For non-Americans. How many of you think that Bush is a war criminal?
88267
Not quite so, here we think that the general international policy of the United States for the past century is criminal, no matter who the president. Bush just happens to be worse than the rest. Look at it this way, he has robbed from his own people with his tax reforms. So, he is not only war criminal (like most US presidents) he is also a regular criminal-- thief :) cocaine abuser and many other things you and I will never know about.\nSpain
842601
True, Bush has not committed any crimes. Libs are steaming mad that they have been out of power so long. They're also mad that Bush accomplished what they wanted to do but did not: topple Saddam.
1181413
I'm non-biased on this subject, because I'm not American, and I have no affiliation with Americans. I admit that I think Bush is war-mongering git, but I don't let that cloud my judgement of innocent Americans!!\n: D\n\nFrom what I can see, the Bush definition of a terrorist (which is NOT exactly the same as your average American citizen's definition!) is\nTerrorist = \n1. Muslim.\n2. Non-Christian.\n3. Anyone who disagrees with the (selected by God) President of the good old U.S of A!\n\n(I say that the President of the USA was 'selected by God' because he obviously wasn't elected fairly by the hoodwinked general public of America!!!!)\n\nThe average American citizen's definition of a terrorist is more logical, although biased in favour of America ... but that's understandable and forgivable! \nTo the average American;\nTerrorist = \nAnyone who even THINKS about hurting Americans, especially if they're on American soil!\n(That's why a few Americans still have a soft spot for the IRA ... they didn't bomb America!!)\n\nAnd by the way, for Katybear's benefit ... I've NEVER heard that any of the women and children blasted to death by the American troops were wearing bombs!! But then, I don't get the American propaganda!!
778618
Ya know, I'm getting pissed at people from other countries criticizing our country and our president. The US is great as long as we're protecting some second rate nation but if we attempt to protect ourselves, well, we're just evil bulies. George Bush didn't ask for a war against a phantom enemy. An enemy that calls no nation home. An enemy that wears no uniform. An enemy that kills women and children as part of a strategy. An enemy that fires, then runs and hides behind those same women and children.  An enemy that teaches it children to hate people of other  religions. An enemy that straps bombs on its children and sends them to pizza parlors to blow up innocent people. And George Bush is the bad guy here? It's just damn sad that people don't understand who and what we're fighting and why we went to Iraq in the first place. As for America being a "better place".  You stinking socialists wish you had it so good.
579146
I do not. I am an American and DO NOT like him, whatsoever.
623453
Okay let me make this straight up as I can. I am a moderate Democrat (i.e. Conservatives will say I am too liberal and Liberals will say I am too conservative) I also do not like our current president never have voted for the other guy in both elections. However I do like Tony Blair and the Labor party (I almost always have the BBC on so I can get some real news) with that you know where I stand.\n\nThis is a very complex question with a lot of history to consider. I can tell you what this war is not. First it is not part of the war on terror. President Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 and frankly for the victims of that hideous act I think it is a great dishonor to say that Iraq is one and the same war. It’s not about oil. Americans think that we pay too much for oil, compared to Europe we pay half as much per a gallon. That’s due to the different driving practices and the better mass transit in Europe.  This war isn’t about WMDs even though that was the purposed reason to rally public support for the war. It’s not about Halliburton getting kickbacks from having a close relationship with the President that is just the icing on the cake. I can not tell you really what it is about its too complex for me to go into here and I would need hours and hours to explain it. \n\nHere we are a few years later. Do I think we should pull out our troops? No basically we broke the country we should fix it. Is there any good of this invasion? Yes, Saddam was not a good leader of his country he committed the most unforgivable sins; Genocide. If Bush said I don’t think the no fly zones aren’t working I don’t think the sanctions are working we need to go in and get this bastard. I would have said hell yes lets roll. Thing is he didn’t do that he didn’t make it about crimes against humanity. Our reason for the war was WMDs. How could Iraq having WMDs threaten the United States? Only one way and that is Terrorism. The only way Iraq could have used them is by deploying one of its Intel officers in a covert attack on our country. It couldn’t have been done by Al Qaeda. Why? Well Al Qaeda thinks that Saddam is the enemy because he exploits Islam for his own needs. Al Qaeda wanted to over throw leaders like Saddam all thro out the Middle East and put in governments like the Taliban in Afghanistan. Problem is people don’t look at history when they look at the middle east they don’t see the events before oil from there became a life blood or after the crusades. There is this dark period where it greatly shaped the Middle East that we know nothing about as westerners. Hence why it is complex.
678179
Yes he IS the "Decider" and there in lies the problem. His pizz-poor decision making skills have turned our great land into the "laughing stock" of the world. Also let's briefly examine the damage done by Bush and his criminal administration; an unjust war, racial/cultural polarization, HUGE national debt, violation of constitutional rights, you get the idea. The criminal administration should be put on trial for their crimes against America and humanity.
859628
Sorry, I'm an American, but I thought I'd better answer, anyway.  You need to know that we really aren't all like Bush.  I never voted for him, and I've never liked him.  And I get sick of Americans who brag about us being a melting pot, but want to build walls to keep everyone else out.  We need to realize that there are 6 billion people in the world, which makes us a very small minority, and we'd better get along.
388472
Please do not think that all of us are blind, or stupid for that matter.  A great deal of Americans (REPUBLICANS) are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.  I agree with you, however, that we need to stop George Bush.  I will not call him President as it is obvious that he cheated as well.  I hope for not just this country, but every country in the world that this war ends.
91419
no, i don't. george bush is an evil bastard. that's all i have to say.
876860
Robert Gates is just as much of a scum bag as Bush.  These people are tyrannts that must be stopped immediatly. They are giving us "good Americans"  a  "bad name."   It doesn't matter what your political party is...here....take a look at just a few of the crimes our wonderful President Bush has committed....\n\n1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of hundereds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.\n\n2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.\n\n3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable. \n\n4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.\n\n5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.\n\n6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnaping, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.\n\n7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.\n\n9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."\n\n10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.\n\n11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.\n\n12) Authorizing secret military tribuna
25590
well i'm not american but i'm definatelly against it...i think this war is a "nice" way for the president to come along with his capitalistic and imperialistic tactics
121580
Not a good syllogism.  Yes the US IS guilty of warcrimes. Yes the war was totally under false pretenses and yes the Iraqis are not better off today.  HOWEVER, in my wildest dreams I can not vusualize how Humpty Dumpty could be put back together. \n\nwe are kind of stuck with this Kubuki Theater and for good or ill, ( I think ill ) , its slowly, inexorably moving forward.\n\nHowerver the US has no legitimacy in this dog and kangroo court show.
770391
President George Bush is nothing more than a pedofile and criminal. He orchestrated the terror attacks of 911 and has committed crimes against humanity and other countries.\nHere is a list of some of the things he is guilty of.....\n\n1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.\n\n2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.\n\n3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable. \n\n4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.\n\n5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.\n\n6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.\n\n7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.\n\n8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.\n\n9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."\n\n10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.\n\n11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.\n\n12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion
274286
Well, I'm sure many of us do... after all, Saddam doesn't have the best reputation in the worldwide community of us "ordinary Joes".\n\nBut I, for one, am glad the soldier didn't pull the trigger.  Little doubt the thought crossed his mind for at least a microsecond, LOL!!  I'm not crazy about the man either.  But I am a huge fan of giving someone a fair trial, no matter how horrible the charges are against him.  That, after all, is a keystone of the American democracy.  Remember, England had an oppressive Court system that sat at the Palace of Westminster from 1487 to 1641 known as the Star Chamber.  Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing, and counsel was mandatory.  Even after the abolishment of the Star Chamber, the British subjects were still subjects to religious persecution, excessive taxes and unfair court systems with harsh punishments.  It was these kinds of oppressive conditions that led to the founding of the United States.  These colonials had grown tired of the oppression and sought to create a new land with a new and fair government, free of the tyranny of the King.  A new republic was born through war and struggle, a republic where freedom and a democratic ("of the people") society could live.  If we are there in Iraq to promote democracy, then we need to show examples.  \n\nThat soldier made the lesson crystal-clear by allowing Saddam's fate to be decided in a court, not a spider hole.
609628
Negative, Bush is a criminal.
90325
I believe that Bush has done and continues to do more damage to this country than any other president in the history of the United States.  He managed to turn unprecedented international support into unprecedented international disdain.  He has invaded a sovereign nation for no apparent reason, overextending the military and diverting resources form the legitimate military campaign (the one aimed at actually finding the people who attacked us).  He sent military forces into Iraq with no viable exit plan (which was obvious to many of us from the start and has since become obvious to most).  He has turned an record fiscal surplus into a record fiscal deficit.  He has trampled, and continues to trample, on the bill of rights.  He has forced congress to approve the appointments of radically conservative judges, who will continue to errode our civil rights for years to come.  He has spent billions of dollars on an unnecessary war while schools accross the country are discontinuing art, PE, music, even science and history classes due to lack of funding; entire schools are closing resulting in larger class sizes; special ed programs are being closing.\n\nOK guys, I don't think the asker meant he *literally* wanted to replace Bush with Nixon, but rather that Nixon did less damage as president than Bush is doing.  I expect he knows he's dead...  Although, I must agree that a dead Nixon would be better than Bush in that at least he couldn't actively harm or nation.  For that matter a grapefruit would make a better president than Bush.\n\n_____________\n>>>Do any of you liberals have an original thought in your head \n>>>that DIDN'T come from moveon.org or Micheal Moore?\n\nFrom what I can tell the ONLY thoughts in your head are "Bush good" and "liberals bad."  My political opinions are based on my personal morals, my own observations, and my interpretation of what I read in the news.  Yours appear to be based on a misguided believe that anyone who did not vote for Bush is a terrorist.  Perhaps there is a reason you feel the need to attack anyone who questions your idiomatic ideology?\n\n___________\n>>>There was a very good reason - Iraq lost a war in 1991 and \n>>>didn't submit to UN inspections for WMD. Even Clinton was \n>>>ready to invade in 1998, where was your outrage then?\n\nYou may note that Clinton did NOT invade in 1998.  If he had, I probably would have been outraged, although as he DIDN'T I can't comment on the exact circumstances that would have surrounded this decision.  You may also note that old Bush chose to withdraw from Iraq rather than overthrow Saddam.  Again, there's a reason.  Besides which, failing to submit to UN inspections may or may not be cause for UN action, but it is not a justification for unilateral US action.  Even Bush has stopped talking about UN inspections and WMDs.\n\nAlso note that this is only ONE of the many atrocious policy decisions for which Bush is responsible.  Apparently you can find no argument with the rest of them.\n\n____________\n>>>No you wouldn't have\n\nYou have no basis on which to determine what I would and would not do.  I would not and do not support the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation no matter who happens to be president.  And the fact remains that CLINTON DIDN'T DO IT.\n\n>>>AND SEVERAL OTHER NATIONS\n\nOh, sorry, I forgot Poland.  Seriously, though, we had the UK on our side, and a couple of tiny countries who are dependent upon our financial support, but that's about it.  It was unilateral primarily in that we did not consult with other nations in making the decision to invade, not in that there weren't a handful of other countries fighting along side us.\n\n>>>Don't give me the tired WMD crap either - you know DAMN \n>>>well he had them, just ask the Kurds, "Where are they now?"\n>>>would be