# Republicans: torture good, marriage bad **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2004, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584 "2004-05-17T12:49:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/81 "2004-05-18T21:24:45Z")
Also, if you’ll look at the link that **Diogenes the Cynic** provided, the link with the estimated IQs, you’ll notice the name **William Sidis**. I’ve heard of Sidis before and he was apparently well know during the early 1900s. Despite having an extremely high IQ, Sidis, in his adult life was 'socially backward’ to the point he accomplished very little. Not that Sidis didn’t show early promise. By age five Sidis was reading in Russian, French, and German. By eight, he had passed the entrance exams for both MIT and Harvard. As an adult, Sidis never married, held the most menial of jobs, and simply did his best to disappear. So no, IQ ability doesn’t necessarily translate beyond the scope of what it measures ---- even though it does correlate with quite a few things that might be surprising to most. Including, in some cases, your pending death. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/82 "2004-05-18T21:46:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, why don’t you tell us how to measure it then. I didn’t provide a way to _measure_ it, but I did provide a way to _recognize_ it: > [@Polerius](#): > > It is about being able to make correct decisions and correct and clear arguments to support those decisions. > [@John Mace](#): > > You can’t claim to be unable to measure intelligence, and yet somehow know that Bush isn’t intelligent. I think you certainly can. If you wake up in and look out the window, you will be able to tell whether it is day or night, even if you don’t know what time it is. Similarly, based on the intelligence “rule” I gave above, I can see that several people on this board that I disagree with on several issues, like **xtisme** and you **John** , are indeed intelligent because they can explain their positions in a clear and logical way. I don’t have to know your IQ scores or SAT scores to deduce that. IMHO, Bush fails the above intelligence rule. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/83 "2004-05-18T22:28:00Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Sorry, no strawmen here. The Bush Administration and the Republican Party in general definitely oppose gay marriage. The Bush Administration has definitely sanctioned torture, and some Republican apologists have definitely defended the torture at Abu Ghraib. So torture good, marriage bad. It’s not a straw man if there’s substance to it. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Yeah, this is the corner your precious Bushco has backed you into now “Bushco” isn’t precious to me, nor have they backed me into anything. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > you have to defend the torture at Abu Ghraib as just a bunch of fraternity hazings, or as a necessary adjunct to the war on terror Bullshit. I don’t have to do any such thing. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > [you have to]…attack the right of two people of the same sex to express their love through marriage. More bullshit. I don’t have to do anything of the sort. So the whole first paragraph is strawmen from start to finish. Next paragraph: > [@Evil Captor](#): > > So remember: torture good, marriage bad. Nonsensical, unrelated hogwash as explained above. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > And if you get a funny feeling when you say that, it’s just what’s left of your sense of morality trying to survive. More bullshit. The funny feeling’s the minor stress associated with honoring GD rules after reading a unfounded, prejudiced, public assault on my character as a member of the GOP. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > And try not to let your heads explode while you’re at it. If there were a chance of this sort of thing happening, then there would be a chance that this is not a straw man. However… In short, the OP’s a congealed glob of ad hom attacks against a group. Solely because it’s against a group rather than me personally it’s doesn’t go against the letter of GD rules. It’s obvious that you’re just trying to rouse some ire and raise some hackles for own meager amusement with the confrontational language and abusive tone. Next time you get the urge to write and OP like this, why don’t you cram it right up The Pit? Cause it’s not a debate. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/84 "2004-05-19T00:45:56Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I didn’t provide a way to _measure_ it, but I did provide a way to _recognize_ it: An entirely subjective method which presupposes the existence of a “correct answer” to real life question. By that method, Kennedy and Johnson are not intelligent (Vietnam War), Gordon Moore is not intelligent (there is no market for a personal computer), Gore is not intelligent (he should have known he would lose the election), etc. etc. etc. Which is precisely why we \*\*DO \*\* use standardize tests to measure intelligence. It’s only in that type of controlled situation when there \*\*IS \*\* a correct answer. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/85 "2004-05-19T03:28:50Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Some Democrats started KKK and some Democrats dropped A-bombs on civilian population. So remember, **all** Democrats are racist mass murderers. > > “It’s not a straw man if there’s substance to it.” Thanks for making my point for me, Iskander. In 1945, lots of Democrats WERE racists. The whole Republican Southern Strategy was about wooing the southern racists who HAD been in the Democratic Party (the Yellow Dog democrats) over to the Republican Party – and it succeeded very well. And while dropping the A-bombs was a mass slaughter, I don’t know that it can be characterized as a murder, as part of the rationale for it is one I find convincing: that taking the Japanese mainland via a land invasion would likely cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. It was a cold, hard decision to have to make, and they made it, and I don’t envy them at all for having had to make it. But it definitely wouldn’t have been a strawman to say a lot of Dems were KKKers back in the first half of the 1900s. Not at all. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/86 "2004-05-19T03:43:12Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > “Bushco” isn’t precious to me, nor have they backed me into anything. > Bullshit. I don’t have to do any such thing. > More bullshit. I don’t have to do anything of the sort. > So the whole first paragraph is strawmen from start to finish. > Next paragraph: > Nonsensical, unrelated hogwash as explained above. > More bullshit. The funny feeling’s the minor stress associated with honoring GD rules after reading a unfounded, prejudiced, public assault on my character as a member of the GOP. > If there were a chance of this sort of thing happening, then there would be a chance that this is not a straw man. However… Calling something hogwash and bullshit without backing it up with an explanation is an expression of opinion. It’s not an argument. > [@](#): > > In short, the OP’s a congealed glob of ad hom attacks against a group. Solely because it’s against a group rather than me personally it’s doesn’t go against the letter of GD rules. Actually, it doesn’t go against GD rules at all, in letter or in spirit. I’m not attacking an individual, I’m making assertions and backing them up with logic. I made the rhetorical point that the Bush Administration’s use of torture forces the Republicans who support the Bush Administration to defend them. Seymour Hirsch has information to the effect that Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice both signed off on the use of torture at Abu Ghraib, and if you don’t think members of Congress won’t be gunning for them now you’re sadly mistaken. People are going to have to defend them. Republican people. Or Rumsfeld and Rice will have to fall on their swords to preserve King George. It’ll be fun to watch – I’m looking forward to it either way. And the Republicans are clearly against marriage … wait for it … wait for it … wait for it … for gays. > [@](#): > > It’s obvious that you’re just trying to rouse some ire and raise some hackles for own meager amusement with the confrontational language and abusive tone. I want to make clear the moral bankruptcy that the Republican Party is being driven to by the Bush Admin, which has been squandering moral credibility quite wildly of late. How upset you do or don’t get as a result of my clear and forceful statements is of little interest to me. > [@](#): > > Cause it’s not a debate. It can be Pit material or GD material either way, depending on how it’s handled. I’m keeping things GD for my part. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/87 "2004-05-19T04:17:35Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Calling something hogwash and bullshit without backing it up with an explanation is an expression of opinion. It’s not an argument. I clearly explained right after each exclamation of hogwash and bullshit. I’m a Republican, and: I’m not backed into anything by the Bush Admin; I don’t have to defend the horrible actions at Abu Ghraib, (or anywhere else for that matter); I don’t have to make any attacks re people’s right to get married. Try it like this: > [@EC](#): > > Yeah, this is the corner your precious Bushco has backed you into now: Citation for “Bushco” being precious to me, please. Citation for me being backed into a corner by “Bushco,” please. > [@EC](#): > > you have to defend the torture at Abu Ghraib as just a bunch of fraternity hazings, or as a necessary adjunct to the war on terror Citation for me having to “defend the torture at Abu Ghraib,” please. > [@EC](#): > > [you have to]…attack the right of two people of the same sex to express their love through marriage Citation for this being a necessity of mine, please > [@EC](#): > > And if you get a funny feeling when you say that, it’s just what’s left of your sense of morality trying to survive. Citation for your assessment of the condition of my sense of morality, please. > [@EC](#): > > And try not to let your heads explode while you’re at it. Cite for any of what’s been mentioned above having the potential to make my head explode, please There. Those are you assertions. You back the nasty little shits up with something. AFAICT, you’re wrong from start to finish. I don’t do any of those things so it’s hardly reasonable to say that I “have to” do any of them. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Actually, it doesn’t go against GD rules at all, in letter or in spirit. I’m not attacking an individual, I’m making assertions and backing them up with logic. Think so do you? It seems that you’ve merely levelled grossly inaccurate and utterly unfounded attacks against me as a member of the GOP. What logic did you use to back up the above mentioned assertions about me that’re irrefutably false? As far as I can see you just made baseless assertions about my character and the state of my morals. If you’re able, please back up your assertions with citations in the appropriate places as indicated above. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > I made the rhetorical point that the Bush Administration’s use of torture forces the Republicans who support the Bush Administration to defend them. This is circular logic. Those who supprt the Bush Admin defend the Bush Admin by definition. There’s no need to insert any other variable into the statement. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Seymour Hirsch has information to the effect that Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice both signed off on the use of torture at Abu Ghraib, and if you don’t think members of Congress won’t be gunning for them now you’re sadly mistaken. Why the hell wouldn’t I think that members of Congress smell blood in the water? (Some of them smell it everyday on account of their bloody noses.) What the hell does this have to do with the accusations you’ve made against me as a Republican? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > It can be Pit material or GD material either way, depending on how it’s handled. I’m keeping things GD for my part. Cool. Then you’re all set and ready buckle up to the bar with those citations I’ve asked for, right cowboy? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/88 "2004-05-19T04:35:27Z")
**Evil Captor** , I’m going to have to defend **SimonX** , I think. There are Republicans on and off thos board who deserve some criticism for thei mindless fealty to Bush but SimonX isn’t one of them. He’s been pretty vocal in his condemnations of Bushco and his dismay at what this administration has done to his party. SimonX may be a Republican but he’s no toady for Bush. I don’t think it’s inconsistent for him to want to be loyal to his party but to want to get Bushco out of the leadership. I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that all Republicans support the anti-gay marriage amendment (I think more than a few are embarrassed by it) and it certainly isn’t fair to say that they support the torture policies at Abu Ghraib. It’s possible to be a Republican- and to want to remain a Republican- without supporting Bush as the face of the party. ( **SimonX** , I hope I’m presenting an accurate reflection of your views. It’s my impression from reading many of posts. Please correct me if I got anything wrong). ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/89 "2004-05-19T08:23:42Z")
[QUOTE] By that method, Kennedy and Johnson are not intelligent (Vietnam War), Gordon Moore is not intelligent (there is no market for a personal computer), Gore is not intelligent (he should have known he would lose the election), etc. etc. etc. [QUOTE] I did not say that intelligent people are _ **infallible** _. Sure, we all make mistakes, it’s just that, on average, an intelligent person is expected to make better decisions than a less intelligent one. Also, you are leaving out the second part of the rule: to be able to use clear and logical arguments to defend your actions. Bush’s “because they hate freedom” “logic” is no logic at all. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/90 "2004-05-19T14:26:43Z")
Ick. **Evil Captor** , never make me defend Republicans again, m’kay? The OP is intellectually corrupt, and it didn’t have to be. Yes, Bush is negligent–criminally negligent, IMO–in how he’s handled the post-invasion occupation of Iraq. Worse, it’s seeming more and more as if he was actively malicious: if the buck passes any further up the chain of command, it could turn out that Bush himself approved the use of torture on prisoners. I hasten to add that the buck has NOT passed this far; right now Rumsfeld is holding it. But it’s been moving steadily upward since the scandal broke. And yes, some Republicans have, in a horrifying display of callousness, dismissed the seriousness of the torture. Some Republicans have acted as if the prisoners deserved the torture. Pour your contempt on those Republicans with my blessing. If you find any Democrats acting the same way, hold them in equal contempt. HOWEVER! Bush has NOT downplayed the seriousness of the scandal. He has issued what I believe is the first apology of his presidency, and possibly of his political life. He shows every sign of understanding how terrible this situation is. Moreover, Republicans in general (with the exceptions mentioned above) has demonstrated that they understand the same thing. Have you not been paying attention to the **Republican-led** hearings in Congress over the past couple weeks? Your overbroad accusations serve one primary purpose: they alienate people from the Democratic party, give people the impression that Democrats are irrational and shrill. Please stop it. This isn’t to say that the Republican party isn’t open to attacks on both these issues. I agree with you on the issue of gay mariage, of course; attack away on this front, as it’s the right thing to do. And keep Bush’s feet to the fire about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, about his misplaced trust in Rumsfeld, about his cavalier dismissal of the Geneva Conventions, about the deceptive means by which he dragged us into this war, and so forth. Just quit painting all Republicans with the same brush, and quit attacking Bush with inacuracies. Daniel ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/91 "2004-05-19T14:46:44Z")
[QUOTE=Polerius] > [@](#): > > I did not say that intelligent people are _ **infallible** _. Sure, we all make mistakes, it’s just that, on average, an intelligent person is expected to make better decisions than a less intelligent one. OK. Can you give us a list of all the decisions Bush has made and score them correct/incorrect so we can see how he does “on average”? Be sure not to leave any out. > [@](#): > > Also, you are leaving out the second part of the rule: to be able to use clear and logical arguments to defend your actions. > > Bush’s “because they hate freedom” “logic” is no logic at all. Since we’re talking about Iraq, Bush apparantly was able to use enough of a logical argument to get a vote of [77 to 23 in the Senate and 296 to 133 in the House to authorize him to use force against Iraq.](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/) Maybe he lied to get the job done. If so, I’d submit that it takes more intelligence to accomplish something like that by lying than by telling the truth. Or are you suggesting that any old dumb-ass can get the Congress to vote for war? The “because they hate freedom” soundbite is just that-- a political soundbite. If that’s all he used to convince Congress, then certainly we can agree that Bush is more intelligent than 75% of the members of Congress. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/92 "2004-05-19T14:51:49Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Or are you suggesting that any old dumb-ass can get the Congress to vote for war? I am. 🙂 Or do you want to point to the last president whose request for war authorization was turned down by Congress? Voting against war is broadly considered political suicide in the US. It’s like voting against increasing criminal penalties or something. Not saying Bush is a dumbass; I’m also not saying he’s NOT a dumbass. I’m just saying that being the president makes it pretty easy to get Congress to vote for whatever dumbshit military exercise you want to engage in. Daniel ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/93 "2004-05-19T15:05:44Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I am. 🙂 Or do you want to point to the last president whose request for war authorization was turned down by Congress? There’s also the matter of a president not submitting a resolution unless he’s damn sure it’ll pass, so I don’t think your point is well taken. FDR wanted us involved in WWII like nobody’s business. I don’t know that he actually pushed Congress to vote for it, but if not, he knew better than to try until Pearl Harbor. And although everyone probably thinks GHWB sailed his Gulf War resolution thru congress easily, it only passed the Senate by 52 to 47. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/94 "2004-05-19T15:10:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > There’s also the matter of a president not submitting a resolution unless he’s damn sure it’ll pass, so I don’t think your point is well taken. Fair enough. Still and all, it’s disturbingly easy to get such resolutions passed; without a steady history of rejected resolutions (or failed attempts at getting support for such resolutions), your point that getting a war resolution passed points to W’s intelligence also isn’t well taken. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/95 "2004-05-19T15:29:42Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > DOMA, while stupid, does not actually _forbid_ states from legalizing gay marriage, it only provides a loophole in the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which means that anti-gay states don’t have to recognize gay marriages from other states. It also (AFAIK) prevents same-sex marriages – even those performed in gay-marriage-allowing states – from being recognized at the Federal level. This means that legitimate same-sex married couples will still have to file Federal Income Tax returns with a filing status of “single,” with the higher tax rates that entails. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/96 "2004-05-19T15:30:25Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Fair enough. Still and all, it’s disturbingly easy to get such resolutions passed… True. But can you give an example when a resolution was passed by the Senate with a larger majority than Bush II got? If not, I submit the point \*\*IS \*\* well taken. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/97 "2004-05-19T15:33:24Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > True. But can you give an example when a resolution was passed by the Senate with a larger majority than Bush II got? If not, I submit the point \*\*IS \*\* well taken. I’m a little confused. Are you arguing that he got an extraordinarily large majority in support of his war, especially when compared to the support a president gets from a Congress controlled by his same party? If so, it’s your job to show that. I’m just saying that the point isn’t supported so far, because you’ve not shown that Bush accomplished anything extraordinary. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/98 "2004-05-19T15:40:53Z")
Congress vote the way it does based on individual constituencies. Like Tip O’Neil once said, “all politics is local.” In the wake of 9/11 American bloodthirst and bumper sticker patriotism was at a fever pitch. Individual senators were afraid to look like pussies to their constituents. Bush got them to vote right before the congressional elections so that anyone who voted against it could be politically tarred by the Pubs as “unpatriotic.” Bush himself was all but irrelevant to the process. Congress voted for the war out of fear of the voters not because of any statesmanship by Bush. ---
**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:** [May 19, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/99 "2004-05-19T15:55:54Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Bush himself was all but irrelevant to the process. Congress voted for the war out of fear of the voters not because of any statesmanship by Bush. We’re talking about intelligence, not statesmenship. I wouldn’t argue that Bush was a good example of the latter. He wanted war in Iraq, and he was able to take advantage of the circumstances to get it. As far is intelligence goes, that’s all that really matters. When you’re playing poker with someone, you can only pull the “you’re just winning because you get lucky cards” line a few times before you should realize that maybe the other guy is a better poker player. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584/100 "2004-05-19T16:07:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > In the wake of 9/11 American bloodthirst and bumper sticker patriotism was at a fever pitch. Individual senators were afraid to look like pussies to their constituents. Bush got them to vote right before the congressional elections so that anyone who voted against it could be politically tarred by the Pubs as “unpatriotic.” Wouldn’t a smart senators realize that Bush was lying to them and the war was illegal and unjustified? For example Kerry can’t say shit about the war being unjustified or illegal becuas he voted for the war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-torture-good-marriage-bad/245584.md?page=6)