What would it take for George W. Bush to mend his reputation?

[Mr_Smashy]

@Lobohan

@Mr_Smashy

As per usual, your stellar and crystal clear analysis adds so much to the conversation. :rolleyes:

You see, that’s called a cite. You should try it some time, instead of the off-target, hamhanded attacks and innuendo. So, unless you are about to debate the veracity of the quotes, you really aren’t actually adding much, are you? If you *are *doubting the truthfulness, perhaps you could cough up some proof?

Click the link silly-billy. This would be the second time I recall of you offering a cite that was a broken link. I’m sure you’re not doing this on purpose… but it would behoove you to learn how to use your tools properly.

Whoops… My bad.

Here, try this

[Merijeek]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

@Jackknifed_Juggernaut

Admit that he was a puppet of the Far Right, and that he had no real power while in office. But only if it’s true.

I understand that Bush has a pretty good reputation in Africa. That shouldn’t be easily dismissed.

And as he’d remind us, don’t forget Poland.

-Joe

[Der_Trihs]

@Mr_Smashy

@Chronos

Congress believed that Saddam had WMDs, because the President told them that the evidence was unassailable, and they couldn’t believe that any President would have the gall to lie quite that blatantly.

So, what was that unassailable evidence again?

What… president Clinton? Those quotes were mostly from 1998 and 1999. Everyone thought he had them. So did the Israeli, British, French, NATO… how long would you like me to go on?

Garbage. They thought that - at most - he had a tiny bit stashed away somewhere. Not enough to matter. And Bush made a point of attacking before UN inspectors could show that those stocks of WMD didn’t exist, our troops ignored supposed WMD sites and armories in order to reach the Oil Ministry as soon as possbile, and the White House outright lied to Congress about things like Saddam’s imaginary fleet of WMD armed drone aircraft.

WMDs had nothing to do with why we attacked Iraq and mass murdered its people. It was a war of unmitigated aggression and evil.

[begbert2]

@Der_Trihs

WMDs had nothing to do with why we attacked Iraq and mass murdered its people. It was a war of unmitigated aggression and evil.

Don’t be silly. It was mostly to do with greed and a sense that they had the God-Given power of Rightness on their side. And a little bitty lust for power.

It’s okay not to like the guys, but making them into cartoon villans turns you into a cartoon too.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Chronos

Congress believed that Saddam had WMDs, because the President told them that the evidence was unassailable, and they couldn’t believe that any President would have the gall to lie quite that blatantly.

So, what was that unassailable evidence again?

Colin Powell’s word.

[Lobohan]

@Mr_Smashy

@Lobohan

Click the link silly-billy. This would be the second time I recall of you offering a cite that was a broken link. I’m sure you’re not doing this on purpose… but it would behoove you to learn how to use your tools properly.

Whoops… My bad.

Here, try this

Aside from the fact that the page you linked to is from some piece of shit web 1.0 moving GIF trainwreck, the quotes are all un-sourced and without context.

Aside from that, they are quotes about Iraq pursuing a program to develop WMDs, not that it already had them:
[ul]
[li]The Clinton quote from '98 is about Iraq desiring to attain WMDs and the tech to distribute them.[/li]
[li]The second Clinton quote talks about the program, not weapons.[/li]
[li]The Albright quote is about what will happen if Iraq gets WMDs.[/li]
[li]The Berger quote is about his use of gas. And is the closest thing to what you’re looking for.[/li]
[li]The senators quoted are talking about a program.[/li]
[li]Pelosi is talking about a development program.[/li]
[li]Albright seems to be talking about a program too.[/li][/ul]

And finally, all the quotes from after 911 are dependent on the cherry picked info that the Bush administration gave to congress. Only stressing the very few positive signs and ignoring mountains of negative evidence.

So, your cite seems to be pretty worthless. Never mind that what matters is the assessment of intelligence officials, not members of congress wanting to make the news.

[Der_Trihs]

@begbert2

@Der_Trihs

WMDs had nothing to do with why we attacked Iraq and mass murdered its people. It was a war of unmitigated aggression and evil.

Don’t be silly. It was mostly to do with greed and a sense that they had the God-Given power of Rightness on their side. And a little bitty lust for power.

It’s okay not to like the guys, but making them into cartoon villans turns you into a cartoon too.

Your argument only works if you don’t think that those things are unmitigated evil.

[begbert2]

@Der_Trihs

@begbert2

Don’t be silly. It was mostly to do with greed and a sense that they had the God-Given power of Rightness on their side. And a little bitty lust for power.

It’s okay not to like the guys, but making them into cartoon villans turns you into a cartoon too.

Your argument only works if you don’t think that those things are unmitigated evil.

I’d say they are the very definition of mitigation.

[Der_Trihs]

@begbert2

@Der_Trihs

Your argument only works if you don’t think that those things are unmitigated evil.

I’d say they are the very definition of mitigation.

Greed, religious fanaticism and the lust for power are mitigation? On the contrary; those are the very things that make it evil.

[elucidator]

Well, my memory ain’t what it used to be. Or maybe it is, and I just don’t remember. So give me a refresher, here. Did Madeline Albright issue that last ultimatum to Saddam - give up those weapons you got, or else? Was it Horndog Bill? Was it Kerry?

So who pulled the trigger, Smashy? Was it GeeDubya, or was it somebody else? Because if it was somebody else, well, damned if you don’t have helluva good point! Otherwise, reckon not.

[begbert2]

@Der_Trihs

@begbert2

I’d say they are the very definition of mitigation.

Greed, religious fanaticism and the lust for power are mitigation? On the contrary; those are the very things that make it evil.

Naw, unmitigated evil is evil for its own sake; if it is done in deference to mere selfishness or (theoretically non-evil!) ideology, then it’s not pure.

In defense of this screwy hijack, were Bush truly evil in the mustache-twirling, cat-stroking sense, or even in the gleefully-sending-people-into-the-furnace-just-because-you-hate-them sense, we wouldn’t be discussing his eventual redemption at even a theorietical level. The very idea that he might be redeemed stems from a belief in the possibility that the guy may have meant well - or that his deeds will be whitewashed or forgotten entirely.

[Wesley_Clark]

well, why is he reviled?
Ignores and arguably disdains international opinions
Ignores domestic opinions (the anti-war protests were far, far bigger than the tea party protests)
Engages in wars of choice
Destroys the US’s goodwill gained after 9/11, harmed our reputation globally
Hostile to science (attitudes on climate change as an example, evolution too if you want, I think he is a creationist)
Used gay civil rights as a wedge issue to get people to vote for plutocracy
Inept on domestic & international policy
Global economy collapsed under his watch
Torture, human rights abuses, civil rights abuses
Dishonest administration full of assholes
So I don’t know how he could. He’d have to feel those things are bad and make amends. I don’t see that happening.

[Mr_Smashy]

@Lobohan

@Mr_Smashy

Whoops… My bad.

Here, try this

Aside from the fact that the page you linked to is from some piece of shit web 1.0 moving GIF trainwreck, the quotes are all un-sourced and without context.

Aside from that, they are quotes about Iraq pursuing a program to develop WMDs, not that it already had them:
[ul]
[li]The Clinton quote from '98 is about Iraq desiring to attain WMDs and the tech to distribute them.[/li]
[li]The second Clinton quote talks about the program, not weapons.[/li]
[li]The Albright quote is about what will happen if Iraq gets WMDs.[/li]
[li]The Berger quote is about his use of gas. And is the closest thing to what you’re looking for.[/li]
[li]The senators quoted are talking about a program.[/li]
[li]Pelosi is talking about a development program.[/li]
[li]Albright seems to be talking about a program too.[/li][/ul]

And finally, all the quotes from after 911 are dependent on the cherry picked info that the Bush administration gave to congress. Only stressing the very few positive signs and ignoring mountains of negative evidence.

So, your cite seems to be pretty worthless. Never mind that what matters is the assessment of intelligence officials, not members of congress wanting to make the news.

I know, it’s really amazing that I couldn’t find those quotes on HuffPo or DailyKos :rolleyes:

Seriously, keep dancing around the truth. If you have a context for those quotes that makes it appear the opposite of what they do, feel free to post the cite. I, unlike most on this board, will look at it with an open mind, and believe that a spade is a spade until shown otherwise.

As another (highly lefty) board put it

These defenders of the administration keep asking the question, “If President Bush lied, does that mean that the Democrats lied too?” The answer, unfortunately, is a qualified “yes.” Based on my conversations with Democratic members of Congress and their staffs in the weeks and months leading up to the invasion, there is reason to believe that at least some in the leadership of the Democratic Party is also guilty of having misled the American public regarding the supposed threat emanating from Iraq. At minimum, it could be considered criminal negligence.

Hell, even uberlefty Der believes that they had ‘a tiny bit stashed somewhere’. Many of those senators were on the Intelligence Committee or Defense committee, it’s not like they didn’t see the same evidence the administration saw. Gore saw that stuff when he was in the administration of course. I notice you forget to mention his quotes. Waxman pointed out that Saddam was dodging the UN (nice try, Der).

Or if you have proof (proof, now) that the administration deliberately misled in order to drum up a cassus belli, hey, here’s your chance to post it. I know that that’s a big meme on the left.

Finally, in the context of 9/11, you’d have to be pretty dense not to believe that a development program for WMD wasn’t almost as bad a threat as having them already. That’s why HRC and gang are doing everything they can to get China and France to quit helping Iran build their nukes.

I eagerly await your reply.

[Mr_Smashy]

@elucidator

Well, my memory ain’t what it used to be. Or maybe it is, and I just don’t remember. So give me a refresher, here. Did Madeline Albright issue that last ultimatum to Saddam - give up those weapons you got, or else? Was it Horndog Bill? Was it Kerry?

So who pulled the trigger, Smashy? Was it GeeDubya, or was it somebody else? Because if it was somebody else, well, damned if you don’t have helluva good point! Otherwise, reckon not.

Bush did. As I stated before, I think it was a mistake. But I notice that you give no weight whatsoever to the 82 of 208 Dem congressmen and 29 of 50 Dem senators who also voted for it. Or maybe you weren’t aware of it. Whatever.

Edit to add: of course, and I can’t believe I need to point this out, once 9/11 happened, everything changed wrt the US desire to protect the homeland against threats like Iraq WMD. I’d have guessed you’d have realized that - perhaps not.

[Czarcasm]

@Mr_Smashy

As I stated before, I think it was a mistake. But I notice that you give no weight whatsoever to the 82 of 208 Dem congressmen and 29 of 50 Dem senators who also voted for it. Or maybe you weren’t aware of it.

For the 833rd time, they believed the lying asshole when he said that he had solid evidence.

[Lobohan]

@Mr_Smashy

I know, it’s really amazing that I couldn’t find those quotes on HuffPo or DailyKos :rolleyes:

Any reputable middle of the road cite would be okay.

Seriously, keep dancing around the truth. If you have a context for those quotes that makes it appear the opposite of what they do, feel free to post the cite. I, unlike most on this board, will look at it with an open mind, and believe that a spade is a spade until shown otherwise.

I don’t think you understand. Those quotes are about weapons programs, not about weapons. And it isn’t my job to prove your cites are reputable. You need to provide reputable cites or withdraw them. As I said, even if the quotes are perfectly accurate as stated, they don’t say what you say they did. You suggested that they showed that Democrats said there were WMDs.

When you provide a cite, you need to be able to source it. This is basic debating, I’m not asking anything special of you.

As another (highly lefty) board put it

These defenders of the administration keep asking the question, “If President Bush lied, does that mean that the Democrats lied too?” The answer, unfortunately, is a qualified “yes.” Based on my conversations with Democratic members of Congress and their staffs in the weeks and months leading up to the invasion, there is reason to believe that at least some in the leadership of the Democratic Party is also guilty of having misled the American public regarding the supposed threat emanating from Iraq. At minimum, it could be considered criminal negligence.

This isn’t true. If I have a lot of evidence suggesting A is true and a tiny amount of evidence suggesting B is true, and I only show you the B, you aren’t lying if you say you’ve seen evidence of B.

Hell, even uberlefty Der believes that they had ‘a tiny bit stashed somewhere’. Many of those senators were on the Intelligence Committee or Defense committee, it’s not like they didn’t see the same evidence the administration saw. Gore saw that stuff when he was in the administration of course. I notice you forget to mention his quotes. Waxman pointed out that Saddam was dodging the UN (nice try, Der).

Or if you have proof (proof, now) that the administration deliberately misled in order to drum up a cassus belli, hey, here’s your chance to post it. I know that that’s a big meme on the left.

Laughable. You’re the one offering a cite that shows something other than what you’re saying it shows.

From: Iraq War - Wikipedia

A major part of this program was a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and headed by Douglas Feith to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. The questionable intelligence acquired by the OSP was “stovepiped” to Cheney and presented to the public.

Also:

In some cases, Cheney’s office would leak the intelligence to news correspondents, who would cover it in such outlets as The New York Times. Cheney would subsequently appear on the Sunday political television talk shows to discuss the intelligence, pointing to The New York Times reportage as corroboration of his view.[88]

Also:

In late February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate reports (later found to be forgeries) that Iraq was attempting to purchase additional yellowcake from Niger. Wilson returned and informed the CIA that reports of yellowcake sales to Iraq were “unequivocally wrong.” The Bush administration, however, continued to allege Iraq’s attempts to obtain additional yellowcake were a justification for military action, most prominently in the January, 2003, State of the Union address, in which President Bush declared that Iraq had sought uranium, citing British intelligence sources.[90]

Also:

On May 1, 2005 the “Downing Street memo” was published in The Sunday Times. It contained an overview of a secret July 23, 2002 meeting among British government, Ministry of Defence, and British intelligence figures who discussed the build-up to the Iraq war — including direct references to classified U.S. policy of the time. The memo stated, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”[92]

In fact, just read the whole article, you should really understand this better if you’re going to argue about it.

Finally, in the context of 9/11, you’d have to be pretty dense not to believe that a development program for WMD wasn’t almost as bad a threat as having them already. That’s why HRC and gang are doing everything they can to get China and France to quit helping Iran build their nukes.

But do you notice that they aren’t invading Iran?

What you cited has quotes from before and after 911. Before 911 the quotes were about a WMD program that Saddam was believed to have (As of 98). The quotes after 911 are of Democrats repeating the misleading info from the Bush administration.

If you could focus your replies to things I’ve actually said I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[Superhal]

I would expect him to ask Congress to charge him for war crimes, abuse of power, and treason, and to waive any attempt to pardon him by anyone. (Whether Congress does so or not, I would expect them to at least vote on it.) If he is tried, I would expect him to face his punishment (execution, last I checked) with dignity and courage.

ps. Lol, Carter…yeah, he was way, way worse than the two that bookended him. A better example would be Nixon, who finally found redemption as a senile old man wandering around China.

[Typo_Knig]

@Superhal

I would expect him to ask Congress to charge him for war crimes, abuse of power, and treason, and to waive any attempt to pardon him by anyone. (Whether Congress does so or not, I would expect them to at least vote on it.) If he is tried, I would expect him to face his punishment (execution, last I checked) with dignity and courage.

Similar to my idea that Bush should, on his own accord, lawyer up and turn himself into the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.

The best answer for Dubya to mend his reputation is to start with [post=9551714]this suggestion.[/post] It isn’t even that much of a stretch for Dubya. Say what you will about him, and heaven knows I have on this board, Shrub did not shirk the duty of visiting the wounded, or the families of the fallen, who served under him.

Sadly, it seems he’s going to spend his days rattling around his mansion like a loose pea in a pod.

[Frank]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I would, of course, then expect him to put his actions where his mouth is. I am not holding my breath.

[RickJay]

@Cinebar

Find some way to reverse the damages in death and destruction he caused by invading Iraq.

That would mean somehow resurrecting all our military personnel who have died there, as well as the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis.

All it means is giving it time. History generally doesn’t give a hoot if American presidents kill foreigners, and the U.S. death toll was a small fraction of wars like Vietnam and Korea.

@Mr Smashy

Everyone thought he had them.

I didn’t. In fact, Colin Powell’s speech at the UN convinced me that Iraq had no substantial WMDs. I looked at the evidence he was presenting and realized it was pathetically thin. Powell was, to my eyes, obviously trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

And how is it all these other countries “thought” Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs? Where are the cites for those countries believing that? When did France come out and say “We’re sure Iraq has a big stockpile of chemical weapons”?