Ha! Talk about "pure political self-preservation."

Y'think maybe Fox "News"'s Chris Wallace might be vulnerable to the occasional Freudian slip?

The major differences between Nixon and Bush:

Nixon was a criminal and should have been tried for his crimes in an American court.

Bush is a war criminal and should be tried for his crimes against humanity in an international tribunal.

That Bush has gone unimpeached borders has been a crime against our Constitution by the Rethugnican and Dumbocrap leaders of Congress.

Let's not forget "monetary gain" for the administration and its cronies.

Whatever George W. Bush did was after the savage attack of 9/11, in which 3,000 Americans were killed, and was done in service of trying to protect this country.

A. Noun, verb, 9/11.

B. Not everyone who died on that day was American. There were Britons, Canadians, and many other citizens of other countries working in the WTC on that day. To claim they were all Americans actually lessens the impact of the events of that day affecting all of us as citizens of both the nation and the world.

I'm itching here - Godwin's Law is the only thing to keep me in check. I guess all dictators and abusers of power mean well. Deep down in their kind and generous hearts.

I'm no historian, but from where I'm sitting Bush is worse than Nixon. Nixon wanted on some level to govern well - I think his support of the EPA is indicative here. His problem was that he couldn't conceive of anyone other than himself governing well.

Bush, in contrast, was (is) hostile to the very concept of government. He was installed by people hostile to the concept of government, people who have made clear their determination to essentially do away with government and the capacity for government.

Nixon wanted to control a system; Bush wanted to destroy one. That's a big difference.

So, Hitler, who killed Jews and gypsies to honestly and faithfully advance the cause of the German people, was acting honorably?

State of mind is now the operative issue when crimes are committed?

Wallace is a complete whore.

I think everyone is missing the boat.

Bush said "trust me" and I will keep you safe. Sure, we might trample on some privacy concerns and other vital civil liberties but you need to "trust me" to keep you safe.

Then the Justice Department says that only loyal Bushies are going to be hired for non-partisan civil service jobs.

They say 'trust me' and then they break the law for personal gain. OK the personal gain is really the gain of the Republican Party but it is very close to Bush breaking the law to advance his friends and punish his enemies.

Am I missing something? After all, I am just a Republican troll, right???

Nixon was a staunch anticommunist -- and he considered McGovern a socialist. Nixon probably believed half or more of the red-baiting he did. In that sense he was also "trying to protect this country" as he saw it - it was never just about him, not in his own mind anyway. That he was grandiose and paranoid didn't change the fact that he thought the alternative to himself was to expose the country to the danger of communist ruin.

It's pitiful that Chris turned out so bad compared to his dad Mike Wallance, but: there is no point in joining Fox "News" unless you want to be a dissimulating Right-establishment tool. Hence there is no point in being surprised, only in being contemptuous.

I don't think comparing Bush to Nixon is interesting or historically useful - I'd much rather see Bush compared to Polk, especially given the similar behavior of the power establishment and the media in both eras.

is it really possible that after all this time, right wingers still don't realize the excuse that the terrorists made me do it is getting old and meaningless?

nixon specifically caused the wiretapping and office breaking-in of people whom he regarded as undercutting his and kissinger's plans for vietnam: his "crimes" were every bit as based in the notion of protecting the country as bush's were (not that i think that chris wallace actually has a clue about what nixon's crimes were).

that said, bush caused the wiretapping of an unknown number of people, destroyed the good name of the united states by condoning torture in our name, and maniacally invaded a country for no good reason. i don't care if he feels justified in his actions (he's a smug little prick, so of course he feels justified), that doesn't make them in the service of his country. and if chris wallace doesn't understand that, well, it proves, as others have noted, that he's working for the right employer.

I'm not exactly sure just what a godbushed America is.

For you see, his legacy isn't finished yet.

Bush ran a government as if it wasn't.

I mean, he even thought that Social Security was run like some kind of government program.

And don't forget, the US Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper so stop waving it in George's face.

Nixon at least governed.

Spiro was no Cheyney!

BILLIONS have disappeared into the pockets of Bush's and Cheney's cronies, in Iraq and elsewhere. Without oversight and without us probably ever knowing what went on and without them being so much as indicted. I wouldn't call that in the national interest, and I would certainly call it "high crimes".

There were a lot of other scandals, for example the Interior Dept. and the silencing of EPA scientists, that had nothing to do with protecting the country.

Before we can truly judge just how bad Bush is, we need to know why we invaded Iraq. I don't think it was all for personal gain, but it sure as hell wasn't for national security. And the scale of Bush's transgressions are huge compared to Nixon's. Watergate, Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, dirty tricks? Pretty tame compared to warrantless wiretaps, Iraq and all the efforts to manipulate elections.

No comparison. Nixon did it for power, Bush did it for money. Wave the flags and then privatize a CONFLICT knowing that the majority of Americans cannot do math outside of a calculator. 300 million a day divided by 140,000 troops comes out to what?

I don't think that Wallace quite grasps the situation yet.

In the future, people won't be saying "he was as bad as Nixon" or "at least he wasn't as big a crook as Nixon" or "he was worse than Nixon" when referring to criminals in the Oval Office.

The standard has now changed. The new metric is "worse than Bush". "Well, at least is isn't as bad as Bush was" will be the new point of comparison for bad presidents. Because he's the most recent and most imprinted on everyone's minds, and because Nixon at least was forced to resign in disgrace while Bush will end his term in office in disgrace.

So wherever Nixon is, maybe he can smile knowing that W has eclipsed him as the standard by which crooks in the White House will be compared for the foreseeable future. Godswilling, for my lifetime because if we have someone worse than W in that office in my lifetime I may just have a nervous breakdown.

Elliot Richardson basically said that Nixon used a national security argument(how it would be perceived by other countries, the national interest, etc.) when Richardson refused to fire Archibald Cox.

Forget about Bush being worse than Nixon, isn't Chris Wallace and his ilk actually worse than Bush? For good or ill, President Bush was playing his role in our social, political and Constitutional process. It is folks like Wallace who abdicated their responsiblities and let Bush run wild.

The difference isn't between Bush and Nixon or Bush and McCarthy, it's between the people in power who were willing to eventually stand up to those guys and the people running our country today who bent over for this President, even long after the general public had turned on him.

Mike

It would take hours to list the ways in which Bush's crimes are worse than Nixon's. I don't even know where to begin.

Is it just me, or are others also frustrated to see these right wing journalists debating Opie? Just once I'd like to see them spar with Steve Benen or Josh Marshall.

Oh, and if I were Mike Wallace, I would be completely ashamed and embarassed. Of course, folks like Chris Wallace and Bill Kristol got where they are completely on merit. LOL They both could learn a thing or two from Christopher Buckley. At least he recognizes when his party goes off the deep end.

Hell, even Nixon could have argued that he abused the powers of his office and orchestrated crimes out of the Oval Office because he needed to maintain power to protect the country.

"Could have argued"? Did!

The law is the law. When someone commits murder, even in self-defense, the law demands they be put on trial. If a jury decides it was self-defense, they're acquitted. The claim of "protecting the country" is self-defense. That in itself doesn't exonerate Bush and Cheney. They must still be put on trial for war crimes, where they'd be entitled to use that defense. If a jury agrees, they'll be acquitted. But they're not above the law and neither was Nixon. I find it appalling that nobody seems willing to say so.

Is Wallace saying he knows who Bush wiretapped illegally?

Thing is he doesnt know who Bush wiretapped or for what reason.

It's congress' job to "keep us safe". Congress has the power to declare war.

It's the president's job to "take care that the laws (passed by congress) be faithfully executed."

It's all partisan bullshit. I remember Clinton doing some things meant to "keep us safe" and the other side didn't defend him on it or say "he meant well", they said he had some dastardly political motive, and everything he did was for political gain. The right fought him over Somalia and Kosovo and, worst of all, when he went after the terrorists with missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan, rather than rally to him they pretty much unanimously went after him for using his office to "distract the nation" from their witchhunt of him.

They are authoritarian followers, they stick up for their own, that's their top priority, so much so that they even unconsciously tolerate inconsistency. For whatever reason, (Nine eleven, nine eleven, nine eleven!!!) it's okay for Bush to invade other countries that had nothing to do with attacking us and were incapable of attacking us, and allow thousands of American soldiers to die for it, and countless civilian death, and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. But Clinton is incapable of doing anything against the terrorists because his only intention is obviously only to save his own political reputation.

It doesn't have to make sense to them. The point is that Bush is one of their own, to be defended and supported, and Democrats are the enemy. Democrats, not the terrorists. That's how they see it.

Comparing the scale of the offenses under Bush and Nixon actually leads to another observation. Bush II was Nixon's successor. His team - all trained under Nixon: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, all Nixon hands.

Methods - vicious personal attacks, unbelievable abuses of human rights abroad, flagrant abuse of the law, etc - all the same.

And it wasn't isolated. Nixon - Watergate, Chile, East Timor, Cambodia, as well as policy disasters like Wage and Price controls, CREEP. Bush - Iraq, Afganistan, rendition, de-regulation, etc.

And we should look back on whether pardoning Nixon really "healed" the country - or sent the message: this stuff will go unpunished.

We have to deal with what both Nixon and Bush did now - and not just "move on".

Saying whether or not Bush was "worse" than Nixon is ultimately meaningless siply because there is no objective metric of Presidential rottenness we cite to resolve such an issue.

However, one thing is certain. Nixon faced far more vigorous Congressional oversight and press scrutiny than Bush ever did.

That Wallace would make the statements he did evidences that this lax press scrutiny continues to this day. We may be fairly certain that Mr. Wallace is not seriously interesting in investigating to see to what extent Mr. Bush's actions actually were or were not motivated by personal gain.

Unfortunately, I anticipate that, in the spirit of "bipartisanship," neither Obama nor the Congress will investigate this either.

and just as it was a mistake to let Nixon, and his assistants, go scott free, it will be an equally egregious mistake to allow bush and his pack to evade prosecution for their crimes.

Tough choice.

Nixon was smarter than Bush, and much more in control of his administration. He shamelessly manipulated anti-Communist hysteria until it no longer served his political ends. He prolonged a bad war, and cost additional tens of thousands of lives. His assault on the Constitution was uncovered and repelled; his version of white American identity politics endured until the last election (we hope). And we have tapes to show how much he knew, and to hear what a vile person he really was. Nixon was a despicable man.

Bush has done incalculably more harm to this country in economic and political (especially international) terms. The decline of the Cold War and the growth of unchecked American power encouraged illusions of global military and economic omnipotence. He started a bad war that cost tens of thousands of lives. His assault against the Constitution is on-going and, arguably, more consequential for the long term because its intellectual rationale is more elaborate. He is a genial public personality with a private tendency toward arrogance. The question of where his ignorance (or lack of curiosity) end and his intention begins is unclear. We will never know whether this presidency would have been materially different without his zealous eminance grise, Dick Chaney. We don't yet know how much of all this can be redressed.

The intent of evil, past vs. the banality of evil, present.

"comparing the Nixon and Bush presidencies, their crimes in office..."

As I recall, some of those guys were actually tried and convicted in a court of law; back in the days when people were held accountable for criminal acts.

No chance of this happening with the current bunch of felons (yes outting a CIA agent during a war is treason).

No justice, no peace.

Why did Bush invade Iraq?

If the answer is some combination of 1) it was good domestic politics in the short-term (helped Republicans get elected and Bush re-elected); and/or 2) it was profitable for Halliburton and other companies allied with Bush; then the Bush administration's motives are as venal as Nixon or an organized crime boss.

Being that most of the reasons for invading Iraq don't hold up to scrutiny, I think it's premature for the media to dismiss the idea Bush and company *chose* to invade Iraq for self-serving reasons, greed for wealth and power.

I specifically remember an argument with some right-wing nut over Clinton's impeachment. Their take? Clinton was worse than Nixon because Nixon's crimes were in service of the nation's security. No kidding.

There is a second point. Davis X Machina has often mentioned that the assault on the Iraqis was the world's most expensive campaign commercial. Those of you who don't remember that the vote was scheduled in plenty of time for the Republicans to demagogue the issue might not agree - but he is right.

Nixon should have spent the rest of his life in solitary confinement for his criminal acts. Compared to Bush, Nixon was a good and honest President.

Wow, you mean to tell me that a Fox News "on-air personality" is a fawning, obsequious, sycophantic Bush-bootlicker spewing blatant, preposterous, scripted, tired bullshit that Bush's long-planned war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq, based on sickening lies about a nonexistent "threat" from nonexistent "Iraqi WMD" and nonexistent "links between Saddam and Al Qaeda", for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for his cronies and financial backers, was "done in service of trying to protect this country"?

What a surprise.

Whatever Richard M. Nixon did was during the Cold War, in which 100,000 Americans were killed fighting in Korea and Vietnam, and was done in service of trying to protect this country. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everything he did, but it was all done in the service of trying to protect this country from communism and keep us safe.

Isn't this a bit like "the least awkward boy at the Middle School dance", or even the least pompous member of an HBS Class? Anyway, to add to Rian Mueller's comments above, its also worth keeping in mind that in both Somalia and Bosnia, Clinton had to clean up the messes that Daddy Bush made.

So Chris Wallace agrees with the concept that "we must destroy this country in order to save it."

I think I will wait to make comparisons, favorable or otherwise, until we know more fully the extent of the Bush administrations transgressions.

From what I've seen, Nixon is likely the most gracious comparison to be made.

"Nixon could have argued that he abused the powers of his office and orchestrated crimes out of the Oval Office because he needed to maintain power to protect the country."

Could have? He did!

In the final analysis there is so much evidence that the Bush administration used 911 in a completely political and cynical fashion to advance a political agenda of domestic tax cuts and regime change in Iraq that clearly predated the attacks of 9/11/01, that Wallace's analysis is just so much BS.

Bush has been much worse than Nixon largely because he was able to succeed in so many areas where Nixon simply feared to tread.

That book has been written, and by somebody who is one of the few people qualified to draw this distinction:

Worse Than Watergate, by John Dean.

Although it came out in 2004, it gets more accurate with every day that passes.

If you'd have asked me 35 years ago if anyone would be worse than Richard Nixon I'd have said "No way, no how." Sadly, I was wrong.

Whatever George W. Bush did was after the savage attack of 9/11, in which 3,000 Americans were killed, and was done in service of trying to protect this country. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everything he did, but it was all done in the service of trying to protect this country and keep us safe.

Most every dicatator and tyrant in the world, from Adolf Hitler and Stalin in the 1930s to Saddam in the 1980s and 1990s to Mugabe and Kim in the present day, justify their atrocities with the claim that they are only doing it to protect the country and keep their people safe.

Nixon's Watergate crimes involved the use of his authority as president to sabotage the political process. Americans properly recognized this as a direct assault on democracy. I don't think even Nixon thought there was a legitimate national security excuse for what he did; that was just another lie he told as part of the coverup. His real excuse (if you can call it that) was that he only did the same things other presidents (like JFK and LBJ) had done, the difference being that only he had been caught.

Wallace is correct in pointing out that Bush's "crimes" are of a different nature. For one thing, they weren't political. The main rap against Bush is his decision to go to war in Iraq. You can call this a "crime" if it makes you feel better, but Bush went into Iraq with the approval of Congress, and was subsequently REELECTED even after no WMD turned up. He hasn't been impeached or indicted. Moreover, there's no popular outcry for him to impeached or indicted, let alone turned over to an international tribunal for war crimes prosecutions. As far as actual crimes are concerned -- I'm talking about real, prosecutable offenses, not just policies people want to label as crimes -- there's no there there. If there were, I'm sure he would have been impeached or indicted by now.

In short, while many of you obviously believe Bush deserves to be punished, the American people as a whole do not regard his objectionable policies as crimes. Learn to live with it or do something about it, but please DEAL WITH IT.

I also don't see how anyone can seriously expect to prove -- not "assert," but prove -- that Bush had a motive other than the stated objectives of winning the war in Iraq and defeating Islamic extremists. People can cry all they want about wiretapping and "torture," but the only thing Bush could have hoped to gain from these policies is intelligence with which to defeat our enemies. You can question his judgment, you can even argue he exceeded his legal authority as commander in chief, but you can't demonstrate that Bush undertook these actions in pursuit of a personal agenda separate and apart from his role as president during a time of war.

Bush is no Nixon. Nixon was a crook who committed crimes in office in order to remain in power. Bush has risked his political popularity in pursuit of a very tough set of policies against America's enemies abroad. Whether or not the policies were wrongheaded and damaging, he's no common criminal.

Whatever Mao Tse-Tung did was during the Cold War, in which hundreds of thousands of Chinese were killed fighting in Korea, and was done in service of trying to protect this country. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everything the Great Helmsman did, but it was all done in the service of trying to protect China from American imperialism and keep us safe.

Whatever Saddam Hussein did was during the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed fighting the Iranians and the Americans, and was done in service of trying to protect this country. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everything he did, but it was all done in the service of trying to protect this country from Shia and Zionist tyranny and keep us safe.

I also don't see how anyone can seriously expect to prove -- not "assert," but prove -- that Bush had a motive other than the stated objectives of winning the war in Iraq and defeating Islamic extremists.

I on the other hand don't see how you can seriously expect to prove -- not "assert," but prove -- that Bush had a motive other than the objectives of using the war in Iraq and the fight against Islamic extremists for partisan political gain and to enrich his cronies.

Moreover, there's no popular outcry for him to impeached or indicted, let alone turned over to an international tribunal for war crimes prosecutions.

From Rasmussen:

Saturday, July 07, 2007 -- Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Those figures reflect a slight increase in support for impeachment over the past year-and-a-half.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/president_bush/39_favor_impeaching_bush

When more than one-third of the country wants the president to be impeached, that sure seems a popular outcry to me. For one thing that's far, far more people than ever wanted Bill Clinton to be impeached.

In short, while many of you obviously believe Bush deserves to be punished, the American people as a whole do not regard his objectionable policies as crimes. -Conrad Bibby

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know the law was subject to the whims of the population.

In addition, I don't agree. I think the American public wants these things investigated.

People can cry all they want about wiretapping and "torture," but the only thing Bush could have hoped to gain from these policies is intelligence with which to defeat our enemies. -Conrad Bibby

Well, save for the wiretapping of journalists and political enemies, right?

Pssh, I have no patience for long winded, uninformed trolls, so I'll keep this short. You're wrong on every single point you tried to make.

In short, while many of you obviously believe Bush deserves to be punished, the American people as a whole do not regard his objectionable policies as crimes.

NEW POLL: Majority Think Bush and Cheney Have Committed Impeachable Offenses
by Steve Singiser
Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:36:02 AM PST
....New polling from American Research Group finds that 55% of voters believe that George W. Bush has abused his powers in a way that rises to the level of impeachable offenses. 52% of voters believe that the same is true of Vice President Dick Cheney.....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/13/142654/59

Conrad Bibby:

"You can call this a "crime" if it makes you feel better, but Bush went into Iraq with the approval of Congress, and was subsequently REELECTED even after no WMD turned up. He hasn't been impeached or indicted."

So what? Hitler was wildly popular in Germany up until the battle of Stalingrad.

"As far as actual crimes are concerned -- I'm talking about real, prosecutable offenses, not just policies people want to label as crimes -- there's no there there. If there were, I'm sure he would have been impeached or indicted by now."

Wrong. He hasn't been impeached or indicted because of two things. First of all, the Democrats (with a few exceptions) have been gutless cowards throughout Bush's presidency. Secondly, as you point out, most of Congress (including most Democrats) voted for the war. They could not, therefore, impeach Bush without acknowledging their own complicity in his behavior. This does not mean that Bush is not guilty of any wrongdoing.

"Whether or not the policies were wrongheaded and damaging, he's no common criminal."

By your logic, neither were the leaders of imperial Japan during WWII. They could have argued (and, in fact, did argue) that their "aggression" in Asia was done to defend Japan from Western imperialism. It was the same type of "preemptive" argument Bush made concerning the Iraq War. Of course, since the Japanese had been defeated, their argument was rejected.

If Wallace is really that in the tank for Dubya, then shame on him. I read it more as a crass defense of his continued paycheck, but that's as far out on a creaky limb as I'll go for the schmuck. Nixon was an evil genius; Bush only got as far as part 1.

It's a shame and a pity that Hunter Thompson won't be around to write 43's obit. I'd love to compare and contrast versus Nixon's:

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/graffiti/crook.htm

People can cry all they want about wiretapping and "torture," but the only thing Bush could have hoped to gain from these policies is intelligence with which to defeat our enemies.

Oh, no doubt, no doubt. I do not think you're defining "our enemies" quite the way George did, however.

Coming soon to a theatre near you : Howard/Wallace

"I on the other hand don't see how you can seriously expect to prove -- not "assert," but prove -- that Bush had a motive other than the objectives of using the war in Iraq and the fight against Islamic extremists for partisan political gain and to enrich his cronies."

But criminal defendants don't have to prove their innocence.

"When more than one-third of the country wants the president to be impeached, that sure seems a popular outcry to me."

By that reasoning, I guess there was a popular outcry for John McCain to be president. He got way more than 33% of the vote.

By that reasoning, I guess there was a popular outcry for John McCain to be president. He got way more than 33% of the vote.

Yep, there was. McCain was very popular, just not popular enough. Had he won with 33% of the vote I don't think you would have questioned either his popularity or the legitimacy of his cause.

A majority of Americans believing that impeachable offenses have been committed and one in three wanting to see an impeachment brought against Bush are extraordinary figures.

In short, while many of you obviously believe Bush deserves to be punished, the American people as a whole do not regard his objectionable policies as crimes. Learn to live with it or do something about it, but please DEAL WITH IT.

Just for the record, we're not going to just "deal with" monstrous ineptitude, criminal negligence, or outright crimes just because there are wind-sucking bozos out there who still have man-crushes on Bush. This is a nation of laws, not men. Deal with that.

"I didn't know the law was subject to the whims of the population."

It's not the "whims" of the public that's at issue, it's (1) whether the public regards these actions as essentially criminal in nature (2) whether they want to criminalize policy decisions, and (3) whether they want to set a precedent by which the incoming administration conducts political trials at the expense of the outgoing administration.

I get the impression you see a war crimes prosecution as a form of punishment in itself. Prosecutors, however, aren't supposed to prosecute somebody unless they genuinely believe they can get a jury of 12 to vote unanimously for conviction. Thus, public opinion is an important consideration. If only a fraction of the public is inclined to see Bush's conduct as criminal, he shouldn't, and won't, be prosecuted.

"In addition, I don't agree. I think the American public wants these things investigated."

Perhaps, but investigation (which can take many forms) is a far cry from an actual war crimes prosecution.

What Bush did was essentially criminal in nature. There is simply no question about it. Why? Because a nation of laws that forbid domestic spying would prosecute these offenses. Lucky for Mr. Bush, we are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men and he is, to coin a phrase, "more equal than others."

His assault on Iraq is another example of a criminal act. We have evidence that demonstrates that he took office with the desire to murder Iraqis. That his lies were successful in getting him his wishes matters not at all.

The fact that he was not impeached does not reflect anything but the cowardice of the Democrats and a Republican Party devoted to power above principle. A nation concerned with its standing in the world would move heaven and earth to remove someone who assaulted the innocent people of another nation on false premises. Again, lucky for Mr. Bush that we do not live in such a nation.

The support for torture...fuck it, I've already given more than enough reason why Bush is a far worse President than Nixon, apologists like Comrade Bibby will continue to lie about the facts. His contributions are obscene and lower the level of discourse.

"So what? Hitler was wildly popular in Germany up until the battle of Stalingrad."

The Germans didn't prosecute Hitler for war crimes.

"First of all, the Democrats (with a few exceptions) have been gutless cowards throughout Bush's presidency. Secondly, as you point out, most of Congress (including most Democrats) voted for the war. They could not, therefore, impeach Bush without acknowledging their own complicity in his behavior. This does not mean that Bush is not guilty of any wrongdoing."

But it does strongly suggest that any judgment against him will not be in a court of law.

"By your logic, neither were the leaders of imperial Japan during WWII [common criminals]. They could have argued (and, in fact, did argue) that their "aggression" in Asia was done to defend Japan from Western imperialism. It was the same type of "preemptive" argument Bush made concerning the Iraq War. Of course, since the Japanese had been defeated, their argument was rejected."

For your analogy to work, however, we'd have to lose the war in Iraq and/or the GWOT, whereupon Bush will be tried by the victorious terrorists. I would agree that, if we lose, the Islamofascists might see fit to hold trials and eventually execute of Bush, Cheney, Blair, and a whole lot of other people (Hillary? Biden?). I don't see how that possibility signifies that Bush can or will be prosecuted by his own countrymen.

Conrad Bibby,

The time between your early post and your more recent ones did absolutely nothing for you ability to grasp logic and fact.

You're still wrong about every single point you're attempting to make, and I'll add you're simply out of your league.

The quality commenters to this blog will not allow you to get away with silly assertions that are not grounded in reality.

It's not the "whims" of the public that's at issue, it's (1) whether the public regards these actions as essentially criminal in nature... -Conrad Bibby

That is, quite frankly, the dumbest thing I have ever read. You're argument is that it's not about what the public thinks because it's about what the public thinks.

Seriously. Out. Of. Your. League.

This bullshit about "criminalizing policy decisions" was used to defend Reagan's assault on our democracy in Iran-Contra. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now. Bush committed crimes against the peace and he committed crimes against the people. He is a criminal. He will never be convicted because the justice system here is not configured to hold officials like him accountable.

Reagan's ability to commit criminal acts stems directly from the fact that Nixon proved that "if the President does it, it isn't illegal" when Ford gave him an unconditional pardon. Bush merely followed precedent.

"Yep, there was [a popular outcry to make McCain president]. McCain was very popular, just not popular enough. Had he won with 33% of the vote I don't think you would have questioned either his popularity or the legitimacy of his cause."

If he won with 33%, I wouldn't have questioned his legitimacy. However, I certainly would have questioned his popularity. If that really happened, you would have lambasted anyone who called his victory a "popular outcry."

"A majority of Americans believing that impeachable offenses have been committed and one in three wanting to see an impeachment brought against Bush are extraordinary figures."

It may be "extraordinary" to you, but it's not enough to actually compel a serious effort to impeach, let alone prosecute for war crimes (and let's not conflate the two).

"Just for the record, we're not going to just "deal with" monstrous ineptitude, criminal negligence, or outright crimes just because there are wind-sucking bozos out there who still have man-crushes on Bush."

What ARE you going to do? Do tell.

For your analogy to work, however, we'd have to lose the war in Iraq and/or the GWOT, whereupon Bush will be tried by the victorious terrorists. I don't see how that possibility signifies that Bush can or will be prosecuted by his own countrymen.

Um, no. Bush can be tried by the ICC for violating international law. Also, if you seriously believe in the possibility, even remote, that a handful of religious zealots can somehow conquer the hundreds of millions in America and indeed the billions in the free world, you need to cut waaaaay back on the weed. It has imperiled your chances at grasping reality.

Quite simply, Bush committed war crimes by authorizing torture in defiance of federal statutes and international treaties.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/taguba-bush-adm.html

Whether or not the political will exists to actually prosecute him is a legitimate question, but has not bearing on the actual criminal nature of the charges in question. He absolutely SHOULD be tried on these charges so as not to set a terrible precedent for any future administrations.

"We have evidence that demonstrates that he took office with the desire to murder Iraqis."

What, like secret brain scans?

I see our Comrade has a sense of humor about his own idiocy.

Perhaps he were less a Republican toady and more a consumer of hard news he would already know that Bush took office intending to go to war with Iraq. Hell, there have been books published by Bush insiders who made this perfectly clear.

What ARE you going to do? Do tell.

Firstly: elect a Democrat to the presidency to reverse the policies of this bozo.

Check.

Secondly: haunt Bush and his slavering minions until the end of time by bringing a bright light to his his wrongdoing and criminality and their mindless support of it because they couldn't stop pissing their pants about scary brown men and thereby failed the American ideal.

Thirdly: relish in using discussions like this one as a teachable moment for all of the people lurking on this blog. You want to defend criminal behavior and take your satisfaction in the fact that Bush may never be prosecuted for his crimes? Fine. Criminals sometimes get away. But in the meantime we are going to take great pleasure in laying bare your mendacity.

"The quality commenters to this blog will not allow you to get away with silly assertions that are not grounded in reality."

Should I get a lawyer?

"That is, quite frankly, the dumbest thing I have ever read. You're argument is that it's not about what the public thinks because it's about what the public thinks."

I guess you don't understand the word "whim."

"Seriously. Out. Of. Your. League."

Right, I can't compete in a league where calling someone dumb qualifies as high-caliber repartee.

"This bullshit about "criminalizing policy decisions" was used to defend Reagan's assault on our democracy in Iran-Contra. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now. Bush committed crimes against the peace and he committed crimes against the people. He is a criminal. He will never be convicted because the justice system here is not configured to hold officials like him accountable."

You do realize that RR is the most revered president since the end of WWII?

You do realize that the Right Wing Noise Machine - you know, idiots like you - have made a career out of whitewashing Ronald Wilson Reagan's Presidency?

That hagiography of Reagan has nothing to do with the guy who funded terrorists on one continent with arms sales to terrorists on another.

That hagiography has nothing to do with the man who gave the working class their biggest tax hike in history.

That hagiography has nothing to do with the man whose second term was largely under the influence of dementia.

Reagan is only revered by two classes of people - those too stupid to know the truth and those too venal to admit it.

It is incredibly amusing how right-wing nutjobs cling to the notion that popularity trumps reality. Because they've managed to infest the public consciousness with the big lie that Reagan was a decent President, they think that obscures the facts. It doesn't.

Hence you see the argument that Clinton was a bad President because the Republicans subverted the rule of law to impeach him and Bush was a good president because the Republicans subverted the rule of law to prevent him from being impeached.

Sure it's stupid. But, when you are defending the indefensible, stupid is all you have.

"Um, no. Bush can be tried by the ICC for violating international law."

It's never going to happen without U.S. support. Obama is never going to go along with a plan by foreign leaders to try an ex-U.S. president before an international tribunal.

"Also, if you seriously believe in the possibility, even remote, that a handful of religious zealots can somehow conquer the hundreds of millions in America and indeed the billions in the free world, you need to cut waaaaay back on the weed. It has imperiled your chances at grasping reality."

If it's a handful, I agree.

"Quite simply, Bush committed war crimes by authorizing torture in defiance of federal statutes and international treaties."

That actually hasn't been proven. It's an assertion.

"Whether or not the political will exists to actually prosecute him is a legitimate question, but has not bearing on the actual criminal nature of the charges in question. He absolutely SHOULD be tried on these charges so as not to set a terrible precedent for any future administrations."

If it were really such an obvious criminal situation, then it wouldn't take political will to prosecute. Nixon won an overwhelming popular and electoral victory in '72, yet by '74 everyone recognized that his conduct was criminal and there was virtually no support for him to remain in office. The American people have lost faith in Bush as a leader but they don't regard him as a criminal.

I see Comrade Bibby is now pretending that the Republican Party has any connection with the rule of law.

No, Comrade, the case against Bush isn't strong enough to convince Republicans to impeach him because the Republican Party doesn't care about the rule of law. They proved it in 1998 when they impeached Clinton. They proved it in the 1980s when they were unwilling to impeach Reagan. They proved it in 1974 when they failed to impeach Ford for his abusive pardon of Nixon.

Hell, the only reason Nixon was so close to impeachment was the Democratic majority in the House at the time.

As to the American people regarding Bush a criminal, it doesn't matter. He is one, notwithstanding a massive propaganda campaign to insist that torture is okay, wholesale slaughter of innocents is "defending our nation," and that chemical sweeteners are just as tasty as sugar.

Trex: Essentially you seem to be saying that Bush is a criminal because "we say so," even if he's never prosecuted and even if the American people for the most part disagree. Your method of "dealing with it" is to continue to express the view that Bush is a criminal on internet sites.

Okay. Have at it.

OK, dickweed, this is so tiresome because it's an exercise that has literally been done on this blog tens of thousands of times in the last five years, but let's go to it.

I also don't see how anyone can seriously expect to prove -- not "assert," but prove -- that Bush had a motive other than the stated objectives of winning the war in Iraq and defeating Islamic extremists.

Absolutely false. In fact, there are reams of evidence that show that invading Iraq had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ISLAMIC EXTREMISM, and everything to do with a set of shared interests including, but not limited to, securing access to the their largest oil reserves in the world, getting revenge for one's daddy, performing an experiment to prove one's pet theories about dominoes and the democratization of the Middle East, using a trumped-up threat and an ongoing war to get oneself reelected, and fat no-bid contracts to corporations for parties with involvements in said corporations.

Let's roll the tape:

The man chosen to be Bush's biographer and Bush family friend of almost three decades said that during the campaign Bush told him that if he could find a way to attack Iraq he would, and that he wouldn't "waste the political capital of war" like his father had.

No Islamic extremism there.

Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill said that Bush and Cheney were "obsessed" with finding an excuse to attack Iraq from "the first week in office."

No Islamic extremism there.

Documents successfully subpoenaed from Dick Cheney's secret energy policy meetings priot to 9/11 reveal maps of the oilfields of Iraq and the NON-IRAQI companies that would be able to exploit them.

No Islamic extremism there.

Within a few hours of the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld instructed his intelligence people NOT to find out who the perpetrators of the attack were -- but to "sweep it up massive" and tie it to Iraq.

No concern about ACTUALLY keeping America safe there.

Paul Wolfowitz said that WMD's were just one of many reasons for going into Iraq, one of which was securing access to oil (which Bush himself as much admitted to by 2006). Larry Wilkerson corroborated this account and said that he and Colin Powell were reluctant to speak to the U.N. because they were well aware that the so-called evidence that had been presented to them was so much bullshit. In fact, Wilkerson said that this was SO MUCH about oil that one of the plans being considered was to invade the entire Middle East with an international force and secure ALL of the oil fields.

And again, no Islamic extremism.

When British officials cautioned Bush in 2002 that it was unlikely that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's they were rebuffed, and noted at the time that "the intelligence was being fixed around the policy."

Still no Islamic extremism. In fact, anybody but a brain-dead idiot knew that Iraq was a SECULAR POLICE STATE that did not have, nor did it export, Islamic extremism. It was only the invasion of said secular police state without a plan for keeping order that allowed Islamic extremism to be fomented there in the first place.

So as you can see, these are but a few of dozens if not hundreds of pieces of evidence that, when put together, form a damning case against Bush. They cover means, motive, and opportunity for his crime. You're correct in asserting that it's just not Bush that bears guilt, but a cabal of his advisers who knowingly lied to the American people, lied to Congress and presented them with edited security briefings, contrived if not outright forged evidence, and went to war in defiance of the intent of the AUMF and international law. Adding to their crimes they failed to have any meaningful plan for the occupation of Iraq short of securing the oilfields, causing unbelievable misery and ultimately over a million unnecessary deaths, and then authorized a regime of torture at Abu Ghraib to intimidate and punish people who had not been convicted of any crimes, as well as for crude intelligence gathering purposes.

As for the rest of your repetitive bullcrap, clearly you are tautologically challenged. The fact that there may be at the present insufficient political will to prosecute Bush does not mean that his actions aren't clearly criminal. Criminal administrations runs cities and states and federal governments for years without succumbing to prosecution for any number of factors, including a populace that would just rather see them depart then endure a protracted trial.

You argument is that one can't prove Bush's guilt without a trial (which is false, by the way) and since most people don't want a trial he is not guilty. That's what we in the biz call circular reasoning. And all the hand-waving and raspberries about the assertion that Bush won't be prosecuted -- that's what we call being a ridiculous idiot. And believe me, we've seen enough of them come around here to know.

Rather than force us to rehash items we've written about individually and collectively too many times to count, why don't you just google the archives of this blog and find out where you, like so many of your kind before you, are wrong on the facts and the logic. I guarantee you it will be less painful than trying to keep this up and it is only going to go downhill from here.

Conrad,

"You do realize that RR is the most revered president since the end of WWII?"

For a person who demands "proof" that Bush is a war criminal, this is a dubious claim to make. Polls have repeatedly shown that JFK, not Reagan, is the "most revered" post-WWII president among the American public. As far as I'm concerned, Lyndon Johnson was the best president since FDR.

EVERYTHING Bush has done has been about political gain, his or his party's.

Trex: You're being deliberately obtuse. I said you couldn't prove "that Bush had a motive other than the stated objectives of winning the war in Iraq and defeating Islamic extremists." In your case against him, you've repeatedly ignored the "winning the war in Iraq" part of that sentence.

So what if Bush "wanted" a war with Iraq pre-9/11? FDR wanted a war with Japan before Pearl Harbor. If he had gotten it, perhaps the Japanese would never have attacked Pearl Harbor. If FDR had been able to enter the war in Europe in 1940, we would have likely saved tens of thousands of lives of people in concentration camps. Simply "proving" that Bush wanted a war with Iraq before 9/11 doesn't mean, ipso facto, his motive wasn't the long-term security of the U.S.

Oh, and you're a dickweed. (Just engaging in more of that high-caliber repartee this board is famous for.)

As for your criticisms of the execution of the war and occupation, these are legitimate claims but completely beside the point we're discussing.

And of course if there's a war in Iraq, the oil fields SHOULD be a major concern. If you don't think protecting the oil supply is important to our national security, you obviously don't have a clue.

"You argument is that one can't prove Bush's guilt without a trial (which is false, by the way) and since most people don't want a trial he is not guilty. That's what we in the biz call circular reasoning."

I agree it's possible to "prove" something without a trial. That's not the point. You haven't proven that Bush is guilty of conduct that the American people would regard as a war crime or even a major criminal offense. You're rehashing all the old tired arguments about the justification for the war in Iraq, which the country has already rejected. You're entitled to go on ranting about it forever, but to suggest that this is an open and shut case and the only thing standing between Bush and the gallows is the minor detail of finding enough Democrats with the "courage" to try to have him executed is beyond delusional.

"For a person who demands "proof" that Bush is a war criminal, this is a dubious claim to make."

Hopefully, we can agree that the standard of proof for convicting someone of war crimes OUGHT TO BE a bit higher than the standard of proof in an internet debate as to which president is the most revered.

"Polls have repeatedly shown that JFK, not Reagan, is the "most revered" post-WWII president among the American public."

I wasn't aware that the pollsters used that particular phrase ("most revered"). If you can provide a link, I'd appreciate it.

If you want to say JFK is the most revered since 1945 and RR is second, I'm not going to fight over it. It's arguable either way. I like JFK, but it would be foolish not to recognize that he is rated higher than he objectively merits on account of the youth/glamour/tragedy factor.

"As far as I'm concerned, Lyndon Johnson was the best president since FDR."

Oh yeah. Big success there. Let's have a whole bunch of LBJs, one right after another. See how that works out.

Trex: You're being deliberately obtuse. I said you couldn't prove "that Bush had a motive other than the stated objectives of winning the war in Iraq and defeating Islamic extremists." In your case against him, you've repeatedly ignored the "winning the war in Iraq" part of that sentence.

Well, no. No one has ever argued that "Bush didn't want to win the war" because it's a silly, irrelevant, nonsensical claim. But do hang on to that strawman for dear life.

You're the one who's being obtuse by ignoring the fact that the claim about Bush invading Iraq to fight Islamic extremism on which your whole argument hinges has just been eviscerated. The entire underpinning of your argument is gone. So what do you do? You ignore an entire raft of damning evidence and move your goalposts back to: "so what if he did?"

Well fuck you.

You can't dismiss the misery and death of millions with a wave of your hand. You can't pretend that there was not a concerted effort to mislead the American people and our allies. There is no legal or moral justification for preemptively attacking a country that is not a threat to you based on the fact that you think you are entitled to the oil that lays in its ground. America has taken up arms more than once against countries that have done this, and invoked law and righteousness in its cause.

Well you can pretend that, and you are, but the only thing that proves is that you're an unserious turd.

You've got nothing and it's become apparent that you're too mentally and morally challenged to know it. When someone is willing to argue that the coverup of one's personal affair is not only as a disqualifier for office but makes someone "positively evil" -- but not the coverup of a plan to knowingly sell a false threat to the American people and the ensuing torture and war profiteering -- they're not a serious candidate for debate. When someone gets worked up enough about who John Edwards sleeps with to write "He has used his wealth and connections, and played on the good will of his credulous supporters, to orchestrate a campaign of deception" -- and yet sits with his fingers in his ears while evidence of a deception a million times worse is read showing that Bush used the lives of soldiers and our treasury and national security for personal and political purposes -- there's just no use in talking further with such a lowlife.

You're done here.

Next.

Trex,

"There is no legal or moral justification for preemptively attacking a country that is not a threat to you based on the fact that you think you are entitled to the oil that lays in its ground."

There is also no justification for invading a country to avenge your father (the reason I believe Bush invaded Iraq--I think he wanted to avenge Saddam's assassination attempt against the first George Bush). It didn't matter to him that countless innocent people would die in the process.

"Oh yeah. Big success there. Let's have a whole bunch of LBJs, one right after another. See how that works out."

Well, I guess you don't think civil rights legislation was important at all. It only served to correct the most glaring wrongs and injustices in American society at that time. How important is that?

Lee: agreed. And it goes to show what a conscienceless sociopath he is.

You know, I used to get worked up debating wingnuts like Conrad Bibby, and I'd spend hours meticulously correcting and exposing their lies and distortions. But now I hardly feel like I should bother. And you know why?

Because they lost. They're irrelevant. Who cares what a Conrad Bibby rants on about anymore? The Democrats are in charge, we have control, and we're going to right the wrongs of the Bush regime, no matter how much the Bibbys pout and whine and stamp their little feet.

And, no matter how much they claim the Bush regime didn't commit war crimes, let's just say I don't think any of the Bushies will be booking any international trips for the rest of their lives.....

Stefan raises an excellent point. The studied stupidity of the Bibbys used to send me around the bend. This fellow is Charlie with longer sentences and fewer solecisms, but the "reasoning" processes are the same. trex's highly competent smackdowns notwithstanding, I can't get worked up about these folks anymore--because they're in our rearview mirror now.

As for members of the Bush regime rightly fearing international travel: sure, but these guys' instincts for self-preservation have always been compromised by their extreme arrogance. I'm confident that 10 or 20 years from now--perhaps even sooner--we'll read with satisfaction about Condi Rice getting picked up by Interpol while shoe shopping in Florence or a troupe of immaculately dressed men swiftly surrounding David Addington in the lobby of the Connaught.

Stephan and Shortstop: My goal is not to get anybody worked up. If my comments upset you, feel free to ignore or disregard me as you see fit.

Stephan, you wrote: "But now I hardly feel like I should bother. And you know why? Because they lost. They're irrelevant." It's true my preferred candidate lost the election, but I only lost if Obama turns out to be a bad president. If Obama does a good job, then I won, even if I didn't vote for him. All any ordinary citizen should care about is whether the COUNTRY made the right call, not whether he or she, individually, did so.

Lee: I never said everything LBJ did was bad. His overall record, however, was quite bad.

Also, regarding Bush's supposedly going to war to avenge his father and not caring about the casualties, I don't agree. If possible, please explain why YOUR belief that Bush started the war to avenge 41 is entitled to greater deference than anyone else's opinion in the matter. Are you a Bush confidant?

Trex: You're being obtuse again. Obviously, our disagreement is over WHETHER Bush "used the lives of soldiers and our treasury and national security for personal and political purposes." If I thought he did, then my reaction would be similar to yours. Nothing you've written proves the case, and there is plenty of potential evidence pointing the other way. You've all but conceded that the powers that be won't press for a war crimes prosecution, so it's reasonable to assume the case is less than open-and-shut.

"Lee: I never said everything LBJ did was bad. His overall record, however, was quite bad."

That's your opinion, not a fact. And I don't agree with it at all. And neither do many professional historians. In a 1996 survey ranking the presidents, 15 out of 32 historians surveyed ranked Johnson as a "near great" president.

"Also, regarding Bush's supposedly going to war to avenge his father and not caring about the casualties, I don't agree. If possible, please explain why YOUR belief that Bush started the war to avenge 41 is entitled to greater deference than anyone else's opinion in the matter. Are you a Bush confidant?"

First of all, I am far from the only one who believes this was Bush's motivation. Secondly, I believe it because there is simply no other reason for Bush invading Iraq that makes any sense. Who in their right mind would, after a major attack on U.S. soil, invade a country that had nothing to do with that attack whatsoever? And don't give me the usual crap that "Saddam was a brutal dictator, he used WMDs on his own people..." yada yada yada. The world is full of brutal dictators, and the U.S. has not hesitated to support dictators when it has been in America's "interest" to do so (or at least when the government has believed that it has been in our interest). Saddam himself was a major ally of the U.S. during his war with Iran in the 1980s. The Reagan administration actually discouraged Congress from passing a resolution condemning him after he gassed the Kurds in 1988.
And although Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had done nothing aggressive during the 12 years between the end of the Gulf War and the beginning of the 2003 Iraq War.

And even if Saddam did have so-called WMDs, how does it logically follow that he posed a threat to the U.S.? The Soviet Union had huge numbers of WMDs for decades but never used them. Saddam was not some lunatic fanatic, he was a pragmatist who wanted to survive. He would have to know it would be suicide to launch an attack on America. Yet right after 9/11, when an investigation of the attacks was underway, Bush said "Look into Iraq, Saddam," even though the evidence was overwhelming from the start that al-Queda was responsible. Why would Bush have such a mental bias against Iraq? It doesn't make sense. I find the revenge motive to be the strongest explanation.

And finally, I base what I said about Bush not caring about people being killed on what I have heard people say who have dealt with him. Even the deaths of American troops don't seem to affect him much. This stands in sharp contrast to his father during the Gulf War, and to LBJ during Vietnam.

Lee, I don't think your analysis takes proper note of the history of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship. By 2001, we were at the very least engaged in a cold war against SH's regime (which of course followed on the heels of a very hot war a decade earlier). Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq and established regime change as the official policy toward Iraq. Bush clearly didn't just invent the idea that Iraq was an enemy of the U.S. Consistent with the policy of regime change, Bush basically had two broad choices: (1) take SH out militarily; (2) allow SH to remain in power, "contain" him, and kick the can down the road to a later date -- or a later president -- at the risk that he would become a greater threat/menace during the intervening years. 9/11 made this a much easier question insofar as it demonstrated the need to deal with rogue actors sooner rather than later.

I make these points not to defend the wisdom of Bush's policy as such, but rather to defend the notion that it was, in fact, an actual policy whose objective was to protect our national security. It can't be dismissed as some random criminal act motivated by personal malice, at least not without ignoring history.

As for LBJ, I think his intentions were good but his policies (with some obvious exceptions) were bad for the country. I don't understand how someone who is so critical of Bush's handling of Iraq can regard LBJ's conduct of the war in Vietnam with anything but contempt.