Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the President Lying ... again?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 61 of 103 (147489)
10-05-2004 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dan Carroll
10-05-2004 12:11 PM


Re: who needs mental testing?
Which would you rather have: a competent politician who lies, or an incompetent politician who always tells the truth?
Actually, thinking about it, I don't think "always tells the truth" is a positive trait in a politician - these people do have to function as diplomats after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-05-2004 12:11 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-05-2004 12:19 PM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2004 12:28 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 103 (147492)
10-05-2004 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dan Carroll
10-05-2004 12:11 PM


A catharsis
I nodded like I was listening to something my wife was saying yesterday, but really I was reading web comics.
As a direct result of my lie, thousands of people died in the middle east.
Everybody chime in! How did you kill thousands of people in the middle east today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-05-2004 12:11 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-05-2004 12:20 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 103 (147495)
10-05-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Jack
10-05-2004 12:14 PM


Re: who needs mental testing?
Which would you rather have: a competent politician who lies, or an incompetent politician who always tells the truth?
How is that question relevant? What we have is none of the above: an incompetent politician who lies.
Actually, thinking about it, I don't think "always tells the truth" is a positive trait in a politician - these people do have to function as diplomats after all.
There's a difference between "plays it straight with the American people" and "offers up information willy-nilly and needlessly."

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Jack, posted 10-05-2004 12:14 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Jack, posted 10-05-2004 12:31 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 103 (147496)
10-05-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
10-05-2004 12:17 PM


Re: A catharsis
I nodded like I was listening to something my wife was saying yesterday, but really I was reading web comics.
As a direct result of my lie, thousands of people died in the middle east.
Great. Now I have an image in my head of Gabe and Tycho with shotguns, mowing down Iraqis left and right, and that image will haunt me forever.

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2004 12:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2004 12:21 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 103 (147497)
10-05-2004 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dan Carroll
10-05-2004 12:20 PM


Re: A catharsis
Now I have an image in my head of Gabe and Tycho with shotguns, mowing down Iraqis left and right, and that image will haunt me forever.
How is that substantially different than most of their comics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-05-2004 12:20 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 103 (147499)
10-05-2004 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Jack
10-05-2004 12:07 PM


Re: who needs mental testing?
Voting is chosing who is best for the job based on the information provided.
When a politician lies and is caught at it he can either apologize and offer a mea culpa -- as, note, Clinton did -- or continue with the lie unrepentant -- as, note, Bush is doing.
Nixon resigned from office for his lies.
Clinton was publically chastized for his lies.
Several other politicians have dissapeared from races when their lies became public knowledge.
The question is WHY is BUSH getting a BYE with his blatant LIE?
Being morally ethical means being responsible and BUSH is not being held responsible for his lies.
(note to nosey -- I was trying to make it hard for whatnever to avoid reading the real issue here - sometimes you need to hit people in the head to get them to blink)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Jack, posted 10-05-2004 12:07 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 103 (147503)
10-05-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Jack
10-05-2004 12:14 PM


Re: who needs mental testing?
AND -- what we have is an incompetent president who always lies.
so either would be an improvement
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10-05-2004 11:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Jack, posted 10-05-2004 12:14 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 10-05-2004 1:02 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 68 of 103 (147505)
10-05-2004 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dan Carroll
10-05-2004 12:19 PM


Re: who needs mental testing?
How is that question relevant? What we have is none of the above: an incompetent politician who lies.
Yes, that's what you have. We, on the other hand, have a competent politican who lies - and I'd rather keep he stayed than let the other monkeys run the country.
The relevance is quite simple: lying is not a cardinal sin in a politician. Bush has failed on so many actual, real policy fronts and yet RAZD is harping on about a trivial issue of truth. Why not criticise him for his failure to run the economy properly? Why not fret about his squandering of international good will? Or his dangerous approach to international law? How about his dismal record on human rights and civil liberties? Or the environment? How about his undermining of the constitutional checks and balances of American politics?
Lying is a trivial side issue; failing to competently run a country is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-05-2004 12:19 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-05-2004 12:45 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 69 of 103 (147510)
10-05-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
10-05-2004 11:49 AM


Err, no. Did you read the State Dept report that I linked to? The report quite clearly states there were fewer terrorist acts but substantially more people injured during that period, and even goes on to explain why this is the case. Waxman is very carefully blurring the line between the two statements in his letter to Powell that you linked for what he thinks are no doubt good and sufficient domestic political reasons. He does correctly bring up the issue - which is probably worth debating in its own right - of how terrorist acts are defined.
Here's a link to a CRS report discussing some of the alleged problems with the 2003 Patterns: The Department of State’s Patterns of Global Terrorism Report: Trends, State Sponsors, and Related Issues June 1, 2004. You'll find the link useful because on page 11 is the breakdown of the data used in the criticized report. Make your own assessment.
Oh, and btw, the report I linked to WAS the "revised version".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2004 11:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 10-05-2004 5:00 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2004 10:31 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 103 (147514)
10-05-2004 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Jack
10-05-2004 12:31 PM


Re: who needs mental testing?
Lying is a trivial side issue; failing to competently run a country is not.
I disagree. (With the first half of the statement.) When a lie is the way in which a president is able to run a nation incompetently, then the lie becomes very important.
For instance, had Bush been totally straight with the American people about the reasons for the war in Iraq, then he would have a pretty good case now for saying, "Look, the war may have been a mistake, but the fact of it is that I had an overwhelming mandate from the people on this one. The public supported the war."
But the reasons for war were based on lies. Therefore, the public was duped into supporting a bullshit war. To keep Bush from trying to spin things into a public-mandate pile of crap, it's more than worthwhile to call him out and smack him down for his lies.

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Jack, posted 10-05-2004 12:31 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 103 (147518)
10-05-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by JustinC
10-05-2004 9:45 AM


quote:
In Kerry's test, then, how do you prove legitimacy to the world? What if you present a lot evidence for your position, and yet the world is still unconvinced you have "proven" your case? After all, "prove" is a pretty subjective concept. Is he just saying we have to present sufficient evidence for a position from our perspective, even though other countries may disagree with our conclusion?
Let's look at the recent history of American Invasions. Invading Iraq in the first Gulf War passed the global test. We invaded WITH french, german, and other European troops. In 2001, we invaded Afghanistan, and guess what? That passed the global test as well. German troops, for a time, made up the largest non-American force. Now, we move to Iraq. We have intelligence, but nothing equating the intelligence or obvious reasons that we had before. The best we had was a picture of two or three trailers and a cryptic phone message. That was it. The UN said that wasn't good enough, but they did the next best thing, they got inspectors back into Iraq. Inspections were on going leading up to the current war. The UN did want to disarm Iraq, they just didn't feel a war was a legitimate method for doing so, nor does Kerry.
quote:
Now, I think if we have sufficient evidence most countries will agree with us. I'm worried, though, about countries who will disagree with us for political reasons. Do we need to prove to these countries the legitimacy of our actions before we can take action? And if so, isn't that similar to a world vote?
Was it legitimate for Iraq to invade Kuwait? Were we wrong for getting on Iraq's case for invading another country? Of course, because it was illegitimate. Bush understands what a global test is, he just doesn't want the US to be scrutinized like he scrutinizes other countries. We put sanctions on countries that do not pass the global test. We invade countries that do no pass the global test. Kerry proposes that we hold ourselves up to the same level of behavior as we expect from other countries.
The first part of the global test is showing your own people that what you are doing is legit. Before the current war only 56% of the american people thought it was justified. 44% thought it wasn't. I wouldn't call Bush's evidence compelling at this point. Then, he goes to the international community. After 9/11 we had them by the heart strings. Still, the evidence was never strong enough to support an invasion and the world community, like 44% of americans, knew this too.
However, Bush still had the right to invade but he shouldn't complain about the political backlash after the fact. This is what this election is about, whether or not Bush ran a legitimate invasion of Iraq. The global test is not something you pass before hand, it is a test you are graded on after the fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by JustinC, posted 10-05-2004 9:45 AM JustinC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2004 1:24 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 72 of 103 (147520)
10-05-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
10-05-2004 12:28 PM


GWB is the statesman, more so than a politician, the problem is that politicians that say only what your ears want to hear, and GWB has only been upfront with the American People. GWB is liken to John Quincy Adams, a statesman and a politician. You may not like all that he says, but its the statesman in GWB, that he feels for those that are dying for our freedoms.
P.S. In GWB you have a man who's politics are reined in by his statemanship, GWB is more that a politician that says whatever tickles your ear, in hindsight, its quite easy to tickle your ear, cause the politician will flip flop because they are not reigned in by being a statesman(honest), etc...Media bias is not fairly covering GWB, because of how statesmanship (fundemental differences) is contrary to media bias, you have to look to Fox News to get the rest of the story, this bias is extending to all fronts of life in America, where to get the whole story you should listen to the 700 club, listen to the Christian points of view, like Jerry Falwell, the Vets point of view, to see who is the more honorable man, the media to their credits has incorrectly presented GWB as a liar, when DAn RAther was the one found to be lying to the American people, truly GWB must be a quite honorable man, when the media starts presenting unfair journalism in respect to GWB military records, when they should be focusing on the bigger picture (both candidates), and have honesty in journalism, this is the reason you need to watch Fox News, the 700 club, Jerry Falwell, to fill in the bigger picture, and listen to talk radio, before taking RAZD seriously, because you wouldn't want a man as president that that wasn't honest, but GWB is the statesman, and the most honorable man (thats why the liberal media doesn't conservatives), what the media is trying to do is portray GWB as a liar, likely because they the media was caught with their pants down, DAn RAther, etc... Dan Rather should of investigated his sources, before presenting it as fact, the media did this same kind of thing all the time, like when they called the Gore the winner before all the facts were in, the people had not all voted, this was another example of media bias trying to sway the voting in Florida so people would say, why go vote if Gore has been declared the winner, etc...), as we all know GWB won both the electro college and the popular vote in Florida, and the media was quite dishonest to call the election before the republican counties in northern Florida had all voted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2004 12:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-05-2004 1:04 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2004 10:23 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 103 (147522)
10-05-2004 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by johnfolton
10-05-2004 1:02 PM


GWB has only been upfront with the American People.
Where's all that uranium from Niger, then?
GWB won both the electro college
The Electro college? COOL!
This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 10-05-2004 12:08 PM

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 10-05-2004 1:02 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 103 (147528)
10-05-2004 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Loudmouth
10-05-2004 12:51 PM


The global test is not something you pass before hand, it is a test you are graded on after the fact.
I don't think this statement is true and you seem to have missed the point of the "global test" reference as well.
He was not just discussing invasions in general, he was discussing preemptive actions in specific. Its sort of a strain to call the first gulf war a preemptive act as Iraq had already taken Kuwait and the war was to liberate Kuwait. Those cases are well known and justified in international law. I mean what evidence would the US have to provide to make it more legit?
The closest we have to a recent example of preemption was the war over Kosovo. We pretty much did go it alone but had legitimate reasons given evidence of something impending that we were about to stop... though there are still questions about this since it was internal to another country.
But back to the subject, there are some pretty well understood conditions for acceptable preemptive attacks, by acceptable I mean consistent with international law. Since we were the major shapers of international law whiners cannot play the "our law is more important" card.
One can and should use evidence that a preemptive action fits the legal criteria to prove its legitimacy. Preferably this is done before the fact so that good coalitions can be built and the nation is backing the action as well.
Sometimes it is not possible if the necessity for such an action appears suddenly. And it is perhaps possible that intelligence matters prevent a nation from disclosing all the evidence before the action... thus leaving its legitimacy not wholly known to the world and the nation before the action is taken.
I believe, and recent comments by Kerry support my interpretation, that this is what he was talking about with regard to not letting our ability to preempt get controlled by forces outside the White House. There may be conditions where the President must act and so will act even if legitimacy has not been shown to the world beforehand.
HOWEVER, the President should not go ahead unless the criteria have been met so that in those cases we can't legitimate beforehand, later our actions will be vindicated... Unlike now, where we not only acted outside of international law but after all evidence has been revealed we are STILL outside of international law regarding valid criteria for preemption.
It is always true that later people can judge something wrong, but that is not the "global test". And I am sure Kerry would back the notion of attacking if he felt it was necessary even if (given the evidence) the majority of the nation and the world said not to. As long as it can be shown that such an attack met the criteria set for legitimate preemptive action.
In this way, even unpopular actions will at least be reasonable and legitimate.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 12:51 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Quetzal, posted 10-05-2004 1:44 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 76 by Loudmouth, posted 10-05-2004 2:22 PM Silent H has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 75 of 103 (147534)
10-05-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
10-05-2004 1:24 PM


I believe, and recent comments by Kerry support my interpretation, that this is what he was talking about with regard to not letting our ability to preempt get controlled by forces outside the White House. There may be conditions where the President must act and so will act even if legitimacy has not been shown to the world beforehand.
Are you sure about your interpretation? One of the things I thought came out clearly from Kerry is his rejection of the concept of pre-emption. He has been up front that he'd be willing to "go it alone" if necessary - so he's not a fanatical multilateralist like Clinton was - but one of the things that has been somewhat worrying to me is that he's been pretty plain that pre-emptive strikes are not in his lexicon. I've had the opportunity to listen to a lot of his speeches over the last couple of months (my job allowed me to spend a lot of travel time glued to CSPAN radio). He comes across as reactive and retributive as a distinction between the unilateral preemptive policy of the current administration. This isn't a criticism, necessarily. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding him. I remember one speech where he stated words to the effect of "I will hunt down and punish any group that attacks the US." - a defensive, reactive policy, contrasted with Bush's "I will hunt them down and fight them overseas before they attack." That seems to be fairly consistent with his criticism of Bush on Iraq, among other policies. Preemption, AFAIK, is not sanctioned by international law in any way shape or form. If I'm reading Kerry correctly, he accepts that legal restriction.
Maybe you can explain his actual position for me...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2004 1:24 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2004 3:05 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024