Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

'm glad to have such good terachers like you, McG.

English isn't Walters native language, remember Fox?

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

So OE phrased it as he wished I had said it so that he could attack it more easily. This is a typical Left wingnut tactic of which the Left wingnuts seem incapable of seeing as being blatantly dishonest.

Please point out exactly where I phrased something differently in the post where I quoted you.

I expect to you state precisely where I changed your statement or quoted it out of context, or otherwise a withdrawal of your accusation.

I will recant my statement that you reworded my statement this time, as you did not actually rephrase what I said in this particular line of discussion. But I will refer you to your post, re-posted by Revel, and your assertion that I was contradicting myself while stating this was the personification of a neocon. You cannot show where I contradicted myself in any way in the post you referenced, but you call it a contradiction so you can it attack it--or more precisely, attack me.

How about you retracting that?

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

No, I think you read my statements and then translate them to mean whatever it is you feel they should say instead of what they do.

You can find the text of the AUMF here.

Try to focus. We were talking about a UN mandate, not about the AUMF. You stated that the American invasion was justified by the previous UN resolutions. This belief was not shared by the United Nations.

It is interesting, in an anecdotal kind of way, that the AUMF by an American Congress concedes to an American president the power for America to invade another country. However, it is immaterial to the legality of an invasion as far as the United Nations are concerned.

How can you say that and completely ignore the UN resolution that McG quoted? And where is the UN resolution critical of what the US ultimately did?

English isn't Walters native language, remember Fox?

Foxfyre wrote:

President Bush is a man of principle and conviction and, unlike the average run of the mill politicians, he is not as subject to being swayed by political expediency or the public opinion pushed in the headlines that morning. People who appreciate honesty in their elected officials admire that.

He made a lot of campaign statements regarding stem cell research, right to life, faith based initiatives, NCLB, etc. etc. etc. and he has not wavered on any of these. There is no way anybody can accuse him of changing his convictions out of political expediency on any of those. I know its almost unheard of among liberals, but this President actually keeps his promises and does what he says he will do.

The man is a man of conviction and the very few occasions in which he has yielded to public opinion can be counted on far fewer fingers than are found on one hand.

Sincere Idiot, Persistent Ass, Incompetent President

Marty Kaplan

"Please tell me what one word best describes your impression of George W. Bush. Tell me just the ONE best word that describes him."

That question - asked periodically by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press [pdf] - is always a polling goldmine. The newest results, just out, do not disappoint.

'Incompetent' comes in first, just as it topped the list in March 2006. But a year ago, 'Good' held the number two spot; this time, it's 'Arrogant'.

In previous polls, 'Christian' always made the list, but this time, not one of the 740 respondents offered the word.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/sincere-idiot-persistent_b_41408.html

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

I admire the fact that you managed to put these two paragraphs in one and the same post:

Foxfyre wrote:

I do not fault him for his reasons for the war in Iraq. He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left. They should have gone in with overwhelming force and completed the job quickly and efficiently. They didn't, but it was their methodology, not their motives that are questionable.

Foxfyre wrote:

President Bush is a man of principle and conviction and, unlike the average run of the mill politicians, he is not as subject to being swayed by political expediency or the public opinion pushed in the headlines that morning. People who appreciate honesty in their elected officials admire that.

And the point is that you cannot even see the contradiction in what you're saying. You're the anthropomorphic personification of a neoconservative voter.

Baloney. There is absolutely no contradiction of any kind in the two statements.

I'll try to show you the contradiction, foxfyre.


In the second paragraph you said that Bush does not bow to pressure or "not as subject to being swayed by political expediency."

There is a huge difference between "not bowing to pressure" and "not being as subject to being swayed by political expediency." So OE phrased it as he wished I had said it so that he could attack it more easily. This is a typical Left wingnut tactic of which the Left wingnuts seem incapable of seeing as being blatantly dishonest.

Quote:

In the first paragraph you said," He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left."

Yes I did. It is a mistake that both he and his military advisors at that time have admitted.

Quote:

You can't have it both ways, either he is "not subject to being swayed by political expediency" therefore the decision to not go in full force is all his own and not the left. Or he does bow to political expediency and the reason he didn't go in full force was because of the political "pressure of the left."

I can absolutely have it as it was. And here is what was:

He made no campaign promises regarding Iraq and, not being a military tactician, he was obligated to depend on the counsel of those who were. The decision to do it surgically neat and clean as it was done was specificially to reduce both loss of life on both sides and to appease the critics who think any death that occurs in war is an atrocity. (The same people of course had no problem with the 50,000 or so that we starved and neglected to death in the prior 12 years.) True conservatives would have gone in with overwhelming force, leveled all enemies no matter how much the liberals howled, won the war, mopped up, and gone home. The President erred in going with a 'liberal-planned war' instead of a conservative one.

He made a lot of campaign statements regarding stem cell research, right to life, faith based initiatives, NCLB, etc. etc. etc. and he has not wavered on any of these. There is no way anybody can accuse him of changing his convictions out of political expediency on any of those. I know its almost unheard of among liberals, but this President actually keeps his promises and does what he says he will do.

I did not make a blanket statement that GWB is a giant among men impervious to public opinion. He is a human being with strengths and weaknesses and occasional feet of clay as all other human beings have. I demand perfection of no person, not even a President of a different party, unlike the Left wingnuts who apply impossible standards only to somebody not in their own party.

The man is a man of conviction and the very few occasions in which he has yielded to public opinion can be counted on far fewer fingers than are found on one hand.

Quote:

In any case, you are wrong on all counts, Rumfeld wanted to go in with his vision of a lean mean military and also Bush and his advisors ignored US intelligence warning about how hard the fall out from the ousting of Saddam Hussein would be. (Numerous links have been left to that effect.

You need to read more dear. It is true that there was not universal agreement on how to conduct the initial invasion, but there was sufficient consensus and the President went with the majority view that included his Secretary of Defense and the military commanders who would be in the field. And yes there were misjudgments and there were huge mistakes aplenty as there has been in EVERY war, even those orchestrated by your beloved Clinton.

And now we have a choice. Cut and run and admit defeat to the terrorists. Or get behind the President and the troops and encourage them to get in there and win this thing and get it over with. Stop tying his hands and armchair quarterbacking every decision. And criticize a media that refuses to show any successes or plays them down as unimportant trivia.

I think I do not want a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces who would bow to the advice of several million armchair quarterbacks who don't have a clue what they are talking about but if it makes Bush look bad, it looks good to them.

So bush hardly ever bows to political pressure but he did when the left wanted him to not cause a lot of deaths.

I don't recall any left leaning mouth pieces or journalist saying anything about not causing a lot of deaths, most of the arguments (what few there were to be heard at the time) from those opposing the invasion of Iraq was the going at all and not waiting for the inspections to completed.

If you have any links to back up your statements, dear, it would go a long way in the credibility department for you. Otherwise, it is just a big strawman and a typical way to deflect the failure of the Bush war used by right wingnuts.

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

No, I think you read my statements and then translate them to mean whatever it is you feel they should say instead of what they do.

You can find the text of the AUMF here.

Try to focus. We were talking about a UN mandate, not about the AUMF. You stated that the American invasion was justified by the previous UN resolutions. This belief was not shared by the United Nations.

It is interesting, in an anecdotal kind of way, that the AUMF by an American Congress concedes to an American president the power for America to invade another country. However, it is immaterial to the legality of an invasion as far as the United Nations are concerned.

How can you say that and completely ignore the UN resolution that McG quoted? And where is the UN resolution critical of what the US ultimately did?

I can say that because McGentrix didn't quote any UN resolution.

He quoted from and referenced the Joint Resolution of the US Congress which granted the President "the power to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate".

I ask you to retract your statement that I "completely ignore[d] the UN resolution that McG quoted", preferably without making another snide remark.

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

So OE phrased it as he wished I had said it so that he could attack it more easily. This is a typical Left wingnut tactic of which the Left wingnuts seem incapable of seeing as being blatantly dishonest.

Please point out exactly where I phrased something differently in the post where I quoted you.

I expect to you state precisely where I changed your statement or quoted it out of context, or otherwise a withdrawal of your accusation.

I will recant my statement that you reworded my statement this time, as you did not actually rephrase what I said in this particular line of discussion. But I will refer you to your post, re-posted by Revel, and your assertion that I was contradicting myself while stating this was the personification of a neocon. You cannot show where I contradicted myself in any way in the post you referenced, but you call it a contradiction so you can it attack it--or more precisely, attack me.

How about you retracting that?

Thanks for the retraction, even though you didn't manage to do so without another snide remark.

As to the two paragraphs of yours: You stated that (exactly your words) "He [Bush] and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left."
In the second paragraph, you said that (exactly your words) "President Bush is a man of principle and conviction and, unlike the average run of the mill politicians, he is not as subject to being swayed by political expediency or the public opinion pushed in the headlines that morning."

So did he (exactly your words) "bend in to political correctness pressures from the Left", or is he not (exactly your words) "subject to being swayed by political expediency or the public opinion"?

Or is there no contradiction - did he give in (exactly your words) "to the political correctness pressures from the Left" without (exactly your words) "being swayed by political expediency or the public opinion"?

A Tale of Two Georges

Scott Horton

[Scott Horton is an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School, where he teaches courses dealing with international public and private law and the law of armed conflict.]

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."

- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

From the outset of their confrontation with the British monarchy, the Americans were labeled as traitors and insurgents. They were denied the status of honorable soldiers in arms and were treated shamefully. Even as Washington issued the order quoted at the outset, he knew that all 31 of the prisoners taken by the British at Bunker Hill had died in captivity, many under unsettling circumstances. Of the 2,607 Americans taken prisoner at the capitulation of Ft Washington, all but 800 had died in captivity by 1778. The continental press was filled with accounts of the brutal and inhuman treatment of Americans taken by the British throughout this period.

Against a loud public outcry of "eye for an eye," George Washington stood fast. He made it a point of fundamental honor (and that was his word) that the Americans would not only hold dearly to the laws of war, they would define a new law of war that reflected the humanitarian principles for which the new Republic had risen. These principles required respect for the dignity and worth of every human being engaged in the conduct of the war, whether in the American cause or that of the nation's oppressor.
...

But early in 2002, a later George W, one who knew no military service, decided he knew better than the Founding Father. The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib makes clear that what transpired in that notorious Iraqi prison was not the misdoings of a few "rotten apples," but rather the foreseeable consequence of policies shaped at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-horton/a-tale-of-two-georges_b_41091.html

I see why you would make such an argument, georgeob1, coming from a military and economic superpower that essentially came out of Cold War as the winner. America, like many other nations, has entered into treaties when it seemed favourable towards her goals and has broken them when it became too menial to follow the regulations those treaties set out.

It might be a largely philosophical point of few, but for someone coming from a union of 27 sovereign nations that have entered into a multitude of treaties, sometimes giving up a good deal of of sovereignty, people here rather seem to have benefited from being trustworthy partners to international treaties.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

No, I think you read my statements and then translate them to mean whatever it is you feel they should say instead of what they do.

You can find the text of the AUMF here.

Try to focus. We were talking about a UN mandate, not about the AUMF. You stated that the American invasion was justified by the previous UN resolutions. This belief was not shared by the United Nations.

It is interesting, in an anecdotal kind of way, that the AUMF by an American Congress concedes to an American president the power for America to invade another country. However, it is immaterial to the legality of an invasion as far as the United Nations are concerned.

How can you say that and completely ignore the UN resolution that McG quoted? And where is the UN resolution critical of what the US ultimately did?

I can say that because McGentrix didn't quote any UN resolution.

He quoted from and referenced the Joint Resolution of the US Congress which granted the President "the power to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate".

I ask you to retract your statement that I "completely ignore[d] the UN resolution that McG quoted", preferably without making another snide remark.

In McG's post http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2526739#2526739 he quotes the portion of the UN resolution and cites the number that was included in the Congressional authorization for war. Show me where you made any reference to that, and I'll retract my observation that you ignored it.

We were talking about a UN mandate, not about the AUMF [US Congress Resolution of Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq].

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

No, I think you read my statements and then translate them to mean whatever it is you feel they should say instead of what they do.

You can find the text of the AUMF here.

Try to focus. We were talking about a UN mandate, not about the AUMF. You stated that the American invasion was justified by the previous UN resolutions. This belief was not shared by the United Nations.

It is interesting, in an anecdotal kind of way, that the AUMF by an American Congress concedes to an American president the power for America to invade another country. However, it is immaterial to the legality of an invasion as far as the United Nations are concerned.

How can you say that and completely ignore the UN resolution that McG quoted? And where is the UN resolution critical of what the US ultimately did?

I can say that because McGentrix didn't quote any UN resolution.

He quoted from and referenced the Joint Resolution of the US Congress which granted the President "the power to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate".

I ask you to retract your statement that I "completely ignore[d] the UN resolution that McG quoted", preferably without making another snide remark.

In McG's post http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2526739#2526739 he quotes the portion of the UN resolution and cites the number that was included in the Congressional authorization for war. Show me where you made any reference to that, and I'll retract my observation that you ignored it.

That is simply factually wrong. McGentrix doesn't quote from any UN resolution. He quotes from the Joint Resolution of the 107th Congress, issued by Congress on Oct. 16, 2002, "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

I made a reference to that in the following post http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2526767#2526767,
where I said:

old europe wrote:

We were talking about a UN mandate, not about the AUMF [US Congress Resolution of Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq].

The Joint Resolution however included reference to the UN Resolution. I think that is pertinent and McG also apparently thought it pertinent enough to include it in his references used in his post. I'll concede that he didn't copy and paste anything directly from the UN Resolution, but you should concede the UN authority used as part of the basis for the joint resolution. To ignore that part of it seriously weakens any allegations you make re 'illegal action' as does the lack of any UN censure following the joint resolution or the invasion itself.