Presidents Kill People, Especially Bush

It's a weighty job. It's no exaggeration to say that the president makes life and death decisions all the time. We were interviewing Michael Isikoff of Newsweek yesterday on The Young Turks and we discussed this part of his latest story:

As NEWSWEEK reported last summer, President Bush approved more relaxed rules of engagement for U.S. forces along the Afghan-Pakistan border. The Pentagon once required "90 percent" confidence on the part of intelligence agencies that a "high-value target" was present before approving Predator strikes inside Pakistan. Under the revised rules, U.S. officials on the ground now need only 50 to 60 percent confidence to shoot at compounds suspected of sheltering foreign fighters, according to knowledgeable U.S. sources who would speak of sensitive matters only anonymously.

Think about that. Even if you have a president with a conscience, one out of ten times someone is going to walk into the Oval Office and say, "I'm sorry Mr. President, our intelligence didn't pan out - we accidentally hit a wedding. Ten civilians killed."

That is tough. That is what Obama will have to deal with. Once you think about it that way, you almost don't want the job.

Now let's move on to a president without a conscience. George Bush. Think about the decision that Isikoff explains above. I understand hitting a target that has 90% certainty of being Al Qaeda fighters, simply because you'll almost never a hundred percent certainty. We can't have a president frozen with indecision or who never takes a shot no matter how certain his intelligence people are that we have Al Qaeda on the other end.

But I at least want the president up at night worrying about the consequences of his decisions. Every time he gives the order, people die. We just hope that we get it right most of the time (and even if you have the right guys, it should give you small amount of pause if you're human; let alone the tragedy of hitting the wrong people).

Look at what Bush does instead - lowering the bar to about 50% certainty that it's an actual enemy target. That means half the time he blows up a wedding, or a group of kids playing in the yard, or innocent men sitting in a coffee house, or a just an average family sitting around their kitchen table. And why is he doing this? Obviously, because he wants to get Osama bin Laden or another top Al Qaeda leader before he leaves office. In other words, for his reputation.

This is why I don't like George Bush. You're not supposed to say it in polite circles, but I think he is a despicable person. Yes, I mean that on a personal level. I think he shows sick indifference to the lives of others. Maybe it's standard fare for politicians to be more concerned about their own careers than the lives of others, but there is a line. Would you take a 50% chance that you'd kill innocent civilians? Could you live with that?

And think about this - why did he lower the bar recently? We're seven years out from 9/11. It's not like the hunt for Al Qaeda has taken on some new urgency now. No, what has taken on urgency is Bush's legacy as he prepares to leave office. That's the only thing that has changed. There is an inescapable conclusion here - Bush has ordered more innocent people to their deaths so that he can try to salvage his reputation before he leaves office.

Maybe the man doesn't think Pakistani lives are worth the same as our lives. What's the big deal if you have the wrong people? They're all Muslims that live in that area anyway, right? I know some conservatives definitely feel this way. But a president should be smart enough and decent enough to understand that there are real families with real human beings who didn't do anything to us there. They didn't have it coming.

Earlier I mentioned a kitchen table. We're used to our own kitchen tables. We know how they look and it feels like home to us. It almost seems strange to think of a family sitting around a kitchen table in North Waziristan. But they do. The husband comes home from probably a back-breaking day of work. They have aspirations for their kids. They're worried about the violent jihadists that are rumored to be in the area (like we're worried about crime in our neighborhoods). The wife is making soup. The son has just come in from playing soccer. The dad is at least glad to see his only son come home. And then boom. Lights out. We just dropped a bomb on the wrong house. They're all dead.

That has to keep you up at night if you're the person making that decision. If it doesn't, you're a monster. Now, Bush cavalierly lowers the bar and risks killing more civilians just like that family. And he does it for his own political gain. He is a terrible person.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[mnkors]

The record of the Bush-the-d­eath-peddl­er has a co-signer -- the Christian community of the USA and the Vatican. They were the most articulate supporters and promoters of Bush.
The Bush victims include
1. Hundreds of thousands of the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan (thousands of children included). Plus the multitude of crippled.
2. Women in developing world -- deprived of life-saving contraceptives -- those who died in labor or due to gynecological complications and left their children motherless

The “lesser” victims are the US children who have no free health insurance because the latter is "socialism" as compared to billions and billions procured to the Bush’s “base of haves”

[SirReal1]

Cenk,

As always I value your insight and your compassion, but, on this one you are simply adding to the record something that we all knew.

Simply looking at his record as the man who presided over the largest increase in Death Sentences in the Nation (as Governor of Texas) provides the basis for asserting that HE IS A MONSTER!

Judging from the sheer number of "less than certain" sentences he refused to commute while Governor certainly demonstrates that "the bar" for him has always been as low as it could be set. He simply lacks the many HUMAN qualities that would cause difficulty for the average person, and HE see's those qualities as WEAKNESS!

Thank God he didn't manage to stick around long enough to implement the use of Predators in Domestic Law enforcement.

Think he didn't consider it? Think again!

[godhelpusall]

war criminals have been tried and convicted for far less than the willful carnage nonchalantly perpetrated by bush and his cronies - they should all be rounded up, tried, convicted and given a permanent home in guantanamo

[Emerald1943]

I'm just a "little person" with no clout, no influence, and very little money. I have no special abilities or insight into the problems we face. I have no hope of being able to influence the policies of Bush & Company that we know are wrong.

So, I am BEGGING someone with the clout, influence, money, ability and insight to BRING THESE CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE!

The article actually made me nauseated! The MSM has been the lackey of the administration, hiding the atrocities that are committed in our names and paid for with our tax dollars. When will it end??

[Digeeedad]

One of the factors that make ANY errant missle or bomb attacks even MORE obscene somehow, is that more and more of the attacks are launched from US drone aircraft remotely flown IN Iraq and over Pakistan by "pilots" in Nevada, Texas, Arizona, and California.

I KNOW that these military men and women are just doing their jobs and that ultimately it saves American pilot's lives and is cheaper...­. but the image of men and women carrying their lunch boxes into work in Arizona, sitting down at computer flying consoles all day, and carrying out precision exterminations of people thousands of miles away, is still horrifying.

[LiberalPaul]

What Would Jesus Bomb?

[kwinter]

LiberalPaul,
I'm not concerned with what some guy in a book would do. If he's anything like his dads character (oh right ... they're the same guy) no telling in this century how many people would be obliterated. Just going by how barbarically people were dealt with in the book.
I'm more concerned with how real people deal with each other in real life. Bush is a believer in that book, and look how he behaves.
Most people I know have better morals than Bush or the protagonists in his "holy" book.
" What Would Jesus Bomb? " ... dunno, nobody does.

[OpusIsUnderTheBed]

Bravo.

[Paul]

Perhaps the new President will consider a ban on US military airstrikes inside countries we are occupying. We risk going down in history alongside Imperial Japan's occupation of China.

[Burgess]

Great post. Thankd.
I also would like to remind you all of the estimated more than 600.000 innocent civilian dead in Iraq.
The number is inconceivable:
Imagine the entire population of Boston, Mass. dead (2005 census reports: 559.221 people for the city of Boston) or imagine entire population Denver,Colorado (557 917 people); Seattle Washington( 573 911! people) Please imagine what it is must be like that many dead people!!!!
4000 dead soldiers are morned in USA and I feel very sorry for those who volunteered to fight this unjust war. At least their names are honored. Have you seen coverage in the Media? Where are the pro life, life loving good Christians? Are the lives of a innocent Iraqi child, woman, pregnant Iraqi woman, boy or man worthless?

[Digeeedad]

Although undeniably horrific and incredibly tragic, untold numbers of people across our nation sought out counseling due to the waves of fear and unsafety that were brought on by the 2974 deaths caused by the terrorist attacks here on 9/11.

Can we even fathom having lost anywhere close to 200x that number? Yet.... being "far removed" by the intentional sanitizing of this "war" those numbers seem to have little or no effect on most people in our country. Claim as many do that " those deaths in Iraq have been FAR exaggerated or were for the greater good" is so far beyond reprehensible that there is no word for it!

We destroyed a country, that WAS NOT asking for our assistance. There are probably ZERO people left in Iraq that have not been directly affected by deaths in their families, and Iraq no matter how "we" saw faults, will never be the same again for decades to come.

Kharmically, as Rev. Wright "outrageously" stated... those chickens HAVE in fact come home to roost!

[lucylou]

Another under-reported story was how Pres. Bush put over 5000 mostly-British troops at risk in order to deliver a turbine into Afghanistan. All of the commanders agreed they needed more time, better security, and so on -- after all, it was the largest military operation undertaken since WWII.

Instead, they were told to do a 'rush job' before the elections (it took place in October).

This is despicable cynicism in the extreme. And, while the operation went off with no roadside bombs and deaths, it was only carried in the UK papers for the folly it represented.

[Digeeedad]

Stupidly mixing a family get together for Christmas dinner, with an after meal "political discussion" last year ended up being a recipe for ended relationships.

My wife's cousin and her husband were our guests and when talking about the Iraq war and Bush's choices, they both agreed that "even though "sad" (families losing loved ones in errant missle attacks etc.) it ultimately is for the "greater good" and that those families will grow to understand that'!

This past 4th of July, I took my children to a fireworks "spectacular" and found myself saddened at the reality that as loud and sometimes scary as some of the fireworks exploding in the air were...... NONE of them even came close to the sound and horror the Iraqui families living in and around Bagdad had to endure, during our INVASION to "free" them! Night after night of constant pounding and explosions loud and strong enough to burst eardrums and collapse lungs.

There were people all over the US who sought counseling after 9/11, because of the horror they witnessed. What about the horror we have unleashed????

I told my wife's relatives that "I felt ashamed for what we were doing in Iraq". They said "it was God's will and that Bush was an annointed man". I said.... "there's the door, use it"!

[jan4insight]

Digeedad: Good on you!

[clevelandchick]

Digeedad,

I didn't speak to my Republican brother for over a year and it all began with me saying "We're in Iraq for the oil" and him replying "Good, it's in our best interests". Of course if one of his kids were killed by somebody bombing the crap out of our country to steal our natural resources he wouldn't say "Good, it's in their best interests".

I sometimes wonder if our national media would show the images of the aftermath of our bombing kitchen tables or indiscriminately firing on people because they have a 50% chance of being 'the bad guy' if my brother or your cousins would really feel the same way.

This war and occupation has been hidden from the public and our national media is complicit in forming the attitudes of our relatives that think this illegal invasion and occupation is "in our best interests" and "God's will".

[pixieTrickster]

A wonderful post. Thank you for taking such a deliberate, close look at the implications in those decisions that are made. Of course, it's obvious what the implications are, but does anyone really think about it? It's something that I feel badly about, but to break it down and really think about it; to think about an innocent family... which makes the significance of Bush's disregard for human life that much more horrific. To just think about being willing to take a 50:50 chance on accidentally hitting innocent people, for selfish, egoistic reasons--it's monstrous. You are right. George Bush is a very, very bad man.

[LightningJoe]

Let's include the psychology of setting that "certainty" figure, starting with the case of 100 % certainty. This level of surety could only be approached if we aquired a real-time clear photo, or if an agent of ours on site knew the target, and had observed him or her directly. Needless to say, such certainty will be elusive, under the long-distance conditions in which these strike decisions are made.

Any lesser degree of certainty must be determined through the individual judgements of those in charge of vetting the intelligence. It cannot be a mathematical function, as all "human intelligence" involves judgements. The level of PERSONAL conviction on the part of the vetting officers is therefore the determinant of the presented "certainty" figure.

I'd say that, whoever is in charge of vetting targets, it will come down to a group of two or three people who have input on the matter. Obviously, the psychology and predilictions of those few people are of great import, for whoever will be on the sharp end of a missile strike.

Now: what kind of a person, knowing that a 50 % "certainty" is no more accurate than a coin flip, would go ahead and deliver that judgement; knowing that it will (likely) turn into a party of dead bodies?

I submit that a person who would do such a thing, would have little native reluctance to "err" on the side of striking the target -- which calls ALL the other "certainty" figures into question.

[SkimaskBob]

great post.

[Cybersquirt]

"why did he lower the bar recently?"

Because he never did care much and since he's on his way out he has less of a reason - even if it means destorying the fragile alliance with Pakistan. And why should he care? No one's held him accountable to this point; is there anything more he could really do to change that?

[Cybersquirt]

He believes in the rapture as well, does he not?