GW Bush Sticks his Foot in his Mouth

[Iceberg]

"No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."

Seriously. He said that.

Mr. Bush, I believe the ghosts of Presidents Abe Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt would like to have a few words with you.

[Joe]

Wow. I mean, WOW.

[Nathan F]

"No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."

Seriously. He said that.

Mr. Bush, I believe the ghosts of Presidents Abe Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt would like to have a few words with you.

Abe Lincoln was a white supremacist, and said that if he wouldn't have emancipated the slaves if he hadn't, and Franklin was hardly a humanitarian. What did he actually do that would fall under the auspices of humanitarian? WW2 wouldn't exactly be called a 'humanitarian' war, and he also had the little thing of putting American citizens in mass prisons, as well as being buddy buddy with 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.

[neoolong]

Did he give examples?

[Nathan F]

"No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."

Seriously. He said that.

Mr. Bush, I believe the ghosts of Presidents Abe Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt would like to have a few words with you.

Abe Lincoln was a white supremacist, and said that if he wouldn't have emancipated the slaves if he hadn't, and Franklin was hardly a humanitarian. What did he actually do that would fall under the auspices of humanitarian? WW2 wouldn't exactly be called a 'humanitarian' war, and he also had the little thing of putting American citizens in mass prisons, as well as being buddy buddy with 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.

I'd also like to add that I do not think that he's the greatest humanitarian president. Just pointing out the err of your examples.

[CaptainChewbacca]

You know, the only way I'm surprised anymore is if Bush actually puts his foot in his mouth. He says stuff, who cares?

[Joe]

Nathan, FDR and Lincoln may not have been perfect, but you know just as well as I do that they did more for human rights than Dubya has. It's kind of insulting to their legacy for Dubya to say otherwise.

[Mayabird]

Isn't this at least *slightly* contradictory to his claims of being humble?

Eh, I'm not surprised.

[Nathan F]

Nathan, FDR and Lincoln may not have been perfect, but you know just as well as I do that they did more for human rights than Dubya has. It's kind of insulting to their legacy for Dubya to say otherwise.

As I said, I don't think that W has done as much as past presidents, but I think that there could have been much better choices. Carter did alot for humanitarian aide, and Johnson, while I didn't like him alot, did alot for civil rights.

[Joe]

No way. No way Carter and Johnson did even a third as much together for human rights as did Lincoln and FDR.

[Nathan F]

No way. No way Carter and Johnson did even a third as much together for human rights as did Lincoln and FDR.

What exactly did either do? Lincoln did the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves (which was really a moot point anyways, considering that the southern states didn't recognize his authority), only as a last resort in the war, and FDR didn't do a whole lot with his questionable New Deal policies. Helped with jobs, yes, did alot for humanitarian needs, no. As for dealing with Hitler, I'd accredit more of that to Churchill than FDR.

[Joe]

Lincoln freed the slaves - regardless of his reasons, it did a lot for human rights.

FDR helped make the Allied victory a quicker one, saving many lives, and halted Japan's military aggression, saving lives again.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No way. No way Carter and Johnson did even a third as much together for human rights as did Lincoln and FDR.

What exactly did either do? Lincoln did the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves (which was really a moot point anyways, considering that the southern states didn't recognize his authority), only as a last resort in the war.

Southern propogandist bullshit. He planned it much in advance, and was told by his advisors to await a major victory before announcing it. The set-backs at Antetiam delayed it considerably.

[Nathan F]

Lincoln freed the slaves - regardless of his reasons, it did a lot for human rights.

I'll give that to you.

FDR helped make the Allied victory a quicker one, saving many lives, and halted Japan's military aggression, saving lives again.

Tell that to the Chinese. I mean, we didn't do JACK until Pearl, when it finally woke us up to the fact that we couldn't be isolationist. Now, I know alot of that was due to the populace not wanting to get involved in another European war, but still. So, it wasn't necessarily FDR who did it, he just happened to be president at the time, doing what any president would do.

Like I said, I'll give it to you about Lincoln, but not FDR.

[Nathan F]

Southern propogandist bullshit. He planned it much in advance, and was told by his advisors to await a major victory before announcing it. The set-backs at Antetiam delayed it considerably.

Really?

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

[Stormbringer]

No way. No way Carter and Johnson did even a third as much together for human rights as did Lincoln and FDR.

What exactly did either do? Lincoln did the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves (which was really a moot point anyways, considering that the southern states didn't recognize his authority), only as a last resort in the war, and FDR didn't do a whole lot with his questionable New Deal policies. Helped with jobs, yes, did alot for humanitarian needs, no. As for dealing with Hitler, I'd accredit more of that to Churchill than FDR.

Lincoln did that but that was also because he was trying to save the Union. That isn't exactly laudable but then again it's not perfect.

And you forget the fact that FDR did ignore the Holocaust and other human rights violations by the Axis power, before the war and during. And for that matter FDR supposedly denied the Air Force permission to bomb the rail lines to the death camps.

[Axis Kast]

Iceberg, nobody's suggested that Bush was blameless saint, either.

The fact that Bush's claim is actually debatable already puts him ahead of most other administrations.

[Iceberg]

Iceberg, nobody's suggested that Bush was blameless saint, either.

The fact that Bush's claim is actually debatable already puts him ahead of most other administrations.

You've got to be shitting me. The only reason it's "debatable" is because he SAID IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Plenty of other presidents have done MUCH more for human rights.

[Stravo]

Bush's record on human rights is HARDLY debatable at all. I may agree with some of his policies and think he's light years ahead of the democratic candidates at the moment for what's good for this country but to even suggest he has a human rights record of which to speak of is absurd.

[Iceberg]

The South seceded because they had backed themselves rhetorically into a corner where to not do so would have unmanned them politically in all future conflicts with the North. They threatened to secede if Lincoln was elected - blackmailing a presidential election so they could get a pro-slavery Democrat - and to not do so would have badly wounded them politically.

Do not ascribe honorable motives to the Confederate secession; it had none.

As Xenophobe said, secession was discussed before slavery became the topic it was. And if you'll remember correctly, the North was just as guilty of propogating slavery as the south, seeing as how they used as much if not more slave-produced goods than the south did.

The north has no place for a holier-than-thou position in the civil war.

Notice I didn't "ascribe" holier-than-thou positions to the North. The North WON. My disgust with the holier-than-thou positions of Southrons, who wish to imagine that their forebears were Great Men in the pattern of the Framers, who were forging a new nation against foreign oppression of a distant empire, however, should be obvious.

[Stravo]

The Lincoln/Secession debate looks like it has legs so I split the discussion off. Please post any responses in the Lincon Secession thread. Thank you.

[Iceberg]

The South seceded because they had backed themselves rhetorically into a corner where to not do so would have unmanned them politically in all future conflicts with the North. They threatened to secede if Lincoln was elected - blackmailing a presidential election so they could get a pro-slavery Democrat - and to not do so would have badly wounded them politically.

Do not ascribe honorable motives to the Confederate secession; it had none.

There's also the horrible tariffs on imported industrial goods that hurt the South economically.

Economic motive.

One of the Republicans' first moves was to be another tariff, one that would hurt the South even more.

Sectional politics motivated sectional revenge. Imagine that.

South Carolina had already threatened secession before, they just succeeded this time...

Actually, they failed. A successful secession would be one where the state remained out of the Union.

[Axis Kast]

If you've got other candidates worthier than Bush, let's see them.

Some of the earlier Presidents strike me as possibilities, since so much of this is about sowing potential (you'll notice that Bush and Lincoln are the same in that they laid the foundations for potential advances in the future by oppressed peoples, but that during their own times, circumstances were hardly excellent), and one could technically argue that Washington bestowed upon mankind the greatest gift of all in the form of a viable democracy, but that's terribly Americanocentric and ignores the fact that real advances came only by Andrew Jackson's time (and we know that he himself was no saint). Wilson seems to be the best candidate in the last century, although he was an avowed rascist himself, IIRC.

[Howedar]

So exactly what has Bush done for human rights? The only possible thing I can think of would be the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and IMHO pushing that as a human rights triumph is... questionable.

[Joe]

If you've got other candidates worthier than Bush, let's see them.

Some of the earlier Presidents strike me as possibilities, since so much of this is about sowing potential (you'll notice that Bush and Lincoln are the same in that they laid the foundations for potential advances in the future by oppressed peoples, but that during their own times, circumstances were hardly excellent), and one could technically argue that Washington bestowed upon mankind the greatest gift of all in the form of a viable democracy, but that's terribly Americanocentric and ignores the fact that real advances came only by Andrew Jackson's time (and we know that he himself was no saint). Wilson seems to be the best candidate in the last century, although he was an avowed rascist himself, IIRC.

He was. He set race relations back years.