posted
Kosovo (for instance) was in Europe's backyard.
People don't like bad stuff happening in their backyards, and we're certainly no exception.
Regarding some geopolitical considerations, it was a chance to increase western (or we can say democratic, in keeping with the language of Bush) influence over a region strongly influenced by Russia, which while at its most democratic ever was still a very different, and opposing, place. Even neglecting Russia, the area was/is unstable, and the increasing western influence has done considerable good for stability, which is good for Europe and neighbors.
Its sort of like how we were willing to make a massive loan to Mexico that we wouldn't even have considered for most (further away) countries, that saved their economy.
As for Iraq, there are several factors.
1) Iraq's genocidal behaviors since the first gulf war are tiny scale compared to even the stuff in Kosovo, which was on a small scale compared to genocide in many places in the world; to suggest Iraq somehow deserves special attention because of them is to blind one's self to what's happening all over.
2) Iraq is not in a region where there are nukes reasonably suspected to be floating about; they were at best possibly moving towards maybe acquiring one, and our evidence for even that was hideously flawed (and what's more, we had people who could prove it that the administration refused to listen to).
3) Iraq, while of nasty temperament, just wasn't much of a threat. It didn't put any significant monies into terrorism, it didn't have a very big army, it was under close watch from the previous gulf war, it didn't even control all of the technical nation, et cetera. It was a vicious gnat, not even a horsefly or a wasp.
Rwanda's a much better thing to wonder about, because from the viewpoint of a nation there were essentially no reasons to hurry into Iraq (go in at some point, probably, but there was no reason not to spend time making sure one did it right).
A lot if it no doubt is backyard syndrome. Iraq is much closer to mind even than Rwanda. Another part is a lost cause attitude -- people have gone into countries with problems such as this before, and then when they inevitably left the same problems have returned. The world has not developed an effective strategy for dealing with genocide of the sort one finds in Rwanda. There was also that it came to a head soon after Bosnia; the world had directed its attention to Bosnia, and from military, political, and public relations viewpoints there are only so many places that forceful action may be taken. Notice how our movement into Iraq has left Afghanistan to descend into a worse state overall than it was in before we arrived, because we have moved out the troops, because we have stopped putting significant political support behind the government, and because people in the US just plain aren't thinking much about it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Iraq, while of nasty temperament, just wasn't much of a threat. It didn't put any significant monies into terrorism, it didn't have a very big army, it was under close watch from the previous gulf war, it didn't even control all of the technical nation, et cetera. It was a vicious gnat, not even a horsefly or a wasp.
Hmm-- I think that Iraq's neighbors would disagree vehemenently with this point.
Define 'significant monies.'
We know that Sadaam was paying the families of suicide bombers. We know he had plans to attack Israel. We know that the governments bordering him considered him rabid.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have any evidence he had current plans (not just desires) to attack Israel?
Re: the suicide bombers thing, money to the families isn't particularly meaningful (and it wasn't much money, at that). What drives the suicide bombing is the organizations behind it, and those rely on large sums of money on a scale Saddam didn't even have to throw around (given his expenditures on other things); suicide bombing is supported by massive business ventures in countries that are still on relatively good terms with the US. Saddam's contributions were penny-ante as far as we have any evidence of whatsoever.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jacare -- when the examples of scumbaggity come from that persons own collection of papers, its much easier to believe they're not creations of the press
Like I said, sometimes they really are scumbags.
In all seriousness, I think one of the major problems is that folks who have the ambition, drive, funding, connections etc. to get elected to high office are also the folks most likely to have some serious scumbaggery buried in their past somewhere.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: We didn't know what Iraq had done with their WMD program, but there were hints that it was still ongoing. We relied on faulty evidence to make a case for invasion-- but only found out it was faulty after the war ended. If you can show, somehow that Bush knew it was faulty beforehand, you have a case.
Please keep in mind that by international standards, the UN should have invaded LONG before 2002, as Iraq constantly defied treaty standards.
I don't think I like the rationale this implies. The thought process as follows: Iraq gets rid of WMDs, UN inspectors go in, we think they start to develop more, they kick inspectors out, they claim they have no weapons, we think they do, so we invade to find them, really doesn't work for me. Especially when after we invaded we found none there. Basically this amounts to
"Frank called you a jerk, Tim" "Really? We'll I'll beat the crap out of him." ::Tim beats the crap out of Frank and then finds out that he really didn't call him a jerk:: "Well, close enough."
Why should we have invaded at all if they had no WMDs? Sooner, later, it's all a moot point since they haven't had any since the end of the Gulf War. And blaming the UN for this is such crap. The UN should have fixed it, yeah right, the UN had inspectors in there forever, and they got rid of TONS of explosives and WMDs, then Bush gave them a month to find more, and claimed they weren't working, that Saddam was decieving them, and invaded. But after a month when we hadn't found any, he claimed he needed time. The bottom line is we aren't going to find anything, and there may never have been anything to find in the first place. And for that we owe the world an apology.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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.
quote: Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
quote: Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
quote: And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
quote: The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
These quotes come from a speech given by President, and while it certainly sounds like President Bush could be the deliverer of these words, this speech was given on December 16, 1998 by Bill Clinton. So, if any of you want to really try Bush for treason, I hope you're just as willing to do the same to Clinton.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luckily I don't want to try Bush for treason, I merely think he's a man who has created an administration which sees in the pursuit of political goals the justification of vast abrogations of rights, responsibilities, just policies, and good government.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: In all seriousness, I think one of the major problems is that folks who have the ambition, drive, funding, connections etc. to get elected to high office are also the folks most likely to have some serious scumbaggery buried in their past somewhere.
posted
You kinda skipped over the part where inspectors were let back in the country and were going about their business, and then a lot of saber-rattling and UN ultimatums from Mr. Bush.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not exactly sure what you're responding to, but I only posted what Clinton said, not what I would have liked for him to say. I also only took excerts from that one speech although I'm sure he spoke favorably on Iraq intervention other times as well. The point is Clinton believed Saddam had weapons and believed that Saddam would use those weapons when given a chance. He also ordered a military operation and I personally believe that he didn't order an invasion not because he felt it was innapropriate, but because Clinton never was willing to commit ground forces in substantial numbers no matter what the situation. He was never even willing to use overwhelming force where American soldiers were already deployed like in Somalia and in Kosovo.
Also from the same speech:
quote: Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability...
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down...
The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning...
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection...
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
So as you can see both Clinton and Bush concluded that letting Saddam toy with the inspectors was a sham and the only difference between their approaches was the level of force they were willing to commit to rectify their situations.
posted
It should be noted that at that time the inspectors were in concurrence that Iraq was preventing them from being effective.
When Bush decided to go into Iraq, the inspectors were not in concurrence on that issue.
Also, I find your remark about overwhelming force amusing as, overwhelming or not, Clinton's record on the results of combat he chose to involve the US in is excellent.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the inspectors have Saddam a "B-." What the hell is that? Cooperating to a degree that we as inspectors don't think you should invade, but not enough that we can garauntee they don't have weapons? Hans Blix also seemed to roll a dice everyday to determine his report. One day it would be, "Saddam is great, I love Saddam!" The next it would be, "We are very disappointed that we were delayed half an hour before we could search a possible site." Obviously those quotes are made up, but he did go back and forth in a similar fashion. I'm also unaware of anyone making the claim that Saddam got rid of the weapons between 1998 and 2002.
Edit: His record when you count Somalia and Iraq aren't so good. Somalia left a country in the most pristine form of anarchy the modern day world has seen and Iraq was left completely unresolved. Furthermore, Clinton was uninvolved in Rwanda which speaks for itself.
posted
It's all well and good to try and alleviate Bush's guilt by saying that Clinton felt the same way about Saddam. That doesn't wash with me, especially since Clinton bombed, he didn't invade, so obviously Clinton never felt the threat was big enough, and Clinton was by far better versed in international affairs than Bush.
Edit: Bush is uninvolved in Darfur, what's your point?
posted
The difference between Bush and Clinton is that the latter refused to take decisive action. How is leaving a mess for your successor more moral than cleaning up the mess?
While I agree we should be involved in Dafur there are key differences. The first is the most obvious, we are currently involved in a conflict that consuming a lot of our military forces for better or worse. Another is that no one has managed to agree that genocide is occurring in Sudan. Currently there are two side fighting each other. While I believe one side is essentially just defending itself, there are those who believe that it is a mutual war. Finally, progress is being made in the negotiations between the two sides. The point however, is that Clinton's military is NOT exceptional. If one is to condemn Bush, then one must condemn Clinton as well and in the same fashion.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't take two events like that and pull them out of their surrounding circumstances in order to declare them equal. The fact remains that Bush took this country to war, not took this country to cruise missile launch. That's like saying theft is the same crime as murder. Severity does matter, and there is a huge difference between declaring war and invading, and bombing specific targets. It sounds to me like are you just trying to defend Bush by throwing Clinton in everyone's faces.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not arguing the Iraq war again, I've already done it on Hatrack and IRL too many times to count. All I'm saying is if you're going to attack Bush don't leave Clinton blameless with a halo.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it makes you feel better you can paint him any way you want, it doesn't change the current state of affairs. Personally I'd say leave Clinton out if it, bringing him up as some sort of in general defense of Bush, or just for the sake of smearing his name doesn't really help the situation we're in today, must be some sort of Republican thing, refusing to leave an issue alone.
posted
Uh, no. Clinton isn't the president now. Bush is. It's about Bush now. War is one of the worse horrors. People should not start war without a lot of forethought and planning and there really doesn't seem to have been much of that in this war.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am equally willing to crucify Bill Clinton and both George Bushes for their horrible mishandling of Iraq. My scorn is not reserved for Republicans by any means.
Edit: Nor is my scorn reserved for American presidents, or even Americans. I don't have much time for Jacques Chirac, either. He could have a cross next to George W.
posted
You say that George Bush lied intentionally with alterior motives in going to war. If so then you have to believe the same of Clinton and Kerry both of whom saw the same evidence and reports and came to the same conclusions. I don't think (most of) you are really willing to believe that. For those of you who say you love McCain even though he's a GOP member, remember that just because he's a maverick doesn't mean he didn't suport the Iraq war as well. No matter how many times Kerry used McCain's or Paul Bremer's name, they both supported the president. At the very least, if Bush is guilty of any crimes regarding his decision to go to war, then Clinton is guilty of those same crimes even if you want to lower the numbers of people killed.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Just pointing out that what I think Bush's administration lied about was not stated by Clinton or Kerry.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and please remember that Kerry supported attacking Iraq as well, but in a different context. Similarly, merely that McCain supported the war, and even W over Kerry, does not mean McCain would not have prosecuted the war in a significantly different fashion. In particular, given his own experience as a POW, I rather hope he'd have had better moral sensibilities when it came to them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: All I'm saying is if you're going to attack Bush don't leave Clinton blameless with a halo.
Out of interest, who's doing that? More importantly, how much do we have to attack Clinton before you'll accept that we've earned the right to criticize Bush?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course you have the "right" to criticize Bush, but the method you're going about it is absurd.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would just like to point out that my original post was not intended as a "when did you stop beating your wife" thing. I freely admit my bias against GWB. I haven't loathed a president this much since Reagan and Nixon, and trying to put that loathing aside to give the man the benefit of the doubt on various issues, I have a very difficult time.
I also understand that much of what some might brush off as "part of the job," I see as confirming my worst fears about Bush's shortcomings as a person, not just as a leader.
Having said all that -- repeatedly, and not just here -- I am struck by statements from supporters and by the President himself that point to some perception of the moral justification of his actions and even his ascent into the job of President. And yet, I look at certain aspects of his record, and the record of his chosen advisors and just don't see it oozing moral superiority.
I don't think my view of morality or hard work being that different from the normal person. And thus, I am sincerely mystified by the claim that he is characterized as a particularly hard working and unusually upright, moral man.
I agree that many, probably most, of our presidents have had shortcomings in the morals department.
I also don't recall many of them running on, and later maintaining, a reputation for upright behavior. And none in my experience has made such an issue of it, or had his supporters hold him up as a paragon of virtue to the extent that GWB has.
So...that's where my question arose from. Not as a snarky, sour grapes kind of thing, but a sincere question of "what is it I'm missing" about the man? Or, conversely, about my view of morality and hard work.
I see him taking shortcuts and think "there he goes again!" I see him (and his cabinet members) acting in ways (or condoning behavior) that I find morally reprehensible and think "where's do they get off claiming the high road?"
Seriously. Can you just say "I'm a moral man" and have the people believe it -- as long as they are of your political party and feeling good about winning?
Or is there a deeper sense in which GWB is truly acting in a moral fashion?
Is it okay to have ones education secretary be shown unequivocally to have hidden evidence of the true drop-out rate in his school district while building a national program based on his much hyped "success?"
Is that really moral? Is that an exemplar of hard work?
Does the revelation that pre-execution clemency discussions lasted 30 minutes per prisoner, and that the memos were always slanted toward execution -- even to the point of leaving out well documented mitigating factors -- really moral? Is it an example of hard work in the public's best interest?
Does the statement that a narrow victory in an election now negates the need to investigate wrongdoing by members of the Administration indicate a person concerned with his reputation as a moral and just man? Is that showing a commitment to hard work?
That's what I'm getting at? How can people who claim to value morality and hard work in a leader truly look at GWB and say "yep, he's the one."
Are his supporters just chalking ALL of this stuff up to slander and jealousy by the opposition party?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really wonder what Farmgirl would say on this, but I doubt she'll post here.
While I voted for the man, (my vote was a protest against the status quo of my particular state) I think "enjoy" is a loaded word. I'd guess most of your "moral hardworking people" generally believe that most politicians state level and above are crooks of one stripe or another. The question isn't whether they "enjoy" him as a leader but whether they can hold their nose and stand his brand of sleaziness more than the other guys.
As for me, while I don't entirely support Bush's policies I do support most of his economic policies for what is needed in the country right now. Yes, he's deregulating stuff. But other administrations are going to come back along and re-regulate stuff later, it's always a sine curve on that front, and I think this part of it is as necessary as the later re-regulation.
One of the biggest positive results of this second Iraq war was unintended, but extremely good. The *consumer* has become acutely aware of the volatility of oil prices and as a result the demand for hybrid vehicles is now consumer-driven rather than goverment mandated. And the demand is currently overwhelming the supply and the car companies have realized they underestimated. (The tax breaks help, don't get me wrong, but the consumer has wised up IMO) I think we will be moving away gradually from oil dependence and the momentum is beginning to turn. Is that directly attributable to the president? Nope, but still one of the ancillary things that I think his policies are helping facilitate even if he may intend the opposite.
posted
Bob, leaving aside the pragmatic problems such as who counts as a "Bush supporter," you are assuming that each of these will be viewed as a a moral failing of the same magnitude as you view them. There are too many permutations to examine it all at once, and the deck is starting loaded because you've presented assumptions, and alternatives such as "slander and jealousy by the opposition party" which you clearly intend to dismiss.
In other words, even if your motives are pure, your presentation gives no reason for any Bush supporters to participate or think you would accept their explanation if they provided it.
posted
"Nope, but still one of the ancillary things that I think his policies are helping facilitate even if he may intend the opposite."
Anna, that seems like damning with very faint praise indeed: "While I can't come up with a list of things he's actually done that are good, some of his actions have had what I believe to be unintended good side-effects."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bob, leaving aside the pragmatic problems such as who counts as a "Bush supporter," you are assuming that each of these will be viewed as a a moral failing of the same magnitude as you view them.
I'm not making any such assumption.
I think you're splitting hairs. People who claim Bush is moral can answer my question. People who don't care if Bush is moral have something to say as well.
quote:you've presented assumptions, and alternatives such as "slander and jealousy by the opposition party" which you clearly intend to dismiss.
I've laid out my reasons for thinking Bush is NOT moral. Is the mere statement of that so terrible to contemplate that Bush supporters won't want to state their opinion?
You can tell me I'm wrong, telling me I'm making assumptions is just not useful or informative of what your opinions are.
I want to hear how someone who claims Bush is moral can maintain that opinion in the face of the same facts that I see. Clearly, one alternative is that such a person might discount the facts. One time-honored way of doing that is to be convinced that all the negatives are just fabrications cooked up by those who do not support the guy.
The other time honored method is to just not care -- to say that these failings are less severe than the ones that might've been.
I think either tactic requires a bit of cognitive gymnastics.
Possibly I'm missing some alternatives. Maybe even some very good ones.
I've stated my biases.
I don't see anyone on the alternate side being as up front and open in THEIR biases.
I would think it'd be a pleasure to know where one stands before making ones opinions known.
I can't force you to post. If you feel too insulted by my obvious bias, or a afraid that I'll simply question your reasons for still supporting Bush's morality and work ethic, that's okay. I will challenge any statement made that purports to show how the man really deserves his reputation for moral leadership. I would think people would want to know that their beliefs could stand up to that level of scrutiny.
But, sure, it's a pain to convince a true skeptic, and may not be worth your time.
So don't bother.
But don't just tell me the obvious. I intentionally stated my biases so you'd know my position.
Would that others would do the same.
quote:even if your motives are pure, your presentation gives no reason for any Bush supporters to participate or think you would accept their explanation if they provided it.
Granted, I won't be hard to convince. I'm not trying to talk you out of your opinions -- whatever they may be. I want to hear what they are because I don't believe that any person who values morality and hard work could hold Mr. Bush in positive regard.
If you can, you can choose to share your reasoning or not. I may not think your reasons are good ones. But then, they aren't likely to be MY reasons anyway.
I'm not really trying to open a dialog that would convince me of anything. I'm merely asking for information to relieve my own sense of the mystery fo the thing.
I'll probably never be a Bush supporter. But I see several people whom I respect being absolutely in love with the guy and thinking he's going to go down in history as one of the great American presidents. Bush seems to think that's the case, anyway. (At least, that's my interpretation of his "I am a war president" statement.)
Oh well. Respond or don't. I told you where I'm coming from. It's not a secret. We aren't likely to agree. And I don't really want to set people up and act like I'm inviting dialog when really I just want to study the logic of something I can't quite fathom.
I'm used to being mystified by people in this country when it comes to politics and elections. Failing to have the current mystery relieved by Hatrack isn't going to make my life any more or less miserable with respect to living through the next four years.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you'll notice I didn't directly set out to defend Bush. But I do think that even if it was unintended, the actual *good* of the US consumer realizing that an oil-based economy is unsustainable is one that probably would not have been realized had Bush not taken the country to war. Because now, they realize we are sacrificing *lives* to sustain our oil supply.
posted
Bob, I notice in your recent posts you've also rephrased "moral hardworking people" into "people who think Bush is moral" Which are two separate circles with only some overlap on a Venn Diagram.
I'd say also that the fact is the way you worded your Topic Title, strongly implies that anyone who likes Bush has to be immoral. Which is somewhat offensive, and not as likely to get anyone who is moral and likes Bush to reply.
posted
Which includes just about anyone who likes Bush, because few people categorize themselves as amoral.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you'll ever get a straight answer. You'd need everyone to have identical information on Bush and what he has done, and the things he says. You'll never get everyone to look at that information, so they will all make claims based on what they know and what they don't know.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the thread title as "I defy you to show me that you can be a moral person and still support Bush." As Dag said, this made me less than interested in participating in the discussion.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don’t know about Bob, but I’m not wondering how people could vote for Bush. I can see how different priorities would lead to different choices, especially for those whom this election was a “lesser of two evils” kind of situation. I do however wonder about e-mails I’ve gotten lauding him as a towering example of faith and morality.
“Better than the alternative” I can understand. “I agree with his policies/priorities” I can understand. “His flaws are balanced by his strengths” I can understand. But there are people -- and I’m not making up strawmen, I know some and I’m related to at least one -- who basically canonize the guy (in an unofficial, Protestant kind of way). That I don’t understand at all.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guess what! Bush Won! Get over it! Bush is an honest caring leader who I trust 100%. Sometimes I might not agree with what he is doing on the face of things, but I know that he has seen all the available information and shares my values so I know I can trust his decision is best for me
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he has seen all the available information, then he saw the information which overwhelmingly demonstrated the aluminum tubes used as key evidence for nuclear programs by the administration were of no particular use to Iraq for making nuclear weapons.
Which would, IMNSHO, be at the very least an offense deserving of extreme censure by Congress. The evidence against them as nuclear technology (some highlights: the theoretical maximum efficiency of the tubes in centrifuges was less than the actual efficiencies Iraq was getting with centrifuges it already had plenty of, and the tubes exactly matched the specification of a missile it was perfectly legal for Iraq to construct) is overwhelming.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But there are people -- and I’m not making up strawmen, I know some and I’m related to at least one -- who basically canonize the guy (in an unofficial, Protestant kind of way).
In the unofficial Hatrack exit poll a solid portion though short of a majority said they voted for Bush. I'm not aware of any of them saying they wanted to cannonize Bush or even anything close to that. Using the small minority of Republicans who feel that way as a representative of the people who "enjoy*" having Bush as our leader is like me saying that how can moral hardworking people be against the Iraq War because the organizers of a lot of those anti-war ralleys were Communists.
*I assume "enjoy" in this example means to be satisfied with Bush and his performance and generally be pleased with the direction of the country.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
