2004-4-10 03:48:00
JJ Answer:
I have not been able to find any literal lie that Bush has told. Overall I think he is one of our more honest presidents. As with all leaders he has made some mistakes. I find it quite irritating, however, when someone jumps on Bush or anyone else who has made a mistake and accuse such a person of lying.
Lance:
Personally I think JJ you are putting your own spin on this, which doesn't help in helping the group discover what Illusion is.
JJ:
I think this is an unfair accusation. To put spin on something is to distort facts, usually with conscious intent to move an agenda forward.
My only agenda is to find the truth whether it makes Bush, Clinton, me, you etc look good or bad. It matters not.
If you truly see spin I would be interested in a specific example. It is entirely possible I make mistakes in anything I write about, but this is not spin. Spin involves a distortion, a twisting (spin) of the facts.
Lance:
There are clear instances of deliberate deceptions on the part of both the American and British Governments, saying that these deceptions were not known to Bush and therefore not 'literal lies' is something you cannot know for sure and thus just clouds the whole issue.
JJ:
To say that governments lie and spin is another matter. Someone in government is lying and spinning at any given moment. We have been talking specifically about Bush. My point is that people have taken his mistakes (or assumed mistakes) and called them lies. To do this is "spin" and mean spiritedness. Bush may have told lies, but my point is that I have not discovered any for sure and no one has pointed out one so far. If we cannot find hard evidence of lies then why not give the benefit of the doubt on Bush or anyone else?
Lance:
It is quite obvious you think Bush gets a raw deal from the media, however I believe he brings it upon himself by his own belligerent attitude towards anyone that questions his position.
JJ:
Where do you get this idea of a belligerent attitude from? Can you give me a specific example for I have seen just the opposite. I'll give you two examples.
Example 1:
After a member of the Noble Peace committee bragged that they gave Jimmy Carter the Prize as a slap in the face to Bush and Carter used his acceptance speech to criticize the President's actions you would think that Bush would have looked for an opportunity to put Carter down. Instead, he called Carter the next day with congratulations and praise. Carter was later invited to the White House and praised again by Bush. Since that time Carter has broken protocol many times and openly criticized Bush, but Bush has said nothing negative about him.
Example 2:
Gore, Howard Dean, Kerry, Edward Kennedy and others have called him a liar, miserable failure, traitor and about every name in the book and he has not responded in kind. He has been a gentleman to them all. There are a number of times he has spoken while thousands are protesting outside and be praises the virtue of living in a country where protest is possible.
Overall I have seen hate and venom directed him and he has often answered with patience and even kindness when possible.
Lance:
His repertoire of phrases are stacked full of logical fallacies in an attempt to manipulate those who are undecided or less educated. He thus creates one false dilemma after another to maneuver public opinion in his favor.
For those of you who are not sure what a false dilemma is it is when only two choices are given and the wording implies it is an 'either or' choice when, in reality, there are more options available. Here are some examples:
"You are either with us or against us"
JJ:
The with us or against us idea was lifted from the words of Jesus. Do you also think Jesus was presenting a false dilemma by presenting only two choices?
Actually Jesus was more stark in his injunction than Bush. Here are his actual words shortly after 911:
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
Note that he qualified his statement as pertaining to those who "harbor or support terrorism."
Lance:
In truth a person or country can be against terrorism without having to agree with the U.S' methods of dealing with that terror.
JJ:
Bush is not disagreeing with you here. He never said there is only one way to tackle the problem, but said it must be approached from many lines of attack. He stated that to be on the side of the United States one must not "harbor or support terrorism."
He has been far from black and white about enforcing this dictum. Interesting, his enemies criticize him for making this statement on one hand, and then not strictly adhering to it on the other. They can't have it both ways.
Lance:
"the U.N. should vote for war or face irrelevance" Again the UN's relevance is not dependant on it agreeing with one member state, however important that state deems itself to be.
JJ:
Your short and inaccurate quote distorted what he said. Here is the exact quote from his address to the U.N. on Sept 12, 2002:
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. End Quote
Note the difference in the real wording and that which you presented.
You quoted Bush as saying: "the U.N. should vote for war or face irrelevance"
But he really said: "Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
In other words he was correctly telling the U.N. that if it makes a resolution it should stand behind it and be willing to enforce it. If it does not do this then the resolutions are irrelevant making the U.N. irrelevant. This is impeccable reasoning that I have seen no one challenge - except through the changing of his words and intent and then arguing which that which he did not say.
Also note that weapons of mass destruction are just a small part of what was part of the U.N. resolutions that needed to be enforced. Other items mentioned by Bush where Iraq was in need of compliance were:
(1) They needed to cease supporting terrorism.
(2) They needed to cease persecuting "its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others..."
(3) Iraq "will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased."
(4) "Return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions."
(5) "It will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
Note that on WMD's he said that Iraq must "remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material."
These long range illegal missiles were discovered in Iraq after the war.
On all these five points mentioned by Bush (which are ignored by his critics) were items that the U.N. resolved to enforce but did nothing. These items were not merely a part of one resolution but many and also ingredients for the cease fire from the first Gulf War. If the U.N. makes firm resolutions over and over and does nothing to back them up then it is irrelevant indeed whether or not the United States acts. Bush was speaking quintessential truth here.
Lance:
I could go on but I don't want to drag this whole discussion into a debate about George Bush.
JJ:
I don't think you could go on as far as the war is concerned. I have searched the claims of his critics on the war and cannot find any that hold water.
Lance:
Personally I see this list as Pro-Bush so maybe I am here to provide some balance. :)
JJ:
I think there's quite a few here that think as you do. Members here realize that we all do not have to think alike to have an intelligent discussion. Most members here are open minded enough to consider other views when presented in a logical fashion.
As far as Bush goes I agree with him on the war issue but disagree with him on a number of other issues. He gets my respect because national security and securing freedom for civilization is the top priority. If freedom is lost then all the other issues mean nothing.
Lance:
I do however think that using the 'did Bush lie' question, when it can never be proved either way, is the wrong approach.
JJ:
I think this was a terrific example. Lets get back to my original point which is this. Many things that Bush has said which cannot be proven to be a lie are called lies because evidence indicates he made mistakes. Calling a mistake a lie creates illusion. Do you disagree with this point? Do you think a mistake is a lie? If not then we are probably in agreement with the principle being taught here.
Lance:
Taking specific examples of where the media deliberately attempts to distort the truth in regards to Bush, or anyone else for that matter, would in my opinion be a much better approach in a discussion about illusion. JJ: We'll explore this illusionary tactic shortly.
In the past I have taught the basic principles behind illusion and most people on both sides of the political spectrum felt agreement. But to really see illusion and how it intrudes we must examine how it plays out in reality. When we study such realities many will feel that we are stepping on toes and destroying sacred cows. Why? Illusion has power because we attach ourselves to them and they often are in alignment with our desires and beliefs.
Therefore, in presenting real examples of illusion I take the risk of offending people on both sides of the aisle. On this occasion I have appeared to take the conservative stance but illusion is all-pervasive and its unveiling will lead to judgment which land the seeker on both liberal and conservative views wherein the truth lies.
My mother used to say that there are no strangers, only friends you haven't met yet. She's now in a maximum security twilight home in Australia. -- Dame Edna
Copyright 2004 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved