White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

[caliber66]

Our use of torture is not the result of incompetence, but a willful attempt to redraw the lines of the rules and laws that govern this country – along with those of the Geneva Conventions.

Do you honestly believe that agents of the United States did not engage in torture between the implementation of the Geneva Conventions and the installment of the present administration?

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

[JUDE]

Do you honestly believe that agents of the United States did not engage in torture between the implementation of the Geneva Conventions and the installment of the present administration?

 

 

Come on, since the conventions inception, the US is the only government not to follow it to the letter.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Come on, since the conventions inception, the US is the only government not to follow it to the letter.

Well ... there was the Germans in WW II ...

[Good Old Neon]

You are going to have to try alot harder to convince me that the big old US Government can do a damn thing against the forces of nature. I don't care what kind of resources are committed or the size of the budget, natural forces and or events will always trump the best of planning and or contingencies.

 

As too climate change, once again see my man V. nature point of view. Unless it can be proven that any climate change is man made I'm just gonna have to say it is somehow a natural occurrence, saying that, humans as a whole have a snowballs chance in hell of stopping the change. All we can do is try and adapt to the change.

 

You

[Gobias Industries]

Come on, since the conventions inception, the US is the only government not to follow it to the letter.

 

Well ... there was the Germans in WW II ...

 

Fix yourself up, bud. The best-standing versions of it were in '49.

[caliber66]

Well ... there was the Germans in WW II ...

 

 

Fix yourself up, bud. The best-standing versions of it were in '49.

I believe he would be better fixed to recognize JUDE's sarcasm.

[Good Old Neon]

Do you honestly believe that agents of the United States did not engage in torture between the implementation of the Geneva Conventions and the installment of the present administration?

 

No, not for a second (see also South America

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I believe he would be better fixed to recognize JUDE's sarcasm.

I was fixed several years ago.

[bobbob1313]

No, not for a second (see also South America

[Good Old Neon]

Yeah, that seems like pretty much a totally subjective distinction.

 

The terms I

[MattZ]

I did not vote for Bush. I was 16. I wouldn't have voted for him then, but I've mellowed out in my distaste for him since then. Like I said, I think he's merely incompetent, rather than flat out evil.

 

Chompsky, I'd be interested to read/understand your distinction between incompetent and evil since you've said this several times, but I don't think I've seen you go into depth on it.

 

I'd think that incompetence would assume that he was unable to accomplish his goals or to control his cabinet, or something like that. So far as I can tell, this is a guy who accomplished everything he set out to accomplish, and agrees/agreed with Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc each step of the way. No?

 

I suppose you could say that post-invasion in Iraq was conducted incompetently, but I'd chalk that up to hubris with bits of evil sprinkled on top. Not incompetence.

[bjorn_skurj]

Not hard to argue that Iraq is evil via incompetence, in which we all share a small part.

[bobbob1313]

Chompsky, I'd be interested to read/understand your distinction between incompetent and evil since you've said this several times, but I don't think I've seen you go into depth on it.

 

I'd think that incompetence would assume that he was unable to accomplish his goals or to control his cabinet, or something like that. So far as I can tell, this is a guy who accomplished everything he set out to accomplish, and agrees/agreed with Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc each step of the way. No?

 

I suppose you could say that post-invasion in Iraq was conducted incompetently, but I'd chalk that up to hubris with bits of evil sprinkled on top. Not incompetence.

 

I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did think he was doing the right thing by invading Iraq, even if there were also some ulterior motives involved. Mostly because I don't see how he personally profited from this. I think it was a political agenda that was implemented poorly. Invading Iraq, if done right, could have been a not gigantic fuck mess. This is where the incompetence comes in.

 

I also think if he or anyone in his cabinet knew when and where we were going to be attacked they would have stopped it. I don't buy into any of those theories.

 

I think it's easy to mistake a difference of opinion + incompetence in implementing those plans with a person being evil. If he invaded Iraq and didn't fuck it up is he still evil?

 

Really, he's been a pretty terrible president, but more from being an idiot than being some evil genius twisting knobs and buttons behind a giant screen.

 

I also think it would have been very hard for anyone to be popular in this stage in history. The economy's downturn was inevitable (as will be it's return to success in about 8 years), and there was no amount of force in response to 9/11 that would've satisfied anyone. We either would've done too much or too little depending on who you asked.

[viatroy]

some evil genius twisting knobs and buttons behind a giant screen.

 

 

that describes his puppeteer to a T

[myboyblue]

I haven't seen too many people accuse him of "evil" as much as an abuser of power with a clear agenda. People mistake his bumbling nature for incompetence and that is selling him short. He's clearly not an articulate man but his ego is massive and he knows no boundaries. He is abusing power to try and accomplish his agenda.

[Good Old Neon]

I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did think he was doing the right thing by invading Iraq, even if there were also some ulterior motives involved. Mostly because I don't see how he personally profited from this. I think it was a political agenda that was implemented poorly. Invading Iraq, if done right, could have been a not gigantic fuck mess. This is where the incompetence comes in.

 

I also think if he or anyone in his cabinet knew when and where we were going to be attacked they would have stopped it. I don't buy into any of those theories.

 

I think it's easy to mistake a difference of opinion + incompetence in implementing those plans with a person being evil. If he invaded Iraq and didn't fuck it up is he still evil?

 

Really, he's been a pretty terrible president, but more from being an idiot than being some evil genius twisting knobs and buttons behind a giant screen.

 

I also think it would have been very hard for anyone to be popular in this stage in history. The economy's downturn was inevitable (as will be it's return to success in about 8 years), and there was no amount of force in response to 9/11 that would've satisfied anyone. We either would've done too much or too little depending on who you asked.

 

It could certainly be (and has been) argued that Bush

[giraffo]

I think everyone is too overdramatic and cynical and doomsday mongering about all this shit. calm down.

[sweetheart-mine]

I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did think he was doing the right thing by invading Iraq, even if there were also some ulterior motives involved. Mostly because I don't see how he personally profited from this. I think it was a political agenda that was implemented poorly. Invading Iraq, if done right, could have been a not gigantic fuck mess. This is where the incompetence comes in.

 

I also think if he or anyone in his cabinet knew when and where we were going to be attacked they would have stopped it. I don't buy into any of those theories.

 

I think it's easy to mistake a difference of opinion + incompetence in implementing those plans with a person being evil. If he invaded Iraq and didn't fuck it up is he still evil?

 

Really, he's been a pretty terrible president, but more from being an idiot than being some evil genius twisting knobs and buttons behind a giant screen.

 

I also think it would have been very hard for anyone to be popular in this stage in history. The economy's downturn was inevitable (as will be it's return to success in about 8 years), and there was no amount of force in response to 9/11 that would've satisfied anyone. We either would've done too much or too little depending on who you asked.

bush surrounded himself with people who had had their own agendas for a long time. (see the PNAC site and read the "defense" documents. warning: will take you weeks.) in fact, i think it's pretty certain that they (cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle, and others) used him to carry out their own agendas, as outlined even prior to 9/11: gain control of the middle east and its oil. it was a wretched combination all the way around, since bush himself had other rabid flaws, as it turned out.

[uncle wilco]

gain control of the middle east and its oil.

where in the hell is all this oil? because i'd reaaally like to know.

 

that is about as cliched a statement as there is in regards to u.s./middle east issues going all the way back to the first iraq war.

 

meanwhile, i'm looking around the house for stuff to sell for gas money.

[viatroy]

The Project for a New American Century site has been down since May, which I find interesting in itself, but you can still find the central neocon philosophy doc "Rebuilding America's Defenses" here.

 

And here's the House Oversight Committee's doc on Cheney's tactics to hide his activities.

 

This is a neat little piece of work by Center for Public Integrity listing the contractors and the contract awards, with background on each, called Windfalls of War.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

where in the hell is all this oil? because i'd reaaally like to know.

The oil fields are about to be leased to multi-national corporations. Some of them American.

[MattZ]

I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did think he was doing the right thing by invading Iraq, even if there were also some ulterior motives involved. Mostly because I don't see how he personally profited from this. I think it was a political agenda that was implemented poorly. Invading Iraq, if done right, could have been a not gigantic fuck mess. This is where the incompetence comes in.

 

I also think if he or anyone in his cabinet knew when and where we were going to be attacked they would have stopped it. I don't buy into any of those theories.

 

I think it's easy to mistake a difference of opinion + incompetence in implementing those plans with a person being evil. If he invaded Iraq and didn't fuck it up is he still evil?

 

Really, he's been a pretty terrible president, but more from being an idiot than being some evil genius twisting knobs and buttons behind a giant screen.

 

I also think it would have been very hard for anyone to be popular in this stage in history. The economy's downturn was inevitable (as will be it's return to success in about 8 years), and there was no amount of force in response to 9/11 that would've satisfied anyone. We either would've done too much or too little depending on who you asked.

 

You make some fair points, but I think your position, on the whole, is a cop out. Sure, any president for these past 8 years would have faced an incredibly difficult task. And likely would have been criticized from opponents on both sides of the aisle.

 

However, George Bush has redefined hubris, has imposed his will (and the will of his VP and advisers) on this country with complete disregard to his campaign promise of being a compassionate conservative. Someone posted a list of things that he could be impeached for earlier in this thread. That list is long and scary.

 

I agree that to suggest that everything would be roses under Kerry and/or Gore is disingenuous and impossible to know. But to shrug one's shoulders and suggest that incompetence is to blame here (because he didn't profit financially?), not only minimizes the damage that the Bush Administration has done, but smacks of a contrarian opinion for the sake of being contrarian. This Administration was not incompetent. Sadly, this Administration was too competent.

 

EDIT: One other thing -- you said you give him the benefit of the doubt that he thought he was doing the right thing by invading Iraq. I do too. I don't actually think he was trying to make this country less safe. I think he believed that democracy might flourish in the Middle East and that it was worth the "chance." But that is irrelevant to the question of whether he was incompetent or evil. I'd say making up your mind to invade, and misleading the public is evil -- whether your intentions were good or not. It certainly doesn't make you incompetent.

[uncle wilco]

The oil fields are about to be leased to multi-national corporations. Some of them American.

well then, i hope the oil speculators are taking note of this. what's it gonna be? .10 cents cheaper a gallon in 2009? meaning it will be 5.92 instead of 6.02 next summer? can't wait for that...

 

thank you president bush...thank you...your crazy plot for middle east domination and control of oil is working after all! and it only took you and your father just shy of 20 years.... .10 cents a gallon...hot damn...

[bobbob1313]

I suppose I just can't bring myself to get that angry about it. Call it complacency, blame it on my youth and lack of real worries or problems, but I'm just not mad. Our country has been responsible for a lot worse, but today, we know more about it with more frequency.