Do you ever consider some/all of our presidents as mass murderers?

[DerekG]

This isn't a redundant question. Many of us, even leftists, are never able to dispel that specter of authoritarianism in our minds; we can't look at George W. Bush as a frothing Henry Lee Lucas (ironically, I believe Lucas was the only person among 153 who was granted a stay of execution by the governor), nor could we fathom Bill Clinton to be comparable to Ted Bundy (although they both possessed an uncanny charisma, and don't forget, Bundy had a bright future in the Republican party).

While this perspective is not entirely valid--presidents engage in systematic, and not direct, murder--how many DUers actually have the ability to look at one's own leader and see the face of a killer (extra points if the guy is a member of your party)?


Murder 2. To kill or slaughter in a brutal manner, as in war. (Funk and Wagnalls)

What do you think of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon--administators of a disasterous foreign policy, or mass murderers?



Terrorism 2. Unlawful acts of violence committed in an attempt to overthrow a government. (Funk and Wagnalls)

Are/Was Nixon and Kissinger terrorists for their actions in Chile (result: Pinochet--3000 dead)? Are Clinton and Albright terrorists for their actions in preserving the Iraqi sanctions to spite Hussein (result: 500,000-1,000,000 dead)?

[theorist]

1. Truman, without a doubt.

Dropping nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities is a textbook example of terrorism/mass murder. It was meant to force the Japanese to surrender, and it worked.

[librechik]

2. My husband does. I can't take him anywhere. He accuses Ben Franklin

not of mass murder, of serial murder.

He can make an interesting case for this (Freemason connection) but everyone must wear tin foil helmets when listening.

It's fairly obvious that most presidents are in a sense mass murderers.
We just don't like to think about that.

[liberalmuse]

3. Yes I do.

Truman because he dropped WMD's on civilians. That was probably the most reprehensible act ever done in our name.

LBJ and Nixon are definitely on my list. FDR isn't. Bush I is more like a serial killer or small time mass murderer and I blame him for most of the mayhem in SA committed under Reagan.

Clinton isn't, though his continuing Bush I's sanctions against Iraq caused a lot of death and human misery. Mass murderer? No.

Bush II is a cold-blooded serial/mass murderer. To kill without thought, a twinge of conscience, reason or impunity...wow.

If you're a serial killer, definitely go into politics. You'll get away with serial/mass murder most of the time.

[Disturbed]

4. Reagan

Was Reagan mean-spirited underneath his smiling exterior?
"When I think of the horrors of the Reagan presidency, the massacre in El Mozote comes to mind. The El Salvadoran army, supported by Reagan, which massacred not only peasants, priests and nuns but even the Catholic archbishop, walked into a remote village, El Mozote, and killed all of the residents.

Just one of the many horrors supported by Reagan during his presidency. When the American people finally had Congress start squelching this military aid, Reagan and his executives violated the Constitution and continued sending arms to the terrorist, drug-dealing Nicaraguan contras, by selling arms to Iran. However, while this is horrible, it allows for some distance, it seems more the banality of evil than mean-spirited. As does Reagan starting his presidential campaign in the town where civil rights workers were killed trying to integrate the south, sending the national guard to beat students at People's Park and that sort of thing.

I think Reagan's mean-spiritedness was most clearly on display during the UFW's grape boycott. The farm workers, mostly Mexican, who were paid next to nothing and asking for very little (that water and toilets be made available in the fields, that pesticides not be sprayed from airplanes on fields while people were working on those fields) were boycotting grapes to try to improve these conditions. Governor Reagan appeared on TV, munching grapes and saying how he wasn't following any boycott. He took the side of the large, wealthy, corporate farms in their attempt to crush the meager demands of the Mexican farm workers - mostly that they not be treated in the same conditions of the other animals on the farm, but as human beings. Reagan seemed delighted in his attempts to try and crush their spirits, and ground them and their children back down into the dust.

It reminded me of Margaret Thatcher being interviewed for the series "the Commanding Heights" where she seems incredibly delighted about crushing the miners union in the UK. I don't think I ever saw Thatcher or Reagan more happy than when they were helping wealthy people beat down poor and working poor people. They were mean-spirited people, Reagan even more disturbingly so due to his shared religious fanaticism, as well as his empty smile. I think people should remember Reagan's attack on the weak when they see people not honor his death. Especially now that his death has become a week-long political rally for the 2004 election. Reagan can not defend himself any more, but Reagan never stopped his mean-spirited attacks on those least able to defend themselves on behalf of the idle class. Reagan's mean-spirited nature brings out the mean-spiritedness of people, whatever their political persuasion."

* I apologize to the DUer who posted this because I forgot to copy off her/his monikor. If you wrote this please claim it. ;)

[Djinn]

5. To be fair

Clinton also has plenty of blood on his hands - the UK and US hadn't stop bombing Iraq since the first gulf war and there were runs almost every day, from the establishment of no fly zones until 2000 more than 280,000 sorties were flown. Thousands died.


We don't know how many died as a result of the bombing of the Al Shifa factory in Sudan but the German ambassador in Sudan estimated that tens of thousands of people died as a result because crucial medicine was not available

Then there's the civilians killed during the bombing of Serbia (the situation in the Balkans was a wee bit more complicated than was made out at the time)

All leaders have blood on their hands, to pretend that "our" side isn't guilty of it it's historical revision