U.S. Politics

[Mantis]

 On the Cheney thing, is there any actual evidence that he was the mastermind behind everything Bush did? I've not really seen anything to suggest that's the case. Typically vice presidents aren't really that influential.

 

Out of interest, Mantis, what makes you think he's such a clever chap?

 

Appalling public persona aside, unless you credit him for wickedly Machiavellian cynicism in his grab for Iraqi oil, that was one disaster that everyone saw coming.

 

So he's either not bright enough, or an evil, butchering cynic as far as I can see. I prefer to be kind to him and just think of him as not bright enough.

I don't think he's a particularly clever president, I just don't believe that anyone could become US president without being quite intelligent. Publicly he may have come off as a bit of a buffoon (media were definitely very biased against him though) but by all accounts he was quite clubbable in private and was good at coalition building. Regardless of one's own personal opinions of his policies he was definitely better than Obama at getting what he wanted done.

 

I don't believe Iraq was about oil. I don't think it's a simple choice between him being not intelligent enough or an evil Machiavellian.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Mantis

[CrackpotForeigner]

Fair enough Mantis, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

But just to clarify one thing: when I said this:

 

"So he's either not bright enough, or an evil, butchering cynic as far as I can see. I prefer to be kind to him and just think of him as not bright enough."

 

What I actually meant was this:

 

"So he's either not bright enough, or an evil, butchering cynic as far as I can see. I WOULD prefer to be kind to him and just think of him as not bright enough, but actually it's probably both."

[Mantis]

What makes you think he's both not bright enough and an evil butchering cynic?

 

Disagreeing with his policies is fair enough, but don't you think that's going a bit far (I'm mainly referring to the last bit)?

[CrackpotForeigner]

What makes you think he's both not bright enough and an evil butchering cynic?

 

Disagreeing with his policies is fair enough, but don't you think that's going a bit far (I'm mainly referring to the last bit)?

 

Bottom line is that he is the one responsible for the deaths of over a hundred thousand Iraqis (with significant help from Tone and others). You either do or don't believe that the war was about oil (I do), but you have to acknowledge that as an act of foreign policy it was either a shocking miscalculation, or a work of supreme cynicism.

 

If you take the view that it was cynicism, he is/was not bright enough to realise that US interests would be damaged in the long run.

 

If you don't, you have to argue that he isn't/wasn't bright enough to predict the consequences.

 

QED, he isn't/wasn't bright enough.

[Mantis]

What makes you think he's both not bright enough and an evil butchering cynic?

 

Disagreeing with his policies is fair enough, but don't you think that's going a bit far (I'm mainly referring to the last bit)?

 

Bottom line is that he is the one responsible for the deaths of over a hundred thousand Iraqis (with significant help from Tone and others). You either do or don't believe that the war was about oil (I do), but you have to acknowledge that as an act of foreign policy it was either a shocking miscalculation, or a work of supreme cynicism.

 

If you take the view that it was cynicism, he is/was not bright enough to realise that US interests would be damaged in the long run.

 

If you don't, you have to argue that he isn't/wasn't bright enough to predict the consequences.

 

QED, he isn't/wasn't bright enough.

No, I don't agree that him and Blair are the ones that are responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.

 

Yeah, I would agree that from a pragmatic point of view it was indeed a big miscalculation, but that doesn't mean Bush wasn't bright enough to lead his country, just that he made a miscalculation. Perhaps he anticipated some of what would happen but didn't realise the scale? I don't know, only he knows what he thought would happen. His work with Congress though would definitely seem to suggest that he was bright enough to lead his country. He was a good coalition builder. Obama is supposedly one of the most intellectual US presidents in recent history yet he's nowhere near as good as working with Congress as Bush was. That isn't entirely his fault of course but I don't think a president that "wasn't bright enough" would be able to work with Congress like Bush did.

 

He also managed to win two presidential elections* which is no small feat either.

 

*I'm aware of Gore's victory with the popular vote in 2000 but Bush still won it in the electoral collage, which is what really matters in the US system.

 

You can question the policies of a president but I honestly believe that there is no US president (in recent history at least) who hasn't been bright enough for the job.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Mantis

[CrackpotForeigner]

Oh boy, I've got into one of those never-ending "discussions" with Mantis

 

Anyway, the following points are more-or-less significant:

 

- Even if Bush singlehandedly ran the country (which obviously he didn't), he most certainly didn't singlehandedly win the elections. He was nothing more than the Product being sold by the Republican machine, in 2000 and 2004.

 

- There's debate to this day as to whether he even really won the electoral college in 2000, and he definitely didn't do so without significant interference from his bro's buddies in Florida.

 

- After the "7/11" attacks (which I think might not have happened with a more reasonable US prez in place), no senator or congressman was going to publicly go against the president on a matter of national security. (In fact they still don't, which is why the US is snooping and bombing more than ever.)  So I don't think you can say that he's this amazing "coalition-builder". I think just the opposite. Instead making a show of addressing legitimate grievances against the US, he was shaking his fist and whipping people into an insane patriotic frenzy.

 

- And he won the election in 2004 for the same reasons that Thatcher won the election after the Falklands war, not by being an amazing leader.

[Xann]

Disagreeing with his policies is fair enough, but don't you think that's going a bit far?

 

Not far enough, he should be in jail for it, and Blair.

 

He was the figurehead for the neo conservative machine that was his father's legacy.

 

Condie Rice and co's lecturer in higher ed believed that lying to the public was acceptable if it was for the greater good.

 

Donald Rumsfeld whispered "War" in Dubya's ear whilst being a major player in the private companies providing laundry and food for the US military overseas.

 

Perhaps if Dubya hadn't dodged service in Vietnam and didn't have a vested interest in oil prices rising I'd be less cynical.

 

Bush's second term was won through his brother Jeb's blatant cheating. He shouldn't have got away with it, but a Republican judge fudged the investigation beyond the allotted appeal deadline.

[maqroll]

On the Cheney thing, is there any actual evidence that he was the mastermind behind everything Bush did? I've not really seen anything to suggest that's the case. Typically vice presidents aren't really that influential.

 

Bush was out of his depth in foreign policy, so he brought in his old man's trusted buddies to craft their plans. The invasion of Iraq was something the neocons had wanted for years, and with Bush in the White House, and Cheney and Rumsfeld at the helm, they got what they wanted. It was all business. It was Halliburton, it was Raytheon, all the firms that needed to feed at the war trough. 

[legov]

Regardless of one's own personal opinions of his policies he was definitely better than Obama at getting what he wanted done

 

Frankly, Mantis, there are huge mitigating circumstances. Has there ever been a major American political party as radical and intransigent as the Republicans are today? 

 

When your opponents are ideologically 180deg away from you on most issues, and at the same time see obstruction as their only route back to power, getting your agenda done is hard. Taking these into account, it's really quite incredible Obama and the Congress Dems have managed to pass as much of their legislation as they have.

[snowychap]

- After the "7/11" attacks

I blame Smurfs.

[maqroll]

 

 it's really quite incredible Obama and the Congress Dems have managed to pass as much of their legislation as they have.

It's because much of it is agreeable to the Republicans (The weakening of civil liberties, drones, Wall St. bailouts, medical marijuana prosecution) 

[legov]

 

 

 it's really quite incredible Obama and the Congress Dems have managed to pass as much of their legislation as they have.

It's because much of it is agreeable to the Republicans (The weakening of civil liberties, drones, Wall St. bailouts, medical marijuana prosecution) 

 

Just off the top of my head, ACA, DADT.

[peterms]

I don't believe Iraq was about oil.

 

Even Alan Greenspan, pillar of the US establishment, admits it was.  (This from 2007)

 

In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades,

writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

 

[Mantis]

Oh boy, I've got into one of those never-ending "discussions" with Mantis

 

Anyway, the following points are more-or-less significant:

 

- Even if Bush singlehandedly ran the country (which obviously he didn't), he most certainly didn't singlehandedly win the elections. He was nothing more than the Product being sold by the Republican machine, in 2000 and 2004.

 

- There's debate to this day as to whether he even really won the electoral college in 2000, and he definitely didn't do so without significant interference from his bro's buddies in Florida.

 

- After the "7/11" attacks (which I think might not have happened with a more reasonable US prez in place), no senator or congressman was going to publicly go against the president on a matter of national security. (In fact they still don't, which is why the US is snooping and bombing more than ever.)  So I don't think you can say that he's this amazing "coalition-builder". I think just the opposite. Instead making a show of addressing legitimate grievances against the US, he was shaking his fist and whipping people into an insane patriotic frenzy.

 

- And he won the election in 2004 for the same reasons that Thatcher won the election after the Falklands war, not by being an amazing leader.

What's the point of that childish little jibe?

 

- No candidate single-handedly runs an election campaign, doesn't mean it doesn't take a bright person to do it though. If you think he was "nothing more than a product being sold" (which quite frankly is false) then surely you must accept that's the case with every presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican?

 

- He won the electoral college vote, just not the popular vote. One of the quirks of the electoral college system.

 

- What makes you think 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Bush wasn't president? He was only in the job for about 9 months when it happened, and the attack was something that was planned well before Bush was even elected. Although you are right that Congress wouldn't oppose him immediately after 9/11 (same would've happened with any president), it wasn't just national security related bills that he managed to get through Congress with bipartisan support. You can disagree with his policies all you like but it he was definitely good at getting what he wanted done and working with Congress.

 

- That's just your opinion, but a person that "isn't bright enough" isn't likely to be able win reelection to a position like that.

 

 

I don't believe Iraq was about oil.

 

Even Alan Greenspan, pillar of the US establishment, admits it was.  (This from 2007)

 

>In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

 

So because Greenspan says it, that makes it so? As far as I'm aware he wasn't involved in the planning of the Iraq war so he's not even in a position to "admit" the war was about oil. Bit of a misleading title that, but then again I expected no less from the Guardian.

 

 

Regardless of one's own personal opinions of his policies he was definitely better than Obama at getting what he wanted done

 

Frankly, Mantis, there are huge mitigating circumstances. Has there ever been a major American political party as radical and intransigent as the Republicans are today? 

 

When your opponents are ideologically 180deg away from you on most issues, and at the same time see obstruction as their only route back to power, getting your agenda done is hard. Taking these into account, it's really quite incredible Obama and the Congress Dems have managed to pass as much of their legislation as they have.

 

Contrary to popular belief the Republicans aren't the only party that block everything for the sake of it. That's what happens in a divided government in America. Not saying I think it's right but that's just what happens and the Democrats aren't saints either.

 

 

Disagreeing with his policies is fair enough, but don't you think that's going a bit far?

 

Not far enough, he should be in jail for it, and Blair.

 

He was the figurehead for the neo conservative machine that was his father's legacy.

 

Condie Rice and co's lecturer in higher ed believed that lying to the public was acceptable if it was for the greater good.

 

Donald Rumsfeld whispered "War" in Dubya's ear whilst being a major player in the private companies providing laundry and food for the US military overseas.

 

Perhaps if Dubya hadn't dodged service in Vietnam and didn't have a vested interest in oil prices rising I'd be less cynical.

 

Bush's second term was won through his brother Jeb's blatant cheating. He shouldn't have got away with it, but a Republican judge fudged the investigation beyond the allotted appeal deadline.

Do you actually have any evidence that he was just a puppet for these people?

Edited February 28, 2013 by Mantis

[AVFCforever1991]

I don't believe Iraq was about oil.

 

Really? 

Edited February 28, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[Mantis]

I don't believe Iraq was about oil.

 

Really?

Yes, really. Is there something funny about that?

Edited February 28, 2013 by Mantis

[AVFCforever1991]

 

I don't believe Iraq was about oil.

 

Really? 

Yes, really. Is there something funny about that?

 

What else could it be about? Bringing democracy to the Arab world?

[Mantis]

 

 

I don't believe Iraq was about oil.

 

Really? 

Yes, really. Is there something funny about that?

 

What else could it be about? Bringing democracy to the Arab world?

If it was about oil then why didn't they simply forge evidence of WMDs? Makes no sense to go in there under the pretext of something knowing you aren't going to find it.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Mantis, my "childish little jibe" was a reference to the obviously mistaken idea that you might have a habit of persisting with a lost argument.

 

You're quite right to draw attention to it. Really, what was I thinking?

[AVFCforever1991]