"Why is George W. Bush's disapproval rating the lowest of any president in modern history ? ( 68 % )"

Very nice. I just wish I'd written it.

Thank you thats quite a compliment.. I appreciate it.

Hello there - I read your post with interest, and am going to be absolutely civil in my response. I ask for the same courtesy from those who respond to me, as there is a good deal of name-calling and insulting going around. I won't take part once that happens.

First, the idea that the Iraq War is illegal comes from the Nuremberg Principles, which are a set of guidelines created after World War II to define what constitutes a "war crime". I believe it is Principle VI that says a "war of aggression" is illegal. Many people in the United States, and I am one of them, believe that Iraq was no threat to the United States of America or our allies. Disagree if you like, but the fact is that in the year before the invasion both Condi Rice and Colin Powell had publicly stated that Iraq was no threat to anyone with either conventional arms or WMDs. The Nuremberg Principles also state that being a head of state does not exempt one from acting illegally, and it also renders the "I was following orders" excuse inoperable. I believe it states that a soldier has the responsibility to refuse an order that is illegal, such as torturing someone.

I don't understand your reference to our having found WMDs in Iraq, particularly as the President in an interfview this week said we were still looking for them and that their complete absence thus far has been, in his words, a big disappointment. Remember, please, that weapons inspectors were crawling all over Iraq before our invasion, and that they did not leave at the beckoning of Saddam, but of the United States. If you doubt that, it's easy enough to check.

I am bothered by the apparent pattern of the Bush administration firing or attacking those who disagree with them. There is a long list here, starting with General Shinseki and including Joseph Wilson, Richard Clarke, and others. I don't ever like it when the president appears to only be surrounded by "yes-men", and to me that is what the Bush administration looks like. Disagree if you like, but there are quite a few books out there, including Scott McClellan's, that state that President Bush cannot tolerate disagreement or dissent.

I don't like that the entire war-budget has been borrowed and has never been placed on the official government budget. I also don't like that literally billions of dollars can't be accounted for. I don't like that when an army auditor told KBR, a military contractor, that it appeared that they had overbilled the government by one billion dollars, he was instantly fired and the payment was approved by his replacement. That's an easy story to check - feel free.

I am not an advocate of any 9/11 conspiracy theory, but it is a fact that the Bush Administration did everything in its power to first prevent, and then interfere with and obstruct, an investigation into what happened on that awful day. I said it's a fact, so check it out. There's a wealth of information available. I personally feel that such obstruction is grounds for impeachment, but the Dems in Congress have no stomach for it.

As to the rights that were taken away - everything in the Bill of Rights except the Amendment that says soldiers can't be quartered in your house. President Bush stated that he had the power as commander-in-chief to define anyone, anyone in the world, as an "illegal enemy combatant", and that, once so defined, that person could be imprisoned indefinitely without even knowing the charges against him or having a chance to answer those charges in court. The main lost right was that of "habeas corpus", which states that any person accused by the United States has the right to know the charges against him and to respond to them in court. The loss of that takes away the rest of the Bill of Rights with the one exception. Example - if I am unjustly imprisoned, I have lost my Second Amendment right to bear arms.

If Congress tomorrow votes for retroactive immunity from prosecution for the telecommunications companies that have spied on millions of Americans, we've just lost our 4th Amendment right.

While the president does not "run the economy all by himself", he has a good deal of influence over economic policy. For the first six years of his administration, President Bush had a Republican Congress (both houses) that exercised virtually no oversight and rubber-stamped everything he wanted to do. The resulting mess speaks for itself. Our dollar has lost a third of its value against other currencies, the removal of regulation in the name of the free market has resulted in a number of abuses, of which the subprime mortgage debacle is at the moment the best known. And yes, the Dems got the House of Reps back in 2006, but don't have the votes in the Senate to make policy on their own. Except for defunding the war. They could do that, but lack the guts, balls, spine - your choice, they all work for me.

By the way, I don't believe that there was any "active resistance for years to come" in either Germany or Japan after the Second World War. Please source that for me.

It is widely reported that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our invasion. Millions more have been displaced. It is a fact that "interrogation techniques" that were labeled by the United States at Nuremberg as torture have been used on prisoners by United States soldiers and contractors. I find that appalling. There is now direct, and undisputed (admitted by Bush, as a matter of fact) evidence that the use of these techniques was approved at the highest levels of this administration, including Bush, at meetings held in the White House. That makes me ashamed.

I also think that President Bush's well documented disengagement during Hurricane Katrina was pretty bad. I think his promises made in Jackson Square in Katrina's aftermath were worse, because they have never been kept. You can read his speech and judge for yourself.

I believe that I have kept my promise to be civil. I have done my best to keep my opinion out of this, except as it is formed by facts (example, my opinion about obstructing a meaningful investigation into 9/11 warranting impeachment). I hope this post has been helpful in explaining why I, for one, think that President Bush has been a very bad president.

We waged a war based on intelligence mostly given to us by a Burger King fry cook. And you want to know why his approval rating is so low?

Good way to put it, Gribbler.  The evidence is that they heard what they wanted to hear.

For those of you not up on the news, he's talking about "Curveball".

I love it how everyone is now jumping on bush's decision, saying its the dumbest thing they have ever seen and comments like the Gribbler made. He did what he thought was the best for the country, YES A PRESIDENT ACTUALLY DID WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY.

He did it to be safe and make sure nothing fishy was goin on and we should all be happy Iraq had no WMDs. But instead of thanking the man for making sure, he gets the countrys lowest approval rating because all the liberals want ALL PEACE ALL THE TIME.

You shouldnt diss the man for trying to do the right thing, especially when the last Democrat president spent most of his time in office doin the wrong thing(You all know what im talking about).

I think its sad that Bush is goin to go down in History as a bad President even though he did just as Abraham Lincoln and FDR did...Go with his gut.

Good article.

 

Shorty if the costs of this war were not astronomical in scope, i'd agree with you. It's always better to be safe than sorry. However, this is a war we are talking about. A long term commitment of American soldiers, billions upon billions upon billions of dollars that could have been far better spent, and worst of all many innocent civilians lost their lives in the hands of Americans/Al-Qaeda/each other. When you're going to do something like that, you need to make sure your intelligence of imminent threat is watertight. Otherwise, you're initiating a war of unprovoked agression.

And that's the thing; ever since the war started there has been numerous reports (and admissions from the administration itself) that the intelligence they received in no way justifies what they did.

Do you have any comparisons with other wars and rebuilding measures?




Really? For what?

Rebuilding Iraq is certainly a noble goal and as history has shown rebuilding a former enemy country is a much better investment than most others.

What else would you spend that money on and get better returns?




Al-Qaeda's (and other terrorists') attempts to kill Muslims (primarily) in Iraq and elsewhere have hardly much to do with the presence of US soldiers trying to stop them.

If American soldiers would not stand between Sunni and Shia extremists, how likely would it be that they would fight again and cause _millions_ of deaths like in the 80s and 90s?

You are creating the impression as if you believed that Al-Qaeda blow up Shiite places of worship because of America. They don't. They do it because they hate Shiites (and Jews and Persians and Sunnis who don't subscribe to their heretical Islam).

Shia militias are also well-known for attacking Sunnis/Christians/Jews/whomever.

Look at Sudan, another country rampant with "Islamic" terrorists but without American troops. Hundreds of thousands die at the hands of the extremists there. It's so extreme that many are trying to flee to _Israel_, despite the stories they have heard about Israel's alleged mistreatments of Muslims and Arabs.

That innocent civilians lost their lives is indeed the worst of all. But by increasing their number (i.e. withdrawing the only protection they have) or by not fighting those who murder them (i.e. not stop Saddam from killing Shiites), the US would hardly contribute to a better world, would it?

An honest opinion. Stated Honestly. My belief is different.



Do you have sources for this fact? While I have heard of many of the kook theories about 9-11, this is the first I have heard of there being facts to back up a coverup theory.



Just for my enlightenment, can you enumerate when:

1. The right to free speech, religion, Press and Assembly was revoked?
2. The right to bear arms was revoked (that would kill him with the republican base for sure)
4. When the Miranda rights were abrogated?
5. WHen the right to self incrimination was revoked?
6. when the right to a speedy trial was revoked?
7. WHen the right to trial by Jury was revoked?
8. Considering the Supreme Court case of just last month, when the right about being subjected to Cruel and Unusual Punishment was revoked?
9. When the rights not enumerated in the constitution were then denied to the citizens? (Well, ok, we lost that one 70 years ago - during the New Deal).
10. When the powers - oh, forget this one - we lost this one under FDR as well.



Damn, I seem to have missed all that talk and actions of Filibustering. WHen did his SS plan get passed again?



Widely? Source please.



It has been. However, while your opinion is yours to have, please do not confuse it with facts.

Okay, Dr. Guy - I appreciate your civility, and though I think you could verify much of what you're asking me about yourself, I will do so after work.  It's 07:01 here in L.A., and I have to be out the door shortly.  Here's a short one - if "habeas corpus" is effectively taken away and I am unjustly imprisoned, I have lost the right to bear arms.  Bush's own order states that I have lost the right to a trial.  Anyone, by simply being declared an "illegal enemy combatant" potentially lost his Constitutional rights.  That is what the Supreme Court reversed just last week.

It is indeed "widely reported". But it is also a very transparent lie.

1,000,000 in five years would be nearly 20,000 bodies per month, every month, for five years.

Nevertheless there are no (new) mass graves in Iraq and there are no reports of body-removal being a major industry in Iraq. We also don't find quite that many bodies on the streets in Baghdad. So where are the bodies?

Parts of Iraq, like the entire north-east, are completely pacified. Other parts are relatively calm. Most violence happens around Baghdad and one or two other major cities. This means the dead civilians all land in an area smaller than most New-England states inhabited by maybe ten million people.

Vanishing over 500 bodies a day is not a trivial task.

The only other event that comes to mind that has to do with vanishing bodies working at that scale is the Holocaust. The proportions are somewhat comparable. The Nazis had a bigger area to work with, with each death camp covering an area roughly comparable in size and population to the violent part of Iraq.

The Treblinka death camp was operating for two years, and 700,000 people died there. That corresponds to approximately 25,000 a month or 800 a day.

The Nazis used furnaces to get rid of the bodies and a bureaucracy VASTLY superior to anything the US army and the corrupt Iraqi puppet government could come up with. I don't think the Americans can simply vanish all those bodies without trace.

Saddam couldn't.

The hundreds of thousands of Shiites that died in Iraq before the war "started" (because it wasn't a war before the US invade, obviously) were found in mass graves.

Just typing "massgraves" into Google gives this site as the first hit:

http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/

Those were found by American troops after locals pointed them to the locations.

I would assume that if there were new massgraves caused by the invasion and American (or even terrorist) action afterwards, SOMEBODY would have pointed them out by now; especially when the numbers are so widely reported and "researched".

But nobody did.


Now, I am from a family of traditional German Social Democrats and would have voted for Al Gore in 2000 if I were an American citizen; and I can certainly see why somebody might be opposed to George Bush's policy, even his Iraq policy.

But bad maths and believe in conspiracy theories shouldn't be the reason.

Incidentally, the same site also has pictures of the Kurdish victims of the chemical weapons Iraq never had.

Good article. It's sad that it's so fashionable these days to be a media drone and bash Bush. War is never an easy thing to lead a country through. Especially not with today's political dynamic (or lack thereof).

Leauki,

The current situation in Iraq can be attributed not to the U.S invasion of Iraq, but the in the days following after it. Despite the fact that the invasion was illegal and it's reasons unfounded (catguy is correct that Iraq had no WMD's or no connection to 9/11 etc) the overall sentiment of the general Iraqi population was very high shortly after the U.S took over. People were actually optimistic and hopeful to see what life would be like without Saddam. In all honesty, even though I completely disagree with the invasion of Iraq, if the Bush administration had played it's cards differently they actually could have come out as heroes for both U.S and Iraqi's alike. Let's put aside the rhetoric, jingoism and ideology for a moment and take a good look at what actually happened-

1) U.S (and friends, but mostly U.S) invade Iraq. Although there is heavy fighting in some areas, the vast majority of the Iraqi army did not fight at all. Although the civillian population was indeed subjected to the "shock and awe" round the clock bombing they remained mostly optimistic and hopeful to see what life without the bootheel of a dictator on their necks would be like.

2) After major combat is over, U.S and co. are the new proud occupiers of Iraq. Most of the Iraqi army and police are still intact, with only a few hard-core elements of Saddam's support having been wiped out (those of his close supporters who didn't fight went underground etc)

This was and will forever remain the high point of the U.S misadventure in Iraq. This point, shortly after the invasion was when Iraqi support for the Americans was the highest and their chances for success the greatest. In short, despite the fact that the entire war was unnecessary, the Americans managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It was what happened next that sent everything down the toilet and now more than five years later efforts in Iraq are still in damage control mode.

A) There was no strategic plan for reconstruction and security in Iraq. The commander of the U.S Army, General Shinseki openly stated and asked about this. "Don't worry about it!" he was told. He also openly stated that the biggest challenge the U.S would face would be the post-invasion security and reconstruction. His assessment that to do the job properly would take several hundred thousand troops on the ground for a prolonged period of time. In response the SECdef fired the commander of the army. The Bush Administration ignored any advice that didn't fit in with their ideological views. They believed that Iraqis would be happy just to be free and that within less than a year there would only be 20-30,000 troops in country. In terms of economic recovery, the plan was to show how great free-market economics would be by letting "private enterprise" spearhead the reconstruction. 5 years later, electrical power generation, potable water supplies and oil output in Iraq are still mostly below pre-war levels.

Paul Bremer. The damage this man did to the situation in Iraq can't be accurately tallied. He was Bush's man on the ground, the first real governor of Iraq after Saddam was ousted. If you want to know why the situation is so bad, look at the first two orders issued from his office- he decreed that the entire Iraqi army would be disbanded, and that any member of the Baath party had to leave their job in the administration of the country.

This turned several hundred thousand men with military training into several hundred thousand unemployed, angry young men. It was from the ranks of these fellows that provided the various resistance groups with much of their manpower. If he had kept the Iraqi army intact (most of which didn't even fight the U.S remember) and on the payroll things would have turned out very differently. The end result is the same. Today, many Sunni armed groups are no longer fighting the U.S because the U.S is paying their salaries to provide security (this is called the 'Awakening Council' if you want to research it)

De-baathification essentially gutted the country's infrastructure. In Saddam-era Iraq if you wanted to be anything, a lawyer, doctor, engineer, manager of a power plant or bank you had to be a member of the Baath party. So Bremer's de-baathification basically deprived Iraq of all it's critical staff that were keeping things running. The answer was that the roles filled by these people would then be taken over, again, by 'private enterprise' which meant foreign companies winning bids then importing workers to do jobs (very poorly) while many Iraqis with skills and education sat there unemployed and angry.

Disbanding the army and de-baathification created a MASSIVE security vacuum and basic services were no longer being looked after with the infrastructure gone (power, water, garbage removal). This was where the various militias and armed groups got a foothold and started taking over. Since the U.S wasn't looking after the people in various neighborhoods, their allegiance shifted to those would look after them.

3) The third major mistake the administration made was in refusing to acknowledge the reality that was created by their earlier decisions and actions. If they would have acknowledged the scope of their SNAFU, apologized to the Iraqi people and buckled down with proper measures they still could have reversed things. Instead Bush and his administration continued to be blinded by their ideological bias, and instead of acknowledging the reality of the situation on the ground their only answer to the fomenting resistance was to use more force to try and attain their goals.

This led to things like the Second Battle of Falujah (forgive my spelling) in which the U.S decided to make an example to the resistance by flattening half of an entire city. This led to things like Abu Ghraib in which inexperienced interrogators started resorting to methods outlawed by the geneva conventions in an effort to extract 'actionable' intelligence. This led to U.S raids in which they swept through entire neighborhoods and arrested any military age males they found or simply anyone they decided might be looking suspicious.

To his credit, Petraeus recognized the stupidity of these actions and was very much against them. That he is now the theatre commander is one of the very few things I agree with in this whole debacle.

All the while, the Administration continues to be blinded by ideological dogma. They have learned nothing and although the invasion should have never happened in the first place, they could have played this to their advantage. Instead they screw up royally and when things didn't go their way the only answer they had was to use more force. Five years later the outcome remains TBD.....

Artysim,

I don't doubt the statements you underlined, so what's your point?

Mistakes were made, but it's not those details that George Bush is condemned for.

I have to disagree with the term "illegal war" though. It's propaganda and nothing else to call a war "illegal".

Saddam's Iraq did violate a cease-fire and did fire at British and American aircraft. Reacting to that is NOT illegal, not according to international or any applicable law in the world.

Saddam's government was linked to terrorism as thousands of posters in the Palestinian territories still prove. He did give money to Palestinian terrorists. And while he was no supporter of the Wahabi nutters who attacked New York, his support for terrorism was absolutely something that had to be stopped.

As for the WMD's, that was specifically mentioned in the article above. The fact is that they did find WMD's, that it was reported, and that you and other are still using the lie that Saddam had no WMD's EVEN in a direct reply to an article that points out that it is a lie.

So I agree with everything you say, except that the war was "illegal", because claiming that it was is pure propaganda and has no impact on the morality of the invasion, and the lie that Saddam had no WMD's, because some were found.

Do you think the American invasion of Normandy was "legal" according to whatever law you use here?

You can certainly blame George Bush (and me) for that misjudgment. Neo-conservative ideology does indeed state that all races and peoples, including Arabs, are capable of living peacefully in a free society.

But George Bush is now being accused of being an anti-Arab racist AND a believer that Iraq's society could be reformed. It's impossible for him to be both.




Due to terrorist attacks... on the plus side, we don't hear of starvation and the shortage of medicines any more.

In Kurdistan reconstruction is going ahead well and the benefits can be seen quite clearly.

A million bodies over five years is actually not that difficult to get rid of- a nation disposes of far more physical garbage in landfills when comparing the physical mass. It's the same problem as Chechnya- no one can really say how many people have died there because the Russians don't want to air their dirty laundry to the world and it's not a very friendly environment for journalists.

In Rwanda nearly one million people were killed over the course of 100 days, which exceeded the tempo the Nazis achieved in most of their death camps. And most of the killing in Rwanda was done with machetes. 

This report was produced by Iraqi doctors and epidemiologists from John Hopkins university- and I quote-

"Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."

The survey was conducted between May 20 and July 10 by eight Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They visited 1,849 randomly selected households that had an average of seven members each. One person in each household was asked about deaths in the 14 months before the invasion and in the period after.

The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates.

According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."

Of the 629 deaths reported, 87 percent occurred after the invasion. A little more than 75 percent of the dead were men, with a greater male preponderance after the invasion. For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old.

Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

Burnham said that the estimate of Iraq's pre-invasion death rate -- 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people -- found in both of the Hopkins surveys was roughly the same estimate used by the CIA and the U.S. Census Bureau. He said he believes that attests to the accuracy of his team's results.

He thinks further evidence of the survey's robustness is that the steepness of the upward trend it found in excess deaths in the last two years is roughly the same tendency found by other groups -- even though the actual numbers differ greatly.

The survey cost about $50,000 and was paid for by Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies."

Apples and Oranges Leauki

1) The United States and Germany were in a formal state of war with each other (they had both issued declarations of war against the other on the international stage)

The U.S never officially declared war on the State of Iraq when they invaded. Although the congress authorized use of force, there was never an actual declaration of war.

2) Germany had invaded and occupied France and many other countries. Also, Germany was officially allies with Japan who had attacked the U.S and were actively waging an aggressive war against the U.S.

When the U.S invaded Iraq they had not aggressively attacked ANYONE outside of their borders since the end of GW1. They were not a threat to anyone. They had not declared war on the U.S or allies with anyone who was officially at war with the U.S.

The "WMD"s you speak of were a few hundred artillery shells and a few short range rockets, holding mostly things like mustard and sarin gas, all of which was produced pre-1991. ALL nations keep stockpiles of chemical weapons in some way shape or form. The amount found was miniscule and obsolete in comparison to any actual arsenal. Hell, even here in Canada we've got far more chemical weapons stockpiled than Iraq had!

Well, actually, yes, it was. There are international laws regarding the declarations and states of war. The UN never mandated or approved the U.S invasion of Iraq. Only once it was over did they provide a mandate (which expires soon) acknowledging the U.S as the defacto rulers and occupiers of Iraq.

At it's core, it was a war of choice. There was no pressing urgent need to invade Iraq. There are far worse dictators and regimes that the U.S has actively supported and worked with because they were willing to play ball with the U.S (Kyrgystan and many of the smaller eastern-european, east-asian former soviet bloc countries come to mind)

 

Eh, no. While losing habeas Corpus means a lot, it is not in and of itself the loss of any other right. You can still do all the rest for the rest of your life, there is no law against it, or anyone out to "get you".

But the SCOTUS opinion your reference has nothing to do with your habeas Corpus, but that of the detainees at Gitmo. They did not preserve anything, they just EXTENDED the rights to armed combatants in a time of war. Now we all agree they are not POWs (and thus protected from our tyranny by the GC), and most of us will agree that they were Armed Combatants. So their ruling does not apply to POWs, just thugs that decide to bomb an embassy in a foreign land.

SCOTUS opinions are usually (not always of course) carefully crafted to address the issue at hand, without being as leaky as legislation (that more often than not has undesired consequences). This is such a case. I do not agree with their ruling, but like Algore, recognize they have the final say. So for now, non-american thugs got HC. I still have mine. Unlike my forefathers in about 1863.

Out of a total of 25 million? They would be noticed, and decidely so. Iraq is not the US, in population or size. The people touting those figures are doing so for hysterical value alone, not for any thoughtful dialog or to even remotely discuss the truth about Iraq.

You can be against the freeing of iraq and the disposal of Saddam (why? I guess even maniacal meglomaniac have some friends), you can be very much against the loss of American and allied lives - as after all, Iraqis dont vote or live next to you. We can even debate the intel that went into - the same intel Bill Clinton used, but somehow escapes loathing for using (and killing Iraqis). But when you start using Hysterical facts, then the discussion is over. And it becomes not a discussion of what is wrong or right, but about who can shout the loudest.

BUT - France at the time, the only government of France, was not at war with the US, and we invaded their territory. Picky? Yes, but then so is your comparison. Vichy France was not a threat to us in 44. And they were not shooting at us either.

I also believe that the War in Iraq is a branch/effect of the War on Terrorism. We knew Saddam Hussien was aiding terrorists so we went tin there and delt with him. Thats another key reason for this war, its not 100% about the nukes.

And by the way we are COMPLETELY justified to invade Iraq if they are:

1. Harboring and Aiding Terrorists 

2. Building weapons of mass destruction.

So they didnt commit the 2nd reason, they were still doing the first reason. We were simply defending ourselves and alot of the world by invading Iraq, not any of this other alterior motives bs.

From what I've picked up, didn't Saddam killed terrorist going into Iraqi borders from Iran? I heard this from a friend that visited Iraq before the war and told me that it was pretty peaceful (at least when you don't see the secret killings around).

:LOL: - Dont look at the man behind the curtain.