Yeah, I know that. Its not like you’re deep, or anything. My gut feeling, at the time, was that Bush was lying. Later events supported that intuition. You say you’re gut feeling says the “Bush lied” meme was everywhere, but have nothing to back it with. I point out that at least there is evidence to support mine, where you admit you have none. So, I suggest, with all due respect, that your gut feeling ain’t squat, and isn’t due any particular consideration. Not even by you. Maybe least of all, by you.
Conversely, when I heard Powell speak at the UN, my gut was that he was telling the truth. Turns out not only was he not telling the truth, he was totally blowing smoke out his ass, and whoring his integrity like a two-dollar crack hooker.
So much for gut feelings. I recommend you ignore them in the future. Especially in matters of politics, or playing poker.
Brother, you are just plain thinking too fast. This debate is occuring right here and now. You needn’t go introducing confounding variables when we can simply stick to your assertion that people like me shouldn’t have said that he lied because we alienated the sensitive types like yourself out there. We should have said that he messed up, so that he could blame others.
One last time, and then I will concede that there is no way a simple person like myself can make you understand.
If you are a person who is going to get your haunches up because I say, “When Bush said 'We found the weapons of mass destruction,” he knew that we had not, and only said so because he wanted to make political points," why in heaven’s name are you the kind of person who will not readily shift the blame for what did happen to pre-war intelligence failures?
Let me put it another way. Please answer these questions immediately - don’t wait for the translation!
Do you believe that pre-war intelligence failures led to Bush making bad decisions? If so, why wouldn’t you also absolve Bush of any wrongdoing, because he was acting in the best faith possible? (Yet why does he give the provider of that information a medal?)
If you do not believe that pre-war intelligence was wrong, check here. ___
Now, if he was not given faulty information, then he completely and consistently misrepresented information for some other reason. Whatever the reason, he knowingly misrepresented the truth. In other words, a lie.
Here, on these very boards, there was enough discussion of information about aluminum tubes, non-existent IAEA reports, yellowcake, a failure to secure suspected weapons sites, and on and on, months before there was any more general understanding of all this information. (God bless Mr. Svinlesha for one). Since he and others had access to such information, there is no way that Bush did not. Yet he consistently said something else. Something other than the truth.
Because you do not like hearing that
I’ve realized something after a discussion with my mother and sister. See, my phone call interrupted 7th Heaven.
Not only did the left not make a scratch on the general public, the general public couldn’t have cared less. The Average American is much more interested in proximate things like a TV series or whatever muck they go about. The only way the left’s HELIEDHELIED would affect anything is if it showed up in The OC. There was more debate in my family’s household about some stupid baby’s name on some stupid prime time soap than there was about Iraq or gay marriage or theology or any of the issues we struggle with daily here at the Straight Dope. The general public simply isn’t interested. They don’t go out searching for stuff. They hear soundbites on the 10:00 news, read a few headlines in the paper while cramming some food and coffee into their mouths before work. The average American doesn’t like talking about politics and will change the subject whenever it becomes uncomfortable.
The only people who give a damn are already heavily partisan, with a small group of moderates who dislike everyone.
Note that I love my family, and they are all intelligent people. My sister has a BA in business and works for a major company. But her scope of political interest doesn’t even reach to the political cartoons on page A10 of hte newspaper.
If you have somehow reached the Straight Dope’s Great Debates forum, you are not an average American. You are a minority creature. You are a minority of a minority, because most online discussion forums are hosted by a biased group, where people just sqwak the same ideas back and forth. We actually have differences of opinion, and that scares the Average American.
For all the political mechanisms, the Average American just doesn’t care. THey may vaguely have some policy issues, but they don’t care to discuss them. They don’t spend hours of each day reading literature on political and economic theory or patrolling the Internet for the latest statement from Iyad Allawi. They probably don’t know who the hell Iyad Allawi is. A large number are probably unaware that the elections are next week. A tiny minority may have actually heard about the car bombing at the Iraqi National Accord yesterday, and most of those don’t know what the Iraqi National Accord is.
This election wasn’t won or lost on complex political ideology. It was won and lost on soundbites and catchphrases, on popular perception and most often misconception. Even Fahrenheit 9/11 was barely a drip in the lake of Average America.
xtisme, at the risk of junior modding, shut and get yer own thread. I started this in IMHO, and I’d like it to stay there.
Here’s the thing; the Newsweek article (NOT editorial, AFAICT) says that Bush is detail-oriented, and they support this by pointing out how he digs into his briefing books, asking tough questions of his staff. But does a true detail man rely on briefing books for data? They say he hates yes-men, and relate an anecdote about his reaming out his debate prep team because only one of them would admit that he lost the first debate against Kerry. But hiring yes-men who lie to him isn’t the rap on Bush – it’s preferring those who tell him what he wants to hear over those who tell him what he doesn’t want to hear. In politics, there is often no truth to be found, but there’s a prudent path and an imprudent path, and sometimes the unbridled optimism of a “true believer” or “team player” leads to the wrong decision. Nobody’s lying, nobody’s sucking up, nobody’s piping up with “yessir, you’re right sir”; just two members of the same team, one telling the boss that his plan will work, one telling him it won’t, but he can’t say for sure, and can’t quite tell him why, and…well, a good decision-maker might look for more data, might look for another opinion, but a man like Bush hates all that ambiguity and equivocation, so he goes with the guy who’s telling him what he wants to hear. It’s a lot more subtle than the kind of idiocy his debate team didn’t get away with.
Finally, they say he reads avidly, and give a list of his recent reading: a murder mystery, a Tom Wolfe novel, and Natan Sharansky’s book on the Middle East (“The Case for Democracy”), which he’s recommending to everyone. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but I seem to recall some more substantial reading by previous presidents – I mean, this is the bragging list. My reading tends to mysteries and science fiction, but I’ve got some good stuff on my nightstand if anyone happens to ask.
Fine 'luci. You want some bullshit cites or you will go on blathering and scoring cheap points? No problemo my friend, here is just a sample (something like a million hits for Bush lied…sorry, can’t be bothered to give them all to you just now).
Blah blah blah. Seems perhaps my ‘gut feeling’ wasn’t so far off (if the 54% of American’s poll is correct) after all ehe…looks like this meme was pretty widely known after all? There are MILLIONS more where those came from 'luci. What the fuck YOU got now? Lets see this stunning proof that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. Trot it out big boy.
As I’m not a very deep person let me make sure I’m understanding what you are asking me here. Are you asking me if I blame Bush for the pre-war failure of intellegence? No, not directly. Are you asking me if I blame Bush for taking us to war on what turned out to be incorrect data? Certainly I do…he’s the President after all, and responsible. Do I think Bush exaggerated how solid the information he had was in order to put it in its best light? Certainly I do…part of the reason I now blame him in fact is because he exaggerated how solid the data we had.
If I’m not understanding what you are asking me or if I haven’t answered you yet clarify and I’ll take another shot tomorrow, work and time permitting.
Yes, I believe that pre-war intellegence was a factor in Bush making a bad decision. The larger factor though, IMHO for whatever thats worth to you was that Bush et al WANTED a war in Iraq for gods know why and cherry picked the data to make the best case they could to the American people…and to convince themselves they were right. So, while they fooled the public they fooled themselves as well, convincing themselves that Iraq had WMD and they’d find them after the invasion.
I don’t absolve Bush of shit. He’s the President and is responsible for the decisions he made. He made a decision to go to war with incorrect data…and he SHOULD be hammered over it. Even if Bush’s motives were pure as the fallen snow its still a fuckup…and HE is responsible. Its a big reason I didn’t vote for the man.
Fortunately for him the left has come to his rescue and shifted the debate to defendable ground. By saying ‘he lied’ Bush and Bush appologists can simply point at guys like Kerry who had access to the same data and made public statements claiming Iraq had WMD. No sweat and thanks for your support.
Well, I think he WAS given faulty information. There was certainly disenting opinions on the various issues, but the consensus seemed to be that Iraq DID have WMD. I think the administration basically took the data that best supported their case and pretty much disgarded the data that didn’t or was contridictory. In my mind this doesn’t constitute a lie, in that Bush et al DID believe there were WMD in Iraq.
I’m not too pleased about what they DID do, but I’m a realist enough to realize that politicians of all stripes are going to always present the best case they can to get what they want…they aren’t going to present data to the public that contridicts them or their point. There are myriad examples of this from every president thats ever been in office and on all sides of the political spectrum. Sometimes what they do turns out well and we overlook the means because we like the end…sometimes we cruicify them for fucking up royally.
I was frankly stunned when Bush was re-elected because I figured this was a ‘crucify them’ moment. And yes…I mainly blame the Dems for not unseating Bush (and ya, I recognize my own hipocracy in this, as I didn’t vote for Kerry either and basically just wanted the Dems to unseat Bush without my help), and yes, I think the constant yammering and chest beating and hair pulling, the constant screeds and sobs distracted the public from the core issues and shifted the debate to ground that at least allowed the Pubs to muddy the waters and confuse the issues…and that they were a factor in getting Bush re-elected. It also didn’t help who the Dems picked to run against Bush but I still think Kerry was hampered by his own side in this race. Obviously my opinion is considered a stretch in this thread and probably on this board so think what you will. Excuses abound after all for why Kerry lost and Bush won…take your pick.
Yes…I was here. You’ll notice I wasn’t one of the folks coming on breathlessly with another report of WMD found, or other ‘proof’ that the president was right. Well, maybe you didn’t notice…I’m not very noticable.
So, you figure that because of those things listed above Bush knew beyond a reasonable doubt that there were no WMD but decided to invade anyway? And those Senators on the intellegence committee also with the same information just backed him? Even the ones not in his party (or destined to run against him)? To you, this is beyond a reasonable doubt?
Well, as I said before, its a meme that just won’t die. And its a meme that basically continues to distract from the core issue that Bush was wrong and is responsible for being wrong. But by all means…carry on.
Either with you in lock step or a Bush supporter, ehe? Why wouldn’t I like hearing that again? Oh ya…because I really like Bush. Thats right…I forgot.
According to a number of sources, JFK was reading Barbara Tuchman’s Guns of August just before the Missile Crisis, and said it strongly affected his thinking and his restraint in approaching the situation…
Strangest thing! The thought crossed my mind “What if GeeDubya had been President during the Cuban Missile Crisis?” and suddenly I had this overwhelming urge to crawl under my desk and kiss my ass goodbye…
Okay, wait… You’re saying that a majority do believe that Bush lied, but that by saying so, the left alienated so many voters that they were responsible for losing the election? You think good, me bad. Me no get.
So you are comfortable asserting that Bush selected certain information, knowing that other contradictory information was available, but went ahead and made the claims that he did…
hhmm… we are still in the cherry picking are we ? I guess that means **no one really thinks Bush is a “detail wonk” ** as the article says.
I understand what Xtisme is up to… because its impossible to simply state “Bush lied”. Bush might have just really beleived in his version of things and went ahead. The intel simply didn’t “match” his reality. Maybe his handlers kept him in the dark, etc… Like Clinton with “sexual relations” there is a fine tuning of the definition of “lie”. “Lacking in truth”… etc… The discussion is pointless… because you have to assume what Bush knew or didn’t know… or when he knew what he said…
So, unless a meteorite lands on me by the time I push “submit”… it ain’t impossible. :-p
Yea, but you see, there are a whole bunch of us who knew that the intel was bunk to begin with… people like, I dunno, the UN… actual weapons inspectors… Even a simpleton, given the choice between a warhawk’s vague “intelligence” versus an independent committee’s decade long hands on investigation, should know which is more likely to be accurate. It isn’t like anyone was really surprised that no WMDs showed up. I think even the right knew it was bunk.
But for the record, I hope those CNN bits on remote controlled airplanes dropping sarin gas and crap go down in historical archives right next to early '50s newsreels about ducking under a desk for the incoming nuclear bombs, and, of course, Reefer Madness.
Since it can’t be proved (at least I’ve never seen any proof) one way or the other it simply turns in to a partisan pissing contest, and basically shifts the arguement onto ground thats better suited to the Republicans. Its plausable that Bush thought there were WMD because he had intellegence that said there was. Its probable that Bush had OTHER intellegence that contridicted this, but ignoring it doesn’t make Bush a liar…it makes him a fool. Bottom line…Bush is responsible for his actions as President, for taking the US to war on incorrect information…the buck stops at his desk. But insisting on making the arguement ‘he lied!’ shifts things sufficiently that Bush and Bush appologists have wiggle room to argue. It amazes me that this seemingly obvious result that we have all witnessed is so discounted in this thread.
Well, I’d ask you for a cite from all these folks that knew, without doubt seemingly, that there were no WMD in Iraq (I think you are WAY overstating how solid the other side of this arguement about WMD in Iraq was)…PRIOR to the invasion that is…but I see you’ve been banned. Must have been something you said in another thread. Unfortunate…you were fairly interesting. C’est la vie I guess.
Oh, thats right…the OP. :smack: Well, myself I have no idea if Bush is or is not a ‘detail wonk’. My own arguements earlier in the thread were more devils advocate points on how he COULD be even with what we know about him, and that being a ‘detail wonk’ might not be such a great thing in any case.
I notice that you like to play the devils advocate… but be quite clear about that. You were debating a logical point while others were debating something else. I understand the “Bush can’t be proved to have lied”… but the most plausible explanations are still “Bush didn’t want to see the truth” and “Bush simply lied to get into war”. So debaters actually aren’t wrong in saying Bush lied… just not thourough enough. (sp?)
Well, you are crossing my debate points here. I initially just started off explaining how Bush COULD be a ‘detail wonk’ (as well as the other things from the article…just for the record I don’t think he is, but conceed he COULD be)…i.e. how they weren’t logically inconsistant with what we know of him. Later I got into the whole debate over ‘he lied’ and XT’s reasons for the loss of the '04 election and patented 10 point program for the Dems to win in '08 spiel, which was a lot more interesting IMO. But you are right…I enjoy playing devils advocate and taking the least favorable or underdog position.
I partially agree with you that ‘Bush didn’t want to see the truth’, or more correctly that the entire Administration had already picked a position and then used the data to try and support that position, disreguarding the data that didn’t. As I’ve seen folks do this quite often I can’t bring myself to call this a ‘lie’. As he’s the president I have no intention of excusing him or forgiving him for doing it and taking us to war on it…its was his responsiblility. History will be the judge of him now that he’s won his re-election.
