quote:

---

I sure would love to read it.

---

I really don't think you would.
 

---

Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
 

quote:

---

How are these the actions of a moral man?

---

quote:

---

How is it that this man could be "God chosen" to be our leader?

---

quote:

---

What does it say about America today that this man can be embraced by a majority of the population?

---

quote:

---

If he is acting in an immoral fashion, and he represents us, aren't we also acting in an immoral fashion by keeping him?

---

Thankfully, he does not represent me or anyone else who voted against him. Unless I state otherwise, no one represents me even if I did vote for them. Supporters of popular election of leaders just claim that the politicians represent their voters and/or their subjects to create buy-in.

Of course, I am not a conservative, but I could not let that stuff about representation go by without protest.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Tell me about it. I'm as mystified as you are. Not to mention morally exausted by it all.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
*weeps*

*keeps remembering a statement made by 11th grade history teacher in the 80's about president's being known as weak and incompetent because they weren't willing to 'hose' the next guy - i.e., Jimmy Carter - and President's known as strong and competent - and embraced as such - because they WERE willing to 'hose' the next guy*


 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Short answer: because just enough people voted for him based on absolutely none of those things you point out.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
You simply have a different opinion of what constitutes moral behavior. Just as an example, I don't consider the holding of detainees in Guantanamo to be illegal or immoral.

I also consider abortion, terrorism, affirmative action, and other actions and threats to all be far more immoral than the worst I think of Bush's actions
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
That is becauseyou aren't in danger of being considered a possible terroist because of your racial characteristic, are you?

We either have laws or we don't, and if we do our Constitution says they must be equaly applied to us all.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
 
But Kwea, the people <edit> Did I say people? I meant terrorists. </edit> in Guantanamo are not US citizens! That makes it ok!

[ January 16, 2005, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
For the sake of playing devil's advocate. Terrorists are the ones who decided to change the rules by killing using roadside bombs, assasinations, RPGs, hit and fade, using civilian populations and mosques for cover, not wearing a uniform but instead blending into the crowds and getting their own people killed.

No they don't get the same protections given to American citizens, and since they won't even play by internationally recognized rules, they don't get the same protections that the Geneva Convention grants most people. I know that it's all high and mighty to treat your enemy with compassion and fairness even when he treats you with nothing but dishonor, but at what point do we stop and say "We're fighting an enemy that wants to kill us, and the point of war is to win, not to be the nicest guy in the war."
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Nathan ALWAYS gets the Extra Special Security Search.

We can't figure out why. But since new security measures were instituted, he has gotten the Extra Special Treatment every single time he flies.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
But wouldn't using those sort of tactics throw our credibility out the window?
Not to mention if you are not talking about potential terrorists, but the very people we are claiming to "help."
It isn't very thorough (sp) to go after only suspicious looking people (IE, Dark skin Arab looking types)
Besides, isn't the point of this war to-Liberate Iraqis and win their hearts and minds?
 

---

Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
 
I would be interested to know if you believe that a democratic as president, or even just anyone but Bush would have issues like these? I don't mean these particular issues but other things that cause some group of citizen's blood to boil.

I get the impression from so many people (don't take this as speaking about you Bob, as I haven't really ever discussed anything with you) that this is just justification of prior beliefs. I suppose I shouldn't say that all presidents will have issues, as I only remember Clinton (and don't want to bring him into this), but I seems to me that they must. Perhaps Bush more so than ususal? I don't really know. Or is it perhaps that these things are more evil than issues that other presidents have had?
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
Nathan does wear a beard. I actually haven't flown since 9/11. I like to consider myself moral- though I realize many here would disagree- but I'm not hardworking and Bush wasn't my first choice for president. I think Dean should have won.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Not only does he have a beard, but he has a very particular kind of beard. Combine that with this look, and of course he gets searched!
 

---

Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
 

quote:

---

It isn't very thorough (sp) to go after only suspicious looking people (IE, Dark skin Arab looking types)

---

quote:

---

That is becauseyou aren't in danger of being considered a possible terroist because of your racial characteristic, are you?

We either have laws or we don't, and if we do our Constitution says they must be equaly applied to us all.

Innocent until proven guilty.

---

quote:

---

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

---

quote:

---

No they don't get the same protections given to American citizens, and since they won't even play by internationally recognized rules, they don't get the same protections that the Geneva Convention grants most people. I know that it's all high and mighty to treat your enemy with compassion and fairness even when he treats you with nothing but dishonor, but at what point do we stop and say "We're fighting an enemy that wants to kill us, and the point of war is to win, not to be the nicest guy in the war."

---

quote:

---

How can moral, hard-working people enjoy having Bush as our leader?

---

quote:

---

I also consider abortion, terrorism, affirmative action, and other actions and threats to all be far more immoral than the worst I think of Bush's actions

---

quote:

---

as far as I'm concerned I won the election and that entitles me to not have to put up with this anymore.

---

So now that GWB has clearly won an election, all dissenters should simply fall in line? Get behind the commander-in-chief?

I think you've forgotten how democracy works.

---------

Just so we're clear, my original draft of this post would have gotten me banned. Your post upsets me a lot more than this reply shows.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
So, in other words, once again Bush refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong?
That he is not some form of demi-god who knows anything, it's the opposite. Some of the things he has been doing are illogical and completely wrong.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Nathan ALWAYS gets the Extra Special Security Search.

Yeah, but what you do in the privacy of your own home is none of our business.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 



 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I have little patience with someone takes the stance of "Gee whiz, I just didn't know" over and over again. The excuse wears thin. We are responsible for seeking out knowledge, especially of things for which we have assumed explicit responsibility.
 

---

Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 

quote:

---

No they don't get the same protections given to American citizens, and since they won't even play by internationally recognized rules, they don't get the same protections that the Geneva Convention grants most people.

---

quote:

---

I'm concerned I won the election and that entitles me to not have to put up with this anymore

---

No it doesn't. We have courts for some very important reason...because civil liberties are the backbone of our way of life, and they are the reason our govermant exists.


No one,..not Bush, Cheney, or Ashcroft....has the right, either morally or legaly, to chnge that.

And he had one of the smallest margins of victory in history.....it only looked large compared to the previous one.
Hardly a resonding mandate to override the Bill of Rights.

I really don't have a problem with treatign convicted terrorists differently...as you say they aren't playing by the same rules as us so they don;t enjoy all the protections we do...but "innocent until proven guilty" isn't qualified with "if that is convienent".

And your stance says a lot about your morals, or lack of them when they aren't convienent to have.

BTW, I would have the same problem with this n matter HWO won, so this isn't Bush bashing to me. If Clinton, or another Democrat had done these things they still would have been immoral.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
SOrry, Dag, but I only selectively read hatrack. I often don't encounter "previous" posts, and since you're referring to abortion, there's a zero percent change I read the thread in question.

That said, I'd like to note that your statement on kerry is misleading, and deliberately so.
 

---

Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
 
While if bush and cheney gets their way America might turn into something like a dictatorship (unlikely too many people are pissed off unless a dirty bomb goes of in a massive oil reserve) but frankly nothing will ever work to stop the terrorists. America is not an aroused totalitarian state that can lock itslef up so well that nothing can get in and never will be. The best thing for the states to do is to get more foreign support for peace actions, start pressuring countries to dismantly their dictatorships (except where its impossible unless you have nuclear war) and try to compromise with various arabic/islamic groups and factions.

Course the limit to this is Israel, nothing can co-opt Israels right to exist. We draw the line there and no farther, not one step back.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Dag,
And in least 2 cases I disagreed with that characterization. John Kerry has said he didn't think that he was authorized to use coercive force to stop abortion. His position was never that he thought it was ok to kill people on a whim. What you said isn't just a misrepresntation, it's a misrepresentation you've been called on before.

Which is really besides the point anyway, because this is not the all or nothing situation that some people seem to make it out to be. You can vote for someone and still have problems with the way they do things. Someone can be more moral than someone else and still have major moral failings.

George Bush won the election because the majority of people who voted preferred him to John Kerry. That's fine, but he's not running against John Kerry anymore, so supporting him and excusing his failings based on the fact that you think that John Kerry would be worse isn't responsible (if it was even during the election). Our responsibilities as citizens of this country don't end after we've cast our vote. It's our job to keep our leaders accountable, even (or maybe especially) if we voted for them.

For example, Alberto Gonzales is going to be the next Attorney General. The Democrats are far too weak to stop him, especially considering that he's hispanic. Maybe you think he's a good choice. But if not, if the torture thing and the death penalty thing make you worried, you can and should express your disapproval to the Bush administration, making note that you're one of those decent, moral Christians and that's why you are troubled by this decision.

I know quite a few people who actively worked on the Kerry campaign who were planning on giving him a month to celebrate the victory and then start tearing into to him. I would have hoped that the same spirit would be there on the Bush side as well.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Dagonee, yes, it is misleading. Since I know your ability with words, the only assumption is its deliberately misleading.

Bush thinks its good to kill people.

Now, what do I mean by that statement? And can you puzzle it out from what I've said, or am I trying to state that Bush doesn't have objections to anyone killing anyone else?

The appearence of the phrase, in both cases, and the way it will most likely be interepreted, is that Kerry won't stop any murder, and Bush views murder as a moral positive.

Neither of those positions is true.

But thats the interpretation that should be made from the sentence you wrote... that Kerry won't stop any murder.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
As opposed to Bush who doesn't do anything in particular about abortion but gets to sit back and get your votes anyways because the other guy would at least acknowledge how he was going to act?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
And again, saying that it's not your place to prevent something doesn't mean that you think that it's ok to allow it. Being elected to office in our country (at least theoretically) doesn't give you license to do whatever you want. There are rules governing what you can and cannot do. John Kerry's stated position, if you look through the crappy way he expressed it, was that he didn't think that he could outlaw abortion and be okay within these rules.

I don't actually believe that he was that principled. I think it was possibly a personal choice and definitely a politcally motivated stance, but the principle of what he's saying is really freaking important. We don't elect kings. You don't get to do whatever you want because more people voted for you.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Dag, I was raised Catholic, and I believe that a child is a life. I would never abort a child, nor would I allow my wife to do so (as if I even have a say in the choice...but that is another topic.. )

But I also believe that it is wrong to force women to bear children when they are not willing to do so. It is every bit as wrong, IMO.

So there is no clear choice where everyone is a winner. That doesn't mean I think that everyone should get an abortion, but that I see no possible way of refuting their right to do so without doing them equal harm.

There is a gray area there, regardless of your ability or willingness to see it.

And it doesn't mean that I support killing peopel on a whim.

That is YOUR characterization of it, not mine.

And not Kerry's.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
If Kerry really lacked as much in morals/ethics as you seem to wish to saddle him with, he'd have lied either about what he believed or what he was going to do. Actually, as he is good with words (a bit too good), it would definitely have been the second. All he'd have had to do to get most people would be to say that abortion is a terrible thing, as he believes, and that he would begin to take steps that would reduce the number of abortions in the country in the eventual hope that it would no longer need to be legal.

You're alleging a terrible moral gap and then assuming he's either too stupid too lie (something not particularly supported by the evidence) or for some reason lacks the same moral gap when it comes to lying.

I rather think his positions might come about because he acknowledges that one's personal beliefs and one's beliefs about free will and independent action can be hard to reconcile, even when the answer seems obvious. Humans are beings of contradiction.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

as far as I'm concerned I won the election and that entitles me to not have to put up with this anymore.

---

quote:

---

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12450-2005Jan15.html

I was not aware that not electing an opponent meant the public endorsed every action one's administration officials had taken.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Dag - that was very naughty. I thought I was losing my mind when I clicked on page 2 and it took me back to the original post. Scrolling through I realized what had happened . . .

Y'know, interpretation is a lot like possession - everyone has their own particular stance on the way they see the world, and that's really okay. As folks debate/discuss their different interpretations, then there is opportunity for other folks (such as me) to ponder on the words and different stances and where we sit in relation to those ideas.

Just in keeping with the MLK commemorations this weekend, civil rights didn't happen overnight. And it's a good thing those activists kept restating, over and over and over again, what they so passionately believed in - or the movement may never have "happened."

Just a thought -

And one more - as I was reading Lyr's description of terrorist tactics.

The original inhabitants of this particular continent used very similar tactics in their efforts to preserve their homes and lives. Early on, the revolutionary war soldiers adopted those tactics and were roundly criticized by British military for not standing up to be mowed down. And I believe it's pretty standard to use strike and disappear, and hit where it's least expected and most vulnerable, sors of tactics when the opposing side drastically outnumbers you . . .

just some early a.m. thoughts to go along with the coffee . . .
 

---

Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
 
Bob, the fact that you care enough to voice your frustration is very noble, but I would like to answer your question a different way:

I believe myself to be somewhat moral person, I work hard, but I do not enjoy or dislike whomever our flavor of the next four years happens to be.

We have said this before. The administration is significant, but the President very rarely makes a public decision that instantly directly alters how I live my life on a daily basis.

For all the shenanigans you point out that have occurred in this administration, I would expect them to occur to some degree in any administration.

This is politics. There are no good guys versus bad guys but rather "Issues A versus Issues B" (insert Agenda if Issues does not work) in my most sincerest, most honest opinion. Although many of our politicians are heroes that should be commended and honored, they choose to operate in a corrput system that demands certain courses of action that are sometimes morally questionable.

There are no more Mr. Smiths go to Washington. So I embrace the chaos of our Federal Government and brace more for the changes that occur at the state level, which affect me so much more than federal changes.

The nail that sticks up the highest is the one that is hit first.

-Old wise Japanese saying as transcribed from a fortune cookie, I think.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

---

quote:

---

I'd prefer to win in the short term too, though. I live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and I won't be too happy if Bush's tactics result in some WMDs being set of in my backyard.

---

quote:

---

I believe that the US would seek out a resolution to the War on Terror with even more ferocity and finality.

---

I'm afraid that's probably right. Just as the Israelis/Palestineans learn little from further death, so it will be with us.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
This is the kind of thing that Americans will not learn the lesson from until it sneaks up behind them and bites them hard. That's how the majority of Americans are today, they live in a bubble, and when terrorists finally pop that bubble, there will be hell to pay.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Fear is the mindkiller.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Whoah . . . talk about deja vu . . . was there not a thread rather recently that discussed mindkilling fear . . .
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
And a bullet just plain kills you. There's really no point in arguing whether or not death of the body or what is in your opinion death of the mind is worse because the election is over and I seriously doubt anyone is changing their mind. Democrats need to stop working toward getting George Bush out of office because you're now three months late and none of your whining or righteous indignation is going to change that.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Really!

We need to start the impeachment process.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm intrigued, NFL. Do you believe the only issue here is whether or not Bush remains in office, and thus "his team" "wins?"

Or do you agree that there are important legal and moral principles here that, regardless of who's at bat, need to be properly negotiated, and that it is the duty of all Americans -- regardless of their party affiliation -- to shepherd these principles and encourage their promotion?
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
The only issue that has really been raised is whether or not Bush should be in or remain in office.

quote:

---

We need to start the impeachment process.

---

quote:

---

Under the present administration, facts are routinely varnished like fine wood. That is, when they are not ignored outright. Consider the record. Where official reports have clashed with politics, they have been edited. Where science has offended political supporters, it has been quashed. Where the administration's own experts have contradicted its worldview, they have been ignored.

---

quote:

---

Which brings us back to journalistic integrity or the lack thereof. Between this, CBS News, Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley, who can blame a journalist for feeling that maybe it's time to find a more reputable profession? Like used car sales.

---

Ohhhh - that was good.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
So, NFL, you refuse to discuss anything current that Bush might be doing wrong, but if anyone brings up anything from the past it is either:

A) OK, because Bush won, and therefore has a complete mandate that supersedes the Constitution

or

B) A bunch of whiners talking about the past which doesn't matter, even if it is the same thing that the Republicans did to Clinton.

How convenient for you.

The Republicans KNEW they didn't have enough votes to win an impeachment against Clinton..it was all over the news before the impeachment ever happened....but they went ahead and initiated the procedure for political gain and free anti-Democratic publicity.

So is that only an appropriate response when the Republicans do it?

I don;t think Bush should be impeached, but I don't think he is a good President...not by a long shot.

He isn't consistent, except in his arrogance, unfounded as it is.

Everyone, Democratic or Republican, should be concerned with what is happening to our basic rights as human beings. When even the Constitution isn't enough to protect basic human rights then we are all in trouble.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
It does matter.
If they are eroding people's rights, blowing up babies in Iraq, shredding the constitution and condoning the torture of Iraqi and Afghani prisioners, it matters. They need to be held accountable.
I read some bumper sticker on a woman's car that said, "Do not question the president." What is he, a king, and emporer? A demi-god? I think not. If someone is doing the wrong thing whether they are a democrat, republican or independent it is our DUTY as citizens to call them on it.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I tried to get through, I failed, I give up. A thread asking how people can support Bush and operating on the assumption that Bush is immoral is one that I have no business lingering in. The threads asking why people voted for Bush after the election were one thing, but this is just ridiculous.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
It's not an assumption. I seldom make assumptions when it comes to something important.
I have tried to do research, to be objective but the more I hear each day leads me to believe that Bush is doing the wrong thing.
The main problem is, what can be done about it? Nothing. Nothing at all. The people who supported him because of abortion, homosexuality, the war on terror will not change their minds any time soon.
I have no idea what can be done. I have no power, no ability to change minds.
But, it drives me mad because I do not want these people dragging the name of my country through the mud.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Bringing this over from a different thread since it seems to be applicable...

I think Mr. Bush has a dream. I think he has a goal in mind for the United States, one in which we are powerful and safe and everyone takes responsibility for their actions and where the economy rewards those willing to work hard. A goal where marriage is sacred and children are educated and everyone works towards building a strong society. I believe he honestly works towards this and is proud of what he's already accomplished.

Unfortunately, I also believe that he's going about it in a short-sighted, ends-justify-the-means manner based on what those around him have told him will work, and he is dismantling any checks or balances that might interfere with accomplishing what he already has in mind.

I think that his plans towards improving the economy by strengthening the power and lessening the culpabilities for corporations and businesses are fine in theory, but fall apart when he fails to take into account the criminal actions of many corporate heads. Which is easy to do, since the regulatory boards for such crimes have been weakened.

I think his plans for strengthening the country's stand on terrorists ignores the human rights of those accused as well as the likely response from people who take American soldiers and civilians as prisoners and have been shown that the Geneva Convention is no longer relevant.

This is, of course, not something to lay solely at his feet. I think the people surrounding him, and some of the people holding power in both parties, are encouraging the same behavior.

I think that the practice of redistricting is allowing politicians to run unopposed and hold power forever, giving corrupt leaders a way to stay in office regardless of the actual will of the people they purport to represent.

I think that people in charge of setting the legislative agenda are bending it to their own needs -- hardly a new thing -- and that the current system of lobbyist-written bills and unrelated riders is crippling any attempt at legislation that benefits anyone other than those writing the checks.

I believe Mr. Bush's mind runs like this: "I am building a better, stronger America. People who are condemning me must not want that to happen, but I think the country wants what I want." This sincere belief is what allows him to look politely puzzled when he is questioned about his policies. Don't we all want a better country? Then why don't we just sit back and let him handle it?

I think Mr. Bush is on his way into becoming a well-meaning dictator, and I sincerely hope that he doesn't manage to do anything irretrievable.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
As usual Chris has, I think, a pretty accurate viewpoint.

Here are my views on the matter-

Re: Bush nominations for various offices-

Any Democratic nominees would likely be painted just as nefariously. Let's face it, the press is going to dig into your past and find some things to hold against you. In some cases I have no doubt that the "dirt" they dig up is 90% invention and 10% real while no doubt in other cases it is probably 100% accurate.

I highly doubt that Bush is nominating people that he knows are scumbags.

As far as other Bush policies- Bush sees himself as an outsider with a mandate to reform Washington and I think that is exactly what he is trying to do. The state of the economy in many european countries is a clear indication that one must be very careful with the promised benefits of social programs. Bush therefore pushes to reform SS (and no doubt medicare is next). Bush sees how ridiculous the tax code is and he seeks to reform it to better encourage savings and investment (which Americans are worse at than any other advanced nation). Again, for those who think Bush is selling us down the river to the corporations- Europe can again be our warning where economic growth is much more difficult due to the huge tax burdens, strength of the unions etc. Clearly there is a balance which needs to be maintained and I hope that Bush et al. find a good one for us.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

A thread asking how people can support Bush and operating on the assumption that Bush is immoral is one that I have no business lingering in.

---

This is why my intitial inclination was to avoid the thread, and why I eventually did so.

It's one step above "Do you still beat your wife?"

It's not that I don't want to discuss issues such as this or that I don't care about the government. It's that it's pointless to do so here, under this thesis.

Maybe if a single issue were being discussed, it might be worth it. But probably not even then.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Maybe if a single issue were being discussed, it might be worth it."

Well, Dag, you basically said you were a single-issue voter, anyway. So unless we're talking about abortion, it simply doesn't matter, does it?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
It's worth pointing out that YOU were a single issue voter this go-round too, Tom.

That issue being 'Bush.'


 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

I think Bush should be impeached, tried and convicted of treason, and executed under the death penalty that was so often used in TX when he was governor there.

---

Why?

Do we get to hold all presidents subject to the reasoning you're going to outline?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Jacare -- when the examples of scumbaggity come from that persons own collection of papers, its much easier to believe they're not creations of the press .
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh and Dag, if you happen to pop in, one thing to consider.

Since as noted Bush has done/is doing essentially nada re: abortion (other than cutting some funding that wasn't being spent on abortion anyways, but on birth control and such), but your hopes are that when it comes time to appoint SCJ (as it almost certainly will), he will appoint ones with similar sensibilities in that area, have you considered that Bush is likely to nominate the same sorts of people for SCJ as he's been nominating for positions such as Attorny General (Ashcroft and Gonzales)?

(There're good examples in the judges he nominates as well, though they're at least a more opinion-diverse group. I'm particularly a fan of the ones who have thought that a defense attorney sleeping during witness testimony and other key parts of the trial did not mean the attorney was sufficiently incompetent for there to have been a mistrial (or whatever the appropriate legal terminology is)).
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

"The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me." - Bush

---

quote:

---

He willingly and with malice lied to the American people and the world about his reasoning for military invasion. This has directly resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 1000 American soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians.

---

quote:

---

If he is acting in an immoral fashion, and he represents us, aren't we also acting in an immoral fashion by keeping him?

---

quote:

---

Given that America's security is largely based on our credibility, this attack on our credibility consitutes malice and therefore treason.

---

quote:

---

It's worth pointing out that YOU were a single issue voter this go-round too, Tom.

That issue being 'Bush.'

---

quote:

---

Well, Dag, you basically said you were a single-issue voter, anyway. So unless we're talking about abortion, it simply doesn't matter, does it?

---

quote:

---

Iraq, while of nasty temperament, just wasn't much of a threat. It didn't put any significant monies into terrorism, it didn't have a very big army, it was under close watch from the previous gulf war, it didn't even control all of the technical nation, et cetera. It was a vicious gnat, not even a horsefly or a wasp.

---

quote:

---

Do you have any evidence he had current plans (not just desires) to attack Israel?

---

I do not. I thought I could back it up with links, but all I get is Sadaam's rhetoric.

My apologies.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Jacare -- when the examples of scumbaggity come from that persons own collection of papers, its much easier to believe they're not creations of the press

---

quote:

---

We didn't know what Iraq had done with their WMD program, but there were hints that it was still ongoing. We relied on faulty evidence to make a case for invasion-- but only found out it was faulty after the war ended. If you can show, somehow that Bush knew it was faulty beforehand, you have a case.

Please keep in mind that by international standards, the UN should have invaded LONG before 2002, as Iraq constantly defied treaty standards.

---

quote:

---

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

---

quote:

---

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

---

quote:

---

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

---

quote:

---

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

---

quote:

---

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

---

quote:

---

In all seriousness, I think one of the major problems is that folks who have the ambition, drive, funding, connections etc. to get elected to high office are also the folks most likely to have some serious scumbaggery buried in their past somewhere.

---

quote:

---

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability...

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down...

The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning...

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection...

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

---

quote:

---

All I'm saying is if you're going to attack Bush don't leave Clinton blameless with a halo.

---

quote:

---

Bob, leaving aside the pragmatic problems such as who counts as a "Bush supporter," you are assuming that each of these will be viewed as a a moral failing of the same magnitude as you view them.

---

quote:

---

you've presented assumptions, and alternatives such as "slander and jealousy by the opposition party" which you clearly intend to dismiss.

---

quote:

---

even if your motives are pure, your presentation gives no reason for any Bush supporters to participate or think you would accept their explanation if they provided it.

---

Granted, I won't be hard to convince. I'm not trying to talk you out of your opinions -- whatever they may be. I want to hear what they are because I don't believe that any person who values morality and hard work could hold Mr. Bush in positive regard.

If you can, you can choose to share your reasoning or not. I may not think your reasons are good ones. But then, they aren't likely to be MY reasons anyway.

I'm not really trying to open a dialog that would convince me of anything. I'm merely asking for information to relieve my own sense of the mystery fo the thing.

I'll probably never be a Bush supporter. But I see several people whom I respect being absolutely in love with the guy and thinking he's going to go down in history as one of the great American presidents. Bush seems to think that's the case, anyway. (At least, that's my interpretation of his "I am a war president" statement.)

Oh well. Respond or don't. I told you where I'm coming from. It's not a secret. We aren't likely to agree. And I don't really want to set people up and act like I'm inviting dialog when really I just want to study the logic of something I can't quite fathom.

I'm used to being mystified by people in this country when it comes to politics and elections. Failing to have the current mystery relieved by Hatrack isn't going to make my life any more or less miserable with respect to living through the next four years.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bob, I'm explaining why you're not likely getting answers. That's all.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Oh, sorry, I thought you were putting assumptions in my mouth.

And then telling me why you wouldn't respond.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Tom, you'll notice I didn't directly set out to defend Bush. But I do think that even if it was unintended, the actual *good* of the US consumer realizing that an oil-based economy is unsustainable is one that probably would not have been realized had Bush not taken the country to war. Because now, they realize we are sacrificing *lives* to sustain our oil supply.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Whatever, Bob.

If you wanted answers, you would have been well advised to ask the question in a less offensive manner.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Bob, I notice in your recent posts you've also rephrased "moral hardworking people" into "people who think Bush is moral" Which are two separate circles with only some overlap on a Venn Diagram.

I'd say also that the fact is the way you worded your Topic Title, strongly implies that anyone who likes Bush has to be immoral. Which is somewhat offensive, and not as likely to get anyone who is moral and likes Bush to reply.

AJ
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Which includes just about anyone who likes Bush, because few people categorize themselves as amoral.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I don't think you'll ever get a straight answer. You'd need everyone to have identical information on Bush and what he has done, and the things he says. You'll never get everyone to look at that information, so they will all make claims based on what they know and what they don't know.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I read the thread title as "I defy you to show me that you can be a moral person and still support Bush." As Dag said, this made me less than interested in participating in the discussion.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I don’t know about Bob, but I’m not wondering how people could vote for Bush. I can see how different priorities would lead to different choices, especially for those whom this election was a “lesser of two evils” kind of situation. I do however wonder about e-mails I’ve gotten lauding him as a towering example of faith and morality.

“Better than the alternative” I can understand. “I agree with his policies/priorities” I can understand. “His flaws are balanced by his strengths” I can understand. But there are people -- and I’m not making up strawmen, I know some and I’m related to at least one -- who basically canonize the guy (in an unofficial, Protestant kind of way). That I don’t understand at all.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Why I post about food
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Guess what! Bush Won! Get over it!
Bush is an honest caring leader who I trust 100%. Sometimes I might not agree with what he is doing on the face of things, but I know that he has seen all the available information and shares my values so I know I can trust his decision is best for me
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*has to resist laughter*
 

---

Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
Why resist? Go ahead and laugh. The president wants you to.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
If he has seen all the available information, then he saw the information which overwhelmingly demonstrated the aluminum tubes used as key evidence for nuclear programs by the administration were of no particular use to Iraq for making nuclear weapons.

Which would, IMNSHO, be at the very least an offense deserving of extreme censure by Congress. The evidence against them as nuclear technology (some highlights: the theoretical maximum efficiency of the tubes in centrifuges was less than the actual efficiencies Iraq was getting with centrifuges it already had plenty of, and the tubes exactly matched the specification of a missile it was perfectly legal for Iraq to construct) is overwhelming.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 

quote:

---

But there are people -- and I’m not making up strawmen, I know some and I’m related to at least one -- who basically canonize the guy (in an unofficial, Protestant kind of way).

---

In the unofficial Hatrack exit poll a solid portion though short of a majority said they voted for Bush. I'm not aware of any of them saying they wanted to cannonize Bush or even anything close to that. Using the small minority of Republicans who feel that way as a representative of the people who "enjoy*" having Bush as our leader is like me saying that how can moral hardworking people be against the Iraq War because the organizers of a lot of those anti-war ralleys were Communists.

*I assume "enjoy" in this example means to be satisfied with Bush and his performance and generally be pleased with the direction of the country.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*points at end of previous page where we have a guy who, essentially, canonizes Bush*
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I wouldn't include Jay. It's just too easy.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I didn't realize all people who were careful, honest, and trustworthy got cannonized. Maybe I should be become Catholic because then it should be pretty easy to achieve sainthood.

I do trust Bush to a very large extent. He rightfully has access to more information than I do and believe that he will act in what he believes to be America's best interest. I don't think he is infallible or that he should be without oversight, but I don't expect him to lead us to certain death either.

Even if Jay's statement meets your criteria for "cannonization," other than him, how people on this board had said they trust Bush 100%? Let's say you could find five. About thirty people voted for Bush in the Hatrack Exit Poll. So even assuming all the Republicans currently here voted (which they certainly didn't) that's at best one in six Republicans think Bush should be cannonized. Since I doubt you could find five and there are more than thirty the minority is even smaller. Personally I find it equally extreme to actually hate Bush and think that he should be tried for war crimes and since there are definitely multiple Dems who have given rise to that sentiment already...
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
"Clinton was just as bad" hardly invalidates people's feelings about Bush.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I didn't realize all people who were careful, honest, and trustworthy got canonized."

I didn't realize some people still thought Bush was careful, honest, and trustworthy.

 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Again, another reason not to participate in loaded discussions.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Threads with provocative titles tend to get more responses. It would be interesting to know if that balances out the higher percentage of productive responses in threads with more moderate titles.

nfl -- I use the word canonize advisedly. I did not say that it's an attitude I've seen on Hatrack, but it's a lot stronger than thinking the man is careful, honest, and trustworthy.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 

quote:

---

I didn't realize some people still thought Bush was careful, honest, and trustworthy.

---

quote:

---

nfl -- I use the word canonize advisedly. I did not say that it's an attitude I've seen on Hatrack, but it's a lot stronger than thinking the man is careful, honest, and trustworthy.

---

quote:

---

The issue is that the very traits that many people say they like about Bush appear on objective analysis to be traits he does not possess.

---

At least Bob had the good sense to admit he doesn't possess objectivity.

quote:

---

Your suggestion, NFL -- that anyone who isn't extremely left of center must conclude that, for example, Bush is an honest, careful person -- seems excessively partisan.

---

quote:

---

Would someone please tell me a way to ask the original question in a way that would be inoffensive and welcoming to Bush supporters?

---

quote:

---

Most of those reasons cross apply to "enjoy" having him as our leader.

---

quote:

---

I just don't see a way to ask that question without first showing that I think the man is scum.

---

quote:

---

I'm asking about a man who said in an interview that he felt he has such a mandate from the American people now that his Administration's actions should not be questioned.

---

• His choice of Gonzalez as Attorney General. If news reports are correct, he has a history of turning in shoddy work that was biased in favor of the death penalty or illegal uses of torture. The seeming implication is that he knows what Bush wants to hear and delivers it, right or wrong.
• His education secretary was caught cooking the books on the so-called "miracle in Houston" upon which the No Child Left Behind program was based.
• The International Committee of the Red Cross reports that is has held meetings with the Bush Administration to discuss the mounting evidence showing that the US has (perhaps) thousands of detainees in "undisclosed locations" where they are not given access to Red Cross workers.
• The evidence keeps coming out that people higher up the food chain encouraged, if not actually ordered, the prisoner abuse in Iraq. No-one in a leadership position has faced anything like the discipline being meted out to the various guards (who, of course, deserve whatever the military justice system throws at them).
• The apparently illegal detention of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay without access to legal representation or the ability to confront accusers and/or the evidence against them went on until the issue was forced in the courts.
• The hiring of "journalists" to deliver the Administration's message on some issue (education, Social Security, others?) without alerting the viewer/reader that the product was really a paid advertisement, not actual reporting. Okay, the real blame here lies with the reporters, but I'm not a little irked that public money was spent on it.

quote:

---

Tom:
Which raises the question: why don't you?

---

quote:

---

newfoundlogic:
Bush is obviously very plain spoken in front of a camera. I don't believe he meant that the way you are interpreting it. I think he's making the argument that I am that its useless to debate the Iraq war because the American people have agreed with him on that issue and we need to move on to other issues, not to shut up.

---

quote:

---

His choice of Gonzalez as Attorney General. If news reports are correct, he has a history of turning in shoddy work that was biased in favor of the death penalty or illegal uses of torture. The seeming implication is that he knows what Bush wants to hear and delivers it, right or wrong.

---

quote:

---

His education secretary was caught cooking the books on the so-called "miracle in Houston" upon which the No Child Left Behind program was based.

---

quote:

---

The International Committee of the Red Cross reports that is has held meetings with the Bush Administration to discuss the mounting evidence showing that the US has (perhaps) thousands of detainees in "undisclosed locations" where they are not given access to Red Cross workers.

---

quote:

---

The evidence keeps coming out that people higher up the food chain encouraged, if not actually ordered, the prisoner abuse in Iraq. No-one in a leadership position has faced anything like the discipline being meted out to the various guards (who, of course, deserve whatever the military justice system throws at them).

---

quote:

---

The apparently illegal detention of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay without access to legal representation or the ability to confront accusers and/or the evidence against them went on until the issue was forced in the courts.

---

quote:

---

The hiring of "journalists" to deliver the Administration's message on some issue (education, Social Security, others?) without alerting the viewer/reader that the product was really a paid advertisement, not actual reporting. Okay, the real blame here lies with the reporters, but I'm not a little irked that public money was spent on it.

---

quote:

---

For me it says that murderers are not going to get a free ride. I find giving murderers breaks much more immoral than a precious few who might be innocent.

---

This statement runs counter to the traditional values of America's justice system. It also has a fundamental problem in that the issue isn't about executing murderers who had extenuating circumstances. It's about people who may, quite possibly have been innocent and who had incompetent counsel. Or who were mentally retarded -- most states shy away from executing people who are below a certain level of intelligence -- the one that would support them knowing right from wrong (or however they define it in their state laws). But even more fundamentally, it's about a person whose job it is to protect the state from making the very mistake you advocate -- that of executing an innocent person. And, really, his job is to advise. If he's filtering the information that would favor clemency, he's biasing the decision before the executive has had a chance to review the facts. In truth, if one of those people truly was innocent, Mr. Gonzalez sealed his fate by failing to present the full picture to GWB. And GWB read the reports, one after the other. Are we to believe he never figured out that he wasn't getting the full story from Gonzalez? When the newspapers were covering the problems with the trials (the bought witnesses, the judge who declared that he believed the star witness was the real murderer, the defense attorney who slept through the trial, AND the attorney who failed to even have his mentally retarded client evaluated?)

What Gonzalez appears to have done -- and short of doing a FOIA request for Bush's calendar and Gonzalez' memos we'll just have to trust the press reports on this -- is write a precis on each condemned person on why the state should move forward with execution. That is what crossed Bush's desk and that is what they discussed in their 30 minute meetings scheduled prior to each execution. Gonzalez has admitted that.

What he has also said, but cannot back up, is that he and Bush had multiple conversations about each condemned person on other occassions before those final memos and half-hour final sessions. He can't back it up because there's no documentation (not in ANY of the AG's files) and there's nothing on Bush's calendar to indicate that the discussions ever took place. Not once.

As for the torture thing. The reports that are coming out of the Bush inner circle is that Gonzalez produced a description of how torture could be conducted illegally. I'll give the others on the Bush team (including Bush) credit for immediately dismissing it as not feasible. That's what they said. So...in other words, this man produced a document backing torture that on the very face of it was either so abhorrent to the Administration or so clearly wrong (as in not based in or supported by law) that it was rejected out of hand.

Or, they implemented it and don't want to admit it, and slowly, over the coming months, more and more will leak out...

Either way, Gonzalez' work doesn't look like it is very good or very moral.

We are talking torture...

Um...we're supposed to be the good guys.

Even if we're fighting people we despise or whom we think despise us.

Ever look at propaganda posters from WWII? Do we NOT believe that propaganda might figure into the government's statements about our current enemies too?

[ January 18, 2005, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Well, there you go, Bob. All one has to do is disbelieve everything in the media, believe that the occasional innocent person executed is worth getting rid of murderers, distrust the Red Cross, believe that holding people in a out-of-country prison and torturing them without a military tribunal or legal counsel even though many of them have not been proven to have been terrorists is OK, and think that all politicians hire journalists and disseminate fake news broadcasts. See, you could have just asked Occasional and saved yourself four pages of thread.

Considering that I think they are all potential terrorists and NOT American Citizens (and those who were did have a day in court), I again think this is a security rather than a moral issue. These are very dangerous people.

Actually I agree with you here. I think that after what they've been through the people in GitMo, even the ones grabbed by mistake, are definitely dangerous people. I sure as hell would be mad at a country that did that to me.

I'm just waiting for enough domestic laws to be changed so that the detainees (and future ones) can be moved where they belong, the dungeons underneath the White House. More traditional that way.

[ January 18, 2005, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Well, you asked
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Yeah, I wonder how many of those guys released from Gitmo headed straight for the nearest terrorist recruitment center?
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Yup. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
You mean that they were released? Gee, so much for the immorality of keeping them there forever.
 

---

Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 
First of all, people who really like Bush seem to doubt the news reports. This shows they trust their chosen leader above most every other source of information. Some also put security concerns over civil rights and the Constitution.

quote:

---

Occasional:
Considering that I believe the Constitution is at best AMORAL, I can't say its immoral.

---

quote:

---

What if you got accused of being a possible terrorist? How could your innocence or guilt be determined without a fair trail?

---

quote:

---

I believe no President is above the Constitution and the law. (But then I'm a pretty strict constitutionalist, if that's a word.) So, if Bush is involved in violations of the Geneva convention, education mishaps, funding errors, or anything illegal, I think he is accountable.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, the United States has agreed to abide by treaties and agreements such as the Geneva Convention.

---

quote:

---

Rather than asking how Bush is can be a moral man considering a, b, c, d, and e, you would be better off starting a thread about each subject. You may find it difficult to get an answer to your sum question, but otherwise its too much to really go into at once. I have responses to each point, but I definitely don't want to discuss all the points at once.

---

quote:

---

Why are people willing to let him run things without asking what's going on?

---

quote:

---

In the face of evidence that I take to be indicative of a seriously flawed character, could you please explain to me how having him as President seems good?

---

quote:

---

Hmm. Posts seem to be disappearing...

---

quote:

---

Occasional:
I believe that is up to the law to decide. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. At least, that is what YOU should hold to as you are such an advocate of the Constitution.

---

quote:

---

Occasional:
Frankly, I would have to be doing SOMETHING pretty stupid to get put in that situation. Can't imagine what that would be that I would be accused in such a way.

---

quote:

---

Occasional:
Assuming, however, that it is correct (a HUGE assumption), I don't really care that much. It says more about Gonz. than it does George. For me it says that murderers are not going to get a free ride. I find giving murderers breaks much more immoral than a precious few who might be innocent.

---

quote:

---

Frankly, I would have to be doing SOMETHING pretty stupid to get put in that situation. Can't imagine what that would be that I would be accused in such a way.

---

quote:

---

By the way, that is the same question Conservatives asked about Clinton.

---

quote:

---

newfoundlogic - The fact that the reverse does not appear to be true for Democrats is why maybe, just maybe a third party may come to power before the 2008 election or very soon after and either give the Republicans a virtual monopoly on government offices because of the center/left split, or replace the Democratic party altogether. I would certainly be happy in having that many Republicans in power, but I would ultimately be disappointed in that extreme Republican ideas would ultimately come to frutition. So I am genuinely asking the Democrats to preserve themselves as a useful counterbalance by not alienating everyone with even one right of center view.

---

quote:

---

It is important to note that the constitution establishes that ratified treaties and the constitution constitute the highest law of the land. They are the highest law -- not the President or any other individual or body of individuals.

---

quote:

---

This is seen in the answer which the Court has returned to the question: What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress' constitutional powers. To be sure, legislative repeal of a treaty as law of the land may amount to a violation of it as an international contract in the judgment of the other party to it. In such case, as the Court has said: ''Its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.''

---

quote:

---

By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties ''are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other.'' 328 As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.

---

quote:

---

If the President violates the constitution or breaks ratified treaties, he has broken his oath of office. If those violations are non trivial, he has commited a high crime by breaking the highest law of the land and should be impeached. The president cannot be considered above the law or we are no longer living in a consitutional democracy.

---

quote:

---

I strongly suspect Bush will win, and it won't be close at all. I don't like this, but here's why:

-- Many people believe that Bush won two wars and brought a despot down.
-- Many people believe that Bush is bringing the country back to where it needs to be especially regarding abortions, queers, and those annoying environmentalists.
-- Many people respond positively to a person who so obviously includes God in his decisionmaking.
-- Many people will remember the tax cuts, and the checks they got.
-- Many people will vote for a man with a definite plan in mind, as opposed to a man who's running on the "Bush is wrong" platform.
-- Many people do not read the news, do not follow politics, do not look too closely into how bills get passed and who benefits.
-- Many people, even those upset with current conditions, do not vote.
-- Many people see only Bush's little smile and "everything's going just fine" attitude and dig no deeper.
-- Many people admired - still admire - Reagan, and Bush is pushing Reagan's policies through better than Ronnie ever did.
-- All of the serious money will be behind Bush, for pretty obvious reasons.

I don't want Bush in office, but for him to lose two things would have to happen.

He would have to screw up big, in a way that couldn't be spun, couldn't be ignored. Right now he's got Saddam, the economy is apparently coming up, and he has plans for the future. The fact that the war in Iraq was ill-planned, badly-timed, suspicious in origin, destructive to our foreign relations, and did little to combat terrorism is a lot tougher to get across than the picture of Saddam being searched for head lice. The fact that rising economy numbers being touted don't really reflect any relief to the bulk of the people out of work and massive deficits are looming in the near future, that's not really something the average American picks up on. The fact that his plans for the future will lead to crushing programs for the poor and disadvantaged, taking off any and all restrictions on corporate behavior, and using the national budget to wrench the country into an oligarchal aristocratic paradise isn't enough.

And his opposition would have to have a strong, easily defined position that was supported by his party. Dean's party is busy backbiting each other into inelectability.

---

As it happens I was wrong on the "won't be close" call, not because the Dems had a strong candidate but because so many people were disatisfied with Mr. Bush and (IMO) because of the backlash against the gay marriage rush earlier in the election year. A backlash I also predicted, by the way

But I think I was fairly accurate.

[ January 18, 2005, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"Have you ever done business, sat in a class, made a delivery, exchanged an e-mail, or had an on line conversation with someone who might have had terrorist connections?"

Nope, never happened. Can't think of it ever happening in my lifetime.

"Have you ever donated to a humanitarian group that might have given food or shelter to Islamic persons who are known suspected of terrorism."

Nope, I haven't. Possibly indirectly, but we are talking EXTREMELY indirectly. I don't give to charity organizations. I guess you could say I give to a group that gives to charity organizations, but that is a very small amount. If there was some kind of "crackdown" as you invision it, it would be a MASSIVE one.

"Are you a member of a Teachers Association or other group that has spoken out against some Bush policy."

Nope. If anything, I belong to groups that those who speak out against Bush have also spoken out against.

"Have you written any anti-war song or poems?"

Nope. If anything I have written pro-war stories. At worst they have been nuetral comments about the military.

"Are you a pacifist?"

Nope, I am not.

"Do you have in Muslim friends?"

Nope. In fact, I don't know if I even know any Muslims where I live (and probably don't).

One other thing, because this is sometimes mentioned. I have never been arrested and have gotten one speeding ticket ever in 15 years of driving.

I guess they will have to try harder to get me on that so-called list you are talking about.
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
The Rabbit, are you saying President Bush killed over 100,000 people in a concentration camp? Because that's what it sounds like you are trying to say. Just kindly pointing out the lettuce in your rhetorical teeth.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Over 100,000 Iraqis have died in the war on Iraq.
 

---

Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 

quote:

---

I guess they will have to try harder to get me on that so-called list you are talking about.

---

quote:

---

For me it says that murderers are not going to get a free ride.
I am not sure what "cooking the books" means anyway.
I don't believe in the Red Cross when it comes to war anyway, so I don't care.
I consider it a security issue and not a moral one.
The people in those place ARE VERY IMMORAL and BAD ENEMIES of AMERICA and CIVILIZATION!
As far as I am concerned (and those who see this as at worst amoral) they are already guilty!
I don't give to charity organizations.
I don't know if I even know any Muslims where I live (and probably don't).

---

quote:

---

So Dag, are you arguing that setting up concentration camps for suspected terrorists, torture, and lies which have lead to the deaths of over 100,000 people are in some way comparable to a police officer doing a search without a warrant?

I did say violation that were non-trivial and the violation of which Bush is occused are quite serious.

---

quote:

---

Not trusting the Red Cross? That's bothering me. They are an organization that helps people through disasters and things like that. That doesn't make an ounce of sense.

---

quote:

---

Yet a further, primary duty is to work for the development of international humanitarian law which protects the human person in the time of war. As early as 1864, the International Committee persuaded governments to conclude the first Geneva Convention4 for - as its title indicates the Amelioration of the Condition of the Sick and Wounded in the Field.

This treaty was strengthened in 1929 by a second Convention, relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. This Convention affected the lives of millions of captives during the Second World War. In order to demonstrate its usefulness, let me say that wherever it was applied the mortality rate did not exceed ten percent!

In the concentration camps for civil prisoners - where the Committee's delegates never penetrated, despite repeated appeals to Hitler himself - the mortality rate was as high as ninety percent!

---

quote:

---

The point being that the Red Cross will believe what it wants to believe regardless of common sense or evidence.

---

quote:

---

The Red Cross essentially gave Hitler a seal of approval after seeing only obviously beautified camps. Now they're criticizing Bush because he might hvae prisoners that they haven't seen? Why don't I trust their judgement?

---

quote:

---

If their accusations are as shallow as that then even if they're true I can't find fault with what Bush is doing.

---

I'm surprised you haven't gone to look it up yourself. It'll take a little while, but you'll eventually find it. Then judge for yourself.

I find it chilling, but I'm also careful to preface that with "if it's true."

There are news agencies that have picked up the story of a German car salesman of Arab descent who claims to have been "disappeared" while on vacation outside the Middle East. He eventually ended up in the hands of Americans (according to his account, again) and experienced things that are in violation of the Geneva Convention agreements.

Now, the German government is investigating.

There ARE reports of undisclosed detention locations -- Saddam is in one for obvious reasons. One of his high-up lieutenants has also been taken to parts unknown.

So...there are secret locations and there are people we know are in them.

What we don't know is how many more there are, or who they are, and whether the US is putting people in secret prisons who are like the ones at Gitmo -- a mix of true terrorists and entirely innocent people just swept up in a net and presumed guilty by virtue of where they were standing when the truck rolled up to the curb.

But, since we have shown ourselves capable of holding people for indefinite periods without evidence (as has been shown in at least two cases I read about among the Gitmo folks) and who had zero intelligence value, and who for MOST of the time they spent as our prisoners had no access to counsel, could not confront the evidence against them, and were held incommunicado, the charges swirling around in the press seem to have some basis for belief.

I find your instant dismissal of the Red Cross thing to be a bit shallow itself. I suggest you read up a little bit more.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
One last point. The discoveries made in the concentration camps at the end of WWII really did change the way the whole world sees these things. We take rumors of genocide in places like Sudan, Congo, and Kosovo seriously because millions of people died when we failed to listen to such rumors in WWII. We are not alone in this. The Red Cross takes inspection of camps more seriously now because of the things they missed in WWII. The liberation of the Nazi death camps really is an event that changed the world. To suggest that any modern organization current practices should be suspect solely based on how they behaved prior to WWII is illogical.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
I've seen this anti-NGO and anti-international organisation bias quite frequently on Hatrack.

Personally, I find it really sad.

Sad because I firmly believe that the only way to a sustainable future is through global cooperation, and such global cooperation can only be administered through an supra-national organisation (for such reasons as fairness to all nations, not just the US/Europe, effectiveness, lack of duplication and others).

Sad because in most cases, the people making these statements do not give the impression they actually know much about these organisations, but are content to adopt such biases from other sources wholesale.

Sad because sometimes such biases seem to reflect an underlying "Screw the rest of the world, I only care about what's best for my country" atttitude.

And I find that dreadful.



[Edit: I should say, I've seen it here in Australia too. It is most evident when UN panels that were are part of criticise our treatment of refugees. In our hypocrisy, we ignore and demean such findings, while patting ourselves on the back for being involved in the UN in other aspects]

[ January 19, 2005, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
The Red Cross is not the sole source for the accusations. Here are some examples.

Ahmed Abu Ali, a US citizen who was studying in Saudia Arabia was arrested under the direction of the US and taken to a Saudi prison where he has been interogated by the CIA and tortured. He has been held for 20 months without being charged. His family sued in US courts and the judge (a Bush appointee) ruled in their favor. In the court memorandum it says

quote:

---

Petitioners have provided evidence, of varying degrees of competence and persuasiveness,
that: (i) the United States initiated the arrest of Abu Ali in Saudi Arabia; (ii) the United States has
interrogated Abu Ali in the Saudi prison; (iii) the United States is controlling his detention in
Saudi Arabia; (iv) the United States is keeping Abu Ali in Saudi Arabia to avoid constitutional
scrutiny by United States courts; (v) Saudi Arabia would immediately release Abu Ali to United
-2-
States officials upon a request by the United States government; and (vi) Abu Ali has been
subjected to torture while in the Saudi prison. The United States does not offer any facts in
rebuttal. Instead, it insists that a federal district court has no jurisdiction to consider the habeas
petition of a United States citizen if he is in the hands of a foreign state, and it asks this Court to
dismiss the petition forthwith. The position advanced by the United States is sweeping. The
authority sought would permit the executive, at his discretion, to deliver a United States citizen to
a foreign country to avoid constitutional scrutiny, or, as is alleged and to some degree
substantiated here, work through the intermediary of a foreign country to detain a United States
citizen abroad.

---

quote:

---

The United States is preparing to hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial, replacing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp with permanent prisons in the Cuban enclave and elsewhere, it was reported yesterday.

---

quote:

---

The plans have emerged at a time when the US is under increasing scrutiny for the interrogation methods used on the roughly 550 "enemy combatants" at the Guantanamo Bay base, who do not have the same rights as traditional prisoners of war.

---

quote:

---

Fourth, You are guilty of a classic logical error. Evidence of bias or incompetence of a source, does not prove that the data is incorrect. If you sincerely doubt the integrity of the Red Cross, the logical response is to withhold judgement until you are able to either verify or disprove their claims with evidence from additional sources.

---

quote:

---

My only point is that Red Cross does not in my opinion have anything near a perfect track record when it comes to its assessments.

---

quote:

---

I just said I don't trust an organization to be affecting political policy when it possesses biases.

---

quote:

---

The only real reason before the Iraq war of why Hussein wouldn't have WMD is because Bush couldn't be trusted.

---

quote:

---

Many people supported Bush becauese they believed he had more information than he was giving.

---

quote:

---

Have you ever done business, sat in a class, made a delivery, exchanged an e-mail, or had an on line conversation with someone who might have had terrorist connections?"
Nope, never happened. Can't think of it ever happening in my lifetime.

---

quote:

---

And there is documentary evidence that Cheney, Powell, Rice and others knew about this opinion, and knew about it before they said, in absolute terms (in the case of Cheney and Rice) that it showed Iraq was making a nuclear weapons program, or dismissed it as minority disagreement (in the case of Powell), when in fact it was the only expert opinion on the subject the administration had.

---

quote:

---

He doesn't look like an Arab.

---

Oh, perhaps he looks more like Pastor Niemöller.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Here's an interesting question. What if the information came from the Red Crescent -- the Arab World's equivalent organization and affiliated with the ICRC?
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
If the information came from Red Crescent, I would give exactly the same advice. Do the research and find out what other sources are saying.

I would be more suspicious of evidence coming from the Red Crescent than I am evidence from the Red Cross but bias in a source, alone, is not evidence that the data is incorrect.
 

---

Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
 
Occasional, have you ever replied to any of my posts on Hatrack, ever? I think you have, but I might be wrong.
 

---

Posted by OccasionaI (Member # 7304) on :
 
I have now.
 

---

Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 
Sorry for bringing this thread to the top again, but I saw something that reminded me of it:

http://img185.exs.cx/img185/7641/catrow7cg.gif

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting while I'm away from my own computer.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

 

---