Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[TheBigDog]

Were lies not told re: WMD?

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

 

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

 

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

This was a lie?

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

Technically, no, that is not a lie. But it's certainly skating the fine edges of truth.

 

If we said "Their mission is to attack Iraq's magic pixie dust programs." and "Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with magic pixie dust" What would be the assumption that those statements are making?

 

That Saddam indeed has magic pixie dust.

 

I am not 100% sure that the Bush Administration lied knowingly about Iraq's WMD capabilities before the war. Maybe only about 75% - but it's not 100%.

 

That's not the lie I'm talking about.

 

I'm talking about this lie.

 

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

By his actions:

The Patriot Act

Extraordinary Rendition

Gauntanamo Bay

Neutering the Torture Ban

Bypassing FISA

 

There are more, but those are the biggies. And as I've mentioned, none of them are TECHNICALLY violations of the law, but some of them are surely violations of it's SPIRIT.

 

The way I see the debate going is like this.

 

Clinton is a liar who harmed no one, but broke the law.

Bush is a liar who harmed many, but hasn't broken the law.

 

The two sides will never meet because they are arguing at cross purposes. One side (Clinton people) argues that the ethicality lies it's in harm, the other wise (Bush people) argues that ethicality lies in it's legality.

 

They both seem equally like liars to me.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

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

 

How? 55 in base 5 is 25 in base 10. It's just a difference in interpretation! The intent of the law is pretty clearly in base 10 - but the intent of the torture ban was pretty clearly to ban torture not to "pretty much" ban torture.

 

Or, is a statement that you intend to break a law not a good enough reason to watch closely. It's a good enough reason for things like robbing 7-11's and beating your wife. Or hi-jacking airplanes.

 

I am not aware of any other law where you can say "I intend to break this law" and not at least be suspected of something.

 

TFS

[clapstyx]

I see the global situation differently. Rather than the government and industry colluding to pursue a poorly considered direction that is less than perfectly ideal I see it more as a case of they dont know what to do.

 

This creates, actually, a way forward because it means that if someone comes up with a sound working strategy to solve the global issues these people will automatically be on the back foot having to justify why they are pursuing the present course rather than one that is logically and foreseeably more well designed and directed.

 

From a global or species point of view the first point we have to reach is where there is effectively a global monarch that can step in and co-ordinate the efforts of each culture where it relates to matters of common goals. For instance lets say the best strategy to solving AIDS in Africa and the problem of deforestation had a point of intercect where both problems could be solved using the same strategy. On the one hand people who supported either matter would support the collective pursuit so a power base would be formed. From an overseeing point of view, more as a management role than a soverign, if there were one person co-ordinating both efforts with a clear stategy in mind the world could begin to move forward in a positive direction. until that happens the planet will remain factionalised, un-united and this limits the range of options and initiatives that could otherwise be embarked upon.

 

Our problem is that we have no mechanism for electing such a person and so that means that in order to reach that point that person is going to have to lead from within the pack and raise people up closer to the point where they are all reaching the upper echelons of their own potential.

 

So far as I am concerned the greatest devil is negativity and most politicians seem to get into office by drawing attention to the failings of others rather than drawing attention to the calibre of their own leadership qualities.

 

Now as far as reaching ones potential goes my feeling is that you have to define at some point in your life what you think the absolute ultimate expression of something is, define a goal to its absolute peak of refinement and pursue it so that you are freed from self limitation. Thats the only way I can see that any of us will go beyond and prove what people previously considered to be impossible and spark a new renaissance. If you take AIDS as an example I dont think there is too many people that actually believe its possible to solve that problem, or the problem of rising CO2. For as long as people discount the possibility they wont have faith enough enough in themselves to literally seek to be the person who comes up with the finest answer.

[CraigD]

55 in base 5 is 25 in base 10

I can’t miss an opportunity to point out an objective error in a political thread, where the subjective nature of political discussion usually makes such things impossible – 55 is not a well-formed number in base 5, nor can it be less than 35 base 10 in any base system.

 

Perhaps I’m missing a subtle metaphor for recent spin. The lack of technical accuracy in political speech is arguable a virtue.

[Southtown]

I'm sorry, I tried to read your links, but I kept being tripped up by big confusing words like : Alleged, suggested, possible, etc.

Interesting. If you elaborate on the exact instances you're having trouble with, I'd be glad to help.

 

I did try to read on, however, when I read dates like 1992, 1993, I realised you must have posted the wrong link.

I don't understand why you assume the preceding decade would not be relevant. Al-Qaeda's first bombing of the WTC was in '93.

 

I think the U.S has more in comparison with Germany than Iraq has of Germany.

Care to be more specific?

 

You do realise that Bush, however, was deadly serious?

Bush said a tyranny would be easier than a democracy, but easier only for one person. Do you disagree?

[Southtown]

How? 55 in base 5 is 25 in base 10. It's just a difference in interpretation! The intent of the law is pretty clearly in base 10 - but the intent of the torture ban was pretty clearly to ban torture not to "pretty much" ban torture.

 

Or, is a statement that you intend to break a law not a good enough reason to watch closely. It's a good enough reason for things like robbing 7-11's and beating your wife. Or hi-jacking airplanes.

 

I am not aware of any other law where you can say "I intend to break this law" and not at least be suspected of something.

 

TFS

I interpret that signing statement differently.

"

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.

" --

me

But, even if Bush intended it as you say he did, I still wouldn't quite consider signing statements to "invalidate laws in practice while still maintaining them in text". It isn't illegal to express dissent. And if he wasn't so forthright about his opinion of the torture ban, I'd be quicker to doubt his abiding by it.

[Spiked Blood]

Interesting. If you elaborate on the exact instances you're having trouble with, I'd be glad to help.

 

The U.S invaded Iraq under the pretence of "war on Terror" and/or "WMD". Prior to 9/11 Us govt officials had said that Saddam did not have WMD and was not a threat to the U.S. The "war on terror" began after 9/11. In 98, members of pnac(specifically Rumsfeld) wrote a letter to Clinton requesting that he invades Iraq citing that Saddam was evading UN inspections, and that was sufficient cause to invade. This was three years before 9/11.

 

I don't understand why you assume the preceding decade would not be relevant. Al-Qaeda's first bombing of the WTC was in '93.

 

Al-Qaeda did not bomb the WTC in 93, but I'm sure it's now an easy thing for people in positions of power to blame every single terrorist attack on this mythical Al-Qaeda.

 

Care to be more specific?

 

No, I think my intent was quite clear.

 

Bush said a tyranny would be easier than a democracy, but easier only for one person. Do you disagree?

 

Yes. The position of President is to serve the people. By making it easier for him, he is staing that it would be easier for all of the U.S.(and the world)

 

The problem with Bush, and other prominent members of govt, is that they think their opinion on a better world is the only one that matters. I, frankly, have no desire to live in "their" world. I prefer freedom to be free, and not drenched in blood.

 

As for Bush and the law. Only dictators are above law. Bush is not a dictator, it's about time someone informed him of that fact.(Preferably in court)

[TheBigDog]

The U.S invaded Iraq under the pretence of "war on Terror" and/or "WMD". Prior to 9/11 Us govt officials had said that Saddam did not have WMD and was not a threat to the U.S. The "war on terror" began after 9/11. In 98, members of pnac(specifically Rumsfeld) wrote a letter to Clinton requesting that he invades Iraq citing that Saddam was evading UN inspections, and that was sufficient cause to invade. This was three years before 9/11.

Remember this quote from my earlier post?

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

 

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

 

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

That is not President Bush. That is President Clinton in August of 1998 in televised speach to the nation after ordering Operation Desert Fox. Hmmm....

 

Bill

[Spiked Blood]

Remember this quote from my earlier post?

 

That is not President Bush. That is President Clinton in August of 1998 in televised speach to the nation after ordering Operation Desert Fox. Hmmm....

 

Bill

 

Thanks for backing up my point about WMD.

[TheBigDog]

Thanks for backing up my point about WMD.

:) How did I back up your point? You stated that prior to 9/11 the US did not deem Iraq a threat, and I showed the opposite to be true. Did you mistype someplace?

 

Al-Qaeda did not bomb the WTC in 93, but I'm sure it's now an easy thing for people in positions of power to blame every single terrorist attack on this mythical Al-Qaeda.

Statements like this discredit everything else you state.

 

Bill

[Spiked Blood]

:) How did I back up your point? You stated that prior to 9/11 the US did not deem Iraq a threat, and I showed the opposite to be true. Did you mistype someplace?

 

In 1998 Operation Desert Fox wiped out Saddams capabilities to create WMD. Govt officials stated that Saddam was no longer a threat.

 

:

Statements like this discredit everything else you state.

 

Bill

 

Really? Show me where it is stated without doubt that "Al-Qeada" was responsible for WTC 93, and not a group that is speculated to have links with al-Qaeda.

[TheFaithfulStone]

That is not President Bush. That is President Clinton in August of 1998 in televised speach to the nation after ordering Operation Desert Fox. Hmmm....

 

I thought I recognized his smell. Still - THAT'S not technically a lie, but the way you posted it was certainly intended to IMPLY that George Bush said it so that you could catch people up.

 

Just because two people tell a lie, does not mean that lying about it is less bad.

 

Given that George Bush and Bill Clinton are both liars, who is worse? The one who has no respect for the law, or the one whose lies have resulted in harm to others?

 

TFS

 

edit: yeah, I it would be 30 in base five wouldn't it? If the speed limit were 50, we'd be stopping people for going 25. Which raises an interesting question - what if the presidents interpretation of a bill is as far off as my conversion to base 5?

 

For all the noise about "activist judges" no one makes much noise about "activist presidents."

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

I thought I recognized his smell. Still - THAT'S not technically a lie, but the way you posted it was certainly intended to IMPLY that George Bush said it so that you could catch people up.

 

Just because two people tell a lie, does not mean that lying about it is less bad.

This is old ground, but I believe that both men where sincere in their belief that Iraq had used WMD, had developed WMD, and had future intentions for WMD. They both had every reason to believe that was the case based upon the intelligence they were receiving from EVERY source. Today people pick and choose the few doubting reports from the past decade and hold them up as evidence of lies and conspiracy. In cases of national security I tend to want to err on the side of caution. When I have conflicting reports about someone being a danger to me, if I make a mistake of judgement, it is going to be on the side of trust in my troops, not trust in my enemy.

 

Bill

[Southtown]

In 1998 Operation Desert Fox wiped out Saddams capabilities to create WMD. Govt officials stated that Saddam was no longer a threat.

LOL! Whatever...

 

 

Really? Show me where it is stated without doubt that "Al-Qeada" was responsible for WTC 93, and not a group that is speculated to have links with al-Qaeda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=ramzi_yousef

[Spiked Blood]

LOL! Whatever...

 

When govt officials hold press conferences the cameras are usually rolling.. which is why it's so easy to catch them out in a lie.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=ramzi_yousef

 

One member of "Al Qaeda", whom Bin Laden said in a 98 interview that he did not know. It's odd how the investigators suspected Omar Abdel-Rahmans Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya until it became expedient to blame everything on "AL Qaeda"(years later).

[Southtown]

When govt officials hold press conferences the cameras are usually rolling.. which is why it's so easy to catch them out in a lie.

What are you talking about?

 

One member of "Al Qaeda", whom Bin Laden said in a 98 interview that he did not know.

Well, that settles it...

 

It's odd how the investigators suspected Omar Abdel-Rahmans Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya until it became expedient to blame everything on "AL Qaeda"(years later).

"It's odd" is not enough for me to ingest the bitter pill of hatred, causing a nauseated abdomen and a twisted countenance towards a president who has not yet been found guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. I'm not that quick to judge.