November 8, 2010

George Bush takes questions from Matt Lauer.

Did you watch the big show on TV tonight? You can watch it here:


And here's the transcript. I thought Bush came off well, though I'm sure people who don't like him will feel twinges of the old revulsion.

89 comments:

Mr. Forward said...

Check that smile when questioned about Osama bin Laden. The man knows something the rest of us don't.
They either got Osama or got Osama him right where they want him.

1jpb said...

Was this on at the same time as the dancing show?

Meadehouse must have picture in picture.

1jpb said...

Mr. F,

Are you saying that Bush got him while he was in office? Or, are you saying that this is a post-W capture/kill, but W has been informed?

I'm on the left coast, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Trooper York said...

Jeeez. I think a bunch of your commenters are going to have their heads explode. Cue up AlphaLiberal and all the rest.

edutcher said...

Couldn't agree with TARP, but I've seen the video of him getting the news about the Twin Towers.

No shock.

There's an adrenalin rush as it sinks in, but he kept his cool.

For that, and the days after, we owe him - and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condi. When it counted, they came through.

Compare with The Zero.

PS PB&J is on the Left Coast, all right.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Love that NBC has to say "enhanced interrogation" and not what it really was.

Trooper York said...

Did youse guys see "Boardwalk Empire" this past week?

They had Warren G. Harding at the Republican convention. Nucky Thompson strikes a deal with his handler. It struck me that this is just what politics is really like even to this very day. Just sayn'

Trooper York said...

Hey Zach. Glad to see you.

1jpb said...

TY,

I saw it.

I'm still hanging w/ that show, it has its moments. But, I can't say that I look forward to it each week.

A Lawyer Mom's Musings said...

What an odd setting for that interview. Where was it? A TSA "enhanced screening" pat-down room in Idaho?

c3 said...

Haven't seen the interview. I'll admit I always liked the guy. So far a good post Presidency

(do they grade those?)

Trooper York said...

I am hanging with it too and I am also pretty dissappointed.

The depiction of Meyer Lansky shocked me!

He is shown as a retarded midget!

Seriously.

Trooper York said...

The Warren Harding thing with the mistress was pretty cool though.

I bet they will be making movies about Clinton like that in fifty years.

Harding made Clinton look like Thomas Merton for crying out loud!

Meade said...

Love that NBC has to say "enhanced interrogation" and not what it really was.

BUSH:Let's talk about waterboarding.
LAUER: Okay.

Seven Machos said...

I love Boardwalk Empire. You same people whined about The Sopranos I bet. And next season you'll say last season was so much better.

As for Bin Laden, the dude is dead.

As for torture, I am pro-torture. You leftists do realize, I hope, that the Clinton policy was to hand these people off to the French and the Egyptians, right? Those two countries don't do torture. They do TORTURE. Careful what you wish for, boys.

1jpb said...

Seven,

I loved (the first three years of) The Wire.

Where were you on that?

rcocean said...

I always liked George Bush personally, too bad so many of his policies and decisions were bad & ran the country into the ground - and led to the election of BH Obama.

A good man and a bad President. A sorta Republican Harry Truman. The best I can say about him is Gore and Kerry would've been worse.

Seven Machos said...

I missed that whole show, actually, 1jpb, and I was just watching clips of it on youtube the other day because I had read about a character named Omar. And I was lamenting the fact that I missed the show.

Lem said...

Sorry I missed it.

Harry said...

It seems to me it's useless interviewing presidents or ex-presidents. They're going to say whatever it takes to justify themselves.

Here's a good question for Bush: If you were still president, would you have sued Arizona to stop it from enforcing its border, since that was your policy as well?

I heard Bush commenting favorably on the Tea Party movement in an interview yesterday. Does he realize that the Tea Party movement arose out of the necessity of rescuing the Republican Party from the disastrous course he set it one? Whether he does or not, he'd not going to say so, so it would be pointless to ask him.

My favorite George W. Bush is the one who stays on the ranch and doesn't talk to reporters.

1jpb said...

"BUSH:Let's talk about waterboarding.
LAUER: Okay."

So far (on the left coast) that clip has been the tease for two commercial breaks.

Not that W's waterboarding opinions are unknown. The tease must be targeted at dopes.

Trooper York said...

Seven they are screwing up the whole story! I mean don't they know that Nucky worked hand in glove with Lucky back in the day. In the big conference later on in the decade at Atlantic City the Commission forced Al Capone to take a bogus gun charge in Philly to do a year in the can. Nucky Johnson and Lucky Luciano made that happen while they worked together.

I just wonder if they are going to twist it so Nucky is invovled in Arnold Rothstein's hit. If that happens then you know they are really full of shit.

Seven Machos said...

Oh God. Here come the people who hate illegal immigrants. As if that is somehow a vital issue right now.

Ever notice, by the way, that the illegal immigrant haters also hate TARP? It's fascinating to me. They mus believe in magic. How else to explain the belief that you can (1) somehow round up millions of illegal immigrants and physically transport them to some other country, and (2) that you can somehow maintain an economic system with banks that have no money to lend?

Seven Machos said...

Trooper -- You gotta stop watching those preview things at the end. Totally misleading.

Trooper York said...

And by all means rent the Wire from Net FLicks. Especially the last two seasons. It is the best show ever put on television.

Some of the best crime novelists writing today wrote some episodes. Talents like Dennis Lehane, Richard Price and George Pelacano's. The best writing ever done on TV.


The Soprano's is not a pimple on "The Wire's" ass.

Palladian said...

"Oh God. Here come the people who hate illegal immigrants."

Who doesn't love criminals?!

Let's make them all citizens and give them more free stuff and let them vote.

That will definitely help our economy!

Trooper York said...

I know that Seven. But the character of Meyer Lansky was just nuts. I mean really? Did you see that? You gots to be kidding me.

Seven Machos said...

As long as we are quibbling, Warren G. Harding was ugly. No guy who got that much trim and made the ladies swoon could be fat and ugly.

I do agree that Hyman Roth did not start out the way suggested in Boardwalk Empire. No way. Or was that Moe Greene? I get so confused.

Maguro said...

Illegal immigrants are great for the economy - just look at how great California's doing. Who wouldn't want to emulate that success?

Patm said...

Saw the interview. Miss the man. Don't regret voting for him.

Seven Machos said...

Maguro -- Or look at how Japan is doing.

1jpb said...

I thought Japan had huge barriers to immigrants?

Seven Machos said...

1jpb -- Exactly my point. A society that doesn't accept immigrants with enthusiasm is a dying, warping society.

The trick is to assimilate immigrants into the overarching culture, so that they aren't immigrants any more. It is here that both side in the United States ruck up. For their own stupid reasons, neither side wants to focus on this elegant and obvious solution.

Maguro said...

The trick is to assimilate immigrants into the overarching culture, so that they aren't immigrants any more.

Do you seriously believe this is happening in California?

Seven Machos said...

Do you seriously believe this is happening in California?

No, Maguro. That's why I said: It is here that both side in the United States ruck up. For their own stupid reasons, neither side wants to focus on this elegant and obvious solution.

Ruck was supposed to be fuck. But I can't imagine you couldn't see that I was very obviously saying that the United States needs to do a better job at assimilation.

If you want to build a wall, go for it. I will support that draconian solution. But, please, stop the madness about somehow deporting illegals in any meaningful way or not allowing them to work.

Harry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

A country that can't defend its borders is a dying, warped society.

We're protecting our borders fine, thanks. No successful invasion since 1812, and even that one was by our friends the British.

A country with leaders that refuse to respect the clear will of the people can no longer be operating under the will of the consent.

It's a local issue. I support the Arizona law in the sense that I believe Arizona residents should be able to govern themselves, even if they choose stupid and useless ways to do so.

Seven Machos said...

And then the dude removed his post to which I responded. Way to go.

Palladian said...

You've conflated legal and illegal immigration, SM.

Maguro said...

But I can't imagine you couldn't see that I was very obviously saying that the United States needs to do a better job at assimilation.

OK. But how do we do a better job at assimilation? You're never going to get Mexicans to assimilate when you let so many of them in. They have no incentive to assimilate when everyone around them is also Mexican or Central American.

Personally, I would like to our immigration policy to be closer to Canada's than Japan's. Canada takes immigrants, but they select theirs based on what the immigrant can contribute to Canadian society. We should do the same.

Seven Machos said...

Palladian -- I disagree. I gave out visas. Do you know how you get a visa? You pay $100 (probably more now) for the opportunity for a bureaucrat to look at some forms you filled out for 30 seconds and ask you a couple questions, and then that person decides your fate with virtually no recourse. I won't even go into expired visas, overstayed visas, etc.

A way to think of this is to analogize with business. You are an artist. So, suppose you open a studio. Now suppose you can't get a license to open that studio because there are "too many" art studios. Or suppose you let your license expire but continue to operate and the government comes and completely shuts you down and seizes your belongings.

I have said and continue to say that I would support a wall between the United States and Mexico -- like a Chinese Wall, though, not some pussy chain link fence. I also support Arizona's right to govern itself. However, it's ridiculous to think that we have the resources to capture, jail, feed, process, and transport any notable percentage of the existing illegal immigrants in this country. This is not even to mention the grave diplomatic troubles we'd have Mexico, etc. or the very serious ethical issues involved with rounding up illegals en masse.

Harry said...

Sorry, I removed my post because I was not satisfied with what I had written.

America takes in more immigrants than any other nation on earth. Within those numbers, Mexicans are the largest group. However, to you, it is still unacceptable that America exert any control over immigration whatsoever. Illegal aliens too must be welcomed, or we are morally tainted.

Seven Machos, you have a lot of interesting things to say on a lot of subjects, but on this subject you make no sense to me. But what difference does it make? Our immigration policy is determined by Wall Streeters who want to depress the cost of labor, Democratic Party politicians who want to enlarge a constituency that consistently gives them 70 percent of its vote, and liberals who want to demonstrate how endlessly tolerant they are.

Seven Machos said...

how do we do a better job at assimilation?

That's a treatise. The short answer is we did it just fine at the turn of the 20th century.

Canada takes immigrants, but they select theirs based on what the immigrant can contribute to Canadian society

Sorry, pal. Without a wall, we don't get to select our immigrants. We don't have the resources to combat immigration without wall, and we certainly don't have the stomach for the brutality and human rights violations that mass deportation would require. That's the facts on the ground.

Seven Machos said...

it is still unacceptable that America exert any control over immigration whatsoever

What? They don't follow our laws when they are here? Are you really going to say that the vast majority of illegal immigrants is lawless cretins? Really?

Listen, dude. I agree that there are negatives to illegal immigration. I will say for the tenth time in this thread that I will support a wall. What I want you to see is that it is (1) 1000 percent impractical to round up and deport illegals and (2) wholly immoral to round up and deport illegals.

Also, are you a tea partier? Because if you are, or if you claim to believe in limiting government spending, I just want you think for a 20 seconds about the cost of mass deportation. You need a jail, food, vans, planes, agreements with other nations, and massive amounts of processing, It's easily $5000 per immigrant, probably much more. How many illegal immigrants?

rcocean said...

The Rich and the left want "Open Borders" - having 400 or 500 million Americans by 2050 is their dream. The Rich and well-to-do, because it means cheap labor and mucho $$$ for them. The Left, because it means Democrat votes.

All the stuff about "hating immigrants, "Racism", "America is a nation of immigrants", "Xenophobia" blah, blah - is boob bait. And there's no bigger boob then the average American.

Harry said...

What I want you to see is that it is (1) 1000 percent impractical to round up and deport illegals and (2) wholly immoral to round up and deport illegals.

This business of "rounding up 11 million illegals" we always heard from people like George W. Bush and John McCain is a phony issue. All we have to do is start enforcing our laws. When we arrest an illegal, we send him home. We enforce employer sanctions so it's harder for illegals to get work. We do not subsidize them with welfare or free education. They will self deport and fewer will be motivated to come here from then on. After 10 years of real border control, under these conditions, I'd be happy to grant amnesty to those who are still here, who have been supporting themselves and staying out of trouble. Problem solved.

Seven Machos said...

We enforce employer sanctions so it's harder for illegals to get work.

That's what we want. A million young men who can't make money and need to feed their families and/or themselves. That'll help with crime and the social fabric in general.

We do not subsidize them with welfare or free education.

Fine with the welfare. Education not so fine. We can't punish little kids because of what their parents did. That's barbarism.

After 10 years of real border control

What border control? Do you have any idea how hard it is to patrol a border as long and unwieldy as ours? Dude, they can't even keep North Koreans in North Korea, and that country is a police state with a police state (China) on the other side. It's. Never. Going. To. Happen. Without. A. Wall.

I'd be happy to grant amnesty to those who are still here, who have been supporting themselves and staying out of trouble.

Since your solution is unworkable, you will never get to that point. The influx of illegals will be never-ending.

rcocean said...

I did like Bush's take on Abortion though.

rcocean said...

18 posts by "Seven Nachos" so far and not one of them interesting or funny - almost as bad as "Ritmo" or "Lucky Old Sun" or "Jermey'.

Bruce Hayden said...

Talking about a wall, etc., I was talking today to clients in Vancouver, BC, and they mentioned that they were now seeing UAVs flying around over the border there.

But the funny one was that one of them often bikes along the border. There is a small ditch between roads on each side of the border. And, now, there are U.S. agents watching all those Canadians biking by on their side of the border with binoculars. Fine, so, one of the local Canadian farmers put out a scare crow, complete with pumpkin head, to look back and watch our guys.

Seven Machos said...

How many posts in a thread is acceptable to you, RC? I will try to stick by your dictates in the future, especially at 1a in on the East Coast, when it really matters.

rcocean said...

And I agree that any country that doesn't let in at least 2 million immigrants very year is doomed. Look at:

Switzerland
Japan
China
Korea
Taiwan
Saudi Arabia
Norway
Israel
Kuwait
Denmark
Austria

The poor saps, their GDP per Capita equals or exceeds ours, but they're "doomed" - you know - like the dollar.

Harry said...

Ah well, another day ends with the realization that once again I have failed to change someone else's opinion through the comment section of a blog.

I bid you buenas noches, masked man, and wish you well until we meet again on this field of futile strife.

Seven Machos said...

RC -- Your list is hilarious. Japan's economy has been an utter disaster for 15 years. Kuwait is a silly fiefdom with a real estate bubble that makes ours look like a trifle. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world. Norway is the world's only politically successful net oil exporter.

And then the fact that you put Israel on your list when speaking about countries that accept immigrants is simply preposterous.

Seven Machos said...

Buenos Noches, Harry. Good to argue with you. Don't take it the wrong way, like that twat RC.

Lisa said...

I couldn't stand Bush.

However, he's still better than Obama.

Sigh.

jr565 said...

Seven wrote:
Listen, dude. I agree that there are negatives to illegal immigration. I will say for the tenth time in this thread that I will support a wall. What I want you to see is that it is (1) 1000 percent impractical to round up and deport illegals and (2) wholly immoral to round up and deport illegals.


I don't know about the immoral part, but as to the impracticalness of it, if there are no jobs available many will deport themselves. So in a down economy like this, a lot of people will simply go back and if you hold businesses accountable for hiring illegals (hefty fines) many more will not find jobs and then self deport.

Also, are you a tea partier? Because if you are, or if you claim to believe in limiting government spending, I just want you think for a 20 seconds about the cost of mass deportation. You need a jail, food, vans, planes, agreements with other nations, and massive amounts of processing, It's easily $5000 per immigrant, probably much more. How many illegal immigrants?

And if you don't you have to pay for services for illegals, health care, education etc. If they are not here you don't have to pay those fees. So $5000 dollars per illegal versus how much for all the services they will take advantage of (and considering it's entitlements that are destroying us already) and it sounds like getting rid of them might ultimately be cheaper.

jr565 said...

Seven Machos wrote:
Since your solution is unworkable, you will never get to that point. The influx of illegals will be never-ending.


Wouldn't it also be never ending if we legalized all of these immigrants? Those seeking to enter the country would realize that if they come here, they can stick it out and become legalized themselves. But if they become legalized then they don't have to do the jobs americans won't do, becuase they'd be Americans (and thus would be able to get jobs with minimum wages as opposed to migrant work i.e.). So then for those jobs that Americans wouldn't do we'd need a whole new batch of immigrants to come in. Right?

Seven Machos said...

Self deportation is great. It's happening, at least according to Mickey Kaus, who makes very compelling arguments against any sort of amnesty.

But self deportation is much different than rounding people up and forcibly moving them to another country.

Seven Machos said...

Also, I never said I was for amnesty. That's also impractical. To me, illegal immigrants are a lot like drugs. They come from countries to the south. We're never going to prevent their entry to the country illegally (though we have a better shot with the immigrants). But why demonize either? What's wrong with gray areas?

Sixty Grit said...

"The trick is to assimilate immigrants into the overarching culture, so that they aren't immigrants any more."

That is working out just as Mexico planned back in 1849.

WV: yetedee - all my twubles teemed so fah away...

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"The trick is to assimilate immigrants into the overarching culture, so that they aren't immigrants any more."

What are you Seven Machos? Is resistance futile? We should trick Mexicans into forgetting about their heritage and culture? Must they become one with the Borg? Really? You actually said that?

You're the worst kind of racist.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"You're the worst kind of racist."

Now I understand why you prance around these comment sections wearing a hood.

Nora said...

SevenM: "But self deportation is much different than rounding people up and forcibly moving them to another country."

This is a good argument for not letting illigals in in the first place. You don't have to move anybody out forcibly or not if you have secure border.

AllenS said...

At least 4,600 Karen (Myanmar) immigrants have received refugee status in St. Paul, MN. The schools are trying to figure out how to educate these children who speak no English. Where are the adults going to work? Immigration is sucking the tax dollar life out of this country.

Paco Wové said...

So, to summarize 7M's thoughts on illegal aliens in the U.S. -- he's against them, as long as we don't actually do anything to discourage them.

(That may be a snarky distortion, but you are not making yourself clear, at all.)

Robert Cook said...

"As for torture, I am pro-torture. You leftists do realize, I hope, that the Clinton policy was to hand these people off to the French and the Egyptians, right? Those two countries don't do torture. They do TORTURE. Careful what you wish for, boys."

Who ever said Clinton was not also a criminal and facilitator of torturer?

When has being opposed to torture been a right-wing/left-wing matter? People of good conscience of all political views oppose torture and other cruel treatment (and any treatment of prisoners not strictly abiding by due process)...heck, it's even prohibited by our Constitution! But, manly men (and manly women) who who are mentally damaged enough to support torture can't be bothered with a "damned piece of paper" (Bush's reported dismissive comment regarding the Constitution).

damikesc said...

Cook, any thoughts on the storied history of torture in every Communist state in history?

Fen said...

Who ever said Clinton was not also a criminal and facilitator of torturer?

Well, the Lefty narrative certainly forgets to mention Clinton while bashing Bush at every opportunity.

When has being opposed to torture been a right-wing/left-wing matter? People of good conscience -

*snicker*

You guys don't really believe in the things you leture the rest of us about. For you, the whole waterboarding debate has been about gaining political traction by bashing Bush. And then you have the nerve to pretend you've been arguing in good faith. Ha.

c3 said...

Ever notice, by the way, that the illegal immigrant haters also hate TARP?

SM;
You and I are on the same wavelength. I reading the conversation I wonder "Why must those 'opposed' to illegal immigration (as if you support it) resort to personal attacks?"

It is one of the few issues that unites many on the left and right; its just that those on the left don't talk about it much. Instead they say one of two things:
-rascist!!
-once again the big corporations driving down wages.

I will acknowledge that its the issue that gets votes (at least in AZ). Made Jan Brewer's re-election a breeze and got Russell Pearce the Speakership. Next stop: repeal of the 14th amendment

Where ever you stand (and stamp your feet) on immigration policy is it not possible to see a growing hispanic population, a "rigid" Republican policy and a slow decline (over the long haul) of the Republican Party.

There are few Republicans out there speaking on immigration like Jeff Flake.

(And, son of a gun, he's a strong fiscal conservative)

Robert Cook said...

"For you, the whole waterboarding debate has been about gaining political traction by bashing Bush."

Political traction for who? Obama? The Democrats?

WRONG---FAIL!!

They're as complicit in murder and torture as the Republicans and Bush and Clinton.

Don't make the assumption I voted for Obama...I didn't.

Robert Cook said...

"Cook, any thoughts on the storied history of torture in every Communist state in history?

Beyond deploring it and recognizing that it is an inevitable symptom and feature of every authoritarian government, should I have any particular thoughts? Are you expecting me to defend or gloss over the crimes of Communist dictatorships?

Fen said...

Robert: Political traction for who? Obama? The Democrats?

The Democrats.

WRONG---FAIL!!

you have been pwned... [sheesh]

They're as complicit in murder and torture as -

Murder? How can you expect us to take your "waterboarding=torture" seriously when our baseline for your judgement is "war=murder"?

roesch-voltaire said...

President Bush's claim that water boarding was legal because the lawyers said it was should make many folks on this blog happy. I appreciated his frankness, finally.

jr565 said...

Fen wrote:
You guys don't really believe in the things you leture the rest of us about. For you, the whole waterboarding debate has been about gaining political traction by bashing Bush. And then you have the nerve to pretend you've been arguing in good faith. Ha.

So true, they believed in dealing with Iraq so much so that, except for Kucinic they got near unanimous support to call for regime change back before running for president was even a glimmer in George Bush's eye. And yet they suddenly forgot all their votes and quotes in 1998 -2000 and suddenly convinced their lefty acolytes that they were duped and lied to. You can't make this up.
And when Gore said (about illegally grabbing a terrorist - or rendition, and whether such an action was against international law) "Of course it's against international law, that's why the call it a covert action. Go grab his terrorist ass" that tells you all you need to know about the democrats view of international law, rendition and their ability to lie. You might even say that Gore, by saying that BETRAYED US, if you weren't a sycophantic liberal.
As it so happens, I have no problem with us grabbing that terrorists ass and getting him out of the terrorist business, but I do have a problem with a holes, like Gore and the dems (and the libs), who are such hypocrites on the subject

jr565 said...

Robert Cook wrote:
Who ever said Clinton was not also a criminal and facilitator of torturer?

Then why was it such an outrage to liberals that Gore had the election "stolen" by the supreme court and why were they threatening to leave the country. Bush hand't actually done anything yet.
Whereas, in your view Gore and Clinton sanctioned Iraq, passed the ILA based on a lie (because they knew that Iraq had no weapons), and were illegally renditioning suspects, against international law, to countries where they'd be tortured.
Knowing all that, why would liberals vote for Gore? Because the idea that libs are against torture is just their talking point, and really it's all about party?

bagoh20 said...

"Love that NBC has to say "enhanced interrogation" and not what it really was."

If you were captured in battle and told you were going to be tortured today to get you to talk, and then found out it was going to be water boarding, how would you feel about that revelation?

jr565 said...

New Hussein Ham wrote:
What are you Seven Machos? Is resistance futile? We should trick Mexicans into forgetting about their heritage and culture? Must they become one with the Borg? Really? You actually said that?

You're the worst kind of racist.


In Seven's defense on this I THINK he's referring to the melting pot idea, as opposed to the multiculti idea. And that is people come here, they adopt our lifestyle and give up, or their kids give up, some of their cultural heritage to become americans as opposed to staying immigrants and not assimilating (never learining the language sticking with people of their own culture).
Is that idea racsist now? The better idea is to have balkanized neighborhoods of people who never assimilate? Hows that working out for Europe and their muslim population?

Robert Cook said...

Fen,

You do NOT consider that "War = Murder?"

That's the definition of war.

That's why a nation should only go to war as an absolute necessity, and not--as is usually the case--for political reasons or to fight over access to resources. This is why virtually all wars are crimes.

Just for the record, I didn't vote for Gore either, just as I didn't vote for Obama. They're both putzes.

I did vote in those elections, but not for either of the major party candidates.

Robert Cook said...

"Then why was it such an outrage to liberals that Gore had the election "stolen" by the supreme courtl...."

????

What a non-sequitur.

Gore was not a desirable candidate, but the outrage was over the Supreme Court inserting themelves into the election and prohibiting Florida from conducting a full recount of the votes to determine an accurate result.

How hypocritical of the "states-rights" conservatives for not being outraged about that as well. If the Supreme Court can do this in a case that benefits the Republicans, they can as easily do it to benefit the Democrats, or the Authoritarians, or whatever other party may gain ascendancy.

Maguro said...

You do NOT consider that "War = Murder?"

That's the definition of war
.

You really are a putz. Of course war doesn't equal murder, it's why countries don't put soldiers on trial for killing other soldiers in combat.

Do you ever think these things through before you post?

jr565 said...

Robert Cook wrote:

Gore was not a desirable candidate, but the outrage was over the Supreme Court inserting themelves into the election and prohibiting Florida from conducting a full recount of the votes to determine an accurate result.

Ok, but before the supremes inserted themselves the argument was that more people in the country voted for Gore. Remember the dems arguing he won the popular vote? Remember all the talk about how we needed to get rid of the electoral college?
The point being, if Gore and Clinton were such torturous murderers, then why would liberals give Gore the popular vote? Clearly they coulnd't have been that bothered by their murderousness, considering, at the time, they were faced with the compassionate conservative, who hadn't yet invaded Iraq "illegally" and conducted the fake war on terror and moved our country this close to a Nazi state, and voted against him.
So the choice was, a murderous regime that illegally renditioned suspects to be tortured, who contained Iraq based on a lie, and passed the ILA which called for a regime change, and passed tough, but necessary sanctions against Iraq which some considered akin to war crimes and genocide (as it led to the deaths of the Iraqi children), not to mention excursions into Kosovo and Somalia.
Something tells me, that if libs really cared about the Clinton/Gore crimes against humanity that Gore wouldn't have won the popular vote, nor would hollywood give Gore standing o's when he won his academy award for best fake documentary. Nor would dems keep bringing up Clinton as the time when the country was good before Bush wrecked the economy and lied us into Iraq.

Robert Cook said...

"You really are a putz. Of course war doesn't equal murder, it's why countries don't put soldiers on trial for killing other soldiers in combat."

Really? Are you that literal-minded? Are you 10?

If nations put the murderers on trial for wars, they would have to try the heads of state. The soldiers are merely the guns and bullets, the generals and heads of state plan the killings and pull the triggers.

(In fact, the heads of state of nations that lose wars are often prosecuted and punished, but that's not because they are the bad guys and the winners are the good guys...it's just because they're the losers.)

Robert Cook said...

jr565,

Without getting into the thicket of your tangled verbiage, I'll just ask:

Who ever said the Dems were any smarter than the Republicans?

Most Dems, if asked, certainly would not regard Clinton as a criminal, as a murderer or facilitator of torture...but he is.

Most Dems, if asked, would regard Clinton as a great man, a great President...but he wasn't.

jr565 said...

Robert Cook wrote:
That's why a nation should only go to war as an absolute necessity, and not--as is usually the case--for political reasons or to fight over access to resources. This is why virtually all wars are crimes.

An absolute necessity would also be a political reason and could also include fight over access to recourses. But something tells me that there would never be a war that could be fought that would ever satisfy you as to it's absolute necessity.

Robert Cook said...

"But something tells me that there would never be a war that could be fought that would ever satisfy you as to it's absolute necessity."

That's close to being true. A military force would have to have attacked us or a powerful nation declared war on us, and our nation's survival be truly imperiled to justify our going to war.

In short, the only arguably justified war I can think of we have fought in our nation's history was WWII.

Trooper York said...

Hey you want to hear a good one.

I am for illegal immigration.

My great grandfather jumped ship from Ireland and moved to Kentucky to work in a coal mine till he got sick and moved back to Brooklyn to be with relatives.

My grandmother on my mothers side came in legally but all of her brothers jumped ship from Italy and raised familes that became red blooded American.

I know a lot of Mexican, Thai, Peruvian and Dominican dudes who work in all the businesses here on Court St whose fondest wish is to be become red, white and blue Americans. I would love for them to be able to do that.

I would trade fifty Alphalibersls for one busboy when it came time to find someone who would be a loyal patriotic American.

Marshal said...

SM says ..."But why demonize either? What's wrong with gray areas?"

People who call ideas different than their own "barbarism" aren't in the best position to request nuance and denounce demonization.

Seven Machos said...

Marshal -- Do you really think it's civilized to prevent children from learning to read and write just because their parents don't have a certificate that is the equivalent of an up-to-date license to do business or driver's license.

Build a fence. Or shut up. But try hard not to be grossly immoral. The notion that we have the resources or the will to capture and deport any substantial number of illegal immigrants is absurd.