Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Title of this thread: "Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004" . . .

http://www.kbtoys.com/g/toys/big/123116.jpg

say no more . . .

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't believe any nation has accused the United States of violating the UN charter in our action against Iran. Nothing in the Charter says we have to wait to be attacked.

There was no reason to believe you were ever going to be attacked.

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover, we avowed we were acting in concert with numerous Security Council resolutions, as we were indeed. Finally we had rights under the agreement which ended the Gulf War for the forcible enforcement of its provisions.

The majority of the UN plenum disagreed, and so did the majority of the security council, including at least two permanent members who had veto rights over the issue. So the Bush administration preferred not to bring it to a vote and just go ahead with the bombing. I challenge you to come up with even one non-think-tank scholar of international law who thinks this was legal under the UN charta.

georgeob1 wrote:

The Tariff issues you cite are no more significant than European restraints of trade in agricultural commodities under various guises, including biological safety concerns.

Point acknowledged and agreed to. And as I said above, it embarrasses me as a wannabe Democrat that the Democrats in Congress found the tariffs too low. But two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Europe hurts itself and America with stupid trade barriers, why does that make Bush's decision to do the same any smarter?

(Just refreshed and saw your post Setanta -- LOL!!!)

-- Thomas

PS, George: My insinuation of dishonesty in my first post to you was not directed at you but at the Bush administration and its PR people. Just to avoid any misunderstanding, and since you appear to have defended yourself against it.

0 Replies

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/tr030804.gif

0 Replies

Thomas said--
That would rule out a president who confuses Slovenia with Slovakia.
-------
Not necessarily. Bush does know where the troops are, possibly not where the consonants are... Cool

0 Replies

Thomas,

No thought here that you intended anything personal. Thanks for the consideration though.

I note that prevarication, expressions of half truths, and outright lying are, and always have been a fundamental part of politics and are even an occasionally necessary element of leadership in large military and business organizations. A moral dilemma perhaps, but the hypothetical stormtrooper who asked the trembling Dutch housekeeper, "Who is in the attic?" didn't have a right to the full truth, and lesser examples beset us all.

I do however believe the current Democrats lie more often and about more fundamental things than do the Republicans they accuse so energetically. I don't believe this is a result of a lesser morality on their part, but rather is a result of a greater need. Why?? Because their policy objectives are so inconsistent and contradictory. Thus the party of the Social Security "lock box" blithely proposes to cut the payroll tax while, at the same time, resisting any reform of the system and darkly suggesting that Republicans are out to soak the elderly. I find much more fault with that inconsistency and the attendant deception than I do with the famous (and undeniably accurate) sixteen words in Bush's State of the Union speech about which so much hypocritical hand wringing has been done.

Nothing in the UN Charter requires that nations wait until danger has become death and destruction before exercising their rights of self defense. Nothing in the Charter requires a majority vote in the Security Council for a nation to exercise its rights in this area. It is disingenuous to so narrowly interpret the hazards we face from discontented Islamic fundamentalists and the (now fewer) thug political leaders who use this and other elements of discontent to further their aggressive aims, as to require that the evident strategic connections between the problems of al Quaeda , the Middle East , the Persian Gulf, and the Korean peninsula must be ignored.

0 Replies

Well, that's what Fox & Co do to a good brain, I guess.

0 Replies

Particularly "undeniably accurate"!

0 Replies

Please point out the inaccuracy in the sentence he expressed.

0 Replies

"...the famous (and undeniably accurate) sixteen words in Bush's State of the Union speech about which so much hypocritical hand wringing has been done..."

The inaccuracy.

0 Replies

Well, about those sixteen words. Apparently there was far more to it than just those sixteen words. According to the Washington Post, the claim about Iraq and uranium was made before, during, and after the speech, because the WH intended to use that argument to convince the American people to believe what it said, despite the fact of no evidence to back it up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31496-2003Aug7.html

0 Replies

The sixteen words were undeniably accurate.
Factually accurate.
Just not the whole story.

If he'd said "Tony told me he saw Saddam doing the Charleston with Osama," and Tony had indeed said it--it would have been accurate.

0 Replies

sofia wrote:

If he'd said "Tony told me he saw Saddam doing the Charleston with Osama," and Tony had indeed said it--it would have been accurate.If he'd said "Tony told me he saw Saddam doing the Charleston with Osama," and Tony had indeed said it--it would have been accurate.

That's why I agreed when georgeob said that similar arguments can be made about foreign policy as about the tax cuts. It is true that the income tax cuts aren't tilted towards the rich. It is true that the Secret Service said the Iraqis are importing Uranium from Africa. But that's just like Bill Clintons "it all depends on what you mean by 'is' ". Except that Clinton mislead the public about his sex life that was none of the public's business. Bush mislead the public in matters of war and peace, and of wealth and poverty. There's a whole different quality to that.

The most comparable thing I see when I look at the Democrats as a whole -- and my major cause of eye-rolling at my own camp -- is a consistent mingling up of judgments of fact with judgments of ethics. For example, it's a sound ethical judgment that today's America would be a better place if the government redistributed more income from the rich to the poor, in effect buying some more equality with some less efficiency. But the Democrats frequently mingle this up with the mistaken factual judgment that the minimum wage and protectionism are efficient ways to do it. There's a similar problem with their position on abortion. It's one thing to say the constitution should protect a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. It's quite another to say that it actually does. That's a factual judgment, and it's a pretty close call that many competent scholars and judges disagree with. It's a mistake that Democrats' defense of pro-choice rests so heavily on Roe vs. Wade. And I hate that some presidential candidates have pledged to block such judges from the Supreme Court.

I believe these are honest mistakes, and have found most Democrats I talked to willing to be corrected. But I can see how a Republican could reach a different conclusion.

0 Replies

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

These sixteen words were not undeniably accurate, because the Bush Administration had ascertained that the British government's learning was based on forged documents. This "learning" wasn't learning at all, and the Bush Admin. knew it.

Even now Blair insists that, "it [the seeking of significant quantities of uranium] is not beyond the bounds of possibility, let's at least put it like this, that they [Iraq] went back to Niger again, (But how can he say Iraq went back to Niger again, when it hadn't even gone in the first place?)" and that his ministry had had other sources. U.S. officials have been denied access to the additional evidence, however, according to Condoleezza Rice in an interview on Fox News Sunday.

These sixteen words were not factually accurate because, factually, the Bush Admin. knew the British govt's "learning" was false.

These sixteen words were more than "just not the whole story." The sixteen words, given what the Bush Administration itself had learned, are a lie.

The Bush Admin. let these sixteen words "slip by" in their State of The Union Address anyway.

At the very least it exposes the incompetence of Bush's coterie. At worst, it betrays a deliberate attempt to manipulate the American public's sensibilities and opinions by deception.

0 Replies

So much material has been posted on A2K and elsewhere demonstrating that the administration knew the uranium info to be false -- and knew it for months before the SOTU speech -- and yet continue to allow it to be inserted in admin speeches (including Powell's at theUN) that I (for one) think it's no longer necessary to state, restate, post, give links, etc. etc. It's a distraction now and clinging to the "it was accurate" point of view only diminishes the credibility of those sticking to it, who may have noticed decreasing respect for their posts. C'mon guys -- as you used to say so insistently, Get over it!

0 Replies

And the continued insistence that it was not what it is.

This phenomenon of going through the looking glass in conversations with Republicans is one of the few things that leaves me apoplectic.

Black is white, up is down, Iraq's got WMDs that can hit us in 45 minutes, they're reconstituting nuclear weapons, war is peace, we must start a war to keep the peace, we're all much safer now, tax cuts will mean more revenue for the government, the economy is improving, and on and on and on until anyone with a sense of balance pukes from the dizziness.

Theywereonlysixteenwords,technicallyaccurate,besidesitwasTenet'sfault,noitwasHadley'sfault.

0 Replies

Let's give them all Limbaugh medals and snile nicely as we do it.

I'll tell you what. I'm going to cease to respond unless they come up with fresh, personal and reasonable responses. Tired of playing upside-down word badminton with them on old stuff.

0 Replies

Quote:

Because they lied. They lied in spite of being unable to look the American people in the eye -- in spite of the millions and millions of individuals walking shoulder-to-shoulder across the international landscape crying out to them for truth, restraint and sanity -- in spite of knowing beforehand that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with either 9-11or Bush's war on terror. Spiteful lies, far easier for them to tell because neither their blood nor that of their sons and daughters would stain the desert sand.

Playing the Word Game

0 Replies

Tartarin's right. We ALL need to get over it. Isn't this one thread supposed to be about the 2004 elections?

0 Replies

K, this one's about replacing Bush.

Quote:

''Tips for Talking about President Bush with Your Children'':

Think about your values as they relate to this situation. What are your family's values about telling the truth? What would you do if your child lied to you and when you scolded him or her, he or she replied: ''I am not a fact-checker.'' Or added, ''Isn't it time to move on?''

Ask your children to tell you what words mean to them. Explain that words have consequences and lies can come in two, six or 16 words.

Clarify facts. Give short, age-appropriate answers. Explain that shifting strategies at damage control only lead to more unanswered questions. Make clear that even if facts are malleable for President Bush, they're NOT malleable in your home. Explain that even though the White House strategy may be to say whatever is necessary, even if they have to admit later that what they said the first time wasn't exactly true, you don't do it that way yourself.

Kids, lies, and President Bush

0 Replies

One of van den Heuvel's finer pieces, P. Hope you also saw Steve Martin's piece in the NYTimes? Maybe not? I'll go get it...

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know