I refer to Willis Hart, of course... an individual who has been VERY consistent in his defense of former preznit George W bush in regards to war criminality.
|Willis Hart: "On What to Do When You Accuse George W. Bush of Being a War Criminal and Then Ultimately Discover that Your Progressive Icon, FDR, Perpetrated Some of the Most Despicable War Crimes in All of Human History (the Targeting and Murder of Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians and in a Manner that Had No Strategic Value Whatsoever)"... Hm, let's see, a sane and responsible person would probably either modify the charges against Bush or have the power of his or her convictions and hold Mr. Roosevelt to the same standards... Of course I'm obviously not referring to a sane individual here (12/16/2014 AT 7:23pm).|
So the argument Willis is making is that since FDR was never charged with war crimes, presidents can do whatever they damn well please. Treaties, international law, US law, and societal norms concerning right and wrong be damned.
Of course Willis jumping to the defense of GWb when it comes to the war crimes he approved is nothing new. He's done it many many times previously. Usually by bringing up FDR and WWII.
By the way, it is impossible to charge someone with a crime after they die, which FDR did... quite awhile ago. GWb is still alive and still chargeable for his war crimes, which CLEARLY Willis does not want to see happen.
And, for the record, I have not discovered that my progressive icon, FDR, perpetrated some of the most despicable war crimes in all of human history (the targeting and murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians and in a manner that had no strategic value whatsoever).
Regarding "strategic value", John Keegan, author of an October 2005 Telegraph article titled "Necessary or Not, Dresden Remains a Topic of Anguish", writes...
|In the circumstances of early 1945 there were pressing reasons for persisting in the bombing. The Germans were still hitting London with pilotless weapons, the prospect of victory, apparently so close at hand in the autumn of 1944, had sharply receded after Hitler's great December offensive in the Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge, which had caused more American casualties than any other battle in the west. Moreover, it was strongly believed - and not only by the bomber barons - that bombing severely damaged and might soon break German morale (source).|
Whether this course of action was a war crime is not an opinion I am offering, as, admittedly I am not extremely well read when it comes to this subject. It may very well have been. I do know, however, that we were at war. A war Germany started.
Unlike the war we were engaged in when GWb authorized torture. Not only did GWb start that war, he started it by lying to the American people about WMD he KNEW Iraq did not have (SWTD #154). And, as we all know, torture does not work. It only gets those tortured to admit to whatever the torturer wants them to admit to (to get the torturer to stop).
This argument, IMO, has more to do with Willis hating FDR... which he does. A LOT. Willis, in opposition to what a sane and responsible person would do, allows his hatred of Progressives to excuse and defend a president who approved torture.
Frankly I find his defense of torture especially repugnant given recent BS from the arrogant Willis regarding him perhaps being "TOO anti-war" and that possibly being his "ultimate downfall".
Yeah... RIGHT... if by "anti-war" the Hartster means too anti-progressive and too much having his head up his ass when it comes to his belief in lies peddled by Libertarian "luminaries".