Premier Rock Forum

wwittman wrote:

Incornsyucopia wrote:Reagan did a lot that I'm not a fan of, but at least he seemed to actually believe in the idea of small government ...

and yet he, like every post WWI Republican President GREW the size of government AND the deficit.

it's only propaganda... don't believe their advertising.

between Bush and Reagan it's almost too close to call.
both horror shows.

the only difference is that Bush has more crazies around him

Only in terms of the military though; other spending by the Federal government was cut. Reagan certainly didn't push through a monstrously inefficient new entitlement program like Bush's Medicare drug program, or extend the Feds involvement into education as Bush's No Child Left Behind. Both would have been anathema to Reagan.

Even the increased military spending was based on an idea that arguably turned out to be true: instead of planning for an eventual military confrontation between the USA and the USSR, why not try to outspend the USSR thereby forcing them to make deals which would eventually lower both countries defence spending in absolute terms. There are many reasons for why Gorbachev's reforms occurred, but one of them would certainly be the realization by the Soviet leadership in the early 80's that there was no way their economy could match, even hope to seriously compete, with the USA's in terms of what kind of defence spending they could allow. This led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War and the defence cutbacks that led to the balanced budgets of the late 90's that Bush has so totally fucked up.

alex maiolo wrote:

Mazec wrote:This shouldn't be such a tough question. To narrow it down a bit, no American president has done more harm to US foreign relations than Bush Jr.

At least under Reagan America was not viewed as a quasi- pariah state.

Judging by the results of the poll, people agree with you for the most part.

The thing is, here in America, among some, Regan has an almost mythical status. Some people in this forum aren't having any of it.

It's important to note that Bush II's asecendency to President could not have happened without Regan, who's cabinet changed the political landscape entirely. Not for the better, I might add. Politcs got a lot nastier in the 80s.

Once all of that is noted, and Regan has been put back on the hook, then clearly Bush II gets The Prize.

-A

Being from the US myself (just currently located in Germany), I know what you mean about Reagan's mythical status, and I have had to endure
many a conversation with those who subscribe to it (and the kids of those who subscribe to it).

While I agree with you that the currently wretched state of affairs caused by Bush Jr's administration couldn't have been possible without the Reagan Administration, I would like to point out that it was a totally different political playing field back then- during the Cold War, US presidents essentially had to be assholes and throw their weight around. For real or imagined reasons, it was practically mandatory.

In the '90s that obviously changed a hell of a lot, and the US's dominating influence over the world became primarily economic, no longer being a geopolitical chess game against the USSR.

The Bush Jr. Administration (I am confident that the man himself is not of the mind to have made this happen through his own doing) has brough us back to Cold War-style politics without there even being a goddamned Cold War anymore, and, in doing so, has successfully fucked a decent percentage of our population in the head, increased contempt toward the US in Europe and most of the world a hundredfold, and destabilized an already fucked-up part of the world even further.

That's why he gets my vote.

alex maiolo wrote:

Mazec wrote:This shouldn't be such a tough question. To narrow it down a bit, no American president has done more harm to US foreign relations than Bush Jr.

At least under Reagan America was not viewed as a quasi- pariah state.

Judging by the results of the poll, people agree with you for the most part.

The thing is, here in America, among some, Reagan has an almost mythical status. Some people in this forum aren't having any of it.

It's important to note that Bush II's asecendency to President could not have happened without Regan, who's cabinet changed the political landscape entirely. Not for the better, I might add. Politcs got a lot nastier in the 80s.

Once all of that is noted, and Regan has been put back on the hook, then clearly Bush II gets The Prize.

-A

Being from the US myself (just currently located in Germany), I know what you mean about Reagan's mythical status, and I have had to endure
many a conversation with those who subscribe to it (and the kids of those who subscribe to it).

While I agree with you that the currently wretched state of affairs caused by Bush Jr's administration couldn't have been possible without the Reagan Administration, I would like to point out that it was a totally different political playing field back then- during the Cold War, US presidents essentially had to be assholes and throw their weight around. For real or imagined reasons, it was practically mandatory.

In the '90s that obviously changed a hell of a lot, and the US's dominating influence over the world became primarily economic, no longer being a geopolitical chess game against the USSR.

The Bush Jr. Administration (I am confident that the man himself is not of the mind to have made this happen through his own doing) has brough us back to Cold War-style politics without there even being a goddamned Cold War anymore, and, in doing so, has successfully fucked a decent percentage of our population in the head, increased contempt toward the US in Europe and most of the world a hundredfold, and destabilized an already fucked-up part of the world even further.

That's why he gets my vote.

I am surprised with this being the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, no one has pointed out Bush's exemplary leadership in the handling of the Katrina disaster. It only took him four or five days, after finishing his vacation to get Air Force one to do a fly over of New Orleans.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:This is a great question. I lean towards Bush as being worse, simply because he has an ignorance, a willfull ignorance that I find very disturbing. He doesn't read the news - he gets it from Andy and Condi because he wants to avoid "filter".

Maybe Condi and Andy did not know about the Hurricane Katrina either.

galanter wrote:First, so far as I know to this very day we *still* don't have a full account of what happened to the WMD's that everyone agrees Saddam once had. Some speculate they were taken to Syria, similar to the way Saddam sent his air force to Iran.

The Duelfer Report judged it was "unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place." Of course, it's impossible to prove that this didn't happen, but we generally don't assume things to be true if, after a thorough investigation, there is zero supporting evidence.

galanter wrote:I didn't say the intel wasn't mixed. It was.

Agreed. The Bush administration knew at the time the WMD case was not airtight. They knew that there was a lot of doubt, dissent and disagreement within the State Department, the CIA and British intelligence, as well as among the UN inspectors and the IAEA.

So when the president, in making the case for war, said "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," he could not have literally believed what he was saying.

He purposefully overstated a case built from cherry-picked evidence and exploited public fear of terrorism to generate support for unilateral military action. If he had acknowledged the doubt, he would not have been able to push the AUMF in Iraq through Congress. The "imminent threat" language would have rung hollow.

To me, this sounds exactly like making up a fear one doesn't believe (imminent mushroom clouds) in an attempt to manipulate the public (into supporting a war he wanted to wage since 2000).

This is just one example where Bush says something that you take as an honest articulation of a core value, when what he's saying is not true and he knows it. Just like "most of my tax cut will go to the middle class" or "nobody could have anticipated the levees would break."

Here is another quick and relevant example. The president, during the Dubai ports deal, said "UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror."

But UAE is an ally of Iran, and has been for a long time. In fact, about a month later, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister met with the Deputy Emir and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. Both expressed optimism for expanding the relationship between Iran and UAE in all areas.

So Bush says UAE is our committed ally in the War on Terror, while he knows perfectly well that UAE is actually a committed ally of Iran. He can't genuinely believe both. In all likelihood, he believes cozying up to UAE is a necessary evil, and could potentially generate helpful intel. But this is not what he says.

galanter wrote:On matters of core values Bush strikes me as the kind of person who means what he says.

He strikes me as the kind of person who will say anything to get what he wants.

lars wrote:

galanter wrote:First, so far as I know to this very day we *still* don't have a full account of what happened to the WMD's that everyone agrees Saddam once had. Some speculate they were taken to Syria, similar to the way Saddam sent his air force to Iran.

The Duelfer Report judged it was "unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place." Of course, it's impossible to prove that this didn't happen, but we generally don't assume things to be true if, after a thorough investigation, there is zero supporting evidence..

The point is that we *still* don't know what happened to the WMD's that were known to be extant at the end of the first war. And the 17-some resolutions said that Saddam was obliged to demonstrate he had disarmed. We do know now, however, that at least some of the WMD's were in fact *not* destroyed.

The problem wasn't lack of proof they existed. The problem was lack of proof that they didn't. And after 9/11 that doubt looked like a much greater risk than it did on 9/10.

But keep in mind the question here. The question was does Bush tell lies about threats not because he believes the threat, but rather because he needs to synthesize fear to control the population ala 1984.

What you are arguing is that Bush exaggerated the evidence behind a threat he believed but couldn't justify based on facts alone, in order to gather support to fight that threat.

What I've been arguing is that it's the former that is not the case. The latter is a different question. I think Bush (and Co.) believed there was a credible threat from Saddam and WMD's, and then presented the best case they could make to back that up. The point is they actually believed the threat was real. You might feel that their belief was not justified, but that's different than saying they didn't have that belief.

For example, Bush may say he believes in God. You may feel that belief is not justified by the evidence. But that doesn't make Bush a liar.

lars wrote:The president, during the Dubai ports deal, said "UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror."

But UAE is an ally of Iran, and has been for a long time. In fact, about a month later, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister met with the Deputy Emir and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. Both expressed optimism for expanding the relationship between Iran and UAE in all areas.

So Bush says UAE is our committed ally in the War on Terror, while he knows perfectly well that UAE is actually a committed ally of Iran. He can't genuinely believe both. In all likelihood, he believes cozying up to UAE is a necessary evil, and could potentially generate helpful intel. But this is not what he says.

the dubai ports deal was fucked up by the US congress. that's why iran had nice things to say to UAE. we should all want to be UAE's ally. i don't agree with your implication. we can expect to see more backslides when congressmen let fear trump diplomacy. we had a chance to really improve arab relations there. it still burns me.
reagan was better.

galanter wrote:The question was does Bush tell lies about threats not because he believes the threat, but rather because he needs to synthesize fear to control the population ala 1984.

I've already granted Bush believed the general threat from Saddam was real. He was prepared to believe this no matter what, even if the evidence indicated otherwise.

However, he knew specific threats -- like a deployable nuclear weapon -- did not exist. Yet this was emphasized repeatedly in the pre-war rhetoric about yellowcake and aluminum tubes. The image of a mushroom cloud was used specifically to instill fear in the American public to gain broad support for an invasion. To me, this is a clear-cut case of using fear of a nonexistent threat to control the population. He doesn't get a pass because he believed Saddam was a threat in general.

My point about his quote was simply this: he said the intelligence indicated there was no doubt (not "I have no doubt"). He knew there was a great deal of doubt. So he said something he doesn't believe. He does this frequently.

For example, he promised to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak. If he really believed this, he would have dismissed Libby, Rove and Hadley.

Here's another: "Embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed themselves. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life, with inherent dignity and matchless value." If he really believed this, he would be pushing for a ban on IVF. He isn't.

Your original aside indicated that commenters in political threads were assuming all threats are invented exclusively for purposes of propaganda. For the majority here, that's not the case. Discussions tend to focus on how politicians exploit, distort, or mischaracterize threats in pursuit of political goals. Bush in particular has provided many reasons to remain skeptical.

lars wrote:

galanter wrote:The question was does Bush tell lies about threats not because he believes the threat, but rather because he needs to synthesize fear to control the population ala 1984.

I've already granted Bush believed the general threat from Saddam was real. He was prepared to believe this no matter what, even if the evidence indicated otherwise.

However, he knew specific threats -- like a deployable nuclear weapon -- did not exist. Yet this was emphasized repeatedly in the pre-war rhetoric about yellowcake and aluminum tubes. The image of a mushroom cloud was used specifically to instill fear in the American public to gain broad support for an invasion. To me, this is a clear-cut case of using fear of a nonexistent threat to control the population. He doesn't get a pass because he believed Saddam was a threat in general.

My point about his quote was simply this: he said the intelligence indicated there was no doubt (not "I have no doubt"). He knew there was a great deal of doubt. So he said something he doesn't believe. He does this frequently.

For example, he promised to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak. If he really believed this, he would have dismissed Libby, Rove and Hadley.

Here's another: "Embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed themselves. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life, with inherent dignity and matchless value." If he really believed this, he would be pushing for a ban on IVF. He isn't.

Your original aside indicated that commenters in political threads were assuming all threats are invented exclusively for purposes of propaganda. For the majority here, that's not the case. Discussions tend to focus on how politicians exploit, distort, or mischaracterize threats in pursuit of political goals. Bush in particular has provided many reasons to remain skeptical.

Absolutely. I can come up with specific examples all day.

In addition, let me add here that the politicians we are talking about here...and I'm going to go bi-partisan on this one...are not going into office to make piles of money, they are typically going in to do their stint defending the rampant robbery of their taxbase. Corporate welfare programs are profuse, and directly contradict the ideals of a genuine capitalism. We get one reminder of this every day in the form of junk mail. Being granted outrageous tax breaks and privacy rights intended for individuals are a couple of other favors our 'well-intended' politico's have showered upon elites. For every businessman who has made it in a way you might find respectable, there are hundreds more who have not.

Um, OK, I'm going a little off-topic here. No time...

Lars,

Your last 2 examples have nothing to do with fictional threats being used to control the public. That was what I was addressing. I am not mounting a full-spectrum defense of everything George Bush has done. I'm not happy with the Plame or stem cell record at all. But it's not part of the question.

Your first 2 sentences pretty much agree with what I am saying, albeit stated in a pejorative way.

The bit about atomic weapons was never "I have no doubt they have atomic weapons". It was more like "I have no doubt Saddam will continue to pursue atomic weapons". And subsequent information is that Saddam certainly never lost interest in such weapons, and he intended to pursue them as soon as he could wiggle out of sanctions or steal enough oil for food money to do so.

Finally I never said "commenters in political threads were assuming all threats are invented exclusively for purposes of propaganda." I said it was a sentiment I read here about specific threats with some regularity.