Bulldrek v3.0

Through a friend of mine, I found this website tracking the state polls and the possible electoral vote.

Though the webmaster admits having Democrat sympathies, I find the information quite interesting and mostly unbiased. What do you guys think?

The struggle for the Senate looks really fun, too.

It's fine, but he's going to be sad when Bush wins. The polls that list a battleground state as "slight Kerry" do so within margin of error, and Bush will win on election day turnout. So sad.

For once, I agree with Marius on the election. Unless some sort of absolute scandal breaks out, it's Bush all the way.

<lorg prays for an absolute scandal to break out>

I predict Michigan turns into a Republican state in 12 years.

There have been plenty of scandals already, and they change nothing. All Bush has to do is chant, "Terrorist terrorist terrorist, 9/11 9/11, God bless America," and any scandal disappears.

Bush scandals? Really? Where?

A few minor things. WMDs, Abu Ghraib, the 1000th soldier killed in Iraq. Nothing too big. It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.

mrmooky wrote:A few minor things. WMDs, Abu Ghraib, the 1000th soldier killed in Iraq. Nothing too big. It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.

Bush had absolutely nothing to do with Abu Gharib, nor did his staff. That situation was the result of a few sadistic reservists and an incompetant general officer. Similarly, whether or not Saddam had deployable NBC weapons is irrelevant; he was certainly working towards them, we had no way of knowing he didn't have them, and the mere possibility of an NBC exchange in the region poses too high a risk to every industrialized nation on the globe. The thousandth soldier killed is of no more significane than the first.

So the italics mean irony, right?

Rev wrote:So the italics mean irony, right?

Salvation122 wrote:

mrmooky wrote:A few minor things. WMDs, Abu Ghraib, the 1000th soldier killed in Iraq. Nothing too big. It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.

Bush had absolutely nothing to do with Abu Gharib, nor did his staff. That situation was the result of a few sadistic reservists and an incompetant general officer.

So the Commander in Chief is in no way responsible for nor accountable to his troops?

Cazmonster wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

mrmooky wrote:A few minor things. WMDs, Abu Ghraib, the 1000th soldier killed in Iraq. Nothing too big. It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.

Bush had absolutely nothing to do with Abu Gharib, nor did his staff. That situation was the result of a few sadistic reservists and an incompetant general officer.

So the Commander in Chief is in no way responsible for nor accountable to his troops?

For the actions of individuals? No. Certainly, for strategic decisions, but the President's job is the direction, not management, of the military. That's what the Joint Chiefs are for.

Cazmonster wrote:So the Commander in Chief is in no way responsible for nor accountable to his troops?

Certainly, in that vague way the President is responsible for everything that happens below him on the chain of command. But you knew that; you, like the other Bush-haters, just have to make it sound like he's /personally/ responsible, and not indirectly responsible, because instead of criticizing a bad president for the bad things he's actually done, people have to criticize him for the things that /look/ the worst, whether he's to blame or not.

This thread was a record from "Electoral College" to "Irrational reasons to hate President Bush." Pretty sad, really; there are a lot of vastly superior reasons to hate him than things he had no role or knowledge in.

mrmooky wrote:WMDs, Abu Ghraib, the 1000th soldier killed in Iraq. Nothing too big.

WMDs: Oh well. Better too soon than too late.
Abu Ghraib: Sucks, but it had nothing to do with Bush. I hope those assholes go to jail for a long time.
1000th soldier killed: For a war that's been going on a year and a half? We're doing pretty fucking good if you ask me.

It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.

People seem to forget that the problem there didn't have much to do with who he was fucking, but that he managed to perjure himself in the process of denying it. The fact that he lied about it under oath was the big problem. Of course, the morality police had their problems too, but none of them were legal.

I hated that whole process. He perjured himself, but only after dealing with the absurdly thorough whitewater investigation. Of course, if he hadn't tried to out-smart and out-lawyer the prosectution, most of that wouldn't have happened.

Raygun wrote:...1000th soldier killed: For a war that's been going on a year and a half? We're doing pretty fucking good if you ask me...

A war that ended almost that long ago, you mean. But this is all still way off the topic of the thread, and since I didnt have the time to read the actual site, I won't say anything about it until I do.

..

It did. Sort of. President Bush declared the end to major combat with that mission accomplished sign on the boat with plane photo op. Many people took this as an end of war.

3278 wrote:

Cazmonster wrote:So the Commander in Chief is in no way responsible for nor accountable to his troops?

Pretty sad, really; there are a lot of vastly superior reasons to hate him than things he had no role or knowledge in.

Article on Rumsfeld and Rice being involved in prisoner torture.

If Rumseld and Rice had a role in this, Bush must have. They're in his cabinet.

FlameBlade wrote:It did. Sort of. President Bush declared the end to major combat with that mission accomplished sign on the boat with plane photo op. Many people took this as an end of war.

And that shows you how much people pay attention Flame. You said it yourself-the end to major combat. And in a military sense-major combat is over. No longer is it a mass of assembled forces, with defined fortified positions, and clear strategic goals.

If the Bush administration is guilty of one thing, it's not holding the Pentagon more accountable. Mr. Bush, and Mr. Rumsfield aren't the people making the policies up-they approve a plan of action from a number of choices.

The Pentagon should have prepared them both better for what was going to happen after the war. That is what they get paid to do-think about how to fight and win wars, how to hold terrain, plans for every possible scenario. Holding Bush responsible for that is like holding the coach of the local football team responsible when the running back drops the ball. (And yes it happens all the time.)

Caz: I think maybe you over estimate how micromanaging a president is. He can't know everything his staffers know. There just isn't time. He is one man-there are how many cabinet members? And Mr. Bush is expected to have intimate knowledge of all their activities? Even football teams hire asisstant coaches man.

That is what they get paid to do-think about how to fight and win wars

Which of course they're never allowed to do, because we think we know how to run a war better then the US Military does.

Article on Rumsfeld and Rice being involved in prisoner torture.

If Rumseld and Rice had a role in this, Bush must have. They're in his cabinet.

Dude, the headline on that article is a lie. Nothing in the article ties Rumsfeld or Rice to torture. Rumsfeld is tied to concealing a detainee from the Red Cross at the behest of our black ops intelligence service, and Rice is tied to visiting Iraq. Wow.

Yeah, that's absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, the notion that if someone in the cabinet knew something, the President /must/ have is absurd.

3278 wrote:

Cazmonster wrote:So the Commander in Chief is in no way responsible for nor accountable to his troops?

Certainly, in that vague way the President is responsible for everything that happens below him on the chain of command.

Certainly in the specific way where the president sets up a detention camp in a military base outside the US with the explicit goal of making sure that the people kept there have no legal rights at all.

Certainly in the specific way where the administration makes sure that many prisoners are transfered to countries where torture is routine and continues to interrogate them.

Certainly in the specific way where the president announces to the world, and every US soldier, on camera that the geneva conventions do not apply to our enemies in the war on terror.

Certainly in the specific way where the white house finds it necessary to obtain a legal opinion that painfull interrogation short of that which would result from serious physical injury such as organ failure or death is OK.

Certainly in the specific way where the administration manages to ignore for several months complaints by the red cross and other organizations of prisoner abuse around the world only actually doing anything when photos show up on american TV.

At a minimum Bush and his administration created an environment extreemly conducive to prisoner abuse through numerous actions, inactions, and public statements and that makes him personally responsible. It is called "Negligance". Means even if he didn't actually order the abuse a reasonable person should have known that the actions he did take were very likely to lead to that abuse. Maybe he was negligant because he wanted them to happen, maybe he was negligant because he is incompetent. Either way he is responsible.


As for "mission accomplished" the problem isn't really his statement, "major combat operations are over" it is the giant banner in the background. This is Bush's modus operandi. He says "we have reports that saddam is building nuclear weapons" one time then switches to vague statements while cheney and others who don't face the same scrutiny scream "we know he has wmd and we know where they are" over and over. It is ethically equivalent to the famous testimony by Gates and Clinton where they so ludicrously parsed words. Bush never actually says saddam has anything to do with al-qaeda, in fact he will be sure to once say that there is no connection. He just strings the two together into long sentences that imply a connection. Standard marketing. Say the specific true statement once and imply the false one 100 times.

I enjoy a discussion as much as anyone else here, but can we please get this thread back to topic? Say, do you think this could be a reverse 2000? (as in Bush winning the popular vote but Kerry taking the electoral vote?)

It is very possible. When elections are this close, anything could happon.

It is less likely because Bush does well in those states with low populations and thus lower voter:electoral vote ratios.

Raygun wrote:WMDs: Oh well. Better too soon than too late.

Where were all these weapons going to come from? All that cash he built up under the economic sanctions?

Raygun wrote:Abu Ghraib: Sucks, but it had nothing to do with Bush. I hope those assholes go to jail for a long time.

See Rev's above post. Yes, we've established that the Bush administration itself was not solely responsible for the abuse, but they still have a fair bit to answer for.

Raygun wrote:1000th soldier killed: For a war that's been going on a year and a half? We're doing pretty fucking good if you ask me.

If it were a necessary war, you would be doing pretty fucking good. But it's not a necessary war.

Raygun wrote:

It's not like he, you know, had sex with an intern or anything.

People seem to forget that the problem there didn't have much to do with who he was fucking, but that he managed to perjure himself in the process of denying it. The fact that he lied about it under oath was the big problem.

That depends very much on whether you consider oral sex to be "sexual relations". Personally, I think it counts, but supposedly the majority of Americans disagree with me. Either way, there's not a chance in hell that a court would ever convict.

Something I have to wonder. Is it good to have a President who can evoke such irrational feelings of hatred or reverence because it builds up an interest in politics or is it bad because it's so damned irrational?

It's bad because it makes otherwise useful and interesting threads all about soap-boxes and chest-thumping. Even if it makes more people interested in politics, it's still bad because they become interested and immediately also become irrational.

And in the spirit of hypocracy, I get on my soap-box.

mrmooky wrote:

Raygun wrote:WMDs: Oh well. Better too soon than too late.

Where were all these weapons going to come from? All that cash he built up under the economic sanctions?

You're joking, right? I mean, this has to be a joke, because you have to know Hussein did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction, because he used them, on Kurds and Iranians, among other people. And you have to know he had umpteen Presidential Palaces. And that, sanctions or no, Hussein built up vast amounts of cash. So either you're joking, or you're being completely irrational because you hate President Bush and will say or believe anything to be on the side opposite him on every issue.

I...oh, you're being sarcastic. My bad.

Yeah. Let me chime in with 32 on that last one. The UN Oil-for-Food Program contained loopholes that allowed vast swaths of corruption, and as a result, Hussein was taking bribes and kickbacks and very literally amassed millions upon millions upon millions of dollars while under economic sanctions. He sold far more oil than should have been allowed, charged far more than a fair price and he and others in his party skimmed the excess off the top, and in addition to the cash, the oil which was supposed to be traded for food and necessities was often trade for prohibited items. Hell, French-made weaponry was making it into Iraq while under sanctions (not to knock the French specifically, because I don't have any info that their government was complicit in this, just that whoever supplied it got it from them first.)

Resources aren't the issue. Hussein under sanctions had more than enough resources to pursue WMD development and purchase. The question is whether or not he applied his resources in that direction.

mrmooky wrote:Where were all these weapons going to come from? All that cash he built up under the economic sanctions?

The same place the money to build the fifty-some-odd presidential palaces that were built and reconstructed after Desert Storm came from? That would be my first guess.

If it were a necessary war, you would be doing pretty fucking good. But it's not a necessary war.

That's what we call "hindsight". Better to lose a thousand guys over a year and a half than a hundred thousand in an hour and a half because nobody ever thought it was necessary to take control of a situation. And now we can't just back out. Do you want to just pack up and leave? I'm sure that would make everyone happy.

If things had gone smoothly and the transfer to a democratic nation happened painlessly (historically speaking it's not going anywhere nearly as badly as a lot of people would have you believe), you wouldn't be complaining about what was "necessary" right now.

That depends very much on whether you consider oral sex to be "sexual relations". Personally, I think it counts, but supposedly the majority of Americans disagree with me.

I seriously doubt that. Such a bullshit argument.

Either way, there's not a chance in hell that a court would ever convict.

Dude, come on. He fucking lied. You know it, I know it. If it were Bush who did it, you'd be on the other side of the argment right now.

Rev wrote:Certainly in the specific way where the president sets up a detention camp in a military base outside the US with the explicit goal of making sure that the people kept there have no legal rights at all.

What? No.

Certainly in the specific way where the administration makes sure that many prisoners are transfered to countries where torture is routine and continues to interrogate them.

Where by "many" you mean "One, who was a citizen of that nation."

Certainly in the specific way where the president announces to the world, and every US soldier, on camera that the geneva conventions do not apply to our enemies in the war on terror.

They don't.

Certainly in the specific way where the white house finds it necessary to obtain a legal opinion that painfull interrogation short of that which would result from serious physical injury such as organ failure or death is OK.

Cite. From a reputable news organization. That doesn't rely on "anonymous sources."

Certainly in the specific way where the administration manages to ignore for several months complaints by the red cross and other organizations of prisoner abuse around the world only actually doing anything when photos show up on american TV.

The Red Cross's complaints were mostly bullshit.

At a minimum Bush and his administration created an environment extreemly conducive to prisoner abuse through numerous actions, inactions, and public statements and that makes him personally responsible.

He did not create that environment, and even if he did, it does not make him personally responsbile.

Saddam: "What? No. Honestly, I had no intentions of attacking anyone with WMDs. Oh, that? One of Uday's little paintings, you know? He painted when he was seven. He was really into GI Joe... 'Yo Joe!' You know? Loved America, little Uday. Cutest little bugger. Let me show you the gold-plated AK-47! You'll love it!"

So he was a shitty leader and a tyrant. Does this mean we get to overthrow all of 'em, then?

I mean, I know where you're coming from and it's cool because Iraq had good intentions, but I'm also coming from two opposing directions myself. We've got our own problems, after all. Did we really have to take the time to get sidetracked? Does this set a precedent for interfering in the affairs of other countries we don't happen to like? Aside from pure power, what gives us the right to assume the mantles of judge, jury, and executioner?

ak404 wrote:So he was a shitty leader and a tyrant. Does this mean we get to overthrow all of 'em, then?

Well, ideally.

Does this set a precedent for interfering in the affairs of other countries we don't happen to like?

That was done a long, long time ago.

Aside from pure power, what gives us the right to assume the mantles of judge, jury, and executioner?

Your question does not parse. On the international level, pure power is the only thing that matters, regardless of what others tell you.

ak404 wrote:So he was a shitty leader and a tyrant. Does this mean we get to overthrow all of 'em, then?

That's not the justification given for the overthrow, nor the actual reason for it, and you know it.

ak404 wrote:Did we really have to take the time to get sidetracked?

No. It was actually pretty stupid and wasteful. History will judge this action poorly. Now, that's not to say /someone/ shouldn't have done something about Hussein's unproven assertion that he'd destroyed his WMDs, as well as his tyranny. I just don't think it should have been us.

ak404 wrote:Does this set a precedent for interfering in the affairs of other countries we don't happen to like?

As Sal said, "HA! No." Okay, I'm paraphrasing. Nations have been interfering in other nations since the beginning of nations. In fact, by any historical standard, the US is really quite nice and friendly.

ak404 wrote:Aside from pure power, what gives us the right to assume the mantles of judge, jury, and executioner?

There is no right but power. If there is something which gives right, it most commonly is said to be morality, and the US certainly could claim a moral necessity in this case. Nevertheless, since morality is bullshit, power is the only right. Fortunately, there are more kinds of power than force. Many of which we should have used.

3278 wrote:Fortunately, there are more kinds of power than force.

Not really. Diplomatic bullying is force. Leveraging trade is force, as is an embargo. Dumping a whole bunch of your currency is force. It's force that could quite possibly kill a lot of people too. It's just not as loud.

Well, that's semantics. My point was this: there are ways of enforcing your nation's will which do not require the use of weapons, or "physical force." Your nation can bargain, bribe, or beg a foreign nation; it can raise economic sanctions; it can approach the international organizations like the United Nations which exist for this purpose. And so on. I wouldn't call those things "force," although you're quite free to.

Salvation122 wrote:

3278 wrote:Fortunately, there are more kinds of power than force.

Not really. Diplomatic bullying is force. Leveraging trade is force, as is an embargo. Dumping a whole bunch of your currency is force. It's force that could quite possibly kill a lot of people too. It's just not as loud.

Semantics, Joe. You know he meant force of arms. Power can be defined as the ability to influence other nations; whether or not they consider that forceful is really irrelevant, and whether or not it is used aggressively does not affect its definition.

BTW: I know we have two well-spoken and voiced realists here: what theories of power distribution do you subscribe to, if any? (i.e. Balance of Power, etc.)

Well, my definition of force is something along the lines of "The application of power," but I understand where you'd disagree, as the word has something of a conotation.

One does not need to actively apply power for it to affect others.
The active application of power is what I mean by use aggressively, it's what you mean by force.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question to you, Joe.

Because this has gotten off-topic, I thought I would correct some misconceptions.

Torin Proud wrote:

FlameBlade wrote:
It did. Sort of. President Bush declared the end to major combat with that mission accomplished sign on the boat with plane photo op. Many people took this as an end of war.

And that shows you how much people pay attention Flame. You said it yourself-the end to major combat. And in a military sense-major combat is over. No longer is it a mass of assembled forces, with defined fortified positions, and clear strategic goals.

No! Bush's statements specifically said that no enemy forces remained in Iraq. It was a legal statement. It changed the rules the military had to work under.

It breaks down like this. A member of an enemy force is subject to attack anytime, anyplace. You find him naked in a hot tub, if you can identify hima as a member of an enemy force, he is a valid target. It doesn't even matter if he's armed.

But, there are no more enemy forces in Iraq. A member of the defunct Republican Guard can walk down the street and not fear attack from US forces if he doesn't do anything to provoke them. As can a German or Japanese soldier.

Salvation 122 wrote:

Certainly in the specific way where the president announces to the world, and every US soldier, on camera that the geneva conventions do not apply to our enemies in the war on terror.

They don't.

Yes, they do. The premise of the Geneva Conventions is that all combatants are lawful, to use the administration's terminology, and that declaring one unlawful must be done on a case by case basis. It can not be applied to an entire force without regard to individual circumstance.

Salvation 122 wrote:

At a minimum Bush and his administration created an environment extreemly conducive to prisoner abuse through numerous actions, inactions, and public statements and that makes him personally responsible.

He did not create that environment, and even if he did, it does not make him personally responsbile.

It would if he was a military officer. Creating, or refusing to change, a specific environment subjects a commander to punitive action for offenses that environment promoted. Why? Because, by virtue of command authority, one can create an environment. Therefore, any environment in place is there because of the command's choice, and thus, any offense promoted by the environment is condoned, approved, and possibly encouraged by the command.

Yes, they do. The premise of the Geneva Conventions is that all combatants are lawful, to use the administration's terminology, and that declaring one unlawful must be done on a case by case basis. It can not be applied to an entire force without regard to individual circumstance.

Um, not really. If I recall, the Geneva Conventions apply only to forces engaged in declared combat and war. Terrorists and terrorist groups that are not an actual country/government sanctioned army are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. This is me drawing mostly on memory but I'm sure this will be clarified by others.

Elldren wrote:Semantics, Joe. You know he meant force of arms.

Yeah, but starting non-hostile semantics games is, like, half the fun of these boards. Really. It's kinda sad.

Power can be defined as the ability to influence other nations; whether or not they consider that forceful is really irrelevant, and whether or not it is used aggressively does not affect its definition.

So... we're in agreement, then? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.

BTW: I know we have two well-spoken and voiced realists here: what theories of power distribution do you subscribe to, if any? (i.e. Balance of Power, etc.)

Again, I'm not sure what you're asking. On the international level, balance of power is something that just sorta naturally happens, and there's no real way around that besides global despotism and/or utopia in the Star Trek mode. Within a nation, I'm somewhat libertarian, but am happy with the Constitution the United States has (assuming a somewhat constructionist interpretation.)

Salvation122 wrote:

Rev wrote:Certainly in the specific way where the president sets up a detention camp in a military base outside the US with the explicit goal of making sure that the people kept there have no legal rights at all.

What? No.

How involved was the President in setting up Guantanamo Bay Detention Center for the holding of detainees? The government is certainly attempting to maintain it with those detained having no legal rights whatsoever. Equally, the government, presumably with the President's consent and tacit approval at the least, is attempting to maintain even US citizens apprehended within the US in a state without any real legal recourse. No charge, no trial, just indefinite detention in a military brig. I suspect Abu Ghraib was also set up in similar fashion, and again with the President's tacit approval - if not directly then by direct subordinates whom he directly appointed.

A query - Should Bush be wholly devoid of blame for the actions of his appointees, particularly appointees to his cabinet?

Sal: There are three major theories, and some other minor ones, regarding the distribution of power and how it affects international stability that are currently running through realist circles in the field of IR. The three major theories are, in brief:

Balance of Power: When all major actors are of equal or near equal power (relative, of course, to the other major states) there is stability. When the distribution of power ceases to be equal, there is instability, possibly leading to war.

Power Preponderance (Boxer): When states are of unequal power, with the strong dominating the weak, there is stability. When actors are of equal power, conflict, leading to instability and war, occurs.

Power Transition: When two states are approaching the same level of power from different original levels of power, there is conflict. (Best to think of this as a graph, and use a little low-level calculus)

And yes, if we use your definition of force, we are most certainly in agreement over the definition of power. I was just putting mine out there

Ang wrote:How involved was the President in setting up Guantanamo Bay Detention Center for the holding of detainees?

At this point, I don't believe it matters how much of a hand he had in setting it up. It's how little of a hand he has in trying to tear it down that bothers me.