Does Bush really say what he means and do what he says - part II
 

Today, in a commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy, Bush revealed classified intelligence about a 2005 order from Osama bin Laden instructing aides “to form a terrorist cell that would conduct attacks outside Iraq — and that the United States should be the top target.”

It makes me wonder how it fits with what he has said in the past:

"We can't have leaks of classified information. We're now in extraordinary times . . . and yet I see in the media that somebody feels that they should be able to talk about classified information. And that's just wrong."

"My administration will not talk about how we gather intelligence, if we gather intelligence, and what the intelligence says."

"... classified information must be held dear, that there's a responsibility, that if you receive a briefing of classified information, you have a responsibility.

I guess its only ok when it suits a political purpose....an attempt to further justify and defend a failed policy in Iraq.

Wouldnt a moral, truthful leader also declassify the intel that determined that the rise of al Queda in Iraq was a result of our invasion or the assessment that al Queda in Iraq only represents a very small percentage of the violence in Iraq and has little capability to expand it to the US?

I have to disagree with your assessment of al-Qaeda's capabilities outside of Iraq. They have clearly demonstrated the intent of attacking western interests worldwide, while the single most dangerous scenario facing the world today remains WMD in the hands of terrorists. I frankly don't think its much of a surprise to anyone that the Iraqi War has captured the attention of al-Qaeda, opportunistic vultures that they are. We also see them actively operating today in Lebanon, where they are seeking to overthrow that government in favor of an islamic republic in the Iran model.

As far as what Bush's motivations are, you can criticize the man for many things, but inconsistency isn't one of them.

Powerclown...i agree with your assessment of al Queda's capabilities in general...we lost our focus on al Queda and bin Laden when Bush abandoned Afghanistan before the job was done in order to purse the Iraq folly.

But I am talking about what Bush calls "al Queda in Iraq" which from the limited declassified summaries of intel that I have seen is a relatively small rag tag bunch with loose ties to bin Laden and with little capabilites beyond car bombings and IEDs in Iraq. BUt Bush hasnt declassified these NIEs or intel reports...they dont serve his political purpose.

And you dont the inconsistencies in his earlier statements about the need to keep intel classified and his actions this week?

What I'm trying to figure out is where the line is drawn between masively stupid and too retarded to be put in jail. When my dog tries to eat on of the wastepaper basket, I get made but I realize that punishing him would be meaningless because he's not smart enough to realize what he's done wrong or the how what he does effects himself or others around him. I know that if he eats something dangerous, it can hurt or kill him.

Here's the thing, the puppy in question is president. Of course things are going to go downhill fast, as we saw in the 60% of the time vacation time in 2000, demoting top terrorism experts, not doing shit to stop 9/11, not using 9/11 to rally the world against the threat of governmentally independent militant extremist organizations, screwing the pooch in Afghanistan, lying to get into Iraq, wiretapping, etc. Obviously he should be removed from office immediately, but I'm trying to figure out if he belongs in prison or with special care people for mentally handicapped people. It's a fine line, and often special needs people are sent to prison, despite having a clear disability.

For that matter, he doesn't own up to the fact that he named them that. What that group calls itself doesn't have anything to do with al Qaeda. That's a name made up by the administration and broadcast by the right-wing media.

Wow, AQ wants to attack America. That sure is news.

Oh jeez, you didn't just say that did you?
Quite the euphemism there...

:devious:

Well Bush has continually said he supports our troops but recently he opposed giving the troops an extra .5% raise. The dems wanted to give the troops 3.5% and Bush said no 3% is enough. So who is really supporting the troops?

'Terrorist organization' means any organization that has the intent to terrorize. Governmentally independent militant extremist organizations are a more descriptive, if longer name. If you really want to get at it, you can call them governmentally independent militant extremist Muslim organizations that intend to evoke fear through violent acts of guerrilla warfare to the ends of removing Western cultural and military influence from the Arab (Muslim) Middle Eastern states (and probably want to destroy Israel, too), or:
Gimemotiteftvaogwtteorwcamifames-ism.

If Bush can pronounce that, I'll eat my hat.

Jail, for life at least. Maybe making handicapped license plates. :)

Stop!! powerclown, yer gonna make my head EX-PLODE!!!!
 

...powerclown.. I cannot believe that you believe <h3>that.</h3> The only things that I can depend on hearing from Cheney and Bush <h2>are lies and inconsistencies...THE ONLY THINGS: </h2>

This is....quite possibly the very first time I have had the time and inclination to read an entire Host Post. I think I will try to make more time for this in the future as this was very damning, and well created.

But Damn Host..........my eyes hurt.

Since you have read it, how about a Cliff Notes version?:thumbsup:

Bush and Cheney lie and are inconsistent constantly, and the proof is posted above.

Uh....Yeah...thats the jist. And in my opinion the data posted is indesputable.

hmmm....I don't think ace is yet convinced....

<h2>Ssssllllllaaaaappppp !!!!</h2>

ace: thenk youuuu sirrrr....I'd like another !!!

<h2>The Flip:</h2>

...and what is this....40 months later....could it be????
<h2>The Flop:</h2>
...and seven months later, still....no, not more
<h2> Flop ?????</h2>

Mr. President....I thought that you boasted that the surveillance technology "gap" had been fixed....you took credit for fixing it....<b>59 months before you said this:</b>
<h2>The Flip:</h2>
Here is Bush, just weeks after he is alleged to have (by James Comey) directed Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's ICU unit bed to sign an authorization that Ashcroft was no longer legally authorized to sign...he had relinquished his duties due to illness:
<h2>The Flop:</h2>

9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......
9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......

<h2>The Flip....and The Flop:</h2>
<b>Fasten yer seatbelts...Ladies and Germs....when (if....) this does come to public light.....the "mother" of all FLIP/FLOP campaigns from the lips of our "means what he sez", president...will bring "shock and awe" to this land:</b>

Jesus Christ....

It's complicated....lotsa details....too much to read....I'll just continue to position myself at the "receiving end" of the president "catapulting the propaganda"....not unlike a prisoner sharing a cell with a bigger inmate who enjoys taking me...."back there"...over and over....again and again... 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. 9/11....FISA was written in 1978....9/11, 9/11...there's an enemy out there....9/11, 9/11.....

The 'Jesus Christ' wasn't to the post length, it was to the information. You think you know how bad it is and then you get reminded again. It's kinda like being shot.

Here is text from winston Churchill's first speech as Prime Minister of England. It is full of hyperbole and symbolism. Generally when I listen or read speeches or statements from world and national leaders, I give them a little room for being a leader and attempting to put a pretty face on information. If you call that "lies" we are in 100% agreement.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/...lood_sweat.htm

Too bad it's "a time of war"....it makes all of it.....the outing of Plame, the hiring and naming of the key assistant to the most corrupt DC lobbyist in history, to be "special assistant to the POTUS", and his political advisor, Karl Rove, and placing her, for more than 5 years, just down the hall from the president's office: (While insisting that you don't even know the admitted felon):
Bush tells us an "enemy wants to attack us"....but no need for his key aids to use secure white house email....is there???
yup...it's "war time".....Bush tells us it's a long, long war....enemy lurking...blah, blah, blah....we have to be "right 100 percent of the time...", yet there is no "email security policy", or preservation policy, and....the president's "special assistant"...sitting just down the hall from his office...is engaging her former boss, the man she followed from one lobbying firm to the next....is continuing her contacts....boasting that they are insecure...with her soon to be convicted felon....former boss....who the president, "doesn't know", even getting a 50 percent raise from the "war president":

Goodness me....some of us trust in our president's every word....but I'm more suspicious than ever that Mr. Bush was not legitimately elected to office, either time, does not believe what he says about the "enemy that wants to attack us"....using that phony threat to consolidate his own power by legal or illegal means, and knows much more than he has disclosed about the 9/11 attacks, and the subsquent anthrax "attacks"....<h3>How can we all be exposed to the same information and reach such vastly different opinions?</h3>

The more you discover about him and his cronies the harder it is to believe that outlandish official story of 9/11.
It makes me wonder how he ascended the ranks in politics, is it all really that corrupt ?

More importantly... is it fixable?

It is.....but its gonna take about a year

We're talking about the president of the United States of America. Polling results indicate that close to a third of American adults still trust him....support him.

Surely aceventura3's defense of president Bush....a quote from a famous WWII Winston Churchill speech that was used by ace to demonstrate that wartime leaders "lie" to inspire commitment to a "great cause" (I guess that was ace's point....he didn't offer a specific Churchill "falsehood" that could be compared to all of the false or misleading Bush pronouncements....posted up to that point in this discussion...) cannot be all that Bush's supporters have to post in his defense?

On May 23, on this thread, this was posted:
I view "inconsistency"....in his speech, and in his actions....as one of Mr. Bush's greatest faults....greatest failings. I think that I've posted convincingly to support that view.

Particularly disturbing are the things that Mr. Bush has lied about, and the timing....right after the 9/11 attacks, in the midst of a never solved "anthrax attack"....right before the invasion of Iraq, and anytime new evidence is disclosed of how he misled us "right before" the invasion of Iraq.....right after James Comey had his "showdown" with Bush dispatched Gonzales and Card...in Ashcroft's ICU room at the hospital.......and right after the NY Times Dec., 2005 "blockbuster" disclosure of the warrantless electronic surveillance of US residents. All of these periods of lies and misleading statements have come when it matters most....when Bush has gained/taken/falsely manipulated us into granting his executive branch unprecedented or extraordinary new authority to deal with perceived threat conditions to our national security....or when it has been discovered that he has taken even more new authority from us, without our prior knowledge of permission.

This makes it, IMO, even more important for defenders of Mr. Bush to respond to the examples of his false and misleading statements and assurances. The gravity of his failure to speak credibly to us, in the context of when he was telling us what he was telling us, while he was lessening our constitutionally guaranteed authority/rights, and increasing his own....if Bush's defenders are interested in being regarded as offering "reasonable" POV's.

I would think that it is important for conservatives to be regarded as "reasonable" political thinkers. Their silence begins to make me suspect that their support for Mr. Bush....knowing what we know, because of what he has said and done, in the context of the timing of his words and deeds, with the consistent result of the increase in his presidential authority and the decrease in the constitutional checks and balances...at the expense of the rest of us,
<b>....is unreasonable.</b>

If you've read through this thread, up to this point...does it seem reasonable to be of the opinion that my quote from powerclown above, or what ace has posted <b>are reasonable opinions....conservative opinions....if they "leave it at that"</b>....leave what they've already posted, to compete...."head to head", "side by side", with the "evidence" posted....Bush's own statements and those of his closest associates, in the context of the timing of the statements and actions?

I believe that you must speak coherently to seem credible. Courts use the principles of "probable cause" and what would a "reasonable" person do, say or believe, under a given set of circumstances. Would a "reasonable person" have "probable cause" to still believe that Mr. Bush "says what he means and does what he says"?

Where do I "have it wrong"? What am I missing? How can this "stuff" be ignored...without being considered, without posting a point by point...(or ANY)...rebuttal?

If we start at the begining and look at Bush's first speech requesting authorization for war, which you say is based on lies, I then look at other historical leaders and look at what they said at the dawn of war. Chruchhill painted a picture of the enemy, that at the time was not proven true. He says without victory there is no survival. He talks about his plan, and it is simply to wage war. He says they will do what needs to be done, were there violations of civil liberties, did he stretch the spirit of their laws for what he though was the common good? What do you think? Or, do you need experts to connect the dots, and tell you what to think in relation to how leaders have conducted affairs during war.

You're going to compare the second Gulf War to WWII?

ace...the challenge for you is that "the beginning" is not "Bush's first speech requesting authorization for war". That is not a specific that you should see a need to explain, from your POV, to maintain the "reasonableness", of your position that Bush "says what he means". To accomplish that, you would have to explain how he could be reliably telling us that he did not "know" Abramoff, or how it could be that he could proclaim, in Oct., 2001 that he had the tools, in the Patriot Act that he was then signing into law, to cope with modern technological innovation for electronic surveillance of "terrorists", only to later use the gap between innovation and the 1978 technology that FISA was written to respond to, as the excuse to circumvent FISA, illegally....

Did Bush "mean what he said" in Oct., 2001, or on Sept. 7, 2006, with regard to justifying warrantless wiretaps?

ace, you make this debate much easier on me than it could be:
...the commonality of your megalomania with Libby's, and Cheney's, and Bush's....aside...

Wouldn't a "reasonable" response from you go something like,
...or:
....then, ace...you could post a conclusion like, ........but trying to compare the rhetoric that Churchill used on the day he took office in May, 1940...the same day that Germany was invading France....naw...ace....my example of how you could have tried to post a "reasonable" argument, is a more..
reasonable way for you to try to persuade us...that...you have a resonable POV, when it comes to the idea that Bush "says what he means"!

It's hard to say what you mean when you don't even know what you said.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...-say%e2%80%99/

Host,

I understand how you and others think Bush is a lier and immoral, all I wonder is - do you use the same standard for all historical leaders?

What about FDR?

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/internment1.html

Did he lie to the American people about the threat of American citizens of Japanese origin? Do you give FDR the label of being immoral?

Speaking for myself, FDR made one of the biggest mistakes in the history of our country when he signed EO9066. It was racist and based on irrational fear and bigotry (it's possible that FDR was not, himself, a bigot, but the order is clearly racist) instead of reasonable thought.

The interesting thing is: this thread isn't about FDR. It seems like you're trying to rationalize and excuse current sins by calling on the sins of our past. That's not how it works. FDR can be wrong AND Bush can be wrong. FDR being wrong doesn't excuse or even lessen the sins of the current administration.

FDR did not Lie....but in hindsight was mistaken. Unfortunately, you do not seem to believe Bush also might be mistaken regardless of the obvious evidence continuously making its way into public view. There comes a time ACE, when defending someone so obviously in the wrong makes you wrong as well. I can understand why FDR made this decision out of fear....But I still dont think it was right. You seem to not only comprehend what this administration is doing, but also to support it.

That is certainly your right, but dont expect those in opposition to respect your stance.

History will be the judge of Bush. I don't think he is a lier or immoral, I think he says and does what he thinks is in the best interest of the nation. I am beyond the point of trying to debate the minutia of what Bush said on one day to the next. Hind-sight is 20-20, so we can second guess his decisions and what intelligence he used or did not use, but it seems that the second guessing of Bush has never really been about constructive debate but mostly about bashing Bush.

Bush has made mistakes. We all know that. But at a time of war, people are upset that he is not an apologist. No world leader during war has been an apologist. The stakes are too high for Bush to send messages of weakness. He is going to be a "cowboy", an arrogant S.O.B., an unyeilding a$$hole. As a world leader during war, he does not have the luxury of being humble. I am not sure some here understand that.

I guess my question is - did he exaggerate the threat? Did he misuse intllegence? Why did he do it? Why didn't he do it with German-Americans?

This suggests that he did not know what he was doing was unconstitutional at the time he did it. I think he knew it was. I think he knew that virtually all were innocent and loyal the the US.
Not true. I think Bush has made many mistakes. In my view mistakes are not the same as lies, or being immoral.

You think he made that decision solely or partly becuase of fear? Was he the man who said "we have nothing to fear but fear itself"? I think inpart he was sending a message to various audeinces.

It is very difficult to discuss morality and war. During war leaders have to make decisions everyday that could be shown immoral or considered lies.

My stance is one of asking questions and challenging thoughts. If people don't respect questions or wimper at a challenge of their thoughts, so be it. As is a familiar pattern when people here want to avoid the point, you can try to make this about me but it is not.

The present is the judge of Bush, and that's more important because you can't stop history. I hope that's clear.
Doing what's best for one's country isn't synonymous with morality. Think of every great tyrant in history, namely the bigger tyrants of the 20th century.
I don't think it's called second guessing or hindsight if people like me were right about the Iraq war being wrong from the beginning. Yes, fuck Bush, but more importantly, we need to fix that which has been broken. That's what the focus is on, at least speaking for myself. It's about more than constructive debate, it's about honest ideas of positive change. We need ideas ready to be carried out. That's not just what leaders should be doing, but any vigilant citizen who has more than one brain cell.
No world leader has been an apologist when they were being attacked because they have nothing to apologize for. When that world leader is the aggressor, as is the current case, they SHOULD apologize because they're wrong. Bush is wrong. Adults are able to recognize a mistake and take steps to fix that mistake. Bush is staying the course and damning everything because he continues to be stubborn and ignorant. If you think it's a message of weakness to learn from your mistakes and pay for them, then you're not fit to lead anything. Bush must pay for his mistakes not only in the interest of justice, but to slow terrorism. Terrorism is up because of imperial behavior. If we send the emperor to the dungeon and leave their lands, then they will have less reason to attack, and rightfully so.

Bush should be in prison for fucking with pre-war intelligence and misleading congress into an illegal war of aggression against a nation that didn't represent any level of threat to the US or our allies. Bush should be in prison for being involved in illegally bypassing the FISA courts because he had no reasonable explanation for tapping the phones of US citizens. Many Bush administration officials should be in prison for everything from allowing torture despite it's being illegal under the Geneva conventions to the leaking of Valarie Plame's name in order to slander her husband for suggesting that pre-war intelligence was wrong (something they were correct about).

No it is not. I don't understand how you can give final judgement on a person's on activities without knowing their results.

i agree. The opposit is true as well.

I only asked if the rules used with Bush are the same used for other leaders, are they?

You lost me here.


Please be clear. Is being aggressive wrong? Is a preemptive strike wrong? Or, do you look at the circumstances before making that judgement?

People can also fix mistakes without making a public statement about the mistake. Bush has done that many times.
bush has made changes to his Iraq strategy. What has not changed is his underlying goal. Again be clear, he has not changes his underlying goal because he believes it to be correct. Reasonable people can disagree on the goal.

O.k., I get it. Bush is a war criminal. Why not hang him.

You cannot undo the deaths of American soldiers, Iraqi civilians and Iraqi 'combatants'. I dare you to excuse those deaths.
It's not a good argument. You should be able to explain why what you're doing is the right thing to do, not just say 'it's for *insert sympathetic group here*'. It's for the troops. It's for freedom. It's for the Iraqis. It's for our country. These are all meaningless without explaining why....and when you get down to it, almost nothing Bush has done is really in the best interest of the or any group he has named.
I haven't had the honor to shake the hand of President Clinton. I'll never get to shake the hand of Ike or Kennedy. Our presidents absolutely must be held to a higher standard than other world leaders because we are a great nation with great potential for global good. Bush is not only at a higher standard, he is less than most other world leaders. He's less than Angela Merkel. He's less than Jacques Chirac. He trails behind others and is only paid attention because he's the head of a superpower, much the same as his attention when he was governor of Texas. He has not brought intellect, honor, or dignity to his office, but has in fact brought dishonor, foolishness, stubbornness, and ridicule.
Name an aggressor in history you believe to have been righteous. The attack on Iraq was especially bad because they had no way of being a threat to us or our allies. It was essentially an attack on an unarmed country.
[QUOTE=aceventura3]People can also fix mistakes without making a public statement about the mistake. Bush has done he's slowed his ignorant destruction in some areas, but I'd hardly call that a fix.
Bush has not made changes to his 'Iraq strategy'. It was invasion and occupation, and we're still there. We've sent more troops, but that's not a change in strategy at all.
I do not believe in state execution. Frankly, I don't believe in any form of taking life other than your own.

Bush (and Cheney, etc.) belongs behind bars after receiving a trial where all of the evidence is gathered (without bullshit interference from his administration) and he is found guilty by a group of his peers. That would be justice for all of the horrible wrongs he has committed.

For the record - at the end of the Bush administration and when we compare what he said and did relative to other Presidents or leaders of nations here is what we will conclude:

Bush made mistakes - all Presidents or leaders of nations have.
Bush made decisions that cost the lives of Americans - all war time Presidents and war time leaders have.
Bush used and managed information to support his causes - all Presidents and leaders of nations have.
Bush was not an apologist - No war-time President I have ever studied in detail has been an apologist - Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.
Bush made decisions and took actions to increase the power of the executive branch of government and has tested the limits of the Constitution - Several Presidents have done that.
Bush has been guilty of hyperbole and exaggeration - most Presidents and learders of nations have done this.
Bush has shown favoritism in government to those who share his views - Every President and leader of nations has done this.
Bush has defended his decisions against his critics (some may say he went over the line, I don't) - Other Presidents in recent history have been better at this and more subtle about it, some of our more historical Presidents have not been.
Bush promised things during his campaigns that he did not deliver and in some cases could not deliver - I think this is true of every elected politician I have ever voted for.

So in the end will history say Bush says what he means and does what he says? I think yes, relative to other President and leaders of nations.

You forgot one little thing:

Bush has taken the above to an extreme never seen in the history of this country, and hopefully will never see again.

Case in point
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/12/...g-lurita-doan/

Likely this individual will suffer no consequences for her actions,as it is assumed she was merely following orders from on high. This is of course a minor, and bt itself easily dismissed move, but when taken into the larger context of this administrations propensity for Kronyism.....it becomes very troubling.

Above we already discussed FDR and what he did to Japanese-Americans. FDR issued an executive order in essence putting 120,000 American citizens in prison with no judicial recourse. It was unconstitutional and he knew it. FDR is commonly considered one our best President in history. Outside of simply hating anything Bush does, what did Bush do that was more extreme than that?

....Uh....He Freakin' INVADED a country for unacceptable reasons (as if there are acceptable ones), cancelled habeus corpus, bypassed the long standing tradition of the Geneva Conventions, began a public torture practice sanctioned by the government, failed to competently use the U.S. Armed forces resulting in pointless deaths, placed completely unqualified people in charge of public safety resulting in many more pointless deaths, bastardized science to further a dismanteling of environmental protection, and generally screwed up the vast majority of anything he has touched (no we wont go into his multiple failures before becoming POTUS).

The Guy is a major f@ckup......Deal with it.

Kennedy, again considered a great President, authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion.

See FDR reference.

I think the government has been involved in these practices in the past.

I have studied many military battles. On a comparative basis our casualties in this war are at a record low.

If you are talking about Katrina - I put the balme more on local and state government.

Not sure this is true. Our environment is better today than it was 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago.


I take it that you just generally hate Bush and that there is nothing he could do that could possibly please you.

No, I do not Hate the man. I find him to be a disaster as president, and worry very much about what is happening to the world my kids have to deal with.

Bush is an amalgam of all the worst qualities in presidents in history, plus he added a few more like torture. He is worse than all of them. Bush is to Iraq as Lyndon Johnson was to Vietnam. Bush is to wiretaps as Nixon was to Watergate (only Bush is WAY worse). Unfortunately, trying to excuse Bush's mistakes by claiming that other presidents have made the same mistakes is a fallacy. If I kill someone, then you kill someone, you will have still killed someone.

Bush is guilty, and you're defending him. Did you defend OJ, too? Or Nixon?

Here's what you're saying, ace: Because the things Bush did are reminiscent of bad things that presidents and other leaders have done in the past, history will vindicate him as only being among the more thuggish and evil leaders the world has seen.

I consider this to be a breakthrough in your thinking regarding Bush's presidency. I'm delighted to see that you're no longer towing the "Bush is a great guy who shits cotton candy" line. There's still some work to do before you're actually dealing with reality, of course. But this is a GREAT first step, and I heartily congratulate you.

Regarding the OP question, I have only one quote I need to point to: "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Complete, unmitigated bullshit.

I wrote what I meant in plain simple language in post #36. There is no need to try to tell me what I am saying. I choose not to ignore history when evaluating current events.

Okay, you implied that Bush is being judged harshly and unfairly. I think most of the rest of us strongly disagree, and the main reason for that is the severity and volume of blunders and tragedies under Bush simply dwarfs the other presidents in our history. Nixon may have been involved in wire tapping, but he never suspended habeas corpus. JFK may have cheated to get elected invaded the bay of pigs, but he never wiretapped Americans or misled congress. FDR may have interned over a hundred thousand innocent Americans, but he never invaded without provocation.

This is about scale. Other presidents have made mistakes, but Bush has introduced a new level of folly and corruption to the office that is unprecedented. Again, he's not the first to screw up, but he's the first to screw up this big.

Yet it would seem you are doing just that. Virtually every point you have used in the defense of Administration actions, has been shown through this history you claim to pay attention to as Negative at best. However when someone points out this fact, you continue to champion Bush as if these activities are something to be proud of, or acceptable due to previous political players. Simply put Ace....you cannot have it both ways. Either the examples you yourself used as comparisons are Bad Things, and so are the things you compare them too, or both situations are correct and therefor nothing is wrong.

Are we all confused, or is there some new logic no one told us about?

I ask the question a third time. Are the standards you use to judge Bush the same standards that you use to judge other Presidents? Of the Presidents I have studied in detail (I don't claim to be an expert) there was more than just their "big" issue, most of the issues of the day people have forgotten. Johnson's administration was more than Vietnam, Nixon's was more than Watergate.

I like to think I am a realist, sometimes Presidents do and decide things that are unpleasant, it is true in just about every administration in our history. I don't make excuses for it, I just point it out. History will be the judge, for example we may find that when the next President goes into the White House with a promise to withdraw troops from Iraq the decision gets reversed the same as when Carter reversed his decision to withdraw troop from Korea.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...28/ai_82351485

Talking scale, where would you put the use of nuclear bombs? Not once, but twice, used against babies, women, the elderly, the disabled?

These are the things I find difficult to reconcile. I don't minimize 120,000 Americans being denied their freedom. I bet they would have been happy with wire-taps rather than going to prison camps.

I think you miss the point. In my series of posts over the past couple of days I am not defending anything the administration has done. I just point out some historical points to help put things in perspective.

I know that those who hate Bush think that he is the worst President in history, everyone is entitled to their opinion on that question. I just ask - by what standard do you come to that conclusion? If you tell me it is mostly emotional, I'll shut-up because there is no response that I can make to that.

uh...ace? there is a distinction between paying attention to history and using the past as a reservoir for arbitrary factoids. you are doing the second.

on the other hand, things must be getting really tough for the conservative set if they start working the fdr angle: given the prominence of the hoover institute in pioneering what rightwing think tanks do and by extension in the development of contemporary far-right (republican) ideology, fdr has long functioned as the Great Satan against which the pathetic hooverites would rail endlessly. behind every opponent loomed at one level for another the spectre of fdr and the Evil that was the New Deal--"gasp! the redistribution of wealth--horrors! trade unions recognized---stunned! people actually given jobs by way of large-scale public works projects--why the Market was to decide all this! any other way is, well, UnAmerican--socialist even--fdr=communist!--now let's all join hands and prop up the economy the American Way--war and preparations for war! yay defense contractors! yay the people who own them!--what are a few thousand little peoples' lives when Big Profits are Possible? NOTHING! I LOVE AMERICA!"----so if the conservative set is starting to pull random factoids about fdr out of their---um----hats...yes, hats....then fact is that they are running low on material.

so i'd be careful, ace: you're hitting the bottom of the fuel tank.

Abitrary? Not the bottom yet. Here is one just for you.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...co/topten.html

An aggressive use of force, authorized by Clinton, resulting in the death of children. Then afterward Clinto distanced himself from the tragedy.

That's true, but even when you stack the whole of Nixon's presidential mistakes up....it's really nothing compared to what's going on now. No ifs, ands or buts. I'll make it easy for you with a list highlighting a few of the problems I have with Bush:
1) 2 stolen elections
2) 600,000 Iraqi deaths
3) Starting of and continued involvement in a civil war
4) Misrepresenting facts, and breaking the UN Charter to invade a country that represented no threat
5) no more habius corpus
6) warrant-less wiretaps
7) Appointing incompetent friends to important posts
8) Lying about preparedness for Katrina
9) 8.2 trillion (by my last count) in debt
10) Medicare fuckup
11) Afghanistan gets carpet-bombed, now it's run by warlords who love poppies
12) Lying about Iran having or developing nuclear weapons
13) Ignoring NK, and actual threat, and allowing them to develop nuclear weapons while attacking a country that was no threat to us or our allies
14) Overusing the military
15) The environment isn't even on the radar of the administration, despite our massive polluting and almost every other country in the world at least signing on to Kyoto
16) We are near a $1 trillion trade deficit, and most of our money is headed to China
17) And, saving the best for last, we are openly torturing people in blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Quite a list. Find a president that even comes close to that, I dare you.
And here is where my disdain for the president moves on to his possible successors. All but Ron Paul (aka the last Republican on the planet) are considering nuking Iran.

No, Bush has not used nuclear weapons (yet), but he's used white phosphorus and other devastating weapons. BTW, do you think the 100-200,000 people who died because of the nukes compares to the 600,000+ who have died in Iraq? They were obviously BOTH wrong, but looking at this as a moral equation, it's clear who's more in the wrong.

I won't respond item by item, but as I look at your top two, we are "light-years" apart. Bush was properly elected President in accordance with our Constitution, if he stole two elections, Democrats were truly idiots, which I don't believe. The issues deciding the elections were out in the open for all to see and the Democrats fought hard to have things go their way. If you say Bush stole the election the way a sports team steals a victory, then I get it.

Even if Bush's war in Iraq was illegal and if he is a war criminal the way some believe, there was no need for terrorists to kill innocent Iraqies. People who kill are responsible for the deaths they cause.

This is an absolute truth....on all levels. It seems to me important to understand what the cause of the deaths actually is though. A good portion of the "Cause" in this case must inevitably be placed at the feet of United States action, as we have created major instability in the region by invading, and removing what secular presence there was, and replacing it with a very weak form of democracy.
It has become clear the culture is simply not set up to incorporate this form of Government as of yet...if it ever will be. Attempting to force this change by killing the opposition is the root cause of the majority of death in Iraq. It also seems clear that the ongoing Civil War is going to continue until one form of Islam or another simply decimates the other into submission.
We now sit in the middle of a region that would rather not have us there in the first place, unless we pay rent in lives and money. Bush may not be a war criminal, but this war is not in the genuine interest of the country he swore an oath to protect. Face it....we F@cked up badly, and are paying a very high price for our arrogance.

So first of all, again, your response to criticism of the administration involves criticism of Democrats. The psychological phenomenon is called deflection.

My main thing, though, is this: do you honestly believe that the 2000 and 2004 elections were on the up and up? There's massive evidence of manipulation, vote suppression, electronic vote hacking, etc. Do you just deny all that?

Actually, I think he truly does, if only because the vast majority of Data was never followed up on. Case in point:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm

Wait....You thought this was from the Al Gore fiasco?

I have not criticized Democrats, I was not the one who suggests that two elections were stolen from them while everyone was watching. How can they let elections be stolen from them when they gave the process 100% effort to make sure things were proper. How does that happen? How does that happen twice? Gore lost in key states, and he made a challenge in the wrong state. He lost. Kerry lost also.

There is evidence of fraud, manipulation, vote suppression in every national election. The question is not if it happened, but to what degree did it happen outside of historical norms. I think what we found in Florida in paticular was that after an extensive review both Gore and Bush gained some votes and lost others. I have not visited this issue in a long time, but I thought based on the review, the net results did not change as a result of the many official and unofficial reviews.

By the way, I do think Gore making his biggest challenge in Florida was foolish. I also thought it telling that he lost his home state.

Why didn't Democrats follow up on this and the vast majority of data supporting that Bush stole two elections?

I think Gore and Kerry lost, but if the elections were stolen I am at a loss on why they did not put up a bigger fight. Can you explain it?

More deflection. Textbook stuff. Seriously. Some psychology grad student around here could write a paper. You just can't seem to talk about what your guys are weak at without bringing up Democrats!

Okay, so you deny it. What you're saying here is in no way borne out by the historical evidence, but thanks for answering my question.

And even more deflection.

How about those Cubs?

And even more.

When you choose not to address a point, you call it deflection and ignore the point. Cool.:thumbsup:


I think people who are interested can actually read what I am sayinging. I write simple enough, there is normally not a need for someone to take my words and re-write them.

Me: The sky is blue today.
You: What you are saying is that the sun is out.
Me: Well...perhaps the sun can be behind a cloud and the sky can still be blue.
You: What you are saying is that it is cloudy.
Me: Whatever.:rolleyes:

Maybe this should be done differently.
True or False?
1) There were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, and every time Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rice said, in recorded and verifiable media, that they were certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they were telling the truth.
2) Bush won, without any help, both the 2000 and 2004 elections, not breaking any laws or being involved in or benefiting from unethical practices.
3) Only combatants have been killed by US and coalition forces in Iraq since the beginning of the Iraq war, and the 600,000+ number posted should actually be 0.
4) Global terrorism is not on the rise, and even if it were it would not be connected with US actions in Iraq.
5) Bush would never do anything to undermine habius corpus.
6) Bush had permission from FISA, the only way to get wiretaps in the US, before tapping US civilians.
7) Bush never appointed anyone incompetent or completely unqualified just because they either had helped him into office or were his buddies.
8) Bush never misrepresented pre-Katrina information about levee strengths.
9) The US is not in debt over 8.2 trillion, and even if it were, there's no way it could be tied to the current administration.
10) Afghanistan is fine, and there never were carpet-bombings, and it's not run by warlords who grow narcotics.
11) It's so obvious that Iran has nuclear weapons, that striking them with nuclear weapons first is the only clear strategy.
12) Bush didn't ignore North Korea to go after Saddam, and because of that multilateral talks including China and Japan have made North Korea nuclear-free.
14) We signed the Kyoto protocols and have reduced pollution.
15) There is no trade deficit and those who say we are near a $1 trillion trade deficit, and most of our money is headed to China, are wrong.
16) Bush, and his administration, respect the Geneva Conventions and would never torture fellow human beings.

I would answer all of your questions, false.

pardon... misread... never mind.

I appreciate your honesty. I have a few more:
17) When Bush said, "Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons" and "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." in March of 2003, considering that no WMDs were found in Iraq, there had to have been at least some doubt. Certainty cannot be wrong.

18) In January of 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was quoted explaining how "the Authorization for Use of Military Force...[firstly] expressly recognized the President’s “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States. Second, it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to, quote, “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” in order to prevent further attacks on the United States." Later information released explained that this interpretation suggests that the President can bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 when he wiretaps American citizens without a warrant. Is this interpretation correct?

19) Both the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions specifically disallow torture to those states who have signed (which includes the US). In the UN Convention Against Torture, torture is defined in Article 1 as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." Article 2 states the following: "Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture." This would make any torture carried out by a signatory a breach of the convention. The US ratified the convention in 1984. The US government is in breach of our agreement that was made law when we ratified the convention.

As I stated, Bush has exagerated and has used hyperbole to make his case for war. Other war-time leaders have as well. The difference is I don't think what he said qualifies as a lie. Also, I did not rely on his statements as my reasons to support the war.

In my opinion yes. However, my opinion doesn't matter. The issues needs a Supreme Court test.

I don't care about the UN. The organization is a waste. When they start addressing real issues like Darfur or take stronger stances against terrorist and nations who support terrorists, genocide, human rights, hunger, aids, malaria, etc., I will reconsider.

In regard to the Geneva Convention - as a nation we did not do anything I would not have done personally. If there are penalties for violating the Geneva Convention, so be it.

Also, to thos who may have been suprised about my answer of false to your questions, should not be. First, you crafted the questions well, second I have acknowledged many times some of the failings of the administration.

His statement, where he used the word 'certain' was incorrect, true or false?
You believe that in wartime the president should be able to break the law to do what he or she thinks is best? You don't think that creates an unprecedented opportunity for abuse?
It doesn't matter what you think of the UN. It doesn't even matter what people think of the Geneva Conventions or any other legal treaty the US has signed in good faith. They have been signed, and as they do not contradict the Constitution or Bill of Rights, they are US Law. You can hate every member of the UN and think they should all burn in hell for eternity. We signed a treaty with them in the form of a convention.

Let me be clear and reiterate: conventions like the the UN Convention Against Torture are US law because they were signed and do not conflict with the Constitution.
There are standards of humanity that we aren't sticking to, and to make matter all the worse, torture is completely unreliable as a source of information. I wrote several papers on this while getting my degree in psychology, with verifiable and reliable citations. Besides being morally reprehensible, torture is illegal because it's ineffective for extracting information. It's a joke. It's real purpose is to create fear. Anyone who says otherwise is, quite frankly, a complete idiot with no understanding of how the human mind works... and is just making a bullshit excuse to be cruel.

I've never been tortured, personally, but I can imagine that it is absolutely horrible. I've seen depictions of water-boarding, electrocution, sleep depravation, etc. and they seem to be something only a monster could inflict. If you, ace, are saying that you would torture people, may I just say that I find that attitude inhuman and despicable. I hope I misunderstood your statement.
Well thank you?

Welllll... That's a little disingenuous. You HAVE acknowledged the failings of the administration, all the while excusing them and dismissing their significance. You're clearly still a good Bushie.

You're welcome to that opinion, of course. Even though you're nuts. ;)

So, if I talk about FDR's failings in terms of the internment camps, but I still think that on a net basis he was a good President - that makes me nuts???

I don't dismiss the signifigance of Bush's failings, I just keep them in perspective. I also understand making a choice on principle or conviction to do certain things outside of the norm or even possibly illegal. I.e. - Wiretaps, something I would have done as President.

We are starting to split hairs. Sadaam had WMD, he did not have nuclear weapons, but he was seeking to get or develop nuclear weapons.


I am no saint, I doubt Bush is. All I know is that there are laws that I would violate under certain circumstances, I think Bush would too. I would accept the consequences of my actions.

See the above, same answer. If I think a governing body is wrong on an issue, I would violate their law on that issue
under certain circumstances. On the issue of torture, if I thought torture could save the lives of people I care about, I would think about it first and then most likely do it.

I am not saying these things are easy and that I am not conflicted. War is ugly. I don't think we chose this war with our enemy, I think they chose us. Nor do I think you can fight a moral war, war means people die, get hurt, freedoms are take and property is destroyed. Some can pretend that we can fight a moral war or that this war is a choice, I won't and I realized that sometimes ugly things have to be done.

The discussions on torture are always interesting to me because it seems like those most against torture see torture as something worse than taking a human life, is that true in your view?

No...

That's the part that's nuts. You take the whole massive list of the administration's varied and multipartate malfeasance, you walk your way through it, and you say, "Well, so and so did something like that.", "Ah, well, that's forgiveable.", "Hey, I'd have done the same". And in the end, that whole list--impeachable, perhaps even treasonable if seen in the right light--vanishes into a cloud of justification.

If you had a record of being a centrist, then MAYBE I could go along with some of the justifications. But given the Bush Fanboy you've been, it's awfully hard to hear that as anything but confirmation bias at best, or partisan bullshit at worst.

(Incidentally, I was using "nuts" colloquially, and followed it by a winking smiley. I trust you read it in the spirit it was intended.)

Nope and nope. Saddam didn't have WMD, and he wasn't seeking to get or develop nuclear weapons. He had WMD like 15 years ago, but that's a BFD situation so far as the intelligence service is concerned.
If you were to violate those laws, I would hope someone had the nuts to put you in prison. Bush is too much of a coward to go to prison, so he had Alby Gonzo (Bush can't remember his name) try to say that during war, the president has cart blanche over everything and can do anything he wants without fear of prosecution. He's a fucking coward.
You'd make a bad president and so does Bush. Maybe I should put it this way since you're dodging the issue
Torture: useful and necessary, or useless and unnecessary?

This is where you get stuck. Either you think Bush is right, and you prove that you're both wrong, or you disagree with the president torturing people and going against the UN.
HAHAHAH. War is ugly? Why not nuke the entire middle east, then? Shit, why not destroy all land except North America, and invade and occupy Canada? War is ugly....yeesh. By that logic, you think 9/11 was fair. Killing civilians with civilian aircraft. It's war, and war is ugly.

We chose our enemy though decades of horrible actions taken by our government and corporations. They are retaliating. 9/11 was retaliation. The insurgency is retaliation. We started it. Anyone who says otherwise needs to do some reading. Interfering with other governments and people is our biggest and most destructive addiction, worse even than our oil addiction, and it's been responsible for the loss of countless lives over the past 50 years. We prop up the Saudis, we finance the Israelis, we slip some cash to Palestine, even. It's fucking stupid.
Death = release. With torture, you're put through unimaginable pain with no possible way of knowing when it will end. Some people who are being released from Guantanamo (after their government fought for their release) have been there for years. Don't you think they would have welcomed death? Don't you think the suicide rate in the illegal prisons paints a clear picture?

Here's the bottom line: there is no excuse for torture, and those who torture are mentally ill.

I'll tell you what. I'll convert a teeter totter and bucket into a water-board, and, with your expressed permission, we can run a scientific experiment to see the subjective perception of torture vs. death.

Bush has had an eventful past couple of weeks.

His support of the immigration reform bill, strongly opposed by right wing republicans, was defeated. Bush was willing to go against his base.

Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence, and does not issue a pardon. He says he respects the verdict of the jury. His decision really upset liberals and also upset some conservatives.

These events are further evidence to me that Bush does and says what he thinks is right. He is most likely one of the few in Washington not playing political games.

Hunh. That's a really interesting thing to say. If I set aside for the moment the fact that I seem to disagree with every single thing the man does, what you said there checks out.

Why else would his approval be in the toilet for so long? He must really not care. Is he really just sticking to his guns regardless of what anyone thinks? That would seem to explain some of his more bizarre actions.

And--as we've seen--when he (well... Karl Rove) plays political games, he usually wins.

Okay, so he's not playing political games. He's locked himself into an agenda based on what he thinks is right. He's committed to a course of action that nearly everyone else can see is wrongheaded and dangerous. Do we REALLY still want such a man as our president?

Yes. Bush may be 100% wrong (Not that I think that) but his positions are clear, he is consistent, and he does what he says he is going to do. With Bush there are no surprises. On the other hand, if members of Congress were the same way, perhaps we would not be in Iraq, perhaps we would have withdrawn the troops, perhaps we would have a fix for social security/medicare, perhaps we would have an immigration bill, etc., etc, etc. It seems most people in Washington say things, do things and vote for things they don't really believe in based on the political implications.

We knew Bush was going to use the military to invade Iraq once he got Congress to give the authority.
We knew Bush was going to stay the course in Iraq, he said so prior to his re-election.
We knew Bush would appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court.
We knew Bush was going to surround himself with people like Chany and Rove.
We knew Bush would do "every thing in his power" to protect the American people from terrorists, leading to what some consider illegal wiretaps and what some consider torture, and Guantanamo Bay.
We knew Bush would support immigration reform with a "right to work" clause.
We knew Bush would not let Libby sit in jail over the Plame matter, given that Libby was not the source of the leak.

So, what has Bush done that has been a surprise, or inconsistent with what he said he would do?

It is one thing to disagree with what he has done, it is another to call him a lier or suggest that he is duplicitous.

Unprecedented?

Imagine if a U.S. President ever suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, in order to prevent protests and civil disobedience. Imagine if that same President declared Marshall Law, giving the United States military the full and absolute authority close down "hostile, anti war newspapers," and to arrest individuals for protesting the war. What if that President, when ordered by the SCOTUS, to bring those prisoners before the court, had the Chief Justice placed under military arrest? What if that President sent the country into never before seen debt, to pursue a war that most people didn’t see a need for? What if that President oversaw a Department of Defense that awarded fat, lucrative contracts to political cronies? What if that President heartily encouraged the immigration of poor immigrants...to fill the ranks in a shrinking Army?

Would you say that it’s time to rebel?

The President was Abraham Lincoln, a president who is held in the highest of esteem in American classrooms. And this abuse of power was perpetrated on Northern soil…not Southern. This all took place after the Southern states decided to bid the U.S. a fair adieu.

I just find it funny how these things work.

Lincoln called for the suspension after the attack on Fort Sumter by Confederate troops. This was the start of the Civil War.

The fact is that the US isn't officially at war with anyone, and there definitely isn't a civil war here. It's unprecedented that the writ be suspended when there is no rebellion or invasion, as are the only cases allowed by the Constitution to suspend habeas corpus. I'm surprised you didn't recognize this fundamental and singularly important distinction between Lincoln and Bush so far as habeas corpus.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress

Lincoln was the President. He didn't have the power, or the authority. He took it. And if you didn't agree, and spoke out, you were imprisoned. Clean, simple, efficient.

Oh...and Fort Sumter was attacked in April of 1861. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in September 1862. He did so in order to quiet the Copperheads.

Just a point in support of will here, but the lack of an official declaration of war is troubling. It means that were are now in an indefinite state, in which actions which were previously reserved for temporary crisis and grave situations can be taken with impunity, and without expiration.

The thing about a war is that you expect that it will end. The entire construction of the War on Terror is bent on setting up a "crisis" that can't be measured, can't be won or lost, and can't be declared over.

No question, or doubt. All I'm saying is that Bush is not the first president to usurp power. History has whitewashed Lincoln into being one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States. History ain't always right. We've been here before. It stunk then...and it stinks now. History will judge it all by the end result, not by the method or the means.

You're absolutely right: it was unconstitutional. Lincoln didn't have the authority to suspend the writ, and he was wrong to bypass congress. Ultimately, the decision was beneficial to the cause of peace, but the ends to not justify the means.

That's not my point, though. The point is that no one, president, congress, or the FDA can suspend habeas unless we are being invaded or are at civil war. The fact that was ignored is a new precedent, the dangerous precedent of which I speak.
April 27, 1861 was the first suspension, not September 1862. He suspended the writ along the Philly-Washington route because Confederates stopped the Union troops from reaching a train station and caused a riot.

Although I'm not making it, the argument could be made that an attack on American soil (9/11) constitutes an invasion. Semantics.


Wellll...actually he did supend Habeus Copus in April 1861. But... it was localized (Maryland), and it was a tactical move. He had several members of the Maryland legislature jailed so that they couldn’t vote to secede from the Union. If Maryland had seceded, then Washington would've been surrounded, and in enemy territory.

Arguably a little different than abusing power to quiet your detractors and opposition.

Yeah, I know why you wouldn't make that argument.

Because I don't personally subscribe to it. I can, however, see where one could arrive at that location, after having taken a few detours. An attack does not, in my estimation, equate to an invasion.

The current flood of illegal (or...undocumented, if you will) immigrants more closely resembles an invasion than does the attack on 9/11. But...that's a whole 'nother issue.

I think Dubya just repeats whatever is said into his earpiece making him sound even denser and less coordinated than he actually is. In many of his public appearances it looks like he has to pause for simple sentences and seems to just say things without knowing what he's saying.

It's almost comic except for him being sort of in charge. The way i see it, Dick Cheney is Jeff Dunham the ventriloquist and Dubya is the wooden dummy on his lap.