2006 April 30 Sunday
Bush Uses Church Story To Lie About Iraq
Does George W. Bush believe his own lie?
Bush briefly noted that he sat in a California church yesterday near a "mother and stepfather" who were "grieving" for their son who had been killed in Iraq.
He went on to say: "I also want to let you know that before you commit troops that you must do everything that you can to solve the problem diplomatically. And I can look you in the eye and tell you I feel I tried to solve the problem diplomatically to the max and would have committed troops both in Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing what I know today."
Later, Bush said: "I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true. One, I believe there's an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free."
Bush is such a brazen liar. He even used a scene in a church and the grieving parents of a soldier who died in Iraq as a setting to make his lie sound more credible. How shameless. He never meant for a diplomatic solution to work with Saddam's Iraq. He wanted a war. For evidence see my post "Bush Never Wanted A Diplomatic Solution With Iraq". Bush started to plan for the war 3 months after the 9/11 attack. Bush put himself in a position where Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors couldn't be given much time because Bush had troops nearby he couldn't keep in position for a long period - at least in his thinking. So Bush set in motion events that made war the best option in his mind. George Tenet's "slam dunk" claim about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction makes Tenet one of the worst CIA chiefs since his statement helped make this debacle possible.
What's scary is that he may really believe that everyone has a desire for freedom put there by God Almighty. Never mind the copious quantities of evidence to the contrary. Even never mind the fundamental Christian belief that we are very flawed and sinful creatures. The beliefs he's chosen to make part of his own faith make him immune to mere empirical evidence offered up by the "reality-based community".
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
My guess is Bush believes quite a few of his lies.
That quote from the NY Times Magazine article is appalling and frightening. That could comfortably find a home among all the countless totalitarian aphorisms and memorable quotes like repeat a lie often enough... or how many divisions does he (the Pope) have?
I've spent the last five years trying to find something reassuring about Bush; as much to placate my fear that our political process is so decadent that it allows the election of a complete fool as anything else. I find nothing; just increasing evidence that not only is he a fool but he may be mad. The least comprehensible thing now is the fact that anyone would still support this administration. We should be in salvage mode at this point, looking to minimize any further damage that might come from the gradual catastrophe that is the Bush presidency.
The following web page compares the IQ scores of the states where the majority voted for Bush and states that voted for Kerry in 2004 (loosely speaking, this is a comparison between Republican States and Democrat States):
State Avg. IQ 2004
1 Connecticut 113 Kerry
2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry
3 New Jersey 111 Kerry
4 New York 109 Kerry
5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry
6 Hawaii 106 Kerry
7 Maryland 105 Kerry
8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry
9 Illinois 104 Kerry
10 Delaware 103 Kerry
11 Minnesota 102 Kerry
12 Vermont 102 Kerry
13 Washington 102 Kerry
14 California 101 Kerry
15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry
16 Maine 100 Kerry
17 Virginia 100 Bush
18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry
19 Colorado 99 Bush
20 Iowa 99 Bush
21 Michigan 99 Kerry
22 Nevada 99 Bush
23 Ohio 99 Bush
24 Oregon 99 Kerry
25 Alaska 98 Bush
26 Florida 98 Bush
27 Missouri 98 Bush
28 Kansas 96 Bush
29 Nebraska 95 Bush
30 Arizona 94 Bush
31 Indiana 94 Bush
32 Tennessee 94 Bush
33 North Carolina 93 Bush
34 West Virginia 93 Bush
35 Arkansas 92 Bush
36 Georgia 92 Bush
37 Kentucky 92 Bush
38 New Mexico 92 Bush
39 North Dakota 92 Bush
40 Texas 92 Bush
41 Alabama 90 Bush
42 Louisiana 90 Bush
43 Montana 90 Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 Bush
45 South Dakota 90 Bush
46 South Carolina 89 Bush
47 Wyoming 89 Bush
48 Idaho 87 Bush
49 Utah 87 Bush
50 Mississippi 85 Bush
For the record, I am not exactly a Democrat, but even the Jesus guy Jimmy Carter has an IQ that is reported to be 170, which is much higher than the Republican presidents. For the record, the IQ scores of Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kennedy, were much higher than Republican politicians overall. Some of the rare exceptions were Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who were incredibly smart, but overall, the IQ scores of Democrats are much higher, and their overall educational level is much higher (which is very important for this new era.) it is true that the Democrats have less backbone than the Republicans (credit must be given when it is due), but overall, there is a pattern here.
Steve Sailer debunked the states IQ hoax. The boax is obviously absurd. The white Mormons of Utah do not have an average 87 IQ. Look at state rankings for NAEP scores and other measures. The white western states have smart people in them.
My apologies! It appears that I have been had: my own prejudices made me to accept the "data" presented in that politically motivated web site at its face value...
However, I must say that my prejudices were acquired as a result of having personally spoken to a number of Republicans and Democrats, and even though both groups have their own strengths and weaknesses, it seems to me that the Democrats were slightly more educated, even though there are many educated fools in the world, myself included (sometimes but now always.)
If a site is entitled "Why we hate Bush", it's probably wise to remain incredulous, even with the countless numbers of reasons to detest Bush. Those Presidential IQ numbers you reference are also bogus. Finally, educational attainment is a very weak predictor of voting patterns. A state's educational disparity is a better gauge, but it's a macrolevel phenomenon (states with lots of post grads and lots of high school dropouts vote Democrat, while states with educational parity vote Republican).
If a statement is believed by the speaker, it is not a lie. A mistake perhaps, not a lie. It IS a lie to say, with what we know today, that Saddam's Iraq was not a center in the world terrorist movement, that it didn't have a nuclear program and chemical and biological weapons programs and that it did not pose a threat to its neighbors and the world in general. Not even the lowest-IQ leftist could allege such things without meaning to deceive.
Bush's presidency is only less than totally effective because of his reluctance to take real action against domestic enemies and regimes like Syria and Iran, and his inability to scale back redistributionism. Iraq is going splendidly, compared to how it would have gone under any other administration, especially a Democratic one. It wasn't Republicans who escalated the Vietnam war to a PR disaster. And Bush has not escalated the utterly essential Iraq liberation struggle. He has won it.
Sadddam's Iraq was not a center in the world terrorist movement, it didn't have a nuclear program and chemical and biological weapons programs and it did not pose a threat to its neighbors and the world in general. While Robert Spiers is a liar and an asshole.
I am quite sure that Bush believes the things that come out of his mouth (tortured in diction though they may be). I read a fascinating analysis that W is essentially an instinct-based decider. He trusts his own intuition more than evidence. The problem, of course, being that many facts in our complex world are counter-intuitive. Not only that, but our intuitions too often tell us what we want to believe. Bush has said that he just feels in his gut that certain Russian ex-KGB heads are honest, certain suddenly successful baseball players would never take drugs, and more recently, that oil companies would never make an opportunistic buck on Joe Consumer in a volatile market.
I concede that evidence could be interpreted many different ways -- but you have to at least start with the evidence! Also "reality-based" worldviews have such predictive power.
Reality-based worldviews are also flexible enough to modify themselves when challenged by new evidence. Religious worldviews seem to encourage people to calcify their earlier position in the face of new & contrary evidence. As with certain people who've been taken in by Nigerian money-laundering scams, the strength of belief depends not upon the strength of the evidence but upon how much the person has staked or invested in the belief.
Bush didn't give time for the weapons inspections. He certainly was lying and he knew he was lying. He wanted to take down Saddam back in the late 1990s.
If only more people were more interested in the empirical evidence on more topics we'd be a lot better off. Much of what is going very wrong with America today is due to willful choices to ignore the evidence. That holds on immigration, the "No Child Left Behind", racial preferences, the Iraq war, and other topics.
Saddam almost certainly had at least a limited WMD program in all areas, but this was only for his personal imperial ambitions to control his own territory, plus whatever he could take from Kuwait, etc. What I mean is that Saddam was the 100 % secular Western style dictator, who drank Jphnny Walker whisky and drove a mercedes. Saddam suppressed the Islamic influence with an iron fist, and if he gave support to Al Qaeda, this was for his personal political interests.
But Bush thought that he could use Iraq to encircle both Iran and also Saudi Arabia, and he must have really imagined that since Saddam Hussein's Iraq was ALREADY a secular country with a surprisingly strong western influence, he could have turned Iraq into a pro-American secular place... The "misunderstanding" was that Saddam was keeping the multi-ethnic Iraq together by extremely brutal means, but the Americans could not have used such politically incorrect methods. Additionally, without Saddam, the religious extremism was going to flourish in Iraq, which it did.
Also the oil companies also had some interest in invading Iraq, and Bush succumbed to this influence also.
This was the trap of the century. It is possible that even the future president (probably a Democrat) will not be able to get out of Iraq without letting the whole region fall into extremist hands. After the U.S. leaves Iraq, Saudi Arabia will probably fall. Either Al Qaeda will come to power in Saudi Arabia, or else Iran will take the oil of Saudi Arabia.
The greatest crime of Bush, is that he refused to start a Manhattan Project for energy research. He should have allocated $150 billion per year for energy research, starting on September 12, 2001 (as a "response" to the terrorist attack.) Had Bush started spending $150 billion per year on September 12, 2001, with nearly $600 billion spent by the end of 2005, we would have seen some positive results by now.
You have great faith in the power of government spending to achieve positive outcomes. My faith is not so strong.