posted
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...
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I didn't realize some people still thought Bush was careful, honest, and trustworthy.
You know, I must be an exceptionally moral person, because unlike some people I truly understand that people can be well meaning, make decisions based on reason, and come to a different conclusion than me. Just because I think I'm right doesn't mean I think everyone else's opinion must inherently have been made in some form of error. I can truly believe that some people place perceived erosion to civil liberties above national security. I would prefer if these people didn't think the way they did, if they instead supported my way of thinking, but they don't and I accept it. I don't talk down to them, I don't lecture them on how their choice for president is immoral, I don't even react with indignation when someone whose political affiliation I was previously unaware of reveals themselves to be a Democrat. Maybe all this is just do to being raised in an exceptionally liberal area or maybe I'm just a saint.
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
So then why the stereotype of Republicans at all? Just because a stereotype holds a grain of truth doesn't mean the whole barrel should be judged by the one grain. You can't understand how someone would want to cannonize Bush and I can't understand why someone would think killing Bush is a justifiable solution. The difference is that I'm not willing to attribute that belief to a whole group.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where, precisely, did I stereotype Republicans? I said, "I’m not wondering how people could vote for Bush. I can see how different priorities would lead to different choices . . .'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."
I am asking, not about any of those positions, but specifically about people who laud Bush for his morals and deny that he has any failing in that area. I never said that everyone who voted for him fits this description. Why would you think I attributed it to all Republicans?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
NFL, the issue is not that we Democrats think that Bush has sacrificed things we consider important -- like, say, civil liberties, to use your example -- in exchange for things he considers important, like security.
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. He has not demonstrated an exceptional concern for morality, consistency, honesty, etc. And so those of us who are all in favor of those attributes find it odd to hear him promoted based on a perceived presence of those attributes, when the events surrounding his administration would seem to imply their absence.
It's not that we don't get how you might prefer a president who has different priorities than we do. It's that we don't understand how people can claim to prefer Bush based on, say, his forthrightness. 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.
posted
See, my theory is that, morals to the people who say he has morals, means he behaves in a "traditional" moral manner, sexually speaking. And thats what they mean by morality.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Would someone please tell me a way to ask the original question in a way that would be inoffensive and welcoming to Bush supporters?
Clearly I NEVER meant to imply that people who support Bush are immoral. I was asking, seriously, how people who ARE moral and hard working can support HIM...not the other way around.
so...how would you have asked the question you think I wanted you to answer so that you'd feel comfortable answering it?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: Deleted the Nazi post, the internet was giving me issues and it posted it three times, and it seemed funny at the time in comparison with Jay's post, but now just seems sily.
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.
When did I say that? I'm saying that people not extremely left of center should be able to understand that people like me do trust Bush and be able to condemn me as a political idiot because I honestly think that. I'm also saying that those not extremely left of center shouldn't actually think that Bush has committed treason without knowing something I and the American public do not.
I will admit this; it is possible that Bush committed treason. However, if he did we don't know about it. Since we don't know about it nor do we have any reason to suspect it we shouldn't have any more reason of putting Bush on trial without anything other than present knowledge than of putting Clinton or any other former president or government official on trial for treason.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen anyone here who should be claiming objectivity. At least not about this issue.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Refer to threads after the election that asked why people voted for Bush. Most of those reasons cross apply to "enjoy" having him as our leader.
Lyrhawn, while people like to claim that Hitler was democratically elected, the truth was he was only able to gain power through all sorts of illegal activity like hiring the Brown Shirts to terrorize voters. Of course Hitler never even was actually elected himself. Its also worth noting that by 1943 it had been ten years since Hitler had taken power and even longer since an election. In American reality George W Bush will not be president after January of 2008. If he still is, I'll be the first to admit there's something rotten in Crawford. And Bob is right, bringing up Nazis will only destroy the little useful discussion this thread has actually created.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, that really doesn't cut it. My question isn't "why'd you vote for Bush." My question is:
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?
I think that's a little different.
Okay, I think it's a lot different.
I'm asking specifically about whether people who support him percieve the disconnect between his morality and the perception of his morality. And if they do, what do they think of it. If they don't how do they account for the reports of the things I mentioned.
I just don't see a way to ask that question without first showing that I think the man is scum. Since I don't mind saying that, I just put it in the post.
So...
Again, can you think of a way of asking MY question that you would find inoffensive, and yet still get to the point of what I'm trying to ask?
Basically, I interpret what you and Dag are saying to mean I just shouldn't ask my question.
I may be blunt, but given all the complaints about how rude my question is, I figured I'd ask you folks how better to ask it.
Making it so general as to (once again) poll you on why you voted for the man in November would be meaningless. I'm asking about all the revelations that keep coming in. 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.
He called the election "an accountability moment" and said that settles all questions about misunderstanding, misuse or misapplication of critical intelligence data.
If I wanted anything, it was to ask whether you felt there's any reason to think the man isn't as moral as his hype makes him out to be?
He looks respectable and trustworthy. He has a sense of humor and doesn't put on airs. He's a church-going man. He clearly enjoys life, loves his family, loves his country. He'll take care of the bills and the paperwork so we don't have to bother with that stuff, and sometimes he'll meet with his friends in the back yard or on the porch to talk about things that we wouldn't understand. He knows what's best for all of us and is willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen.
If you agree with his goal and his methods, perhaps that last line is no big deal. If you don't, it's terrifying.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
You first post could start, "A lot of people with high morals, hard-working people whom I really respect, support President Bush despite what, in my view, are serious moral shortcomings in the man." Then you list those. "Would anyone care to enlighten me as to 1) why I am wrong in my analysis of his character or 2) why you support him despite these flaws?"
See how easy that is?
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most of those reasons cross apply to "enjoy" having him as our leader.
If you accept me to be a moral hardworking person than you have to accept that as an answer.
I clearly don't perceive the same moral disconnects as you do. I won't presume speak for Dag, but I suspect he feels the same way.
quote: I just don't see a way to ask that question without first showing that I think the man is scum.
But you have to ask the question without going on that rant because I do not hold those accussations to be self-evident as you clearly do.
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.
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that's an interesting hypothesis, that complaining annoys the neutrals.
I can see how "dirty campaigning" might, but is, for instance, producing documents showing the Bush administration used as central evidence known to be laughable, and then complaining about that fact, going to evoke the same reaction?
Because, y'know, I can do that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Renamed post: Question about Presidetn Bush's Character
As suggested by David Bowles:
A lot of people with high morals, hard-working people whom I really respect, support President Bush despite what, in my view, are serious moral shortcomings in the man.
My list of things includes:
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.
Would anyone care to enlighten me as to 1) why I am wrong in my analysis of his character or if you believe that these things do actually indicate charater flaws, 2) why you support him despite these flaws? NOTE: I was going to start a new thread, but that seemed excessive. If I post it here, you all already know my strong negative bias and can easily decide whether you want to answer the question now that it's phrased this way.
You know my biases. They haven't changed. I'm not trying to trap you. I probably won't agree with what you say. I'm just interested in what you'll say. I'm just curious as to what the answers might be.
posted
"I clearly don't perceive the same moral disconnects as you do."
Which raises the question: why don't you? When people cite facts to back up their disapproval of the president's policies and methods, do you disagree with the facts cited or with the analysis of those facts? And if the latter, how do you justify your interpretation?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
It looks like nfl interprets the facts differently. The interpretation of how to translate Bush's statements into what Bush means by them is certainly different than you are looking at it. So, essentially, the sets of "facts" don't match up, because they're viewed through such different lenses.
I guess that could be part of the answer to Bob's question. Some people look at what appears to be indisputable facts and see them completely differently.
It seems to me that a lot of Bush supporters are able to see him as a moral, honest person through giving him lots of leeway with what he says and does. His intention is to make the country a better and safer place, so because that's a noble goal, he can't possibly mean some of the things that he would seem to mean if his quotations were taken literally. I don't really know how this carries over to allegations of torture-friendly policy and cooking the books on education.
... more to follow if I have time.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
First, it is about "If News Reports are correct," and that is a huge IF. I don't trust news or its sources, so that is a questionable position to hang an opinion on! 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: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.
Again, IF that really is the case. Assuming it is, that again says more about the Education Secretary than it does G.W.B. I am not sure what "cooking the books" means anyway. The very wording of the comments shows extreme bias rather than careful consideration.
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.
I don't believe in the Red Cross when it comes to war anyway, so I don't care. Again, its a case of IF the Red Cross is telling the truth (and I don't trust them). Assuming that they are, the people the Red Cross says are in that situation more than likely are too much of a security risk to have people nosing around. I consider it a security issue and not a moral one.
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).
Considering that these are the people who actually DID the things, its a moral plus that they are getting the discipline they are. For those who gave the order, you again are using an IF situation. Stop it with your IFS and give me some facts and this discussion might have merits. Assuming it is true, I don't think its that much of a moral issue as much as a security one. The people in those place ARE VERY IMMORAL and BAD ENEMIES of AMERICA and CIVILIZATION! Besides, isn't it just as moral that someone gave the order for the guards to be brought to justice?
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.
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. Taking them to court only legitimizes them and their actions, and risks more lives by allowing them to spew their venom. This is probably the more questionable on a moral scale to be sure, but not enough for me to take seriously. As far as I am concerned (and those who see this as at worst amoral) they are already guilty!
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.
What President HASN'T done this? In fact, what Politition of any stripe HASN'T done this?
I think the answers to your question falls into three catagories with what you have presented:
1) Its too much of an IF situation and therefore more of a personal opinion than news. You might as well say that area 51 really does have UFO's because there is so much circumstantial evidence to back it up!
2) None of that has a direct link to G.W.B., as other people did or said those things. At worst it might show that G.W.B. is either not very attentive, or cares about other position held by those particular people more than the substance of your worries. Give me something G.W.B. has actually said or done directly and there might be more to judge with.
3) What you call Morality Issues are considered by those who support G.W.B. as a moral person Security Issues. They are there for the protection of the United States of America from Terrorists. It would be far more immoral NOT to do anything about it, and let them run free and fearless.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nato, good point. I think what really must be the difference between my (biased) view and other people's (possibly also biased) views is that we see the same things and interpret them completely differently.
I'll take the education thing as an example. I believe that the guy who ran the program in Houston and became the Sec. of Education must've known that his program depended on not counting a kid as a "drop out" if he or she said "yeah, I'll go get my GED" as that kid walked out the door. All fine and good, until one discovers that in order to make the numbers look like a ZERO drop out rate, the school district would hound kids until they said it. The kids weren't just dropping out never to be heard from again. They were allowed to drop out, but then were pursued by the school until they said the magic words and the box could be checked off _X_ on the reporting form. Thus Houston had no drop outs.
Okay. The guy running the program probably knew it. He may not have told Bush the full story. Bush might've believed in this miracle of inspirational leadership at the school district while he was governor.
Then, he became president and brought the expert from Houston with him. As soon as that guy left Houston, the cracks started showing at the seams. Without that pressure from the Superintendent's office, the motivation to hound drop outs dropped off. The boxes went unchecked. The drop out rate climbed. Inexplicably. People started checking. Secretaries reported being pressured to hound drop outs. The secret was out.
So...then the question becomes -- what does one do as the President? Do you call your Education Secretary on the carpet for lying? Is it all just an honest mistake? Or do you quietly wait for it to blow over and get a new Ed Secretary as soon as things quiet down?
This is where the questions about character come in.
And about the caring for Education, America, etc.
The record is out there. The interpretation of Bush's actions is certainly what must differ between people like myself -- who simply can't stand him, and people who think that he's got the right vision for this country.
Did he lie, or was he lied to?
Did he fail to act when he learned the facts? Or did he stick with a team member who was being attacked for just one aspect of an overall workable program? Is the entire premise of his Education plan for the nation based on cooked books, or is the basic principle sound and it's better to try SOMETHING/ANYTHING than to pour more money down that rabbit hole?
These are the questions, no?
And if one is disposed in Bush's favor, there are probably bigger fish to fry. Or one embarrassing failure doesn't offset all the good. Or something...
If one is predisposed to think Bush is a disaster for this country, this is just one example of his lack of leadership, his dishonesty, and his shameless, uncaring attitude even when caught red-handed making things up.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't violating the Constitution to bring possible terrorists to justice at all immoral?
If members of Bush's administration are at fault for all sorts of immoral acts, as news reports seem to indicate, Bush would know a lot more about it than we would. Doesn't he have a responsibility to the American people to run a clean, legal operation?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that I believe the Constitution is at best AMORAL, I can't say its immoral. Besides, what you are calling morality issues, I again call them Security Issues.
I guess I COULD say that for once the tides are turned and liberals are now faced with ramifications of one of their prized arguments "Who's morality? What morality?"
posted
Bob_Scopaz, have you read a book called Bushwacked? It talked about the No Child Left Behind act in Texas in detail as well as things like meat regulations and an act that had something to do with erganomics.
You who think that Bush's policies on terrorism are not immoral: What if you got accused of being a possible terrorist? How could your innocence or guilt be determined without a fair trail?
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?
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I wonder how many of those guys released from Gitmo headed straight for the nearest terrorist recruitment center?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean that they were released? Gee, so much for the immorality of keeping them there forever.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
When Bush is sworn in again on Thursday, he will swear to protect and honor the Constitution of the United States. He serves under the authority given to him in THAT document, not under any other code. Furthermore, the United States has agreed to abide by treaties and agreements such as the Geneva Convention. As the country's leader, the President swears to honor these agreements made by his predecessors. I think that if Bush believes the constitution is wrong, he STILL has no right to act outside its authority. There isn't any room for civil disobedience there. And if he steps outside his authority, the Supreme Court should be obligated to call him on it. Because if we don't have a solid Constitution, our Constitutional Republic means nothing.
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. And I don't think the election was his only "accountability moment."
By the way, I don't post this to attack you or your views. I am also interested in the same things Bob wants to know. I find the difference in priorities and moral codes very curious. I don't understand what Bush's strongest backers hold as their highest priorities.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if you got accused of being a possible terrorist? How could your innocence or guilt be determined without a fair trail?
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some 550 detainees from more than 40 countries are being held at Guantanamo Bay as "enemy combatants." About 200 men have been released, many from countries friendly to the United States (such as Britain) and some were ill.
A few days ago a Pentagon official stated that only about 25% of the detainees had any intelligence value.
The detainees were held there in the first place because it's U.S.-controlled land in non-U.S. soil, which the U.S. used as an argument against providing the detainees with U.S. constitutional rights. They claimed the detainees were illegal combatants, but refused to hold the required tribunals to prove that since that would grant them protection under the Geneva Convention. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees were covered by the Constitution so reviews are forthcoming. However, human rights advocates have called the reviews a sham, in part because prisoners are not allowed defense attorneys and are not advised of all evidence against them.
[ January 18, 2005, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Furthermore, the United States has agreed to abide by treaties and agreements such as the Geneva Convention.
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.
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
The whole point is the big picture. Bob gave evidence as best he could that Bush allows, on multiple occasions, corruption and illegal activity to occur on his watch. With all of these accusations added up, he wonders where the perception of Bush as a moral, honest man came from.
Bush has run anything but an open, transparent operation. He has denied a load of Freedom of Information Act requests among a large number of other things. We can only assume that he knows more about what's going on than we do. If he's really an open, honest person, why the restrictive secrecy policies?
Why are people willing to let him run things without asking what's going on?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are people willing to let him run things without asking what's going on?
Obviously liberals and people like you ARE asking what is going on.
For the rest of the people, I know this is hard for you to believe, but maybe its because they agree with what he does? I guess all those moral upright people might not actually be that according to your definition of the terms?
By the way, that is the same question Conservatives asked about Clinton.
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?
As to the evidence, people who support Bush are likely to think that a media system that has nothing good to say about him might simply be biased against him.
Why people like him- he seems like he knows where he's going and he's optimistic. Clinton had the same qualities. Note that I am bringing up Clinton's qualities and not his flaws for once.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's probably users deleting posts themselves, but that is a little disconcerting.
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.
So, fair trials and "innocent until proven guilty" seem to matter a lot more when it's your guy on the block?
Yes, it's important to not crucify Bush without proof, but it's our duty to determine if what he is doing is illegal, unconstitutional, or against a ratified treaty. And because it certainly looks like something is amiss at Guantanamo, people are trying to figure out what's happening. As Chris said, the S. Court is starting to hold the administration accountable for actions that were deemed unconstitutional. This looks like a situation we need to fix if we're going to call ourselves people of a nation that sticks to its word, that obeys laws, and that acts in a moral manner.
Edit: I'm off to a rehearsal. I'll be back in a few hours to check on this.
[ January 18, 2005, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
At least Bob had the good sense to admit he doesn't possess objectivity.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
