# Bush Says Election Validates Iraq War **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2005, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993 "2005-01-16T05:54:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/61 "2005-01-17T01:38:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > These are some rather elaborate rhetorical pirouettes you are performing here, **John**. > > If, as you say, one can “certainly infer” from Bush’s actions that the reporter’s assessment is correct, how then is that a “terrible” interpretation? If you want to try and infer bias on the part of the reporters, some dishonest attempt to twist GeeDubya’s words, say so. You seem to sidle up to the suggestion but won’t actually make it. I’ve said nothing about bias. I don’t think the reporter was biased-- please stop impying that I do. I said “sloppy”. And I said I thought it was a bad interpretation of what Bush SAID, not what he has done. One doesn’t report about what a person “says” based on what one infer from his actions. **Nighttime** supplied a link to the transcript of the interview, and that clears things up a bit. But the article, as written, is still sloppy. As written, there is too big a gap between the quote given and the conclusion presented (in the first paragraph). > [@](#): > > And note: the President says that the American people made an assessment of two versions of what’s going on in Iraq, and chose his. One is compelled to the conclusion that Bush’s assessment is that things are going well, and this has been proven true by the electorate. Nothing wrong with this reasoning, then, in **John Mace** ’s book? All perfectly hunky-dory? Avaiable evidence assures you that this is an entirely reasonable conclusion? No, only that most voters didn’t think they are going as badly as Kerry said they were. In fact, if one is to infer anything from the article, one would infer that Bush DOES thinks some things in Iraq are going badly: > [@](#): > > “On a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad,” he said. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/62 "2005-01-17T03:24:15Z")
John, glad you’re here. In this thread you wrote: > [@](#): > > [While it’s certainly true that the Iraq invasion can be called a “neocon” initiative](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5718273&postcount=67), the invasion of Iraq is hardly fundamental to the Republican platform and is certainly not why the Republicans did so well in the last election. In fact, I’d say they did well DESPITE the invasion of Iraq. Seeing as how your President in now saying that the vote was a blank approval of – as per your own words – “neocon” iniciative, who’s right? You or Fearless Misleader? * * * **Brutus** , let’s fight some ignorance. Yours. [The taming of Sadr City](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA12Ak02.html) > [@](#): > > Though there have been more spectacular battles in Fallujah and Najaf, Sadr City is of paramount importance because it is the center of the Shi’ite rebellion, and the Shi’ites represent 60% of the Iraqi population. As a consequence, the Mehdi army - the military arm of the Sadrist movement that has dominated the area’s politics for the past quarter century - has become the most important of all the insurgent groups, and a close look how it operates in its home base yields some startling conclusions about the trajectory of the struggle for control of Iraq: > > - The Sadrists have developed an effective political-military strategy aimed at converting Sadr City into a “liberated area”, in the classic guerrilla warfare model > . > > - Their main military strategy is to expel the US from their domain; only when they are under attack themselves do they venture outside Sadr City to attack US bases or supply routes. > > - The al-Sadr organization is attempting to construct a coherent “dual” government that replaces the central government and which administers the usual set of public services - from traffic control to apprehending street criminals - within limits set by their inability to coordinate with a national government. This proto-government has been particularly assiduous in addressing the number one problem of public order, street crime, and has actually cooperated with the local police in this campaign. > > - Mehdi soldiers - the guerrilla forces led by the Sadrists - though prone to thuggery, are largely under the control of this dual government, which is led by civilians - tribal leaders and Muslim clerics. The Mehdi soldiers act as the police force within the community. > > - The Sadrists have been surprisingly successful in co-opting the Iraqi police, by rewarding them for working on community issues and fighting them when they participate in efforts to suppress the rebel political-military structure. American military complaints about the unreliability of their Iraqi trainees is actually a reflection of successfully applied guerrilla policy. > > \ > > - The organization in Sadr City is an echo of similar developments in Sunni cities (with Fallujah as the center), and it may foreshadow similar developments in the all-important Shi’ite south. The American attacks on various Iraqi cities, including the brutal battle of Fallujah, was an attempt to reverse this trend toward self-governed cities into which American forces rarely intrude. > > - The existence of these dual governments in many cities rebuts American claims that US withdrawal would result in chaos. Ironically, just the reverse is true; US success in defeating the guerrillas would result in chaos, whereas a guerrilla victory would bring greater stability (and perhaps too strict an order) to the Iraqi cities. Much, _much_ more at source. Requires some effort on the part of the reader – like an attention span. ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/63 "2005-01-17T04:02:23Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > **Brutus** , let’s fight some ignorance. Yours. > > [The taming of Sadr City](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA12Ak02.html) > > Much, _much_ more at source. Requires some effort on the part of the reader – like an attention span. Don’t let CMAR II see that, or he’ll blog against it and refute it with groundless hearsay! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/64 "2005-01-17T05:51:33Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Seeing as how your President in now saying that the vote was a blank approval of – as per your own words – “neocon” iniciative, who’s right? You or Fearless Misleader? Well, of course I think I’m right and Bush is wrong. Bush is saying that the voters chose him over Kerry and thereby gave him, and his policies on Iraq, a nod. Iraq was a major issue, but it wasn’t the ONLY issue in the election. Bush is making an assumption that it all came down to Iraq. Maybe, but we really don’t know. Anyway, what president is going to come out and say: “Hey, I won the election, but I think the voters really preferred my opponent’s ideas on policy ‘X’.” Bush is just saying what he’s said all along. He thinks he’s right on Iraq, and he thinks the majority of Americans agree with him. Is that a surprise? Is that supposed to be something new? What you quoted from me was that, IMO, Bush should have lost because of Iraq. I think it should have sunk him, but it didn’t. Either most voters were OK with his Iraq policy, or (more likely) they preferred his OVERALL policies to Kerry’s. And even that’s an oversimplification, because personality plays a big role in presidential elections, too. Maybe it all just came down to Kerry not connecting with the voters as well. In an election as close as the last one, it could have been any number of things. As far as this particular thread goes, though, I just don’t understand what the issue is. Was there anything really NEW in the article? Has Bush given any indication that he planned to ditch any of his crew over problems in Iraq? No. Does anyone expect Bush to suddenly admit to a reporter that his Iraq policy is riddled with problems. No. In short, **what is the debate**? What new outrage are we supposed to pick up from this article? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/65 "2005-01-17T07:48:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > In short, **what is the debate**? What new outrage are we supposed to pick up from this article? “When will the Bush supporters _finally_ slap their collective foreheads and realize they’re backing one colossally thick dumbnut of a candidate?” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/66 "2005-01-17T15:14:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > In short, **what is the debate**? What new outrage are we supposed to pick up from this article? Those who don’t get it by now perhaps never will. But those who \*do \* need to keep each other from despairing. It’s necessary to remind each other that things haven’t always been this way, and don’t need to be now, and unless we despair they someday won’t be anymore. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/67 "2005-01-17T16:21:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Those who don’t get it by now perhaps never will. But those who \*do \* need to keep each other from despairing. It’s necessary to remind each other that things haven’t always been this way, and don’t need to be now, and unless we despair they someday won’t be anymore. Hear, hear. They can run from the truth, but they can’t hide from it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/68 "2005-01-17T16:21:52Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > In short, **what is the debate**? What new outrage are we supposed to pick up from this article? I read the article as Bush trying to proactively set up a defense that his guys who may have done things that will later be discovered to be illegal – like torture, murder and kidnapping – cannot be found guilty because the U.S. electorate has given their stamp of approval to these activities by not tossing his ass to the curb over Iraq. I think the U.S. electorate has approved the kidnapping, torture and murder of U.S. civilians, but I still think they are illegal and I think Bush’s boys can still be nailed for them. Lots of people approved of lynchings at one time, too … didn’t make 'em legal. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/69 "2005-01-17T17:00:14Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I read the article as Bush trying to proactively set up a defense that his guys who may have done things that will later be discovered to be illegal – like torture, murder and kidnapping – cannot be found guilty because the U.S. electorate has given their stamp of approval to these activities by not tossing his ass to the curb over Iraq. How exactly would Bush’s election win provide a legal defense for, say, Paul Wolfowitz if Wolfowitz were to be charged with criminal activity? I don’t understand the legal precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/70 "2005-01-17T17:12:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How exactly would Bush’s election win provide a legal defense for, say, Paul Wolfowitz if Wolfowitz were to be charged with criminal activity? I don’t understand the legal precedent. Yes, exactly. So it is stupid and, well, WRONG to say "“We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections”. Some of think it is beyond wrong and stupid. Some of us think those are the words of a man who is so blinded to his own missteps and mistake as to be dangerous to the country and the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/71 "2005-01-17T17:47:39Z")
Are there so many lawyers on this board that the rest of us are now required to discuss \*every \* question in strictly legalistic terms now, too? I read **Evil Captor** ’s comment as meaning Bush is setting up a _political_ defense - not only for himself and members of his administration, but for GOP Congresspeople who may be reluctant, or feeling pressure to dissent. He’s taking a load of criticism off of Rumsfeld, Rice, et al. by making it appear that it’s all his own doing, and he has a resounding mandate, y’all just shut up now and go along. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/72 "2005-01-17T17:55:46Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How exactly would Bush’s election win provide a legal defense for, say, Paul Wolfowitz if Wolfowitz were to be charged with criminal activity? I don’t understand the legal precedent. Right, it’s not a legal defense, it’s Bush giving political cover to his cronies. I don’t think it’ll work out if the Dems get the White House in 2008: Bush doesn’t have the mandate he thinks he does, and if things don’t work out VERY well in Iraq, he’s going to be VERY unpopular in 2009. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/73 "2005-01-17T18:15:36Z")
Sooner than that - the Congresspersons who’ve gone along, lemminglike, with Bush’s plans are going to have their own “accountability moments” next year. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/74 "2005-01-17T19:35:55Z")
> [@Biggirl](#): > > So it is stupid and, well, WRONG to say "“We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections”. I agree. Bush essentially didn’t answer the question. And I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that a politician was caught answering a different question than was actually asked by a reporter. Seriously, has he given ANY indication in the past the he planned to dump any of his staff because of problems in Iraq? Hasn’t he shown every intention to keep those guys on? This ain’t news, folks. Here’s how I see it. The reporter used sloppy writing tactics to jazz up his story because he got a shitty interview with Bush. It’s not even the reporter’s fault-- Bush is famous for giving shitty interviews. The only thing new in the article is that Bush will stop pushing for the anti-SSM amendment. It’s new, but not particularly surprising as it died a quick death last year. It doesn’t even serve the tactical purpose of scoring electoral points for Republicans, since there aren’t any elections going on right now. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Biggles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/839c29/32.png) [@Mr.Biggles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Biggles)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/75 "2005-01-18T20:56:40Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > That is funny, considering that a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Act than did Democrats. > **[Civil Rights Act of 1964](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_statistics)** > > District of Columbia > The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and later sexual orientation and gender identity.\[a\] It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most signif... By Party: The Original House Version: • Democratic Party: 153-96 • Republican Party: 138-34 The Original House Version: ``` • Southern Democrats: 7-87 • Southern Republicans: 0-10 • Northern Democrats: 145-9 • Northern Republicans: 138-24 ``` The Senate Version: \* Southern Democrats: 1-21 \* Southern Republicans: 0-1 ``` * Northern Democrats: 46-1 • Northern Republicans: 27-5 ``` Perhaps the key word was “percentage.” Rather than using “more” you played the intellectual dishonesty card. Mind you, the so-called southern democrats never really encompassed the liberal ideas of many northern democrats. Which is probably why you might see more republicans in office in the south now, or others that are affectionately called dixie-crats–they have a (D) after their name, but have an (R) agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/76 "2005-01-18T21:12:24Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Right, it’s not a legal defense Regarding the whole legal statement thing… unless you’ve been in a coma for 4 years, it is quite clear that the Bush Administration has not a care in the world about the legality of anything they do, because they are Right and to not do it would be Wrong, and thus above the law. Or, to muck about into the worst of worst of movie quotes… “I am da law” ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/77 "2005-01-18T21:23:53Z")
> [@Mr. Biggles](#): > > Perhaps the key word was “percentage.” Gosh, you think? ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993/78 "2005-01-18T21:42:50Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Gosh, you think? So what was your point again? Let’s look at what you said. > [@](#): > > That is funny, considering that a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Act than did Democrats. Tell me, did Rove have something to do with it? He really is The Wizard of Space and Time, isn’t he? Intellectual dishonesty 1) Swapped “right” and “left” with “Republican” and “Democrat” while surely knowing that most of the south was right-wind Democrats Intellectual dishonesty 2) Used thus said percentage to suggest that the right is more interested in civil rights than the left, ignoring, well, history, and, like, real life Intellectual dishonesty 3) Pretended that the position of the right in the past is not directly linked to the position of the right today (replace “blac- er, sorry, negro” or “woman” with “homosexual”) What was your (attempted) point, anyway? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-election-validates-iraq-war/284993.md?page=3)