Hang on...just for the record...are you advocating executive authority to start non-defensive wars? Before i argue, I want to understand what I'm arguing with...
President, the Senate, & Congress all agreed we should go to war with Iraq, if they did not comply with UN sanctions. How is that advocating executive authority? DD
Yeah, but ends justifying means is an absolute argument...it's an either it can or it can't kind of thing...nobody in their right mind argues that ends always justify means, only when they agree with the ends, as DD does in this case. As such, it brings me back to the ultimate example of that kind of thinking...and practice...
Ok...and what, remind me, is the authority of a Congressman( or woman) vested in? Just going point by point here...and yes, I'm reading very carefully...
Except you are leaving out one BIG thing, if we don't like the policies we can vote them out. That is the big difference, and what makes your Hitler quote more then irrelevant. DD
Dead wrong....when Hitler was still using manipulation of the populace( ie The Big Lie)...when he still had to...he too was still subject to popular and political disapproval. It was when people excused his tactics because they approved of their results that he gained super-political powers...my very point, and the very reason that your and others excusing Bush's tactics because they approve of his results is just a little relevant. You could, as they say, look it up.
Let me get this straight, you are saying that we can NOT vote Bush out of office if we don't like his policies? This is the biggest difference, and why your argument is moot. If the American public does not like Bush, we can vote him out, simple as that. DD
No...I am not, have not, and will not say that we cannot vote him out. What I have said is this: 1) Hitler only used mass amnipulation to achieve desired aims when he too was accountable to the voting populace. As such the parallel...as with Mussolini...I furthermore said that the very step Hitler used to gain extra-political power was the very thinking you are advocating we use with Bush: If we agree with the results, we overlook the means of achieving it. It's an exact comparison. 2) You are right, if we dissaprove of Bush, and a continued examination of his methods leads to public dissaproval, he can be voted out...just one question, DD... How exactly does this miracle of modern American politics occur if, as you continually advocate, we don't discuss the very methods Bush used themselves, nor re-examine the entire argument until well after he's no longer in power!?!?!?!
Excuse me for jumping in, MacBeth. I still don't see the parallel between Bush and Hitler. Hitler was a dictator. Bush is an elected official who has a term limit, not to mention the impeachment power hanging over him which this thread is supposed to be about. That's why nobody is worried about countries like the US, Canada, France, Germany, UK, etc. to have WMD. These countries have systems that prevent to a very high degree the possibility that any single individual can do mass destructive things without good reasons. You might think the reasons to invade Iraq were not good enough. And you might or might not be correct. But you have to admit that these reasons are not totally bad reasons. No US presidents can act on totally bad reasons like Hitler did.
Easy... When Hitler originally used the manipulation of the masses...when he initially used The Big Lie...he was not dictator. It was only by virtue of the power and popularity he gained by doing so...and by people excusing his tactics because they liked the reults...that he was able to make himself a dictator.Hitler was originally an elected official in the Wheimar Republic...and, as such, responsible to the whims of the populace just as much as Bush is. And he chose to tell them lies in order to gain approval for actions they might otherwise find, in his words, 'difficult to digest in one meal', but whose outcome they would rejoice in... ...sound familiar?
Not necessarily pro se... What i am worried about is that he is using similar political tactics, that they're working, that we were pretty much the only ones who bought it before the war, and are even more the only ones buying it now, that he is doing many things in a smiliar fashion: 1) Trumping up arguments to invade other nations despite world dissaproval. 2) Citing fear as a means of justifying restrictions on civil liberites. 3) Promoting an us vs. them mentality in his country as a fall back position whenever his actions are questioned. 4) Equating questioning his actions, foreign or domestic, with being un-patriotic. 5) Advocating, nay, decalring a position of dictating policy to less powerful nations by virute f how we will percieve it ( With us or against us.) 6) Using inflamatory diatribe ( Axis of evil ) and appealing to fear in order to get the public behind him, the very worst common denominator a politician appeals to. 7) Approving measures designed to identify potential 'enemies of the state' by virtue of their ethnicity. 8) Getting people to buy into an End justifies the means argument when he's caught making with the bad 'means'. Ok...so it looks pretty damned bad to me. No, I don't think Buh can become another Hitler as such...but I also think that our system is a lot further along than the Wheimar Republic was...but in some ways that makes his inroads for autocratic power worse...they spit in the face of over a hundred years of work attaining this system, not the 10 or so that Hitler's destroyed.
I'm glad that so many people agree that Bush didn't lie, but misrepresented the seriousness of the WMD program. I DISAGREE. Bush did lie. He also misrepresented the seriousness of the program. But in regards to the nuke program Iraq was supposed to have Bush flat out lied. He claimed to have a report, that didn't exist. Then when he was called on it, he claimed to have misspoke, and said he was actually referring to a different report. It turns out that that report didn't exist either. Bush lied got caught, and lied again. Combine that with the forged evidence used by the Bush team, nobody anything he had to say regarding nukes anyway. Chem and bio weapons were then the focus. But the fact still remains, our president lied.
Actually GREAT for us .. and good for the world This will be quite an economic boon for us just wait and see. . . .Chaney reaping a few benefits oops. . i mean halliburton ROcket River
MacBeth, Your points 1) 3) 5) and 6) are basically the same point: Bush painting a black and white, good vs evil picture. Some people perceive that as tough leadership in a time of war. I'm not sure if I like it or not. 2) and 7) are overreactions on the administration part. And I'm not sure they are as serious as you make it out. 4) and 8) are pretty much standard political tactics to save your own behind. I haven't met a politician who doesn't use some variety of the same things. The thing is, Bush's legacy is made by 9/11. It's not his fault that the event happened in his time (unless you are a really imaginative conspiracy theorist). He was thrown into a situation not many (if at all) presidents had experienced: an invisible enemy. It was not a single country, or even an alliance of countries. How are you going to fight them? How are you going to protect yourself? There might be some better ways other than the Bush way to deal with it. If there are, they are not obvious. It's kinda like judging Rudy T's coaching job. Was his way the wrong way? Maybe. Were there better ways? Possibly. What would be the better ways? We can only speculate. I've always wondered: What would Gore have done? What would Clinton? Reagan? Carter? Nixon? Kennedy? (What would MacBeth have done?) Would we have done better with a different coach? Would we have done better with a different president? Maybe, maybe not. We may never know whether 9/11 squeezed out Bush's superman complex ("let me save the world from evil" mentality) or he's one of the biggest opportunists who grabbed the moment to further his political agenda. It could very well be both. At the end, his motives might not matter that much (see the "philosopher" thread). One thing we'll know. If he's really a master manipulator as you think, he'll get reelected. If not, we'll know.
Bush did lie. He said it was about WMD. and it wasn't, that is lying I do not think he wil be a dictator, but i agree with alot of points Macbeth says. Hitler started as a chosen leader. I think Bush is starting to act as a dictator. The thing is bush isn't a dictator if he does things that are terrible if the people agree with it, like hitler did. if people keep suporting him even after he lied. then he can do what he wants. if you want to know what most people in europe think: altleast in holland? Bush is verry bad for the world, and nobody will ever believe a thing he says. He has lost al credability.
Well, President Bush <b>is</b> an orator on Hitler's scale... If anyone can inflame the masses, it's President Bush.
I take it, then, that you agree with the following premises: (1) It's OK for a president to "exaggerate" about the reasons for a war and send U.S. soldiers into battle under false premises (2) Preemptive wars are just fine, "as long as the end result is fine". From now on we will look all over the globe for tyrannical regimes and take them out whenever possible. (3) GWB was not really serious when he said, during his campaign, that he didn't believe in "nation building." (4) A president who engages in a "bit of exaggeration" in putting U.S. lives at risk, destabilizing the entire region, and turning long-cherished diplomatic alliances to dust, probably tells the truth in other areas of American life. So he's probably not "exaggerating" about anything else that affects us, and we can generally trust him.
1. In this case, yes it is ok in that it was the right thing to do for our country. 2. Pre-emptive wars are a new occurance for us, and again, in this instance, yes it is ok. 3. I think he meant it, but on 9-11, he had to take a different approach. 4. He did not throw away any alliances. What a crock of doo-doo. We disagree with a few of our allies, but in the end it will all blow over. As for trust..I don't TRUST any president. DD
