Bush's legacy

[Northwoods]

I had the following email exchange with a friend.  I've known him for 12+ years (we were in the same dorm hall freshman year of college).  He's German, and calls himself a European socialist, which will explain some things. 

Anyway, please feel free to critique my responses to him.  This is a copy and paste of our email chain.  First message is at the bottom.  But the area of prime interest to most here is the portion where my responses are in red.  The rest is there for context and may help shed a little light how we got to the final portion.

From:    Redacted (APS guy)
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:22 PM
To:   Redacted (German guy)
Subject:   RE:


See below :)

Feel free to tear my responses apart. This is good.  Makes both of us think a lot more.

Thank you,

Sig block redacted



_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (German guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 1:38 PM
To:   Redacted (APS guy)
Subject:   RE:

Well everything…..

And not in order of importance...

1. foreign policy or lack thereof Examples please.
2. Iraq Except for France and to a lesser extent Germany (who didn't want the corrupt gravy train that was Iraqi oil and weapons sales cut off) most of Europe's governments were at least not opposed to the invasion of Iraq before it happened.  Between the UK, Spain, and Poland and others like Australia, and Canada there were lots of non-USA troops in Iraq at the start.  Remember too that there were, I think, 23 reasons given to invade, only 1 of which was WMD's.  And on that point, before the invasion, virtually every Democrat and most leaders in Europe and the UN were saying that Iraq posed a significant danger due to the belief they had WMD's.  And that Iraq needed to be dealt with militarily (at least the Democrats were saying that, not sure about the Euros/UN types). 
3. didn’t sign Kyoto Damn good thing (as a side note, the Senate must ratify a treaty before the POTUS can sign it and even under Clinton the Senate voted something like 98-2 against Kyoto, Bush simply didn't push it and the Senate has declined to even vote on it since 1998 or 1999).
4. debt No argument here - he was spending money like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse - and that was before Bailoutpolloza.  'Course Obama is pushing a $1.2trillion (yes, that's a "t") increase in the deficit.  And if Obama gets even a small fraction of what he wants passed the deficits will only go higher. 
5. wall street And he's different from the Democrats on this, how?
6. making the rich richer and poor poorer Bullhockey.  First, getting richer or poorer has a whole lot more to do with the individual's drive to succeed and ability to live within their means than anything the POTUS could ever do or even influence.  That said, the rich have gotten richer, but so have the poor.  Include all of the various forms of welfare and the poor have incomes relative to the rich that are staggering by historical comparison.  Also, in this country there's more mobility between income blocks (up and down) than anywhere else.  The rich can become poor just about as easily as the poor can become rich.  Also, if one adjusts income based on age the disparity is significantly reduced (i.e. the young almost always make less the ante-retirement people all else being equal). 
7. patriot act Some good, some bad.  Passed with lots of Democrat support.  Not really something Bush can take a whole lot of credit or blame for either way.  He pushed it after 9/11 but he still had to get Congressional support.  Most of it had sunset clauses that have since expired.  And most of those were re-authorized under an environment that favored the Democrats more so than the Republicans.
8. general regard for everything "foreign" being subhuman and insuperior Huh?  Examples? He might be proud of the USA, but that's not the same thing. 
9. that nice little prison where they torture people Waterboarding is not torture.  We do that to our own troops as part of their training to withstand interrogation.  Real torture, if caught will send all involved to the Grey Bar Hotel for very long periods of time, and possibly get them a date with a tall scaffold and a short rope.  And Abu Grahib was not torture at all with the Americans in charge.  Degrading, sure.  Wrong, sure.  But nothing different than what goes on frequently in American prisons (hint - that's where the guards learned how to do those things).  And regardless a far cry from slowly feeding someone into a wood chipper feet first like Saddam Hussein was known to do.
10. basically killing soldiers of many nations to basically fill his own and his buddies pockets (Rumsfeld, Chainey) Bull.  And the only nation's soldiers we've killed were those of Afghanistan and Iraq.  That other nations lost soldiers there was due to their choice to get involved and the inherent risks of combat.  Those guys (Rummy and Cheney) also would have made a lot more money cutting deals with Iraq (e.g. France).  Plus they had to sell their stakes in those companies (Halliburton, etc) as part of taking those jobs.
11. wiretapping his own population and then making it legal That wiretapping was for foreigners calling into the USA.  Why should that be barred when the same foreigners calling other countries is OK to wiretap?  BTW, it still takes a warrant to do the tapping and goes through legal processes and if those are not followed say goodbye to being able to use any such evidence in court.  He's also not tapping my domestic calls under that law.  They can be tapped under pre-existing laws, but only with a warrant from a court and that takes probably cause that I'm committing a crime. 
12. instillment of fear and paranoia and repression on his own population I don't see that at all.  The only people that are affected by that are the deluded.
13. neglection of own population to build military, bully the world, for his own and his buddies gain The Constitution does not compel a welfare state.  I'd rather be subject to benign neglect from the government than have them all up in my life.  That said, our population has not been neglected by any reasonable measure.  Bully the world for his own benefit?  I don’t see where he's really benefitted at all and unless you're Al Qaida the bullying has been a verbal affair (and in that sense little different that what we've been subjected to by the European governments and media).
14. essentially being a international terrorist Please define terrorism.  BTW, using one common definition (intentional targeting of civilians for the purpose of influencing that nations foreign or domestic policy) I'd like to see even one example of the US military engaging in terrorism in the last 8 years. 
15. Katrina First responsibility for New Orleans lies with the individuals.  Most caught there during/after the storm had the ability to leave and chose not to.  After that it lies with the Mayor and city council.  He did nothing (remember all those flooded buses that he could have ordered be used to evac people?)  Then comes the governor of LA.  She cried at news conferences rather than deal with the situation.  Bush was literally begging her to let him send in federal help (which BTW he was legally barred from doing until requested).  Once it fell to FEMA, yes they did drop the ball and handled things badly.  But it never should have gone that far up the line. 

And of course being from Texas doesn’t help either… Not germane.  I don't like Obama, and the fact that he's from Chicago (most recently anyway) is only an issue to the extent that Chicago is so unbelievably corrupt.  Whether I'm a fan of Chicago otherwise has no real bearing on my opinion of Obama.

Many more, but that’s a start

Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
 
Sig block redacted



_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (APS guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 12:21 PM
To:   Redacted (German guy)
Subject:   RE:

So, I'd like to see some quantitative reasons for why you think GWB is the "epitamy of garbage".  I'm not trying to be combative, but I do want to better understand your positions.

Thank you,

Sig block redacted


_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (German guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:17 AM
To:   Redacted (APS guy)
Subject:   RE:

Don’t know that much about Wilson to be honest… but I did like his fourteen points, which was of course rejected and guaranteed WW2…

Carter and LBJ were idiots… don’t know that much about FDR though

I thought Clinton was awesome, but could of done things better….


Now where I will respectfully dissagree...

Bush is the absolute epitamy of garbage… with Reagan with a close second.. And I think BO is probably the most intelligent man to ever sit in the white house

Nixon I thought was actually pretty good, but the paranoia thing and that watergate thingy did him in :-)

Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
 
Sig block redacted



_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (APS guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:43 AM
To:   Redacted (German guy)
Subject:   RE:

While I don't think Bush did a very good job, I'd hardly call him the worst president (and yes, he was an idiot but no more of one than Obama - the Clintons and Regan were all FAR smarter).  Carter was objectively worse and the damage done by LBJ is incalculable.  Nixon wasn't as bad but was so paranoid and misguided that he did plenty of harm.  I'd lump W in a similar category to Nixon on the scale of presidential quality.  However, I think that the worst president was Wilson, with FDR as a close second largely because they did more to promote nanny-state socialism and fascist policies than anyone else.  Plus Wilson got us into WWI and was at best a proto-fascist (Mussolini got a lot of ideas from Wilson). 

Thank you,

Sig block redacted


_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (German guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:34 AM
To:   Redacted (APS guy)
Subject:   RE:

Regardsless Bush is by far the worst president this country has ever had, and as far as im concerned one of the biggest idiots on the planet…. Lets hope I never run into the guy on the street

Ha ha…. Funny but true…. I could see her doing that…. Lets hope not

Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
 
Sig block redacted



_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (APS guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:29 AM
To:   Redacted (German guy)
Subject:   RE:

Bush is not a conservative (fiscally or otherwise).  He might have a few things that he's pushed that could be called conservative, but overall he's not conservative.  Had the Republicans maintained their fiscal conservatism and at least some extent of their social conservatism W would have had to run as a Democrat if he was going to stand a chance at all.

BTW, with Hilary at State she's in a far, far more powerful position than had she stayed in the Senate.  She had far more ability to drive domestic and foreign policy than anywhere else short of the Oval Office.  In fact, there's some who think she may use that position to torpedo some of BHO's more popular ideas in order to make him look bad.  Then run against him in 2012 for the Democrat nomination on an "I told you so" platform.

Thank you,

Sig block redacted


_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (German guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:23 AM
To:   Redacted (APS guy)
Subject:   RE:

Very Interesting…. And I agree

Hillary is just scary… good thing she was out a long time ago…

Bush 2000? Not sure why he would not have stood a change…. I was quite dissapointed and outraged at the result

Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
 
Sig block redacted



_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (APS guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:15 AM
To:   Redacted (German guy)
Subject:   RE:

In 1993 when WJC was sworn in he was promising all kinds of things like what BHO is promising.  He also had a large Dem majority in both houses of Congress.  He waaaayyyy over-reached (Hillarycare, gun-control, etc) and produced a massive voter backlash that ushered in the Rep takeover of both houses of Congress in 1994.  The Speaker of the House (Tom Foley) even lost his re-election bid that year - first time the sitting Speaker failed to win re-election since the Civil War. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

Now, the Reps lost their way by 2000 or so, and therefore deservedly lost control of both Houses again by 2006.  Had they stuck by the "Contract with America" and maintained their conservatism (fiscally at least) they likely would still be a majority party, and Obama wouldn't have stood a chance this year (nor would W have stood a chance in 2000). 

Thank you,

Sig block redacted


_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (German guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:00 AM
To:   Redacted (APS guy)
Subject:   RE:

I don’t get it :-(

AND… we definitely don’t need any more of this:

 Pic of Bush's gaffe trying to rub Angela Merkel's shoulders supposed to be here.

Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
 
Sig block redacted



_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (APS guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:47 AM
To:   EXT-Scheel, Hendrik P
Subject:   RE:

Well, here's hoping that 2010 is 1994 redux.

Thank you,

Sig block redacted



_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (German guy)   
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:46 AM
To:   Redacted (APS guy)
Subject:   RE:

Absolutely not… we have to work on your republican conditioning...

Looking forward to some of this:

Image of Obama on Angela Merkel supposed to be here

Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
 
Sig block redacted



_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (APS guy)
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:40 AM
To:   redacted
Subject:   RE:

You assume he's not really a Sith in disguise.

Thank you,

Sig block redacted


_____________________________________________
From:    Redacted (German guy) 
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:39 AM
To:   redacted
Subject:   


The task is complete! BUSH…. OUT… OBAMA… IN!!!

(Pic of Obama looking like a young Anikan Skywalker with a light saber supposed to be here)
 
Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
 
Sig block redacted

[RevDisk]

. that nice little prison where they torture people Waterboarding is not torture.  We do that to our own troops as part of their training to withstand interrogation.  Real torture, if caught will send all involved to the Grey Bar Hotel for very long periods of time, and possibly get them a date with a tall scaffold and a short rope.  And Abu Grahib was not torture at all with the Americans in charge.  Degrading, sure.  Wrong, sure.  But nothing different than what goes on frequently in American prisons (hint - that's where the guards learned how to do those things).  And regardless a far cry from slowly feeding someone into a wood chipper feet first like Saddam Hussein was known to do.

If you believe waterboarding isn't torture, you've obviously never experienced it or aren't very familiar with the practice.   Properly done, it'll have any person crying, screaming, and pleading to tell you anything you want to hear in under 3 minutes.  5 minutes would be the mark of someone with an iron discipline. 

[Northwoods]

And to what extent does waterboarding leave permant physical injuries or scars?  Waterboarding pushed the limits of what can be determined to be short of torture, but does not cross that limit.  At least so our courts have ruled.

[MicroBalrog]

And to what extent does waterboarding leave permant physical injuries or scars?  Waterboarding pushed the limits of what can be determined to be short of torture, but does not cross that limit. 

Waterboarding replicates the experience of drowning - you experience pain and fear as you run low on oxygen. Brain damage is possible, too.

Had a police officer used it to elicit confessions, you'd be the first one to agree they shouldn't be admissible.

[Northwoods]

Didn't say it should be admissable in court.  There's lots of things well short of waterboarding that keep things from being admissable in court.  I also didn't say it was a good thing.  Just that it's not technically torture.

[MicroBalrog]

Didn't say it should be admissable in court.  There's lots of things well short of waterboarding that keep things from being admissable in court.  I also didn't say it was a good thing.  Just that it's not technically torture.

Where did US courts rule it is not torture? Just for my own reference - I tried to google and didn't find it.

For the record, the US once charged a Japanese officer with war crimes for (among other things) waterboarding US POWs.

[RevDisk]

And to what extent does waterboarding leave permant physical injuries or scars?  Waterboarding pushed the limits of what can be determined to be short of torture, but does not cross that limit.  At least so our courts have ruled.

Torture is not definitely tied to permanent physical disability or scarification.  Please see the legal definition below as explained in the US Code.  But anyways, to answer your question.  Waterboarding can cause lung damage, dry drowning, brain damage due to asphyxiation, severe psychological damage or death.  Secondary damage of severe bruising and broken bones nearly always occurs due to involuntary struggling or spasms unless medical restraints are used to immobilize the subject.

Actually, James Parker might disagree on court ruling waterboarding as being legal.  He was the Texas Sheriff for San Jacinto County sentenced in 1983 to ten years in prison for using that method on suspects.  (744 F.2d 1124; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17759)  Or Major Littleton Waller, USMC.  During the Spanish-American War, he was court martialed for, among other things, using waterboarding to interrogate Filipino guerrillas.   In White vs. State (129 Miss. 182; 91 So. 903 (1922)), Gerrard White's conviction was overturned as it was coerced by means of waterboarding.  Same again for John Fisher (Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116; 110 So. 361 (1926)).  A soldier from 1st Cav was court martialed during Vietnam for waterboarding a detainee, convicted Feb. 28, 1968.

As for the law.  Torture is defined under Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340.  (Link).  For military personnel, they are subject to the UCMJ (Article 93).  There is also the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441), which specifically covers Torture under § 2441 (d)(1)(A)  (Link).   

The previous administration based their legal interpretation of torture on the findings of John Yoo, formerly of the Office of Legal Counsel.  Said findings were immediately retracted by a Mr. Jack Goldsmith, his replacement at OLC, for being legally flawed.  I have a copy of Mr. Yoo's book, War by Other Means, which was written in a tone that the author was obviously a lawyer.  I don't recommend it, literary wise.  Very poorly written, ironically.

[Northwoods]

I stand corrected on the legal issues surrounding waterboarding.

Any other points y'all wish to criticize?  That's not sarcastic. 

[RevDisk]

I stand corrected on the legal issues surrounding waterboarding.

Any other points y'all wish to criticize?  That's not sarcastic. 

7.  The PATRIOT Act is generally bad.   How much detail would you prefer in a rant about it? 

10.  Very well phrased to be technically correct while being incorrect in essense.  Certain folks did sell "their stake" (ie, any currently owned stocks).  But, certain folks had unexercised stock options and deferred salary.   This is not technically "a stake" in the legal sense (maybe).  It's the rights to buy or receive a stake in the company at a future date at prior rates.

11.  The wiretapping was illegal prior to Obama's immunity deal with the telcos.  There is no if, ands or buts.  It was illegal.  Again, please call me on it and I will go into as many legal and Constitutional arguments as you'd like.  Basically, the US government can wiretap anyone they please without records.  Previously, the US government was rubber stamped ANY wiretap request they wanted.   The only hitch was that records were kept.  That meant that if elements of the US government abused their power, they could be sent to rot in a federal prison.   Without records, we're screwed.  They can do as they please with no fear of legal oversight.  This is what we call "a bad thing".

The rest I really don't have a problem with.  Your German buddy missed a couple huge glaring problems, primarily Unified Executive Power or whatever term they use now.