is not binding on any nation or individual.
The International Criminal Court acts independently of the UN. Therefore, matters concerning war crimes can be referred to it by individual States, circumventing the UN. The UN may also refer matters to the Court.
However, what is clear is that the Court only pursues the less powerful and weaker State leaders, rather than heads of State of the larger nations. It is perfectly feasible for the government of Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan to refer the American President to the ICC, and if they are satisfied a crime has been committed, a warrant can be issued without any UN involvement.
Equally, Putin should be charged for attacking Georgia and the Ukraine. Kim should be charged for shelling South Korea.
But there is no doubt that America's attack on Iraq was unprovoked, illegal and criminal in nature.
It seems it does though..
The UN Security Council makes the rules.
The UN cannot make rules!!!
How does it enforce them??
Quote from: "Bricktop"
How does it enforce them??
Do you really think the two of the five permanent members of the Security Council who carried out the Iraq invasion would not use their veto if legal actions were enacted.
Hence, their actions have NO authority...legal or otherwise.
The UN is set up so that the US, the UK, Russia, China and France can never be prosecuted for war crimes.
As it stands, I agree.
But the UN's validity is melting...and who knows where this will lead.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
But the UN's validity is melting...and who knows where this will lead.
And just like old Gaon, I was one hundred per cent opposed to removing Saddam. The UN has only gotten worse since the Iraq invasion too. Screw the UN.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Saddam complied with the inspections, which uncovered NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction. None.
There was no basis for war. All evidence provided by the US was false, and worse, it was clear that due diligence as to the source of the information was either never applied, or was ignored.
A country of 20 million people, with no longreach military force, was NOT a threat to the US or ANY of it's allies.
Nobody can deny, based on evidence, that America's war on Iraq was a response to the 9/11 terror strike which had NO connection to Iraq. Bush and his cronies needed to make an example of someone, and Hussein was it. That is an illegal war.
Even the British government acknowledges that there was no lawful, moral or reasonable justification to attack Iraq.
If America relies on the argument that "Saddam was a bad man", then why has it not invaded a dozen other countries...in particular North Korea...that are ruled by bad men WITH WMD's? The answer is clear; there would be too many killed. Bush was relying on a rapid collapse and capitulation of the Iraqi army which eventuated. He failed to grasp, as so many before him have failed to grasp that overcoming a military force is one thing...occupying a country is quite another.
The war was illegal. Bush should be prosecuted.
As I recall Saddam was not letting UN inspectors in some places. And many of the western intelligence agencies believed saddam had WMDs.
Again I was not for the war, Bush could have bombed the places Saddam wouldn't allow inspection of and left it at that (that's what Clinton did).
Nonetheless if this is a "war crime" then why isn't George H Bush's first Gulf war a war crime? why isn't Clinton's bombing Serbia a war crime? Why aren't
Obama's actions in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya war crimes?
Quote from: "Wazzzup"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Saddam complied with the inspections, which uncovered NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction. None.
There was no basis for war. All evidence provided by the US was false, and worse, it was clear that due diligence as to the source of the information was either never applied, or was ignored.
A country of 20 million people, with no longreach military force, was NOT a threat to the US or ANY of it's allies.
Nobody can deny, based on evidence, that America's war on Iraq was a response to the 9/11 terror strike which had NO connection to Iraq. Bush and his cronies needed to make an example of someone, and Hussein was it. That is an illegal war.
Even the British government acknowledges that there was no lawful, moral or reasonable justification to attack Iraq.
If America relies on the argument that "Saddam was a bad man", then why has it not invaded a dozen other countries...in particular North Korea...that are ruled by bad men WITH WMD's? The answer is clear; there would be too many killed. Bush was relying on a rapid collapse and capitulation of the Iraqi army which eventuated. He failed to grasp, as so many before him have failed to grasp that overcoming a military force is one thing...occupying a country is quite another.
The war was illegal. Bush should be prosecuted.
As I recall Saddam was not letting UN inspectors in some places. And many of the western intelligence agencies believed saddam had WMDs.
Again I was not for the war, Bush could have bombed the places Saddam wouldn't allow inspection of and left it at that (that's what Clinton did).
Nonetheless if this is a "war crime" then why isn't George H Bush's first Gulf war a war crime? why isn't Clinton's bombing Serbia a war crime? Why aren't
Obama's actions in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya war crimes?
No, the Obama administrations actions in Yemen, Syria, Somalia and Libya were not war crimes. With it's leading position on the Security Council, nothing the Untied States has done or will do will ever be a war crime.
His body was still warm when the conspiracy theorists blew up the internet.
Quote from: "@realAzhyaAryola"
Can you give an example Azhya?
Fash, there's so many. If you have time, go to YouTube. Here's one:
https://youtu.be/zoEFehZqueg
Quote from: "@realAzhyaAryola"
https://youtu.be/zoEFehZqueg
I see..
I only watched a few minutes, but I got the gist of it.
There are many more.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "@realAzhyaAryola"
https://youtu.be/zoEFehZqueg
I see..
I only watched a few minutes, but I got the gist of it.
Whatever is to be said of ghw bush, he was no doubt a brave soldier.
How many 20 year olds today would put their lives on the line like he did on World War ll?
The victory over imperial Japan was brutal, but it freed a lot of people in Asia from bondage just as the defeat of Nazi Germany did in Europe.
Bush was a courageous warrior who won every war he fought including the Gulf War which saved the western economies & was probably a major reason for America 's economic rebound during the 1990s in the Clinton years. He won the distinguished flying cross in wwII
https://youtu.be/noAqBucK4as
I have little doubt that he had a nasty side, but to be a leader you cant be nice.
Let alone to fight on the front lines and to survive a world war.
That was a real man imho
So a bit of nastiness under some circumstances helps.
During the time the media was honoring him after his death, there was an outpouring of affection and accolades and comments about how "NICE" he was to all. Come on. A CIA Director could not have been all that nice to all. I'm sure he knew a lot of "classified" activities that should not reach the ear of the common...ah...er...well...um...Joe.