Eesh. A Reminder of Why Bush Was Such a Horrible President.
Smarmy, self-serving bluster in place of honest self-reflection:
It certainly helps resurrect Obama’s stature in my eyes to compare him to Bush.
I am now going to try to stop thinking about that putz.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I noticed he waited about two days after the elections to come out from the shadows. Just so ya know, you’re still hated bud.
Oh, and I think he admitted to war crimes:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/887846–bush-personally-authorized-waterboarding-9-11-mastermind
November 9th, 2010 at 11:33 am
I don’t understand why you guys have an issue with this waterboarding, Bush asked experts if it was legal and they said it was, if an expert says it’s true it must be true. Experts would never lie or mislead.
November 9th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Are you snarkingly trying to compare scientific researchers with crony lawyers?
Besides, I’d hardly call anyone on Bush’s team an expert on anything. We all know he surrounded himself with “yes men” and started a “War on Intellect”
This is funny, because just last week I was ready to forgive this guy for much of what he has done. And then he starts running his mouth.
Sigh. Oh well. Can’t say I didn’t try.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
The other thing shcb is overlooking is that Yoo and Bybee’s legal opinions on the legality of US government torture were outliers that were rejected as soon as other legal experts had a chance to examine them. As Lauer asks about in the interview, in effect the Bush team (meaning Cheney) intentionally staffed the OLC with people who would support an overreaching definition of executive authority that was way outside the mainstream of expert legal opinion.
In the climate change case that shcb is presumably alluding to, the opposite is true: the expert opinion that he wants to reject is in fact supported by the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists, as we’ve previously discussed.
Individual humans make honest mistakes. They can also be intentionally misleading in the service of some strongly held ideological view they are seeking to advance. That’s why the process of science involves open vetting of results, and other teams’ reproducing (or failing to reproduce) controversial findings, and so on. There’s a larger process at work that is specifically intended to reduce the risk that someone with an ideological axe to grind will cherrypick datapoints to support a comforting, but incorrect, interpretation.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
JBC, Too bad it didn’t work.
NL, yeah, that was my snarky remark I tried to restrain myself but… was it William Rusher (sp?) that said politicians will always disappoint you?
November 9th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
“JBC, Too bad it didn’t work…”
…according to shcb. Reality be damned.
November 9th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
w… worst President of our lifetimes.
‘we “ketched” a whole lotta people’ it boggles rational minds that this simpleton was ever elected to anything more strenuous than dog-catcher.
And the ‘botulism scare’ while Cheney was left w the keys?
I smell a rat. mb it was salmonella ;)
November 9th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Does this mean that Bush isn’t in jail yet? Sheesh what’s wrong with you people?
November 10th, 2010 at 11:26 am
That wasn’t a rhetorical question. Never mind (sigh); I understand that most Americans cannot dal with “empirical facts”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNe8x3rVEqM&feature=player_embedded
November 10th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Rachael is one tough cookie. Love her show, for the most part. Sometimes she’s over dramatic but on this issue she owned Bush.