Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[Southtown]

Good place to start

 

TFS

Thanks for that info. How exactly are signing statements altering the bills passed? They don't seem to have any legal significance at all.

[clapstyx]

If we are going to say that Clinton was impeached and GWB hasnt been then then that would suggest that GWB is better than Clinton. As an Australian i have a problem with that because in terms of a world leadership standpoint the world was, I contend, a much more positive place when Clinton was in the world leaders job. Arguably the negative news that resulted from 911 was outside of George's control but he turned it into a much more damaging and negative experience for the world than it needed to otherwise be. For instance if he had said "OK you seem to be pissed off with us about something that you believe we are doing to your culture lets sit down in a publicly televised broadcast and honestly discuss the issues and at least start from a point where we all understand what this so called war is all about". Obviously the Muslim community feels very passionately about the invasion of commercialism into their culture and if thats upsetting them than realisitically if the US was truly for promoting world peace on all levels they would listen to those concerns and act appropriately in pursuit of perfect harmony. Now in retrospect that approach wasnt taken but it doesnt mean that it cant still happen that way. I believe that the rest of the non US world is entitled to that strategy being at least put forward because all of our lives are now being corrupted by the thought process that we are headed toward some sort of armageddon, be it a military conflict situation that some countries are trying to promote or global corruption of the ecosystem which the industrialised nations are promoting as an annoying by product of their commercial ideals. Thats not to say that their ideals are wrong or right but any moron can see that CO2 is going up and up and a true thinking world leader with a long term vision for the future of the world would be taking urgent steps to ensure that atmospheric CO2 levels return to at least a non growth situation. Promoting industrial consumption which is what globalisation is all about is not making the environment better than it was 200 years ago when we began this agenda. Is GWB a moron..I dont know..but he hasnt done anything that I would recognise as genius thats for sure.

[InfiniteNow]

...in terms of a world leadership standpoint the world was, I contend, a much more positive place when Clinton was in the world leaders job. Arguably the negative news that resulted from 911 was outside of George's control but he turned it into a much more damaging and negative experience for the world than it needed to otherwise be.

I think the global standpoint is all too frequently missing from the thoughts of those in power in the US, and you raise an incredibly important point about the importance of global perceptions when moving forward and resolving the problems we all are facing. :hihi:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Thanks for that info. How exactly are signing statements altering the bills passed? They don't seem to have any legal significance at all.

 

They really don't. But Bush is using them as though they do. Basically, they're turning the president into a scofflaw.

 

The most egregious example of this is the Torture Ban - which he followed with a signing statement saying - "I'm saying this means that torture will be banned unless I think it's really, really necessary."

 

That's not in the law, in fact, that exactly what the law is intended to prevent. Is the president breaking the law if he willfully misinterprets it or fails to enforce it? He's certainly falling down on his constitutional duty, which requires him to do the latter.

 

TFS

[Guest jamongo]

I have an opinion about this subject and it seems to be rather far out, even to me.

 

It is inconceivable to me, that the leaders of the world fail to see the disastrous road we are heading down. Yet we poor people sit on our hands while seeing no signs of anyone trying to change the course.

 

Could it be possible that there exists a contingent of politicians, special interest groups, and such that are aware the earth is going "toes up" and are taking advantage of the remaining time to grab whatever they can?

 

What was the motto of the "Amboy Dukes"? (Irving Shulman 1946)

"Live fast, die young, and make a good-looking corpse."

 

It appears to me that the human species of this planet are on a mass suicide

plunge. We are over-populating, polluting, warring, spreading WMD's, and just screwing up royally. The planet is rapidly heading for an all-out nuclear holocaust.

 

I can't believe that President Bush is an idiot. Neither do I believe that he has much say in policy. He is just a figurehead as are most of the leaders of the "democratic" countries of the world.

 

So what can be done?

 

Guess what! I haven't a clue!

[InfiniteNow]

So what can be done?

 

Guess what! I haven't a clue!

Implement change within each of ourselves, desiring more and demanding it of others. Enough people do this and the world changes.

[Southtown]

I just don't understand what laws are being broken... the Ten Commandments?

[InfiniteNow]

What was the outcome of domestic wire tapping?

 

Were lies not told re: WMD?

 

How about just gross incompetence? The governor of California was recalled, why not the prez?

[TheFaithfulStone]

I just don't understand what laws are being broken... the Ten Commandments?

 

That's a subtle parsing of the issue, Southtown.

 

Let us reason by casuistry!

 

If you are a police officer, and you are given a rule to enforce - say that the speed limit is 55 miles an hour, and you decide to interpret that to mean 55 miles an hour in base 5. (That's twenty five in base ten.) Does your interpretation have the force of law? No, clearly it doesn't - but your actions - which are done by your interpretation have the effect of law. The police officer has effectively rewritten the law by interpretation.

 

This is the same problem with presidential signing statements. It's weasel speak. If Congress says "Torture is banned" and the President says "I'm taking that to mean that torture is banned unless I say otherwise" it's very similar to our paradigmatic case. The president is willfully misinterpreting the law.

 

It's dirty lawyer talk to say - "Well, that's the presidents interpretation. He is able to interpret the law how he thinks it was meant." Clearly, Congress meant to ban torture altogether. Saying otherwise is disingenuous.

 

Which is more valuable, the letter of the law, or it's spirit?

 

TFS

 

Especially Ironic given all the bitching the Bush Administration has done about "Activist Judges" don't you think? The courts cannot rewrite laws through interpretation, but the President can? Suspect.

[TheBigDog]

Which is more valuable, the letter of the law, or it's spirit?

I guess it depends upon what you are trying to accomplish.

 

If a police officer is from mars as you have described, then that would be wrong. But what about officers who in a 55 mph zone won't stop someone until they are going 60 or 65? That is a more reasonable example. But when you are setting out to prove the president is a moron, you might as well not let ugly comparison's hold you back.

 

What was the outcome of domestic wire tapping?

 

Were lies not told re: WMD?

I guess when you are attempting to falsely accuse someone of something you are are forced to spread lies. There is no "domestic wire tapping" program. The program you are referring to was brought in front of a cherry picked judge in Michigan. The ruling will not stand up upon appeal. The President in fact followed every directive in keeping the Congress aware of the program and those who knew about the program agreed that it was being handled professionally and within the law, UNTIL a news report broke it into the public, and they would lose face with their constituents if they did not do a quick reversal. It is a good thing that the President has more backbone than that. And the program itself never tapped into any conversation that was not directly with an overseas known terrorist. Knowledge of those facts of course cannot come ahead of hateful rhetoric.

 

WMD was used by Saddam on his own people. He was ordered to disarm, but never presented evidence that he had done so. We have recovered over 500 live WMD shells hidden among weapon's caches since the invasion. Many of them were old and less effective, and because of that they are downplayed for what they are. Every intelligence agency in the world had information that Iraq had multiple WMD programs it was not just the US, and it did not begin with President Bush. The biggest reports I have seen indicate that many of the scientists running the programs in Iraq were pocketing funds and giving false reports about the progress of the programs. They got away with it because it was all funded black by Saddam so he would have no paper trail to be followed. There is also information that he was leaking information that his capabilities were bigger than they actually were. And he also had ample time before the invasion to destroy records and to have some caches moved. During the invasion he specifically threatened to use his chemical weapons on the coalition forces. In retrospect, against the thousands of reports of his having WMD, a handful of ones casting doubt on the topic are now held up as being the only ones we should ever have listened to. That kind of selective hindsight to construe the President as a liar is despicable, but is so commonplace among the hate filled against the actions of the administration that despicable has become a badge of honor.

 

It is fine to jump on the smear bandwagon and feel the warm glow of self-righteousness, but lets not ignore facts for comfortable fictions that drive our personal agendas.

 

Hey! Anyone want to talk politics?

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

I guess it depends upon what you are trying to accomplish.

 

;)

 

Uhh...no it doesn't. The spirit and intent of the law is always more important than it's letter. The question is whether the intent is clear from the letter.

 

Unless, of course, you're looking to abuse it.

 

If a police officer is from mars as you have described, then that would be wrong. But what about officers who in a 55 mph zone won't stop someone until they are going 60 or 65? That is a more reasonable example. But when you are setting out to prove the president is a moron, you might as well not let ugly comparison's hold you back.

 

Now - here's a difference. The example I give is reasonable if you make some ridiculous assumptions. The example you give is reasonable if you take the effects into account.

 

I don't have a problem with signing statements in principle (all laws require some interpretation) but I do have a problem with them when they are used in clear contradiction to the intent of the law.

 

For example the signing statement for the detainee treatment act read

 

The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] 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.

 

The intent of the law was clearly to prevent EXACTLY what the presidents asserts he has the power to do. The presidents signing statement is nothing more than "Do so!"

 

It's at minimum blatantly disrespectful of the law.

 

The president does not have the power to not enforce laws or to waive them in specific circumstances- all of his statements to the contrary. It is his constitutional duty to make sure that the laws are "faithfully enforced."

 

What is grey here? What is the confusion?

 

In a sense, this is worse than Bill Clinton lying about his willy, because Bush has made dishonoring the intent of congress the official policy of his administration (at least in this matter.)

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

If the President breaks the law he will face the consequences. So far all he has done is say that in the correct circumstances he will break the law. If and when he does so he will face the consequences for his actions. Until that time, what is the problem?

 

You are saying that hypothetical breaking of the law in the name of national security is worse than actual breaking of the law to deny a person due process? Remember, Clinton did not commit a crime when he got a hummer. He committed a crime when he lied under oath about it. I recall that is the year that every Supreme Court Justice boycotted the State of the Union speech because of Clinton's disrespect of the Judicial process.

 

Bill

[matrixscarface]

The bush admin has crashed... its over.. their whole game is over.. there are tons of people speaking out against the war, saying how it was nothing more than stealing oil. he should really be charged with racketerring, be impeached on RICO charges, etc etc. word is rumsfeld is about to resign, a guy who has been around a long time, because somebody has to take the fall for iraq, you got general's speaking out against rummy and bush. this whole thing is falling apart.. and we have two years yet. he really screwed up.. years from now we will look back on at this whole thing with shame.. hell, at least nixon did some good! he opened trade to china! what did bush do? throw us in debt! there are alot of bright wannabe presidents.. i think things will be ok.. in time.. but everything is just bad. im sorry. im a red blooded american. i believe in my country, but i strongly disagree with our president.

[Boerseun]

Why are we constantly reverting back to comparing Bush to Clinton? The two cases are 180 degrees different, if impeachment is what you'd be implying by the comparison - although I have to say that judging solely by his actions, Bush is in much greater need of gettin' some than Clinton was.

 

As an outsider, my experience of the post-9/11 world is limited solely to rising gas prices at the pump. We don't have any troops keeping the peace in the Middle East, all our troops not in SA are deployed in Africa on peace-keeping missions. This is a completely different matter. I do, however, believe that being so far removed from the actual issues, my perspective might be worth something; I don't have the emotional implications of having lost loved ones in 9/11 or subsequent terrorist attacks, neither are my sons/friends/family deployed in a war zone.

 

That being said, I do think that Bush have seriously missed a good opportunity of uniting the World in his 'war on terror' by not giving a rip for international opinion. Whether it is true or not, what the rest of the world sees in the US invasion of Iraq is a cynical attempt at controlling World oil supply, not suppressing terrorism. Saddam was merely a handy excuse. Keep in mind, before you jump on the "let's bash Boerseun for saying this" bandwagon, I'm saying that this is simply the perception created outside the US. And international perception is an important tool in securing peace and co-operation in fighting 'terror'. And this is where Bush missed the ball completely.

 

Seriously - using Saddam's actions against his own people as an excuse for removing him from power, is ludicrous. In the World, at the same time, we have tinpot dictators screwing their own populace over big-time: We have Mugabe in Zimbabwe. We have Kim Jong Il in North Korea. We had Rwanda. We have the DRC. We have Somalia. We have Cuba. The list goes on. But the US does not invade, attempt to displace these 'regimes' (a favourite weasel word employed by those invading), or even threaten these countries with military action. And the one common denominator amongst these countries not being invaded by the US is that they all lack any substantial oil reserves. Once again, this is the impression created by Bush. There is also no connection between Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is no connection between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden, there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and the World Trade Center. But notice how the WTC is subtly brought in to fire the emotions of those footing the bill (the US taxpayers) whenever the Iraq issue is discussed. I think Bush is screwing up royally by underestimating the intelligence of not only the rest of the world, but of US citizens as well.

 

If I was an American, I would've voted for the other guy. Then again, if I was Bush, I would've fired my PR team.

 

My 2 cents - and keep in mind, I'm not saying that any of the above is true - I'm merely saying that Bush is creating this image of the US being a cynical power-hungry resource grabber. And in doing so, he's wasted an incredible opportunity for global unity and goodwill towards the US that existed post 9/11.

[Southtown]

That's a subtle parsing of the issue, Southtown.

 

Let us reason by casuistry!

 

If you are a police officer, and you are given a rule to enforce - say that the speed limit is 55 miles an hour, and you decide to interpret that to mean 55 miles an hour in base 5. (That's twenty five in base ten.) Does your interpretation have the force of law? No, clearly it doesn't - but your actions - which are done by your interpretation have the effect of law. The police officer has effectively rewritten the law by interpretation.

No. He hasn't effectively rewritten the law. He has broken the law, and he should be prosecuted when he is caught.

 

Now apply this to Bush. Do you see my point, yet?

 

And international perception is an important tool in securing peace and co-operation in fighting 'terror'. And this is where Bush missed the ball completely.

No. It isn't an important tool. International perception is irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts. (See links) To put it another way, we could either do what we think is best, or we could do what others think is best. Which would you choose?

 

Seriously - using Saddam's actions against his own people as an excuse for removing him from power, is ludicrous. In the World, at the same time, we have tinpot dictators screwing their own populace over big-time: We have Mugabe in Zimbabwe. We have Kim Jong Il in North Korea. We had Rwanda. We have the DRC. We have Somalia. We have Cuba. The list goes on. But the US does not invade, attempt to displace these 'regimes' (a favourite weasel word employed by those invading), or even threaten these countries with military action. And the one common denominator amongst these countries not being invaded by the US is that they all lack any substantial oil reserves. Once again, this is the impression created by Bush.

Are you seriously suggesting we attempt all that simultaneously? Let's just start with the ones that threaten our security and go from there.

 

And the oil accusations are without support.

 

There is also no connection between Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is no connection between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden, there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and the World Trade Center. But notice how the WTC is subtly brought in to fire the emotions of those footing the bill (the US taxpayers) whenever the Iraq issue is discussed. I think Bush is screwing up royally by underestimating the intelligence of not only the rest of the world, but of US citizens as well.

That is not entirely correct.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

http://www.ecu.edu/lib/govdoc/waronterror.cfm

[Southtown]

For example the signing statement for the detainee treatment act read

 

The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] 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.

The intent of the law was clearly to prevent EXACTLY what the presidents asserts he has the power to do. The presidents signing statement is nothing more than "Do so!"

 

It's at minimum blatantly disrespectful of the law.

No, again. The president simply says that he will do everything within his power to uphold this legislation, and so will those under him, but no more. It's more accurately descriptive to call this signing statement a reasonable affirmation to the bill.

[Southtown]

The bush admin has crashed... its over.. their whole game is over.. there are tons of people speaking out... saying how it was... word is... you got general's speaking out... this whole thing is falling apart... years from now we will... i think things will be ok.. in time.. but everything is just bad...

Same ol' s**t. All talk. No facts or even suggestions for improvement.