Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » I take personal responsibility for... (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: I take personal responsibility for...
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Liberal

Then we will have to take it as fact that even the example where Bush took responsibility for the failings of the intelligence networks leading to 9/11 and acted to correct the error in no uncertain terms was not an instance where he took responsibility.

It is, as I have pointed out previously, disregarded by you because he had the temerity to explain why the error happened and explained to the voters that in order to prevent such an error in the future, how subordinates and agencies operate had to be changed.

By your standard, nothing but a simple sentence by Bush, i.e. "I am responsible and no one else had anything to do with it" will suffice. As Matteo pointed out, not only is that unreasonable, but also such an act on his part would leave so many components of the decision process unexposed that it would be essentially useless to both critics and supporters. Bush does not act in a void. Everything he does as the Chief Executive has components handed to him by subordinates that by your standard must be infallible. Only a child or a god could meet the levels of responsibility you have emplaced.

I do not think that you could find a single time where any American President took responsibility for an action, whether positive or negative, without also giving attributions to the people who provided the information upon which he acted. As you have framed this topic, you have claimed he never took responsibility for an error. When presented with examples where he has, you add to your supposition by declaring the claiming of responsibility is null and void because he has not apologized in terms you deem reasonable. And to further complicate your view, you now have instituted an absolute condition where any attempt by him to claim responsibility for an error must not include any reference to external causality or mitigation.

As I pointed out earlier, your argument is absolutes and cannot tolerate any exception. It's circular defense keeps getting drawn more exactly by you. Nevertheless, the argument made by you is flawed for the simple fact that there is not an instance where the President's accepting responsibility for an error can meet your white lab experimental standards. It would be nice if the world was as neat and ordered as a clean room experiment so that your argument could withstand scrutiny. But is is not only unreasonable, but also reflects a naiveté of reality to expect actions to take place as discrete non-influenced events.

In a perfect world, your argument works. In reality if falls far short of validity.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How did the bar get moved from "Admit one's mistakes" to "Admit ones mistakes without mentioning that others are included in those mistakes"?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How did the bar get moved from "Admit one's mistakes" to "Admit ones mistakes without mentioning that others are included in those mistakes"?
Apparently Liberal decided to pick it up and relocate it without consulting anyone else first. [Smile]
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah. Well, I'm as much in favor of that as I am of moving the nation's capital. [Wink]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How did the bar get moved from "Admit one's mistakes" to "Admit ones mistakes without mentioning that others are included in those mistakes"?"

That's a misreading there, jav. No one here would deny Bush the right to mention others involved, distinguishing circumstances, et cetera.

But maybe do so HONESTLY?

"By your standard, nothing but a simple sentence by Bush, i.e. "I am responsible and no one else had anything to do with it" will suffice. "

Is it hyperbole? Or gross distortion? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Logically, Bush can only take responsibility for mistakes he personally believes to have been mistakes."

SO true. Based on this logic, we conclude that part of Bush's logic, or perhaps modus operandi, or both, is to avoid any belief that he makes mistakes (at least on national issues; I'm sure Laura won't put up with that **** at home [Wink] ).

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's try this one again, shall we?

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

RESPONSIBLE for deciding to invade Iraq, something that to this day he insists is NOT a mistake, yes?

RESPONSIBLE for fixing the mistakes MADE BY OTHERS (our intelligence capabilities). Now, there's a wee chance that by 'intelligence capabilities' he meant his own personal noodle, but I highly doubt that. I think that's just one of many 'Bush-isms' resulting from the unique intelligence capabiities of his personal brain pan.

Wrong about Iraq? Bush says no.

Wrong about intelligence? Bush says no. The intelligence was wrong, not him, and that's why HE is going to fix that wrong intelligence because, you know, he is RIGHT.

Now tell me, who is using circular logic here? Liberal? Or our President? I say that the quote above, famously cited as Bush (supposedly) acknowledging a mistake (it was all over the blogosphere with comments like: I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!! BUSH ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG!!!), is circularly evasive logic.

It's like the circular motion a matador makes with his veronica as a bull charges: step aside and spin.

'Pay no attention to the gland behind that curtain!'

What you call grabbing the bull**** by the horns...

[ October 19, 2006, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matteo522
Member
Member # 3103

 - posted      Profile for Matteo522   Email Matteo522   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Redskull, nice post.

Javelin, that's where I'm confused, too.

On December 15, 2005, President Bush said:

quote:
It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we are doing just that.
Is that what you're looking for?

He can't say, "I am responsible for the intelligence being wrong" because he wasn't. He's responsible for identifying that it was wrong and for fixing it, but he was not the one with binoculars looking at bomb factories. He was given assessments, many of which were inconsistent and conflicting, and decided to cherry-pick the ones he wanted. That may have been a mistake in this case, but let's say that we had the alternate scenario.

Let's say that he received the exact same intelligence -- most people saying that Saddam was not a threat while some people were saying that Saddam was a threat. It's the same conflicting intelligence he received and one side has to be wrong. Let's say he cherry-picked the intelligence and chose the side of people saying he wasn't really a threat because that's what most believed. Now let's say that THAT was the incorrect side (at the time, we really had no way of knowing for sure... someone had to be wrong). Let's pretend that Saddam WAS a real threat and he was capable and willing to attack the US directly or indirectly and hundreds or thousands of Americans died as a result (after all, that was what SOME of the intelligence reports were saying.. whether true or not). Would the right decision had been to side with those that were saying he wasn't a threat? What if there were 99 people saying he WASN'T a threat and 1 person saying he WAS a threat... would it have been a mistake to ignore the one who was accurate (in this fictional, alternate universe)?

The point is that it's really easy to look back and demonize the decisions he made and point out why he was wrong and fault him for not admitting the mistakes. But was what he did REALLY the wrong decision given the gravity of the situation and what could have happened in the worse case scenario?

As an exercise, let's say you can have one of the following leaders.. which would you choose?

1. The guy who makes a decision based on intelligence with the seemingly most credible information.
2. The guy who makes a decision based on intelligence with the most people agreeing.
3. The guy who makes a decision based on which intelligence, if true, leads to the worse possible scenario.
4. The guy who makes a decision based on what makes him look good and makes the American people feel safest/happiest.
5. The guy who makes a decision based on what his allies are telling him.
6. The guy who makes a decision based on what the majority of countries are telling him.

There are probably a hundred more types of leaders, but you can't have all of the above since some of those will conflict with one another.

The point I'm trying to make is you can say that NOW knowing what we know he made a mistake. But going back then, knowing what we knew, was it really a mistake then? Is it a mistake to evacuate a school when you get a bomb threat even if that bomb threat is almost certainly just a hoax? Would it be a mistake to ignore the bomb threat because 1 in 1,000 are fake, everyone's telling you it's fake, but one person is saying "this could be a real problem... do you want this on your watch?" If your child went to that school, would you feel differently?

Matteo

Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thread started out with a general comment that Americans seem to have lost the ability to take responsibility for their actions. Then the President was noted as being someone who does not take responsibility for his actions. Then after an example where the President had taken responsibility, an additional restrictions was placed to disqualify this responsibility by stating that he may have taken responsibility but he really didn't because he hadn't apologized. Followed by the additional restrictor that no apology is valid unless it is one in which no outside agency or causality is allowed to make such a statement a valid declaration of responsibility and apology.

That is how we got here.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh and now the apology has to be "Honest" to be valid. Whatever that means.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But going back then, knowing what we knew, was it really a mistake then?"

If one bothered to pay attention at the time to the preponderance of evidence, YES. Neither Bush nor the majority American populace did. Ritter was ridiculed and maligned; Hans was hans-cuffed although his -- and Ritter's -- voices were, arguably, the most expert voices of all. Disarming Saddam and assessing the statwe of his (former) WMD program was their job, hands-on, boots-on-ground, put on your hazmat zoot suit and examine the friggin' evidence.

My perception is that the subsequent intelligence community hari-kari (hari-kari? in the end, they were the ones who said, "We werew WRONG') was itself a neat bit of revisionism, as if it wasn't discovered until after WMDs weren't found that their intelligence was shaky.

PIvotal spin statement: 'our best intelligence'. Bull. THeir 'best intelligence' contradicted the LOUSY intelligence that Bush chose to accept.

As for the 'taking responsibility' continuum that redskull delineates, the distinction to be made here is: taking responsibiity for WHAT? The actions of others? ('They screwed up. I'm responsible to fix this.') Or onself? ('I screwed up. I'm responsible to fix this.')

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matteo522
Member
Member # 3103

 - posted      Profile for Matteo522   Email Matteo522   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you're the principal of that school above, Ken. There are four possible scenarios, which do you choose?

1. You evacuate the school, the bomb was a hoax.
2. You evacuate the school, the school blows up.
3. You do not evacuate the school, the bomb was a hoax.
4. You do not evacuate the school, the school blows up.

The BEST intelligence states that there is absolutely no threat. A few loonies are saying there is a real threat. You don't know if the school will really blow up or not, but you MUST make a decision one way or the other (and obviously choosing nothing, hesitating, or delaying is the same as deciding not to evacuate).

Which do you choose?

Let's say, out of pure safety and to make sure the bombers don't get what they want if they are in fact real, you evacuate the school. Let's say the evacuation gets messy, some kids get hurt from trampling, the trophy case gets smashed up and someone steals an important medal, and it costs the school thousands of dollars in lost pay and damages. Then the bomb never goes off.

Would you apologize for making that "mistake" or would you say something more akin to "Look, it was the right decision to evacuate the school. I know now there were errors figuring out if the bomb was real and in the actual evacuation once we started, but it was necessary and I stand by my decision to evacuate the school. If I had the chance to do it again, I'd still evacuate."

I'm alluding to Bush's statement:

quote:
"My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat and the American people, and the world, is better off because he is no longer in power."
So you're the leader. What decision do you make?

Matteo

Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The 'school' was half a planet away. We weren't its principal (alhough we are now). Therefore:

"You don't know if the school will really blow up or not, but you MUST make a decision one way or the other (and obviously choosing nothing, hesitating, or delaying is the same as deciding not to evacuate)."

is false. No MUST about it. Invading Iraq was an option -- a excruciatingly extreme option called 'preemptive military invasion'. It was NOT a dilemma we had to face.

We already had invaded the place 12 years previously, and had used the treaty imposed by our victory to steadily dismantle the bomb threat, which initially wasn't a hoax those many years ago. Despite consistent resistence, our inspector team did their job. THeir ssessment was that, despite obvious resitence nd chicanery by Saddam, inspections were accomplishing the job. Subsequent serches in Iraq and testimony of former Saddam officials support their assessment.

"Would you apologize for making that "mistake" or would you say something more akin to "Look, it was the right decision to evacuate the school. I know now there were errors figuring out if the bomb was real and in the actual evacuation once we started, but it was necessary and I stand by my decision to evacuate the school. If I had the chance to do it again, I'd still evacuate."

I'm alluding to Bush's statement:

quote:"My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat and the American people, and the world, is better off because he is no longer in power."

Considering this:
a recenmt statement by the last person who could claim with authority to be the principal of that school:

<begin>
Ousted leader Saddam Hussein has urged the Iraqi people to be "just" in the insurgency against US-led troops, in a letter from his US-run prison sent to his lawyers.

In a copy of the letter, which was sent to AFP by his Iraqi lawyer, Khalil Dulaimi, Saddam said that "victory against the occupation forces is certain".

"Resistance against the invaders is a right and a duty... but I urge the brothers in the noble resistance and the great Iraqi people to be just and fair," Saddam said in the letter.

"I also urge you to forgive those who lost their way... and keep the door of forgiveness open until the last minute that precedes the hour of liberation.

"Do not forget that your goal is to liberate your country from the invaders and their followers and is not a settling of accounts outside this goal.

"Remember that after each war there is peace, after each division there is unity."
<end>

Question: who IS in power? Anyone? The current power wielded is by violence, period.

IS the world better off because Saddam is no longer in power? This claim is accepted at face value because, I believe, of its powerful moral allure. We deposed the torturing tyrannical dictator. Lookit our nifty white hat. But is the world better off? Are the Iraqis better off? After three years we can't give a definitive answer; meanwhile, the evidence steadily mounts toward an answer in the negative.

Meanwhile, the reasons given for invading Iraq continue to evaporate. Meanwhile, we can't even figure out on statistical basis whether our occupation is better than Saddam's rule in terms of that most essential measure: national rate of death by violence.

The one benefit I can see about the current circumstances is that at least the violence and torture are more open, and therefore begging to be stopped, than in the days of Saddam's police state: the bodies of tortured and beheaded caputs now roll lie in the streets rather than the garbage disposal units opf Saddam's dungeons.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matteo522
Member
Member # 3103

 - posted      Profile for Matteo522   Email Matteo522   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Two things: You didn't answer my question in the scenario above and really butchered the analogy (principal ~= president, school ~= USA, bomb threat ~= WMD threat). I'm really curious about what you would do in the above situation as described given the information provided.

Second, there was a MUST. I wasn't saying that you must go.. I was saying that you must EITHER go or not go. You can't do both. Another way of saying that is what you said... going is optional. But choosing the option of not going is making a decision. Therefore my assertion that you MUST choose one or the other holds up. It's just classic logic: you can't have both true and not true, therefore if you have true you don't have not true and if you have not true you don't have true. I think I just made it even more confusing. [Razz]

Anyway, not taking the option of going is identical to choosing not to go. It's a valid option, but it in itself would have had its own consequences. Not knowing the future (our present) at the time, which would you have chosen?

Regardless, I don't think any of us, polluted with today's knowledge, can accurately and honestly answer that question anyhow. Especially when you have the weight of millions of lives on your shoulder, just a few years outside of our nation's most tragic attack.

Matteo

[ October 19, 2006, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Matteo522 ]

Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder why the pro Bush lobby on this board is ignoring this piercing dissection by kenmeer?

quote:
Let's try this one again, shall we?

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

RESPONSIBLE for deciding to invade Iraq, something that to this day he insists is NOT a mistake, yes?

RESPONSIBLE for fixing the mistakes MADE BY OTHERS (our intelligence capabilities). Now, there's a wee chance that by 'intelligence capabilities' he meant his own personal noodle, but I highly doubt that. I think that's just one of many 'Bush-isms' resulting from the unique intelligence capabiities of his personal brain pan.

Wrong about Iraq? Bush says no.

Wrong about intelligence? Bush says no. The intelligence was wrong, not him, and that's why HE is going to fix that wrong intelligence because, you know, he is RIGHT.

Now tell me, who is using circular logic here? Liberal? Or our President? I say that the quote above, famously cited as Bush (supposedly) acknowledging a mistake (it was all over the blogosphere with comments like: I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!! BUSH ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG!!!), is circularly evasive logic.

It's like the circular motion a matador makes with his veronica as a bull charges: step aside and spin.

'Pay no attention to the gland behind that curtain!'

What you call grabbing the bull**** by the horns...


Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who do you think you are addressing?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Two things: You didn't answer my question in the scenario above and really butchered the analogy (principal ~= president, school ~= USA, bomb threat ~= WMD threat). I'm really curious about what you would do in the above situation as described given the information provided."

Ah. I see. The reason I butchered the analogy because it so poorly applied to the Iraq situation, and I assumed (silly me) you had that in mind.

But of itself? Evacuate the school because of a bomb threat even though the threat's credibility was doubted?

Well, I'd evacuate. So long as I don't have to INVADE the friggin' school to allow the students to return, no biggie [Wink]

If it happened chronically, I would restructure school security in such a way that bomb threats were incredible by default. You know: get a bomb past THIS, ****ers.

"Second, there was a MUST. I wasn't saying that you must go.. I was saying that you must EITHER go or not go. You can't do both. Another way of saying that is what you said... going is optional. But choosing the option of not going is making a decision."

Right now, we have a decision before us, y'all: either we invade Brazil or not. And I warn you that not making a decision is also a decision.

Hmmm.... great idea! Let's decide not to decide since it's a really stupid choice with no significant mnerit. Right now, I have the choice to phone a bomb threat or not into my son's junior high school. Hmmm.... decisions decisons.... uh, Professor Godel, what was the question?

"Regardless, I don't think any of us, polluted with today's knowledge, can accurately and honestly answer that question anyhow. Especially when you have the weight of millions of lives on your shoulder, just a few years outside of our nation's most tragic attack."

I envisioned that choice back then (early post-911 through the actual invasion of Iraq). I had lots of ideas on how to reduce our exposure to further terrorist attacks. None of them remotely involved invading Iraq, even though in the early days I too pondered Saddam's possible involvement. But evidence pointed toward our friends in Saudi Arabia...

Hmmm... should we invade Saudi Arabia or not?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"piercing dissection"

I love dissection via skewers, don't you?

Bileology prof: 'Uh, kenmeer, the specimen is neatly mounted. Good job. But now's when you pick up your scalpel and...'

Kenmeer: 'Poke... poke... poke... poke... poke....'

(think Garth and the jellyroll after his fight with Wayne)

[ October 19, 2006, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Matteo, first, and without question, Bush was wrong to accept the "intelligence" he was provided as proving that Hussein has an active WMD program. At the time, ie, before the invasion, a simple analysis of the data presented showed it to be tenuos and contradictory at best. In fact, the evidence was so poor that I consider it to be a simple test of critical thinking. If you thought at the time that the evidence proved on balance of probability that Hussein had an active WMD program, then you failed the test. What is more, at the actual time of invasion, Bush had clear statements by the two people in the best position to know that they expected to be able certify Iraq was WMD free in a matter of months.

As to your list of options of presidents, I want (1) "The guy who makes a decision based on intelligence with the seemingly most credible information" without question, rather than what we in fact have, (7) The guy who will accept a fantasy concoction of his own administrations making if it conforms to his prejudices without any critical analysis.

Finally, your school bomb threat example is completely irrelevant, unless you want to ammend it by adding "the only method to evacuate the school will kill 2 to 5% of students and staff." Your precautionary principle is only a precautionary principle because you are not counting Iraqi lives as costs in your equation.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Who do you think you are addressing?"

'twould seem that TC assumes there is still such a thing as a pro-Bush lobby at Ornery, despite poll #s that suggest it might be a thing of the past.

'Bush? I wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole!'

Kenmeer: 'Give me that! Poke... poke... poke... poke... poke...'

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, kenmeer. Please read that as "incisive". (Hey it's 5 am here in Oz, and I only got two hours sleep. Give me a break.)
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matteo522
Member
Member # 3103

 - posted      Profile for Matteo522   Email Matteo522   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the record, I'm not being pro-Bush... I'm just being anti-armchair-president. We don't know all that he knew. We don't have the responsibility of being the one to decide or not to decide. We don't have the weight of lives on our shoulders.

In Ken's scenario above, he decided to take the action and evacuate despite poor intelligence because it was the safer route. He then decided to restructure security so that bomb threats would be nearly impossible (sounds kind of like an anti-missile shield and strong borders if you ask me).

But when Bush tries to disarm a potential (if unlikely) threat despite poor intelligence and then make security a top priority, he's demonized.

Interesting.

Matteo

Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On this topic, there is certainly a pro bush lobby on ornery, which includes Javelin. They want to give Bush credit that I don't know that he deserves. As you have clearly pointed out in one instance that they give him credit for, he only accepted responsibility for something he still (still !!!) does not consider a mistake. I have yet to see a quote of Bush were he does better, ie, accepts responsibility for something which he also acknowledges as a mistake.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TC - I have not taken a single position for or against Bush in this thread. Those who have are those who it'd be hard pressed to call "Pro Bush" - unless it's as accurate to call you "Anti Bush".

The only thing I've done on this thread is point out that the goal posts keep getting moved around, and that seemed silly.

quote:
I have yet to see a quote of Bush were he does better, ie, accepts responsibility for something which he also acknowledges as a mistake.
Seems to me that this thread is a good example of people seeing what they want to see.

[ October 19, 2006, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But when Bush tries to disarm a potential (if unlikely) threat despite poor intelligence and then make security a top priority, he's demonized."

Like TC mentioned, there was that wee mtter of KILLING involved, you see. Declaring WAR and all that. Hardly a de facto school safety drill.

Security a top priority? In Iraq, you mean? If this was the case, Bush wouldn't have let Rummy talk him into invading with less than half the recommended minimum # of troops needed to provide post-invasion security.

You one of those off-shore out-source straw man-ufactories?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's simpler than all the various hand-waving choices and concerns about who is honest and who is not. I have opinions about all of that, but my issue in this thread is as follows. Actions have consequences; so do decisions. What consequences has Bush or any of his senior advisors suffered as a result of their mistaken actions or decisions? Answer: none, except for handing out/receiving some miscellaneous awards, promotions, and people advancing to their next career objective. For the people who opposed those decisions or actions, the outcome has been decidedly less beneficial to their careers.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When Bush tries to disarm an utterly implausible threat to the US by force in prefference to allowing it to be disarmed by UN inspection teams, he is demonized - and quite correctly.

Again, on your analogy, allowing the UN inspection teams to complete their task would have been evacuating the school.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matteo522
Member
Member # 3103

 - posted      Profile for Matteo522   Email Matteo522   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Security as in US security. As in missile-defense. As in airport security. As in Patriot Act. As in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. As in rainbow-colored threat charts. As in torturing terrorists. As in Guantanamo Bay. I'm not saying these are all good things... but they're certainly in the name of security. Say what you want about the president, I don't think you can say that security has not been a top priority.

You may not agree that he has accomplished that or that he is going about doing it the right way... but certainly Bush has made US security a top priority of his presidency.

Matteo

Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Javelin, what is your comment on kenmeer's dissection? That quote is the best the "let's give Bush credit" lobby has come up with, and Kenmeer's dissection was incisive.

I am not in fact saying that Bush has not accepted responsibility on any occassion because I just don't know. But if anybody wants to give him credit for doing so, at least they could quote his words from occasions when he does.

Finally, yes certainly some people are seeing what they want to see. For example, some people see goal posts being shifted when others see undue credit being given.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Javelin, what is your comment on kenmeer's dissection? That quote is the best the "let's give Bush credit" lobby has come up with, and Kenmeer's dissection was incisive.
I don't have one.

quote:
Finally, yes certainly some people are seeing what they want to see. For example, some people see goal posts being shifted when others see undue credit being given.
Is there honestly some confusion in your mind about what Redskull original said, and how that differs from what others, such as KL, Liberal and yourself, have insisted must be?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matteo522
Member
Member # 3103

 - posted      Profile for Matteo522   Email Matteo522   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DaveS: Except for the fact that Bush is currently one of the most hated presidents in recent history and will certainly have a terrible legacy left behind unless some miracle happens in the Middle East in the next twenty years. Once you're president, there's not much that can really happen to you short of having your name go down in history as a terrible person, which is pretty damn significant. And there's always the threat of impeachment, but why hasn't that occurred if he has done such a terrible, terrible crime unto humanity? Surely if every Democrat believed he should be impeached.. they would at least have the support to bring it to vote.

Tom: Saddam wasn't an utterly implausible threat at the time we were debating taking action. Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors and would not allow them to have full access to all places as he was required to. That doesn't sound "utterly implausible". It actually sounds quite plausible, by definition. I'm not saying LIKELY. But to say that at the time, given Saddam's behavior, that he was an "utterly implausible threat" is revisionism. Now we know he was a most likely non-threat (do we know for a fact that he didn't ship his weapons to Syria prior to the invasion? No, not for a fact)... but until we had boots on the ground to confirm that he wasn't a threat, we did not KNOW.

And let's not forget that Bush was not the only single soul who believed that he was a plausible threat worth disarming. Congress did authorize the use of force. As did England, Italy, Poland, and many other members of the world community. Yes, they all followed Bush's lead... but would they have really followed him if he was an utterly implausible threat?

[ October 19, 2006, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Matteo522 ]

Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Say what you want about the president, I don't think you can say that security has not been a top priority."

Sure I can. Folks had to fight for an investigation ito how 911 happened. The Patriot Act takes away civil liberties in the name of security via domestic intelligence yet left glaring loopholes that directly apply to terrorism while carving holes in domestic protections in areas whose connection to terrorism are specious. A consistent complaint since the first year is 'too little' regarding port security and similar issues. Torturing terrorists? Bad intel that destroysd the thing we seek to protect: a homeland that calls itself land of the free anf home of the brave.

Bush has made security a top talking point of his presidency, not a top executive priority.

Jav: 'no comment'. touche' [Wink]

I'm for research into a missile shield, however Holy Grailishly unreachable it seems. However, I think a joint research with the Sovs and he rest of the nukular club would work better for all without destabilizng the ABM treaty structure.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jav: 'no comment'. touche'
Hope that doesn't come across wrong. There's a real discussion there, and I don't have the time or interest to be part of it, so I've only made a comment on this thread on a side issue. I'm sorry if this annoys people, but I honestly feel it'd be counterproductive for me to go into the core of the discussion when I don't particularly care what people think about it.

[ October 19, 2006, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matteo522
Member
Member # 3103

 - posted      Profile for Matteo522   Email Matteo522   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really feel like you're not reading what I'm writing before responding.

This president has staked his entire career and presidential agenda in the name of security. If you ask me, he's done way TOO MUCH in the name of security. The whole "Bush is killing human rights" debate is because he is going too far with security.

How can you possibly say that Bush has not made security a top priority? Hell, he can't go a single speech without using the damn word.

Alright, I really gotta get some work done. [Razz]

Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This president has staked his entire career and presidential agenda in the name of security. If you ask me, he's done way TOO MUCH in the name of security. The whole "Bush is killing human rights" debate is because he is going too far with security.

How can you possibly say that Bush has not made security a top priority? Hell, he can't go a single speech without using the damn word."

I repeat, using different words:

doing things in the name of security isn't the same as doing things in the cause of security.

ANd yup, Bush has staked his presidential legacy on security, largely vis a vis the war on terror. It worked swell for about 4 years, until the proof of the pudding began to set. Now... the poll 3s speak it clearly.

For all his talk of security, most Americans (especially myself) feel less secure because of Bush rather than more.

talk is cheap but can still cost one dearly.

And now I gotta go to work.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, jav, not bad at all. A perfect use of the 'no comment' riff. Timing, after all, is everything.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors and would not allow them to have full access to all places as he was required to."

Might want to check what Hans Blix has to say about that.

In any event, we've got plenty of Iraq right or wrong threads, and there's nothing wrong with starting a new one.

The buzz-phrase of this administration will always be to me "No one could have anticipated....".

I'm not saying Bush has never, in any sense, owned up to a mistake.

He was presented as someone who ALWAYS owns up to his mistakes, a shining example of accountability so lacking in our decadent modern world, and some how that has gotten completely lost in unrealated school bombing metaphors and discusions about the Mac and Truman Show.


I find it very hard to believe that Bush doesn't regret the mission accomplished banner. I find it very hard to believe he doesn't regret the decision to disband the Iraqi Army, or the over-enthusastic de-Baathification, or not sending more troops to Iraq or...

I find it hard to believe he doesn't regret these things, or believe them to be mistakes...because if he doesn't...he's no longer a guy I disagree with on most issues and whose humor I find lame...he's either a monster or a dolt.

He has admitted mistakes, I even recall him refering to failures at all levels of government in regard to Katrina, which obviously includes him.

I recall him offering some sort of apology for the "Bring it On" idiocy.

The picture that was painted was of a man who ALWAYS takes public responsibility for his mistakes....and that ain't this guy.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thrasymachus
Member
Member # 3090

 - posted      Profile for Thrasymachus   Email Thrasymachus       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The intention of this thread was never to paint Bush as a saint. The intention was to get people to stop pointing their fingers at whoever the current head moron is in charge of government and recognize that if each of us put half as much effort into finding solutions to these big problems as we put into pointing the finger at others, maybe the world would be a shinier happier place. But then, its easier to popint fingers than come up with actual solutions, so lets just keep doing that. It's been working so far.
Posts: 199 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thras

You hit the nail on the head.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matteo522
Member
Member # 3103

 - posted      Profile for Matteo522   Email Matteo522   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed. Thanks, Thras.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1