Which of these three acts, ordered by a US President, was morally the worst?

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

See the poll for your choices, and defend it if you feel necessary.

[Complaint Department]

You forgot Jackson and the Trail of Tears.

[Trainz]

Your goal is pretty fucking obvious.

"See??? SEE??? Bush WASN'T the worst president of all time!!!11ONE11!!"

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Your goal is pretty fucking obvious.

"See??? SEE??? Bush WASN'T the worst president of all time!!!11ONE11!!"

My goal is to see which act you feel is the most reprehensible. I personally feel what FDR did was the worst because he did it to innocent citizens of this country and he stole 3-4 years of their lives, essentially treating them like the enemy. It would be like Bush rounding up thousands of Arabs after 9/11 and putting them in a military base somewhere.

I think one could make a case that all of these acts are either bad or justified.

So instead of second guessing why, why don't you consult your moral compass, think about it and give an answer?

[Trainz]

My goal is to see which act you feel is the most reprehensible. I personally feel what FDR did was the worst because he did it to innocent citizens of this country and he stole 3-4 years of their lives, essentially treating them like the enemy. It would be like Bush rounding up thousands of Arabs after 9/11 and putting them in a military base somewhere.

I think one could make a case that all of these acts are either bad or justified.

So instead of second guessing why, why don't you consult your moral compass, think about it and give an answer?

You know my answer. It's obvious that what Bush did isn't as bad as the others.

I'm not stupid.

But I'm telling you bud, it doesn't make Bush a saint either, and you should wake the fuck up about him. You really think Bush is getting too much bad rep? Compared to the result of his actions, and his outright contempt for peoples' suffering (Now watch this drive!), he isn't getting nearly enough. And the thing is, he won't be held responsible for his actions. And you STILL think he's getting too much dirt.

You sound to me like you're fucking programmed dude. Like someone brainwashed you. You sound like a Borg.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

You know my answer. It's obvious that what Bush did isn't as bad as the others.

I'm not stupid.

But I'm telling you bud, it doesn't make Bush a saint either, and you should wake the fuck up about him. You really think Bush is getting too much bad rep? Compared to the result of his actions, and his outright contempt for peoples' suffering (Now watch this drive!), he isn't getting nearly enough. And the thing is, he won't be held responsible for his actions. And you STILL think he's getting too much dirt.

You sound to me like you're fucking programmed dude. Like someone brainwashed you. You sound like a Borg.


I guess I don't see what your vote is, so I'll be happy to debate the pros and cons of your choice when you make it.

[Trainz]

I guess I don't see what your vote is, so I'll be happy to debate the pros and cons of your choice when you make it.

Or in other words "LALALALAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

I'm not voting. I think Bush is the lesser in those 3 options. I told you already.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Or in other words "LALALALAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

I'm not voting. I think Bush is the lesser in those 3 options. I told you already.

Okay, fair enough. Although I still can't see why you just can't choose from the remaining two?

But anyways, the option are there to give a historical perspective on things. We like to think that whatever's happening right now is the most important, the most horrible, the most wonderful. It always is nice to get some perspective through the lens of history. Many folks will gleefully sing the praises of an FDR without remembering the heinous act he committed. Some will argue that for the times it was the right thing to do. Fine, have that conversation, and remember that in 50 years how will we remember the whole Gitmo thing? We like to think that stuff like that will live forever, but will it?

Time and time again political parties were buried. I bought my son a book on the presidents for his birthday this past week, and it shows the electoral maps the past elections. It's amazing to see the number of times the democrats or republicans could have been counted as being dead and gone, only to rise again. Some are singing the eulogy of the Republicans right now, again it's because this generation - perhaps like past generations - thinks only in the here and now.

Anyway, as I said, FDR's act was something that should have stained his whole presidency if you are looking at the magnitude of morally reprehensible acts. That it didn't just shows how quickly we can forgive stuff like that because of the times it occurred in. But put that same act in the here and now, and you would have a real revolution on your hands. And not the pretty pretty kind that people think happened on 11/4.

[Limper]

You forgot Jackson and the Trail of Tears.

Unlike the rest mentioned that one hit blood relative back in the day.

However I still like Jackson.

[Schizm]

Howbout, instead of one of bush's relaively minor fuckups, we put getting the united states into a quagmire of a war under false pretenses? What, you mean that cherry picking your choices lets you point the finger and go "ha ha, see, I'm right?" well, no shit.

Cherry pcicking choices, Cherry picking intelligence..

You really are a bush supporter, aintcha?

[obryn]

Yep, this poll is full of fail.

Clearly, Bush torturing prisoners is the least of those three evils. It doesn't make it good.

Or are you a moral relativist now, Stannis?

-O

[The Winslow]

FDR deporting the Japanese was just applying one of the Alien and Sedition Acts; which calls for deporting people from countries at war with the USA.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Yep, this poll is full of fail.

Clearly, Bush torturing prisoners is the least of those three evils. It doesn't make it good.

Or are you a moral relativist now, Stannis?

-O

How could it be "full of fail" when you readily give an answer to it in your post? How do you feel about FDR in the pantheon of presidents? He is always regarded near the top, yet you only occasionally hear about this stain. Are you willing to look past it, or do you choose to downplay it as historians have?

As for moral relativism, I don't think either side has a monopoly on that.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

What I think is kind of funny is the fact that this whole discussion got started on a small messageboard I run for my personal gaming group. As is the case here, I'm pretty much outnumbered in that one as most of them are liberals. When I brought this issue up the discussion, lively up till that point, strangely died down.

I wanted to see how it would go here. I see a spate of people coming in work their way around this issue, but not have the balls to answer the poll question. It's like you don't want to admit that past presidents have committed "crimes" that can be considered just as heinous, or even moreso.

The fact of the matter is that most of us are moral relativists. Many of you would have gladly blabbed on about FDR as a great man, wartime leader, and politician, while not even giving mention of this blot on his record. The fact that it doesn't jump easily to mind for many is an unfortunate circumstance.

I think it very telling that some of you will take the time to tell me how flawed I am, then kind of answer the question in your post (while rebuking me), but not have the guts to click the poll question.

[Dr. Paragon]

Let me sort this down to brass tacks for you:
Obama won. Suck it.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Howbout, instead of one of bush's relaively minor fuckups, we put getting the united states into a quagmire of a war under false pretenses? What, you mean that cherry picking your choices lets you point the finger and go "ha ha, see, I'm right?" well, no shit.

Cherry pcicking choices, Cherry picking intelligence..

You really are a bush supporter, aintcha?

What are your views of Teddy Roosevelt? He built his name on championing (and fighting) a war that was founded on flimsier "intelligence" than the Iraq War ever was.

Does that change your view of him?

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Let me sort this down to brass tacks for you:
Obama won. Suck it.


I couldn't think of a sentiment more out of place than that right now. What an odd thing to say. If it was about the election, wouldn't I be trying to work something about McCain into this? This deals with a couple of past presidents and one whose term was done.

[Bregh]

.

[PWD]

I couldn't think of a sentiment more out of place than that right now. What an odd thing to say. If it was about the election, wouldn't I be trying to work something about McCain into this? This deals with a couple of past presidents and one whose term was done.

You know very well that a good chunk of how McCain lost was association with Bush, much as he tried to distance himself. This is why you're on your latest "Bush is good, really!" crusade, and it's not going to work. History may fuzzy out some of the details, and Bush may not end up among the worst presidents, but he will not end up among the better, good, or even marginal presidents. He's flat out bad, and your emotional attachment to him doesn't change it.

[Complaint Department]

My goal is to see which act you feel is the most reprehensible. I personally feel what FDR did was the worst because he did it to innocent citizens of this country and he stole 3-4 years of their lives

The number of Cherokee slain in the Trail of Tears was somewhere around 100,000. It would remain the largest mass murder of a civilian population in Western civilization until Hitler came to power. It remains the largest mass murder conducted by the US government. No president is even in the same fucking ballpark as Jackson. Case closed.

(If it makes you feel better Stannis - Jackson was a Democrat).

[Schizm]

Hey Stannis, a quick yes or no question:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?









Yeah, I don't expect you to answer it yes or no, because it's a ludicrous question that assumes one basic fact to begin with. Same with your question above.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Hey Stannis, a quick yes or no question:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?









Yeah, I don't expect you to answer it yes or no, because it's a ludicrous question that assumes one basic fact to begin with. Same with your question above.


The more some of you guys act like this, the more I feel I have a point. I wanted to elicit a response from people and give a sense of historical perspective. In a few months Bush will leave and while there will be exhileration for the new president, the same old stuff will fly about our current commander-in-chief. I wonder how many will remember that prior presidents, even well thought of ones, were far from perfect and committed acts much more morally reprehensible than him.

[Utrecht]

Stannis,

Thanks for posting this, and I agree with its reasoning - I find it mind-boggling (and intellectually dishonest) to see people in one breadth call Bush "the worst president ever" and then the next call FDR a great president.

Calling out the fact that previous presidents (several who are venerated) were no saints IS an important thing - and hopefully will cause people to think about what they post before spewing.

Disliking Bush - perfectly acceptable - there are many reasons to do so - but taking the immediacy out of it and looking at his presidency in historical context, many of his sins (which are still there, and by no means minimizes them) can be looked at in the bigger picture.

[Name Lips]

One of the main differences Stannis is that nowadays everything is revealed and publicized and made into headlines around the world mere minutes after it happens. I think most Americans were shocked to find out about the Japanese Internment Camps, but I also think most Americans didn't find out about it until significantly after the fact.

It used to be that a President could order large-scale, international, "morally gray" things with relative secrecy. Presidents need to be aware that it's a lot harder to do that now. People don't find out after it's too late to do anything - they find out hours after it starts when there's plenty of time to protest and try to stop it in its tracks. There's a sense of now people feel when they read the news - these aren't things that happened a month ago, or a week ago -- it's literally what happened minutes ago.

That's kind of a scary thing for somebody trying to rule a powerful nation and make hard decisions. Fallout and backlash is immediate, not delayed.

[Schizm]

The more some of you guys act like this, the more I feel I have a point. I wanted to elicit a response from people and give a sense of historical perspective. In a few months Bush will leave and while there will be exhileration for the new president, the same old stuff will fly about our current commander-in-chief. I wonder how many will remember that prior presidents, even well thought of ones, were far from perfect and committed acts much more morally reprehensible than him.

on that point I can agree. However, when you intentionally choose one of the least of his morally representative acts and pit it against some of the most morally bankrupt acts of prior presidents, you are going to get the response we put here.

[Utrecht]

on that point I can agree. However, when you intentionally choose one of the least of his morally representative acts and pit it against some of the most morally bankrupt acts of prior presidents, you are going to get the response we put here.

Ok, which of Bush's acts was more morally reprehensible than what Stannis listed?

[Schizm]

Ok, which of Bush's acts was more morally reprehensible than what Stannis listed?

The Iraq War. The Patriot Act. Warrentless Wiretapping of American Citizens.

[Utrecht]

The Iraq War. The Patriot Act. Warrentless Wiretapping of American Citizens.

All were outdone by FDR

Iraq/WWII : FDR knowingly violoated the constitution by putting American Serviceman in combate zones - without congressional approval. Further, the Destroyers for Bases treaty (and Lend Lease) both were constiturional violations. AT least with Bush, he was using what he thought was factual intelligence.

Patriot Act - see the forced intenment of Japanese Americans (and lets not forget Congress' part in the Patriot act)

Wiretapping - J. Edgar Hoover (with FDR's blessing) wiretapped large number of Americans prior to and during World War II

You can find similar situations with Lincoln and how he managed the Civil War or how the Mexican American war was instigated by Polk.


Again, historical context......

[Name Lips]

If you want to pick that particular nit, the President hasn't saught Converssional approval to deploy troops in a LONG time. Technically Congress is supposed to declare wars, after which the President commands the troops in that war.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Moral progress. What was mildly bad or even entirely understandable in the 1940s, would be horrendous today. So yes, if we were to intern the Japanese today that would be horrendous and worse than most of what Bush did. But in the context of the morally less enlightened (and more racially prejudiced) 1940s, Japanese internment was less blameworthy than Bush's actions in the morally more enlightened 2000s.

[Trainz]

Okay, fair enough. Although I still can't see why you just can't choose from the remaining two?

Because being Canadian I only know vaguely about their acts, and can't decide between the other two. Again, for the third time, I readilly admit that Bush wasn't as bad.

But he WAS bad, and no-one should be supporting him at the moment, especially someone I always thought as pretty smart. You are kind of an enigma for me...

Anyway, as I said, FDR's act was something that should have stained his whole presidency if you are looking at the magnitude of morally reprehensible acts. That it didn't just shows how quickly we can forgive stuff like that because of the times it occurred in. But put that same act in the here and now, and you would have a real revolution on your hands. And not the pretty pretty kind that people think happened on 11/4.

And that's a good thing about our present age, that what FDR got away with wouldn't happen here and now.

You may claim that you're posting this for purely historical curiosity, but you have proven again and again your hidden agenda whenever you post political stuff about Bush. It's insidious, and may work with people who don't know you, but come on bud... all of us have been together for many years. EVEN if this time, this once, you REALLY didn't have an adgenda, well I'm afraid you've cried wolf a few dozen times too many.

[Pigs in Space]

Also, bush doesn't have to have done the worst thing in US history to still be the worst president.

FDR did some good stuff from what I understand.


I can't think of anything good that bushie did. Unless you were really rich already, and now you're more richer, in which case you'd disagree.

[Utrecht]

Also, bush doesn't have to have done the worst thing in US history to still be the worst president.

FDR did some good stuff from what I understand.


I can't think of anything good that bushie did. Unless you were really rich already, and now you're more richer, in which case you'd disagree.

Then you are chosing to be wilfully ignorant....

Please see the thread on the trreatment of President Bush is a disgrace for MANY examples of the "good" stuff Bush did.

[Scarbonac]

I am shocked and horrified to be in agreement with Atticus.

:shakefist:

[Harry]

The number of Cherokee slain in the Trail of Tears was somewhere around 100,000. It would remain the largest mass murder of a civilian population in Western civilization until Hitler came to power. It remains the largest mass murder conducted by the US government. No president is even in the same fucking ballpark as Jackson. Case closed.

(If it makes you feel better Stannis - Jackson was a Democrat).

Bull. Utter bull. Cite.

[Utrecht]

Moral progress. What was mildly bad or even entirely understandable in the 1940s, would be horrendous today. So yes, if we were to intern the Japanese today that would be horrendous and worse than most of what Bush did. But in the context of the morally less enlightened (and more racially prejudiced) 1940s, Japanese internment was less blameworthy than Bush's actions in the morally more enlightened 2000s.

So are you arguing that society needs to change with the times? Because I am not sure that that argument will go entirely where you want it to...

[Singularity]

Moral progress. What was mildly bad or even entirely understandable in the 1940s, would be horrendous today. So yes, if we were to intern the Japanese today that would be horrendous and worse than most of what Bush did. But in the context of the morally less enlightened (and more racially prejudiced) 1940s, Japanese internment was less blameworthy than Bush's actions in the morally more enlightened 2000s.

That was my reasoning in picking Bush over FDR. FDR is also slightly mitigated by the fact that he was in an actual global shooting war at the time rather than being in an un-winnable struggle against an enemy that does not wear a uniform, organize itself into armies, and represent a nation. I also think that simply rounding up people of a given nationality during a time when they might pose a security risk is much more understandable (note that I'm NOT saying excusable) than authorizing the same torture techniques that we condemned our enemies for using during a prior war.

[Edena_of_Neith]

I voted for the internment of the Japanese. It was the worst act ... of the three selected in this poll.

Someone should have a 15 choice poll about these things ... LOL ...

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So are you arguing that society needs to change with the times? Because I am not sure that that argument will go entirely where you want it to...

No.

I'm not arguing for moral relativism, as anyone who'd bothered to read my posts over the last five years would know.

I'm saying, in recent centuries, the moral consciousness of western society has, in a saw toothed fashion, gotten better and better. Our circle of empathy grows larger and our out group grows smaller, we learn more about the essential sameness of people and we learn more and more to judge people as individuals, by their actions and beliefs, rather than as collectively, as members of a tribe or race.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I am shocked and horrified to be in agreement with Atticus.

:shakefist:

That strange sensation you're experiencing is the rare (for you) experience of being in the right. :p

[Ergeheilalt]

The number of Cherokee slain in the Trail of Tears was somewhere around 100,000. It would remain the largest mass murder of a civilian population in Western civilization until Hitler came to power. It remains the largest mass murder conducted by the US government. No president is even in the same fucking ballpark as Jackson. Case closed.

(If it makes you feel better Stannis - Jackson was a Democrat).


Democrat Republican

[Trainz]

That was my reasoning in picking Bush over FDR. FDR is also slightly mitigated by the fact that he was in an actual global shooting war at the time rather than being in an un-winnable struggle against an enemy that does not wear a uniform, organize itself into armies, and represent a nation. I also think that simply rounding up people of a given nationality during a time when they might pose a security risk is much more understandable (note that I'm NOT saying excusable) than authorizing the same torture techniques that we condemned our enemies for using during a prior war.

You're making a damn good point.

Stannis, that's an extremely valid point.

Did Hussein bomb an american military facility?

[PWD]

All were outdone by FDR

Iraq/WWII : FDR knowingly violoated the constitution by putting American Serviceman in combate zones - without congressional approval. Further, the Destroyers for Bases treaty (and Lend Lease) both were constiturional violations. AT least with Bush, he was using what he thought was factual intelligence.

Patriot Act - see the forced intenment of Japanese Americans (and lets not forget Congress' part in the Patriot act)

Wiretapping - J. Edgar Hoover (with FDR's blessing) wiretapped large number of Americans prior to and during World War II

You can find similar situations with Lincoln and how he managed the Civil War or how the Mexican American war was instigated by Polk.


Again, historical context......

So your and Stannis's contention that Bush was actually a pretty good president all told and we'll all come to that realization in time has now devolved to "he's not the worst, look"?

Is that really how far the Bush admiration has fallen? Because I can tell you right now he's not the worst president ever if that'll help you sleep at night. He is however the worst president of my lifetime, hands down.

[Singularity]

I can tell you right now he's not the worst president ever if that'll help you sleep at night. He is however the worst president of my lifetime, hands down.

Yep, that's the same conclusion I've come to. He's not as bad as Jackson, and he's not as bad as some foreign leaders of past ages, like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, or Chairman Mao, but he's also no Clinton, Reagan, Bush I, or even Carter. He's kind of near the top of the bottom, but nowhere near the bottom of the top.

[The Winslow]

If you bring Presidents-not-of-the-USA in the picture, then I'd nominate Berlusconi as worse than Bush. And certainly Sarkozy as well. While it's open to debate because something had to give, Thatcher certainly did a ton of damage as well. If you put in dictators as well, the Myanmar (Burma) junta, and people like Mugabe or Kim Jon-Il are certainly worse for their countries than Bush ever could; of course they don't have the strong constitutional checks and balance that the USA have so it's comparing apples and oranges, really.

[Utrecht]

No.

I'm not arguing for moral relativism, as anyone who'd bothered to read my posts over the last five years would know.



However, your words above and below really seem to contradict your statement here. But will give you the benefit of the doubt here.


I'm saying, in recent centuries, the moral consciousness of western society has, in a saw toothed fashion, gotten better and better. Our circle of empathy grows larger and our out group grows smaller, we learn more about the essential sameness of people and we learn more and more to judge people as individuals, by their actions and beliefs, rather than as collectively, as members of a tribe or race.

you mean the same inherent sameness that makes people think it is morally justified to fly planes into office buildings? While I understand that you made a clear distinction above about Western society - what do you do when you are NOT dealing with a western society that does not adhere to our same rules?

Does that provide any mitigation to the actions of Bush (especially compared to the other example of human rights abuses other Presidents engaged in?)


So your and Stannis's contention that Bush was actually a pretty good president all told and we'll all come to that realization in time has now devolved to "he's not the worst, look"?


My contention all along has been that Bush is a C to B- president - lots of good and lots of bad - but ultimately left the US better prepared for the 21st century than he got it - and that given some time/historical context most blind haters will come to that same conclusion.


Is that really how far the Bush admiration has fallen? Because I can tell you right now he's not the worst president ever if that'll help you sleep at night. He is however the worst president of my lifetime, hands down.

That is certainly a valid opinion to have - however I think that you are giving Carter a pretty big pass (or for that matter, Nixon)

Additionally, I think that you (and many others) have forgotten how reviled Reagen was when he was in office - the protests that Reagen endured in Europe made the ones against Bush look like tea parties. OR Nixon - the cloud of corruption/cronyism that that administration had made Bush's look prety lilly white.

I predict that by the time Bush dies, he will recieve a similar eulogy that Nixon did and that he will be warmly remembered by both the American and world public.

[Alpha Ralpha]

Did Hussein bomb an american military facility?

it was a Baby Formula factory, CNN said so, it must be trooth!

oh ... never mind me :o

[PWD]

My contention all along has been that Bush is a C to B- president - lots of good and lots of bad - but ultimately left the US better prepared for the 21st century than he got it - and that given some time/historical context most blind haters will come to that same conclusion.

That B is anywhere in your thought process says you consider him a pretty good president, does it not?

That is certainly a valid opinion to have - however I think that you are giving Carter a pretty big pass (or for that matter, Nixon)

I have no intention of giving Carter or Nixon a pass. They're down there on the bottom half along with Bush. The three worst in my lifetime from the bottom up would be Bush, then Carter, then Nixon.

Additionally, I think that you (and many others) have forgotten how reviled Reagen was when he was in office - the protests that Reagen endured in Europe made the ones against Bush look like tea parties. OR Nixon - the cloud of corruption/cronyism that that administration had made Bush's look prety lilly white.

Bush has all the same corruption and cronyism, but the kool-aid chuggers have ensured it doesn't get much focus.

I predict that by the time Bush dies, he will recieve a similar eulogy that Nixon did and that he will be warmly remembered by both the American and world public.

The fact that the sanitation effort is in full swing while he's still in office tells me that certain ideologues will definitely be singing his hosannas in no time at all. That's not at all the same thing as the near-mythic and fawning adulation among conservatives and grudging respect among liberals that Reagan ultimately found his place in history to be.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

However, your words above and below really seem to contradict your statement here. But will give you the benefit of the doubt here.



you mean the same inherent sameness that makes people think it is morally justified to fly planes into office buildings? While I understand that you made a clear distinction above about Western society - what do you do when you are NOT dealing with a western society that does not adhere to our same rules?

Does that provide any mitigation to the actions of Bush (especially compared to the other example of human rights abuses other Presidents engaged in?)




My contention all along has been that Bush is a C to B- president - lots of good and lots of bad - but ultimately left the US better prepared for the 21st century than he got it - and that given some time/historical context most blind haters will come to that same conclusion.



That is certainly a valid opinion to have - however I think that you are giving Carter a pretty big pass (or for that matter, Nixon)

Additionally, I think that you (and many others) have forgotten how reviled Reagen was when he was in office - the protests that Reagen endured in Europe made the ones against Bush look like tea parties. OR Nixon - the cloud of corruption/cronyism that that administration had made Bush's look prety lilly white.

I predict that by the time Bush dies, he will recieve a similar eulogy that Nixon did and that he will be warmly remembered by both the American and world public.

There's no doubt that there's a tremendous struggle going on, specifically between the scientific worldview of the enlightenment on one side and the irrational ideology of orthodox Islam (and, to a lesser extent, fundamentalist Christianity) on the other side. But I don't see how that justifies torture or the suspension of the rule of law or Gitmo or rendition or all the rest of the crap Bush got up to. (And the fact that the more Christy parts of the Bush administration were only marginally less anti-science and irrational than the Islamists doesn't help much either. But beggars can't be choosers I suppose - Obama is, after all, a Jesus-freak too.)

What I'm saying is that the average westerner today is probably morally superior to a relatively upright person of the nineteenth century - because we know and understand and appreciate more today. Judging FDR's morality by the moral standards of today is like judging Newton's science by the standards of modern physics.

[Brynja]

I agree with Atticus.

It is the degree of moral enlightenment in the country.

We are not as morally enlightened 50....100...200 years ago.

On the Hitler Scale of fucked up - the scale being 1-5 the gitmo stuff is like s 2.

[Brynja]

though i am not saying bush=hitler i am just using hitler as the pinnacle of fucked up

[Singularity]

On the Hitler Scale of fucked up - the scale being 1-5 the gitmo stuff is like s 2.

I'd agree with if we're only talking about Gitmo, but when talking about Bush, we also need to look at the number of dead Iraqi non-combatants. Granted, he did not intentionally set out to kill all of them, they've died because of problems within the country itself that were brought to the surface when Saddam was unseated. There have also been a significant number of deaths that occurred because of things like not being able to get access to drugs certain people needed to stay alive, and other failings with the infrastructure. The number estimated dead ranges on the low end around 50,000 and on the high end, close to a million. Of course nobody knows for sure because there's nobody there keeping track. How do you calculate it? It isn't as though all the bodies are laying out to be counted. If you compare the current population to the last census, you might get an idea, but then that wouldn't account for those who fled the country or died of natural causes.

However, because the body count of non-combatants in Iraq is significant, I'd rate Bush overall more like a 3 on the Hitler scale. There is certainly a lot of room to do worse, but the number of people who died because of his policy decisions is not insignificant.

[Brynja]

Actually lets make the scale 1-10 gives more room for nuance.