Bush's Historical Position

[Frank Newgent]

....unless you count that stain on Monica's blue dress.

WASHINGTON DC (Reuters) Monica Lewinsky confidante Linda Tripp convinced First Lady Laura Bush not to clean a shirt that might contain a semen stain from former president Bill Clinton, saying "it could be evidence some day," according to documents released yesterday. It is reported that Bush said that she had been ready to clean the blue shirt but that Tripp talked her out of it after learning of the stain.

"And she told me that I should put it in a safe deposit box because it could be evidence one day," Bush added.

"And I said that was ludicrous because I would never -- I would never disclose that George had a relationship with the former president, I would never need it.

"And then when that band came to play and he told me that he was going to wear it, I told him he looked fat in the shirt, he shouldn't wear it. I brought him a white shirt from his closet as to try to persuade him not to wear the blue one," the First Lady testified.



http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869971751#post1869971751

 

[Batman Jr.]

This is really very annoying. There were multiple reasons given for going into Iraq. That it was an "imminent threat" wasn't one of them. In fact, it was specifically stated in the 2003 SOTU address that it wasn't an imminent threat. There's plenty of valid reasons to be against the war, making up lies about the reasons Bush justified the war, or pretending there was only one reason (WMD's) tends to undermine your argument. Revisionism, indeed.

From the 2003 State of the Union Address
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Where does he say specifically the threat "wasn't imminent"? All he says is that he thinks others are being lackadaisical about Iraq and that Hussein isn't going to tell us what he's going to do before he does it. That's very different from saying the threat is not imminent.

Aside from the nebulosity of the State of the Union Address though, the administration's messengers have repeatedly and unequivocally returned answers in the positive when pressed with questions asking whether or not Hussein was an "imminent threat."

This is about an imminent threat.
-Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Absolutely.
-Ari Fleischer in response to the question: "Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?", 5/7/03

Well, of course he is.
-Dan Bartlett in response to the question: “Is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.
-Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
-Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

The Iraq regime is a threat of unique urgency.
-George W. Bush, 10/2/02

And no one was talking about the "urgency" of the Iraqi people's need to be "freed" before the start of the war. It was the weapons that perturbed us. At best, any mentions of the Iraqis being freed were more in terms of their liberation being just a bonus, but not the reason for going to war.

 

[rikzilla]

And no one was talking about the "urgency" of the Iraqi people's need to be "freed" before the start of the war. It was the weapons that perturbed us. At best, any mentions of the Iraqis being freed were more in terms of their liberation being just a bonus, but not the reason for going to war.

...and yet the freedom of the Iraqi people was one of the intended and forseeable effects of the invasion of Iraq. There is no doubt Saddam was dangerous. We just were not objectively correct about the degree of that danger.

However much we thought there were WMD's in Saddam's hands though the freedom of Iraq's people was a properly forseeable and intended result of "Operation Iraqi Freedom", go figure...

-z

 

[Batman Jr.]

There is no doubt Saddam was dangerous.

How so?

Originally posted by rikzilla
...and yet the freedom of the Iraqi people was one of the intended and forseeable effects of the invasion of Iraq.

Was it the reason for going to war? No. What would you think if the President just said out of the blue, "These people have to be liberated. Let's flush our budget down the toilet and get several thousand soldiers killed even though Hussein has nothing to do with us"? No one would buy that. We went to war because of the weapons, and the "freedom"—which we are still premature in declaring realized—was considered a good side-effect.

 

[BPSCG]

And even if military occupation were the best way to liberate them, which it is not, commending Bush for his course of action is like calling the monkey pounding away at the umpteenth typewriter that managed to crank out "Hamlet" by accident a genius on par with Shakespeare.

Okay, you've already claimed that diplomacy and addressing countries' social ills were the best way to liberate them, but haven't been able to give an example.

Now you're backing and filling from your earlier position, simply claiming that military force is not the best way to liberate them.

So, again, would you please explain what you believe is the best way to liberate countries from dictatorships, and provide examples?

 

[dano]

Glad to hear it's "well documented." Please provide us with documentation for the number of people who have been jailed for expressing disagreement with Bush, the number of websites like www.democraticunderground.org and www.moveon.org shut down, and the number of newspapers and TV and radio news stations like Air America that have had their doors shuttered by the government since January 20, 2001.
Please tell me which of the following news media sources Rupert Murdoch "dominates":

The New York Times
The Los Angeles Times
The Washington Post
ABC News
NBC News
CBS News
Fox News
CNN
MS-NBC
PBS
Time-Warner Communications

I'm under no obligation to devote the time to provide you with an education, though this seems a deperate need among so many Bush followers. However, if you're willing to do a little research, I can recommend The Book on Bush, and especially Worse Than Watergate by John Dean. The latter is particularly good about providing a very extensive reference list to back up his comments. Richard Clark's Against All Enemies is also a compelling read. Note that a number of anti-Bush authors out there are hardly liberal icons. There are a number of other good texts, without ever having to even get near Micheal Moore. If you've already read these, I'll apologize for the comment.

 

[Ziggurat]

How so?

Funding of terrorist organizations. Past attempts to aquire nuclear weapons, and past use of chemical weapons on civilian populations. A propensity to start wars with neighbors. That counts as dangerous in my book. But then, that was mostly arabs killing other arabs, and why should we ever worry about that? Isn't that your point? Not a danger to you personally, so why should you care if he's killing people elsewhere?

Was it the reason for going to war? No. What would you think if the President just said out of the blue, "These people have to be liberated. Let's flush our budget down the toilet and get several thousand soldiers killed even though Hussein has nothing to do with us"? No one would buy that.

How can you possibly claim that Saddam, who was shooting missiles at US pilots on a regular basis, whose sanctions were being enforced by US military forces, had nothing to do with the US? The US military had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia for over a decade because of the threat of Saddam, and yet you somehow don't think that this might have had repercussions for the US?

We went to war because of the weapons, and the "freedom"—which we are still premature in declaring realized—was considered a good side-effect.

Read the congressional authorization for the war. It includes more than just the weapons issue. And the weapons issue was also about more than whether or not he had stockpiles right now.

 

[rikzilla]

I'm under no obligation to devote the time to provide you with an education, though this seems a deperate need among so many Bush followers. However, if you're willing to do a little research, I can recommend The Book on Bush, and especially Worse Than Watergate by John Dean. The latter is particularly good about providing a very extensive reference list to back up his comments. Richard Clark's Against All Enemies is also a compelling read. Note that a number of anti-Bush authors out there are hardly liberal icons. There are a number of other good texts, without ever having to even get near Micheal Moore. If you've already read these, I'll apologize for the comment.

Well you've answered the unasked question about how you came to hold the Bush=evil view. But can't you look at that list of polemicist rantings and see what's wrong with it? Here's a hint: It's a list of left-wing polemicist rantings!

Relax your death-grip on your favorite bias for just a moment and read something other than anti-Bush conspiracy theories.

-z

 

[dano]

Well you've answered the unasked question about how you came to hold the Bush=evil view. But can't you look at that list of polemicist rantings and see what's wrong with it? Here's a hint: It's a list of left-wing polemicist rantings!

Relax your death-grip on your favorite bias for just a moment and read something other than anti-Bush conspiracy theories.

-z

My list of readings is quite diverse, I assure you. It's obvious there's little point in continuing this interchange.

 

[rikzilla]

My list of readings is quite diverse, I assure you. It's obvious there's little point in continuing this interchange.

Perhaps so...but the list you posted is not "diverse" in the least. That's your list, I didn't make it up.

But if you are really interested in broadening your horizons a bit please allow me to suggest this.

Product Description:
Natan Sharansky has lived an unusual life, spending nine years as a Soviet political prisoner and nine years as an Israeli politician. He brings the unique perspective of his experiences in order to make the case for democracy with his longtime friend and adviser Ron Dermer. In this brilliantly analytical yet personal book, nondemocratic societies are put under a microscope to reveal the mechanics of tyranny that sustain them. In exposing the inner workings of a "fear society," the authors explain why democracy is not beyond any nation's reach, why it is essential for our security and why there is much that can be done to promote it around the world.
Freedom, the authors claim, is rooted in the right to dissent, to walk into the town square and declare one's views without fear of punishment or reprisal. The authors persuasively argue that societies that do not protect that right can never be reliable partners for peace and that the democracy that hates us is much safer than the dictatorship that loves us. The price for stability inside nondemocratic regimes, the authors explain, is terror outside of them. Indeed, the security of the free world depends on using all possible leverage-moral, political, and financial-to support democracy.

This book is about much more than theory. After explaining why the expansion of democracy is so critical to our future, the authors take us on a fascinating journey to see firsthand how an evil empire was destroyed and how the principles that led to that destruction were abandoned in the search for peace in the Middle East.

But the criticism contained in this book does not dampen its profound optimism. When there is every reason to doubt that freedom will prevail in the Middle East, this book declares unequivocally that the skeptics are wrong. The argument advanced here makes clear why lasting tyranny can be consigned to history's dustbin if the free world stays true to its ideals. The question is not whether we have the power to change the world but whether we have the will. Summoning that will demands that we move beyond Right and Left and start thinking about right and wrong.

Like the review says Sharansky does not dwell on right-left issues. He's not a polemicist. Read it, it's well written and interesting from the first word. Then come back and tell me what you think.

Maybe then there will be a point to "continuing this interchange".

-z

 

[dano]

I do admit this does look like an interesting read, one that I believe I will try to get a copy of when I've got some spare time to read another book.

I know democracy in the Middle East is a possibility. In the past I've had personal friends who grew up in Lebanon and Iran, and they've told me interesting stories of life growing up and living there. They've loved this country (which you'd expect; if they didn't, they wouldn't have stayed here). I've also been to Israel for several weeks on business, and in the Palestinian territories, in times when it wasn't so dangerous. One of the greatest regrets in my life is stopping at a fancy gift shop outside Bethlehem looking for Roman glass jewelry to take home. They didn't have any, and didn't try to shove any fakes or substitutes at me. I left without buying anything. Later I couldn't help but picture that nice-looking retail facility surrounded by so much poverty and thinking to myself, "What does it really matter which little trinket I brought home? Why didn't I spend some money on anything at all, just to support their efforts to make a living for themselves?" I'll probably never have an opportunity to correct that mistake.

However, the potential for democracy in the region is poor justification for lying to justify a war. I can't help reading the blurb about the book and think that the "fear society" they're discussing is exactly what Bush is turning this country into. He has jailed protestors outside his governor's office in Texas for disturbing the peace, but allowed the exact same activity when the signs were pro-Bush. And I can't stand the tactics of his team being dismissed because they didn't break the letter of the law. Everybody knows the dirty trick Rove and his gang pulled against John McCain in the 2000 election, with the unfounded innuendo that he'd fathered a bastard black child. No law was broken. Does that make the act acceptable? Hiding behind the letter of the law is the mark of a con artist. And a leadership that will do or say anything they have to acquire and hold on to power is one of the marks of a "fear society". What color is the "terror alert" today?

 

[Skeptic]

I was watching Hitchens this afternoon and he was asked what he thought about how history would rate GWB 75 or 100 years out.

He said words to the effect that if Democracy took in Afganistan and Iraq and if he was instrumental to a Palestinian/Isreali peace and if the Iran threat is truly blunted THEN his Presidency might well be considered one of the best.

Thoughts?

Could be. The problem is that predictions of how the world would be 100 years from now are almost meaningless. Look at the world in 1905 and compare.

 

[rikzilla]

However, the potential for democracy in the region is poor justification for lying to justify a war. I can't help reading the blurb about the book and think that the "fear society" they're discussing is exactly what Bush is turning this country into.

Read the book. It's interesting and you will enjoy it. The man has some pretty solid ideas. BTW, you'll feel silly for the part of your post I quoted above after reading Sharansky. The man was sent to a gulag for 13 years under a charge of treason. His crime was that he taught a group of dissidents english lessons. You still think we have a real fear society? What Sharansky means by fear society is that you would fear to dissent. If that was really the case in Bush's America there would be no JREF at all.

-z

 

[Batman Jr.]

Okay, you've already claimed that diplomacy and addressing countries' social ills were the best way to liberate them, but haven't been able to give an example.

Now you're backing and filling from your earlier position, simply claiming that military force is not the best way to liberate them.

So, again, would you please explain what you believe is the best way to liberate countries from dictatorships, and provide examples?

I want you to honestly tell me that placing pressures nonviolently on the Iraqi regime in one way or another couldn't have had similar outcomes to the pressures we placed on the USSR.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Funding of terrorist organizations.

If that's your rationalization, there are other countries much higher up on the agenda. Iraq's contributions are negligable in comparison with, for example, the Saudi government.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Past attempts to aquire nuclear weapons, and past use of chemical weapons on civilian populations. A propensity to start wars with neighbors. That counts as dangerous in my book. But then, that was mostly arabs killing other arabs, and why should we ever worry about that? Isn't that your point? Not a danger to you personally, so why should you care if he's killing people elsewhere?

Exactly. All this stuff was in the "past."

I'm assuming the war was "not a danger to you personally," so why would you care if Bush sent out people to carry the onus of matters which concerned the safety of their country not? I really hate it when people have to bring in this whole notion of not being altruistic if you don't support the war and that we in the anti-war group are somehow morally inferior. Those in my group oppose the war because of the consequences it will have for our own troops and the increased duress it will induce in the country being attacked. You act as if there is no cost in going to war and we're just a bunch of lazy curmudgeons for not supporting it.

 

[Skeptic]

I'm under no obligation to devote the time to provide you with an education, though this seems a deperate need among so many Bush followers.

This seems to be the stock "reply" from the Bush-is-Evil camp whenever somebody asks them where, exactly, is the awful destruction of everything good which the Bush-is-Evil camp sees in Bush's wake.

It has a rather familiar ring, doesn't it?

"This is Bush's new totalitarian religious theocracy. But only WISE MEN can see it."

 

[dano]

Read the book. It's interesting and you will enjoy it. The man has some pretty solid ideas. BTW, you'll feel silly for the part of your post I quoted above after reading Sharansky. The man was sent to a gulag for 13 years under a charge of treason. His crime was that he taught a group of dissidents english lessons. You still think we have a real fear society? What Sharansky means by fear society is that you would fear to dissent. If that was really the case in Bush's America there would be no JREF at all.

-z

I doubt I'll feel silly. I'm well aware there have been, and still are, many societies which are far more repressive than our own. That doesn't mean we can afford to be complacent about the direction we're heading. You may disagree about that direction, but I'm sure you'll agree that IF we are becoming more repressive of dissent, it's a matter of serious concern.

 

[dano]

I'm under no obligation to devote the time to provide you with an education, though this seems a deperate need among so many Bush followers.

This seems to be the stock "reply" from the Bush-is-Evil camp whenever somebody asks them where, exactly, is the awful destruction of everything good which the Bush-is-Evil camp sees in Bush's wake.

It has a rather familiar ring, doesn't it?

"This is Bush's new totalitarian religious theocracy. But only WISE MEN can see it."

It's not required that a person be wise, just that they care to critically examine their leaders' actions. And not in the way Rush Limbaugh (or Micheal Moore) do.

 

[Skeptic]

It's not required that a person be wise, just that they care to critically examine their leaders' actions. And not in the way Rush Limbaugh (or Micheal Moore) do.

I dunno, dano.

Bush's theocractic dictatorship isn't the only fabulous beast the "progressive" camp had tried to sell the public over the years. Other such chimeras include, for instance, the "prosperous" Soviet Union, "liberated" Cuba, "moderate" Palestinians, "authentic" rap Music, "senile" Ronald Reagan, "bilingual" education, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. When the skeptic notes that in reality the USSR was not prosperous, that Reagan was a great orator, bilinguial education means "Spanish-speaking kids don't learn English", etc.--all, frankly, rather obvious truths--he is abused and ridiculed as simple minded, stupid, uneducated, etc., etc. for NOT SEEING the TRUTH, and instructed to look again until he does (or else he is called a "racist" and ignored.)

On the other hand, the same "progressives" have a tendency not only to see what isn't there, but to refuse to see what is there. Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the twin towers falling, worldwide Jihad--and we keep hearing from the "progressives" that that is all a mirage; that Bush is merely bringing "so-called" democracy to the Middle East for his own nefarious purposes, that the "so-called" terrorist threat is greatly exagerrated and merely a reason for "so-called" security measures that are "really" a dictatorship, that the "so-called" Islamists are a "tiny minority of extremists" of a "religion of peace", etc., etc.

My skepticism here doesn't related to Bush in particular, dano. It's more based on the fact that, as long experience has taught me, when the "progressive" opinion is uniform and solid that such-and-such is a big threat to all we hold dear, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, chances are quite high that the threat is mostly imaginary. On the other hand, when they dismiss concerns about this-and-that group or threat with a knowing wave of the hand as "conservative paranoia" or "racism" or "witch-hunting" or the equivalent, chances are that the group in question will come back to haunt us with tragic results.

So allow me not to be impressed by the fact that the left had found yet another monster, Bush, which is an awful threat to everything. The day the left begins to like Bush and defend him against "unfair accusations" of dictatorship is the day I get worried; With their track record, it would mean that, at that stage, Bush really is a dictator.

 

[Batman Jr.]

I dunno, dano.

Bush's theocractic dictatorship isn't the only fabulous beast the "progressive" camp had tried to sell the public over the years. Other such chimeras include, for instance, the "prosperous" Soviet Union, "liberated" Cuba, "moderate" Palestinians, "authentic" rap Music, "senile" Ronald Reagan, "bilingual" education, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. When the skeptic notes that in reality the USSR was not prosperous, that Reagan was a great orator, bilinguial education means "Spanish-speaking kids don't learn English", etc.--all, frankly, rather obvious truths--he is abused and ridiculed as simple minded, stupid, uneducated, etc., etc. for NOT SEEING the TRUTH, and instructed to look again until he does (or else he is called a "racist" and ignored.)

On the other hand, the same "progressives" have a tendency not only to see what isn't there, but to refuse to see what is there. Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the twin towers falling, worldwide Jihad--and we keep hearing from the "progressives" that that is all a mirage; that Bush is merely bringing "so-called" democracy to the Middle East for his own nefarious purposes, that the "so-called" terrorist threat is greatly exagerrated and merely a reason for "so-called" security measures that are "really" a dictatorship, that the "so-called" Islamists are a "tiny minority of extremists" of a "religion of peace", etc., etc.

My skepticism here doesn't related to Bush in particular, dano. It's more based on the fact that, as long experience has taught me, when the "progressive" opinion is uniform and solid that such-and-such is a big threat to all we hold dear, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, chances are quite high that the threat is mostly imaginary. On the other hand, when they dismiss concerns about this-and-that group or threat with a knowing wave of the hand as "conservative paranoia" or "racism" or "witch-hunting" or the equivalent, chances are that the group in question will come back to haunt us with tragic results.

So allow me not to be impressed by the fact that the left had found yet another monster, Bush, which is an awful threat to everything. The day the left begins to like Bush and defend him against "unfair accusations" of dictatorship is the day I get worried; With their track record, it would mean that, at that stage, Bush really is a dictator.

I find these to be mostly strawmen. I don't know anyone who's in 9/11 denial or disregards the threat of terrorism or wants to keep the Spanish-speaking population from learning English. I'd also say that most progressives felt the Afghan invasion was justified, but not for purposes of democratization. Iraq is still very unstable, and a simple election isn't enough to establish democracy. The election has to actually mean something in the context of the future of the country. We'll have to wait and see and hope for the best for them, and hope for the best for us that they won't turn into a carbon copy of Iran.

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly. All this stuff was in the "past."

All that "stuff" would resume as soon as Saddam got the oportunity. The cost of maintaining sanctions, for the US, the Iraqi populace, and the region as a whole, were very high. They were not going to last indefinitely, and a number of countries were actively engaged in trying to lift the sanctions. Once that happened, there would be absolutely zero assurance that that "stuff" was indeed in the past. This was a long-term problem that NOBODY in the anti-war croud has ever had an answer to. They just keep saying the sanctions and inspections worked, but there was no grounds to maintain either indefinitely.

I really hate it when people have to bring in this whole notion of not being altruistic if you don't support the war and that we in the anti-war group are somehow morally inferior.

You tell me why it's not morally inferior to sit on the sidelines while others suffer, without trying to do something about it. Because nobody in the antiwar croud has put forward any realistic proposal for another way to handle Saddam other than the unacceptable status quo.

Those in my group oppose the war because of the consequences it will have for our own troops and the increased duress it will induce in the country being attacked. You act as if there is no cost in going to war and we're just a bunch of lazy curmudgeons for not supporting it.

Not at all. Rather, the costs for going to war, in terms of human lives, misery, stability for the region, etc. were smaller than the long-term costs that Saddam's continued existence would extract from his own people and from his neighbors. I'm fully aware of the cost of invading, and I'm also fully aware of the cost of doing nothing. And the latter is higher.