?

Log in

No account? Create an account
In Libris Libertum
In Books, Freedom
Writer's Block: So Long, Farewell 
19th-Jan-2009 01:26 pm
Bronze Phoenix
It's the last day in office for George Bush. There's been a lot of talk in the media lately about Bush's legacy. What do you think he will be most remembered for?


For his incompetence.

For forcing the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan (a very good thing), but then letting them regain power by moving troops and money from Afghanistan to his ill-considered war in Iraq.

For squandering all the good will that American had been building up in the decade before he took office.



For putting his own economic interests and the intersts of his oil business associates before the interests of his country.

For violating international law and his oath of office.

For starting a war against a country that was not in a position to attack us while letting the monsters behind 9/11 go free.

For ignoring people's rights.

For putting his friends into office instead of looking for qualified candidates.

For letting the people of New Orleans suffer and die even though he had FOUR DAYS warning that Katrina was going to hit hard.

For taking the most vacation time off of any president in the history of the US.



Most of all, he'll be remembered for his blind arrogance that led the world to the brink of yet another world war.
Comments 
19th-Jan-2009 09:52 pm (UTC)
Yes. Exactly. I was trying to explain to a friend WHY I disagreed with the war on Iraq... and they just didn't get it. *sighs*

New Orleans. God, I could cry just thinking about that. The US could have elected a kindergartner and it still would have been a step up from Bush.
19th-Jan-2009 10:05 pm (UTC)
Interesting. May I inquire as to the points on which you disagree with this explanation of the legality of the war in Iraq?

What we have here, I argue, as the rationale for going after Saddam, is that he signed a cease-fire agreement. The condition for his continuing in power was the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction, and the permission to have inspectors in to make sure he had eliminated them. He expelled those inspectors. So he violated the cease-fire; ergo, we have authority--not under a doctrine of preemption.
27th-Jan-2009 08:22 pm (UTC)
Hi, Sorry for the delay in answering your comment!

My thinking is that Bush asked the UN for sanction to invade and the UN denied it. However, Bush invaded anyway. To me, this is like the police raiding a suspect's house even though the courts refused to grant a search warrent.
28th-Jan-2009 12:08 am (UTC)
To me, that comparison doesn't really work. For one thing, the court is not a group of police officers meeting to discuss their policy toward one another. The US is neither separate from nor under the authority of the UN in ways equivalent to those in which a police officer is separate from and under the authority of a court; the relationship is not the same. It would be at least as accurate to compare the US's actions to those of police officer observing a crime in progress and intervening, while his or her colleagues acknowledge it's a crime but just stand around.

Of course, that simile is also imperfect, again because we are speaking of nations instead of individuals. But it represents a valid perspective. The UN did agree explicitly that the conditions of the ceasefire had been broken, which -- sort of by definition -- constitutes justification to start firing again. This doesn't automatically mean that to start firing again is a good idea, and it is demonstrably possible to argue that it wasn't. But I don't think "illegal" is the right term.
28th-Jan-2009 03:58 am (UTC)
Ah. Point taken. I guess 'illegal' isn't the proper term.
This page was loaded Nov 18th 2017, 5:54 pm GMT.