# If Bush's flaws are so blindingly obvious... why is he even in the running? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 10, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921 "2004-09-10T16:14:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/121 "2004-09-14T12:45:10Z")
So, **Abe** - given the efficacy of a marketing department and advisors to overcome stupidity and dishonesty… what system of selection do you propose? I find it disconcerting that the majority of posters in this thread have continued, gleefully, to demonstrate why they believe Bush is incompetent or malevolent, without addressing what I would aver is a key point of the OP: if incompetency or malevolence can produce such promising results in the race for the White House, how can you, in good conscience, continue to support the current system of selecting the resident of the White House? And what system do you recommend we use? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/122 "2004-09-14T13:01:02Z")
The answer is right there, if only you’d use a little imagination. Read **Spavined Gelding’s** post. The left must grasp the bloody, the down and dirty, the implements of street fighting, win at all costs electioneering. Why should the right alone be so adroit? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/123 "2004-09-14T13:02:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I find it disconcerting that the majority of posters in this thread have continued, gleefully, to demonstrate why they believe Bush is incompetent or malevolent, without addressing what I would aver is a key point of the OP: if incompetency or malevolence can produce such promising results in the race for the White House, how can you, in good conscience, continue to support the current system of selecting the resident of the White House? And what system do you recommend we use? I think I and others **have** addressed this: 1. As flawed as our system is, we’re not sure what would constitute a better system, and we admit that. Many people have made this point. 2. As I said above, I’d like to see an end to paid political advertising, which I think undermines democracy more than just about anything else. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to put such a measure into place. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/124 "2004-09-14T13:17:27Z")
Thanks for the clarification. > [@sevastopol](#): > > No, your understanding is quite incorrect: > > The claim: Iraq poses a grave threat to the security of the US, through the likelihood it will pass on instruments of mass destruction to to terrorists > > Elements of the claim: > > 1. Iraq has those instruments > 2. Iraq has or will have a co-operative relationship with terrorists > 3. Iraq is non-deterrable in its hatred of the US > 4. There is a real risk of Iraq passing on its instruments to terrorists. > > Much discussion has focussed on (1) because it is objectively and irrebuttably untrue. Hence Bush’s case for war collapses, irredeemably. First objection: it is not Bush’s case for war, but, as has been demonstrated, the general consensus since the end of the Gulf War. Hindsight is, of course, 20/20, but to classify element one of your list as a lie requires the consideration of facts not in evidence before the invasion. The identical case as listed above was in force throughout the 90s, and provided the justification for the Clinton missile attacks on Iraq. Element two of the list has not been discredited, even after the invasion. The presence of the terrorist training camp in Iraq, the presence of abu Nidal, Zarqawi, and others, the aid and comfort given by Saddam to the Palestinian terror bombers, etc., are all indications that Iraq had or “will have a co-operative relationship with terrorists”. Element three is more a judgement call, but Putin (as described) passed along intelligence that Iraq was planning attacks against the US. And the history of Iraqi refusal to abide by the terms of the cease-fire is well documented. > [@sevastopol](#): > > The rejoinder to (1)'s collapse has been the excuse that the intelligence was bad. > > However my post referred only to (2), (3) & (4). Bush did not rely on independent intelligence analysis to support elements (2), (3) & (4). We now know the intelligence did not support those statements. > > However to make his case Bush invented those elements, contrary to the advice he was receiving, root and branch. The excuse that the intelligence was bad is not available to excuse the false claim Bush made. Element four follows almost inescapably from the first three. And, since your statement that “we now know that the intelligence did not support elements (2), (3), and (4)” is merely false, and since a strong consensus had formed during the 90s that Iraq had or was trying to obtain WMD, your claim that Bush made up the case for the invasion of Iraq is unfounded. > [@Scylla](#): > > I know the sound bite mentality likes to just to have one thing to focus on one thing, but in every speech made to justify the war in Iraq, he posed multiple reasons. The big ones ones were WMDs, UN sanction violations, inhumane dictator, and outlaw regime. Which is, of course, obviously true. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/125 "2004-09-14T14:04:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And, since your statement that “we now know that the intelligence did not support elements (2), (3), and (4)” is merely false, and since a strong consensus had formed during the 90s that Iraq had or was trying to obtain WMD, your claim that Bush made up the case for the invasion of Iraq is unfounded. No, it is not false. It is true. In Summary: Bush made claims that were not only not supported by intelligence analysis, but _contrary to_ what the analysts were telling him. My claim is well founded. Look at **Abe’s** \* sequence of posts for cites. Each of the elements is addressed in those posts. \*magnificent ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/126 "2004-09-14T15:30:20Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I think I and others **have** addressed this: > > 1. As flawed as our system is, we’re not sure what would constitute a better system, and we admit that. Many people have made this point. > 2. As I said above, I’d like to see an end to paid political advertising, which I think undermines democracy more than just about anything else. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to put such a measure into place. Daniel: Yes, you and others have addressed this. You are, in this thread, in the minority in having done so. So let’s look at what I believe are some arguable conclusions - I don’t necessarily embrace these, but I feel they arguably flow from the facts that we have assumed _arguendo_ above: Dishonesty or stupidity benefit, or at least do not hinder, the candidate who has a solid team of marketeers and advisors. Thus the key element to winning an election is a solid team of marketeers and advisors. If this is true, and if no one in this thread advocates changing the electorla system to correct this, then the inescapable conclusion is that THIS IS THE WAY TO WIN ELECTIONS. It is unclear to me why people continue to whine and moan about how stupid and/or dishonest Bush is, when it’s clear that this has nothing substantial to do with winning the Presidency. It’s as irrelevant as complaining about his accent or his middle name. The fact of the matter is, by your own admission, Bush’s victory does not depend on his honesty or brilliance, or lack thereof, because the system does not appreciably reward those traits. Right? ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/127 "2004-09-14T16:38:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If this is true, and if no one in this thread advocates changing the electorla system to correct this, then the inescapable conclusion is that THIS IS THE WAY TO WIN ELECTIONS. It is unclear to me why people continue to whine and moan about how stupid and/or dishonest Bush is, when it’s clear that this has nothing substantial to do with winning the Presidency. > Right? I think the whining and moaning result from the fact that winning an election and actually running the country, are very, very different things. I’m a liberal Democrat, and wouldn’t piss on Bush’s head if his hair was on fire, but I’m in awe of the Republican Party organization and its ability to win elections. For all that awe, I don’t believe their candidate is the better of the two when it comes to actual experience, ability, or intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/128 "2004-09-14T16:42:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Dishonesty or stupidity benefit, or at least do not hinder, the candidate who has a solid team of marketeers and advisors. Thus the key element to winning an election is a solid team of marketeers and advisors. I’m not sure I’d say it’s the key element, but it’s certainly _a_ key element. When I very briefly freelanced writing materials for Internet marketing, one of the most horrifying things I read was a marketer who claimed that (paraphrased), “Your marketing message will function best in an information-impoverished environment.” That is, the less people actually know about the merits and flaws of your product and that of your competitors, the more they’ll be swayed by your advertisements about your product. I think that’s something of what we’re seeing, only twisted: although there’s a plethora of information about politics, there’s so much that it turns into white noise for most folks: they can’t figure out whom to trust, or how to evaluate information. And reading and evaluating conflicting economic reports, for example, is beyond the ken of most folks. I don’t say that to insult most folks, but simply as a statement of how things are. So when they encounter a statement that is strong, poetically phrased, and plausible sounding, they’re often relieved. A simple message sometimes functions best in an information-overloaded environment. > [@](#): > > If this is true, and if no one in this thread advocates changing the electorla system to correct this, then the inescapable conclusion is that THIS IS THE WAY TO WIN ELECTIONS. It is unclear to me why people continue to whine and moan about how stupid and/or dishonest Bush is, when it’s clear that this has nothing substantial to do with winning the Presidency. It’s as irrelevant as complaining about his accent or his middle name. The fact of the matter is, by your own admission, Bush’s victory does not depend on his honesty or brilliance, or lack thereof, because the system does not appreciably reward those traits. I don’t follow. First off, stupidity doesn’t win you elections; I just don’t think it hurts your chances very much. Second, I’m not convinced Bush is stupid; I just don’t think he’s exceptionally smart. Third, although dishonesty can win you elections, it doesn’t make you govern well. I mainly bitch and moan about his poor governance. Fourth, although dishonesty can win you elections, and although I don’t have a clear alternate proposal, how does it follow that I can’t bemoan that fact? I hate war and complain about it, despite my lack of a concrete proposal for achieving world peace; I believe you do the same about abortion. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/129 "2004-09-14T17:08:41Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Fourth, although dishonesty can win you elections, and although I don’t have a clear alternate proposal, how does it follow that I can’t bemoan that fact? I hate war and complain about it, despite my lack of a concrete proposal for achieving world peace; I believe you do the same about abortion. Your point is a good one – though your example is flawed. I _have_ a concrete proposal with regard to abortion: the Supreme Court should overrule itself in the matter of _Roe v. Wade_, and then each state should pass legislation limiting abortion to cases in which, absent the abortion, the life of the mother is threatened. But I agree that you can moan without having a concrete counter-proposal. It’s just that, by moaning, there seems to be sort of an implicit assertion that you _have_ a counter-proposal… but maybe that’s just my take on it. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/130 "2004-09-14T17:42:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your point is a good one – though your example is flawed. I _have_ a concrete proposal with regard to abortion: the Supreme Court should overrule itself in the matter of _Roe v. Wade_, and then each state should pass legislation limiting abortion to cases in which, absent the abortion, the life of the mother is threatened. Okay, then I have a concrete proposal, too: everyone should stop making political advertisements, and prospective voters should make an effort to wade through difficult and contradictory news sources in order to become better acquainted with the facts, and then people should vote based on issues, not on vague hunches. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/131 "2004-09-14T18:01:54Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Okay, then I have a concrete proposal, too: everyone should stop making political advertisements, and prospective voters should make an effort to wade through difficult and contradictory news sources in order to become better acquainted with the facts, and then people should vote based on issues, not on vague hunches. > > Daniel Touché. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/132 "2004-09-14T19:07:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If this is true, and if no one in this thread advocates changing the electorla system to correct this, then the inescapable conclusion is that THIS IS THE WAY TO WIN ELECTIONS. It is unclear to me why people continue to whine and moan about how stupid and/or dishonest Bush is, when it’s clear that this has nothing substantial to do with winning the Presidency. It’s as irrelevant as complaining about his accent or his middle name. The fact of the matter is, by your own admission, Bush’s victory does not depend on his honesty or brilliance, or lack thereof, because the system does not appreciably reward those traits. Well, call me a bit old-fashioned but I sort of hoped that the people in charge would have a little bit of honesty, morality, and so forth that might prevent them from doing **anything they possibly can to game the system**. What you are basically saying is that if a system allows sociopaths (like the ones currently in power) to win elections then one would have to reform the system to prevent this. I have some sympathy for this point of view and am open to suggestions on how to do that. However, in the meantime, I don’t think that I have no right to complain. All because a system allows abuses does not mean that we have to consider these abuses to be okey-dokey! No system is perfect…And, no political system is even close to it. At any rate, I think some of us here are trying to work our damnedest to prevent abuse of the system by fighting ignorance. The fact that we don’t win every battle, and sometimes have major setbacks, doesn’t mean we won’t eventually win the war. > [@Shodan](#): > > Element four follows almost inescapably from the first three. And, since your statement that “we now know that the intelligence did not support elements (2), (3), and (4)” is merely false, and since a strong consensus had formed during the 90s that Iraq had or was trying to obtain WMD, your claim that Bush made up the case for the invasion of Iraq is unfounded. Did you even read what **Abe** and I posted? Oh never mind; I am not expecting to convince the likes of you anyway. You are just like the Administration you are defending…completely incapable of modifying your preconceptions on the basis of new evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/133 "2004-09-14T19:31:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If this is true, and if no one in this thread advocates changing the electorla system to correct this, then the inescapable conclusion is that THIS IS THE WAY TO WIN ELECTIONS. It is unclear to me why people continue to whine and moan about how stupid and/or dishonest Bush is, when it’s clear that this has nothing substantial to do with winning the Presidency. It’s as irrelevant as complaining about his accent or his middle name. The fact of the matter is, by your own admission, Bush’s victory does not depend on his honesty or brilliance, or lack thereof, because the system does not appreciably reward those traits. All this would be well and good if governing was the same as campaigning. It is not. Furthermore, the consequences of mismanaging a campaign are borne by the loser. The consequences of mismanaging a country are borne by everyone and for a longer period of time. A couple people have suggested reforms to the electoral process primarially designed to weed out politicians who use deceptive tactics to keep voters uninformed, or misinformed, about their activities/positions. I support similar reforms, although not the flat-out ban of political advertisement, as well as legislation like the FOIA which allow voters to more closely monitor the activities of politicians who represent them. I would personally try to find some way to increase direct democracy, possibly in the form of ballot initiatives and/or recall capabilities. I would also prefer to shrink the government beauracracy to the point where keeping track of who represents you at the various government levels and what they are doing is humanly possible. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/134 "2004-09-14T19:43:34Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > At any rate, I think some of us here are trying to work our damnedest to prevent abuse of the system by fighting ignorance. The fact that we don’t win every battle, and sometimes have major setbacks, doesn’t mean we won’t eventually win the war. As another way of looking at it, imagine that someone develops a new muscle-enhancing steroid that is, according to current scientific tests, completely undetectable in an athlete’s blood or urine (or through any other means). We suspect that some athletes are taking it, but we don’t have any practical plan for preventing their taking it. And if we figure out a test for the drug, the drug suppliers are almost certain to invent a new drug that circumvents our efforts. Do we therefore lose our right to complain about their taking it? That’s kind of what we’re facing now. Political ads and dirty tricks really subvert democracy, in my eyes: they use the most powerful propaganda tools humanity has invented to distract people from the issues and substitute soundbites. The winner of the race is not the person who’s most qualified to lead, but is instead the person with the best ad campaign. And the advertisers are very clever: whenever we come up with a proposal for diminishing their influence, they just repackage their efforts in a new form. I still say that we must keep trying to diminish their influence. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/135 "2004-09-15T00:19:29Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > Scylla, > Sanction violations, outlaw regime and WMD are the same one. You don’t get to count it 3 times. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn’t necessarily a square. Sanction violations are not necessarily Weapons of Mass Destruction. That should be obvious to you without my explicitly having to point it. Similarly, all birds are not chickens. You can be an outlaw regime, by harboring terrorists within your borders, having a history of attacking your neighbors, engaging in genocide, and all kinds of other things that are not WMDs. Weapons of mass destruction are, of course, specifically, weapons of mass destruction. They are not harboring terrorists, engaging in genocide (although using wmds is a fun and novel way to engage in genocide and impress your friends at the same time.) Outlaw regimes are not weapons of mass destruction. They are the people running countries. If you want to cut off a dictator’s head, and then bludgeon 10,000 people to death with it, **then** you can make the claim that outlaw regimes are WMDS. But, until you do, I don’t want to hear it. And I’ll want pictures. So, now that I’ve explained to you that three different things are in fact three different things, on to the next tidbit. > [@](#): > > Why didn’t you read and quote my post in full? Do that and it would be apparent I made the very same point. Have a look it at it. See where I used the word “Wrong!” in reference to “WMD.” See that? Well it means it is ‘wrong’ to assert that _possession_ of WMD was the entire case. > > Otherwise as per my previous post. I read it. I just didn’t care. Saying “WMDs” and saying “WMDs which pose a clear and present threat to the US,” are, as you say, different. I suppose some people might have the confusion you attribute to them, but I think most of us just use “WMD” for shorthand knowing that “threat to the United States” is implied in the abbreviation. Had we found some WMDS whose threat was a matter of controversy, I suppose the distinction might be important. However, since the plain fact that **every single WMD** that we found so far in Iraq was an immediate threat to the US, your argument holds no water. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/136 "2004-09-15T02:28:27Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I read it. I just didn’t care. Indeed you didn’t, choosing to selectively quote from my post. Then arguing against that travesty of my position, using the very argument I was in fact making. I do admit, this open admission of dishonesty is a new rhetorical stategy to me. Fine, I suppose you are dishonest. > [@](#): > > Had we found some WMDS whose threat was a matter of controversy, I suppose the distinction might be important. > > However, since the plain fact that **every single WMD** that we found so far in Iraq was an immediate threat to the US, your argument holds no water. Yes, yes you post dishonestly, no need to labour the point. In fact I’d rather you didn’t engage with me any further, seeing as you make points that are both dishonest and sillly beyond anything to meriting a response. > [@](#): > > Saying “WMDs” and saying “WMDs which pose a clear and present threat to the US,” are, as you say, different. I suppose some people might have the confusion you attribute to them, but I think most of us just use “WMD” for shorthand knowing that “threat to the United States” is implied in the abbreviation. Utterly wrong. Threat to the US is not implied. Conflating the 2 is a cheap trick. It is done to gloss over the very point I have established, with the kind support of other people here. That Bush fabricated elements of the case for war, out and out made them up. Fabrications that cannot be mitigated by a plea of poor intelligence information. But see I’m not a partisan, I’m bona fide, so I’d be thrilled if someone were to present a cite showing that CIA or other intelligence, _not_ that special office Rumsfeld set up, did in fact advise Bush contrary to what I have suggested. I’d be overjoyed to discover Bush engaged in open ended consultation with the CIA: **GWB** “\*What do you guys see as the security priority for the US after we rout the Taliban?” **CIA** _“Removing the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein”_ But I suppose either of **Scylla** or **Shodan** would have long since posted such cites if such did in fact exist. Anyone? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/137 "2004-09-15T02:52:50Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > Indeed you didn’t, choosing to selectively quote from my post. Then arguing against that travesty of my position, using the very argument I was in fact making. > > I do admit, this open admission of dishonesty is a new rhetorical stategy to me. Fine, I suppose you are dishonest. If quoting selectively is dishonest than by your own terms you’re a bigger liar than I am since you only selected certain portions of my previous post to respond to. Oh, the hypocrispy! Come now. > [@](#): > > Yes, yes you post dishonestly, no need to labour the point. In fact I’d rather you didn’t engage with me any further, seeing as you make points that are both dishonest and sillly beyond anything to meriting a response. Than don’t respond. > [@](#): > > Utterly wrong. Threat to the US is not implied. Well, I disagree. I think it is. I base this on the way Bush said over and over again about how these WMDs were a massive threat to us because of globalization and yadda yadda yadda, 9/11 showed us that the oceans don’t protect us any longer and how easy it would be to get these WMDs in the hands of terrorists who would use them in the US, so it wasn’t so much implied as flat out stated any number of times by any number of people in any number of speeches. > [@](#): > > Conflating the 2 is a cheap trick. It is done to gloss over the very point I have established, with the kind support of other people here. That Bush fabricated elements of the case for war, out and out made them up. Fabrications that cannot be mitigated by a plea of poor intelligence information. Other people agree with me. You won’t her me saying it makes me right. It doesn’t make you right either. > [@](#): > > But see I’m not a partisan, I’m bona fide, so I’d be thrilled if someone were to present a cite showing that CIA or other intelligence, _not_ that special office Rumsfeld set up, did in fact advise Bush contrary to what I have suggested. > > I’d be overjoyed to discover Bush engaged in open ended consultation with the CIA: > > **GWB** “\*What do you guys see as the security priority for the US after we rout the Taliban?” > > **CIA** _“Removing the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein”_ > > But I suppose either of **Scylla** or **Shodan** would have long since posted such cites if such did in fact exist. Anyone? Long since. Long since. George Tenet. The Slam Dunk thing. Kerry saying it’s certain that Iraq has WMDs. Clinton saying the same thing. Gore. Those cites have been trotted out over and over, you know? To me, it doesn’t really matter. Bush had many reasons for going to war of which the WMD threat was one. Bush allowed the debate to be reframed in terms of WMDs and told us it was a certainty. Whether or not he believed it is moot. At the very very least he engaged in a lie of negligence, and demonstrated incompetance. He is after all, in the final analysis, the Commander in Chief. He’s responsible for the actions he takes and for what occurs under his watch. He said it was a sure thing. He didn’t resist the recharacterization. He encouraged it. He was flat out wrong. It wasn’t a sure thing. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/138 "2004-09-15T04:03:06Z")
> [@TokyoTakarazuka](#): > > Iraq… has attempted to assassinate former American president George HW Bush, This simply isn’t true, or at least, there is no real evidence it is true and no compelling reason to think it is true. The assassination story is almost certainly pure fiction. It is based entirely upon the claims of one man, Wali al-Ghazali, who was facing execution at the time and had every reason to lie and was almost certainly tortured into confessing. His story was highly implausible; there was essentially zero corroborating evidence. Given that you are repeating as truth what is known to be fantasy, I wonder about your other claims. Once again we see that support for Bush’s administration, or at least its policies, is based at least in part on belief in things that are not true. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/139 "2004-09-15T04:12:51Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > But, I am willing to believe that they really thought they were going to find stockpiles of WMDs. And, yet, to this day I can’t reconcile that with the idea that they didn’t make it Priority #1 to get those damned sites secured pronto. (And, I am also disappointed that this angle has not been followed up significantly by the “liberal media”.) As **SimonX** says, “Mendacity or incompetence (mind-boggling incompetence, I might add)…We report, you decide.” Here are a few stories from April and May 2003 on the securing, or lack thereof, of sites with nuclear materials or possible WMDs: [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068560/](http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068560/) [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0505nuclearlooting.htm](http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0505nuclearlooting.htm) [http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/iraq/646.html](http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/iraq/646.html) From the MSNBC/Newsweek one: > [@](#): > > Some of the lapses are frightening. The well-known Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, about 12 miles south of Baghdad, had nearly two tons of partially enriched uranium, along with significant quantities of highly radioactive medical and industrial isotopes, when International Atomic Energy Agency officials made their last visit in January. By the time U.S. troops arrived in early April, armed guards were holding off looters—but the Americans only disarmed the guards, Al Tuwaitha department heads told NEWSWEEK. “We told them, ‘This site is out of control. You have to take care of it’,” says Munther Ibrahim, Al Tuwaitha’s head of plasma physics. “The soldiers said, ‘We are a small group. We cannot take control of this site’.” As soon as the Americans left, looters broke in. The staff fled; when they returned, the containment vaults’ seals had been broken, and radioactive material was everywhere. > > U.S. officers say the center had already been ransacked before their troops arrived. They didn’t try to stop the looting, says Colonel Madere, because “there was no directive that said do not allow anyone in and out of this place.” Last week American troops finally went back to secure the site. Al Tuwaitha’s scientists still can’t fully assess the damage; some areas are too badly contaminated to inspect. “I saw empty uranium-oxide barrels lying around, and children playing with them,” says Fadil Mohsen Abed, head of the medical-isotopes department. Stainless-steel uranium canisters had been stolen. Some were later found in local markets and in villagers’ homes. “We saw people using them for milking cows and carrying drinking water,” says Ibrahim. The looted materials could not make a nuclear bomb, but IAEA officials worry that terrorists could build plenty of dirty bombs with some of the isotopes that may have gone missing. Last week NEWSWEEK visited a total of eight sites on U.N. weapons-inspection lists. Two were guarded by U.S. troops. Armed looters were swarming through two others. Another was evidently destroyed many years ago. American forces had not yet searched the remaining three. Yup, the Bush Administration was certainly doing its damnedest to keep these materials out of the hands of terrorists! ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921/140 "2004-09-15T07:36:37Z")
Well I have a couple of possible answers to explain the base and empty apologism that persists. Back in April, _The Economist_ ran a special report on Bush’s credibility. The entire thing is available online. Please keep in mind that this April article does not provide as complete a picture as more recent treatises, but I will just quote their take on why and how the administration can get away with all this: > [@](#): > > from [The Economist: George Bush’s Credibility](http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2553350) > > …the Clarke affair has a pattern: “never apologise, never explain.” With the notable exception of Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, the administration has refused to acknowledge even obvious shortcomings, such as its slowness in formulating a new counter-terrorism policy. It has not shifted its basic claim—to have done everything possible—in the light of conflicting arguments. It refused to allow Ms Rice to testify in public to the commission—White House officials do not usually do such things—until pressure to do so became irresistible, implying a certain reluctance to account for its actions before Congress (see article). It deployed ruthless character assassination against critics within its own ranks. The reason this pattern is disturbing is that all these features can be seen in the policy debates over both the war in Iraq and tax cuts—the policies on which Mr Bush deserves, above all else, to be judged. > > In both cases, the administration stuck relentlessly to an unchanging line in radically changed circumstances. It argued that the tax cut of 2001 was justified because there was a large surplus. It argued that the tax cut of 2003 was justified even though there was a large deficit. It argued that war in Iraq was justified because Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction threatened the United States. It argued that war was justified even when it failed to find those weapons. > > This is not to assert that the policies were conclusively wrong, though many have argued as much. In both cases, the administration could still defend and justify its actions in different ways. > > \ > > But some of these arguments are undeniably internally inconsistent. > > \ > > Mr Bush dismissed the idea that the absence of WMD had any implications for perceptions of the Iraqi security threat. “So what’s the difference?”, he asked a television interviewer rhetorically last December, between Saddam actually possessing WMD and his moving to acquire them? **The idea that the absence of WMD is insignificant sits oddly with the administration’s earlier claims that the existence of the weapons was vital.** > > When justifying policies on both Iraq and tax cuts, the administration’s case has been riddled with errors. Obviously, the most egregious concern Iraq’s WMD. Henry Waxman, a Democratic congressman, has gathered no fewer than 237 exaggerated or dubious claims by senior administration members—an impressive litany of mistakes. One priceless example: Donald Rumsfeld in September 2002, asserting that “there’s no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons…We all know that. A trained ape knows that. All you have to do is read the newspapers.” (Had the ape been trained to read?) > > These mis-statements could be excused as hype, or errors based on faulty intelligence. But the administration can hardly pin all the blame on a gung-ho Central Intelligence Agency when it itself was even more convinced that Saddam had WMD, and was sceptical of the few words of caution that the CIA and others managed to interject. On March 30th, the new chief American weapons inspector for Iraq talked of “new information” about WMD but gave little idea what it was, beyond evidence of a general Iraqi capability to produce such weapons. > > \ > > But there is another set of explanations, less damning of the administration. Most of the “lies”—almost all of which are actually mistakes or misrepresentations, not deliberate falsehoods—are products of the endless spin and interpretation of America’s “permanent campaign”. **Message control and winning each 24-hour news cycle have usurped the place of substantive debate.** The Clinton administration was accused of similar lies and half-truths. It is as much the product of a political culture as of any one president, and Mr Bush’s ambition to buck the trend has failed. > > **The administration came into office convinced that, under Mr Clinton, too much accountability to Congress had hampered effective government. Its members have therefore tried to re-assert executive privilege.** Some of their attempts to keep Congress in the dark are rooted in this view, rather than in perfidy and secrecy. > > \ > > Lastly, many of these “lies” have a curious quality: they tend to confirm the popular view of the president’s temperament and beliefs. Usually, distortions suggest that the person responsible is putting on an act or is somehow different from what he pretends to be. Yet, at least in foreign policy, the administration’s errors and misrepresentations all tend to confirm the president’s image as a man uncompromising in his determination to fight the war on terror as he conceives it (at least after September 2001), and willing to ride roughshod over critics and nuanced intelligence alike to get his way. > > And that in turn may explain one of the most surprising features of the past two weeks: that despite all the controversy over Mr Bush’s honesty, credibility and competence, his position in the opinion polls has remained resilient. In several polls he has regained a narrow lead over Mr Kerry, and 50% of voters say they are more likely to vote for him because of his actions in the war on terror compared with just 28% for his rival. > > Admittedly, the margin on the latter question was even greater two months ago, and more people now think the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of another terrorist attack than think it has reduced it. Still, worries about Mr Bush do not yet seem to be translating into potential votes for Mr Kerry. **It is as if voters, faced with the president’s lack of straight dealing, are concluding that truth may indeed be the first casualty of the war they want to win.** My emphasis. That is the rather charitable view – charitable to the propagandaphagi, as well as the administration. The report has an apologetic tone (well, it **is** _The Economist_), is months old, and does not take into account much of the information already expressed in this thread. It does however partially address the original question of this thread, which was demanded by **Bricker** : > [@Bricker](#): > > So, Abe - given the efficacy of a marketing department and advisors to overcome stupidity and dishonesty… what system of selection do you propose? > > I find it disconcerting that the majority of posters in this thread have continued, gleefully, to demonstrate why they believe Bush is incompetent or malevolent, without addressing what I would aver is a key point of the OP: if incompetency or malevolence can produce such promising results in the race for the White House, how can you, in good conscience, continue to support the current system of selecting the resident of the White House? And what system do you recommend we use? As far as I can see there are at least two daunting tasks here, not one. The first is the argument, made easily enough, that the administration has provided too many displays of dishonesty and incompetence, packaged in a variety of manners (the argument is made easily enough, given the wealth of material, but _convincing_ the apologists and terminal supporters is another matter). That material we can thrash out and, indeed, have done hundreds of times on these boards, in the hope that they will actually be read and not skipped selectively. The second task is figuring out how the system is defective and what to do about it. Rather more difficult, but why not give it a bash. Actually, I call on another issue of _The Economist_ that kindly did the work for us. It is not available online, but I found a web site that carries the section I am interested in: > [@](#): > > from _The Economist_, Aug 28th - Sep 3rd 2004. “Special Report: George Bush” > as made available at [http://furiouslibertarian.blogspot.com/2004/09/economist-special-report-george-bush.html](http://furiouslibertarian.blogspot.com/2004/09/economist-special-report-george-bush.html) > > **Imperium revisited** > > Mr Bush came to office arguing that restrictions on presidential authority, especially since Watergate, had harmed decision-making. The implication is that good government requires a certain period of privacy in which officials can thrash out policies. The public should judge only the result. In 2002, his vice-president, Dick Cheney, said, “I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job.” He said he and Mr Bush had talked about the need to “pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors.” They have succeeded, after a fashion, but at a heavy cost. > > Unified government, with the administration and Congress under the same party’s control, tends to boost presidential authority anyway—the more so this time, as the Republican Party is fairly disciplined. Tom DeLay, the majority leader in the House of Representatives, has defined his job simply: “How do I advance the president’s agenda?” The party’s narrow majority keeps troops in line. Lest there be any backsliding, Mr Bush’s personal campaigning in the 2002 mid-term elections reminded congressmen and senators of their interest in keeping on good terms with him. > > More important, wars always increase the powers of the executive branch. Because it has implications for America’s domestic freedoms, the war on terror may well end up increasing executive power more than most. > > But Mr Bush’s ambitions have gone beyond what these underlying forces make inevitable. One measure of his ambition was the claim of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department (the administration’s main source of legal advice), made in August 2002, that the president’s authority as commander-in-chief was in effect unlimited in the conduct of a war. As the legal opinion put it, he “enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his commander-in-chief authority.” > > This claim showed how expansive Mr Bush’s view of his powers could be. No former president had gone that far. In fact, it was too far. The Supreme Court said the constitution did not warrant such a reading and struck down the policy based on it: holding detainees from the war in Afghanistan without charge. But the case was unusual only in that the high court overruled Mr Bush. More commonly, he has had his way. > > The most important check on a president’s authority is Congress, formally the sovereign power. To see how Mr Bush and his allies have treated the legislature, consider the Medicare bill. > > In January 2003, the White House sent Congress a proposal for reform of the health-care system. The price tag, it said, was $400 billion. The real cost was $534 billion. Medicare’s chief actuary was told not to answer congressional questions on pain of dismissal. After the House and Senate passed different versions of the proposal, the Republicans began work to reconcile the two. They refused to let five of the Democrats nominated to the process take part in deliberations—and rewrote the bill. > > Even then, they fell short of a majority when voting began, at 3am. Defying precedent, the House leadership held the vote open for three hours while arms were twisted. The bill finally passed just before 6am. Norm Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, called it the ugliest breach of congressional standards in modern history. > > Making laws has always been like making sausages (don’t look closely). When the Democrats were in charge, they did not always run Congress as prescribed in the civics textbooks. Some of Congress’s hallowed traditions could do with pruning, especially the power of committees. > > But the Republicans have put forward none of this in mitigation. Instead, they have claimed, in essence, that the ends justify the means. Mr Bush, they say, has pushed big tax cuts and education and health-care reforms through a closely divided, bitterly partisan institution. The alternative to such strong-arm tactics was legislative gridlock, which, they argue, would have been worse. > > Even if you think the ends are good, the means have inflicted institutional harm on Congress. The committee system for amending bills has all but collapsed. Bills are now written by the leaders and their staffs, in concert with the White House. Debate is often cut off: many controversial measures are voted on under a “closed rule”, which bars amendments. The conference stage, when different versions of a bill are reconciled, has been turned from an occasion for compromise into yet another opportunity for partisan gain. Sometimes the conference committee does not meet at all. Sometimes Republicans have ignored the rule that says the committee can only iron out differences, and have fundamentally altered bills at the last minute. The budget process is in tatters. In effect, executive power is running with far fewer checks than the system requires. That’s bad enough, but exacerbating this problem is the lack of desire in the majority of mass media to dig into issues and expose the rotten portions thereof. We can’t, as _The Economist_ goes on to explain in the next section, rely on Congressional oversight, because that has been undermined as well (I don’t have a link at the moment though). It is at this point that the marketing department becomes especially relevant, and why the words of dead presidents are so important to the modern republic. I am typing out the following, so please forgive any typos. > [@](#): > > from _The Economist_, Aug 28th - Sep 3rd 2004. “Special Report: George Bush” > > Perhaps the most disturbing way in which the administration has increased its power has been through its public-relations machine. Thomas jefferson said long ago that a well-informed electorate is the most important constraint on government. By issuing partial and sometimes misleading information, the Bush administration has hampered such scrutiny. > > Consider for instance the arguments for tax cuts. Here, Mr Bush made claims about the cost of the cuts and their distributional impact that he should have known were misleading. In 2000, he claimed the first round of cuts would cost $1.6 trillion over ten years, a quarter of the budget surplus at that point. On his own figures, the share was a third, not a quarter, and he arrived at the figure only through outrageous accounting gimmicks that he is now campaigning to forbid. > > He also asserted that the cuts would provide “the greatest help for those most in need”, providing a Treasury study to back up his claim. In the past, treasury studies have been impartial. but this one arrived at its conclusion by leaving out the parts of the tax cut that most benefited the wealthiest (such as the repeal of the estate tax). By any normal measure, the tax cuts have been regressive – hardly “the greatest help for those most in need”. > > Taking facts out of context, politicizing government studies and presenting anomalous examples as typical are hardly unique to the Bush administration. But they still do damage. **The system of checks and balances – indeed, democracy itself – requires voters to be able to understand the impact of actions taken on their behalf** , so they can apportion credit or blame farly. If it is impossible to tell how much of the administration’s arguments for war were vindicated or disproved, or who the tax cuts really helped, then proper public accounting is impossible. > > Beyond that, members of the administration have occasionally acted in ways that have discouraged public debate directly. In May 2002, the White House’s communications director, Dan bartlett, argued in the _Washinton Post_ that Democratic criticisms of administration actions before September 11th were “exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do.” Mr. Ashcroft had earlier conflated civil-liberties activitists with terrorist sympathisers, telling Congress: “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists.” All this came near to arguing that, after September 11th, debate itself could be treasonous. > > Mr Bush has frequently said that voters will give their verdict in November, and that he looks forward to it. But quadrennial elections are not the only means of restraining government. The genius of the American system is that administrations must work within a system of checks and balances. these checks have themselves been checked. > > Congress is the main competing source of power. It has become more like an adjunct to the administration. Information encourages public scrutiny. The flow has been reduced. The administration’s actions are filtered through civil-service rules and procedures. The rules have been chopped and changed. A free press is essential to the working of democracy. Andy Card, the White House chief of staff, rejected that view, arguing “I don’t believe you [the press] have a check-and-balance function.” What is the solution? Who knows? Certainly it should be a subject for intense study. Assuming that the political process prevents the citizens from wresting power back from the administration by re-enabling Congress as an effective watchdog, there are limited options. Media with much sharper teeth, for a start. Media that, when they hear outrageous claims, won’t simply parrot them, but attempt to run a verification process and provide readers with substance. Media that resist alarmism, that aren’t fooled by deliberate inaccuracies spun like tops, and that don’t feel the need to toe some sick totalitarian “patriotic” line. Unfortunately, as discussed in the thread [Censored Stories of the Year](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=274991), such media have difficulties finding traction where critical thinking is lacking, where information must be accompanied by bias to be acceptable, and where ratings dictate the behaviour of private media. In fact the large majority of all forms of US media – thousands of them – today is owned entirely by five or six corporate giants (used to be 50 in 1983, fell to about 20 in 1992). There are PBS and NPR available throughout the country, thankfully, but in terms of ratings they fall below the top giants (which, sadly, include FOX News, the most watched news channel in the US and also the most jingoistic and sloppy). Regarding the dishonest and embarrassing apology that WMDs aren’t that critical, that they weren’t the focus, and similar pre-digested pap being cranked out by the administration: perhaps we should leave such statements to stand on their own merits – or, more appropriately, fall flat on their faces, since the evidence already provided indicates that such arguments are reaching and desperate attempts to excuse and reconcile deliberate falsehood and misinformation. Certainly not part of any democratic process. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bushs-flaws-are-so-blindingly-obvious-why-is-he-even-in-the-running/263921.md?page=8)