My Helium | Join | Log in Where Knowledge Rules

Are there relevant parallels between the tyranny of King George III during the American Revolution and George W. Bush's presidency?

Results so far:

No		52%	139 votes	Total: 267 votes
Yes		48%	128 votes	Total: 267 votes

No

1 of 19

by J.R. Anthony

You have to be extremely foolish to believe that George W. Bush is anything like a tyrant.

Who asked this question?

First off, it's impossible for any U.S. president to be a tyrant. We have checks and balances. There's Congress, and the Supreme Court. The branches, thanks to our brilliant Constitution, monitor each other to ensure freedom from tyranny.

Not that Bush has even come close.

Seriously, if you're going to pick on any U.S. president - why Bush? What has he done that wasn't by-the-book?

You want to talk Iraq war? A vast majority of Senators and U.S. Reps voted to green-light the war.

You want to talk Valarie Plame? Um, the U.S. attorney spent an inordinate amount of time trying to crucify Bush only to conclude the investigation with a single process crime - which had nothing to do whatsoever to do with Plame or her identity.

You want to talk Guantanamo Bay? That was a case of the media believing enemies of war over our own soldiers. No wrongdoing was ever discovered.

You want to talk Abu Grhab (or however it's spelled)? What commander-in-chief has exhibitied 100-percent control over every single military officer. Clearly, there was no coverup and no wrongdoing from the top on that one (had there been, the media would have crucified Bush over it - and they sure tried, even with profound lack of evidence).

You want to talk wiretapping? A Federal Court ruled that President Bush was within his rights to protect our country from terrorists by listening to their overseas phone calls (side note: there was NEVER domestic wiretapping - as media outlets repeated ad naseum. The wiretapping was restricted to international calls to and from terror suspects - never domestic calls.)

You want to talk the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys? Hello? They serve at the president's pleasure - he had every right to fire them for any reason he wanted, political or not. Just ask Bill Clinton, who fired every U.S. attorney in the nation at once. THe media, oddly, didn't seem to notice that one so much.

You want to talk the Scooter Libby pardon? Well, you're really reaching there. Every president has pardoned people with worse "crimes" than Scooter Libby - whose only real wrongdoing was not recalling a series of phone calls he had two years prior. That was - and still is, I guess - a Democrat party witchhunt.

So. What else do we have?

A bunch of people hating George Bush and blindly following big media outlets? That explains all the name calling.

A tyrant? Please.

He cut taxes, not raised them.

He's trying to STOP abortions, not force people into them.

He's trying to protect us from Terrorists, not terrorizing his own citizens.

He's even being a little too nice to illegal aliens in my humble opinion.

The truth is, George W. Bush is a good man with a good heart, who a whole lot of people disagree with - some genuinely, others because they don't understand the issues.

He's closer to a saint than he is to a tyrant.

Learn more about this author, J.R. Anthony.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Yes

1 of 10

by Wade Jackson

It seems that once again, conservatives and Republican devotees must have their say in defending the atrocities of their "president" King George. (Bush, that is).

Let me begin by addressing the comments made by J. Woodbeck. Currently the #2 article on the "No" side.

He says, "I will begin with a definition. A tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization."

If the president of the U.S. is not a single ruler, holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization, what is he? For the last six and a half years, the president and his party have effectively done whatever they wished with no checks and balances whatsoever. They have ignored the advice of their own generals and the advice of the United Nations and invaded and occupied two foreign nations. They have stripped away the right of privacy from their own citizens and kidnapped and tortured innocent civilians from our own country and others. They are currently responsible for the deaths of over 3500 American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and tens of thousands of maimed and mutilated American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

If this is not "tyrannical", what is?

He says, "The term (tyrant) carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who place their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny."

Is it "harsh and cruel" to bomb and invade a foreign country with no regard to the innocent lives lost in the process? Is it "harsh and cruel" to torture prisoners of war against the Geneva Convention? Is a "tyrant" one who would place in power only people who agreed with his own positions (in, for instance, the Justice Department) in order to protect his "own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy (the current residents of the White House, the Republican Party, oil corporations/cartels , weapons manufacturers, Halliburton, etc.) over the best interests of the general population", which, by the way has called again and again for his "tyranny" to end?
To no avail? Once again, if this is not "harsh and cruel" and "tyrannical", what is?

Based on the writer's own definition, this would make George W. Bush a tyrant.

Next he claims that because King Bush was "elected" in a "democratic" process, that the fact that he was elected proves he's not a tyrant. I believe that many citizens of foreign countries might take the writer to task on this point. How many "Presidents" have we seen elected by the democratic process throughout the world turn into dictators who refuse to give up their right to rule? And there are many who believe that King Bush and the Republican party stole both elections and there has been much evidence uncovered recently to support those beliefs.

The writer continues in his discourse to define an "oligarchy", thereby hoping to prove, once again by definition, that Mr. Bush and company are not tyrants.

He says, "Lets look at the definition of Oligarchy. Oligarchy (Greek , Oligarkha) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small, elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military prowess)."

I think one would find it hard to deny that the Bush family is wealthy. And it might be important to note that "oil" and "dealings in oil" were involved in obtaining that wealth. The current administration has been described more than once as "the most secretive" in the annals of American history. And while the numbers of the Administration, its staff and the Republicans serving in the House and Senate might seem large, it is "small" compared to the population of the U.S. Are they an "elite segment of society"? Well, their ranks include some of the most wealthy people in our country and they currently control the American military machine and all its' prowess. And I don't see any "ordinary Joe's and Joan's" hanging out with these guys. Do you?

If an oligarchy is a government ruled by the wealthy, then we're living in one. And yes, it doesn't make sense that some one would spend 500 million dollars to get a job that only pays 400,000 dollars a year. That person would either be one who was extremely altruistic and wanted the job only because he believed he could make a difference or one who hoped to benefit from his position in every way he could. I'll let you decide which one of these categories King Bush falls into.

Finally, we all remember what it was like to be attacked by terrorists on 9/11.

And if King Bush had simply tracked these same few terrorists down and brought them to justice the way he should have, the world would be a very different place today.

We would not be at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

All of our soldiers would be alive and well. The 2 million or so uprooted Iraqi's would still be in Iraq and 600,000 or so of their fellow Iraqi's would still be alive. Yes, they would still be living in a country run by a ruthless dictator, but they would still be alive and dictators don't live forever.

We would not be creating ten more terrorists for every one we killed.

Iraq would not be the terrorist "training center" of the world.

Our country would still be respected throughout the world.

And with the money we would have spent on war, we could have made our
borders secure, our citizens healthier and our economy stronger and less
dependent on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy resources.

But, of course, these are not things a tyrannical government would do.

I rest my case.

Learn more about this author, Wade Jackson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.