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 …
Source: Reuters - 09 June 2006
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?
Bush was never going to kill me or anyone in Iran for that matter. I don’t see how that argument applies.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe not you, but why not Iran ? He can fire off a few cruise missles any time, or ICBMs for that matter.
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.
Because he’s Bush. He lies and screws up; it’s what he does, what he is.
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.
Obviously then, these negotiations must be a step towards something else.
What is that thing?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just for a little perspective …
Who’s trustworthiness concerns you more… Bush or the Iranian leaders?
Bush’s, because he has more power.
Surely there’s a difference between being concerned and keeping a watchful eye and creating hysteria about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud.
And if Iran had a nuculur weapon then who …
Or do you trust the UN, France, Germany and Russia more than Bush too?
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…
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”.
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.
And the question is “can Bush be trusted”. His personal character, competence and history are quite relevant to that.
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:
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.
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.
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.