# Can Bush be trusted to handle Iranian overtures in good faith? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2006, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052 "2006-06-09T12:56:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/21 "2006-06-09T20:53:50Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Without Congressional approval, W can’t drag us into any war on a scale that requires special funding appropriations. [/QUOTE] Not true. As CnC, Bush can drag us into a war with almost impunity. It is only after he goes on nation-wide TV to inform us what he’s started is when the shit hits the fan. And then this news hit the wires today … > [@](#): > > CAMP DAVID, Maryland (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Friday that Iran has “weeks not months” to respond to a U.S.-backed offer aimed at containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and said Tehran needs to suspend uranium enrichment. Source: [Reuters - 09 June 2006](http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-06-09T151645Z_01_WAT005784_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-BUSH.xml&src=rss&rpc=22) Why the rush? Is Iran imminent in deploying a nuclear weapon? If so, who says? If not, why the rush? Or does Bush have another hidden timetable? ---
**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:** [June 10, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/22 "2006-06-10T00:31:48Z")
[QUOTE=bup] If you think a guy, who was going to kill you, is now willing to negotiate because he dropped his gun, is negotiating “in good faith,” you and I have different definitions of “good faith.” [/quote] Bush was never going to kill me or anyone in Iran for that matter. I don’t see how that argument applies. > [@](#): > > And going back to your original point, > > You and I agree that Bush was planning to go to war in Iraq “no matter what,” and I assume you and I agree Bush claimed he was willing to try other avenues even though he wasn’t. I said pretty much no matter what, so maybe we aren’t in perfect agreement. But a better representation of my assessment of the facts is that he was strongly predisposed to the war option. I actually don’t think he made the decision until some time after he started sending troops over. In addition, though, I would agree that he significantly overstated his willingness to go the diplomatic route. When you go back now and read some of the statements he made before the AUMF was passed, they are pretty laughable. > [@](#): > > I think Bush’ track record is reason enough to believe he won’t keep his word. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you don’t trust Bush ever to negoatiate in good faith no matter what the issue. If that’s the case, then I’ll just aggree to disagree, because we’ll never come to any agreement. > [@](#): > > If you want to say he’s being honest because it’s not incovenient _right now_, that doesn’t make him honest. As soon as he has a reason to be dishonest he will be. I’m not sure how you can distinguish between a person who is honest and one who is only “acting to be honest”, unless you have some proof that the person secretly wants to be dishonest. In the case of Iran, I don’t see a reason to suspect that of Bush. Further, I don’t see any conditions that will allow him to negoatiate in bad faith between now and Jan '09. So even if he’s only negotiating in good faith because he doesn’t have the wiggle room to do otherwise, he still is negoatiating in good faith. From that argument alone, I think it’s reasonable to say he will be negotiating in good faith. If conditions do change, then I’m willing to reconsider. If you’re trying to make the case that Bush always lies, then there really ins’t any point in our continuing this debate. I’m not certain that is what you’re saying, but it sounds like you might be. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/23 "2006-06-10T00:49:38Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Bush was never going to kill me or anyone in Iran for that matter. I don’t see how that argument applies. [/quote] Maybe not you, but why not Iran ? He can fire off a few cruise missles any time, or ICBMs for that matter. [QUOTE=John Mace] If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you don’t trust Bush ever to negoatiate in good faith no matter what the issue. [/quote] Well, I certainly wouldn’t trust him on anything, big or small. If he says something, I assume it’s a lie or error until a non American/British source confirms it. [QUOTE=John Mace] I’m not sure how you can distinguish between a person who is honest and one who is only “acting to be honest”, unless you have some proof that the person secretly wants to be dishonest. In the case of Iran, I don’t see a reason to suspect that of Bush. [/quote] Because he’s Bush. He lies and screws up; it’s what he does, what he _is_. ---
**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:** [June 10, 2006, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/24 "2006-06-10T01:14:18Z")
Let’s break this down. Currently there is an offer on the table that if Iran does X,Y, and Z then Bush will allow the US to join in on the direct negotiations. Anyone want to bet that if Iran actually does X, Y, and Z that Bush will renegue on his offer? \*\* Der Trihs\*\*: _Resolved: Bush is a poopypants_ sounds like a fascinating debate, but I think I’ll decline the offer to particiapte. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/25 "2006-06-10T01:34:38Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Anyone want to bet that if Iran actually does X, Y, and Z that Bush will renegue on his offer? [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > “It would be a mistake to think that these negotiations are a first step to some grand bargain,” said Mr Bolton. > **[Latest news & breaking headlines](https://www.thetimes.com/)** > > The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment. Obviously then, these negotiations must be a step towards something else. What _is_ that thing? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/26 "2006-06-10T01:44:42Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Let’s break this down. Currently there is an offer on the table that if Iran does X,Y, and Z then Bush will allow the US to join in on the direct negotiations. Anyone want to bet that if Iran actually does X, Y, and Z that Bush will renegue on his offer? [/quote] I don’t bet, but if I did I would indeed bet he’ll go back on any and all offers, promises and treaties as he finds convenient. [QUOTE=John Mace] **Der Trihs** : _Resolved: Bush is a poopypants_ sounds like a fascinating debate, but I think I’ll decline the offer to particiapte. [/QUOTE] It’s not a debate, it’s a predictive technique. If I want to know the truth, I listen to Bush - and his administration - and assume the opposite. I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, because Bush said there were. I knew Saddam was no danger, because Bush said he was. I knew the mission was not accomplished, because Bush said it was. For that matter, I knew the power problems in California were not our fault, because Cheney blamed us; he’s not Bush, but he wouldn’t work with him if he was an honest or decent man. Everyone in this Administration is corrupt and incompetent, malignant and a liar; they will lie in preference to telling the truth, on big matters or small. ---
**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:** [June 10, 2006, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/27 "2006-06-10T02:47:28Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] > **[Latest news & breaking headlines](https://www.thetimes.com/)** > > The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment. Obviously then, these negotiations must be a step towards something else. What _is_ that thing? [/QUOTE] I’m not sure what your asking about. That quote was simply his way of saying it’s not a step towards resuming full diplomatic relations. It’s an attempt to offer Iran an incentive to halt its nuclear enrichment program. That’s it, and nothing more. I think all parties want the US at the table, including Iran. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/28 "2006-06-10T11:03:56Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Let’s break this down. Currently there is an offer on the table that if Iran does X,Y, and Z then Bush will allow the US to join in on the direct negotiations. Anyone want to bet that if Iran actually does X, Y, and Z that Bush will renegue on his offer? [/QUOTE] I don’t bet, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Remember the demands that Saddam allow weapons inspectors to enter Iraq or else? Iraq let them in. The “or else” came anyway. Bush has proven time and time again to have no diplomatic skills. Being called part of an “axis of evil” is hardly incentive for a nation to cooperate with the US. Doesn’t matter if the underlying accusations are true or not, there are some things you just don’t say diplomatically. “Bring it on” was another. How many lost their lives because of that stupid comment? Bush has cried wolf too often. The imminent danger posed by Iraq was phony. Why should we believe anything different about Iran? Bush lied deliberately to start a war in Iraq. Why would he do differently regarding Iran? The only things that stop this chickenhawk from going into Iran are his fading political capital and the lack of troops. Starting another war might require a draft. Maybe even postponing some of those future tax cuts for billionaires to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/29 "2006-06-10T11:29:19Z")
The nuke option should be on the table just to keep it on the table, not to actually use (unless you really really have too). [QUOTE=BobLibDem] Bush has cried wolf too often. The imminent danger posed by Iraq was phony. [/QUOTE] Well this was really B. J. Clinton’s cry, Bush just heeded the call. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/30 "2006-06-10T12:26:30Z")
Just for a little perspective … Who’s trustworthiness concerns you more… Bush or the Iranian leaders? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/31 "2006-06-10T13:35:50Z")
[QUOTE=What the … !!!] Just for a little perspective … Who’s trustworthiness concerns you more… Bush or the Iranian leaders? [/QUOTE] Bush’s, because he has more power. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/32 "2006-06-10T16:27:20Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] The nuke option should be on the table just to keep it on the table, not to actually use (unless you really really have too). Well this was really B. J. Clinton’s cry, Bush just heeded the call. [/QUOTE] Surely there’s a difference between being concerned and keeping a watchful eye and creating hysteria about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/33 "2006-06-10T16:36:36Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Bush’s, because he has more power. [/QUOTE] And if Iran had a nuculur weapon then who … Or do you trust the UN, France, Germany and Russia more than Bush too? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/34 "2006-06-10T16:44:53Z")
[QUOTE=What the … !!!] And if Iran had a nuculur weapon then who … Or do you trust the UN, France, Germany and Russia more than Bush too? [/QUOTE] What the hell does this even mean? Could you put your ideas in a more meaningful form? It seems like you’re fishing for a “Bush isn’t teh suck” comment, but perhaps there’s more to it… ---
**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:** [June 10, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/35 "2006-06-10T16:56:01Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] What the hell does this even mean? Could you put your ideas in a more meaningful form? It seems like you’re fishing for a “Bush isn’t teh suck” comment, but perhaps there’s more to it… [/QUOTE] As much as I agree that the poster seems to be fishing and isn’t formulating much of an arguement, you have to agree that there is a lot of stuff in here that’s no better than “Bush is teh sux0r”. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/36 "2006-06-10T17:00:48Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] As much as I agree that the poster seems to be fishing and isn’t formulating much of an arguement, you have to agree that there is a lot of stuff in here that’s no better than “Bush is teh sux0r”. [/QUOTE] Oh, sure. I just wanted to get some sort of clarification; there may be a legitimate point / argument, but I wasn’t seeing it in that response. And I thought the original question had merit. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/37 "2006-06-10T17:12:21Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] As much as I agree that the poster seems to be fishing and isn’t formulating much of an arguement, you have to agree that there is a lot of stuff in here that’s no better than “Bush is teh sux0r”. [/QUOTE] And the _question_ is “can Bush be trusted”. His personal character, competence and history are quite relevant to that. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/38 "2006-06-10T17:22:27Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] And the _question_ is “can Bush be trusted”. His personal character, competence and history are quite relevant to that. [/QUOTE] Just to be clear, since I think this might concern the use of “original question” in my post, I was referring to **What the … !!!**'s question: > [@](#): > > “Who’s trustworthiness concerns you more… Bush or the Iranian leaders?” The above shouldn’t be taken as any sort of answer to the question you reiterate, though; as far as I’m concerned neither individual (which necessarily includes their backing political apparatus) deserves any trust whatsoever. Asking which is more trustworthy is a useless question, IMO; asking which concerns me more may lead to a useful point. ---
**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:** [June 10, 2006, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/39 "2006-06-10T21:20:38Z")
What I find ironic is that those who claim Bush can’t be trusted not matter what he says are using exactly the same form of “logic” that Bush used to get us into the war in Iraq-- that SH can’t be trusted no matter what he says, and no matter what other evidece exists that he might actually be telling the truth. Trust your instincts, not the facts in front of you. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052/40 "2006-06-10T21:30:16Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] What I find ironic is that those who claim Bush can’t be trusted not matter what he says are using exactly the same form of “logic” that Bush used to get us into the war in Iraq-- that SH can’t be trusted no matter what he says, and no matter what other evidece exists that he might actually be telling the truth. Trust your instincts, not the facts in front of you. [/QUOTE] Saddam let in the inspectors; I don’t see Bush letting neutral parties into the White House to moniter his honesty. Besides, the evidence is that Saddam _is_ more honest than Bush. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-bush-be-trusted-to-handle-iranian-overtures-in-good-faith/360052.md?page=3)