Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the President Lying ... again?
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 103 (147830)
10-06-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Quetzal
10-06-2004 2:11 PM


Its an impression I get based on the reports I see - I gave the example of the Afghan village which was mistakenly bombed because faulty coordinates had been punched in (found a link). I've no real desire to deluge you with link after link of other accidents which have happened in the two wars on terror since I'm sure that you recognise their existence.
Thge real contention is about where the bar is set and what measures are applied to prevent repeats - should a bombing raid on a civilian area go ahead if it is estimated to have, say, a 20% success probability? Do we know what the success / failure rates for civilian casualties are? If not, why not? Why are we not keeping records of civilian dead in Iraq? And the torture which goes on in the prisons but is undisclosed and not acted upon until the press get hold of the story? I know this wasn't intentional, but to have cluster bombs the same colour as food packages can't be classed as anything less than criminally insane.
To me, this builds up a steady picture not so much of evil intent, but of neglect and wanton recklessness. And I'd only put a cigarette paper between this and intentional murdering of civilians.
The criminal action isn't so much the act of violence in this case, not as much as in the pure meat-and-two-veg terrorist atrocity, but in the command and control systems which allow reckless disregard of innocent human life to occur. Its rather like giving a psychopath a gun on condition that they promise not to use it.
PE
edit: forgot to add this current news item to further illustrate my point:
Page not found - All 4
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-06-2004 01:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Quetzal, posted 10-06-2004 2:11 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Quetzal, posted 10-07-2004 11:45 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 92 of 103 (148064)
10-07-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by johnfolton
10-05-2004 1:02 PM


GWB is NO statesman
A statesman is above all a diplomat that brings others to the table
Bush on the other hand has driven people away: he is incompetent.
He has lied, is lying, will lie
Why do you pick a known liar? Why do you not condemn his lies?
The only conclusion I can reach is (a) you are too stupid to tell they are lies or (b) you don't care that they are lies.
If you don't care that they are lies it is either because (1) you are malicious yourself or (2) you are insane in wanting a liar in any leadership position.
OR you are in denial -- that cozy self-denial state where you don't have to deal with reality, especially the reality that you {are making \ have made} a mistake. A big mistake.
Judging on past performance, I suspect the latter.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 10-05-2004 1:02 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 103 (148066)
10-07-2004 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Quetzal
10-05-2004 12:39 PM


fewer acts with more effect I would put down to a more successful and focused opposition, and not one on the run from a winning anti-terrorist program. The fact is that the world is more dangerous for americans abroad than it has been in 20 years and that this is due in part to the administrations failed programs and alienation of whole generations of whole nations.
dead is dead, injured is injured, more is more.
the state department's report can hardly be considered unbiased, especially as it had to revise it's first report to correct errors that Mr Waxman exposed. as such I consider his information more credible.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Quetzal, posted 10-05-2004 12:39 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Quetzal, posted 10-07-2004 11:49 AM RAZD has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 94 of 103 (148078)
10-07-2004 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Primordial Egg
10-06-2004 2:35 PM


Now we’re getting into a highly technical discussion area concerning jus in bello and the principle of proportionality. Besides being OT, I’m not sure we need to go there, although I’d be happy to discuss them on a different thread. I’ll content myself with agreeing with your underlying point (for the nonce) that the location of the bar as you put it is the key element. I’ll also agree that if there is evidence that the proportionality rule has been systematically violated (as you seem to be suggesting), whether through negligence or design, then we are looking at a legitimate case for war crimes accusations (among other possible results). I’ll finish up (for this thread) by restating the point on which I disagree with you: I consider the deliberate targeting of civilians (i.e., terrorism) both qualitatively and quantitatively different from accidental death due to war. Although, as RAZD so succinctly puts it, dead is dead, and the loss of non-combatant lives should be viewed as a tragedy regardless of reason..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-06-2004 2:35 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-07-2004 1:58 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 95 of 103 (148080)
10-07-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
10-07-2004 10:31 AM


fewer acts with more effect I would put down to a more successful and focused opposition...
Or alternatively, as the report suggests, a shift from now-hardened targets to "softer", more vulnerable targets.
dead is dead, injured is injured, more is more
I couldn't have made a more obvious statement if I'd tried. Congratulations on your ability to turn a discussion into triviality.
as such I consider his information more credible
I never would have guessed...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2004 10:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2004 4:22 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 103 (148117)
10-07-2004 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Quetzal
10-07-2004 11:45 AM


I don't think its a particularly technical discussion - all I'm talking more here about what in the UK is known as the "doctrine of oblique intent" - whereby a person can be held responsible for murder even when that wasn't their' intention.
Agreed that in order to make the case for this I have to demonstrate that negligent mistakes are happening repeatedly and very little that is effective is done to ensure that they cannot re-occur - this is pretty obvious to me from the news I read, but I realise it might not be for you if you see things differently. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to spell this out in any detail any time soon and research all the various incidents, and even then I'm not sure a long list of military "mistakes" would convince you. I still think that negligent disregard for non-combatant life is not materially different from murder with intent, tho' I suppose its a matter of taste really.
PE
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-07-2004 01:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Quetzal, posted 10-07-2004 11:45 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Quetzal, posted 10-08-2004 9:59 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 103 (148159)
10-07-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Quetzal
10-07-2004 11:49 AM


Bush claims that we are safer now that Saddam is behind bars.
There has yet to be shown any link between Saddam and terrorist attacks on Americans. {{This is not to say that he wasn't a bad dude, a thug who supported terrorism in the Middle East and in his backyard}}.
There are now attacks on Americans that were not occurring before, both in numbers, in locations, and in methods (the beheadings come to mind as a particularly gruesome example). I don't equate any of that with being safer.
There are places in the world where it used to be relatively safe for Americans to travel that are now dangerous. I don't equate that with being safer.
There are Americans coming home from Iraq dead or injured that would not be doing so without the continued war in Iraq. I don't equate that with being safer.
One could argue that the soldiers could as easily be killed in Afghanistan ... but that would be in pursuit of the real terrorists and killers of Americans, and getting them will -- when it happens -- make us safer, but it hasn't happened yet, and I don't equate that with being safer.
One can also justifiably say that the conflict in Iraq has raised the Arab anti-American sentiment to new heights of hate and willingness to kill. I don't equate that with being safer.
The credibility of our leaders has been diminished not just from the wanton invasion of Iraq but by the undeniable evidence that our intelligence people do not have a lock on what is happening in the real world, and this will affect what our leaders can accomplish in the world with other leaders. I don't equate that with feeling safer.
Personally I don't think there is a thing this administration can do with credibility anymore. They have lied, they have misrepresented, they have mismanaged, they have missed opportunities, and they are unrepentant and unwilling to make any changes to prevent similar mistakes in the future.
Show me Waxman lying with evidence similar to that of Bush's blatant lie about Kerry's comments.
Show me Waxman lying with evidence similar to the pictures that show Cheney sitting next to each other at a table that prove that Cheney was lying when he said he never met Edwards before the debate.
Powell has admitted that the evidence that he presented was not credible.
Rumsfeld has admitted that the link between Iraq and Al Queda is tenuous at best.
This administration cannot be trusted. For anything.
Personally I think it is venal that the republican party is not trying Bush for impeachment with the same fervor that they prosecuted Clinton's blue dress, or do they forget that their standard was that he was lying to the American people? The blue dress did not cause soldiers to die.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Quetzal, posted 10-07-2004 11:49 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 10-08-2004 9:56 AM RAZD has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 98 of 103 (148248)
10-08-2004 2:50 AM


I know this is off-topic, but I just found something very interesting that I must share. You can view Bush's notes during the debates here.

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 99 of 103 (148273)
10-08-2004 7:47 AM


This is an interesting take upon the notion of if Bush is a liar, stupid, or just a really lazy thinker.
Is He a Dope?
The Los Angeles Times | Editorial
Although neither group likes to say so, some Americans who support President Bush and many who don't support him have concluded over four years that he may not be very bright. This suspicion was not allayed by Bush's answers in the first presidential debate a week ago.
Even Bush's most engaged critics shy away from publicly challenging his intelligence for many reasons, most of them good. To raise the issue seems snooty and elitist. This is an image no American wants because seeming snooty is even worse than seeming stupid. Just ask Bush's opponent, Sen. John Kerry. Furthermore, the concept of brainpower or IQ as a single, measurable trait is generally, though not universally, rejected by scientists. And the obsession with IQ has been responsible for all sorts of political mischief.
Then there is Ronald Reagan. We know now that he had incipient Alzheimer's for at least part of his presidency. Many of his supporters at the time and even more of his retrospective admirers acknowledge that he was a few jelly beans short of a jar. But he was a spectacularly successful politician anyway, and many believe he was more than that: one of America's greatest leaders.
The smartest candidate is not necessarily the best candidate. The candidate's belief system and character matter more. Similarly, the smartest surgeon is not necessarily the best surgeon. But if all you knew about two surgeons was that one was smarter than the other, there's not much question which one you'd pick for your operation.
Actually, we would not frame the question as one of abstract brainpower, a dubious concept. You don't go through America's top schools, serve as governor of a major state and occupy the presidency with even mixed results if you're not reasonably smart, no matter how thoroughly your way is eased by others.
The issue might better be described as one of mental laziness.
Does this man think through his beliefs before they harden into unwavering principles? Is he open to countervailing evidence? Does he test his beliefs against new evidence and outside argument? Does his understanding of a subject go any deeper than the minimum amount needed for public display? Is he intellectually curious? Does he try to reconcile his beliefs on one subject with his beliefs on another?
It's bad if a president is incapable of the abstract thought necessary for these mental exercises. If he is capable and isn't even trying, that's worse. It becomes a question of character. When a president sends thousands of young Americans to kill and die halfway around the world, thinking about it as hard and as honestly as possible is the least he can do.
Bush's Iraq policy is full of contradictions, often rehearsed on this page and elsewhere. But so is Kerry's. It isn't routine political mendacity that makes many people - many more than will admit it - wonder about Bush's mental engagement. It is a combination of things: his stumbling inarticulateness, the efforts his advisors make to protect him from unscripted exposure, his extreme reluctance to rethink anything.
Does it matter? Yes, it matters. There are those who say that Reagan's mental laziness was actually a plus. It prevented a lot of competing signals from causing static on the lines, and kept his principles clear. We do not buy that. We state boldly that thinking hard is a good thing, not a bad thing, even in a president. If that sounds snooty, so be it. And maybe George W. Bush will reassure us by his performance Friday night that he is thinking as hard as he should about the issues the president will face in the next four years. Especially the issues resulting from his own failure to think hard during the last four.

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Quetzal, posted 10-08-2004 10:01 AM nator has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 100 of 103 (148297)
10-08-2004 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
10-07-2004 4:22 PM


It's not clear to me that your rant has anything whatsoever to do with anything I've ever said. I never characterized Waxman's letters as "lying", nor did I imply it, for example. I do think his arguments have more to do with domestic politics than anything else, but that's an opinion. I have also never disagreed with your statement that Bush lied - or at least strongly overstated or understated his case - at various times. One of the several reasons I don't plan on voting for him.
What's with you, anyway RAZD?? Whatever won't respond, so you feel the need to virulently attack anyone who disagrees with you on any point? Get a grip.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2004 4:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2004 1:07 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 101 of 103 (148298)
10-08-2004 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Primordial Egg
10-07-2004 1:58 PM


In this one, I guess we'll agree to disagree. Although, I don't actually completely disagree with you - rather I think the jury's still out. The accusations of reckless disregard are exceptionally serious ones, and I would need substantial evidence (beyond simply a list of "mistakes") that the problem is systemic or based on deliberate policy before I'd join in that accusation, is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-07-2004 1:58 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 102 of 103 (148300)
10-08-2004 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by nator
10-08-2004 7:47 AM


Great article, schraf. I think this paragraph:
Does this man think through his beliefs before they harden into unwavering principles? Is he open to countervailing evidence? Does he test his beliefs against new evidence and outside argument? Does his understanding of a subject go any deeper than the minimum amount needed for public display? Is he intellectually curious? Does he try to reconcile his beliefs on one subject with his beliefs on another?
...says it all. Since as far as I can tell, the answer to all the questions appears to be "no".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 10-08-2004 7:47 AM nator has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 103 (148383)
10-08-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Quetzal
10-08-2004 9:56 AM


What's with me? for one, I am one of those people Cheney refered to as "helping off the tax roster" -- twice in four years. First time downsized, second time outsourced overseas, and it was a lower paying job: is "do you want fries with that" my next option?
For two, I cannot believe that ANYONE is even considering voting for Bush based on his record of failures and INABILITY to consider change.
He is incompetent (and was as Governor if you look back at what he actually did rather than what he takes credit for).
For three: he lies. About everything. He says one thing and does another - opposite to what he says.
For four: he takes credit for things that are either (1) not done ("Mission Accomplished" stands out here, but his claims on the economy come a close second) or (2) things he had nothing to do with or resisted (Homeland security, many other examples)
I have to ask what evidence is needed to show that a person is a failure as a president ... and how does Bush measure up to an honest assesment?
Note voting for Bush is one reasonable answer. Not letting him get away with his sleazy politics is more of what America needs to do, if nothing else then to regain some international credibility.
But that is my opinion as a liberal American who thinks that all opinions should be heard, particularly by a president, and expecially when he is running for re-election.
Piece on the radio this morning where people that were being searched (????) before going to a rally where he would speak, and any evidence of Kerry support and they were (1) not allowed in, (2) threatened with arrest if they didn't leave quietly and (3) escourted away.
That doesn't sound like ANY previous president, it doesn't sound American.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 10-08-2004 9:56 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024