“First, I wrote that when it comes to justice (did you get that? judicial decisions) Bush has a track record of sticking to certain principles.”
>>I haven’t seen evidence of such, I’m afraid. It seems to me that his track record re: decisions with respect to justice are no different than his track record re: decisions in general—the most critical factors informing them seem to be ideology and expediency. Certainly justice wasn’t served by widespread illegal wiretapping, or the systematic use of torture by US military and other agencies. Extraordinary rendition is about an unjust a policy as is possible--while we admit it would be unethical for us to 'do the dirty work' ourselves but we'll happily out-source to a third party so we cans still reap the benefits.
“Principles can be good or bad. I made no qualitative analysis of those prinicples. Secondly, I simply think I know enough about Bush to better predict who he will or won't pardon, than the author of this article.”
>>What’s the basis for that assessment—are you a personal associate of Bush or privy to behind the scenes information concerning his tenure as chief executive? If not, you’ve the same body of knowledge re: Bush the author has access to—the public record.
“In fact, it struck me that he does not know George W. Bush nor does he know the histories of many of these cases. I don't think you know him either because the sources of information you depend on have failed you, without you realizing it.”
>>What sources of information do I depend on, specifically? The only way for you to credibly make such a statement would be for you to have that information, and I’ve made no mention of it.
“On the issues you raised: I don't have the time to address all of them, so I will only address one - "knowingly [made] false claims". Do you realize what you are saying?”
>>Yes: I’m saying that President Bush made statements he knew available intelligence did not support to sway the nation’s public opinion and to convince Congress to yield the authority to invade Iraq.
“I think you are just parotting what you've heard and have not really look into this.”
>>I have to inform you you’re wrong, in that case. Rather than parroting something second or third hand I have really looked into this, I’ve read the text of Bush’s speeches, reports by the various US and foreign intelligence agencies, testimony by administration members involved at the time, and that information forms the basis of my opinion.
‘What you suggest is not even possible. Here's why, the President cannot withhold intelligence from the Senate.”
>>The President similarly cannot direct the NSA to wiretap conversations held by US citizens without within 72 hours applying for a warrant from FISA. He did not do so—why are you presuming he or the rest of his administration wouldn’t similarly withhold intelligence they found problematic?
“He and our intelligence agencies must and do disclose everything.”
>>The record shows otherwise. More to the point than concealing information known to be true was the widespread dissemination of information with no basis in fact—do you recall when he announced that not only did Iraq possess combat-deployable chemical and biologic WMD’s we knew not only how many they had but also where they were?
“The Senate has equal access to all intelligence. Did you know that?”
>>The Senate receives summaries of all intelligence from established agencies, all of which reported that Iraq did not possess an active WMD program, did not represent a regional or global threat, and had no ties to Al Queda. Do you recall that the Bush Administration created an ad hoc review group to re-examine all intelligence other agencies reported on and provide analysis for the express purpose of supporting a necessity for regime change?
“ It is not possible for the President to withhold anything because they all receive the exact same information.”
>>Apparently not—the CIA, etc. never received the information that detailed the location of all those combat ready WMD stockpiles.
“Bushes policies were drafted from that same information, not anything else.”
>>Bush made claims not supported by intelligence analyzed by the CIA, the Senate intelligence committees, etc. he either did in fact have other privy sources of intelligence or was making it up as he went along.
Your confidence in our government is refreshing—troubling in its naiviete, but refreshing nonetheless.
>> The Senate drafted 23 resolutions for invading Iraq, only one of them was weapons of mass-destruction. Are you aware of the 23 resolutions?”
>>Yes. I am, however, addressing claims Bush made rather than resolution the Senate drafted.
1. Sadam Hussien gassed his own people in a genocidal attempt to remove oppostion by the Kurds, in the north.”
>>Using a chemical weapons capability provided by US companies at the approval of the state department, at the time he was perceived as an ally in our struggle against Iran, yes.
2. That he violoated the no fly zones repeatedly, which alone was justification for regime change by force, according to the UN.”
>>It would have been justification for the UN to act as a body to impose sanctions up to and including deposition. But those were UN sanctions that were being vviolated, not US scantions, and they not only would not be justification for us to do so unilaterally, we would not only have to violate international treaty agreements to do so, but those weren’t offered as justification for a coalition invasion. That justification, you’ll recall, was the possession of an active WMD capacity that posed an imminent threat to US national security—so imminent, in fact, that we couldn’t even wait two to four weeks for the inspection process already underway to be concluded.
For all the rest—“he paid families 25,000.00, he attempted to have George Bush senior assassinated, etc.—yes: he was a very, very bad man. He exercised totalitarian control over the nation, he harshly suppressed dissent, etc. So what? That fact also wasn’t cited as justification for the coalition invasion until long after the fact when the myth of WMD’s/links to Al Queda had been exposed.
“There are at least two other important reasons for invading Iraq. 1. Great powers have always (since ancient Egypt) had the burden of keeping trade routes and sea lanes open for trade. Not to line thier own personal pockets, and not for oil in the simplistic sense, but to maintain stability and the quality of life, in this case, of the West. And while Europe gripes and complains about what we do for their own immature reasons, deep down they want us to provide this stability. 2. The problem of terrorism is not limited to the terrorist groups themselves.”
>>How exactly has deposing Hussein made the region any more secure (improving the security of trade routes) than previously? How has deposing Hussein reduced the problem of international terrorism? (If any thing it’s had the opposite effect.)
You’re going off on a tangent here, and I plead guilty for following along, but the point on the table was the strange notion that Bush’s track record supports the idea that he makes principled decisions. I see only evidence to the contrary.
“The other issues you raised are pretty lame. I'm sure they appear strong to you.”
>>Gutting the US constitution’s bill of rights is an issue of no importance to you? That apparent naiviete is looking more and more like fanaticism.
“So I will just say that each one has arguments on the other side, which you do not take into account, or you do not seem to know. “
>>Let’s look at the illegal wiretapping: what point does that have in its favorite, exactly? Absolutely nothing was gained as the result of failing to abide by the law: intelligence did not begin to be gathered any more rapidly than it would have been otherwise. Recall that the FISA statutes allow the immediate institution of wiretaps if timeliness is critical, prior to securing a valid warrant—all that must be done is for a warrant to be applied for within 72 hours of the start of tapping.
“Therefore, the burden of knowing comes down to you and how diligent and objective you can be, not to mention the quality of sources you have at your disposal.”
>>You keep talking about the quality of my sources without being aware of what they are, and suggesting yours are superior without identifying them. AS I’ve said, my sources are primarily the Congressional record and transcripts of official statements and communications by the parties involved. What are yours?
“If you depend on the media (left or right), which is apparent by your points, you will be badly informed.”
>>Then I must presume you’re not depending on the media: again, what are you supposed superior sources? Hannity and Colmes? Rush Limbaugh? FOX news? I’m curious.
