Bush Declines To Criticize Obama And Doesn’t Agree With Limbaugh
Former President George Bush pointedly passed up a chance to criticize President Barack Obama, who has increasingly peppered his speeches with pointed criticism of Obama — once again underlying a seeming split between Bush and his former Vice President Dick Cheney.
On several occasions since leaving office, Cheney has criticized Obama in terms that are more akin to a talk show caller than a former Vice President. But Bush made it clear he’s not going to follow suit — and that he doesn’t agree with talk show host Rush Limbaugh:
Former President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that he won’t criticize Barack Obama because the new U.S. president “deserves my silence,” and said he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office.
Bush declined to critique the Obama administration in his first speech since leaving office in January. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has said that Obama’s decisions threatened America’s safety.
“I’m not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in the arena,” Bush said. “He deserves my silence.”
Bush said he wants Obama to succeed and said it’s important that he has that support. Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has said he hoped Obama would fail.
“I love my country a lot more than I love politics,” Bush said. “I think it is essential that he be helped in office.”
Bush is in Canada where he’ll give his first speech since leaving office. This speech is reportedly called “A Conversation with George W. Bush.” It’s clear from this and from some of Cheney’s other recent comments that Bush and Cheney didn’t always see eye to eye in their conversations. Or is there another possibility?
Newsweek’s Holly Bailey:“Are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney doing the old good cop, bad cop routine–or do they genuinely disagree?”
The good cop/bad cop idea seems less likely since these are two former officials and aren’t scrambling to stay in office. Their main constituency now is history.
And, in that, Cheney’s ranking is likely to be even lower than he is in the polls.
UPDATE: Here’s more on Dick Cheney’s White House feud.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “Bush Declines To Criticize Obama And Doesn’t Agree With Limbaugh”
[...] Bush Declines to Criticize Obama [...]
Bush is following the standard precedence, broken only by Clinton, that outgoing Presidents do not criticize the new President for at least one year. Professional courtesy.
I have been seeing for the last couple of months a non stop assault by the left that George W. Bush should be arrested as a war criminal when he travels abroad.
The question I have are two fold.
On what charges?
Barak Obama has already been the Commander in Chief in which our military has killed innocent women and children in an attempt to kill terrorist. Should he be arrested now when he travels to Europe?
The charges are based on Bush's own admission that we authorized torture – water boarding.
This is in direct violation of the Geneva convention. This signed agree specifically requires co-signing countries to dis allow access to their countries for lawbreakers, or they are compelled to arrest and try said individual.
This is similar to Britain's holding of Pinochet.
Don't forget about Carter – I know we'd all like to.
Second part of my question.
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
Barak Obama has already killed several civilians in an attempt to kill terrorsts. He is a war criminal. Should he not be arrested when he travels to Europe?
Skaredykatt, if you don't know what the question being asked is, you can't hope to know the answer.
Please refrain from misrepresenting the views of those who disagree with you. There is no sense in posting criticisms of those who wish to prosecute Bush administration officials for war crimes when you do not seem to understand what war crimes they are referring to. I do not agree with this proposition either, but the arguments that have been made are not unreasonable and do not deserve this straw-man treatment.
Nordic
There is no strawman here. The same convention that says a war crime is torture says that civilians must not be murdered.
Its very simple. If you want to prosecute Bush for a few acts of torture then we need to prosecute him for acts of murder. However Obama falls into that same category. I am sorry your bubble burst but you see Obama by definition is a war criminal as well.
Deal with it. The law is the law.
Now heres a strawman for you. Is it okay to murder women and children in far away lands but its not okay to Torture a few terrorists to break their murdering network? That seems to be what some are suggesting.
katt – Go read the bylaws more fully. Collateral deaths to civilians does not rise to the level of murder, except in the case of purposeful targeting or depraved indifference. No one (except the lunatic fringe of the Left) thinks war can be waged with zero collateral damage, nor does the Geneva Convention hold combatants to that unattainable standard.
So AR your making the case that If the Obama Administration targets a house full of women and children to kill one terrorist this is not deliberately murdering civilians?
I find that extraordinary.
So the strawman holds some validity. That it is okay to murder women and children to kill one or two terrorists but it is not okay to torture a known terrorist to glean information while not harming anyone else in the process.
I find this sick actually. However lets be clear. A case can easily be made that killing a dozen women and children both knowingly and willingly to kill one suspected………SUSPECTED…..not even confirmed is indeed murder and is covered under these articles.
If a terrorist violates the Geneva Convention by stationing himself in a civilian house, then the viloation and murder is on the terrorist (by that same Geneva Convention itself).
Why is it people such as yourself are so quick to condemn the actions of the US, while giving terrorists a free ride to flaunt and ignore that same Holy Text of Geneva?
Again, it is only if targeting of civilian targets, known to not contain combatants, that rises to the level of a war crime. And as I just said, it is a war crime to house and hide military assets in civilian areas and buildings.
Following your logic then AR why is it that the US police force just doesnt blow up a building when someone takes someone hostage? The bad guy knowingly hides in among civilians to shield himself from harm.
Yet that is not the case here in the desert. The fact that we know or should know that a house under surveillance would have many innocents in its structure and then we go ahead and fire off the rocket knowing that those women and children are going to get blown to bits but we got the bad guy.
See I do not believe your argument holds water and I do believe that Obama could be tried for war crimes under the same article that covers GWB's supposed torture. The problem for me is that If GWB can torture and the left wants him tried for this, then under that same article the present President can be tried for murdering innocent men, women and children because the terrorist did not knowingly shield himself from hostile forces like was evident in Lebanon but rather these terrorist were most likely feeling secure in their far away, mountainous retreat when boom.
It would be like Im sitting in my home right now and suddenly a bomb drops on my roof killing my wife and children and dogs and cats and my next door neighbors and their dogs and the neighbors on the other side of me have their home demolished and they lose their dogs and cats and the neighbor behind me are killed and their children playing on the swings in the backyard that is adjacent to mine are suddenly engulfed in flames. All because they were after me. I was not hiding here. This is my home. Its where I live.
That is as clear a violation of article 3 as any torture. The point is simple. Both presidents are guilty of war crimes. If they want GWB tried then its Obama's turn next.
Boy, your examples are beyond stupid, and display a striking ignorance of law at all levels, local, state, federal and international, as well as the Geneva Convention and internationally accepted rules of warfare and armed conflict.
First, the police are not at war with the US.
Second, if indeed a fugitive, specifically a armed and dangerous fugitive, takes refuge in a civilian dwelling, then while the police will attempt to minimize any collateral damage, but they also can and do when they believe warranted storm the house. Any innocent lives lost are legally the obligation of the fugitive, and said fugitive can and most often is indeed charged in those deaths.
The same is true for combatants in war activities who seek to shelter themselves in civilian areas. It is they that are legally responsible for any deaths,and they that are committing war crimes.
Your ridiculous argument is basically any non-combatant death in a war is a war crime, all leaders of a country at war are war criminals, as all wars have collateral, non-combatant death. You also seem to be saying that violent criminals who do not surrender themselves, and place others in jeopardy of their lives through their actions, are innocent of any deaths resulting from their actions. There is no legal justification for that position.
There is no point continuing this thread with you, as you obviously have neither the knowledge of law or the basic reasoning ability to carry on a rational conversation on this subject.
But AR
You miss one entire point all together.
We are not at war with Pakistan. We are not at war with the tribes in this region. How is it that blowing up men, women and children with missiles is not contrued as an act of murder?
I do not believe my arguments are stupid at all. I believe that those who want to hang Bush for Torture should be prepared to accept the fact that Barak Obama is next because the actions that he is embarking upon is nothing more then Gestapo tactics to flush out anyone who might be a terrorist and the collateral damage be damned.
In your assertion the police show up, surround the building and make an attempt to resolve the situation. In my example our military just blow the shit out of everything in site hoping that massive force by a big bomb will get the bad guy and sorry about all the poor women and children who were around the bad guy.
This is a criminal matter. You do not blow up a house full of hostages to get the kidnapper. You are right. We are not at war. We are not at war with Pakistan either. Why is it that suddenly its okay to firebomb villages to get one or two terrorists?
Obama is headed for the world court too.
But we are at war with the terrorists. They are the ones taking shelter in civilian areas. Nothing changes that.
Now, if your real argument is that it is ridiculous to propose charging Bush as a war criminal, and are trying to use Obama as a strawman to make that point, I agree. If you really think Obama should be tried as a war criminal, I disagree.
The point Im trying to make is actually simple.
If you want to try Bush for Torture the same statue says that Obama is next. Pure and simple.
Not quite so simple. Take a stand.
Which is it, in your mind? Both should be charged, or neither?
That, in the end, will show whether I was correct in my initial analysis that you believe all war is based on war crime, and all leaders who engage in warfare are war criminals, or that you were just defending Bush against unwarranted attacks.
Take a stand.
I am the only one taking a stand.
I am saying that IF you want to try Bush under this statue then Obama is next. Because the same statue that says torture also says murder. Bush as commander in chief has murdered civilians. Obama as commander in chief has murdered Civilians.
Yet those who want to try Bush want to exempt the murder part while going after the torture part. I believe our laws say its unlawful to both Torture and MURDER. Not just torture.
Now the question is that in wartime our soldiers who actually did the murder are the ones who went on trial. Not Bush. Now in the concept of torture, should it be Bush who goes on trial or the CIA operatives or soldiers who used aggressive methods to get their information?
Should it be Obama who goes on trial for murdering civilians for using remote drones to blow up civilians? Or should it be the soldiers who did it or should it be neither?
Israel has been under worldwide condemnation for blowing up a car full of “Terrorists” and in the process killing many innocent civilians in the process. They are at war yet the international condemnation is immense. Should not the condemnation against Bush and Obama be equally so for killing terrorsts in the EXACT same manner??
If a terrorist violates the Geneva Convention by stationing himself in a civilian house, then the viloation and murder is on the terrorist (by that same Geneva Convention itself).
In your scenario Obama is the enemy to our enemy. The terrorists.
If that is so then Obama is additionally hiding among civilians and thus he is violating the geneva convention.
See the entire point of this exercise is to show that the geneva convention really did not take into account a war on terrorism when it was written. The fact that the antiwar crowd so desperately want to try Bush as a WAR CRIMINAL belies the fact that they do not even understand what that means or the unintended consequences of doing such.
Because:(a) Violence to life and person, in particular MURDER of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and TORTURE;
Both are contained in the same provision of the same aspect of the law that they want to try Bush under. Yet if you start down this road then where does it end. My point all along is that IF you choose this path then it will and must include Bush and every other person to ever start a war, fight a war or participate in a war.
Now if you want to try Bush in the USA for breaking the law then that is a different matter but that is not what my original premise was based upon. It was based upon the fact that these people want him arrested when he travels abroad. If that is so then are we going to arrest Obama for violating the same article of the same convention?
[...] “take”? Bush has kept a remarkably low and dignified profile since he left office, declining to criticize Obama when given the chance. Lumping him in with the feisty Dick Cheney is disgraceful and dishonest. “Uhhh, I think the [...]