President George W. Bush: Saint or Sinner?

Mr44 -

Good points, but I am not suggesting that Bush lied, and I defended him against the Hitler comparisons.

The point is, that Bush is the guy in charge. To pass it off to subordinates is just passing the buck. This may not be the best comparison, but I remember talking with people about how Gore ran a bad campaign, its all his staff's fault, etc. I don't buy that. Gore is the one who was in charge who calls the shots. Same with Bush. So if Bush blames Tenet, then Tenet blames his operatives, and so on and so forth...no one will be held accountable.

And I don't buy the 'erred on the side of caution'. Too many people have died to justify it by 'erring on the side of caution'.

For arguments sake, lets say some of the info was inaccurate. Lets also say some of it was indeed correct. Could Bush go on TV and say 'Some of are information was inaccurate, some was correct. I am fully investigating what went wrong and why. What is clear is that Saddam was a threat, and here's why [insert explanation here]'

There is no doubt that intelligence is not perfect. But that in and of itself is not an excuse to go to war.

 

Bubba, David Kay said that the trailers weren't for weapons of mass destruction. He was the administration's man on the ground. He firmly believed before the war that Iraq had WMD.

Now who am I going to trust: the man on the ground who went in believing one thing and came out believing another, all the while having access to all the intel that the administration has, or should I believe the administration, who blantently contradicts their own man on the ground in order to save face?

 

There is no doubt that intelligence is not perfect. But that in and of itself is not an excuse to go to war.


Especially when we know that countries such as Pakistan have nuclear weapons and have links with Al Qaeda, along with Syria and Iran.

If we were really afraid of WMD and terrorists, thats who we would have taken out.

 

Intelligence is the key to everything. The greatest and most effective way to fight terrorism is by having a large and effective way to gather information. Bush so far has completely failed in that regard.

 

How so?

Such a statement completely mischaracterizes how intelligence is collected.

First of all, the Middle East has been traditionally hard for any intelligence service to break into, and almost impossible for western powers specifically.

There are many reasons for this, including the difficulty of the language/cultural difference, but the main reason was the nature of organizations.

For instance, the Soviets were comparitively easy, because they could be bribed. Communism, capitalism still share the same roots. A westerner could also easily blend into the environment.

Islamist groups are dedicated to a cause. There is no reason for outsiders to gain inclusion in such groups.

Secondly, Iraq was what is known as a closed intelligence source (I think the Brits/Aussies use "hostile entity," but both mean the same)

North Korea is another example of a closed source.

How do you suppose we get valid intelligence from these places?

You can't simply walk right in and ask.

An American in Iraq, or NK would be simply detained on sight at best, or simply shot.

Satellite imagery can tell you alot, but the conclusion is still based on the most informed guess of the image analyst.

I agree completely with DS77's statement that Bush is the leader, and the "buck stops with him." That's simply the job of the President.

However, that is a political issue, not a operative issue.

To claim that Bush has completely failed in intelligence gathering ability shows a complete lack of understanding about the nature of the intelligence services.

 

Kuna:

Look, I realize that these kind of comparisons aren't valid because there's no direct link between Bush and Hitler. All I'm saying is that Bush has done many bad (from my POV) things, and it happens that some of those bad things were done by Hitler too. And these are major policy decisions (i.e. war, civil liberties), not just little things that any political leader can do.

Not only did FDR bring the U.S. into war against Germany and Italy when only Japan attacked us, he had U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestery interred. If you want to make comparisons between Bush and other world leaders, why are you jumping over FDR and going straight to the Fuhrer?

The emotional reaction.


I see your point about Iraq defying UN resolutions, but it was still the USA that started the war. The USA was the one that invaded Iraq. Okay, sure, Iraq may have "provoked" the war by eluding the resolutions and what not, but it was still the USA that resorted to violence first.

The resolutions were the result of the cease fire between Iraq and the allied forces back in the early 90's. The cease fire was from the first Gulf War, which was started when Iraq invaded Kuwait.


You may call it an act of "cowardice" on the UN's part, but I don't see the USA's motives as any more honorable than that of the dissenting UN members. And quite frankly, I tire of hearing people blast the UN as "cowardly" (the international version of the anti-dove insult "unpatriotic", apparently) for disagreeing with us on this issue.

First, it's incredibly niave to think that, after over a decade of doing nothing, the UN would suddenly release its military might and enforce its own resolutions.

Second, I don't care if you tire of hearing the UN being called cowardly SINCE YOU PERSIST IN COMPARING BUSH TO HITLER.

What, pointing out that the UN is incapable of enforcing its own resolutions is offensive, but comparing the Bush Administration to the Nazi regime isn't?

Moving on...


Ender:

Bubba, may I ask; why do you believe Bush is/was telling the truth so absolutely, and would you openly and honestly have believed Clinton too?

I don't believe Bush absolutely, and I think you're creating a false dilemma. There is a middle ground between absolute trust and absolute distrust, and I for one am trying to find that ground by giving the president the benefit of the doubt until I have damn good reason to do otherwise.

I think y'all are entirely too eager to jump the gun and declare that Bush lied, that Iraq is a failure, etc., etc. and declare that it's so obvious that you question whether a person can "seriously" disagree with you.

And if you want to talk about absolute trust or distrust, I will remind you that you were questioning the issue of WMD's as early as April, 2003:

"And I still stand by my assertion that this war had everything to do with post-9/11 [percieved] insecurities and sending a message of resolve and might. And the end result - getting rid of the Ba'ath regime - may have been great but I feel that I can be both happy with the outcome and wary of the motives."

Why do you distrust Bush so absolutely?


Flyer:

Now who am I going to trust: the man on the ground who went in believing one thing and came out believing another, all the while having access to all the intel that the administration has, or should I believe the administration, who blantently contradicts their own man on the ground in order to save face?

"In order to save face."

Here, you're attributing motive, aren't you? I ask you, how do you know that saving face is the Administration's motive?

You don't, you just assume it, because it fits your mental picture of the Administration. You're treating your theories about their motives as fact.

 

Crix:

Intelligence is the key to everything. The greatest and most effective way to fight terrorism is by having a large and effective way to gather information. Bush so far has completely failed in that regard.

One way the government can improve its intelligence operations is by sharing information. When Bush authorized that (part of the Patriot Act, I believe), people started screeching about Bush imposing a police state.

Consider what this member wrote, in his paranoia:

I'll give you that people haven't really heard much about it in the way of abuse and all that. There's a reason.

Nobody knows about it.

Now, let's suppose that anonymous forum member also complained about the state of intelligence gathering, as you do here.

That seems to be an odd position, to criticize the Bush Administration for doing so much that the Constitution is in jeapordy but also doing so little that we're no safer from terrorism.

In fact, if someone did simultaneously hold both positions, I would begin to suspect that the individual couldn't be pleased, that he would criticize the Administration regardless of what they did.

 

Here, you're attributing motive, aren't you? I ask you, how do you know that saving face is the Administration's motive?

You're right, I shouldn't have ascribed a motive, but I will repeat the question:

Who should I trust: David Kay or the Bush administration?

 

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Currently, they are saying pretty much the same thing.

 

Bush and Cheney are saying that they have found weapons programs and Cheney even claimed the trailers were part of a WMD program.

Kay said there were no weapons in Iraq before the war and that intel mislead them and the CIA owes the administration an apology.

There is a very large disconnect here.

 

Plus Powell's comments, Jediflyer...

E_S

 

How could I forget Powell [face_shocked]

Thanks, Ender Sai. Powell is on Kay's side also.

 

Mr44:
I don't think that is accurate. Saddam's capture was a moral victory. It's not one of those "if/than" situations. Guerilla attacks have switched focus away from US troops, however, this has to do with battlefield hardening, rather than any specific event.

Well, the hope was that capturing Saddam will weaken the Iraqi resistance. While I understand that such a change can't happen overnight, I don't think that the attacks have exactly dried up in the days following the capture.

This is another generalization. The manhunt was conducted by Special Operations Forces, not the conventional occupying units. The RRF was always organized for this purpose. Regular units were not running around looking for the wanted list. The manpower drain on Saddam was minimal.

Okay, I was wrong on this one. But I still wonder at just what was Bush's motives behind nabbing Saddam...

...just wondering, that's all.

Bubba_the_Genius:
Not only did FDR bring the U.S. into war against Germany and Italy when only Japan attacked us, he had U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestery interred. If you want to make comparisons between Bush and other world leaders, why are you jumping over FDR and going straight to the Fuhrer?

The emotional reaction.

Okay, Bush can be compared in certain aspects to Hitler and Roosevelt.

The resolutions were the result of the cease fire between Iraq and the allied forces back in the early 90's. The cease fire was from the first Gulf War, which was started when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Yes...but, the United States was the one who renewed military action.

We're going in circles, and we can argue all day about this. And I have completely forgotten why we're talking about this in the first place. IMO, it's not very constructive.

First, it's incredibly niave to think that, after over a decade of doing nothing, the UN would suddenly release its military might and enforce its own resolutions.

The UN was enforcing its resolutions by sending inspectors into Iraq. Granted, it was spurred by the USA and the inspections themselves were questionable, but it's not like they were doing nothing.

Second, I don't care if you tire of hearing the UN being called cowardly SINCE YOU PERSIST IN COMPARING BUSH TO HITLER.

Do I?

Here's what I said in my last post:

Look, I realize that these kind of comparisons aren't valid because there's no direct link between Bush and Hitler.

After disavowing a solid link between Bush and Hitler, I still get criticized for it.

 

JF, I still don't know where you are drawing your conclusions from.

Why does it have to be Kay vs the administration?

(and don't think we can't see you, E_S, hiding behind the fire, holding a large can of petrol. )

How about we examine some of Kay's prior briefings on Iraqi WMD's:

OCT2003

"Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

We need to recall that in the 1991-2003 period the intelligence community and the UN/IAEA inspectors had to draw conclusions as to the status of Iraq's WMD program in the face of incomplete, and often false, data supplied by Iraq or data collected either by UN/IAEA inspectors operating within the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed or by national intelligence collection systems with their own inherent limitations.

The result was that our understanding of the status of Iraq's WMD program was always bounded by large uncertainties and had to be heavily caveated.

With the regime of Saddam Husayn at an end, ISG has the opportunity for the first time of drawing together all the evidence that can still be found in Iraq -- much evidence is irretrievably lost -"

What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002

How about the same David Kay who provided this:

NOSMOKINHGUN

"When it comes to the U.N. weapons inspection in Iraq, looking for a smoking gun is a fool's mission.

That was true 11 years ago when I led the inspections there. It is no less true today -- even after the seemingly important discovery on Thursday of a dozen empty short-range missile warheads left over from the 1980s.

The only job the inspectors can expect to accomplish is confirming whether Iraq has voluntarily disarmed. That is not a task that need take months more. And last week's cache is irrelevant in answering that question, regardless of the U.N.'s final determination. That's because the answer is already clear: Iraqi is in breach of U.N. demands that it dismantle its weapons of mass destruction."

And of course, this current one where Kay says no weapons were found.
HERE

"Kay said his predictions were not "coming back to haunt me in the sense that I am embarrassed. They are coming back to haunt me in the sense of 'Why could we all be so wrong?"'

Kay reiterated his conclusion that Saddam had "a large number of WMD program-related activities." And, he said, Iraq's leaders had intended to continue those activities."

All Kay has said is what everyone thought Iraq had, it may turn out not to have.

But that observation was still made from hindsight.

Nowhere is there any suggestion that the administration purposely engaged in deception.

 

Powell is on Kay's side also.

Jediflyer, since you apparently missed it the first time, my insightful analysis of that claim:

It seems to me that the article you linked, from that paragon of fairness, the BBC, is trying to assert more than it can.

"He says Mr Powell's language was very different from that of Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said just two days ago that it was too early to pass judgement on whether weapons of mass destruction existed."

Is it?

Powell said, "The answer to that question is, we don't know yet."

That seems to be quite in line with it being too early to pass judgment.

It looks like, to me at least, that the BBC is attempting to attach to Powell the same attitude that Kay has -- the positive belief that there were no WMD's -- but the only actual quote they provide doesn't justify that attempt.

Cheney also said it's too early to pass judgment. Does that mean that Cheney's also on Kay's side, or would that undermine your attempt to paint Cheney as an unreasonable, warmongering liar?


Kuna:

Here's what I said in my last post:

Look, I realize that these kind of comparisons aren't valid because there's no direct link between Bush and Hitler.

After disavowing a solid link between Bush and Hitler, I still get criticized for it.

Look at what you said in context:

"Look, I realize that these kind of comparisons aren't valid because there's no direct link between Bush and Hitler. All I'm saying is that Bush has done many bad (from my POV) things, and it happens that some of those bad things were done by Hitler too. And these are major policy decisions (i.e. war, civil liberties), not just little things that any political leader can do."

You disavowed "a solid link" but still said that it "just happens" that Hitler and Bush have made similar policy decisions.

I'm glad to see you admit that the comparisons are invalid, but you're still making the comparisons.

 

One more thing, Kuna on your assertion that Iraq is a quagmire. Keep in mind the timeline of events:

January, 2002: Bush calls Iraq part of the "axis of evil," starting the so-called rush to war.

March, 2003: the war in Iraq begins.

January, 2004: Kuna is among those who call Iraq a quagmire.


It strikes me as odd that 14 months qualifies as a rush to war and 10 months qualifies as a quagmire.

 

Forgive the interruption. George W Bush, saint or sinner?

The man hasn't the wit or the imagination to be either.

In more general terms, all powerful nations commit acts of unscrupulous evil and deception. The US is no exception. Most powerful nations also do a little good here and there. Again, the US is no exception. George W, though, hasn't the ability to orchestrate anything much, for good or bad - for that he looks to others

 

and don't think we can't see you, E_S, hiding behind the fire, holding a large can of petrol



//runs

E_S

 

One way the government can improve its intelligence operations is by sharing information. When Bush authorized that (part of the Patriot Act, I believe), people started screeching about Bush imposing a police state....In fact, if someone did simultaneously hold both positions, I would begin to suspect that the individual couldn't be pleased, that he would criticize the Administration regardless of what they did.


You see Bubba,you missed the entire point. You have to increase your intelligence capabilities without completely contradicting what America stands for and giving full respect to the Bill of Rights, Constitution etc.

There is a thread dedicated to this argument, maybe you should visit it sometime.

 

You have to increase your intelligence capabilities without completely contradicting what America stands for and giving full respect to the Bill of Rights, Constitution etc.

I thought we settled this, especially since you couldn't even provide actual examples of what you are describing..

 

http://www.rense.com/general48/repe.htm

George W. Bush Resume
For Re-Election
2-3-4


President of the United States
The White House, USA

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

COLLEGE: I graduated from Yale University. I was a cheerleader. I also graduated from Harvard with "C" averages in both schools.


LAW ENFORCEMENT: I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.


MILITARY: I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected Governor of Texas.


ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR:
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the Governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury, totaling over a trillion dollars.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year period.

After taking-off the entire month of August, 2001, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

In my State Of The Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. president.

In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend
continues every month.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I appointed more convicted criminals to the administration than any president in U.S. history.

I set the record for least number of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active military personnel

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people) shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I've broken more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest in history.My
"poorest million

 

Great list. Anyways, Bubba, I'm pretty sure Germany declared war on America in WWII.

 

Bubba_the_Genius:
Look at what you said in context:

"Look, I realize that these kind of comparisons aren't valid because there's no direct link between Bush and Hitler. All I'm saying is that Bush has done many bad (from my POV) things, and it happens that some of those bad things were done by Hitler too. And these are major policy decisions (i.e. war, civil liberties), not just little things that any political leader can do."

You disavowed "a solid link" but still said that it "just happens" that Hitler and Bush have made similar policy decisions.

I'm glad to see you admit that the comparisons are invalid, but you're still making the comparisons.

Here's what I'm saying: In certain areas (i.e. foreign policy) President Bush is doing a repeat of what Emperor Hitler did. These actions constitute what is used to demonize Hitler, yet Bush has largely avoided large-scale condemnation, at least among half of this country. He has done so by using pretenses that are, at best, misleading, if not outright untrue, as well as by wrapping himself and his cause in the U.S. flag. His confederates have also routinely criticized opponents as unpatriotic and weak on national defense, and one pro-Bush ad went so far as to imply that Democrats opposes bringing justice to al-Qaeda. The least President Bush could've done was to denounce these attacks - and AFAIK he has not done so.

The reason why I was discussing Hitler vs. Bush is because it was the relevant topic - Hitler, not FDR, was used in Moveon.org's ad.

Did FDR do some of the same things that Hitler has been critized for? You bet he did. But the difference is that FDR is dead, and has been dead for almost 60 years, whereas Bush is not only alive and well but seeking to be president for four more years.

IMO, we have to look at what Bush has done, and ask ourselves: If we criticize Hitler for doing such-and-such, and Bush has done those same things, why don't we criticize Bush? Should we criticize Bush?

I do not mean to say that Bush is deliberately copying Hitler. I never attack a person; I attack the person's actions. IMO, Bush seems to be a pretty nice fellow. But I look at what he's done in office and I say to him, no hard feelings but you ought to leave the White House, for the good of the country.

One more thing, Kuna on your assertion that Iraq is a quagmire. Keep in mind the timeline of events:

January, 2002: Bush calls Iraq part of the "axis of evil," starting the so-called rush to war.

March, 2003: the war in Iraq begins.

January, 2004: Kuna is among those who call Iraq a quagmire.


It strikes me as odd that 14 months qualifies as a rush to war and 10 months qualifies as a quagmire.

I never asserted that the situation in Iraq was a "quagmire".

What I was saying was that the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein and the capture of Saddam Hussein does not appear to have a lasting impact on the Iraqi resistasnce, especially considering that much of the opposition in Iraq consists of al-Qaeda fighters, and that al-Qaeda's support has probably received a major boost due to the USA's invasion of Iraq.

 

Oh for Gods sake the_Gatherer

That list is older and more fallacy filled then anything I can remember. I could go through and debunk the points one by one, but you wouldnt care anyway and its not worth the time.

Crappy Lists Full of Straw Men dont quallify as an argument.

-Edit-

Oh waiT! I dont have to refute it! Somebody did it for me!

http://www.crossbearer.com/resume/The_Truth.pdf

OWNED

 

I am more than happy to check out your list that debunks my list!

Oh, by the way, it is The Gatherer, NOT The_Gatherer... I came a long time before the forced hyphenation!