In his first speech since leaving the White House, former U. S. president George W.Bush charmed a friendly Calgary audience Tuesday with self-deprecating comments about his popularity and a message that the U. S. is lucky to have Canada as its major supplier of imported oil to the U. S.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the top sources of U.S. crude oil imports at the end of December were Canada with 2.033 million barrels per day, followed by Saudi Arabia at 1.394 million barrels per day, Mexico at 1.126 million barrels per day and Venezuela at 1.028 million barrels per day, where President Hugo Chavez last year nationalized the fields of private oil companies.
Unlike Rush Limbaugh and former-Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Bush declined to criticize Obama. He said the new president has enough critics and he "deserves my silence."
According to the Yahoo News report, the speaking engagement was not without protest.
About 200 protested outside the event; four of them were arrested. Some protesters threw shoes at an effigy of Bush, a reference to the Iraqi journalist who tossed his shoes at the former president during a December news conference in Baghdad.
"He shouldn't be able to go anywhere in the world and just present himself as a private citizen," protest organizer Peggy Askin said. "We do not have any use for bringing war criminals into this country. It's an affront."
Do you think Ms. Askin has a point about Bush being a war criminal? I know there was some talk about that in the past, but is there anything to it still? Although Cheney had a different approach to commenting on the current administration, both he and Bush stand firm on justifying their actions with regards Iraq. What do you think about that? Is the world safer now thanks to Bush & Co.?
Please leave a comment.
"Do you think Ms. Askin has a point about Bush being a war criminal?"
ReplyDeleteNope. And if he is a war criminal then so is every single member of Congress who voted to give him the authority to use military action against Iraq.
Poor Mike W, he still is drinking the neocon koolaid. Yes, Mike, every member of Congress ought to be charged.
ReplyDeleteTell me, Mike, what does Commander-in-Chief mean?
What does "Geriatric Troll Mean", Muddy?
ReplyDeleteIt is important to remember that the US will not sign the Internaitonal Criminal Court treaty so Bush, Obama, or any other future President,American soldier, diplomat, or US citizen will ever be charged with war crimes.
ReplyDeleteThe debate on war criminal is mute until America is fully engaged in the internaitonal system of nations.
So, if President Bush and Congress are guilty of "war crimes", what crimes are those? Tell me what statute they have broken. What code they have violated. What law exactly did they break?
ReplyDeleteThe whole concept of a war criminal is absurd. You cannot be a "war criminal" while you have an undefeated army. Only the losers of a war can ever be charged with war crimes.
Look at the biggest war crimes trials ever: Nuremberg. The Nazi's were charged with "war crimes". What crime did they commit? What criminal code did they break? Where in any book of laws was their crimes codified?
Simple, they were guilty of losing the war. They murdered 6 million plus Jews. They were scum, they were evil. They were charged with crimes that didn't exist and executed or jailed for it.
Stalin and the Soviets on the other hand were guilty as well. They killed over 20 million civilians and over 6 million of them were Jews. Were they charged? Were they tried? No. Because they finished the war with the biggest army on the planet.
So, is President Bush a war criminal? No, of course not. And why? Because: 1. no court beyond the United States has dominion over him. 2. The United States did not lose a war and 3. The United States has the most powerful military on the planet.
Plain and simple. If you want to charge a United States President and Congress with a war crime, you'll have to beat their land and naval forces first. Then you can make up a crime that they committed and sentence them for it.
Fat white man, I am pretty sure the nazi's exterminated 6.5 million Jews, and another 6 to 7 million cripples, communist, gypsies, homosexuals, and anti hitler elements. Not to mention the human experimentation, conditions at the concentration camps.
ReplyDeleteAs for stalin, technically he did not commit war crimes. That occurred after WWII, and he used that to keep control of his people which should have risen up, and over threw him.
Now we come to Bush, well, I do not know if he committed war crimes or not. It should be looked into. Of course it would not be much of a stretch, seeing as we have abandoned the Geneva treaty.
"That occurred after WWII, and he used that to keep control of his people which should have risen up, and over threw him."
ReplyDeleteAnd for MikeB's benefit. What did Stalin to do ensure those people could not rise up against him?
He disarmed them.
Technically what was settled in Geneva were conventions of war. The Insurgencies in both Iraq and Afghanistan were also not adhering to the conventions, so they become moot.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how I feel about our behavior because it isn't generally a bad idea to follow the conventions, but seeing as there was no central leadership to the insurgency (who could be tried for war crimes) there was no advantage to us. Meanwhile the conventions DO supply disadvantages....
Mike W. said, "And for MikeB's benefit. What did Stalin to do ensure those people could not rise up against him? He disarmed them."
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know what a real historian thinks about that. I'll bet not much. Even if all the men were armed, what chance would they have against a standing and trained army with all the resources of the government behind it.
This is the same grandiose nonsense as the "cold dead hands" talk. Some gun owners are living in a fantasy world in which they imagine themselves in a dramatic shootout with the evil government forces. Incidents like Waco only feed into this insanity. The only thing better than being an armed defender of freedom is to become a martyr for the cause. Is that the idea?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteEver study any history? Do you remember nothing from school? Recent history?
Even if all the men were armed, what chance would they have against a standing and trained army with all the resources of the government behind it.
The American Revolutionary War proved that a small band of rag tag ex soldiers and militia could defeat a "standing and trained army with all the resources of the government behind it.
How about Vietnam?
How about Afganistan against the Russians?
The Taliban against the American government?
Wasn't Cuba overthrown by revolutionaries?
MikeB:
ReplyDelete"Even if all the men were armed, what chance would they have against a standing and trained army with all the resources of the government behind it."
That's what the Czar thought in 1917 about the same people.
Malakh-abaddon:
ReplyDelete"Fat white man, I am pretty sure the nazi's exterminated 6.5 million Jews, and another 6 to 7 million cripples, communist, gypsies, homosexuals, and anti hitler elements. Not to mention the human experimentation, conditions at the concentration camps."
No one is disputing that. These men were heinous and evil. My point is that had the war ended differently--say with a truce--would these men have been tried? Of course not. What "crimes" did they commit? What statutes did they break? You cannot have "war crimes" without a defeat.
"As for stalin, technically he did not commit war crimes. That occurred after WWII, and he used that to keep control of his people which should have risen up, and over threw him."
First of all, you are forgetting the purges in the 20's and 30's and no, most of the deaths occurred before WWII, not after. And why did he "technically" not commit war crimes? What is the "technical" difference? Other than the fact his army was way too big to charge him with anything of course. Again, you can only be charged with these non-existent crimes if you lose.
"Now we come to Bush, well, I do not know if he committed war crimes or not. It should be looked into."
What crimes could he have committed. I do not know of one "war crime" in the U.S. Code that he could have broken. Please, someone point out to me what laws Bush broke.
I'd like to know what a real historian thinks about that. I'll bet not much. Even if all the men were armed, what chance would they have against a standing and trained army with all the resources of the government behind it.
ReplyDeleteOh no, you couldn't POSSIBLY be this ignorant could you Mike?
Hmmmm - I seem to remember a bunch of colonists defeating the most advanced army of the time.....
Get back to me when you've studied basic history and are living in reality.
Also, google Warsaw Ghetto. Also, see Iraq & Afghanistan. A bunch of bums with small arms and IED's seem to have done a decent job against the best military in the world over the past several years.
So, what's the point then? You guys who own guns in 21st century America are going to band together and fight off the evil government? Is that it? And Mike W. says I need to study history and come back to reality.
ReplyDeleteSeems it's happening elsewhere. You don't even need to study history. Just turn on the news.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteThe point is you are wrong.
You are wrong about the value of self defense that you practically ignore.
You are wrong about the scope of the "flow" of firearms.
You are wrong about the effectiveness of gun laws.
You are wrong about how a small band of people can fight off a larger more powerfully armed government.
As some one who claims to be a Marine from the Viet Nam era, I'm nearly disgusted at your lack of knowledge and understanding.
Even if you didn't remember much from your "years of service", if you had paid attention to the news in the 80s, you might have heard a place where the Soviet Union had it's butt kicked by a poorly armed band of people...Afghanistan.
Heck, supposedly you went to school and didn't they teach the American Revolutionary War?
Come on, playing ignorant of reality is one thing but to stick your head so far up your ass as to deny reality is another thing altogether.
History proves you wrong Mike. It really is that simple.
ReplyDelete