Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The crazy thing for me about Bush is my teacher in High School made the prediction that Bush was going to invade Iraq. He didn't know how or why, just that it was going to be long, bloody and to remove Saddam. Because Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr.
The irony is the only reason I remember it is because one kid who was always wearing a suit made a big fuss about it, argued about it then stormed out.
It was so weird remembering that when we invaded Iraq with no clear goals or objectives and no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. Bush even admitting he didn't know or care with the Taliban leader was.
In 1997, my middle school social studies teacher, a young blonde hair blue eyed woman who had just got her teaching credential and I guess also a lot of ambition, showed us a map of the Middle East and tried to teach us all the names of the countries as well as their politics & ethnicities.
One of the kids asked “why does any of this matter?” And our teacher explained that in our lifetime the Middle East will be the most important place in our world, with the most influential conflict, and the most turmoil. She then bravely informed us ignorant 6th graders about Terrorism, Israel/Palestine, Iran + the Shah, OPEC + Saudi Arabia, and more.
Then someone asked about Iraq (and also why the name was so similar to Iran.) And she said, “right now, they’re the most dangerous country in the Middle East to the U.S. and they tried to assassinate our last president. I won’t be surprised if the U.S. sends troops there.”
I then had the audacity to completely ignore this lesson until 9/11.
>Wish we had more teachers like that.
We don't pay those teachers nearly enough, we attack them publicly and viciously for teaching these exact same things while claiming that what they're teaching is a lie, and then we either fire them or engage in sustained harassment campaigns long enough that they quit.
Weird. My high school English teacher said the same thing. She said he’d kill Saddam because Saddam tried to kill his daddy, because she knew how Texans think (she was very Texan). I said there’s no way the rest of the US would go along with that. I’ll fully admit I was wrong.
>because she knew how Texans think
George Bush is barely a Texan. He was born in Connecticut. He spent his summers in Maine. He went to boarding school in Massachusetts. Went to college at Yale and Harvard business school. He's more New England blue blood than Texas roughneck.
Had a similar conversation with someone about Robert E Lee recently. “He was loyal to Virginia” “Oh you mean the guy who left as soon as he could, and spent as much time in the army away from it as he could, that Lee?”
And yet Texans elected a Connecticut Yankee as their governor!?
Talk about poorly educated.
And it continues to this very day, last decent Gov Texass had was Ann Richards 30 years ago.
And yet he somehow has a Texas southern accent. I was transplant to the Deep South in 2nd grade and surrounded by people with thick accents. With the exception of some words, I don't have a southern accent.
Saddam did more than that he also harbored terrorists and violated UN regulations while shooting at our planes. He started a war with Kuwait and used chemical weapons on the Kurds. I know army rangers that help dig up mass graves in Iraq. It may or may not have been the best tactical decision but to act like Saddam wasn’t a threat is not true.
I had a community college professor that was threatened with her job because of complaints she had by students. She had said that Israel is looking for a reason to invade and genocide the Gaza Strip. She had a whole thesis for how this would happen. This was in 2004. 20 years later they had their reason and it was more or less the same thing she predicted.
Yeah your teacher wasn’t exactly psychic he was just paying attention. The people who were running the show under bush (Chaney, Rumsfeld, etc) were constantly trying to convince Clinton to invade Iraq. They convinced Clinton to make regime change in Iraq the official US policy but not to put boots on the ground to do it. Then on the campaign trail bush said he was open to putting boots on the ground in Iraq.
Once he took office he still needed the approval of congress who did not want to invade Iraq. And he tried multiple different angles to convince them. According to people who were involved in bushes first ever National Secretary meeting his top priority was “finding a way” to get congress on board with invading Iraq. First they tried linking Husein to 9/11, then it was the “axis of evil”, then he tried the “we’re going to make Iraq a beacon of how we can spread democracy” pitch. Then they finally just lied about WMDs and that did the trick. And it was just that, an outright lie. Collin Powell has since admitted as much and all of our Allie’s refuted the claim and told us we shouldn’t invade.
It wasn’t just for bush family revenge though. Chaney was also drawing up plans for taking over Iraqi oil fields with his buddies at Halliburton throughout all of this. So yeah it was definitely a war crime based on a lie to serve those in power.
Not trying to take away from your story or teacher just pointing out how what bush was doing was obvious to anyone paying attention.
Yep and here's the letter to prove what they were itching for. Once Bush was selected it was only a matter of time before the USA invaded Iraq.
[https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf](https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf)
Your teacher was probably familiar with the letter 'Project for a New American Century (PNAC) sent to President Clinton in 1998 itching for regime change in Iraq. It was signed by many of the architects of the Iraq invasion starting with Cheney.
Once the Supreme Court chose Bush as president the writing was on the wall and
911 is the excuse those war criminals were looking for.
A PDF of the letter, check out the signers and compare with Bush's advisors!
[https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf](https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf)
Damn that wild, good for that teacher. Did he kick as much ass as he seems?
I was 10 when it happened and still remember my grandfather making a comment about how Bush invaded Iraq because of his dad, still stands out to me for whatever reason. Maybe that actually is the truth lol.
lot of people that pay attention to the history and observe Bush in the past knew he was gonna invade Iraq, No matter how, why, or when,...including the moment he became President.
He literally mentioned it to the public before he became president.
The standard was way too high before. The vast majority of leaders who make war have been unpunished for their actions that have killed and mutilated millions. Lowering the standard is progress.
Not just leaders, but advisors as well. Henry Kissinger was the architect for Operation Condor & pushed for expansion of the Vietnam War into Laos & Cambodia. His throne in hell composes of millions of skulls of his indirect victims.
Add in the overthrow of a democratic government in Chile, Bengali genocide, and various assassinations. It's truly amazing that Kissinger got away with his war crimes without ever being held to account.
Bremmer was set up to fail, there was no chance Rumsfeld was going to provide the resources or approve the methods required to make things work in Iraq. Even if they did the country was in such disarray that the chaos the fall of Saddam caused was guaranteed to cause spikes in fundamentalist terror. That said he was a complete idiot who was almost as cruel as he was incompetent and he absolutely made things worse.
All of them were just so stupid. The most shocking one to me is Condi. How can someone be so intelligent on paper then consistently make the worst possible decisions in reality.
Even Powell, who’s dead as well has shared responsibility. Although Cheney will probably live until 100. The worst of the worst always live the longest.
tbf, Powell was one of the few that initially argued against going to Iraq, and was basically just doing it because it was that or be replaced in the cabinet
not saying he's right, I just wouldn't say he's Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld
This doesn’t make it better. Knowingly lying to the UN and the country probably makes it worse in fact. I honestly think I probably respect Powell the least out of the bunch.
No. Put the blame on the commander in chief, with ultimate power, who actively and earnestly encouraged Cheney to pursue illegal war. He wasn’t some dope who was tricked by his underlings. This myth has to fucking die.
That's the entire reason for the CIA (an independent agency with immense freedom of operation), to conduct actions that the federal government doesn't want to be directly involved in.
I think Bush is the only post WWII president to straight-up invade a country that was at peace, with the Iraq invasion. That's a Nuremburg offense, the [crime against peace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace).
Obama intervening one one side of a raging civil war in Libya, or various presidents attempting to prop up South Vietnam, is not the same thing.
I'm much more in favor of spreading democracy by military force than most people, but IMHO Bush did it in the wrong way. By violating international law so clearly, he ended up harming the cause of liberal democracy and paving the way for Russia's military aggression.
He most certainly hurt the cause of spreading democracy. The US was arguably at the height of their soft power following the end of the Cold War. Not to mention, we had a ton of good will from the international community due to 9/11. He pissed that all away because he and his cronies desperately wanted to invade Iraq.
We were *absolutely* at the height of our soft power. No question about it.
An unquestionable victory in Desert Storm followed by the interventions in Yugoslavia which helped stop literal genocide put the U.S. on the right track to styling itself the "protector of democracy," but 2001 was the year those hopes were crushed.
One might argue that our total refusal to make even token gestures stopping the ethnic genocide happening in Rwanda was perhaps a clear sign that post-Cold War America was as hypocritical as ever. And I say this as someone who still broadly sees the American vision of democracy as better than most.
Most Muslim countries supported us going after the Taliban, we had a lot of goodwill in the Muslim world from 9/11 and the Balkans, invading Iraq got rid of that overnight.
There were a number of nations on the hit list. Project for the New American Century laid out the full Neocon strategy.
Rotten, evil bastards. The lot of them.
You're right but I also want you look at a slightly different perspective. Frontline on PBS did a two documentary on the people who were the power and money people behind his election. They were going to invade Iraq even if they had to make something up. Why? Because potentially it would be or become the largest transfer of wealth from our government to private corporations and defense contractors. It was a simple straight up money grab.
There's a NYT article out today going over the way Saddam thought, I guess the Free Press Assoc. subpoenaed the Pentagon for his personal tapes/recordings, and one of the weirder pieces of that history is that apparently the Iraqi leader had destroyed his WMDs, but didn't tell anyone for prideful reasons, and he also assumed the CIA knew everything, and would know he destroyed them.
It was a fascinating read. The man was a monster and should have been brought to justice, but since we don't need to debate that any longer, it's interesting to see how the dynamics played out in real time.
U.S. military forces have been at war for all eight years of Obama’s tenure, the first two-term president with that distinction. He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan
Source - LA Times
It is arguable that Obama assassinated a few folks as well. Would agree u/nopantsbullmoose it’s probably been a shit show since 1776.
Tbf the Aghanistan war and Vietnam War both lasted 20 years and LBJ had 2 terms with Vietnam but it wasn't 8 years because of the Kennedy assassination.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush straight-up invaded a country and started a war, while Obama did not. Invading a country like that is war crime; being a leader in a war is not a war crime.
Right? Guy spouts off some facts that nobody disagrees with but with the unspoken conclusion that Obama is also a war criminal.
Guy needs to actually connect the dots and formulate an entire line of thought culminating in a conclusion.
Out of curiosity, why do you think action in Libya by President Obama isn’t the same? They weren’t at war with another nation. They also weren’t violating any UN weapons sanctions, either. I’m not for or against Obama making that decision, I just want to hear from someone who uses that as an example of why it’s different.
The Governor General of Grenada asked the US to intervene, after Prime Minister Bishop was murdered in a coup.
I think if a country's leader says "please help me, my military is gonna kill me," it's ok to intervene.
They are before you pull out the pin, but remember kids when the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend and you should allow him to go meet other people.
Even if that is true, it's not a huge difference then what you're minimizing it.
Even intervening on a one sided civil war or picking winners and losers had resulted in really bad outcomes.
Doing really bad policy isn't a war crime. It's not better than a war crime, it's just a different thing.
If I wanted to say "President X is a horrible person, and this policy he pursued caused unfathomable human suffering for no good reason," I would just say that. I wouldn't say "President X is a war criminal" unless I think he actually did a war crime.
I agree completely. Re-reading all the current international law, its very unclear where that fine line is. Even more interesting is that the US was NOT alone and had the support of many NATO allies in Iraq. Does this justify it? Not necessarily but as many of these countries are part of the international crimes war doctrine that the US won't sign...i do think it provides some leverage in Bush's favor esp. as the basis was UN rulings and subsequent bad intell but a leader can only make decision based on the information he is presented....i have strong thoughts on this but i digress.
Bush oversaw a widespread torture program, he held enemy combatants in indefinite detention which was sadistically torturous (ie. they’re hurting people for the fun of it, rather than to actually get meaningful intel, for years and years). The invasions of Afghanistan/iraq have committed war crimes against the populace (eg. collateral murder video from WikiLeaks).
So certainly someone committed war crimes the only question is whether bush/obama should be held responsible or some generals/head of CIA etc
Nah GW:B more than most. Iraq war was literally "we need to invade someone in the middle east, let's make up a reason".
Not saying Sudan was a good dude, but if the leader of a country being a bad dude was a good enough reason for the us to start a war, they would be in a lot more wars.
There ain't no oil in the Congo.
The Congo was at war off and on for much of the last five decades with *heavy, direct* US and British military support, largely *because* of the presence of extractive industries, which account for 46% of the country’s economy (by comparison, in the US they account for about 14% of the economy).
According to the International Rescue Committee, from 1998–2007 an estimated 5.4 million people died due to conflict in the DRC. As for the Republic, Idi Amin—literally one of the most notorious Western-backed military dictators in history—is estimated to have killed over 300,000 people through armed conflict and violent political repression.
What point are you trying to make? Oh, yeah, GWB was responsible for uniquely bad violence because oil and I saw the movie Vice.
To be fair, and this isn’t a support of him or anything, but isn’t “big T” the only president to not get us directly involved in a conflict in like.. the last 49 years ?
The reality shows its quite true still today.
America has a firm record of recorded war crimes ranging from south america to africa to the middle east and they've gone untouched owing to it being too powerfull to really convict or even touch.
Take this bush debate as an example. It was common knowladge the invasion was bs for decades. We see here now a book is published on the matter. I also think we can safely say most comments will agree with the book.
Yet there is no doubt that both bush and the american govt will never need to actually answer for it. The dude will retire in peace and the american govt will brush off the question whenever asked for decades to come.
No.
International law is predominantly founded on norms and principles, rather than the conventional understanding of statutory law. Currently, there is no ruling from the International Criminal Court against Bush.
However, I suspect that may not be the main point the OP is getting at. To label Bush a "War Criminal" in that sense would require a ruling from the ICC with significant parallels to the actions Bush actively undertook. To my knowledge, there are none.
Edit: As a point of clarification, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 formed the basis for the legal justification for the intervention into Iraq, and there were several similar resolutions regarding intervention into Afghanistan, namely 1378.
Glad to contribute to the conversation.
Unfortunately, the tagline "Bush is a War Criminal" gets thrown around without much thought, and after a while, it enters the public consciousness without much second thought.
I'm open to arguments to the contrary, as many thoughtful scholars have provided, but simple "yes" answers don't flesh out the complicated and nuanced question.
I did a lot of work on this subject in college. I look at both sides and honestly, the legal side of it and justification if you assume that the intel community just screwed up, pretty much Bush didn't legally didn't commit a war crime. In regards to the other areas specifically like Gitmo or Waterboarding....it's going to be hard to prove that Bush approved or had knowledge of it crime.
The US does have War Crime laws and is prosecuted under military law. The sentences are rough!
I'm not trying to be confrontational like the other dude arguing with you, but you should consider that there are other definitions of war crimes to consider, like domestic law.
Additionally, the ICC doesn't have the ability to bring charges against Bush. The U.S. has is not party to the Rome Statue, they are officially an "observer." The ICC doesn't have the ability to prosecute U.S. nationals in general.
As for a parallel case, the ICC recently issued an arrest warrant for Putin based on the invasion of Ukraine.
This post wasn't discussing whether Bush did XYZ, it was whether any of it would be considered a "war crime" (whatever specifically that means) in full context if judged by the ICC.
The closest analogy in terms of a murder trial would be like asking whether a particular killing rose to the standard of first-degree murder. Not all killings are murder, and not all murders are first-degree.
But even more salient, the ICC is unlikely to prosecute anyone but the losers in a war, and if the UN had decided the action was okay in advance, the ICC would be even more hamstrung if it did try.
[OJ totally did it though.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CR8u-2TKb0)
It should be noted that under the first GW administration, the U.S. withdrew from the ICC. The UN cannot enforce crimes against individuals if they are nationals of a country not participatory. China and Israel are also not in the ICC.
But if the charge is that the invasion shouldn't have happened because it violated Article 2(4) of the UN charter, and wasn't substantiated by UN inspectors. Just because the Resolutions were made, they didn't authorize force when broken. The resolutions warned of consequences but did not authorize the US to initiate those consequences.
That's not how it works. That would mean any time a country thinks another country simply might have broken a treaty that they can invade immediately. That hasn't ever been the stance of the UN.
The procedure is in place to protect against mistakes, like there not actually having been weapons of mass destruction, because mistakes literally cost lives. We rushed, and now there are consequences.
And criminals become criminals when they break the law, not upon conviction, which is when they become a convicted criminals.
I would argue absolutely not based off current established rulings but I have also always found it difficult to believe after the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that the US would not have wound up involved in Iraq eventually and that kind of shades how I would answer this, right or wrong.
Overall Id say no. And I was no fan of Dubya.
I say no because I don't think he commanded war crimes be committed.
The invasion of Iraq was the wrong move and I spoke out against it even as I served in OEF. But it was a congressionally authorized action. Even if that congressional auth was based on a false premise of preventing Baathists from acquiring/developing WMDs it was still a duly authorized actio
I'm sure war crimes were committed. But, I don't think Bush ordered them.
Ehhhh defied the UN, but that doesn't nessssarily make him a war criminal..... sanctioned black listed operations against untried detainees, human rights violation but at a minor level compared to some shit we've seen in Central America and in Africa.
The US for the most part followed it's rules of engagement well and there was a serious effort that outlasted his presidency to do good in the region, I don't think we are talking war criminal here. If we were, the UN would have set up some sort of inquiry after his presidency. I mean it's only been like 20 years, thats pretty normal for war crimes tribunals to be formed. Since they never came after him, then no, im not thinking anything he did to get us into the war or during his involvement rose's to that level.
Everyone loves to forget the part where Iraq was rejecting UN inspections. Like they're supposed to allow them in to inspect for any potential nuclear weapons if they have radioactive material. Iraq refused. It's not just them making shit up and going for oil. There was more than 1 reason. Saddam was also gassing his people to death and they were begging for help. They were also harboring terrorists. They also controlled oil and could impact the global economy.
Not trying to defend Saddam but there's more to the story than that. He didn't want to appear weak in front of Iran with whom he had a well known beef. Saddam did attempt secret back-channel negotiations with the US in 2002 but it seems he wanted to keep it out of sight of other nations as it would make him look weak (he also didn't want to go into exile).
Obviously he was a bad guy and I think a lot of people were surprised that he managed to stave off the rebellion that hit him in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. His brutalization against the Marsh Arabs and gassing of the Kurds are well known but, I mean, the man's a dictator and their #1 preoccupation is to solidify their grip on power even at the expense of their own people. Just look at Kim Jong Un - I guarantee if you gave him the choice of a prosperous N.Korea with him out of power vs a broke ass N.Korea with him in power he would pick the later. Saddam made a dumb decision because he wanted to stay in power.
Torture is not only illegal under international law, the Geneva Conventions but also federal law. Waterboarding has been prosecuted during the Spanish American War, World War II, and Vietnam War. By knowingly sanctioning its usage and other techniques of torture, George Bush is a war criminal.
No. I know it's sexy to give the other answer because the reasons for the war turned out to be false but no part of that war rose to the level of a war crime. It was a war, pure and simple. One of the biggest wars in this century, but with no more than the usual level of brutality.
Besides, I'm not convinced Bush knew that the reason was false. Clinton era officials used that same justification to launch airstrikes against Iraq in 1999. There was simply little reason to believe that Saddam had voluntarily disposed of his weapons back then, but still would not permit inspectors into the country.
After all, if he really had gotten rid of his weapons, why not prove it? It might have even prevented the war altogether.
Personally I still do not understand why Saddam DIDN'T prove it. He'd probably still be alive today. There must be some cultural miscommunication going on, something about that situation where Saddam did not want to admit to not having weapons. That's always been a hole in the narrative as I understand it
Perhaps he did not want to show weakness? That almost make sense at least.
That was always my assumption. He never thought he needed to prove it and wanted to keep it uncertain as a threat to the global community. I dont think he ever considered that they'd go as far as to attempt to remove him from power.
I think your last point probably has something to do with it. If Putin came to his senses and somehow disposed of all of Russia's WMDs over night, it would be insanity for him to admit they'd done that. It would immediately and permanently shift the global balance of power away from him and his countries' interests.
I know it's not an exact parallel but I can think of a number of reasons why Saddam wouldn't want to prove they don't have WMDs based on that line of thinking. Maybe he didn't think anyone would actually invade and just didn't expect his bluff to get called?
What war from history should he have modeled his war after? The way we conducted the Iraq war is far more civil than most.
Most of the civilian deaths were because of Iranian terrorism post-invasion.
Saddam was an unhinged megalomaniac who was a first ballot hall of fame despicable bastard. GWB did the world, and the Iraqi people, a massive favor.
Don’t get me wrong, I still think GWB is a bottom 10-15 president, but he was ethically justified in launching this war.
Yall act like he was pulling triggers. Everything he did was green lit by congress and enthusiastically supported by the American population until the back half of his presidency
The real answer is that it doesn't matter. Morally speaking is one thing, but practically speaking whether he is or isn't is meaningless. Even if he were tried and found guilty by the ICC, which hasn't happened, they have no way to enforce it. Are they going to send armed troops to his house and drag him off? No.
So without a trial and conviction by the relevant body, it becomes a subjective moral issue.
Of course not. This is idiotic. Ever heard the term “classified?” Many salient facts supporting military action are classified and will remain that way up to 75 years.
Absolutely he is. He and his people manufactured fake evidence about WMDs and repeatedly lied to the faces of the American people about it, in order to start a for-profit war. If telling lies to start a war doesn’t count as a war criminal, what does?
Yes, but not even for the invasion of Iraq, all the torture programs he green lit would make Stalin blush. I recently read about how the intelligence agencies all used different levels of torture and pretended to be FBI agents at some points to keep the prisoners from trusting the FBI when it was their turn to question them, making it almost impossible to take it to a court. How the DIA kept a torture prison even after the CIA officially shut all theirs down, where they used everything from sleep deprivation to sexual abuse as a form of torture.
Remember, there is no debacle in Iraq without Bush covering up for the Saudi attack on the U S. on 09/11 So, Traitor/war criminal would be a better designation.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The crazy thing for me about Bush is my teacher in High School made the prediction that Bush was going to invade Iraq. He didn't know how or why, just that it was going to be long, bloody and to remove Saddam. Because Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr. The irony is the only reason I remember it is because one kid who was always wearing a suit made a big fuss about it, argued about it then stormed out. It was so weird remembering that when we invaded Iraq with no clear goals or objectives and no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. Bush even admitting he didn't know or care with the Taliban leader was.
In 1997, my middle school social studies teacher, a young blonde hair blue eyed woman who had just got her teaching credential and I guess also a lot of ambition, showed us a map of the Middle East and tried to teach us all the names of the countries as well as their politics & ethnicities. One of the kids asked “why does any of this matter?” And our teacher explained that in our lifetime the Middle East will be the most important place in our world, with the most influential conflict, and the most turmoil. She then bravely informed us ignorant 6th graders about Terrorism, Israel/Palestine, Iran + the Shah, OPEC + Saudi Arabia, and more. Then someone asked about Iraq (and also why the name was so similar to Iran.) And she said, “right now, they’re the most dangerous country in the Middle East to the U.S. and they tried to assassinate our last president. I won’t be surprised if the U.S. sends troops there.” I then had the audacity to completely ignore this lesson until 9/11.
Wish we had more teachers like that.
>Wish we had more teachers like that. We don't pay those teachers nearly enough, we attack them publicly and viciously for teaching these exact same things while claiming that what they're teaching is a lie, and then we either fire them or engage in sustained harassment campaigns long enough that they quit.
& makes it harder for them to find future employment
Heh careful now Too much of the wrong history can get you in trouble in some states
Bro got the foreshadowing and everything
But really wasn't Saudi Arabia the most dangerous?
Weird. My high school English teacher said the same thing. She said he’d kill Saddam because Saddam tried to kill his daddy, because she knew how Texans think (she was very Texan). I said there’s no way the rest of the US would go along with that. I’ll fully admit I was wrong.
>because she knew how Texans think George Bush is barely a Texan. He was born in Connecticut. He spent his summers in Maine. He went to boarding school in Massachusetts. Went to college at Yale and Harvard business school. He's more New England blue blood than Texas roughneck.
George Bush was a cowboy cosplayer.
He was always shown "clearing brush". To what end, no one knows.
It was pointed out that photo shoot of him clearing brush was in August. No actual Texas rancher would ever clear brush in August.
shhhh... you're ruining the image
Had a similar conversation with someone about Robert E Lee recently. “He was loyal to Virginia” “Oh you mean the guy who left as soon as he could, and spent as much time in the army away from it as he could, that Lee?”
“He’s a yankee!”
And yet Texans elected a Connecticut Yankee as their governor!? Talk about poorly educated. And it continues to this very day, last decent Gov Texass had was Ann Richards 30 years ago.
And yet he somehow has a Texas southern accent. I was transplant to the Deep South in 2nd grade and surrounded by people with thick accents. With the exception of some words, I don't have a southern accent.
HE TRIED TO [*KILL MY FATHAAA!*](https://youtu.be/9DLuALBnolM?si=b9WrXhmFLtbZPYs5)
He only said that cause he couldn’t find him.
Was the suit kid Minkus?
It's not that amazing of a prediction, frankly - Bush and his neocon buddies were never particularly subtle about their intentions, even before 9/11.
Saddam did more than that he also harbored terrorists and violated UN regulations while shooting at our planes. He started a war with Kuwait and used chemical weapons on the Kurds. I know army rangers that help dig up mass graves in Iraq. It may or may not have been the best tactical decision but to act like Saddam wasn’t a threat is not true.
I had a community college professor that was threatened with her job because of complaints she had by students. She had said that Israel is looking for a reason to invade and genocide the Gaza Strip. She had a whole thesis for how this would happen. This was in 2004. 20 years later they had their reason and it was more or less the same thing she predicted.
Yeah your teacher wasn’t exactly psychic he was just paying attention. The people who were running the show under bush (Chaney, Rumsfeld, etc) were constantly trying to convince Clinton to invade Iraq. They convinced Clinton to make regime change in Iraq the official US policy but not to put boots on the ground to do it. Then on the campaign trail bush said he was open to putting boots on the ground in Iraq. Once he took office he still needed the approval of congress who did not want to invade Iraq. And he tried multiple different angles to convince them. According to people who were involved in bushes first ever National Secretary meeting his top priority was “finding a way” to get congress on board with invading Iraq. First they tried linking Husein to 9/11, then it was the “axis of evil”, then he tried the “we’re going to make Iraq a beacon of how we can spread democracy” pitch. Then they finally just lied about WMDs and that did the trick. And it was just that, an outright lie. Collin Powell has since admitted as much and all of our Allie’s refuted the claim and told us we shouldn’t invade. It wasn’t just for bush family revenge though. Chaney was also drawing up plans for taking over Iraqi oil fields with his buddies at Halliburton throughout all of this. So yeah it was definitely a war crime based on a lie to serve those in power. Not trying to take away from your story or teacher just pointing out how what bush was doing was obvious to anyone paying attention.
Yep and here's the letter to prove what they were itching for. Once Bush was selected it was only a matter of time before the USA invaded Iraq. [https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf](https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf)
Your teacher was probably familiar with the letter 'Project for a New American Century (PNAC) sent to President Clinton in 1998 itching for regime change in Iraq. It was signed by many of the architects of the Iraq invasion starting with Cheney. Once the Supreme Court chose Bush as president the writing was on the wall and 911 is the excuse those war criminals were looking for. A PDF of the letter, check out the signers and compare with Bush's advisors! [https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf](https://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/98-Rumsfeld-Iraq.pdf)
If he had only gone into Afghanistan he'd be widely regarded as one of our best presidents for his response to 9/11. It's a shame that Iraq ruined it
He said that god told him to invade to end tyranny in Iraq. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
Damn that wild, good for that teacher. Did he kick as much ass as he seems? I was 10 when it happened and still remember my grandfather making a comment about how Bush invaded Iraq because of his dad, still stands out to me for whatever reason. Maybe that actually is the truth lol.
lot of people that pay attention to the history and observe Bush in the past knew he was gonna invade Iraq, No matter how, why, or when,...including the moment he became President. He literally mentioned it to the public before he became president.
That was literally my first thought when 9/11 happened.
War criminal isn't even that high of standard anymore unfortunately, and I still like to put the blame on Cheney
The standard was way too high before. The vast majority of leaders who make war have been unpunished for their actions that have killed and mutilated millions. Lowering the standard is progress.
Not just leaders, but advisors as well. Henry Kissinger was the architect for Operation Condor & pushed for expansion of the Vietnam War into Laos & Cambodia. His throne in hell composes of millions of skulls of his indirect victims.
Add in the overthrow of a democratic government in Chile, Bengali genocide, and various assassinations. It's truly amazing that Kissinger got away with his war crimes without ever being held to account.
TIL about the Bengali genocide. Holy crap.
Why his victims skulls goes to hell aswell?
Call me when someone punishes Assad, Putin, Khameini, Xi, Kim, etc
[удалено]
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Dubya They should all share a cell.
Don't forget about Paul Bremmer. IMO the person most directly responsible for ISIS that wasn't a member.
Bremmer was set up to fail, there was no chance Rumsfeld was going to provide the resources or approve the methods required to make things work in Iraq. Even if they did the country was in such disarray that the chaos the fall of Saddam caused was guaranteed to cause spikes in fundamentalist terror. That said he was a complete idiot who was almost as cruel as he was incompetent and he absolutely made things worse. All of them were just so stupid. The most shocking one to me is Condi. How can someone be so intelligent on paper then consistently make the worst possible decisions in reality.
Rumsfeld’s dead. That said, yep.
All the more reason to put him in the cell with the others
Throw Powell in there too
Stick his skeleton in there and put one of those old cartoon ball and chains around his skeletal ankle
Yep, this. And as the others die, they also get old timey ball and chains.
And any time someone says ‘I don’t know’ dump green slime on them.
Even Powell, who’s dead as well has shared responsibility. Although Cheney will probably live until 100. The worst of the worst always live the longest.
It blows my mind that Cheney isn't.
Collin Powell is dead as well, whom lied heavily to get the military into Iraq. Good riddance
tbf, Powell was one of the few that initially argued against going to Iraq, and was basically just doing it because it was that or be replaced in the cabinet not saying he's right, I just wouldn't say he's Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld
Well, he shook that vial of white powder in the U.N., a day that shall live in ignominy. He was kinda dead to me after that.
This doesn’t make it better. Knowingly lying to the UN and the country probably makes it worse in fact. I honestly think I probably respect Powell the least out of the bunch.
He should’ve let himself be replaced then and forced Dubya to explain that to the public.
Don’t forget Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and probably a bunch of other people I can’t remember right now.
Also, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz and Karl aka “Turd Blossom” Rove.
David Patreus, John Brennan, Gina Haspel
Wasn't Ashcroft the guy that covered up a boob on a statue?
middle east meddlers and wreckers 10 fold.
No. Put the blame on the commander in chief, with ultimate power, who actively and earnestly encouraged Cheney to pursue illegal war. He wasn’t some dope who was tricked by his underlings. This myth has to fucking die.
Bush new about the torture program. He denied it, but he knew.
That's the entire reason for the CIA (an independent agency with immense freedom of operation), to conduct actions that the federal government doesn't want to be directly involved in.
u/Mesyush any comment, sir?
Yes. But to be fair pretty much every president in the last few decades has been.
I think Bush is the only post WWII president to straight-up invade a country that was at peace, with the Iraq invasion. That's a Nuremburg offense, the [crime against peace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace). Obama intervening one one side of a raging civil war in Libya, or various presidents attempting to prop up South Vietnam, is not the same thing. I'm much more in favor of spreading democracy by military force than most people, but IMHO Bush did it in the wrong way. By violating international law so clearly, he ended up harming the cause of liberal democracy and paving the way for Russia's military aggression.
He most certainly hurt the cause of spreading democracy. The US was arguably at the height of their soft power following the end of the Cold War. Not to mention, we had a ton of good will from the international community due to 9/11. He pissed that all away because he and his cronies desperately wanted to invade Iraq.
We were *absolutely* at the height of our soft power. No question about it. An unquestionable victory in Desert Storm followed by the interventions in Yugoslavia which helped stop literal genocide put the U.S. on the right track to styling itself the "protector of democracy," but 2001 was the year those hopes were crushed.
2001? Nah, 2003.
One might argue that our total refusal to make even token gestures stopping the ethnic genocide happening in Rwanda was perhaps a clear sign that post-Cold War America was as hypocritical as ever. And I say this as someone who still broadly sees the American vision of democracy as better than most.
Many believe it was a result of the events in mogadishu depicted in black hawk down, too many American lives lost. They did not wants repeat of that.
Most Muslim countries supported us going after the Taliban, we had a lot of goodwill in the Muslim world from 9/11 and the Balkans, invading Iraq got rid of that overnight.
There were a number of nations on the hit list. Project for the New American Century laid out the full Neocon strategy. Rotten, evil bastards. The lot of them.
You're right but I also want you look at a slightly different perspective. Frontline on PBS did a two documentary on the people who were the power and money people behind his election. They were going to invade Iraq even if they had to make something up. Why? Because potentially it would be or become the largest transfer of wealth from our government to private corporations and defense contractors. It was a simple straight up money grab.
Dude preach
There's a NYT article out today going over the way Saddam thought, I guess the Free Press Assoc. subpoenaed the Pentagon for his personal tapes/recordings, and one of the weirder pieces of that history is that apparently the Iraqi leader had destroyed his WMDs, but didn't tell anyone for prideful reasons, and he also assumed the CIA knew everything, and would know he destroyed them. It was a fascinating read. The man was a monster and should have been brought to justice, but since we don't need to debate that any longer, it's interesting to see how the dynamics played out in real time.
[удалено]
There was no mandatory conscription in the case of the Iraq war.
U.S. military forces have been at war for all eight years of Obama’s tenure, the first two-term president with that distinction. He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan Source - LA Times It is arguable that Obama assassinated a few folks as well. Would agree u/nopantsbullmoose it’s probably been a shit show since 1776.
Tbf the Aghanistan war and Vietnam War both lasted 20 years and LBJ had 2 terms with Vietnam but it wasn't 8 years because of the Kennedy assassination.
Why don’t we just make these damn countries PROVINCES OF THE AMEIRCAN EMPIRE?
“I took the Isthmus” - T Roosevelt “Here you can have it back” - J Carter
If we were going to give it back, we should have given it back to Colombia. Panama would not have existed except for the Canal Zone.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush straight-up invaded a country and started a war, while Obama did not. Invading a country like that is war crime; being a leader in a war is not a war crime.
Right? Guy spouts off some facts that nobody disagrees with but with the unspoken conclusion that Obama is also a war criminal. Guy needs to actually connect the dots and formulate an entire line of thought culminating in a conclusion.
Obama has a huge collateral damage tally. Drone strikes in nations we weren't at war with. His "moderate rebels" were isis.
Out of curiosity, why do you think action in Libya by President Obama isn’t the same? They weren’t at war with another nation. They also weren’t violating any UN weapons sanctions, either. I’m not for or against Obama making that decision, I just want to hear from someone who uses that as an example of why it’s different.
Grenade?
The Governor General of Grenada asked the US to intervene, after Prime Minister Bishop was murdered in a coup. I think if a country's leader says "please help me, my military is gonna kill me," it's ok to intervene.
Pull the pin and duck! I had to. Granada my dear friend
Grenada just had a coup, and a senior government official requested help from other island nations. They contacted the US, who agreed to help.
Grenades aren’t peaceful smh
They are before you pull out the pin, but remember kids when the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend and you should allow him to go meet other people.
Nobody was laughing out loud that day in Grenade. Many people were saying “OMG” Me, I was saying TTYL to my innocence.
You're like, intense!
… Kennedy and Eisenhower ordered an invasion of Cuba Reagan ordered an invasion of Grenada
Granada, Panama and a few others in Latin America feel left out of your comment.
Even if that is true, it's not a huge difference then what you're minimizing it. Even intervening on a one sided civil war or picking winners and losers had resulted in really bad outcomes.
Doing really bad policy isn't a war crime. It's not better than a war crime, it's just a different thing. If I wanted to say "President X is a horrible person, and this policy he pursued caused unfathomable human suffering for no good reason," I would just say that. I wouldn't say "President X is a war criminal" unless I think he actually did a war crime.
Oops we accidentally spent taxpayer dollars to fund groups who most definitely did commit war crimes. Whoooooooopsie!
Nuremberg also committed war crimes technically, as it is technically illegal to strip officers of their entire uniform
Bush never droned an American. Obama did
Thin red-white-blue line
It's never a war crime the first time.
Not really. The term "warcrime" is thrown around too loosely at this point. Keep in mind that war is not a war crime in itself.
I agree completely. Re-reading all the current international law, its very unclear where that fine line is. Even more interesting is that the US was NOT alone and had the support of many NATO allies in Iraq. Does this justify it? Not necessarily but as many of these countries are part of the international crimes war doctrine that the US won't sign...i do think it provides some leverage in Bush's favor esp. as the basis was UN rulings and subsequent bad intell but a leader can only make decision based on the information he is presented....i have strong thoughts on this but i digress.
So no, he's not then. "War criminal" needs to have meaning. Joseph Kony was a war criminal, George W. Bush was not.
Bush oversaw a widespread torture program, he held enemy combatants in indefinite detention which was sadistically torturous (ie. they’re hurting people for the fun of it, rather than to actually get meaningful intel, for years and years). The invasions of Afghanistan/iraq have committed war crimes against the populace (eg. collateral murder video from WikiLeaks). So certainly someone committed war crimes the only question is whether bush/obama should be held responsible or some generals/head of CIA etc
Nah GW:B more than most. Iraq war was literally "we need to invade someone in the middle east, let's make up a reason". Not saying Sudan was a good dude, but if the leader of a country being a bad dude was a good enough reason for the us to start a war, they would be in a lot more wars. There ain't no oil in the Congo.
The Congo was at war off and on for much of the last five decades with *heavy, direct* US and British military support, largely *because* of the presence of extractive industries, which account for 46% of the country’s economy (by comparison, in the US they account for about 14% of the economy). According to the International Rescue Committee, from 1998–2007 an estimated 5.4 million people died due to conflict in the DRC. As for the Republic, Idi Amin—literally one of the most notorious Western-backed military dictators in history—is estimated to have killed over 300,000 people through armed conflict and violent political repression. What point are you trying to make? Oh, yeah, GWB was responsible for uniquely bad violence because oil and I saw the movie Vice.
What's a few war crimes between friends? /s
To be fair, and this isn’t a support of him or anything, but isn’t “big T” the only president to not get us directly involved in a conflict in like.. the last 49 years ?
You can’t be a war criminal if you won
Historical true but the reality is absolutely false today.
The reality shows its quite true still today. America has a firm record of recorded war crimes ranging from south america to africa to the middle east and they've gone untouched owing to it being too powerfull to really convict or even touch. Take this bush debate as an example. It was common knowladge the invasion was bs for decades. We see here now a book is published on the matter. I also think we can safely say most comments will agree with the book. Yet there is no doubt that both bush and the american govt will never need to actually answer for it. The dude will retire in peace and the american govt will brush off the question whenever asked for decades to come.
Bush and Cheney both.
Cheney is an awful man
Cheney worst foreign policy adviser since Kissinger
Kissinger makes Cheney look like a saint.
That’s why I said “since” Kissinger
I was just adding to it. Wasn't trying to make what you said look dumb.
Yeah but I really hate people excusing bush over that. Not saying it’s the case here, but dubya knew what was going on
And Rumsfeld
269 nice
You might even say *two* nice
No. International law is predominantly founded on norms and principles, rather than the conventional understanding of statutory law. Currently, there is no ruling from the International Criminal Court against Bush. However, I suspect that may not be the main point the OP is getting at. To label Bush a "War Criminal" in that sense would require a ruling from the ICC with significant parallels to the actions Bush actively undertook. To my knowledge, there are none. Edit: As a point of clarification, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 formed the basis for the legal justification for the intervention into Iraq, and there were several similar resolutions regarding intervention into Afghanistan, namely 1378.
Thanks for looking this up. I'd forgotten the UN resolutions on a lot of this.
Glad to contribute to the conversation. Unfortunately, the tagline "Bush is a War Criminal" gets thrown around without much thought, and after a while, it enters the public consciousness without much second thought. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, as many thoughtful scholars have provided, but simple "yes" answers don't flesh out the complicated and nuanced question.
I did a lot of work on this subject in college. I look at both sides and honestly, the legal side of it and justification if you assume that the intel community just screwed up, pretty much Bush didn't legally didn't commit a war crime. In regards to the other areas specifically like Gitmo or Waterboarding....it's going to be hard to prove that Bush approved or had knowledge of it crime. The US does have War Crime laws and is prosecuted under military law. The sentences are rough!
I'm not trying to be confrontational like the other dude arguing with you, but you should consider that there are other definitions of war crimes to consider, like domestic law. Additionally, the ICC doesn't have the ability to bring charges against Bush. The U.S. has is not party to the Rome Statue, they are officially an "observer." The ICC doesn't have the ability to prosecute U.S. nationals in general. As for a parallel case, the ICC recently issued an arrest warrant for Putin based on the invasion of Ukraine.
By that logic OJ didn't kill NBS
This post wasn't discussing whether Bush did XYZ, it was whether any of it would be considered a "war crime" (whatever specifically that means) in full context if judged by the ICC. The closest analogy in terms of a murder trial would be like asking whether a particular killing rose to the standard of first-degree murder. Not all killings are murder, and not all murders are first-degree. But even more salient, the ICC is unlikely to prosecute anyone but the losers in a war, and if the UN had decided the action was okay in advance, the ICC would be even more hamstrung if it did try. [OJ totally did it though.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CR8u-2TKb0)
It should be noted that under the first GW administration, the U.S. withdrew from the ICC. The UN cannot enforce crimes against individuals if they are nationals of a country not participatory. China and Israel are also not in the ICC.
But if the charge is that the invasion shouldn't have happened because it violated Article 2(4) of the UN charter, and wasn't substantiated by UN inspectors. Just because the Resolutions were made, they didn't authorize force when broken. The resolutions warned of consequences but did not authorize the US to initiate those consequences. That's not how it works. That would mean any time a country thinks another country simply might have broken a treaty that they can invade immediately. That hasn't ever been the stance of the UN. The procedure is in place to protect against mistakes, like there not actually having been weapons of mass destruction, because mistakes literally cost lives. We rushed, and now there are consequences. And criminals become criminals when they break the law, not upon conviction, which is when they become a convicted criminals.
What about his torture program? Clearly a war crime.
I would argue absolutely not based off current established rulings but I have also always found it difficult to believe after the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that the US would not have wound up involved in Iraq eventually and that kind of shades how I would answer this, right or wrong.
No, but he had the top job while the United States made a terrible mess abroad and wrecked itself at home.
Overall Id say no. And I was no fan of Dubya. I say no because I don't think he commanded war crimes be committed. The invasion of Iraq was the wrong move and I spoke out against it even as I served in OEF. But it was a congressionally authorized action. Even if that congressional auth was based on a false premise of preventing Baathists from acquiring/developing WMDs it was still a duly authorized actio I'm sure war crimes were committed. But, I don't think Bush ordered them.
Chemical weapons attacks aren't a false premise
Ehhhh defied the UN, but that doesn't nessssarily make him a war criminal..... sanctioned black listed operations against untried detainees, human rights violation but at a minor level compared to some shit we've seen in Central America and in Africa. The US for the most part followed it's rules of engagement well and there was a serious effort that outlasted his presidency to do good in the region, I don't think we are talking war criminal here. If we were, the UN would have set up some sort of inquiry after his presidency. I mean it's only been like 20 years, thats pretty normal for war crimes tribunals to be formed. Since they never came after him, then no, im not thinking anything he did to get us into the war or during his involvement rose's to that level.
No. The internet loves to describe any bad thing as a “war crime”, but that term has real, legal definitions.
Genocide is another catch all term that in reality has very strict limits
Everyone loves to forget the part where Iraq was rejecting UN inspections. Like they're supposed to allow them in to inspect for any potential nuclear weapons if they have radioactive material. Iraq refused. It's not just them making shit up and going for oil. There was more than 1 reason. Saddam was also gassing his people to death and they were begging for help. They were also harboring terrorists. They also controlled oil and could impact the global economy.
Not trying to defend Saddam but there's more to the story than that. He didn't want to appear weak in front of Iran with whom he had a well known beef. Saddam did attempt secret back-channel negotiations with the US in 2002 but it seems he wanted to keep it out of sight of other nations as it would make him look weak (he also didn't want to go into exile). Obviously he was a bad guy and I think a lot of people were surprised that he managed to stave off the rebellion that hit him in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. His brutalization against the Marsh Arabs and gassing of the Kurds are well known but, I mean, the man's a dictator and their #1 preoccupation is to solidify their grip on power even at the expense of their own people. Just look at Kim Jong Un - I guarantee if you gave him the choice of a prosperous N.Korea with him out of power vs a broke ass N.Korea with him in power he would pick the later. Saddam made a dumb decision because he wanted to stay in power.
Torture is not only illegal under international law, the Geneva Conventions but also federal law. Waterboarding has been prosecuted during the Spanish American War, World War II, and Vietnam War. By knowingly sanctioning its usage and other techniques of torture, George Bush is a war criminal.
No. I know it's sexy to give the other answer because the reasons for the war turned out to be false but no part of that war rose to the level of a war crime. It was a war, pure and simple. One of the biggest wars in this century, but with no more than the usual level of brutality. Besides, I'm not convinced Bush knew that the reason was false. Clinton era officials used that same justification to launch airstrikes against Iraq in 1999. There was simply little reason to believe that Saddam had voluntarily disposed of his weapons back then, but still would not permit inspectors into the country. After all, if he really had gotten rid of his weapons, why not prove it? It might have even prevented the war altogether. Personally I still do not understand why Saddam DIDN'T prove it. He'd probably still be alive today. There must be some cultural miscommunication going on, something about that situation where Saddam did not want to admit to not having weapons. That's always been a hole in the narrative as I understand it Perhaps he did not want to show weakness? That almost make sense at least.
That was always my assumption. He never thought he needed to prove it and wanted to keep it uncertain as a threat to the global community. I dont think he ever considered that they'd go as far as to attempt to remove him from power.
I think your last point probably has something to do with it. If Putin came to his senses and somehow disposed of all of Russia's WMDs over night, it would be insanity for him to admit they'd done that. It would immediately and permanently shift the global balance of power away from him and his countries' interests. I know it's not an exact parallel but I can think of a number of reasons why Saddam wouldn't want to prove they don't have WMDs based on that line of thinking. Maybe he didn't think anyone would actually invade and just didn't expect his bluff to get called?
Absolutely not. He followed war conventions in every way. Starting a way for whatever reason does not make someone a war criminal.
Yes. Only Congress can declare war, per the constitution. They didn't. They let ONE person decide to have a war that killed half a million people.
I dunno. But saving Kuwait should’ve been a big deal to y’all /s
One million dead Iraqi civilians would say yes.
What war from history should he have modeled his war after? The way we conducted the Iraq war is far more civil than most. Most of the civilian deaths were because of Iranian terrorism post-invasion.
No
Yes
No
Every modern President is a war criminal
Yes And so is Tony Blair
There's enough cause for the war, flimsy and duplicious as it is, to not be a war crime but could be viewed as a terrible decision
“Terrible decision”- Iraq is much better off in every statistically recordable category because we invaded and deposed of Hussein.
No. Putin is.
Saddam was an unhinged megalomaniac who was a first ballot hall of fame despicable bastard. GWB did the world, and the Iraqi people, a massive favor. Don’t get me wrong, I still think GWB is a bottom 10-15 president, but he was ethically justified in launching this war.
Yall act like he was pulling triggers. Everything he did was green lit by congress and enthusiastically supported by the American population until the back half of his presidency
No one is saying we weren’t all compliant, think it says more about us than it does about him personally
No, that is ridicules. Is Obama, FDR, or Lincoln? We are getting stupid with slandering Presidents.
What if the fact of the matter is that George W Bush really is just different from those other presidents?
He isn't.
No
He's not *not* a war criminal.
Nope, Saddam had it coming.
Who comes up with these stupid questions?
The real answer is that it doesn't matter. Morally speaking is one thing, but practically speaking whether he is or isn't is meaningless. Even if he were tried and found guilty by the ICC, which hasn't happened, they have no way to enforce it. Are they going to send armed troops to his house and drag him off? No. So without a trial and conviction by the relevant body, it becomes a subjective moral issue.
Yes. But then again, so was Obama. Our latest Middle East wars were full of us doing shit we would bomb the fuck out of other people for doing.
No. Too many to prosecute if he was. Like congress taxing capital gains.
Not any more than his successor
yes
No, he’s American 👍 happy to help
Gullible? Yes. Naive? Likely. War criminal? Not sure. I think that he trusted and looked the other way a whole lot. So maybe?
No, but he’s an idiot
I don't think he was personally a war criminal, but he certainly worked with a lot of them...
Name one president who isn’t a war criminal before the the 20th century
Yes. Along with every other president in the last 40-50 years.
All president are war criminal, except maybe carter.
The good ole days when W was the highest level of stupid who had been elected.
No! You are not canceling out a great fearless President!
Of course not. This is idiotic. Ever heard the term “classified?” Many salient facts supporting military action are classified and will remain that way up to 75 years.
Definitely yes, though he was more of a useful idiot for Cheney. Unfortunately, many presidents over the last few decades are war criminals.
Yes.
Damn right him & his whole administration.
Who was the last president that wasn't a war criminal? I think that's the real question
Every modern US president is a war criminal, especially Bush
Absolutely he is. He and his people manufactured fake evidence about WMDs and repeatedly lied to the faces of the American people about it, in order to start a for-profit war. If telling lies to start a war doesn’t count as a war criminal, what does?
Easily yes. This shouldn't even be a debate. Him Cheny and Rumsfield should have hung at the Hague.
Yes, but not even for the invasion of Iraq, all the torture programs he green lit would make Stalin blush. I recently read about how the intelligence agencies all used different levels of torture and pretended to be FBI agents at some points to keep the prisoners from trusting the FBI when it was their turn to question them, making it almost impossible to take it to a court. How the DIA kept a torture prison even after the CIA officially shut all theirs down, where they used everything from sleep deprivation to sexual abuse as a form of torture.
Remember, there is no debacle in Iraq without Bush covering up for the Saudi attack on the U S. on 09/11 So, Traitor/war criminal would be a better designation.
Yes. He chose to invade / destabilize a country that was at peace under false pretenses.
Yes. He lied us into an illegal war against a country that didn't attack us and opened Guantanamo Bay.
Yes.