"Respectfully disagrees?" I think not.

[Avalonian]

Say what you will about the potential for war in Iraq -- I believe that it is possible for people on either sides of the issue to discuss it reasonably and respectfully. However, when President Bush said today that he "respectfully disagrees (http://www.local6.com/sh/news/stories/news-198606720030218-100223.html)" with the worldwide anti-war protests this weekend, I'm given reasons to doubt his words... at least the first one. Perhaps it's because he doesn't show the least interest in actually understanding those who oppose him. And therein lies the crux of the problem.

See, to me, to respect someone's views means that you've taken time and effort to understand them. It means that, even though you disagree, you can grasp the other person's views and are able to respond reasonably to them.

Based on his statements today, Bush has failed to do this. For example, from the article:

President George W. Bush on Tuesday said he would not be deterred by global protests against a war with Iraq, saying he "respectfully" disagrees with those who doubt that Saddam Hussein is "a risk to peace."

I won't say that nobody in the anti-war movement feels this way (there are always extremists), but I think I can safely say that very few who are protesting for peace believe that Saddam is not a risk to many things, including peace. In making this statement, Bush is doing one of two things. He is either basically ignorant of the views of the peace movement regarding Saddam Hussein, or he is deliberately misrepresenting them. Either way, he is plainly not respectful of those views.

And again here:

Bush said such a war remains a final resort, but "the risk of doing nothing is even a worse option as far as I'm concerned."

"Doing nothing"? I'll go out on a limb here... I don't think anyone is advocating that the United States "do nothing." Here Bush has gone even farther than before, by making the options black and white. The peace movement is for continued (and increased) inspections in Iraq, further diplomatic actions, and other forms of regime change. It does not support a shooting war of agression with Iraq, but neither could it be said, in any stretch of the imagination, that it supports "doing nothing." Bush again shows a blatant disrespect for those who protest the war effort, by displaying either complete ignorance on the matter or malign mischaracterization.

And finally:

Bush said that the size of the protests against a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq was irrelevant.

"Size of protest ... is like deciding, 'I'm going to decide policy based on a focus group.' The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security ... of the people," Bush said.

And this is respectful? The protests are "irrelevant"? He equates the protestors around the world with a "focus group," and this is how he shows respect? This strikes me as not only disrespectful, but a very poor representation of American government. In the America I live in, the views of the people can be many things, but they are never "irrelevant."

Here's the thing: I myself feel that the U.S. has not yet fully justified its case for war in Iraq. That's my opinion on the matter. I've met people who disagree with me, and many of them can do so respectfully. They take time to hear me out and understand me. I also make an effort to hear them out and understand what they have to say. I do not call their views "irrelevant." That's some of how I show respect to the other person, and I expect the same in return.

If President Bush had simply said he disagreed with the protestors, I wouldn't see a problem with that. Of course he does. However, to say that he "respectfully" disagrees is disingenuous on the face of it, and he proves himself false with his own words. One cannot have respect for people one believes to be "irrelevant," and one cannot respect views one doesn't even understand.

Protests are one way for Americans, and others around the world, to make their feelings and opinions known. Bush's response, talking about respect while displaying disrespect out the other side of his mouth, shows me that he's not only disingenuous, but a poor leader of a free people. When he talks about respect in this loose fashion, I lose respect for him.

[Blalron]

It seems that Bush has shown little, if any, interest in what the other side has to say.

I've listened to his side of the argument. I've tried, I've really tried. I WANT to believe that what we are about to do is not as horrible as it seems. Yet I have see nothing that has been put forth to convince me that Iraq is a threat to the United States. I've been waiting for this argument to materialize, but all I've noticed is that his rhetoric has been getting increasingly illogical and belligerant.

[SPOOFE]

I've tried, I've really tried. I WANT to believe that what we are about to do is not as horrible as it seems.
And, conversely, I've put much effort into trying to see how what we are "about to do" is as horrible as some people fear.

The message I'm getting from your posts is "If he understood us, he'd agree with us, and thus wouldn't be going to war." I fail to see how this is the case.

[Apos]

---He is either basically ignorant of the views of the peace movement regarding Saddam Hussein, or he is deliberately misrepresenting them.---

Of course he is misrepresenting others in a coy, well couched manner. He's a politician, with one of the nastiest, most vile political operatives ever to draw breath roving around behind the scenes.

But hey: what is the peace movement doing? Isn't it also willfully misrepresenting him as well: accusing him of all sorts of unfounded motives like a lust for violence, oil, or racism? I think it is. All is dirty in love and protest, I guess.

[xenophon41]

Apos asked:

But hey: what is the peace movement doing? Isn't it also willfully misrepresenting [Bush] as well... ?
George W. Bush = 1 person representing 1 viewpoint

"Peace Movement" = millions of people representing millions of viewpoints


I don't think the peace movement can do anything like "willfully misrepresent" an opposing position, since the movement can't even willfully present a cohesive platform of alternatives to the war. That's not the function of a peace movement; its function is to protest war.

[gobear]

"Doing nothing"? I'll go out on a limb here... I don't think anyone is advocating that the United States "do nothing." Here Bush has gone even farther than before, by making the options black and white. The peace movement is for continued (and increased) inspections in Iraq, further diplomatic actions, and other forms of regime change.

Just to be clear, advocating increased inspections IS advocating doing nothing. Inspections are a joke. Saddam has been able to get previous notice of inspections, either officially or through spies, and he has been able to cover his tracks.

[smiling bandit]

"Doing nothing"? I'll go out on a limb here... I don't think anyone is advocating that the United States "do nothing."

I and many other like me feel that what has been going on up till now - and, in fact, anything short of war, will be ignored by Saddam. I cannot believe that anything will get done otherwise. Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!

[xenophon41]

gobear said:

Just to be clear, advocating increased inspections IS advocating doing nothing. Inspections are a joke.

smiling bandit said:
I and many other like me feel that what has been going on up till now - and, in fact, anything short of war, will be ignored by Saddam. I cannot believe that anything will get done otherwise.
I keep seeing you pro-invasion people making that charge. Would you care to back it up by showing how inspections have been historically ineffective at finding and destroying weapons, or should we just take your opinion as gospel?

I ask, because this seems to be one of the major arguments against further inspections: the largely unsupported charge that inspections won't or can't lead to disarmament of Iraq. The counterargument, of course, is that inspections backed by military support can at least lead to the neutralization of Iraq's army as a threat to regional security.

Perhaps after we discuss whether the inspection regime can't bring about disarmament, you can then demonstrate how an invasion of Iraq will bring about a more secure Middle East and South Asia, or how such an invasion would be worth the cost in lives and in US dollars. It seems more than a bit short sighted to subject only one course of action (inspection regime) to a critical analysis without subjecting alternative actions (including invasion) to the same rough treatment.

[december]

Originally posted by xenophon41
I keep seeing you pro-invasion people making that charge. Would you care to back it up by showing how inspections have been historically ineffective at finding and destroying weapons, or should we just take your opinion as gospel? The UN began an inspections regime in 1991. Nevertheless, twelve years later, Iraq has an enormous arsenal of WMDs, according to Hans Blix. Q.E.D.

[xenophon41]

december, the last time I asked you for a cite on "enormous arsenal per Blix" you gave me a cite which showed Blix saying there were weapons which had been inventoried in 1991 for which no documentation of destruction had been offered. That's a far different thing, and you know it.

[Shodan]

In other words, xenophon41, the cite was of weapons which inspections did not suffice to destroy, which is what you asked for:
Would you care to back it up by showing how inspections have been historically ineffective at finding and destroying weapons... QED.

Regards,
Shodan

[ChaosGod]

It could be argued that Mr. Bush is doing the only "game-theoretic" right thing to do. Which is to mantain the pressure on Saddam as high as possible. It is widely accepted that military threat has been the only reason Saddam accepted inspections. If Mr Bush started saying things like "Oh, well, all right, we'll pull out as soon as possible, the inspections are working fine", then the pressure would be gone, and that would defeat the purpose.
A "good cop - bad cop" charade is being played.

[december]

Originally posted by xenophon41
december, the last time I asked you for a cite on "enormous arsenal per Blix" you gave me a cite which showed Blix saying there were weapons which had been inventoried in 1991 for which no documentation of destruction had been offered. That's a far different thing, and you know it. No, it's the same thing. They only way they could be different would be if Saddam had secretly destroyed his WMDs. Sounds like a joke, doesn't it? Saddam allowed his country to suffer years of economic deprivation from the sanctions and allowed himself to be killed and his government overthrown, when he had actually complied with the US resolutions and destroyed all his WMDs! Ha ha.

There is zero chance that these weapons have been secretly destroyed. If Saddam wanted to destroy his WMDs, he would have every incentive to document the destruction and to bring in UN witnesses. Furthermore, we have all sorts of testimony from defectors as well as intelligence from various countries.

BTW IIRC the inventory was as of 1998.

[xenophon41]

No, Shodan, the cite shows that Blix sees no evidence for destruction of certain weapons known to have existed in 1991, not that inspections have been historically ineffective. If a first swipe of disinfectant kills 90% of bacteria on a surface, can it be termed "ineffective" because 10% remain? -Depends, of course, on whether more cleaning is intended and on what the surface is to be used for. If I'm preparing food on it, then the first swipe is insufficient. If I'm going to assemble a carbeurator on it, I consider it a "clean surface". What are our aims in Iraq?


I'm in no way advocating letting Saddam Hussein off the hook for his WMD's. Iraq has been notably uncooperative and deceitful, and they've successfully impeded the disarmament process since the beginning. This does not mean disarmament through rigorous inspection is doomed to failure.

Take a look at the UNSCOM Comprehensive Review (http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/index.htm) from January 1999. While it shows a history of determined resistance and duplicity on the part of Iraq, it also shows a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's capabilities, a confident assessment by UNSCOM of the probable quantities of unaccounted-for weapons, and an impressive record of destruction of prohibited weapons. This report indicates to me two things: Saddam and his regime are not to be trusted, and the inspectors are difficult to foolGiven time and military support, an expanded inspection regime is a serious and effective method of enforcing Iraqi disarmament.

(People arguing either side of this debate may also want to look at a timeline of inspections 1991-1998 (http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/uns_chro.htm), which shows how recalcitrant Iraq has been.)

[xenophon41]

december, if you're going to make arguments on my behalf, you'd damn well better improve them.

[december]

Originally posted by xenophon41
december, if you're going to make arguments on my behalf, you'd damn well better improve them. :)

xenophone41, a successful inspections program is one that destroys all the WMDs. The UN's program in Iraq left huge stores of WMDs in existance (or not shown to be destroyed, which is the same thing.) That's a lower bound. There may be any amount of additional WMDs in Iraq. Based on other evidence of weapons-related imports and defectors, Iraq does indeed possess a great deal more WMDs than the already huge amount documented by Blix.

You believe that,"Given time and military support, an expanded inspection regime is a serious and effective method of enforcing Iraqi disarmament." There no evidence that this would be effective. In fact, the last 12 years is evidence that it won't work. BTW note that the 1991 - 2003 inspection regime was implemented after a military victory and carried the threat of additional military action if Iraq failed to comply. So, your suggestion of "military support" has already been tried.

Historically, inspections are not a long-term soution, even when they work temporarily. The countries doing the inspections eventually lose interest, and re-armament takes place. Unless Iraq genuinely wishes to disarm, inspections will not suffice.

[CarnalK]

december- No, it's the same thing. They only way they could be different would be if Saddam had secretly destroyed his WMDs. Sounds like a joke, doesn't it? Saddam allowed his country to suffer years of economic deprivation from the sanctions and allowed himself to be killed and his government overthrown, when he had actually complied with the US resolutions and destroyed all his WMDs! Ha ha.

Hmm it's funny alright. You are missing a golden oppurtunity rabble rouse and you laugh it off. :) From the UNSCOM report linked thoughtfully (and on my end thankfully) by xenophon41 :

5.Actions by Iraq in three main respects have had a significant negative impact upon the Commission's disarmament work:


* Iraq's disclosure statements have never been complete;


*contrary to the requirement that destruction be conducted under international supervision, Iraq undertook extensive, unilateral and secret destruction of large quantities of proscribed weapons and items;

(bolding mine)

-on preview-
"The UN's program in Iraq left huge stores of WMDs in existance (or not shown to be destroyed, which is the same thing.) "

Weapons degrade, therefore not same thing.

[xenophon41]

originally posted by december:

BTW note that the 1991 - 2003 inspection regime was implemented after a military victory and carried the threat of additional military action if Iraq failed to comply. So, your suggestion of "military support" has already been tried.
decembler*, the nonspecific threat of punitive military action is not the same as military support of inspections and oversight. Such support would involve targeted military strikes (when provoked by obstruction) of facilities identified by inspection teams, combined with on-the-ground support for those teams when requested. This is much more participative and proactive than no-fly zones and aerial bombing.


*Just getting revenge for the "xenophone" thing. ;)

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
The message I'm getting from your posts is "If he understood us, he'd agree with us, and thus wouldn't be going to war." I fail to see how this is the case.

This is not what I was trying to say. The point of my post is not that Bush would back off if he understood the anti-war perspective, but simply that he can't say that he has respect for that viewpoint unless he understands it.

He could, as some do, show respect and understanding for opposing opinions and still disagree. But he's not doing that. He's just disagreeing, with no attempt to understand and a patent disrespect for the anti-war opinion.

For those who say that increased inspections (one of several measures anti-war advocates support) is "doing nothing"... think about what you're saying for a moment. Sending well-trained teams of UN representatives into hostile territory to investigate production facilities and military installations, and having them give detailed reports back to the UN about what they find regularly -- this is "doing nothing"? Your definition of "nothing" must be a very strange one indeed.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by Avalonian
And this is respectful? The protests are "irrelevant"? He equates the protestors around the world with a "focus group," and this is how he shows respect? This strikes me as not only disrespectful, but a very poor representation of American government. In the America I live in, the views of the people can be many things, but they are never "irrelevant."

I've got a little nitpick this. Look a little more carefully at your quote.

Bush said that the size of the protests against a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq was irrelevant.

"Size of protest ... is like deciding, 'I'm going to decide policy based on a focus group.' The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security ... of the people," Bush said.

The word that seems to be bothering you the most is the word "irrelevant." Bush didn't use that word. That is the author's word. Be careful not to let the author of an article put words in anyone's mouth.

-LA

[bayonet1976]

Originally posted by Avalonian
He could, as some do, show respect and understanding for opposing opinions and still disagree. But he's not doing that. He's just disagreeing, with no attempt to understand and a patent disrespect for the anti-war opinion.

It's likely Bush has made an "attempt to understand", and found the anti-war position wanting. It's equally like he has not made an "attempt to understand", so then the question is how do you know he hasn't?

[vibrotronica]

"Who cares what you think?"
-President George W. Bush, July 4, 2001.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
The word that seems to be bothering you the most is the word "irrelevant." Bush didn't use that word. That is the author's word. Be careful not to let the author of an article put words in anyone's mouth.

Fair enough... you're right that no source I've found actually quotes Bush as using the word "irrelevant," though I think it also a fair statement to make that Bush wouldn't disagree with the use of that word. It's pretty clear from his statements that he feels the anti-war movement is exactly that. YMMV.

I'm also pretty annoyed by Bush's comparison of the protestors to a "focus group." Focus groups are usually identifiable by specific demographic characteristics. I wonder, other than being against war in Iraq, what characteristics could be applied to the protestors? Are they part of a specific gender, age group, religion, or ethnicity? Do they hail from a specific locale? Are their economic backgrounds similar? Hmmm... no, no, and no.

Bush's comparison of the protestors to a "focus group" is an inaccurate analogy, but more than that, it belittles the protestors by trying to fit them into a little box. Bush may not like (or understand) the fact that protestors came from all walks of life to make their voices heard, but his glib dismissal doesn't make it any less true. And this is yet another sign of his disrespect for the anti-war movement.

Originally posted by bayonet1976
It's likely Bush has made an "attempt to understand", and found the anti-war position wanting. It's equally like he has not made an "attempt to understand", so then the question is how do you know he hasn't?

I disagree that the likelihood of these things are equal, based on what he has said. His words suggest to me that me has not even tried. It wouldn't take much to get even a basic understanding of the anti-war movement, enough to respond to it on a more reasonable level than Bush has done.

Again... I don't expect him to agree. If he's going to say that he "respectfully" disagrees, however, then I am going to hold him to the standard of respect. He has shown none.

[Avalonian]

Exactly right, vibrotronica. ;)

[bayonet1976]

Originally posted by Avalonian
I disagree that the likelihood of these things are equal, based on what he has said. His words suggest to me that me has not even tried. It wouldn't take much to get even a basic understanding of the anti-war movement, enough to respond to it on a more reasonable level than Bush has done.

Again... I don't expect him to agree. If he's going to say that he "respectfully" disagrees, however, then I am going to hold him to the standard of respect. He has shown none.

You only disagree because of what you think about Bush, or maybe how you feel about him. You are assigning likelyhood based on your own thoughts and opinions, not on any evidence. In fact, the only evidence you have to go on is his actual words, which as you pointed out speak of "respect" for the opposition's views.

As to the standard for respect, if we hold to the dictionary defition of
respect (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=respect) , then it's hard to see how you would disagree with Bush's remark. IMO you're posing a standard for "respectfully disagreeing" that 1. can not be reasonably filled, and 2. requires agreement with the opposition.

[bayonet1976]

Originally posted by vibrotronica
"Who cares what you think?"
-President George W. Bush, July 4, 2001.

By the way, do you know what precipitated that remark? Or the context?It might be educational if you posted a link and some references about it.

[Malthus]

Originally posted by ChaosGod
It could be argued that Mr. Bush is doing the only "game-theoretic" right thing to do. Which is to mantain the pressure on Saddam as high as possible. It is widely accepted that military threat has been the only reason Saddam accepted inspections. If Mr Bush started saying things like "Oh, well, all right, we'll pull out as soon as possible, the inspections are working fine", then the pressure would be gone, and that would defeat the purpose.
A "good cop - bad cop" charade is being played.

My opinion exactly - and will be until events prove me wrong.;)

The problem is, I can see no viable "end game". The focus of attention cannot be kept on Iraq indefinitely.

[DoctorJ]

Of course he respectfully disagrees. That's why his administrationed filed a brief urging judges to uphold the denial of the permit for the protest march in NYC.

http://www.syracuse.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion-1/10453017435260.xml?syr

Dr. J

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by Avalonian


.... when President Bush said today that he "respectfully disagrees (http://www.local6.com/sh/news/stories/news-198606720030218-100223.html)" with the worldwide anti-war protests this weekend, I'm given reasons to doubt his words... at least the first one. Perhaps it's because he doesn't show the least interest in actually understanding those who oppose him. And therein lies the crux of the problem.

See, to me, to respect someone's views means that you've taken time and effort to understand them. It means that, even though you disagree, you can grasp the other person's views and are able to respond reasonably to them.



Time for a metaphor.

Millions of people are backing Chirac in a poker game against GWBush. The pot is a War Iraq. If Chirac wins, inspections continue ad infinitum. If Bush wins, war goes on schedule.

Chirac has 3 kings and 2 Aces, and millions cheer him for that.

GWB Bush has a King of Spades, a Queen of Spades, A Jack of spades and a Ten of spades with one card face down on the table. Chirac doesnt have the Ace of spades.

GWBush says, "I respectufully disagree that you have the winning hand."

He says this based on what he knows about the face down card. No one knows but Bush what it is. Chirac thinks he knows but theres no way hes going to change his cards now. No matter how much the miilions behind Chirac cheer and demonstrate, it will not change any of the cards. the opinion of the millions does not matter. Its whats in the cards.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by bayonet1976
You only disagree because of what you think about Bush, or maybe how you feel about him. You are assigning likelyhood based on your own thoughts and opinions, not on any evidence.

And you're basing this assertion on what? Your intimate knowledge of me? Please. Tell me what my opinions are. :rolleyes:

In fact, the only evidence you have to go on is his actual words, which as you pointed out speak of "respect" for the opposition's views.

I've pointed out the evidence in Bush's words that tells me that, while he may say "respect," he doesn't mean it. Please refer to the OP and subsequent posts for a detailed description, and refute it if you wish. However, just stating "That ain't true!" and coupling it with an assumption about me doesn't amount to much.

IMO you're posing a standard for "respectfully disagreeing" that 1. can not be reasonably filled, and 2. requires agreement with the opposition.

Again, I detailed what amounts to respectful disagreement in my OP. However, I'll sum it up again, just for you. To disagree with someone respectfully, you should:

(1) Understand their opinion well enough to be able to discuss it substantively
(2) Do not mischaracterize their opinion
(3) Do not try to make generalizations about their opinion
(4) Do not dismiss their opinion as irrelevant

Please tell me where I say that one must agree with someone to repect their opinion?

I know it can be done because I know many people with who disagree with me and one another respectfully. I've seen reasonable people discussing things reasonably, and they respect one another's opinions whether they agree or not. I've seen this in real life, and I've seen it here on the SDMB. For example, much of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163460) represents my idea of respectful disagreement, as does some of this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163601).

So, in short, my definition of respectful disagreement does not require agreement, and it can be done. It just takes a little more effort and restraint.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
No matter how much the miilions behind Chirac cheer and demonstrate, it will not change any of the cards. the opinion of the millions does not matter. Its whats in the cards.

That analogy strikes me as a fair portrayal of the situation, X~Slayer, especially since it doesn't rule out the possibility that Bush is bluffing and really has a crap hand. ;) However, it doesn't really address what I was trying to get at in the OP.

You're talking about the issue of facts, which are important. However, I'm talking about the issue of Bush's respect (or lack thereof) for the views of others who disagree with him. In my opinion, his statement about the protestors, even though he used the word "respect," showed no respect or understanding of their opinions. He simply shouldn't have said "respectfully" in that case. Your analogy doesn't really apply to that issue.

[xenophon41]

posted by bayonet1976:

IMO you're posing a standard for "respectfully disagreeing" that 1. can not be reasonably filled, and 2. requires agreement with the opposition.
:confused: How did you get that from what Avalonian said? He's asking Bush to respect his "opponent's" argument just enough to state it correctly. When he completely misstates or mischaracterizes it, it doesn't feel too "respectful" to us.





But I kind of admire Bush' technique. I think I'll try that with my wife this spring:

Me: I'm going to buy 10 gallons of defoliant and a pressure sprayer for the yard. This crabgrass problem must not be allowed to affect the security of our lawn!

xenowife: Um, honey; I don't think that's called for. Last year, we controlled it by weeding and mowing.

Me: What? Do nothing?! It's not like our yard's astroturf, y'know! This crabgrass will not stand!

xenowife: But we controlled it by mowing and weeding last ye---

Me: And yet, the crabgrass is still there! Mowing and weeding are a joke!! Just because you think our yard's astroturf, that doesn't make it free of crabgrass.

xenowife (patiently): Dear, our yard has fescue, and some patches of crabgrass. If you use defoliant, you'll kill all of it. Yes, it's a pain to have to weed and mow, but that has some advantages over defoliating the whole yard.

Me: I respectfully disagree with your plan to let the crabgrass grow wild. Why do you keep insisting that our yard is astroturf, anyway?

xenowife: :smack:

[AZCowboy]

X~Slayer(ALE) wrote:
Its whats in the cards.

I find this analogy useful. I am anti-war. Well, not really, but I am against unilateral action by the US against Iraq. Well, not really, but I am against a proactive military strike against Iraq without UN support, even with a "coalition of the willing". We cannot be the world's policeman without the support of the UN.

On the other hand, I do hold GWB responsible for the national security of the US. If he does know that he holds the winning card, so to speak, something that is an immediate threat to the US' national security, then I damn well expect him to take proactive action to handle it.

But, at least eventually, he will have to show the card. And it damn well better be the Ace of Spades. While at some point, I might have been willing to trust that he was holding it, after Powell's last presentation to the UN, I am beginning to really wonder.

Isn't it reasonable that the rest of the world wants to see the Ace before they believe he has it? Or should they simply trust he isn't bluffing?

What happens if we invade Iraq, and still can't find any evidence of WoMD?

[december]

"I respectfully disagree" is a lot nicer than, "Those Islamofascist dupes are full of shit!" (One more reason there will never be a President december.) :eek:

[Leaper]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
And, conversely, I've put much effort into trying to see how what we are "about to do" is as horrible as some people fear.

(Repetition warning: if you've read many of the threads I've posted in about Iraq, I'm about to say something I've said many times before.)

Well, personally, it's because even the CIA thinks that Saddam won't give away his WMDs if he isn't invaded, and will if he is. Therefore, invasion would be a huge mistake and counterproductive. In short, I fear dying in a terrorist attack directly caused by war when doing something else (ie NOT NOTHING) would have accomplished the same purpose without killing me.

Still, I hear that the CIA has recanted (though I don't know why), and Sam Stone has, in another thread, graciously been defending the Administration position on this subject, information for which I am very grateful.

Maybe when the Google threads return, I can see how Bush himself explains this point away...

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by Avalonian
You're talking about the issue of facts, which are important. However, I'm talking about the issue of Bush's respect (or lack thereof) for the views of others who disagree with him. In my opinion, his statement about the protestors, even though he used the word "respect," showed no respect or understanding of their opinions. He simply shouldn't have said "respectfully" in that case. Your analogy doesn't really apply to that issue.

Being a politician, I doubt he can just say, "I'm right, youre all wrong *nyeh*"

The "respectfully" was placed out of politically necessity. Since he knows what he knows, he has to ignore what he knows is not right. His recent speech indicates he thinks the millions of protestors are wrong but he cant say that directly or they will demand immediate proof.

and I wholeheartedly agree with [b] AZCowboy [b]. the "Ace of Spades" must be shown prior to the kickoff of the war. It conforms with the Powell doctrine of gaining public support. I believe that when these proofs, that everyone has heard about but has never seen, do come come out, war is just about to start.

and if we find no WMDs at all, well someone can kiss a second term goodbye. The WMDs are the ace of spades.

[xenophon41]

Originally posted by december:

"I respectfully disagree" is a lot nicer than, "Those Islamofascist dupes are full of shit!" (One more reason there will never be a President december.) :eek:
Gee. A return to the genteel methods of the 60's and 70's. I'd forgotten how validating it is to be called names by tools of the right wing.



(Remember "commie symp" and "pinko"? Ah, the classics never get stale...)

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
Being a politician, I doubt he can just say, "I'm right, youre all wrong *nyeh*"

The "respectfully" was placed out of politically necessity. Since he knows what he knows, he has to ignore what he knows is not right. His recent speech indicates he thinks the millions of protestors are wrong but he cant say that directly or they will demand immediate proof.

So, he couldn't just say "I disagree."? It would have been, at the least, more honest.

Maybe I expect too much. :p

[december]

Originally posted by xenophon41
Gee. A return to the genteel methods of the 60's and 70's. I'd forgotten how validating it is to be called names by tools of the right wing. Come to the think of it, Bush was called all sorts of names by some of the demonstrators. Racist, Terrorist, War-monger, Hitler, Corporate Gangster come to mind. His response of merely saying he respectfully disagrees was particular mild in comparison.

[xenophon41]

If only he cared what exactly he was disagreeing with...

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by december
His response of merely saying he respectfully disagrees was particular mild in comparison.

Yes, I would have much preferred if he had really responded honestly to some of those barbs. Then we could have had more Precious Moments (tm) like the famous "Major-League Asshole" gaffe. :rolleyes:

Seriously, his comments may have been particularly mild, but they were also particularly superficial, particularly dismissive and particularly disrespectful. Just the way a good President should be, right?

[bbonden]

As to the OP, I don't see any reason to doubt the "respectfully." What else would you have him do or say? Political leaders don't last long by handwringing or temporizing in public, and case-making generally is left for minions. I think the "respectfully" is, as others have said, the proper political approach for acknowledging the opposing viewpoint. Everyone is free to doubt his motives, but politically I think his response was pretty well limited to exactly the words he used.

As for the hole card analogy -- which I like, to a degree -- don't think that the other national leaders at the table haven't seen Bush's hand. Here's Chirac on WMD:

But you seem willing to put the onus on inspectors to find arms rather than on Saddam to declare what he's got. Are there nuclear arms in Iraq? I don't think so. Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030224-423466,00.html

[bbonden]

Bad coding. In the quote, the initial statement is by the Time magazine questioner. The following statements are Chirac's.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by Avalonian
So, he couldn't just say "I disagree."? It would have been, at the least, more honest.

Maybe I expect too much. :p


Its kinda like saying, "Youre a filthy son of a low life whore!! .... and I mean that in the nicest possible way."

I never did like being politically correct. ;)

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Sorry that last post was a tad vague.

I meant, Yes, it was a bit too much to ask. He is a politician.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by bbonden
As to the OP, I don't see any reason to doubt the "respectfully." What else would you have him do or say?

Yes, I suppose that politically, "respectfully" was a smart thing to say. It's not so much about whether or not he said it, I guess, as it is about whether or not he meant it. I'm given lots of reason to doubt his respect, with all of the others things he said.

I suppose, like X~Slayer, I dislike politically-correct dissembling like this. If he (Bush) doesn't respect the anti-war protestors' views (and does anyone seriously think that he does?), then he shouldn't say that he does.

Again, I guess I'm expecting too much when I expect a politician to speak honestly and clearly, rather than with PC doublespeak.

[elucidator]

Well, I saw the clip of his saying it on TV, and if that's "respectful" disagreement, I'm the Queen of Romania. The sneer was palpable, it said "I'm being polite and diplomatic, which is real hard for a straight-forward, down to earth guy like me when confronted by a bunch of naive peacenik hippies who oughta go back to Russia if they like it so much......"

[elucidator]

Of course, my judgement may be clouded by that fact that I don't really like the guy very much.

No kidding. Really don't. Part of my resentment is he fooled me so completely. Back in 2000, I remember saying I prefered Gore, but the election seemed to be center-right against center-left, all in all, a fairly benign situation. Fuck me for stupid.

I see a guy who believes that hoary old myth about how a guy can have Hidden Greatness that nobody sees until a historic crisis arises, and his true nature is revealed, that he is a Leader of Men. God save us all, the little twit really believes he's Churchill.

[Saen]

Originally posted by Avalonian
Yes, I suppose that politically, "respectfully" was a smart thing to say. It's not so much about whether or not he said it, I guess, as it is about whether or not he meant it. I'm given lots of reason to doubt his respect, with all of the others things he said.



.

You know, you have said this a few times, so I am getting the hint that this is what your rant is specifically about. Please correct me if I am wrong.

But, then you say something like this;

And you're basing this assertion on what? Your intimate knowledge of me? Please. Tell me what my opinions are. :rolleyes:

The only way I can think that your exasperation is not hypocritical would be if you showed some sort of evidence that you have a clue what Bush means when he says something like this. Tenuous evidence is fine too, as long as it is not something rediculous like your opinion of his meaning, 'cause that doesn't mean a damn thing to me. If you cannot, I only see this as whining that "I don't think he respects me, so therefore he doesn't".