237 Bush Administration Lies About Iraq

[Chris Alger]

You're going to vote for someone who's explanations about what he's doing and why he's doing it are meaningless because he can't be trusted to utter any semblance of truth. Since you don't dispute Bush's propensity to lie, this means one of two things: (1) you are an irrationalist who votes for no reason or (2) you believe you have a special bond with Bush, like a fetishistic compulsion to worship the top dog, or some mystical belief that Bush speaks truthfully to you and falsely to others, perhaps on some sort of special frequency.

[ QUOTE ]
It is my opinion that you are a too earnest idealist.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm a pragmatist. If a politician asks for my support with sentences that can't be reconciled with my experience, no apparent bearing on "reality," I tend to oppose them. This doens't amount to "beating my head against a brick wall" or "wasting time," but just the opposite. Why waste time standing in line to vote for someone who refuses to communicate with you on any rational level? Why beat one's head against a brick wall searching for an exculpatory reason to support them, like you do?

[MMMMMM]

"You're going to vote for someone who's explanations about what he's doing and why he's doing it are meaningless because he can't be trusted to utter any semblance of truth."

Problem is, Chris, very few politicians are truly honest. Are you suggesting that your quote above does not also apply fairly well to Kerry?

I would guess of all the candidates, Nader is probably the most honest or only honest one. Maybe the LP candidate is too; I don't know, haven't read up on him. Honesty, however, isn't the only criteria for ability to lead effectively and productively, and if we wait for a truly honest candidate, we may be waiting a very long time indeed.

[CORed]

I think Bush may well have believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. However, he cited the Niger uranium deal in the runup to the war in spite of the fact that the CIA had informed him it was bogus. That, IMO qualifies as a lie.

[Chris Alger]

You're either joking, writing without thinking, or have no concept of ethical responsibility. One doesn't excuse a clear violation of the public trust, one of which much of the public is unaware, on the grounds that "very few politicians are truly honest." It's as silly as excusing fraud or robbery because so few people are saints.

In fact, anyone can postulate some metaphysically highest standard of conduct ("true honesty"), point out that hardly anyone meets this standard, and then use it as grounds to overlook every ethical lapse. It's silly and self-contradictory because it uses the presumption that ethical standards have value as grounds to ignore ethical standards entirely.

[ QUOTE ]
Honesty, however, isn't the only criteria for ability to lead effectively and productively

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said it's the "only" criteria (Zeno thinks it's no criteria at all), but some minimal level of honesty is an absolute prerequisite in any political system based on consent of the governed. In such systems, "effective and productive" leadership implies (1) that policy bears some relation to public preference and (2) that leaders' statements concerning what they're doing and why they're doing it make sense, that instead of putting leaders in a box for four years and never inquiring about what they're up to, that we can communicate with them in some fundamentally rational way. If you ignore the popular component of "effective and productive," you can substitue all manner of non-atrocities for "honesty" in your sentense -- willingness to tolerate elections, abeyance from imposing martial law, refraining from building death damps -- to highlight its meaninglessness.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I'm actually not joking. First of all I'm still not completely convinced that Bush actually lied or violated his entrusted duties.

Second, I have in the past suggested that a clever tricky President might better serve our country when it comes to dealing with even more roguish foreign powers. I once defended Nixon in this regard to some extent, calling his crafty dishonesty a peculiar strength when it came to dealing with a formidable and devious adversary like the USSR. Call me a bit of a paranoiac if you will regarding our overseas enemies, but I think I'm just being realistic. I believe our foreign enemies have to be dealt with from a position of strength and not be trusted, and that we have to "get inside their heads" and see how they are planning to do us ill or benefit at our expense--because they often are scheming to do just that. As the saying goes, it takes a thief to catch a thief, and I think it takes a fox to sniff out a fox's plans against us (note: I'm not trying to say Bush is a fox).

Yes, I'd rather have an honest Abe--but only if he is also a crafty honest Abe, who will also be sure to look out for our interests--and there just aren't too many of those around, especially in politics. So I'm more or less resigned to voting for whomever I see as the least of all evils. Honesty is one quality amongst many.

[Zeno]

Chris,

I think that I am as much a pragmatist as you are; I just come at it from a different angle than you do.

Your statement that I am voting for Bush as an either/or stance is, in my opinion, misguided. But I do not wax personal very much on political issues so I understand why you said what you did. I, for the most part, stay away from most of the political posts. I read a few but mostly I ignore then. I usually find no real interest in them except as entertainment.

To wax a bit personal, after the Mondale/Reagan election I simply stopped voting for many years. I remember going into the voting booth after studying all the political issues and feeling extremely empty - Reagan or Mondale I thought. Is this what Democracy has come to? This is a choice - An ignoramus or a bleating goat with no backbone and no character, except for what was made up for him by others so he could garner enough votes to win. I never even marked the ballot for the presidential choice. I voted on all the other issues and candidates and then left. I did not vote again until Uncle Billy Bob Clinton lurched onto the scene and then only because of the prodding of my wife, who I have since booted out of my life.

I am a misanthrope plain and simple and almost apolitical.

I can assure you I have no fetish for Bush. He is a simple-minded man that sees things in either/or terms -something similar to the way you postulated about my reasons for voting for him.

I will vote for Bush. I have my reasons. I do not feel compelled to state why or think I have any required need to expound on the subject. I will no more evangelize someone to vote for candidate A or B (unless I wish to poke a fun jab at them) than I would go door to door handing out tracks for the latest fashionable New Wave God, Mullah, or Shaman out to bilk the public.

Bush & Co. spew out some misleading comments and a few lies; I do not think the amount of blather that has come out all that major or different from what I have listen to my entire life from such people - from the mayor of some Podunk town to the top dog on the heap. I find it entertaining – like going to the Circus. Perhaps this is a character flaw (I think I stated this in a pervious post long ago).

You take politics very seriously, and are very involved and passionate about your convictions in this area, and make many posts and points, almost all about political issues. You obviously despise the war and are working hard to have Bush & Co. removed from the political scene as soon as possible. I wish you Best of luck on your endeavor. You, usually, do a very admirable job of pointing out important issues that people should think about.

I am just not that interested. If I were a wiser man, I would never have involved myself with this thread.

And that is about as personal as will every let myself be on this forum and have no wish to say anything more. I would rather be reading another book than making this post anyway. No more politics for me.

Best regards,

-Zeno