I just don't see how you can make a judgement call on something you *believe* will happen ten years down the line. What is done is done, but what we choose to do from here on out can only depend on what we know is true now (not what we suspect will be true ten years from now). Policy bashing aside, that is just common sense.
I actually used my response to NaplesX and SDW2001 to prove a point, at no time have I actually in real life refered to the president as an idiot. I have actually corrected people who have, even though I think his policies are idiotic and very misdirected. It is not beneficial to suspect someone of being stupid or evil. Just like Hitler wasn't evil, GW isn't stupid. You learn a lot more about the way a person thinks when you assume little to begin with. I personally think Bush puts more faith into the people around him than himself. I think he is a bad president because of that, and those directions in which this weakness has taken this country. I am not saying the president isn't leading this country or doesn't make up his mind in the end, but he just isn't open to the possibility that those who disagree might have points every once in a while. He has effectively shived everyone in the administration who disagrees with him (or someone very close to him) and that is a mark of someone who prefers not to synthesize ideas.
I don't think the supporters of Bush are idiots. I think they feel like they are hearing what they want to hear from him. He is our most commercial president and that is unfortunate for this nation.
I would request an apology from NaplesX and SDW2001 for their broad generalizations of my person, but I don't expect one. I am a liberal, perhaps even a super liberal, but I have to agree that the meaning of that means that I must keep my mind open to all things. I think both sides of this argument are wrong-headed in their respective ways...
Well, you're not one of the worst offenders. I respect what you're saying. though I do disagree with many things. I think the fact that Bush has surrounded himself with some experienced and brilliant people is a good thing. By contrast, Clinton and Gore were micromanagers (more so for the latter) who had more intelligence but a serious lack of judgement. As far as Bush supporters "hearing what they like", I still think you're dismissing the approx. 50 million supporters he has. They can't ALL be delusional, can they?
pfflam:
The information has turned out to be inaccurate. That simply doesn't mean we were lied to. There are just too many other possibilties. As an intelligent person (which I certainly think you are), you have to acknowledge them.
As for pre-emption, that's a policy dispute. I support that policy in the post 9/11 era. You apparently do not, and while I have my serious problems with your thinking, I can still respect your position, provided it's supportable and well thought out.
giant:
Quote:
The fact is that the BS was easy to see through and I have no pity for those who allowed themselves to be fooled and still haven't learned from the mistake. How many times do they have to run into a wall before they realize what the doorway is for?
The more you post, the more you prove my point. The implication is that anyone who actually believed Saddam had WMD was complete. blind fool. I just don't see (ha) how that position is reasonable. John Kerry believed Saddam had WMD....so did Bill Clinton. Bush did, Blair did, Cheney did....even the CIA did, apparently. Either way, it appears they were wrong....but it certainly wasn't unreasonable to think they were right. If Bush lied, then so did every single Representative and Senator who voted for war. Do you believe that?
If Bush lied, then so did every single Representative and Senator who voted for war. Do you believe that?
Well, this might be a valid conclusion if you were to assume that every single Member of Congress who voted for war, was doing so based on the exact same raw intelligence that was presented to Bush.
The point is, there is ample evidence suggesting that the Administration misled the nation and the world, by not presenting a complete and accurate representation of the available intelligence.
At best, they are guilty of cherry-picking the evidence presented to suit their pre-determined conclusions (something that I seem to see here quite often ), and at worst they are guilty of purposefully slanting or "sexing up" the information to deliberately deceive Congress, the UN, and the American voting public into supporting the unprecedented act of preemptive invasion.
So it appears that either you are unwilling to put your current opinion to the test of time or you are so biased that you do not want to give GWB any benefit of the doubt.
I really don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Anyone. I like to think on my own.
Quote:
If you use that line of logic, we would all have to assume that you just went and married the first person you met and had feeling for, and totally ignored any hints to future problem. I hope not.
Ah there is one little thing you tried to slip in there that isn't so obvious. Hints of future problems. That is the key. If there were hints, I would know them. There are no hints that Bush's experiment (mind you this is an experiment on real people) will actually produce the results you indicate in ten years. No hints at all...
Quote:
You logic is week, and defies common sense. Well, at least what I call common sense, anyway. I could be the exception to the rule, though.
No my logic is quite rigorously strong. Common sense isn't inherently logical. Some of it, like making judgements on what you know now and not what you suspect you will know in the future, is inherently logical. You probably are the exception...
I don't think the 50 million americans who wholeheartedly support Bush are delusional, I just think that what they want to hear and see done isn't particularly in line with what a responsible world power should do. I take an internationalist perspective on what should be done in the US. Think globally act locally, yadda yadda yadda.
You need to improve your english comprehension, sir or madam.
I did not call you anything or imply what you now are replying to.
Here's what you wrote:
"The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements are even Americans. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day."
Take a good, hard look at what you've just said there before you go accusing me of misreading you.
Let's not get this thread closed too, eh? Just drop the personal remarks and patronizing tone with one another, and we can get back on topic (whatever it is).
We're used to this sorta BS. If you have lost any respect for Bush that you may have had at one time and think he needs to go... and that he couldn't do the right thing if it was staring him in the face...
You're a terrorist.
Joining the NEA, ACLU, Moveon.org, the whole democratic party, Kerry, Max Cleland...
Keep in mind NaplesX less that 50% of the country think bush is doing a good job... are they all terrorists too?
We don't criticize Bush for attacking the terrorists... we criticize him for NOT going after the terrorosts.
Well, this might be a valid conclusion if you were to assume that every single Member of Congress who voted for war, was doing so based on the exact same raw intelligence that was presented to Bush.
The point is, there is ample evidence suggesting that the Administration misled the nation and the world, by not presenting a complete and accurate representation of the available intelligence.
At best, they are guilty of cherry-picking the evidence presented to suit their pre-determined conclusions (something that I seem to see here quite often ), and at worst they are guilty of purposefully slanting or "sexing up" the information to deliberately deceive Congress, the UN, and the American voting public into supporting the unprecedented act of preemptive invasion.
Well....the point is that Congress apparently saw enough to vote for force (or those who voted "yes" anyway). Now, if you're suggesting the intelligence was falsified, that's different. Do you think that?
billy:
Quote:
I don't think the 50 million americans who wholeheartedly support Bush are delusional, I just think that what they want to hear and see done isn't particularly in line with what a responsible world power should do. I take an internationalist perspective on what should be done in the US. Think globally act locally, yadda yadda yadda.
"Hearing what they want" can be called delusional. Now we're playing semantics games. You're basically saying that anyone who supports Bush is naive and incapable of critical analysis.
As for what a world power should do, I'm curious to hear about that. What are your thoughts? This may be, simply, a disagreement. I believe we should act in our interests as nation. We should consult other powers (which we did with Iraq), but when it's American blood and dollars on the line as it always seems to be, we shouldn't be limited by third rate world powers either. What is it that we shouldn't be or should be doing?
We're used to this sorta BS. If you have lost any respect for Bush that you may have had at one time and think he needs to go... and that he couldn't do the right thing if it was staring him in the face...
You're a terrorist.
Joining the NEA, ACLU, Moveon.org, the whole democratic party, Kerry, Max Cleland...
Keep in mind NaplesX less that 50% of the country think bush is doing a good job... are they all terrorists too?
We don't criticize Bush for attacking the terrorists... we criticize him for NOT going after the terrorosts.
Give it a rest. He didn't actually call anyone a terrorist. Relax.
What is your last statement about? What's your solution?
"The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements are even Americans. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day."
Take a good, hard look at what you've just said there before you go accusing me of misreading you.
Are you psychic or clairvoyant? I know what I wrote and what I meant. I will however rephrase to clarify.
Original
The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements are even Americans. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day.
Rephrased
The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements consider themselves Americans. The hateful talk does convince me. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day.
I am not sure that is stated any better, but that was the thought behind the statement.
But once again, I did not call you anything or imply anything except the hateful speech could easily be confused with similar statements made by other groups. that's all.
It was an analysis of the speech and not you personally.
Well, Naples has a point. The rhetoric really is out of hand, and it's coming from top Democrats such as Terry McCauliffe. Rank and file Democrats are comparing Bush to Hitler. Al Gore has been heard screaming "He betrayed this country!". Howard Dean suggested Bush was warned, specifically about 9/11 by the Saudis. John Kerry has called for "regime change" in Washington
What we have here is political hate speech. Some of it borders on treason, even. It's apparently not enough to say "I disagree with the President because of X, Y and Z". Honestly, the polls don't surprise me at this point....given the total assault Bush has endured over the past two months.
Well....the point is that Congress apparently saw enough to vote for force (or those who voted "yes" anyway). Now, if you're suggesting the intelligence was falsified, that's different.
Do you think that?
"Falsified" implies that the intelligence was made up out of thin air. Not that I'd put it past BushCo, but I've seen nothing to suggest that. "Misrepresented" is more in line with my take on this.
I think that it's more a matter of deliberately ignoring certain elements of available intelligence (that did not support Bush's WoMD claims), and misrepresenting the reliability of the intelligence used to support the claim that WoMD's existed and were ready (or nearly ready) to be used.
This is what I think:
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
At best, they are guilty of cherry-picking the evidence presented to suit their pre-determined conclusions, and at worst they are guilty of purposefully slanting or "sexing up" the information to deliberately deceive Congress, the UN, and the American voting public into supporting the unprecedented act of preemptive invasion.
I "think" I was pretty clear about it the first time, but I am happy to restate and elaborate 4 ya...
Furthermore, the "cherry-picking" characteristics of the Bush Administration have been discussed elsewhere, including here:
"Hearing what they want" can be called delusional. Now we're playing semantics games. You're basically saying that anyone who supports Bush is naive and incapable of critical analysis.
As for what a world power should do, I'm curious to hear about that. What are your thoughts? This may be, simply, a disagreement. I believe we should act in our interests as nation. We should consult other powers (which we did with Iraq), but when it's American blood and dollars on the line as it always seems to be, we shouldn't be limited by third rate world powers either. What is it that we shouldn't be or should be doing?
I actually believe that if I was told what I wanted to hear, lets say that I can buy the compound I have been trying to synthesize for two months now, I wouldn't think twice before launching into an all out attempt at finding a place I can buy it from, even if the person was lying (even if I knew that they were, furthermore). We can always self delude, but not be delusional. I think they are quite capable of critical thought, but I honestly feel that when anyone is told what they want to hear intellect tends to take a walk. Its not delusion but a facet of human nature...So I am saying that they are human and are fallable, yes. And I still respect their opinions and whatnot. This is further not an indication that it didn't take thought to reach the conclusions they have reached, but that they are less likely to go back on that thought when/if someone outrightly supports it...
I think we are going to simply have to disagree on what the US should do internationally. I say our power can be used for the betterment of the human species (of course, as always, rationally defending our citizens first, and world citizens second, at least at this point). We are a member of an international community and we can serve the role of leader or follower. I think our history tends to give us a better perspective on leadership in all things, and this includes human rights issues, environmental policies etc etc...
The whole premise this thread was started on was sarcasm. It was just like a sign saying "Come In - Bash Bush... Again"
Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
It has been a gaggle of Bush haters tickling each others ears with "Bush lies, Bush is an idiot...", with the outnumbered SDW trying to point out that you are all working yourselves up into a frenzy, loosing all grasp on reasonableness.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
I just don't see how you can make a judgement call on something you *believe* will happen ten years down the line. What is done is done, but what we choose to do from here on out can only depend on what we know is true now (not what we suspect will be true ten years from now). Policy bashing aside, that is just common sense.
I actually used my response to NaplesX and SDW2001 to prove a point, at no time have I actually in real life refered to the president as an idiot. I have actually corrected people who have, even though I think his policies are idiotic and very misdirected. It is not beneficial to suspect someone of being stupid or evil. Just like Hitler wasn't evil, GW isn't stupid. You learn a lot more about the way a person thinks when you assume little to begin with. I personally think Bush puts more faith into the people around him than himself. I think he is a bad president because of that, and those directions in which this weakness has taken this country. I am not saying the president isn't leading this country or doesn't make up his mind in the end, but he just isn't open to the possibility that those who disagree might have points every once in a while. He has effectively shived everyone in the administration who disagrees with him (or someone very close to him) and that is a mark of someone who prefers not to synthesize ideas.
I don't think the supporters of Bush are idiots. I think they feel like they are hearing what they want to hear from him. He is our most commercial president and that is unfortunate for this nation.
I would request an apology from NaplesX and SDW2001 for their broad generalizations of my person, but I don't expect one. I am a liberal, perhaps even a super liberal, but I have to agree that the meaning of that means that I must keep my mind open to all things. I think both sides of this argument are wrong-headed in their respective ways...
Well, you're not one of the worst offenders. I respect what you're saying. though I do disagree with many things. I think the fact that Bush has surrounded himself with some experienced and brilliant people is a good thing. By contrast, Clinton and Gore were micromanagers (more so for the latter) who had more intelligence but a serious lack of judgement. As far as Bush supporters "hearing what they like", I still think you're dismissing the approx. 50 million supporters he has. They can't ALL be delusional, can they?
pfflam:
The information has turned out to be inaccurate. That simply doesn't mean we were lied to. There are just too many other possibilties. As an intelligent person (which I certainly think you are), you have to acknowledge them.
As for pre-emption, that's a policy dispute. I support that policy in the post 9/11 era. You apparently do not, and while I have my serious problems with your thinking, I can still respect your position, provided it's supportable and well thought out.
giant:
The fact is that the BS was easy to see through and I have no pity for those who allowed themselves to be fooled and still haven't learned from the mistake. How many times do they have to run into a wall before they realize what the doorway is for?
The more you post, the more you prove my point. The implication is that anyone who actually believed Saddam had WMD was complete. blind fool. I just don't see (ha) how that position is reasonable. John Kerry believed Saddam had WMD....so did Bill Clinton. Bush did, Blair did, Cheney did....even the CIA did, apparently. Either way, it appears they were wrong....but it certainly wasn't unreasonable to think they were right. If Bush lied, then so did every single Representative and Senator who voted for war. Do you believe that?
Originally posted by SDW2001
If Bush lied, then so did every single Representative and Senator who voted for war. Do you believe that?
Well, this might be a valid conclusion if you were to assume that every single Member of Congress who voted for war, was doing so based on the exact same raw intelligence that was presented to Bush.
The point is, there is ample evidence suggesting that the Administration misled the nation and the world, by not presenting a complete and accurate representation of the available intelligence.
At best, they are guilty of cherry-picking the evidence presented to suit their pre-determined conclusions (something that I seem to see here quite often
Originally posted by NaplesX
So it appears that either you are unwilling to put your current opinion to the test of time or you are so biased that you do not want to give GWB any benefit of the doubt.
I really don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Anyone. I like to think on my own.
If you use that line of logic, we would all have to assume that you just went and married the first person you met and had feeling for, and totally ignored any hints to future problem. I hope not.
Ah there is one little thing you tried to slip in there that isn't so obvious. Hints of future problems. That is the key. If there were hints, I would know them. There are no hints that Bush's experiment (mind you this is an experiment on real people) will actually produce the results you indicate in ten years. No hints at all...
You logic is week, and defies common sense. Well, at least what I call common sense, anyway. I could be the exception to the rule, though.
No my logic is quite rigorously strong. Common sense isn't inherently logical. Some of it, like making judgements on what you know now and not what you suspect you will know in the future, is inherently logical. You probably are the exception...
Originally posted by SDW2001
The implication is that anyone who actually believed Saddam had WMD was complete. blind fool.
No, no, no.
Anyone who uncritically ate up the propaganda was a fool, and those that haven't learned from it are complete blind fools.
But you almost had it right.
If Bush lied, then so did every single Representative and Senator who voted for war. Do you believe that?
I think some lied, some were blind like you, some went along with the crowd and others were duped by bad info:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121803A.shtml
Originally posted by NaplesX
You need to improve your english comprehension, sir or madam.
I did not call you anything or imply what you now are replying to.
Here's what you wrote:
"The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements are even Americans. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day."
Take a good, hard look at what you've just said there before you go accusing me of misreading you.
wouldn't you like to be a terrorist too?
Be a terrorist, Drink Dr. Bushie.
We're used to this sorta BS. If you have lost any respect for Bush that you may have had at one time and think he needs to go... and that he couldn't do the right thing if it was staring him in the face...
You're a terrorist.
Joining the NEA, ACLU, Moveon.org, the whole democratic party, Kerry, Max Cleland...
Keep in mind NaplesX less that 50% of the country think bush is doing a good job... are they all terrorists too?
We don't criticize Bush for attacking the terrorists... we criticize him for NOT going after the terrorosts.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Well, this might be a valid conclusion if you were to assume that every single Member of Congress who voted for war, was doing so based on the exact same raw intelligence that was presented to Bush.
The point is, there is ample evidence suggesting that the Administration misled the nation and the world, by not presenting a complete and accurate representation of the available intelligence.
At best, they are guilty of cherry-picking the evidence presented to suit their pre-determined conclusions (something that I seem to see here quite often
Well....the point is that Congress apparently saw enough to vote for force (or those who voted "yes" anyway). Now, if you're suggesting the intelligence was falsified, that's different. Do you think that?
billy:
I don't think the 50 million americans who wholeheartedly support Bush are delusional, I just think that what they want to hear and see done isn't particularly in line with what a responsible world power should do. I take an internationalist perspective on what should be done in the US. Think globally act locally, yadda yadda yadda.
"Hearing what they want" can be called delusional. Now we're playing semantics games. You're basically saying that anyone who supports Bush is naive and incapable of critical analysis.
As for what a world power should do, I'm curious to hear about that. What are your thoughts? This may be, simply, a disagreement. I believe we should act in our interests as nation. We should consult other powers (which we did with Iraq), but when it's American blood and dollars on the line as it always seems to be, we shouldn't be limited by third rate world powers either. What is it that we shouldn't be or should be doing?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I'm a terrorist, your a terrorist...
wouldn't you like to be a terrorist too?
Be a terrorist, Drink Dr. Bushie.
We're used to this sorta BS. If you have lost any respect for Bush that you may have had at one time and think he needs to go... and that he couldn't do the right thing if it was staring him in the face...
You're a terrorist.
Joining the NEA, ACLU, Moveon.org, the whole democratic party, Kerry, Max Cleland...
Keep in mind NaplesX less that 50% of the country think bush is doing a good job... are they all terrorists too?
We don't criticize Bush for attacking the terrorists... we criticize him for NOT going after the terrorosts.
Give it a rest. He didn't actually call anyone a terrorist. Relax.
What is your last statement about? What's your solution?
Originally posted by midwinter
Here's what you wrote:
"The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements are even Americans. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day."
Take a good, hard look at what you've just said there before you go accusing me of misreading you.
Are you psychic or clairvoyant? I know what I wrote and what I meant. I will however rephrase to clarify.
Original
The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements are even Americans. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day.
Rephrased
The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements consider themselves Americans. The hateful talk does convince me. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day.
I am not sure that is stated any better, but that was the thought behind the statement.
But once again, I did not call you anything or imply anything except the hateful speech could easily be confused with similar statements made by other groups. that's all.
It was an analysis of the speech and not you personally.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I wonder if those making such statements consider themselves Americans.
If you seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government, then you embody the greatest threat to the US.
What we have here is political hate speech. Some of it borders on treason, even. It's apparently not enough to say "I disagree with the President because of X, Y and Z". Honestly, the polls don't surprise me at this point....given the total assault Bush has endured over the past two months.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Rank and file Democrats are comparing Bush to Hitler.
And rank and file Republicans are comparing various Democrats, including Kerry, to Hitler.
So where's the disparity?
Originally posted by giant
If you seek to limit the criticism of the failures of my government, then you embody the greatest threat to the US.
Ok, cool.
I am officially public enemy number 1. Am I above or below UBL?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well....the point is that Congress apparently saw enough to vote for force (or those who voted "yes" anyway). Now, if you're suggesting the intelligence was falsified, that's different.
Do you think that?
"Falsified" implies that the intelligence was made up out of thin air. Not that I'd put it past BushCo, but I've seen nothing to suggest that. "Misrepresented" is more in line with my take on this.
I think that it's more a matter of deliberately ignoring certain elements of available intelligence (that did not support Bush's WoMD claims), and misrepresenting the reliability of the intelligence used to support the claim that WoMD's existed and were ready (or nearly ready) to be used.
This is what I think:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
At best, they are guilty of cherry-picking the evidence presented to suit their pre-determined conclusions, and at worst they are guilty of purposefully slanting or "sexing up" the information to deliberately deceive Congress, the UN, and the American voting public into supporting the unprecedented act of preemptive invasion.
I "think" I was pretty clear about it the first time, but I am happy to restate and elaborate 4 ya...
Furthermore, the "cherry-picking" characteristics of the Bush Administration have been discussed elsewhere, including here:
Scientist (including 20 Nobel Laureates) say BUSH admin distorting science
Originally posted by SDW2001
"Hearing what they want" can be called delusional. Now we're playing semantics games. You're basically saying that anyone who supports Bush is naive and incapable of critical analysis.
As for what a world power should do, I'm curious to hear about that. What are your thoughts? This may be, simply, a disagreement. I believe we should act in our interests as nation. We should consult other powers (which we did with Iraq), but when it's American blood and dollars on the line as it always seems to be, we shouldn't be limited by third rate world powers either. What is it that we shouldn't be or should be doing?
I actually believe that if I was told what I wanted to hear, lets say that I can buy the compound I have been trying to synthesize for two months now, I wouldn't think twice before launching into an all out attempt at finding a place I can buy it from, even if the person was lying (even if I knew that they were, furthermore). We can always self delude, but not be delusional. I think they are quite capable of critical thought, but I honestly feel that when anyone is told what they want to hear intellect tends to take a walk. Its not delusion but a facet of human nature...So I am saying that they are human and are fallable, yes. And I still respect their opinions and whatnot. This is further not an indication that it didn't take thought to reach the conclusions they have reached, but that they are less likely to go back on that thought when/if someone outrightly supports it...
I think we are going to simply have to disagree on what the US should do internationally. I say our power can be used for the betterment of the human species (of course, as always, rationally defending our citizens first, and world citizens second, at least at this point). We are a member of an international community and we can serve the role of leader or follower. I think our history tends to give us a better perspective on leadership in all things, and this includes human rights issues, environmental policies etc etc...
Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
It has been a gaggle of Bush haters tickling each others ears with "Bush lies, Bush is an idiot...", with the outnumbered SDW trying to point out that you are all working yourselves up into a frenzy, loosing all grasp on reasonableness.
It is very ... well incestuous.