George HW Bush: Harsh opinions worth reading

[AtlantaAdonis]

Sorry, but I got tired of all the gushing and felt there needed to be some truth in the discussion.

1. The Iraq war was was based on lies (yes, I'm talking about the first one and not the second one).

2. He appointed a sexual harasser - Clarence Thomas - to the Supreme Court.

3. He opposed opposed the Civil Rights act.

4. His family fortune was built off the crimes of Nazis.

5. There's also his terrible AIDS legacy.

 

[Perotista]

Sorry, but I got tired of all the gushing and felt there needed to be some truth in the discussion.

1. The Iraq war was was based on lies (yes, I'm talking about the first one and not the second one).

2. He appointed a sexual harasser - Clarence Thomas - to the Supreme Court.

3. He opposed opposed the Civil Rights act.

4. His family fortune was built off the crimes of Nazis.

5. There's also his terrible AIDS legacy.

There will always be those where the letter next to someone's name, an R or a D makes him either evil or a saint.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Sorry, but I got tired of all the gushing and felt there needed to be some truth in the discussion.

1. The Iraq war was was based on lies (yes, I'm talking about the first one and not the second one).

2. He appointed a sexual harasser - Clarence Thomas - to the Supreme Court.

3. He opposed opposed the Civil Rights act.

4. His family fortune was built off the crimes of Nazis.

5. There's also his terrible AIDS legacy.

I only have two issues with your OP at this time, points #2 and #4.

As to point #2, that would be "alleged" sexual harasser Clarence Thomas.

As to point #4 "fortune built off the crimes of Nazi's," please provide a citation to support this statement.

Thanks, :coffeepap:

 

[DDD]

Could this not wait after a month or so after the mourning! :x :argue :censored

 

[Fledermaus]

Sorry, but I got tired of all the gushing and felt there needed to be some truth in the discussion.

1. The Iraq war was was based on lies (yes, I'm talking about the first one and not the second one).

2. He appointed a sexual harasser - Clarence Thomas - to the Supreme Court.

3. He opposed opposed the Civil Rights act.

4. His family fortune was built off the crimes of Nazis.

5. There's also his terrible AIDS legacy.

1. Iraq didn't invade Kuwait?

 

[Crosscheck]

I only have two issues with your OP at this time, points #2 and #4.

As to point #2, that would be "alleged" sexual harasser Clarence Thomas.

As to point #4 "fortune built off the crimes of Nazi's," please provide a citation to support this statement.

Thanks, :coffeepap:

Just a thought on the Nazis. Am not a defender of Nazis by far but why are the Nazis held in such contempt yet the Japanese more or less get a free ride from their activity in WW2? The Nazis killing of the Jews was horrendous but what the Japanese soldiers did is equally horrendous.

Crazy as it sounds but have heard German soldiers were shocked by some of the atrocities against civilians conducted by the Japanese.

I apologize for this tangent.

 

[cabse5]

Just a thought on the Nazis. Am not a defender of Nazis by far but why are the Nazis held in such contempt yet the Japanese more or less get a free ride from their activity in WW2? The Nazis killing of the Jews was horrendous but what the Japanese soldiers did is equally horrendous.

Crazy as it sounds but have heard German soldiers were shocked by some of the atrocities against civilians conducted by the Japanese.

I apologize for this tangent.

Japanese are not white and not white supremacists. Japanese get docked in other areas of American life with this culture of 'soft retribution'.

Laughably, hating someone for their white skin color doesn't make one racist.

 

[DaveFagan]

1. Iraq didn't invade Kuwait?

reference: April Glaspie, slant drilling, tacit permission, babies thrown from incubators, GHWBush, ix CIA director, allegedly out of the loop on US/Contra CIA activities

 

[DaveFagan]

I only have two issues with your OP at this time, points #2 and #4.

As to point #2, that would be "alleged" sexual harasser Clarence Thomas.

As to point #4 "fortune built off the crimes of Nazi's," please provide a citation to support this statement.

Thanks, :coffeepap:

Point #2: Long Dong Silver

Point #4: Prescott Bush dealt fuel to Nazi Germany during WWII and Truman considered prosecuting him for Treason
/

 

[Fledermaus]

reference: April Glaspie, slant drilling, tacit permission, babies thrown from incubators, GHWBush, ix CIA director, allegedly out of the loop on US/Contra CIA activities

You didn't answer the question, as usual.

And April Glaspie what?

And what "permission" are you talking about?

Slant drilling is an excuse for invasion?

Etc.

 

[SoCal]

There will always be those where the letter next to someone's name, an R or a D makes him either evil or a saint.

There will always be those who ignore the acts that makes someone evil or a saint and instead base their support on the letter next to his or her name...

I only have two issues with your OP at this time, points #2 and #4.

As to point #2, that would be "alleged" sexual harasser Clarence Thomas.

As to point #4 "fortune built off the crimes of Nazi's," please provide a citation to support this statement.

Thanks, :coffeepap:

As to point #2,

"...Decades before the #MeToo movement, and long before Time magazine honored “the Silence Breakers,” there were Anita Hill and Angela Wright...

...Hill was allowed to testify before the Senate committee considering his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Wright, who lives in Charlotte, was not..."

Hill wasn't the only one who knew about Thomas, but why the need for proof? Conservatives would only ignore it like they did with the sexual harasser and pervert in the WH.

As to point #4,

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism...

...The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy....

I voted against and thought Bush Sr. and his work against our Civil Rights Act was inexcusable, but compared to the ignorant clown Numnuts, I realize he was saintly...

 

[Roadvirus]

1. Iraq didn't invade Kuwait?

Of course they didn't. It was all fake news!

 

[Perotista]

There will always be those who ignore the acts that makes someone evil or a saint and instead base their support on the letter next to his or her name...



As to point #2,

"...Decades before the #MeToo movement, and long before Time magazine honored “the Silence Breakers,” there were Anita Hill and Angela Wright...

...Hill was allowed to testify before the Senate committee considering his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Wright, who lives in Charlotte, was not..."

Hill wasn't the only one who knew about Thomas, but why the need for proof? Conservatives would only ignore it like they did with the sexual harasser and pervert in the WH.

As to point #4,

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism...

...The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy....

I voted against and thought Bush Sr. and his work against our Civil Rights Act was inexcusable, but compared to the ignorant clown Numnuts, I realize he was saintly...

I'm from a long gone era where his referred to both in this case. Where Congressman was a title given to both men and women in the House and Senator to both men and women senators. Too darn old now to worry about all the nuances of today.

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

Of course they didn't. It was all fake news!

Read the hyperlink in the OP, you right-wing jingoist.

 

[Fledermaus]

Read the hyperlink in the OP, you right-wing jingoist.

I did. It is a bunch of bull****.

The reason we went to war was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

 

[Maccabee]

Read the hyperlink in the OP, you right-wing jingoist.

Go to the basement if you want to name call members, you moron.

 

[SoCal]

Go to the basement if you want to name call members, you moron.

Maybe if it wasn't coming from the top everyone else wouldn't follow suit. What's moronic are the hypocrites who find it acceptable in their chosen leader...

 

[maxparrish]

Sorry, but I got tired of all the gushing and felt there needed to be some truth in the discussion.

1. The Iraq war was was based on lies (yes, I'm talking about the first one and not the second one).

2. He appointed a sexual harasser - Clarence Thomas - to the Supreme Court.

3. He opposed opposed the Civil Rights act.

4. His family fortune was built off the crimes of Nazis.

5. There's also his terrible AIDS legacy.

Not to bust your sojourn into unsupported alt-history tripe but really, you need to get a library card. For example, the left's Bill Moyers website article on the first Gulf war was little more than an evidence barren revisionist yarn, one that uses obvious strawmen to make erroneous points.

It's not any secret why Bush and his team decided to evict Saddam Hussein's invasion forces from Kuwait, they were not going to let a megalomaniacal and ruthless dictator with delusions of empire control a large part of the worlds light crude oil supply, nor establish a threshold of expansion into other gulf states. Instead, the author is nearly desperate to defend Saddam as somehow misunderstood, and without imperial ambition. He even floats the pathetic excuse that sweet Saddam wouldn't harm a fly except that the administration wouldn't tell him no.

The article is reminiscent of the 1930s and 40s apologists writing for Hitler and Stalin, every narrative is to "explain" why the obvious is not obvious - that these gentlemen had no territorial ambitions and how every aggressive action was actually for limited, benign, or defensive reasons. And the author expects you to believe his assurances on the intentions of a murderous psychopath, based nothing more than mind-reading.

Anyway, the other stuff is even more absurd or does the telling of one or two off color jokes label one "a sexual harasser", presumably for life?

 

[maxparrish]

Just a thought on the Nazis. Am not a defender of Nazis by far but why are the Nazis held in such contempt yet the Japanese more or less get a free ride from their activity in WW2? The Nazis killing of the Jews was horrendous but what the Japanese soldiers did is equally horrendous.

Crazy as it sounds but have heard German soldiers were shocked by some of the atrocities against civilians conducted by the Japanese.

I apologize for this tangent.

Be aware, the Japanese were also shocked at how the Nazi's treated the Jews - enough so that they often allowed them passage.

 

[TurtleDude]

Read the hyperlink in the OP, you right-wing jingoist.

Haters are gonna hate. Bush was the last man in the Oval Office that most people can be really proud of. Whining how his father had some investments in companies that then invested in pre war Germany is really lame. And there were plenty of Democrats who did that as well as Republicans. The claims against CT are dubious at best-Hill was a liar and her actions of following CT around and trying to spend time with him are evidence of her lies. Besides, it was SML Mitchell who told Associate White House Counsel Keisler and Liberman that if Bush didn't pick a black for "Thurgood Marshall's seat" the Dems would "Bork" the candidate

 

[TurtleDude]

Be aware, the Japanese were also shocked at how the Nazi's treated the Jews - enough so that they often allowed them passage.

Interesting because what the Japanese did to the Chinese (read up on the "Rape of Nanking") was almost as bad. BTW 1% of the American POWs taken by the Germans died-you had the Malmedy massacre-most of the others were wounded soldiers or flyers. over 30% of American POWs taken by the Japanese never made it out alive. The Nazis were awful but their treatment of American and British POWs was fairly decent: their treatment of Russian POWs was pretty awful (as was what the Russians did with German POWs)

 

[maxparrish]

Interesting because what the Japanese did to the Chinese (read up on the "Rape of Nanking") was almost as bad. BTW 1% of the American POWs taken by the Germans died-you had the Malmedy massacre-most of the others were wounded soldiers or flyers. over 30% of American POWs taken by the Japanese never made it out alive. The Nazis were awful but their treatment of American and British POWs was fairly decent: their treatment of Russian POWs was pretty awful (as was what the Russians did with German POWs)

I'm not trying to equate the two, I have no idea how that is practical. On one hand we have the Japanese who treated their European and other prisoners of war brutally, and the rape of Nanking (and the like throughout their empire) almost as a cultural habit; and the Nazi's who preached a division of humanity into humans and sub-humans, with Jews and Slavs to be eliminated through geocide.

And perhaps the most important reason that WWII Japanese are not quite as loathed as the Nazi's of Germany is a matter of scale and intent; the Japanese will tell you that such treatment was "normal", as if it were natural then but not now. The German Nazi's, on the other hand, had an ideology which gave them the duty and the right to wipe out entire races, even though it deeply violated traditional and civilized norms - i.e. they knew it was not "normal" - as did all Germans on some level.

Herein lies a key observation; I normally don't hold history in a harsh light when the agents of history are acting under the conventions of their culture. However, by 1940 all Europeans were deeply steeped in Christian values and civilized norms - the mass genocide is not only appalling to us, but appalling to civilized Europeans. How a modern person could do such a thing STILL shocks and angers me...even though the guilty are mostly dead.

 

[maxparrish]

There will always be those who ignore the acts that makes someone evil or a saint and instead base their support on the letter next to his or her name...

As to point #2,

"...Decades before the #MeToo movement, and long before Time magazine honored “the Silence Breakers,” there were Anita Hill and Angela Wright...

...Hill was allowed to testify before the Senate committee considering his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Wright, who lives in Charlotte, was not..."

Hill wasn't the only one who knew about Thomas, but why the need for proof? Conservatives would only ignore it like they did with the sexual harasser and pervert in the WH.

Gee, for a moment I thought you speaking of Bill Clinton. My bad

As to point #4,

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

As supposing it is true, exactly what does it have to do with smearing his grandson in the OP? I'm afraid your motivated bias is a bit to telling.


I voted against and thought Bush Sr. and his work against our Civil Rights Act was inexcusable, ..[/quote]

Actually it was (and remains) quite typical of anyone in politics; when there is a choice between pointless political suicide, and survival to fight another day 99.9 percent of all the elected will chose survival. Perhaps the most well known of this practice was Arkansas Senator Fulbright, a liberal icon of the era that found expedient to lead a Democratic filibuster against the 1964 civil rights act, and to do so again in the 1968 housing act (and he was part of the opposition to the initial Republican sponsored civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960).

And it is more than excusable to ignore your convictions (assuming Bush didn't really object to on Constitutional grounds) if the outcome won't change anything. ONLY when it matters must one choose between ambition and conscience.

 

[Xelor]

Sorry, but I got tired of all the gushing and felt there needed to be some truth in the discussion.

1. The Iraq war was was based on lies (yes, I'm talking about the first one and not the second one).

2. He appointed a sexual harasser - Clarence Thomas - to the Supreme Court.

3. He opposed opposed the Civil Rights act.

4. His family fortune was built off the crimes of Nazis.

5. There's also his terrible AIDS legacy.

George HW Bush: Harsh opinions worth reading

Why and why now? What is there, at this juncture, to be gained by, in the abstract, "dissing" an only-just-deceased former POTUS? ...Most especially one who, as a human being, was quite a decent fellow.

I'm sure there are contexts, discussions about "this or that" specific series of events and their outcomes, in which the verity of "HW's" deeds is well worth noting dispassionately. Your OP, however, doesn't seem to be or invoke any such discourse.

 

[Anarchon]

Sorry, but I got tired of all the gushing and felt there needed to be some truth in the discussion.

1. The Iraq war was was based on lies (yes, I'm talking about the first one and not the second one).

2. He appointed a sexual harasser - Clarence Thomas - to the Supreme Court.

3. He opposed opposed the Civil Rights act.

4. His family fortune was built off the crimes of Nazis.

5. There's also his terrible AIDS legacy.

The second worst thing he did was 18 USC 922R. The first was all the crap he did in the CIA that no one knows about.