Birther Nonsense: Still?

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:54 am

Iraq was a horrible mistake that still upsets me that noone in the Bush White House was tried for corruption and possibly treason over. I hope the Bush WhiteHouse will be treated poorly by history books in the future.

Afghanistan/Pakistan: It's a mess. We went in, destroyed the Al Quaeda training camps and slapped the Taliban upside the head, but then we spent 8 years doing nothing good while we spent all our troops in Iraq. By the time we returned to focusing on Afghanistan, it was a mess and the Taliban had managed to build a major stronghold in Pakistan.

The mayor of Kabul was a horrible horrible choice, but really The Bush Administration was filled with people who bought their own hype. They were supremely ill equiped for Nation rebuilding. We needed a real Marshall Plan in Afghanistan, and again, all we did was go in, blow shit up, put in a tool in charge, and oh, while we're here.. we'll burn some poppi fields.

Afghanistan needs schools, infrastructure, and more importantly.. it needs something for it's populace to do in order to eat, that doesn't look like grow drugs, or turn to the Taliban.

I am dissapointed that Obama doesn't seem to get that.. and is basically trying the same old routine. But it's possible the problem has gotten so much worse he doesn't think it would work.

All that doesn't excuse the way people treat Soldiers. Blaming Soldiers for decisions of politicians is just.. infuriatingly blind. It smacks of Vietnam era stupidity.

The US government has a military built around a very important princicple. The US Military does not choose where, or why it fights, and only has limited control over when. That's for Civilian politicians to decide. The US Military focuses on the how. US soldiers don't choose to go into Afghanistan. They are sent, by people WE elected. They follow the rules of engagement given to them.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:21 am

Blaming Soldiers for decisions of politicians is just.. infuriatingly blind.

You break into someone's house and kill them when they resist, that's murder. You invade someone's country and kill them when they resist, that's starting a war, which is all but the biggest crime there is, short only of genocide. That can only happen because your troops continue to obey illegal orders.

As long as your society continues to "support the troops", there'll be plenty of dumb-ass poor people lining up for their tiny piece of that imperial pie. Join the army, travel the world, meet lots of interesting people, and kill them, on full dental.

I mean, your army's got pretty incredible discipline compared to some, but it still only punishes people who are stupid enough to tell the press about their crimes, or lay official complaints, and promotes those who cover up their crimes. Women in the army are routinely dismissed for complaining about being raped, for instance, and a few imprisoned for "bringing the army into disrepute" as well. People who dare to show that to the press, well, Bradley Manning ring a bell?

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:38 pm

Bradley Manning also cost the lives of untold number of Civilian Informants. Is the Army going a bit overboard on the Bradley Manning thing? Yes. Is the US Government overly fond of classifying things as Secret? Yes.

And here's the thing, those troops aren't actually obeying Illegal Orders. An illegal order is, "burn down that village, and kill everyone inside, including women and children."

"Invade Iraq because our politicians have told us there's WMD's there?" That's not an illegal order.

also
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/28/1 ... -rape.html

They're not that soft on rape.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:38 pm

I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think it's in the Army's place to "not fight illegal wars". I am no historian, but from what I've read when the Army decides to tell their government to fuck off and they start doing what they want, that generally doesn't end well for anyone.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:12 pm

sabs wrote:Bradley Manning also cost the lives of untold number of Civilian Informants.

"Untold" is a good euphemism for "possibly zero".

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:17 pm

No, we know it's not Zero. It's just not clear how many it was. There were the full names of translators working with the CIA and the US Army in those documents. There were also the names of Confidential Informants in those documents. Wikileaks did not scrub/black out those names. I like what wikileaks is doing in general, but they should have shown more care when they released those documents.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:34 pm

'But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.'

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:48 pm

sabs wrote:3 of our greatest presidents didn't match the criteria.

TJ and JA were our greatest Presidents? I'm pretty sure that their administrations were in fact fuckups. John Adams, I don't need to go into much detail. Jefferson directly caused a recession FDR-style. Granted, both the nation and government of the U.S. was still tiny and bullshit at the time so the amount of damage they did was relatively small. But I think that any post-20th century President except for maybe George W. Bush or JFK could have done a better job.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:46 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:But I think that any post-20th century President except for maybe George W. Bush or JFK could have done a better job.

Warren G. Harding, really?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:28 pm

Whatever wrote:Warren G. Harding, really?

Yes. Don't get me wrong, though. He's a fuckup by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, but what specifically about Warren G. Harding's administration makes him more of one than John Adams' or Thomas Jefferson's?

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:43 pm

Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase even though most people thought it might be illegal. We tend to consider the presidents that made gambles and won as 'great'. The United States without the Louisiana Purchase would be a very different story. Despite the fact that he thought we should all be Yeoman Farmers, Jefferson presided over a major expansion in central government.

And of course, as one of the major authors of the Constitution, he gets a lot of credit for establishing the system of government that's worked pretty well for 223 years (from 1789 on).

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:34 pm

deaddmwalking wrote:And of course, as one of the major authors of the Constitution, he gets a lot of credit for establishing the system of government that's worked pretty well for 223 years (from 1789 on).

The part about the Louisiana purchase and expanding government are true, and reasons that Jefferson gets some serious credit.

But I would like you to rethink what you just said by virtue of answering the following question:

What continent was Thomas Jefferson on when the Constitution was framed?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:21 am

Kaelik wrote:The part about the Louisiana purchase and expanding government are true, and reasons that Jefferson gets some serious credit.

The thing is, I have a hard time seeing which Presidents would have rejected his deal, Constitutionality or no. That shit was like the deal of the lifetime. If Thomas Jefferson or anyone managed to blackmail Napoleon's administration into the LP I'd give him some credit, but it just dropped into his lap.

I'm hard on Thomas Jefferson's Administration for mainly three reasons:

1.) While John Adams is also a fuckup (albeit in an entirely different way) he at least had the post-XYZ affair foresight to strengthen the U.S. Navy. And hey, avoiding war with France was a major diplomatic win with him. TJ dicked around during his administration even though the DR belligerents gained enough strength for the disastrous War of 1812 after ignoring Adams' warning.

2.) The Embargo Act. Congratulations, Thomas Jefferson, you're now in that illustrious pantheon of Presidents whose policies directly caused a recession. Unlike FDR, however, you have like no redeeming qualities.

3.) The First Bank of the United States' fiasco. Yes, while it technically expired in Madison's administration and the latter deserves a huge share of the blame, his Administration's opposition to it was what really sank it a couple of years later. Now, granted, it's entirely possible that Jackson would have killed it anyway even if the charter got renewed but at least Jackson's objection was rooted (entirely justified) its charges of corruption and cronyism. It was still a ridiculously stupid thing to do, since it just kicked the whole shenanigan down to the states. But whatever. Jefferson's objection was more 'herp derp Constitution and property rights!'

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:14 am

Ted the Flayer wrote:I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think it's in the Army's place to "not fight illegal wars". I am no historian, but from what I've read when the Army decides to tell their government to fuck off and they start doing what they want, that generally doesn't end well for anyone.

That'd be a slippery slope argument you've got there. There's a clear range of difference between an army command refusing to invade a passive nation on the far side of the world, and that same army taking over the state for their own purposes as a military dictatorship.

Like when soldiers refuse to drive big trucks up and down an unguarded road in enemy held territory so Halliburton can get paid for the spoiled load when it's destroyed. Disobeying those orders is a good and noble thing, despite them not being illegal or war crimes in a strict sense, even though you still get to go to prison. Not starting a war would've been a fabulous thing for, for instance, the German army command to do in 1936, or the Japanese one similarly, even if it got them all shot for treason.

Queue: "we're better than the Nazis"; indeed. Still a national shame, including the millions who protested for a day or two and then went back to work, afraid of the tear gas, batons, and arbitrary detention for unlimited periods without charge or trial.

Anyhoo, constitutionally your army isn't allowed to go anywhere without congress declaring war, which they haven't done since WWII. Bush got permission to prepare a force, but not invade without further permission. He never bothered, yet congress continued funding his wars, and the supreme court is a supplicant joke. "Oh, we just ignore that part of the constitution now" is not a constitutionally valid argument, as it explicitly describes the means for its own modification.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:12 am

tussock wrote:Still a national shame, including the millions who protested for a day or two and then went back to work, afraid of the tear gas, batons, and arbitrary detention for unlimited periods without charge or trial.

And I suppose you are out there protesting every day? Some people put eating ahead of protesting. I don't know why, it's frankly a national shame that people don't starve to death before elections so that McCain can win in a landslide.

tussock wrote:Anyhoo, constitutionally your army isn't allowed to go anywhere without congress declaring war, which they haven't done since WWII. Bush got permission to prepare a force, but not invade without further permission. He never bothered, yet congress continued funding his wars, and the supreme court is a supplicant joke. "Oh, we just ignore that part of the constitution now" is not a constitutionally valid argument, as it explicitly describes the means for its own modification.

Don't comment on the constitutionality of anything. Ever. You are clearly an idiot.

PS. It's called the Authorization of Use of Military Force. So yes, it really was an express congressional approval of using military forces.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:34 am

Kaelik wrote:
tussock wrote:Still a national shame, including the millions who protested for a day or two and then went back to work, afraid of the tear gas, batons, and arbitrary detention for unlimited periods without charge or trial.
And I suppose you are out there protesting every day? Some people put eating ahead of protesting. I don't know why, it's frankly a national shame that people don't starve to death before elections so that McCain can win in a landslide.

Fuck no, I'm a hypocritical wanker from a supplicant country bitching about abstract failures of people I don't know, on the internet. A "war is a very bad thing, so other people should do something about stopping it" kind of a guy. Why, are you new here?

PS. It's called the Authorization of Use of Military Force. So yes, it really was an express congressional approval of using military forces.

The text of which agreed that the President was the commander in chief who needed the approval of congress to initiate hostilities, which he didn't get. But you're right, I'm an idiot, educate me, I dares ya.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:48 pm

Little history lesson: Over the course of the 20th century, it became progressively more clear that limiting the president's power by only permitting congress to declare war was kind of meaningless. Obviously, sending troops to a friendly country that is not at war with anyone with their permission does not require a declaration of war, and equally obviously permitting troops to shoot back at people shooting at them without waiting for a congressional declaration of war is really the only practical way of running things. The intersection of these two things and the nature of proxy wars allowed massive end-runs around lacking declarations of war.

So, after Korea and Vietnam, congress passed the War Powers Act, which basically set very tight limits on how long the president could deploy troops without getting authorization from congress. And Bush got it.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:20 pm

tussock wrote:
PS. It's called the Authorization of Use of Military Force. So yes, it really was an express congressional approval of using military forces.
The text of which agreed that the President was the commander in chief who needed the approval of congress to initiate hostilities, which he didn't get. But you're right, I'm an idiot, educate me, I dares ya.

You are thinking of the War Powers Resolution Act, which doesn't even limit it that much. It limits it to only in the case of a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. A declaration of war. Or specific statutory authorization.

The Authorization of Use of Military Force was the Statutory Authorization that congress passed giving the President the power to deploy military forces.

Seriously, stop arm chair constitutionalizing without even reading the text or getting the names right of any of the laws actually at issue.

I mean, there's a whole separate argument about how the President as Commander in Chief has the power to use forces without the approval of Congress that is actually probably more accurate an interpretation of the Constitution than Due Process requiring the states to not establish a church, but it's not even worth mentioning until you can figure out that the AMF did in fact give the President the authority to use military forces.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:36 pm

Library of Congress wrote: Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

Also from that article, talking about the good the man did:

Library of Congress wrote:But Jefferson stood firm in ending the importation of slaves and maintaining his view of the separation of church and state.

There's a reason Jefferson has a monument/memorial in Washington DC.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:44 pm

deaddmwalking wrote:There's a reason Jefferson has a monument/memorial in Washington DC.

Sometimes the Lincoln Memorial is too crowded? [/simpsons burn]

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:35 pm

I said the Jefferson administrations. If we're willing to talk about the good Presidents did before or after their administrations some end up looking a lot better or a lot worse. There's a lot to like about Jefferson if you're into that sort of thing (I am not one of those people) but if you're solely judging the actions of his Presidency and what he influenced during that timeframe then he's pretty clearly a fuckup. Not the worst fuckup the U.S. Presidency has ever seen but definitely in the bottom ten. The only reason why he isn't vilified more than he should be is because the U.S. was tiny and bullshit back then. And of course Madison and John Quincy Adams were the ones that really felt the sting of his and the DR party's 'small government + international belligerence' policies.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:44 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Not the worst fuckup the U.S. Presidency has ever seen but definitely in the bottom ten.

Sure, sure. I mean, an aggregate of actual scholastic surveys puts him at #4 with none ranking him below #7, but your opinion is also a thing.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:53 pm

And I disagree.

Jefferson, in his term, did quite a lot of good. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory was ballsy and worked out really well. Signing into law an act that prohibited the importation of slaves into the United States was similarly ballsy... Whether it worked out or not is a little harder to tell, since it certainly increased the feeling among Southern Elites that their way of life was under siege, but I don't really want to quibble - on the face of it, any move to end chattel slave trading was a good act.

If a president manages to avoid a 'financial downturn' - usually to the credit of their predecessor because of the long cycle of financial actions - sure, that's cool, but it hardly makes a president 'great'.

You put Jefferson among the 10 worst presidents in US History, I put him among the 10 best. You may disagree with my reasoning, but let's at least admit that there is a case for him.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:02 pm

Taft
Harding
Grant
Nixon
Bush Jr
Jackson
Buchanan
Harrisson (yes, he died, serving only 1 month puts you at the bottom of the list of presidents)
Tyler

Hayes, Carter, Ford are all viable options to fill out the last 2 slots for worse 10

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:42 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Sure, sure. I mean, an aggregate of actual scholastic surveys puts him at #4 with none ranking him below #7, but your opinion is also a thing.

American history is ridiculously sentimental and denialist. So I'm not particularly surprised that he ranks that high. I think it's a fucking travesty, though, on part with Jackson being on the 20$ bill.

deaddmwalking wrote:Jefferson, in his term, did quite a lot of good. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory was ballsy and worked out really well. Signing into law an act that prohibited the importation of slaves into the United States was similarly ballsy... Whether it worked out or not is a little harder to tell, since it certainly increased the feeling among Southern Elites that their way of life was under siege, but I don't really want to quibble - on the face of it, any move to end chattel slave trading was a good act.

Two things:
1.) I don't particularly call the Louisiana Purchase ballsy. It definitely fits in with his parochial viewpoint that you needed to own land to not be a subhuman piece of shit. Two, that deal was all set up by Napoleon. Three, Indians lol. Four, and most importantly, how many Presidents would have chose to have punted on such a deal? I mean, kicking Mike Tyson in the groin in national television is ballsy and few people would do it. But if you were going to cut them a $50 million dollar check for doing so, the number of people willing to do so goes way way up and it becomes much less of an 'accomplishment'.
2.) The closing of the Atlantic slave trade wasn't particularly his idea or hobby-horse. Seriously. The 1780-1820 period of U.S. history marked some of the largest period of freeing slaves anyway; he was caught in the zeitgeist, not a creator of it. It was kicked around by the vast majority of the founding fathers. I mean, he gets some points for not welshing on the legislation at the appointed hour, but really. That shit had been talked about for decades -- why do you think that the U.S. Constitution had the 'not interfere with the Atlanic slave trade for X number of years' clause?

sabs wrote:Hayes, Carter, Ford are all viable options to fill out the last 2 slots for worst 10

Taft, Tyler, and Harding were fuckups but they're harmless fuckups in the grand scheme of things. Harrison, it's very LIKELY that would have turned out to be a Tyler or Taft-esque empty suit but I say give him the benefit of the doubt. Nixon was insanely evil, sure, but I don't think he was a fuckup. I mean, shit, he gave us the EPA, took us off the gold standard for good, and detente among other things. If you're willing to overlook one thing in particular (and I totally understand if you aren't) his administrations were a net success. I feel similarly about the Grant administration, but, he also put us back on the gold standard and started the string of depressions and recessions for the rest of the 19th century. Definitely near the bottom, maybe near or even in the bottom 10. But our reasons would not be the same. I feel the same way about Hayes.

If people said that he was a fuckup because of the Cambodian bombings -- the most gratuitously evil thing ever done by a Presidency -- then that I could get behind and he probably would be at the bottom. But for 95% of the people I bet people are going to call him a fuckup because of Watergate, which I firmly consider a First World Problem.

I'm actually surprised that Jackson made it onto the list. I think you can make a very strong case for him being #10 to #8 in fact -- I'm just surprised that he made it at all.

But anyway, I have a serious problem with any Bottom 10 U.S. Presidents that doesn't include at least three of Andrew Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, and/or JFK.

In fact, if you're curious as to who my list would be, it'd be something like this:

10: James Madison
9: Andrew Jackson
8: Thomas Jefferson
7: Theodore Roosevelt
6: John F. Kennedy
5: Zachary Taylor
4: Ronald Reagan
3: James Buchanan (outcome was in the long-run positive, but, it was for all of the wrong reasons. And did a bunch of other stupid shit, too, like letting the South gain the initiative and pushing for the Dred Scott Decision)
2: George W. Bush
1: Andrew Johnson

If you want to take Nixon to task for the Cambodian bombings -- totes understandable -- he'd be number three or even two on the list and would displace everyone down a ranking.