Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Janaya · 07-10-2003, 08:02 PM

QUESTION OF THE DAY

Did President Bush make an honest mistake in his State of the Union address, or did he deliberately mislead the American public about Iraq?

I voted....Results?

Oops. Edited to add link. Doh!

Abacus · 07-10-2003, 08:06 PM

I bet he lied, or at the very least, his advisors lied to him.

Janaya · 07-10-2003, 08:14 PM

Abacus,

It would not surprise me if he lied. I tend to think that he did but when I voted on this poll and saw the results I was shocked. I did not think that it would be that lopsided. Wow.

Overgrowngoblin · 07-10-2003, 08:20 PM

Could the tide on Dubya�s creditability finally be turning?

Zar · 07-10-2003, 08:54 PM

Wow, over 80% say he misled the nation (a.k.a. lied), as of now (11:00pm Central July 10.)

Its not scientific, but still...its Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Not exatly an anti-war site.

TollHouse · 07-10-2003, 09:32 PM

Hmmm ... I was expecting it to be lopsided the other way.

Still, it must pretty easy to spam these polls, right?

openeyes · 07-10-2003, 09:42 PM

I am also surprised at the poll results. I hope the ARE an accurate reflection of the public sentiment, but considering the other polls that have been done, it doesn't seem likely.

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-10-2003, 09:45 PM

I need an option that describes Bush's faith-based foriegn policy.

Like his "faith" in the bible, Bush had "faith" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and evidence is irrelevant. Some things simply transcend evidence.

Technically, does this qualify as a "lie" or "misleading the public?" I don't think it meets the literal definition -- to do this he has to in some way believe that the statements he made were false. He believed they were true -- not because the CIA provided evidence, but because God told him they were true.

He is a President with a creationist mindset, and uses the Creationist criteria for evidence -- "anything that supports the conclusion that I like must be sound."

And he will continue to evaluate evidence this way for the next 5.5 years of his administration.

Rhaedas · 07-10-2003, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe

And he will continue to evaluate evidence this way for the next 5.5 years of his administration.

Depressing thought, for both the results that would come from that, as well as the possibility of it being allowed to happen, despite everything that is known or will be known about what's truly going on.

capsaicin67 · 07-11-2003, 01:22 AM

I essentially agree, Alonzo, that he doesn't just mislead others----he misleads himself, too. And I doubt if even he knows exactly at what point he started to zig instead of zag because denial is such a part of his way of (not)thinking.

He went with a hunch that he thought/hoped was correct.

He thought that it was correct to postemptively preemptively nullify the Hussein regime.

Option1: Let 'em default on their treaty/resolution obligations [the accountability part at the least] and risk the worst case scenarios later, or

Option2: Go in and clean house and decisively foreclose on the regime and try to reap any secondary gain possible from the venture.

Of course, it was a Herculean task for a man of Lilliputian wisdom to maintain any semblance of objectivity in the process of deciding what to do and how to sell it. He and those around him had waaaaaaay too many conflicts of interest and personal agendas interwoven in the decision/outcome to possibly think clearly about it. >shrug< There were simply too many reasons why it made strategic sense: whether it was from the pov of a Bush Tribe headman, Presidential, Commander-in Chief, Corporate CEO/capitalist, fundy, or a bully perspective. It was what he wanted to do and thought strategically most advantageous both for himself personally, but also for his aristocratic chums, and also for national security reasons.

I think the mindset of his administration, and the Republican Party these days generally, is patronizing and condescending toward those that are not economic elites----the bulk of the populace. They feel entitled to act as they see fit and see the public as a nuisance to be used when possible and otherwise tolerated as a necessary evil. The shortcut to convincing the public of the necessity for war/intervention was to run with the public's misconceptions and ignorance that already had their own inertia. The Bushies went for a ride on the back of that tiger as a shortcut to selling their agenda, instead of doing the harder, more honest, and safer-in-the-long-term sell.

I think that on a daily basis it was a lot more murky, clusterfucked, and personality/intrapolitically -driven than what many may ultimately give them credit for. Did they sit around a table and say, "Let's lie because we *want* to do this thing for our personal interests"? or "Let's lie because we *need* to do this thing"? Or did they sit around a table and say, "We need to do this thing because we think it needs done and we think we have proof of WMD but we're not *positive* so we'll just focus on that because the public will run with it easier and hopefully we will find some"? Or was it a story and agenda that took on a life of it's own the further they got out on the limb and they lost even further the ability to find their way back to a more forthright path? Dunno. But I'm guessing it was a lot more clusterfucked evil than pure, planned evil.

I agree that Bush's fundamentalist tendencies a la his magical thinking and belief in God's special plans for him [it must be really irritating that Saddam believe(s/d) the same thing, eh...?] are telling. Faith is the opposite of information and planning. Bush does not think deep nor see far. He gravitates toward faith as refuge for his intellectual laziness, addiction/denial-prone personality--- and believes that God will give him the hunches, and then Bush himself will use his charisma to act on them everyone else be damned.

All in all, I think the whole deal was just bungled, and badly. Though it's not a popular idea, I think a much, much better plan, case for decisive intervention, and follow-through, could have been carried out that would have avoided the current aftermath of credibility controversy. I think he got in his own way because he believes his own shit and the shit of those around him. Regardless of his goal---his strategic plan for the selling of it was that of an ignorant (narrow/shallow/unwise)jerk---his core personality and coping style. Which isn't too reassuring even by itself.

I'm hoping his lemons turn into lemonade for those of us that want a change of administration in the near future though.

07-10-2003, 08:02 PM	#1
Janaya Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 226	Vote in Wolf Blitzer's Poll QUESTION OF THE DAY Did President Bush make an honest mistake in his State of the Union address, or did he deliberately mislead the American public about Iraq? I voted....Results? Oops. Edited to add link. Doh!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2003, 08:06 PM	#2
Abacus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South Dakota Posts: 2,214	I bet he lied, or at the very least, his advisors lied to him.

07-10-2003, 08:14 PM	#3
Janaya Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 226	Abacus, It would not surprise me if he lied. I tend to think that he did but when I voted on this poll and saw the results I was shocked. I did not think that it would be that lopsided. Wow.

07-10-2003, 08:20 PM	#4
Overgrowngoblin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Shooting dice in a crater on the Moon Posts: 501	Could the tide on Dubya�s creditability finally be turning?

07-10-2003, 08:54 PM	#5
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	Wow, over 80% say he misled the nation (a.k.a. lied), as of now (11:00pm Central July 10.) Its not scientific, but still...its Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Not exatly an anti-war site.

07-10-2003, 09:32 PM	#6
TollHouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 8,745	Hmmm ... I was expecting it to be lopsided the other way. Still, it must pretty easy to spam these polls, right?

07-10-2003, 09:42 PM	#7
openeyes Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota Posts: 4,215	I am also surprised at the poll results. I hope the ARE an accurate reflection of the public sentiment, but considering the other polls that have been done, it doesn't seem likely.

07-10-2003, 09:45 PM	#8
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	I need an option that describes Bush's faith-based foriegn policy. Like his "faith" in the bible, Bush had "faith" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and evidence is irrelevant. Some things simply transcend evidence. Technically, does this qualify as a "lie" or "misleading the public?" I don't think it meets the literal definition -- to do this he has to in some way believe that the statements he made were false. He believed they were true -- not because the CIA provided evidence, but because God told him they were true. He is a President with a creationist mindset, and uses the Creationist criteria for evidence -- "anything that supports the conclusion that I like must be sound." And he will continue to evaluate evidence this way for the next 5.5 years of his administration.

07-11-2003, 01:22 AM	#10
capsaicin67 Contributor Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gold coast plain, sea, scrubland, mountain range. Posts: 20,955	I essentially agree, Alonzo, that he doesn't just mislead others----he misleads himself, too. And I doubt if even he knows exactly at what point he started to zig instead of zag because denial is such a part of his way of (not)thinking. He went with a hunch that he thought/hoped was correct. He thought that it was correct to postemptively preemptively nullify the Hussein regime. Option1: Let 'em default on their treaty/resolution obligations [the accountability part at the least] and risk the worst case scenarios later, or Option2: Go in and clean house and decisively foreclose on the regime and try to reap any secondary gain possible from the venture. Of course, it was a Herculean task for a man of Lilliputian wisdom to maintain any semblance of objectivity in the process of deciding what to do and how to sell it. He and those around him had waaaaaaay too many conflicts of interest and personal agendas interwoven in the decision/outcome to possibly think clearly about it. >shrug< There were simply too many reasons why it made strategic sense: whether it was from the pov of a Bush Tribe headman, Presidential, Commander-in Chief, Corporate CEO/capitalist, fundy, or a bully perspective. It was what he wanted to do and thought strategically most advantageous both for himself personally, but also for his aristocratic chums, and also for national security reasons. I think the mindset of his administration, and the Republican Party these days generally, is patronizing and condescending toward those that are not economic elites----the bulk of the populace. They feel entitled to act as they see fit and see the public as a nuisance to be used when possible and otherwise tolerated as a necessary evil. The shortcut to convincing the public of the necessity for war/intervention was to run with the public's misconceptions and ignorance that already had their own inertia. The Bushies went for a ride on the back of that tiger as a shortcut to selling their agenda, instead of doing the harder, more honest, and safer-in-the-long-term sell. I think that on a daily basis it was a lot more murky, clusterfucked, and personality/intrapolitically -driven than what many may ultimately give them credit for. Did they sit around a table and say, "Let's lie because we want to do this thing for our personal interests"? or "Let's lie because we need to do this thing"? Or did they sit around a table and say, "We need to do this thing because we think it needs done and we think we have proof of WMD but we're not positive so we'll just focus on that because the public will run with it easier and hopefully we will find some"? Or was it a story and agenda that took on a life of it's own the further they got out on the limb and they lost even further the ability to find their way back to a more forthright path? Dunno. But I'm guessing it was a lot more clusterfucked evil than pure, planned evil. I agree that Bush's fundamentalist tendencies a la his magical thinking and belief in God's special plans for him [it must be really irritating that Saddam believe(s/d) the same thing, eh...?] are telling. Faith is the opposite of information and planning. Bush does not think deep nor see far. He gravitates toward faith as refuge for his intellectual laziness, addiction/denial-prone personality--- and believes that God will give him the hunches, and then Bush himself will use his charisma to act on them everyone else be damned. All in all, I think the whole deal was just bungled, and badly. Though it's not a popular idea, I think a much, much better plan, case for decisive intervention, and follow-through, could have been carried out that would have avoided the current aftermath of credibility controversy. I think he got in his own way because he believes his own shit and the shit of those around him. Regardless of his goal---his strategic plan for the selling of it was that of an ignorant (narrow/shallow/unwise)jerk---his core personality and coping style. Which isn't too reassuring even by itself. I'm hoping his lemons turn into lemonade for those of us that want a change of administration in the near future though.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.