Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[freeztar]

Freeztar; President Bush, represents a party as well as the total people of the US. his duty is to the people while president and his ideology is based on his parties platform which got him elected.

 

remembering your mention of GW, i presumed at the time your motive for the distaste in his actions, toward that issue rather than the issue of moronic behavior. i also recall saying i would argue any issue of GW any time, not not on this thread. the reason was *off topic* which would take infinite 10 seconds to reprimand me.

 

i am well versed on GW and enjoy decent debate on the subject. check my previous post and bring one back up if you like or start a new one, i will make a special effort to contribute. or any thread which i may not be seeing.

 

as for this being the responsibility of a president to act on Kyoto or the UN review of the subject, they are IMO both directed at punishments toward the US, rather than substance change in global attitudes. now his actions to appease the environmentalist are resulting in major inflationary pressures in the US and for that matter the world. i feel his motives are dependence, going along with party lines, not environmental, but ethanol mandates are just not going to work, certainly for the cost which all the people on the planet are paying for in higher cost of corn products and all they are connected to. were talking a three fold increase in a staple corn, which per bushel as risen from 2 to 6.00 per bushel in less than a year, not taking in account the shortage of others (wheat, oats, soybean etc) which farmers are dropping for the better paying corn.

 

Did you even read any of the links I posted?

Address the question asked, and do not attempt to present a terradactyl (corn inflation?). Let's deal with this one step at a time.

 

Is it ever ok for an administration to squelch science?

I think it is ok for GBush to not agree with GW, but it is not ok for him to attempt to mislead the issue. Read the links I posted, I'm interested to hear your response.

 

As this is a science forum, I would expect that most here would frown upon the issues in the links I posted. :shrug:

[jackson33]

Hm, that's a copout IMHO. The War on terror did perhaps start in Afghanistan, but it continued in Iraq. Bush's "Axis of evil" did not even include Afghanistan, but rather North Korea, Iran, and Iraq.

 

Some sources:

Axis of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War on Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If we don't have time for the war in Iraq, then what are we discussing here? It certainly is part of why people question the "moronity" of W Bush. :shrug:

 

the *Bush Doctrine* declaration of War on Terror, was given Sept. 20, 2001 to a joint session of Congress, laying out the foundation for which the actions of a Nation would be judged.

 

Axis of Evil, more of a political speech, given in the State of the Union address the following January.

 

the Taliban, Afghanistan's governing force after the doctrine refused to give up OBL and was attacked under the doctrine. Iraq, was in violation of UN mandates, was shooting at US and British planes guarding the No Fly zone among other things. W/O getting into was/was not there WMD, the overthrow which took very little time was accomplished in short order. while the coalition continued with its duty to establish a government and protect the innocents (international law) various terrorist groups sprang up for various reasons.

 

i see nothing moronic, and do see a following of strategy to solve not one, but a series of problems any of which could have led to tragic results if left unattended. frankly for many countries England, Spain, India and others have been seeing what could have been planned in the US....MY OPINION...

[TheFaithfulStone]

there were no rules, Geneva Convention or any international law, governing the expected actions taken in combat for non-affiliated, unmarked civilian terrorist.

 

True enough - but there are US laws prohibiting torture or the suspension of habeas corpus.

 

Those laws do not just apply to US Citizens. In any case, that's not what I'm talking about. Congress passed (and GW signed) a bill making torture illegal.

 

The catch is, he issued a signing statement which said "he executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...." Which MEANS - "I don't have to follow this law if I don't want."

 

NOW, how is that action consistent with "playing by the rules?"

 

The intent of congress is CLEAR - "Thou shalt not torture!" Bush has stated he has the power to ignore the law if he so chooses.

 

HOW is this okay if one of the duties of the president is to "Play by the rules."

 

WHY should the president by able to set aside certain rules?

 

It strikes me as essentially a tautology. The president is bound to obey the rules, except when he's not.

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

True enough - but there are US laws prohibiting torture or the suspension of habeas corpus.

 

Those laws do not just apply to US Citizens. In any case, that's not what I'm talking about. Congress passed (and GW signed) a bill making torture illegal.

 

The catch is, he issued a signing statement which said "he executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...." Which MEANS - "I don't have to follow this law if I don't want."

 

NOW, how is that action consistent with "playing by the rules?"

 

The intent of congress is CLEAR - "Thou shalt not torture!" Bush has stated he has the power to ignore the law if he so chooses.

 

HOW is this okay if one of the duties of the president is to "Play by the rules."

 

WHY should the president by able to set aside certain rules?

 

It strikes me as essentially a tautology. The president is bound to obey the rules, except when he's not.

 

TFS

As I understand it the President is making clear that he is interpreting the law based upon what he sees as the limits of power of the Congress vs his powers as Commander-in-Chief. This is not a new thing, and the President did not invent this procedure (signing statements). They have long been used by Presidents to make clear to the Congress the bounds by which they intend to enforce the law.

 

I would ask, is the President then guilty of because he is potential violation of the law, or does he need to be found guilty in a court (or by the Congress)? Of course! He must be found guilty by the Congress or by a Court, and until that happens, unfortunately your assessment of the President as "guilty" is not worth a hill of beans.

 

If you want some history on Signing Statements, try this site.

 

As for your argument about selective enforcement of the laws of the land, how about Immigration Law? Shouldn't the President be spending his available resources to round up the 11+ million illegal aliens in the US and deport them? Or do you approve of that particular selective enforcement? how about Genarlo Wilson? Shouldn't the DA in Georgia be praised for enforcing the law as it was written at the time of the offense, or should he be using selective enforcement of the law, as you criticize the President for doing?

 

I am not trying to run down a tangent of Genarlo or Immigration, I am pointing out the duplicity of your argument. I know that there is no instant replay in baseball, but I think that your first called strike was premature.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

You're a good debater, Bill, but you're arguing for an outcome which will harm us all.

[TheBigDog]

You're a good debater, Bill, but you're arguing for an outcome which will harm us all.

How exactly is this going to harm us all?

[TheFaithfulStone]

The intent of congress is CLEAR - "Thou shalt not torture!" Bush has stated he has the power to ignore the law if he so chooses.

 

Shouldn't the DA in Georgia be praised for enforcing the law as it was written at the time of the offense, or should he be using selective enforcement of the law, as you criticize the President for doing?

 

Clever - but your accusation of duplicity is ill founded. If you'll reference the last post in the Genarlow thread, I summed it up nicely. The thing here is mens rea in the Wilson case, the intent of the law is to punish child molesters. In the torture bill the intent is to prevent torture.

 

It's the exact same logic actually. Wilson did not intend to break the law. Bush may not have actually tortured anybody yet, but he has stated that he would. (Or at least that he won't stop.) In both cases the plain intent of the law has been subverted to it's actual letter so that it may be abused for some reason.

 

Wilson was punished for violating a law without intent. Bush has not been punished for intending to violate a law. He has the specific intent to violate the law, and there is little doubt as to what he meant. ( Interestingly enough, in order to commit an inchoate offense like that it generally "must be understood by a reasonable person" to be a serious threat. That means that in order for me to have a specific intent to commit murder, I can't idly say "God I'd like to choke that SOB" because people say that kind of thing all the time without really meaning it. Reasonable people have agreed that the Bush signing statement means he is going to ignore the torture ban if he sees fit.)

 

So - in both cases the clear intent of the law has not been followed. In one case, an offense without intent has been committed. In another an offense OF intent has been committed. Now, whether or not Bush has ACTUALLY ordered the torture of anybody is a matter up for debate - but I think you could make a "conspiracy to torture" charge stick.

 

I've said it before, but it bears repeating "People who privelege the letter of the law over it's spirit are looking to abuse it."

 

I don't remember claiming to be against select enforcement. Although I agree that Bush should focus more on enforcement against illegal aliens - particularly the "under the table" labor deals that bring them here in the first place.

 

First strike points to a specific instance of Bush saying "The rules don't apply to me." It helps to establish a pattern of behavior of his. First strike stands.

 

TFS

TFS

[TheBigDog]

Clever - but your accusation of duplicity is ill founded. If you'll reference the last post in the Genarlow thread, I summed it up nicely. The thing here is mens rea in the Wilson case, the intent of the law is to punish child molesters. In the torture bill the intent is to prevent torture.

 

It's the exact same logic actually. Wilson did not intend to break the law. Bush may not have actually tortured anybody yet, but he has stated that he would. (Or at least that he won't stop.) In both cases the plain intent of the law has been subverted to it's actual letter so that it may be abused for some reason.

 

Wilson was punished for violating a law without intent. Bush has not been punished for intending to violate a law. He has the specific intent to violate the law, and there is little doubt as to what he meant. ( Interestingly enough, in order to commit an inchoate offense like that it generally "must be understood by a reasonable person" to be a serious threat. That means that in order for me to have a specific intent to commit murder, I can't idly say "God I'd like to choke that SOB" because people say that kind of thing all the time without really meaning it. Reasonable people have agreed that the Bush signing statement means he is going to ignore the torture ban if he sees fit.)

 

So - in both cases the clear intent of the law has not been followed. In one case, an offense without intent has been committed. In another an offense OF intent has been committed. Now, whether or not Bush has ACTUALLY ordered the torture of anybody is a matter up for debate - but I think you could make a "conspiracy to torture" charge stick.

 

I've said it before, but it bears repeating "People who privelege the letter of the law over it's spirit are looking to abuse it."

 

I don't remember claiming to be against select enforcement. Although I agree that Bush should focus more on enforcement against illegal aliens - particularly the "under the table" labor deals that bring them here in the first place.

 

First strike points to a specific instance of Bush saying "The rules don't apply to me." It helps to establish a pattern of behavior of his. First strike stands.

 

TFS

TFS

Intent is irrelevant. We are talking about actions. Bush has not broken the law, all he has done is reserve the right of the President to have jurisdiction beyond the scope of the Congress in matters that are the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief. He did this specifically in regard to language in the Torture Ban legislation, but this is a common practice among Presidents in outlining how they interpret the laws to be enforced, and where the bounds of authority lie between the branches of government. Making such a statement is not a violation of the law, it is a clarification of the law that will ultimately be resolved between the three branches. Even if the ultimate resolution is that the President does not have the right to make such a stipulation, then he is still not guilty unless he has violated the law. He has the right as the President to make the stipulation such as he did, and then he needs to defend that stipulation in the due Constitutional review that will follow.

 

I find it interesting that for nearly 230 years we have not had this legislation, and the President has had the authority to do exactly what the current President has stipulated. Now that the law has been written, and the President has made this notation, the fabric of the system is claimed to be in jeopardy. Nothing has changed except to have a law that bans torture within the jurisdiction that it covers. The President has not said that he intends to break the law as such (with an image of him wringing his hands in anticipation of the opportunity) but that he is stipulating the bounds of the jurisdiction of the Congress. A future President might be asked to make his own stipulation as to how he intends to enforce this law, but the reality is no matter what the stipulation stated by any sitting President, there are bounds to the authority of the Congress.

 

Bouncing the ball through the strike zone is a not a strike. Shall we move on?

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

You're a good debater, Bill, but you're arguing for an outcome which will harm us all.

How exactly is this going to harm us all?

 

You attempt here to reframe my statement. You suggest I was implying that your arguments would cause harm. This was not my intent. My point is that the actions you use your debating skill to defend will themselves cause harm to the global population.

 

 

Mommy, why is the lying man still in charge of the law?

[jackson33]

Presidents, have (in general) looked out for the powers of future presidents or given an out to them for actions they have taken.

 

"lying man" is not what the average child would call their leader. i have seen no polls on the idea, but doubt 90%+ of the US population feels Bush II is a lying person.

 

"in charge of the law" is actually the responsibility of the Legislature or the US Congress and the Judicial, Supreme and District courts. under our system, any decision of the legislature, can be over ridden by the SC and the SC can be over ridden by the Congress. the president under the Constitution has limited powers in making or deciding what lawful is...

 

TFS; letter of the law or selective enforcement. do you really want to argue this. the same people that wish for "letter of the law" are the ones that make the laws selective. our system of *courts, trails, jury and appeals* dictate final outcomes, not the intent.

 

i am going to mention this again, since its vital to understanding the American System. our checks and balance form, laid out in the constitution, prevent most anything suggested the president is/has/will do from happening. he has a staff of attorneys, which give advise and/or review everything from a speech to final decision of any issue. many here seem to be politically motivated and lack some understanding how government works. with this is mind and knowing the 08 election may be the most vigorous political battle in our history, for both Congressional and Presidential control, then adding the increasing importance of the Internet, we are bombarded daily with subjective opinions from ALL direction, including those with the intend to harm the US as a stated goal.

[InfiniteNow]

Presidents, have (in general) looked out for the powers of future presidents or given an out to them for actions they have taken.

Can you support this comment with example, with some sort of evidence, or am I supposed to take it on faith?

 

"lying man" is not what the average child would call their leader.

<...>

"in charge of the law" is actually the responsibility of the Legislature or the US Congress and the Judicial, Supreme and District courts. under our system, any decision of the legislature, can be over ridden by the SC and the SC can be over ridden by the Congress. the president under the Constitution has limited powers in making or deciding what lawful is.

 

I'm well aware of this, mate, and your response betrays the fact that you have not looked closely enough at my posts in this very thread. I was not referring to the US President, and it was an expression of the recent problems with US Attorney General Gonzalez and Bush's decision to ignore the stain on his administration caused by this turd, and further, to support him in his dishonesty and manipulation of the spirit of the law.

 

However, I would argue your final point regarding the President having "limited powers in making or deciding what is lawful." Since all bills which have passed the House and Senate must be signed by the President before it becomes a law, your statement immediately is proven false.

 

Further, the Presidents authority during times of war, which you have already volunteered yourself, is significantly more substantial. These increases in ability are being used for purposes unrelated to the war.

 

Additionally, the President can articulate ideas and advocate his own policies with a pulpit that reaches a greater audience than any other. These policies and desires of the President have a much better chance of entering the public discourse and gathering support/momentum than do those ideas held and proposed by other politicians or their communications teams. So, this becomes a major issue when the President is pushing policies that are counter to the wants and needs of the people in the country and on the planet.

 

i have seen no polls on the idea, but doubt 90%+ of the US population feels Bush II is a lying person.

Are you saying that you doubt that more than 90% of the US populace would agree that Bush has lied?

Or, are you saying that more than 90% of the US populace would disagree that Bush has lied?

If neither, WTH ARE you saying?

 

Never mind... I'll show you some actual data instead of saying, "I seriously doubt blah, but I would guess that 90%..." ;)

 

 

Here's a poll. It was taken in April of this year and indicates that 55% of responders, when asked whether or not the quality of "Is honest and trustworthy" applied to GW Bush, said "Does not apply," with only a +/- 3% SD. Considering the consistent and across the board downward trends in the populations perception of the President, I would suggest that an even greater number would now respond that the president is neither honest nor trustworthy, nor that he is a competent leader.

 

 

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers to get a better feel for what was intended in terms of the powers and their separation. It's disturbing when reaquainting ourselves with what was intended when the framers put forth this nation and comparing that perpsective to what is happening now. The ideologies espoused by these brilliant people which have held so true for so long are being raped and tattered. The actions of today's administration make the constitution and bill of rights and federalist papers appear little more than glyphs inked onto worn pages of paper, and that is very sad indeed.

 

The Federalist - Contents

 

 

:shade::rolleyes:

[Southtown]

The catch is, he issued a signing statement which said "he executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...." Which MEANS - "I don't have to follow this law if I don't want."

I've tried to explain this to you a couple of times already. You may have overlooked those posts. (#101, #126) It's a frickin' affirmation. Bush is complying with the law in his statement. You're confusing the conditional phrase "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief" as meaning how Bush "sees fit." However, Bush does not define the office, the law does. It's called Separation of Powers. Bush simply means that he will interpret the bill as it is applicable to his position or to the positions of those under him. What more do you want?

[TheBigDog]

You attempt here to reframe my statement. You suggest I was implying that your arguments would cause harm. This was not my intent. My point is that the actions you use your debating skill to defend will themselves cause harm to the global population.

How will the actions that I am defending cause harm to the global population?

 

I do caution that "Causing harm to the global population" is a very vague criteria. I cause harm to the "global population" simply by filling my own nutritional needs and living at the top of the food chain - therefore I should forfeit my right to exist in favor of your preference for an unharmed global population. I am not trying to put words into your mouth, I am simply asking that you be more specific in your premises and conclusions.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

How will the actions that I am defending cause harm to the global population?

 

I do caution that "Causing harm to the global population" is a very vague criteria. I cause harm to the "global population" simply by filling my own nutritional needs and living at the top of the food chain - therefore I should forfeit my right to exist in favor of your preference for an unharmed global population. I am not trying to put words into your mouth, I am simply asking that you be more specific in your premises and conclusions.

 

Well, on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at precisely 06:23AM GST...

 

Jesus Christ, Bill... talk about missing the tone of the post and continuing to attack me because the issues you defend are so weak and disagreeable. ;)

 

All references I've found indicate that between 68 and 75% of all those asked feel that we are headed in the wrong direction. I happen to agree with that sentiment, and my posts here should be taken in that context.

[CraigD]

I would ask, is the President then guilty of because he is potential violation of the law, or does he need to be found guilty in a court (or by the Congress)? Of course! He must be found guilty by the Congress or by a Court, and until that happens, unfortunately your assessment of the President as "guilty" is not worth a hill of beans.

I believe this debate is failing to distinguish between the different roles that contribute to the perpetration of crimes.

 

In general, executives (presidents), do not directly order or carry out criminal acts, but dictate policies by which others do. The occurrence of such acts, such as torture, both within and outside the theatres of war, tends to be unusually high during times of armed conflict – for example, during the Vietnam War, and during the present Iraq War. So, while it’s common to blame executives for such acts, such rhetoric does not usually extend to criminal culpability. For example, US Army Reserve Specialist (now Private) Charles Graner and others US soldiers were convicted by a us military court (court martial) in 2004 of crimes committed in 2003 at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq, Graner receiving the most severe punishment, 10 years in prison. Although his and other defense asserted that some of his crimes, such as assaults on prisoners, were carried out at with the knowledge and consent of his superiors, such as US Army Brig. General (now Colonel) Janis Karpinski and even former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, neither they nor US President George W. Bush have been charged with or convicted of conspiring to the assaults and other crimes that occurred in Abu Ghraib.

 

Due to their indirect involvement in activities with a high potential for the commission of crimes, Executive Branch and other US government officials and staff are more likely to be charged with the crime of perjury – lying while under oath to a court or tribunal – than conspiracy to actual “crimes of war”. For example, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted of multiple crimes, including 2 counts of perjury, and sentenced to a fine and 30 month in prison for statements made and actions related to his questioning by a US court grand jury and FBI agents about providing the name of a CIA secret agent, Valerie Plame, to journalists.

 

Thus, I believe the argument that, because a US President has not been found guilty of a crime by a court (or by the Congress), his policies have not purposefully resulted in dramatically increased violation of US law, including the US Constitution, to be invalid.

[jackson33]

Infinite; The President can write or give "executive orders", so long as these are legal under the current laws. Bush, has written a couple hundred many of which were written with the Congressional approval of both the War on Terror and the Gulf War II. he has likewise revoked many orders written by previous Presidents which were intended maintain certain powers, no longer deemed important, for the office.

 

"limited powers in deciding whats legal". he has no constitutional right to make law. he can of course request a law, from the Congress and often does. yes, in signing any law or act of Congress he is in effect giving executive approval, many times with the knowledge it will be struck down in the SC later. where political and presidential wishes cross, its hard to understand many decisions. i might add, Congress can over ride any Veto (bar none), which in reality makes his signature a mute issue.

 

there is no human, that has never told a lie, the Pope, you, me or anyone.

whether from ignorance or ideology many people say things, which others feel that person is lying, but my statement refers to the stereotype lier or if you prefer the antinomy of an honest person. I have rarely heard anyone categorize Bush a *dishonest* person, even on this thread as a general practice. IOW, 90% of Americans, IMO would call Bush an honest person.

 

Not being the Attorney Generals greatest fan, he serves at the pleasure of the President and is subject to the same laws the President is, under circumstances of the time. if your still upset about those nine judges that were released from duty, which also served at the pleasure of Bush II, you have heard any response i could make.

 

this continuous referance to poles is going overboard on there importance.

many are paid for and done by groups desiring a certain out come. others ask questions which normally have only one answer. if i ask 100 people "would you like to see our troops in Iraq, come home", even i would and i would think 96 others as well would answer YES. if asked mentioning "the completion of responsibilities in Iraq" and explaining those responsibilities, then your going to get quite a different result.

 

one little thing on your "harming the global population". the stated intent by Bush, his administration and his party, in using *stay the course* premise is to stabilize the Mid-East. i fail to understand how this would harm anyone, including the very large numbers of Muslims, which would love a taste of serenity.

[InfiniteNow]

Infinite; The President can write or give "executive orders", so long as these are legal under the current laws. Bush, has written a couple hundred many of which were written with the Congressional approval of both the War on Terror and the Gulf War II. he has likewise revoked many orders written by previous Presidents which were intended maintain certain powers, no longer deemed important, for the office.

 

"limited powers in deciding whats legal". he has no constitutional right to make law. he can of course request a law, from the Congress and often does. yes, in signing any law or act of Congress he is in effect giving executive approval, many times with the knowledge it will be struck down in the SC later. where political and presidential wishes cross, its hard to understand many decisions. i might add, Congress can over ride any Veto (bar none), which in reality makes his signature a mute issue.

 

there is no human, that has never told a lie, the Pope, you, me or anyone.

whether from ignorance or ideology many people say things, which others feel that person is lying, but my statement refers to the stereotype lier or if you prefer the antinomy of an honest person. I have rarely heard anyone categorize Bush a *dishonest* person, even on this thread as a general practice. IOW, 90% of Americans, IMO would call Bush an honest person.

 

Not being the Attorney Generals greatest fan, he serves at the pleasure of the President and is subject to the same laws the President is, under circumstances of the time. if your still upset about those nine judges that were released from duty, which also served at the pleasure of Bush II, you have heard any response i could make.

 

this continuous referance to poles is going overboard on there importance.

many are paid for and done by groups desiring a certain out come. others ask questions which normally have only one answer. if i ask 100 people "would you like to see our troops in Iraq, come home", even i would and i would think 96 others as well would answer YES. if asked mentioning "the completion of responsibilities in Iraq" and explaining those responsibilities, then your going to get quite a different result.

 

one little thing on your "harming the global population". the stated intent by Bush, his administration and his party, in using *stay the course* premise is to stabilize the Mid-East. i fail to understand how this would harm anyone, including the very large numbers of Muslims, which would love a taste of serenity.

 

Look, a terradactyl!

 

Btw, it's statements like, "I have rarely heard anyone categorize Bush a *dishonest* person, even on this thread as a general practice. IOW, 90% of Americans, IMO would call Bush an honest person." ...which led me to post:

 

I'd counter more of your points Jackson, but I'm afraid I'm beginning to suffer from "no supporting evidence" fatigue when reading your posts.