Sorry, I don't get all bipartisan-for-a-good-cause warm-and-fuzzy at the inclusion of a war criminal

Maybe Obama, Clinton, and Bush should start a band called NWO.

If it's getting help to Haiti, I don't care WHO'S providing it.

Too bad we can't have Hitler participate.

:rofl:

Better report back to the Deep-Thinkers Society with your victory.

I'm sure he's glad to have your support.

You learned a LOT at the seminars! :thumbsup:

Maybe you haven't noticed but he fucks up everything he touches.

"...Maybe the next shipment will be donated by a Democrat. Better luck next time."

with a token gesture, then fine. We can still get this done without him.

...you just don't want any attention for George Bush.

Faustian bargains are never worth it, no matter what the immediate gains. When we - just this once - look the other way for a good cause, we delay or deny justice. The "Bushes" of the world are refurbished and empowered to fuck up the future. That's all. I hope Bush can raise a lot of money from his base (that will be quite a trick). Luckily, I was able to donate handsomely thanks to the success my "lack of deep thinking" has provided me.

:yourock:

never allow either Bush anywhere close to having any influence over their affairs.

If he wants to donate his own money or get his friends to do so, fine. Legitimizing war criminals, taking them into the fold, justifies the role they played, both Bushes, in the conditions that Haitians have lived under for so long.

We are a big country. If you want to appoint someone to a leadership position in the area of fund-raising for Haiti, then I'm sure we have some far more eithical and respected Americans who would be far better choices for the job.

Bush Sr. who is an insult to the Haitian people they do not need to be reminded of or more correctly, threatened with, especially now. While the average American may not be aware of their roles re Haiti, I'm certain the Haitian people have not forgotten.

Aside from which, as unpopular as both Bushes are around the globe, they are likely to hurt the effort to raise money rather than help. No one in their right mind would trust giving their money to any effort promoted by either of these two men.

...wherein he/she realized that despite personal antipathy, the desperate need for relief took precedence over where or from whom it came. That took guts, and whatchamacallit is to be commended for actually donating to the cause personally.

the torture president raises, get back to us.

Seriously.

This isn't about disdaining Republican or even Bush money. No one has ever seen a Bush donate to anything, lol, so no one would know how to respond to that anyway.

If a Bush is involved, every dollar raised for Haiti will cost Haiti at least 1.01. That is how they operate and they're not going to change their M.O. TODAY to fullfil some kind of nationalistic fantasy that a torturer would suddenly grow a conscience, let alone a brain, and raise funds for poor Haiti which he did his best to destroy.

Why don't you watch what happens to this Bush ennobling effort? Why not just keep track of how much it helps Haiti or Haitians? Then, you can tell us how wrong we are when we call bullshit on this whole bit of theater.

Again, it's not a "Bush-enobling effort", it's a massive humanitarian relief effort requiring all hands on deck.

Those of you deep-thinkers who are trying to make this about Bush instead of Haiti are FAR more inappropriate than him being asked to help. You are tone deaf to the needs of real people in the real world and demand that this be viewed through some half-assed internet-based political filter that would be laughable if it weren't so transparent, juvenile and horribly inappropriate and thoughtless.

I do not give one shit that George Bush was enlisted for this effort, and care even less what you think about it.

that Bush was enlisted is a very exact estimate of your engagement with Haiti.

It's not possible to see the images of Haiti today, it's not possible to understand what those people are suffering without knowing how much he contributed to the situation. His neglect of the NOLA levees pales in comparison.

But, don't let me explode your head with context. Transparent, juvenile, inappropriate and thoughtless? I think that multi-syllabic name calling without knowing anything about Haiti or about the Bush legacy in Haiti or about the Heritage Foundation press release that Rachel exposed about how this horror is an "opportunity" is juvenile, inappropriate and thoughtless.

And, btw, the "support" you are looking for has been posted here in GD for days. You'd have to be pretty selective to avoid all the history that a number of posters have put up.

So Bush is helping more than you are. How ironic.

You are as engaged with me as you are with Haiti.

And you have no idea what I've done or not, do you?

Oh, and when Bush helps anyone, please let me know. :)

If you donated in real life, kudos to you. That DOES help.

of both Bushes had their voices shut down. I object therefore to such people once again presuming to speak for them. The Haitian people spoke for themselves in their election did they not? And what happened to those voices thanks to this family and their global friends?

There are plenty of better ways to donate, for me, I choose to donate to reputable people like Doctors Without Borders who I know will spend every penny on helping the Haitian people.

So stop with your attempt to justify this ~ there is no way to justify legimizing war criminals which is what you are doing, AND presuming that you speak for those people by claiming that they are so desperate they would want the men who made their lives hell, to be promoted to chief fundraisers for them now. It's pure nonsense.

The Bush family fortune came from war crimes and continues to do so. You are free to trust and defend them. I and most of the world's population neither trust them nor will they forget their crimes against humanity. One million dead Iraqis. Justify that if you can.

And we mock the FReeps when they do it.

Donate however you like - no one's forcing you to funnel through Bush and I'm certainly not suggesting you do so.

criminals. That's the point. Since when did Democrats start doing it? There is no need for the Bushes, who always have an agenda when there's money around, to be involved in any official capacity at all. There are so many reputable groups who spend every penny they get on the people who need it, badly in need of donations.

By raising Bush to this official capacity, explain how now, the Obama administration can start the job of holding them accountable for the crimes they committed? Or have Progressives decided that we should just move on from those crimes? The tortured, the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis don't deserve justice anymore now that we have a Democrat in the WH? If that's what the Democratic Party has become, I would not want any part of it. Crimes were committed, this country badly needs to return to the rule of law, and coddling war criminals as seems to be what is happening, doesn't inspire faith in that ever happening.

... then i have no problem w/ it. Besides it must remind W 24/7 of how bad he screwed
up w/ Katrina.

but we know better.

That may motivate him.

.... is what is needed. As for his feelings or lack there of I could give a damn but
again if anything he does helps just one person than I am for it.

And I agree with the OP. I don't want this torturing unelected scofflaw leading anything with my name on it.

This is about THEM, not you.

While I believe what I wrote in post #15 is valid, now is not the time for philosophical luxuries. People are dying in a hellish nightmare, and my distaste for Bush is out of place. My apologies.

:loveya:

:thumbsup:

been preferable. I sure don't like seeing this tragedy used for the purpose of trying to rehab a war criminal's image.

:hug:

I loathe Bush the Lesser, I really do. But if he gave me water when I was dying of thirst, I wouldn't spit in it and dump it out.

Hekate

But he does, for some reason that totally eludes me, appeal to a certain base of people. If his presence motivates that select group of people into giving money for charity and aid relief in Haiti, then it contributes to a greater good.

are the same people who spend their days on Free Republic railing that the poor need to pull themselves up. So, the conclusion that his base base will do anything for Haiti seems like a non sequitur. It's more likely that they will praise him, damn Obama, and agree with Rush.

and if those "some" give, it's good

We don't need Bush. There are so many other distinguished and experienced humanitarians who could have been asked who are not hated around the world and tarnished by the worst kind of crimes that people can commit as Bush is.

Obama ia really acting the fool on this one. Does he think that none of this counts, or is he just sucking up to his Republican masters at everyone's expense. Obama and Bush seem to have a number of common interests based on the court decision obtained by Obama's administration making torture a legal tool of interrogation, failing to reinstate Habeas Corpus, supporting rendition and the "unlawful detainee" status that was never meant to exist under the Geneva Conventions or the Constitution.

the people of Haiti.

It's also fallacious to claim you can't care about what's happening in Haiti if you object to a war criminal's involvement in the aid process.


I could play the same game by declaring that those who support a war criminal's involvement must also support the war criminal ...and by extension, his war crimes. Must be OK with a war criminal presenting a public face for Americans....because every time Bush is on the news, promoting aid, the world sees his face and sees a war criminal as just one of the faces of American humanitarian aid.


But that would be fallacious as well....so I don't.

Some people see it as using Bush to serve a greater purpose

and some people see it as giving a war criminal a very public acceptance no war criminal deserves


I don't agree with enlisting a war criminal for humanitarian aid...it just doesn't sit right with my sense of justice. Maybe after the war criminal has served time in prison and then wants to work to repair the damage their crimes caused...


Not everyone agrees....but to accuse people of not caring because of that disagreement is just plain bullshit. Just as it would be bullshit for anyone to say if you support a war criminals involvement, you must be OK with his war crimes.

much thanks for a breath of common sense!
:hi:

I don't feel right about it either, but then, they didn't ask me.
:shrug:

influence me at all. And of course it's fallacious. Obama could have chosen any one of a number of far more ethical people to raise money for this tragedy. War criminal apologists act as if Bush wasn't doing it, it wouldn't get done, which is such a ridiculous claim it's hardly worth addressing.

The truth is, as unpopular as Bush is, it is far more likely that he will hurt fund-raising efforts. Someone who could be trusted is likely to raise far more money.

They are looking for a way to excuse this. There are so many other trustworthy organizations that people would be far better donating to.

I am donating to Doctors Without Borders. Why would anyone choose to trust any member of the Bush family with money for the poor (we all know how much they've done for the poor in the past :sarcasm:) when people like Doctors Without Borders and other reputable organizations like them, need the money which they will actually spend on the people of Haiti.

Supporters of Bush are not people whose opinions I care much about.