G W Bush has no respect for Americans

If we agree he lied on his premise to go to Iraq, then he has no respect for Americans.

If he lied then he thinks we’re not competent enough to understand his motives.

Ok then, what was his premise?

That he thought there were WMDs?

I don’t think he lied, so I can’t agree.

I don’t think he was absolutely certain that they were or weren’t there, and ‘to lie’ requires absolute subjective knowledge that the statement is false. So he couldn’t have lied about that. There is simply no way that he knew that there were absolutely no WMDs in Iraq. Though it’s looking more and more unlikely, there are still parts of the country to be searched.

Do you have another manner in which he lied that makes your claim somewhat valuable?

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00474.html

Try the article.

Maybe you should do some google searches to refresh your memory about what the whole intelligence build up before the initial invasion was really intended to do. The U.S. is a democracy and because of this a president does not have unilateral power to declare war. He has to have the consent of both congress and senate before he can send troops to occupy a country, and so therefore, I don’t think the false and wildly exagerrated pre war intelligence was used to deceive the american people as much as it was used to decieve the other branch of government needed to move forward with invasion plans. Did President Bush lie? Only if he himself was not lied to. And what is scarier? To think that there were other people in this country manipulating the president towards war in Iraq, or to think that the president is capable of ordering deceptive intelligence reports so that his administrations goals could be met. The end justifies the means.



I am pretty sure that Bush was relatively sure that it was doubtful that any WMDs would be found in Iraq. But to prove that someone was certain that something wasn’t present is quite difficult.

What Bush truly believed is something that only Bush can tell us. Memoranda indicating that intelligence was “cherry picked” does not provide us an inside look into Bush’s head. Despite what I think, he may still have believed that Iraq possessed WMDs. Fudging data to further an agenda does not equate to lying about one’s beliefs.

I’ve talked to some guys who served in Iraq that say there defininately were WMDs there when they got there. Personally it’s hard for me to say- who do we believe? It’s an iron-clad fact that Saddam used poison gas at times, so it’s not a stretch that we’d find some. On the other hand, given the fact that he knew the invasion was coming for awhile he certainly had some time to get rid of the evidence.

You are absolutely right, Phaedrus. Even my skepticism may be misplaced. I guess my point from the beginning is that until proof of the lie is given–and real proof is still lacking–we should, out of a desire to maintain a semblance of intellectual integrity, refrain from spouting off partisan talking points.

Yeahhhh, nooooo! I don’t think google is the best source for information. You are of course free to stake your life on it, but…uh…I’ll rely on the more conventional resources.

That’s right. Did you learn that from google? But the President can commit troops without congressional authorization. Did google let you in on that ‘big secret’?

This is wrong. You need to read your Constitution. The President lacks the power to unilaterally declare war, but he can send troops.

I don’t believe there is any reason to respond to the rest. You simply rely on google too much.

Still, I think it was Trent Lott who just said, “This isn’t a monarchy.” Bush seems not to realize this. Regardless of whether we should have invaded, I think it’s pretty obvious that the whole thing was botched from the outset. I think a case can be made for the justification of war but no excuses can be made for the way it’s been bungled.

There are several problems.

Bush’s most vocal opponents nearly always miss the bigger picture. Don’t focus on the fact that YOU believe he lied. Focus on the fact that under no circumstances should we have been concerned with Iraq at that point in time, or this point in time, or ANY point in time. Saddam was an ass, but not the only one, and certainly not one that anyone really believed responsible for 9-11. We were just pissed. We wanted people to die. And Saddam was as good a target as any.

And as you say, the bigger issue for us is that our leaders don’t consider themselves Planetary Avengers. I think that is Bush’s issue. But we didn’t elect him to do that. And most of us didn’t ask him to do that. This is part of the reason his approval ratings are so low.

Yeah, I’m not even saying he lied. We had plenty of justification to topple him; had I been in charge I’d have rolled the tanks as soon as he fired at the planes enforcing the No-Fly zone a decade ago. But justification doesn’t mean it was worth it; he killed tens of thousands of his own people, but if the rest of the world was content to sit by and watch, then what’s in it for us to do something about it?

Unfortunately, having utterly failed at every goal for Iraq save one, the removal of Saddam, Bush lacks the wisdom to see what’s obvious to nearly everyone. The middle east is more unstable than it was 5 years ago, the world is more dangerous than it was before the war and salvaging anything out of the situation is beginning to look impractical. And Islamofascism has probably been strengthened by his War on Common Sense.

A sad state of affairs.

Excellent summation, Phaedrus. I may not agree that the certain pockets of the ME aren’t slightly more stable, but I cannot see how the overall status of the region could be deemed more stable.

I do wonder though, whether stability is really in the interest of the west. While the thought of killing someone in close proximity to you, because you hate them, is in the minds of nearly every middle eastern radical, those of us in the western world sit in relative security. Many radical people in the middle east hate Americans, but it is too much work and cost too much money to kill them. I would imagine that they see it easier to kill Israelis and others that are closer.

So my question is: Should we support peace in the Middle East before the middle eastern countries discard the barbaric beliefs that will only serve to send more of their youths at our throats?

George Bush doesn’t care about anyone not just Americans. He has no respect for human life. If he did, he wouldn’t be a major part of the capitalist system. Anyone who participates in capitalism is inherently someone who has no regard for human life. In capitalism nobody cares.

Come back when you are no longer a little kid.

No google is not in itself the best source but it can lead you to good sources. I even bet it could lead you to your more conventional resources.

He can’t launch a war of Iraqs magnitude without congressional approval, and he sure couldn’t recieve the budgetary funding needed to continue the war without it.

You’re right. I would benefit from reading the constitution.

That’s an effective way of ignoring the point I made.

I agree with that. But the essential problem is there will never be actual proof given in this discussion. Bush chose to go to war with Iraq for whatever reason he had, whether it was in pursuit of WMD and national security, or becuase of oil and the calculated gamble that a stable democratic Iraq would be grateful enough to become a reliable trading partner, or because having American military bases in the center of the Middle East would be a stretegic asset for the next half century, or any number of other reasons that could be possible. In the end whether or not Bush knowingly lied is pure speculation, but what is not speculative is that intelligence was manipulated to make a war with Iraq seem more necessary than it actually was. Failure to get the needed support would have derailed a year or more of administrative planning, and who knows what was tied up with that, or what was truly at stake.

It’s a paradox. How can one support peace before the people are peaceful of their own accord. I highly doubt that anyone that holds a position of power in any western nation really believes that there is a lasting solution to this problem. The war for advantage, and the battles of ideas will continue in some form for the rest of our lives I think. It’s more important to avoid catastrophe than it is to have one big functional Middle East.

Of course, but I couldn’t really give a shit whether Bush was knowingly lying or just repeating the lies he’d been told. The fact is that they didn’t have conclusive or even compelling evidence but the intelligence services said that they did. What this demonstrates is one of two things - either the intelligence services can be persuaded to lie for the sake of politicians or they are the ones actually in charge and wanted the war to happen.

It’s not fudging data, it’s cherry picking only the information that supports your claim, exaggerating it, simply making things up (Saddam could launch a nuclear attack on Bradford within 45 minutes), and even trying to provoke Saddam into some minor aggressive action (y’know, like the Iranians have apparently done by kidnapping 15 British soldiers) in order to make him look like the aggressor when the opposite is true.

That’s far, far worse than just fudging data. The issue of lying is neither here nor there. The issue of lying as an excuse to kill hundreds of thousands of people is both here and there. You can talk about ‘radicals’ and ‘fundamentalists’ all you like but you can also bet your bottom dollar than if your country was invaded on the back of lies and you saw thousands of your people slaughtered then you’d start a resistance movement. Well, maybe you personally wouldn’t, but I sure as hell would. I’d rather be an ‘Iraqi insurgent’ than a lying MI6 agent. It’s more honest. It’s more moral.

all this outrage about what was in gwb’s mind before he invaded iraq… (as if it wasn’t in the minds of every single congressman who voted for the war as well…)

but this says something far more sinister…

as if all the politicians of the “noble” left would never have voted for the war if bush hadn’t lied to them… it is all about bush’s lies… the democRATS cannot think for themselves… they had to believe bush and bush alone. they lacked the capacity or the foresight to investigate the intelligence themselves… it cannot be their fault… can you feel the incredulity?

then it hit me… of course the democRATS blindly follow the leader and refuse to think for themselves… if bush said it was so, why the democRATS must blindly jump off the cliff as well… and what do I base this on? their blind allegiance to algore and his lies…

bush lied about wmds so we went to war…
algore lied about global warming so we have to live like cavemen…

rage, rage against the dying of the light…


Yep, that’s about the size of it…

Ah yes, but what constitutes a war? I don’t think I can count how many times I’ve heard the phrase “War in Iraq” or “The War on Terror.” Granted the cost of war has increased along with inflation but this is getting to be one costly “commitment of troops.” Hell, we’re trying to create a new government for them and reform their country! How anybody does not consider this a war is beyond me.

I don’t think anyone here would argue that the Dems weren’t totally and completely spineless, and still pretty much are wrt their ability to stand up to the repubs.

Clinton and the horribly failed attempt to beat the repubs in a race to the right was a terrible idea.