GW Bush Sticks his Foot in his Mouth

[Illuminatus Primus]

Which is why I DON'T give credit to Licoln for freeing the slaves. He put forth a legal fiction which had virtually no real world effect; the CREDIT for ending slaverly does not fall on Lincoln's watch. That honor is reserved for his sucessor (only by accident of time) and truely could be rightfully claimed by the radical republicans who had this quaint notion (which happened to be anathema to Lincoln) that black men should be equal to white men. It seems like a reasonable idea not to give credit to a man for something he never did

Denial of equal rights under the law != chattel slaves.

I also find the idea that somehow Lincoln was not responsible for the liberation of the American slave population from being other people's property.

Could you please direct me to who, specifically, else was responsible and how? Where the blacks going to remain slaves under Lincoln's watch? Why the fuck do you think Lincoln's election caused secession?

Why do you insist on crediting Licoln with the abolition of slavery when he never did it in entirety and when he did do it his motives were highly questionable.

Motives are irrelevent. His entire party was predicated on abolitionist politics and his election itself lead to the secession of the South. Does anyone really think that chattel slavery in the U.S. was going to last once the Emancipation Proclamation was announced?

His abolitionist alignment is noteworthy, however NUMEROUS presidents had the same damn alignment (many of whom were harder abolitionists than Abe). It doesn't win any points towards being the BEST president in this regard.

The South seceeded to preserve their right to keep slavery, among other things. Lincoln held the Union together against this, often at his personal (y'know, being shot) and political detriment. Under Lincoln's watch the Civil War was won, in effect terminating the institution of slavery within the U.S.

1. He freed slaves, on paper, in the middle of a war to disrupt the enemy's economy and win PR points at home. Please note for such an ardent abolitionist he neglected massive numbers of slaves.

Does anyone really think that after the Emancipation Proclamation it wasn't pretty fucking obvious that this conflict would be concluded with the universal abolition of slavery? He needed the political support of the Border States. Honestly, people act as if he should've intentionally sabotaged his political and military effort in order to be morally pure in each word, even though that effort was the real means by which slavery was going to be eradicated, because the South had to remain part of the Union to do that.

2. He, more than any president since Adam's, pissed on fundemental liberties.

Lincoln exercised a right granted by the Constitution. Furthermore, if you weren't an idiot, you'd know we're discussing human rights, not civil rights.

The right to the writ of habeas corpus is not a human right and is a red herring.

Earth to Hamel it doesn't, what it says is that what Licoln did was illegal and a gross violation of basic rights.

Does my username look like Hamel, you idiot?

The Constitution specifically addresses the option of suspending the writ of habeas corpus during an internal insurrection. The Civil War was an internal insurrection, and the Constitution itself provided this option to Lincoln.

Yes it does. Suspension of habeas corpus is within the powers of congress not the executive. Did you miss that the suspension clause is listed in Article 1 and not Article 2? Or are you clueless enough to buy Lincoln's arguements that he can assume all the powers of congress when it is not in session?

As suggested by a poster, Publius, to me in personal correspondance, a war, and more importantly, an insurrection, is understood to involve different law.

By congress voting on the matter. Not by the commander and chief declaring martial law.

It specifies nothing about law or voting, merely that it can be denied when states of rebellion "may require it."

But really, the suspension of habeas corpus, even if illegal or even unethical, has no basis on the argument at hand and is a red herring.

No other President has secured the rights of millions of men to not be property as Lincoln did.

Human rights are the issue, not civil rights. The writ of habeas corpus is a privledge granted by the Federal Government.

[Andrew J.]

Could you please direct me to who, specifically, else was responsible and how? Where the blacks going to remain slaves under Lincoln's watch? Why the fuck do you think Lincoln's election caused secession?

Actually, it's kind of ironic-if the South hadn't seceded, Lincoln probably wouldn't have tried to ban slavery there. He firmly believed that the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to ban slavery inside any state, only on federal property (like Washington, D.C, territories or, during the war, parts of the South held by Union troops). The Southern populace were paranoid and scared by radical abolitionists and proponents of slave rebellion, so they saw Lincoln as a threat even though he was so moderate.

[Axis Kast]

Whatever you make think about Bush's motives, surely you know that he was the one who pleaded with the Kurds to rise up against Saddam in the first place? Try to understand this, he asked the Kurds to rise up prominsing them the full support of the United States. When they did, Bush pulled out and denied them any sort of support, thus condemming them to be slaughtered by the dictator that he left in power.

Can you really justify this decision?

I’ll make this very simple, because I’ll be asking it a second time. Are you attempting to argue that Bush pledged American assistance but never meant to deliver it in the first place?

Worst dictators of the 20th century? Are you joking? Did you know that in the 80's Saddam actually recieved an award from the United Nations for his work in Iraq? He was considered by them and the United States in particular as THE benevolent dictator. It wasn't until we lost control of him that we decided to peg him as evil.


I am not a Saddam apologist, but surely you know that Saddam is NOT the worst dictator of the 20th century. He certainly wasn't a nice guy, but you can't even begin to compare him with the likes of Stalin or Hitler.

Note the use of the words “one of.” And our political engagement doesn’t exonerate Saddam, either. We pledged support for Stalin in the dark days of the Second World War – but we never stopped pegging him as an evil man, if only privately.

Lincoln never faced organized terrorism on the scale of the United States today? Are you high? What do you think the Confederacy was seen as? The only difference between domestic terrorists and rebels are the amount of support and their numbers. Think about it.

The North was never subject to massive terrorist attacks. For the purposes of this argument, the South was essentially another nation-state. It had its own conventional fighting forces, met the Federal armies on the field of battle.

We’ve never before had to consider that we might need to close or hem certain aspects of our society in response to infiltration on a very large scale outside conventional wartime.

That is because you don't want to see any decent arguments for the others in a feverent attempt to defend GWB.

Perhaps you’d like to show me where anybody provided a candidate with substantial evidence behind him?

[tharkûn]

"Denial of equal rights under the law != chattel slaves. "

That's right and here I thought human rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not some titular value.

"Could you please direct me to who, specifically, else was responsible and how? Where the blacks going to remain slaves under Lincoln's watch? Why the fuck do you think Lincoln's election caused secession? "

Who else was responsible? Most of the credit can be given to the republican congress. People like:
Thaddeus Stevens (you know the guy who wrote the 14th amendment).
Charles Sumner
James Garfield
William Kelley
Henry Davis
etc.

Why did Lincoln's election cause secession? Not because he promised abolition. Lincoln never campaigned on abolition, rather his line was that there would be no new slave territories. Indeed in Lincoln's inaugral address he promised to enforce the fugative slave act, disavowed to meddle with the southern institution of slavery, and even lent limited support to a constitutional amendment to protect southern slavery. Why the southern electorate turned towards succession is multifaceted.

First Lincoln lost the popular vote, with a 39 percent showing it was clear to southerners that it was a minority in the North who were running the national political scene. Further in an attempt to blackmail the results of the 1860 election several southern states had threatened sucession in the event of Lincoln presidency, while this was the most widespread use of the threat of succession, it is not the first. Other issues of states rights (like tariffs) also played a large role. As far as I have read, Lincoln never called for the total abolition of slavery. When he was in office he certainly never enacted such a provision.

"Motives are irrelevent. His entire party was predicated on abolitionist politics and his election itself lead to the secession of the South. Does anyone really think that chattel slavery in the U.S. was going to last once the Emancipation Proclamation was announced? "
Abraham Lincoln. He went on record as not intending to free the slaves of the border states. Further when Union military commanders exercised martial authority and freed slaves in areas already under their control (so the former slaves could join black regiments); he countermanded such orders and even sacked officers.

"The South seceeded to preserve their right to keep slavery, among other things. Lincoln held the Union together against this, often at his personal (y'know, being shot) and political detriment. Under Lincoln's watch the Civil War was won, in effect terminating the institution of slavery within the U.S. "

Lincoln won the Civil War. Nothing much for human rights. He put forth an executive command which freed, on paper, only peoples in areas of insurrection. He did not abolish slavery, he did nothing to enforce black rights, and did undertake numerous illegal actions that abrogated individual's rights. Tell me how do you beleive he could possibly stand against, say Madison as the BEST president in this regard.

"Lincoln exercised a right granted by the Constitution. Furthermore, if you weren't an idiot, you'd know we're discussing human rights, not civil rights.

The right to the writ of habeas corpus is not a human right and is a red herring. "
Free expression of opinion is. Not getting shot because you vocally oppose a war is a human right. Did you even know WHY he revoked habeas corpus? So he could take "copperhead" democrats, his political opponents, and jail them for making public statements against the war. In the same proclamation where he gave himself the power to suspend habeas corpus, he also gave himself grounds to close antagonistic newspapers, imprison protestors, and to try opponents without recourse to civillian courts or juries of their peers.

"Does my username look like Hamel, you idiot? "
My apologees I made a mistake.

"The Constitution specifically addresses the option of suspending the writ of habeas corpus during an internal insurrection. The Civil War was an internal insurrection, and the Constitution itself provided this option to Lincoln. "
No it didn't. Article 1, Section 1.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article 1, section 9
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.


The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.


No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.


No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.


No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.


No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.


No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

All of the powers granted in Article 1 are granted to Congress; the powers of the executive are listed in Article 2; and any power not listed does not devolve to the presidency nor the congress ... but the several states and the people as per the 10th amendment.

Bloody hell man how do you NOT get this? Powers listed in Article 1 are specifically stated to be for Congress. Powers listed in Article 2 for the presidency. Powers listed in Article 3 for the Judiciary.

The US congress could have voted to suspend Habeas Corpus, Lincoln did not have the power to suspend it himself.

"As suggested by a poster, Publius, to me in personal correspondance, a war, and more importantly, an insurrection, is understood to involve different law. "
Please elaborate. Where can I find the this body of law and exactly which portion thereof derogates the suspension of habeas corpus from congress or devolves it to the presidency.

In a nutshell show me ANY body of law which lists suspension of habeas corpus as a power of the presidency and not congress.

"It specifies nothing about law or voting, merely that it can be denied when states of rebellion "may require it." "
Sorry I thought you were constituionally literate:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Further it can only be denied when, "the public safety may require it". Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in numerous cases where the public safety was not at risk. Seriously when Lincoln quiets the opposition whose safety was at risk?

"But really, the suspension of habeas corpus, even if illegal or even unethical, has no basis on the argument at hand and is a red herring. "
However jailing people for the opinions they express does though, you know the whole REASON why habeas corpus was suspended.

"Human rights are the issue, not civil rights. The writ of habeas corpus is a privledge granted by the Federal Government."
Trial by jury is a right, it was violated. Freedom of speech was a right, it was violated. Freedom of the press was a right, it was violated. Freedom of association was a right, it was violated.

All of these centered on habeas corpus because it was the only way to violate these rights with any semblance of legality.

[The Dark]

I have a hard time finding information at the time accusing Lincoln of tyranny which ISN'T from Southern sources, which are hardly unbiased.

I'll have to check one of my books when I get home for Spring Break. It has some political cartoons from that era, and I believe a couple from the New York area portrayed Lincoln as a tyrant. I'm not 100% certain, though.

The North was never subject to massive terrorist attacks. For the purposes of this argument, the South was essentially another nation-state. It had its own conventional fighting forces, met the Federal armies on the field of battle.

Actually, Southern infiltrators sneaking down from Canada attempted to burn down the city of New York. They set fires at hotels, museums, and barges using what has been described variously as phosphorous or a mixture of sulfur, naphtha, and quicklime. Nineteen fires were ignited, though most were relatively minor due to the rooms being left sealed. One of those fires, if it had been set properly, would likely have destroyed the entire Lower East Side of New York City. The scale of the disaster would have been worse than September 11.

We’ve never before had to consider that we might need to close or hem certain aspects of our society in response to infiltration on a very large scale outside conventional wartime.

After the attack I mentioned above, there was a proposal to limit the movements and freedoms of former Southerners living in the North. Nearly 200 people were arrested on suspicion of being involved (all the actual conspirators escaped). Soldiers patrolled the streets of Washington and all government offices had military guards. We had those considerations 140 years ago.

[Joe]

I have a hard time finding information at the time accusing Lincoln of tyranny which ISN'T from Southern sources, which are hardly unbiased.

Draft Riots of 1863 ring a bell?

[revprez]

Regardless of whether or not you think he's done a good job at it, George W. Bush has presided over the liberation of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, destroyed two of the most brutal regimes in world history, and did it all in under two years. Can you point to a single world leader in history who's served through such fortuitous times?

Rev Prez

[Master of Ossus]

Regardless of whether or not you think he's done a good job at it, George W. Bush has presided over the liberation of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, destroyed two of the most brutal regimes in world history, and did it all in under two years. Can you point to a single world leader in history who's served through such fortuitous times?

Ummm... FDR?

[The Kernel]

I’ll make this very simple, because I’ll be asking it a second time. Are you attempting to argue that Bush pledged American assistance but never meant to deliver it in the first place?

What the fuck does it matter if he planned to do it or not? The fact is that he didn't and THAT is the reason that thousands of people were killed in reprisal to the uprising.

Note the use of the words “one of.” And our political engagement doesn’t exonerate Saddam, either. We pledged support for Stalin in the dark days of the Second World War – but we never stopped pegging him as an evil man, if only privately.

Great, but until we see if the United States simply replaces him with another dictator that is more friendly to the United States, this entire moral victory over the fall of his regime is moot. Or weren't you aware that the US has a terrible history when it comes to nation building?

The North was never subject to massive terrorist attacks. For the purposes of this argument, the South was essentially another nation-state. It had its own conventional fighting forces, met the Federal armies on the field of battle.

The United States never recognized the Confederacy as a seperate nation. Did you ever wonder why it was called the Civil War instead of the US-Confederate War? Because it was an internal conflict against a rebellion that's why! The fact that the South had a large enough military to confront the Union forces instead of resorting to clandestine attacks is irrelevent.

Perhaps you’d like to show me where anybody provided a candidate with substantial evidence behind him?

You don't get it do you? There is nothing to compare to GWB because nothing GWB has done is history yet! Whether or not his actions will lead to advancements in civil rights has yet to be determined. Say for example that in five years, after the US occupation force leaves Iraq, a new totalitarian regime comes to power which decides to begin its reign by killing every Sunni Muslim in the country. Would GWB's civil rights victories seem so great then?

Let me put this into simpler language: YOU CANNOT JUDGE LONG TERM SUCCESS IN THE SHORT TERM! Is that clear enough for you?

[The Kernel]

Regardless of whether or not you think he's done a good job at it, George W. Bush has presided over the liberation of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, destroyed two of the most brutal regimes in world history, and did it all in under two years. Can you point to a single world leader in history who's served through such fortuitous times?

Aparently you and Axis Kast have the same problem realizing that a short term success does not equal a long term victory. It is easy to go into an underdeveloped nation like Iraq, destroy everything in sight and install a new government. What is difficult is actually making that new government work, something that is anything but guarranteed. That's why it was so important to get support for the Iraq invasion, not because the United States couldn't defeat Saddam's military but because the reconstruction process is something that requires world support.

Sure, Iraq could turn into a good thing (and I hope it does). However, in the words of Winston Wolf, let's not start sucking each others dicks quite yet okay?

[Axis Kast]

What the fuck does it matter if he planned to do it or not? The fact is that he didn't and THAT is the reason that thousands of people were killed in reprisal to the uprising.

Of course it matters! There's a difference between making a pledge in order to use the Kurds as pawns (i.e. hoping that implied support by the U.S. would oblige them to carry off a coup that "just might work ...") and being forced by extemperaneous circumstances (diplomatic intervention by nervous allies or Joint Chiefs) to back off at the last moment.

Great, but until we see if the United States simply replaces him with another dictator that is more friendly to the United States, this entire moral victory over the fall of his regime is moot. Or weren't you aware that the US has a terrible history when it comes to nation building?

We've more or less seen the end of the road in Afghanistan as far as government goes. Karzai and his successors will expand their control outward, and there will be violence, but nothing on the scale of what the Taliban once practiced.

I conceede that Iraq is still undergoing change, but I also think that gloomy predictions of a new dictatorship are equally premature. It would be an obvious blunder were we to install another Shah-like figure and then sanction his running around having people carted off on a regular basis.

The United States never recognized the Confederacy as a seperate nation. Did you ever wonder why it was called the Civil War instead of the US-Confederate War? Because it was an internal conflict against a rebellion that's why! The fact that the South had a large enough military to confront the Union forces instead of resorting to clandestine attacks is irrelevent.

Whether the U.S. recognized the Confederacy as truly independant is the only thing that's irrelevant here. They still fought them on a conventional field of battle, slugging it out proto-nation and actual nation.

Perhaps the most direct explanation of my point is thus: the Constitution was never written with the notion that somebody would fly planes into buildings in mind. Its definitions must be expanded - just as the Founding Fathers anticipated.

You don't get it do you? There is nothing to compare to GWB because nothing GWB has done is history yet! Whether or not his actions will lead to advancements in civil rights has yet to be determined. Say for example that in five years, after the US occupation force leaves Iraq, a new totalitarian regime comes to power which decides to begin its reign by killing every Sunni Muslim in the country. Would GWB's civil rights victories seem so great then?

We're never going to just up and leave Iraq. We may pull most of our troops from the country, but we'll always pull strings.

And Afghanistan is more or less "done" from the point of view of the installation of leadership.

[The Dark]

Regardless of whether or not you think he's done a good job at it, George W. Bush has presided over the liberation of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, destroyed two of the most brutal regimes in world history, and did it all in under two years. Can you point to a single world leader in history who's served through such fortuitous times?

Rev Prez

Actually, only about 2 million in Afghanistan are liberated right now: those living in Kabul. The rest of the country is still mostly held by local warlords, and Taliban fighters are still resisting American control. In Iraq, we hold some of the cities, but some towns and much of the desert areas are still dangerous. Medics refuse to take leave because they're afraid of leaving the military compunds.

As for other world leaders in history who have "served through such fortuitous times":

Themistocles: led a fractured alliance of Greeks to defeat the Persians, who were at that time the most powerful military in the world.

Alexander, son of Philip, king of Macedon: conquered Europe and all of Asia out to India, including rolling over the Persians.

Belisarius: greatest general of the Eastern Empire. Defeated much larger Persian armies in 530 at Dara and 531 at Callinicum. In 532 he saved the life of the Emperor, leading his army in suppression of riots in Constantinople. Defeated Carthage at the Battle of Ad Decimium in 533. Recovered the lost African provinces of the Empire in 534 at the Battle of Mt. Papua. Captured Sicily in 535, Rome and Naples in 536, and Milan in 540. Despite bubonic plague appearing in Constantinople in 542, he stalemated the Persians in 545 and negotiated a peace. His final victory was in 559, when the Bulgars invaded across the Danube. In 29 years as a general, Belisarius reclaimed Africa and the Western Empire, and only lost one battle, when Emperor Justinian I failed to reinforce Rome as Belisarius requested, and the city fell to the Ostrogoth Totila in 548.