|RE: GWB trail of lies...||TJeanloz|
Aug 12, 2003 5:06 AM
|Is anybody else getting a little bit tired of the back and forth with regards to our "lying" President? When it comes to policy, isn't it an assumption that politicians are liars? The problem I see with the tactic of painting GWB as a liar is that everybody knows he is a liar. The very concept of an honest politician is an oxymoron. Those who condemn Bush for lying about the Iraqi threat conveniently forget that FDR "lied" about the Japanese threat before WWII.
Politicians lie. It's true. How about we get past that fact, and start proposing new ideas to make the country better, rather than trying to win by knocking the President down.
If it's news to you that a politician has lied, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona.
|about that property...||mohair_chair|
Aug 12, 2003 6:16 AM
|It's not exactly true that all politicians lie. It's just that the ones who tell the truth usually don't last very long. Kill the messenger and all that. The truth is, most of the people get the politicians they deserve, because they have ceded control to political machines who are only interested in self-perpetuation.|
|The difference is.........||Len J|
Aug 12, 2003 6:20 AM
|that most political lies don't end up resulting in needless American Deaths.
I would have much, much prefered that Bush come out and say "this is an evil guy who has murdered tens of thousands, and it's time to take him out." The reason that I would have preferred this is that I believe (& I think that Bush knew) that the American people never would have supported the war on these grounds. Bush knew this & hence the "political lie" as you call it was necessary in order to convince the American public that war was justified.
I know you would have supported the war under this reasoning, but ask yourself Why didn't Bush just say this? I think the reason is obvious. Under these conditions, the "political lie" is patently wrong IMO.
The Lie isn't the problem, it's the reason for the lie that bothers me......he had an unsupportable policy and decided that he knew better that we did, so rather than give it to us straight, they appear to have fabricated a story based on scant evidence and then surronded it with National security so as to make sure that those in the middle would have enough doubt about what was going on to support him & his position.
So, either "the ends justify the means" or what they did was wrong. Do the Ends justify the means only when you agree with the outcome?
Just because they are politicians does not excuse them from certain minimums, especially when it comes to putting American Lives at risk.
I guess from your perspective, the President ought to be able to commit troops by telling us anything.......sounds like since he's a politician, he can say anything & be immune.
|The difference is.........||TJeanloz|
Aug 12, 2003 6:29 AM
|Isn't unsupportable policy the reason for every political lie? If policy always supported by everybody, there wouldn't ever be a reason for politicians to lie.
The President ought to be able to commit troops because he is the Commander In Chief. He doesn't need my approval (except for every four years) to do so. At the end of the four year cycle, I will consider whether the totality of the end results merit another four years.
For another thing, the War in Iraq is just one example that Bush-haters have. If we set that lie aside for a moment, what about the real policy "lies" that are now being paraded, like the "No Child Left Behind" "lie" below?
|Isn't it about credibility?||Len J|
Aug 12, 2003 6:40 AM
|Most politicians strtch the truth but still maintain some credibility on the big issues. They stick to some basic facts and manipulate their interpretation of these facts. Bush went over the line (IMO) and created the facts themselves. Once a politican is caught doing this, his credibility is going to suffer more than normal. I rthink that is what is happening now. In addition, once a president is caught in such a blatent falsification, the buzzards are always going to circle. His ability to push his agenda is going to suffer immesurable harm. Politicians know this and are always balancing the risk of political fallout from discovery against their belifs. In this case, Bush bet wrong & got caught. He is now suffering the consequences.
As to your statement;" The President ought to be able to commit troops because he is the Commander In Chief. He doesn't need my approval (except for every four years) to do so. At the end of the four year cycle, I will consider whether the totality of the end results merit another four years. " That is truly a scary position to take. In four years, under your abdication of any responsibility as a citizen, a President could commit unspeakable horrors. This country is IMO about checks and balances, between the citizen, congress, the Juduciary and the Executive branches. He may not need your approval legally, but he better have it politically if he wants to do anything else.
Aug 12, 2003 6:51 AM
|I don't think your analysis is really accurate. The remainder of his adgenda has certainly weathered the storm. I really don't think that most people care about the whole thing as much as some extreme Democrats want them to.
The idea that I should be micromanaging the President is ridiculous. If I want his job, I'll run, but for now, I'm sticking to my own job. A lot of people have forgotten that we are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy - the people don't have the power to impeach the President. If something were so egregious as to merit impeachment, our Representatives should do their jobs and take action. Our government is about checks and balances, but there are checks and balances of the citizens' power as well. The role of the citizen in government is that of supervisor, not of active participant.
|Good points.||Len J|
Aug 12, 2003 6:58 AM
|It remains to be seen if his agenda weathers the storm. So far his approval rating has only taken a small hit, but I wouldn't be surprised if it continues to erode.
Good point on the micro managing. I guess, as in anything it's a matter of balance & we both are interpreting in extremes.
It's interesting how all of our oponions on this are shaped (in this case) by our initial support or not of the war.
|the reason people don't care||rufus|
Aug 12, 2003 8:52 AM
|is that for the vast majority, they don't want to make the effort or the time to really find out what's going on. we get the government we deserve, and an apathetic and uninformed populace, content to recieve their information in 5 second sound bites, unwilling to vote, and for the most part helpless against the influx of big money in politics, gets the government we have.|
|How about this one?||Spoke Wrench|
Aug 12, 2003 8:27 AM
|"We need to invade Iraq so that Halliburton can make a lot of money."|
|well said. nm||rufus|
Aug 12, 2003 8:47 AM
|re: RE: GWB trail of lies...||bboc|
Aug 12, 2003 7:43 AM
|As far as I'm concerned, I don't think a single truth has passed the lips of anyone in the Bush administration. Secrets and lies are the SOP. They have taken it way too far.|
|you might be right, but that doesn't condone lying (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Aug 12, 2003 8:38 AM
|Discrediting Bush <i>is</i> a way to make the country better. nm||czardonic|
Aug 12, 2003 9:46 AM
|TJ, I must take exception to this statement:||OldEdScott|
Aug 12, 2003 10:35 AM
|"When it comes to policy, isn't it an assumption that politicians are liars?"
The answer to that is no. Politicians go to great lengths NOT to lie. They DO spin. Spin is just manipulating the language describing truth so it best makes your case. BUT -- and this is a big 'but' -- spin only works (in the aggregate, over time) if it's grounded in truth. God, if I had a nickle for every time I or a clinet have said, "OK, can we say it THIS way? Is it still true?" It's a huge concern
Politicians who outright lie rarely survive long.
I think the question with Bush right now is whether he's being selective in his language and presentation to make his case or outright lying. And the fact is, I don't know.
|I agree with that,||TJeanloz|
Aug 12, 2003 10:41 AM
|But all of the "lies" that I have seen have been, well, technically true. Like the now infamous "16 words".|
|And the art of good spin is to not get||OldEdScott|
Aug 12, 2003 10:54 AM
|so far into technicalities ("depends on what your definition of 'is' is") that it becomes PERCEIVED as a lie regardless of technical veracity. Bush has been flirting with that territory.|
|They've also been (intentionally, IMO) misleading. . .||czardonic|
Aug 12, 2003 11:04 AM
|. . .insofar as they nudged people towards conclusions that were "technically" possible, but ultimately unwarranted.
Ultimately, the issue is not Bush's honesty, but his poor leadership.
|Isn't that the definition of "spin" (nm)||TJeanloz|
Aug 12, 2003 11:06 AM
|Technically? I don't think so.||czardonic|
Aug 12, 2003 11:29 AM
|The difference is that Bush offers plausible arguments that are intended to engender implausible conclusions.
Taking the supposed nuclear threat from Iraq for example, it is certainly not impossible that Iraq could have had a nuclear weapons within a year had we not intervened. It was possible in an "anything is possible" kind of way, and defensible insofar as you couldn't have proven the negative. But to represent such a tenuous possibility as the only responsible conclusion, especially based on evidence that was known to be false (not just the 16 words, but also the AL tubes) crosses the line (again, IMO) into intentionally misleading people.
Another example would be the fuzzy math he employed to defend his tax cut, which suggested that many people could expect a lot more money than they would ever recieve. Technically his numbers were correct, but they were also clearly misleading.
|Not unless it is spun to the "left" (nm)||94Nole|
Aug 12, 2003 12:12 PM
|what about him talking about||rufus|
Aug 12, 2003 12:15 PM
|the iaea report that said saddam was 6 months away from a nuclear weapon? turns out the iaea never said such a thing, nor even had a report about it.|| |