Nobody to match Bush
- Thread starter aphexcoil
- Start date
I had in mind a number of examples from Greek and Roman history, events that took place during pre-imperial, transitional, and imperial periods in the histories particularly of Rome and Athens - simply as an observation on human nature and familiar patterns that recur in democratic forms of government. The Athenians were famously subject to extreme reversals in opinion regarding war leaders - banishing or literally executing victorious commanders over perceived infractions against Athenian tradition or interests, and at other times suddenly reversing themselves and embracing individuals whom they had just recently rejected.
The factionalism, inconsistency, and wasteful self-destructiveness that became endemic to Athenian politics and war strategy are considered major reasons why, despite major economic and military advantages, Athens finally succumbed to Sparta. The example has stood literally for thousands of years as a warning to democracies, and as a major reason why many were skeptical, a couple centuries ago, that democracy could ever be made to work in the United States.
Those are you examples of democracy and comparing that historical and mostly barbaric society to present day USA?
Here are some reasons why your examples are useless and the product of inferior thinking and reason.
1. The framers of our government looked back and saw the problems with those "democracies." The instituted a system of checks and balances to prevent too much power ending up in the hands of a few within the government. They divided the responsibility for governing into 3 sections, executive, legislative, and judicial. Ancient "democracies" did not have this balance of power.
2. The "democracies" of the past were democratic for only the ruling class, not the common man. Today anyone who is an American citizen, no matter how poor or uneducated can participate in the process.
3. Our initial democracy did not include women, and minorities....and of course the "voters" in their "democracies" were quite limited in a percentage term of total population.
4. In the "democracies" of the past, there was no printing press or other means, such as the internet to allow information to end up in the hands of the electorate or even the politicians themselves quickly. They had to wait weeks at a time for messages to travel from country to country. This period of waiting led to impatience, and emotionalism.
5. The ancient "democracies" as you label them, had no press. The press is actually the 4th branch of government, as it serves the role of keeping the electorate up to date and involved in our democracy. Much of our history in this country would be quite different if we had the active press of today hundreds of years ago. Without the press, Nixon would never have been caught.
The factionalism, inconsistency, and wasteful self-destructiveness that became endemic to Athenian politics and war strategy are considered major reasons why, despite major economic and military advantages, Athens finally succumbed to Sparta. The example has stood literally for thousands of years as a warning to democracies, and as a major reason why many were skeptical, a couple centuries ago, that democracy could ever be made to work in the United States.
Those are you examples of democracy and comparing that historical and mostly barbaric society to present day USA?
Here are some reasons why your examples are useless and the product of inferior thinking and reason.
1. The framers of our government looked back and saw the problems with those "democracies." The instituted a system of checks and balances to prevent too much power ending up in the hands of a few within the government. They divided the responsibility for governing into 3 sections, executive, legislative, and judicial. Ancient "democracies" did not have this balance of power.
2. The "democracies" of the past were democratic for only the ruling class, not the common man. Today anyone who is an American citizen, no matter how poor or uneducated can participate in the process.
3. Our initial democracy did not include women, and minorities....and of course the "voters" in their "democracies" were quite limited in a percentage term of total population.
4. In the "democracies" of the past, there was no printing press or other means, such as the internet to allow information to end up in the hands of the electorate or even the politicians themselves quickly. They had to wait weeks at a time for messages to travel from country to country. This period of waiting led to impatience, and emotionalism.
5. The ancient "democracies" as you label them, had no press. The press is actually the 4th branch of government, as it serves the role of keeping the electorate up to date and involved in our democracy. Much of our history in this country would be quite different if we had the active press of today hundreds of years ago. Without the press, Nixon would never have been caught.
You said: "....Administration concluded it could not back up adequately and therefore should not have included in the SOTU."
Could not back up adequately? Oh, you mean did not have the FACTS to support their claim adequately.
So Bush used at least one non-factual statments in his SOTU, as part of his case to sell America into war.
Your spin that he did otherwise, knowingly of the truth of his statments or not is simply octrichesque.
Is the statement factual or not? That is a different question. As KF pointed out, one can tell the "truth" and be factually incorrect.
In answer, I would like to see a link to an article from something other than an OP ED piece to confirm the facts.
Barbarism is a value judgment. Indeed, the very origins of the word "barbarism" are in the Greeks' way of distinguishing themselves from other societies they considered inferior. If an ancient Greek was asked to pass judgment on contemporary American society, he or she might very well find much to fault.
It's obvious that those societies were very different from ours. Human beings have not changed very much since then, however: A few thousand years is not much time compared to the evolution of the species.
Right. As I was arguing, the framers of our government studied these ancient democracies, and considered the lessons to be learned highly valuable. In some instances, your view of those societies appears distorted or innacurate to me, but you have nonetheless helped to prove just how relevant a study of the ancient Greeks and Romans remains to this day, despite the great differences between their societies and ours.
The ancient Athenian and Roman democracies did have various checks and balances, as well as fairly sophisticated methods of disseminating news and shaping public opinion. If you study Roman and Greek debates over war and peace, for instance, you will find many interesting and enlightening parallels to current debates.
Critics of American policy would find that many of their arguments were foreshadowed - time and again, and often with great intrinsic merit - by speeches that were made in the Athenian Assembly or the Roman Senate. It was, for instance, a Greek who said, "She is a wide bed/who holds both democracy and empire." The Republican Romans were extremely wary - for good reason as it turned out - of victorious war leaders becoming too popular with the "mob," and thus gaining the ability overthrow normal democratic procedures and safeguards for the protection of the citizenry against misrule. To this end they employed numerous legal and traditional checks and balances in an effort to limit the powers and terms in office of consuls and "dictators."
A more accurate and less biased formulation would be: Bush has admitted to having included one inadequately supported item in his SOTU in the section where he was listing evidence that supported one aspect of his case for war.
So what?
You have not just once but repeatedly deployed exaggerations and mischaracterizations of Bush's statements and his case for war that are completely unsupported by any facts at all. I suppose that would mean that we would be justified in completely rejecting every argument you have made, and of accusing you of lying in order to sell us into opposing Bush.
One minor difference:
I am making arguments about Bush, and may or may not be lying in order to sell a point.
Bush was the acting president, whose job is to represent the interests of the entire country, not just one segment of society or industry, making arguments to exercise his power to take us into war.
I have no direct power or authority, Bush is the most powerful man on the planet.
I would think that is a minor point to consider.
If I am found lying, who really gives a fuck? What impact does that have on our country and the world?
If Bush is lying, it impacts our whole society, and the world theater.
A madman in the Middle East who:
1) Used WMD in the past,
2) has been proven without a doubt to be in pursuit of a nuclear weapons,
3) invaded two of his neighbors,
4) defied the international community for over a decade regarding verification of the dismantling of his weapons programs,
5) supported terrorists,
6) is openly hostile to the United States,
7) is a threat to the supply of the world's most precious commodity on which the global economy depends,
8) has been deemed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, virtually every intelligence agency in the civilized world and the previous Democratic administration (including the President) to have an advanced nuclear weapons program
...is removed from power, for many of the above stated reasons.
In a prelude to the invasion, the intelligence service of our British allies says Saddam has "sought" such material from Niger.
The President says so in his SOTU.
After the invasion and SH's removal, it is discovered that a document, one piece of the overall puzzle the US reviewed in assessing the British claim, was forged.
The US thus withdraws its claim, the head of the CIA takes responsibility for allowing those words to be in the SOTU speech, and our British allies insist to this day that the information is accurate.
Now Bush's opponents, frothing at the mouth, call him a liar and cry for investigations to unlock this conspiracy by our President to mislead the American public.
Assinine.
1) Used WMD in the past,
2) has been proven without a doubt to be in pursuit of a nuclear weapons,
3) invaded two of his neighbors,
4) defied the international community for over a decade regarding verification of the dismantling of his weapons programs,
5) supported terrorists,
6) is openly hostile to the United States,
7) is a threat to the supply of the world's most precious commodity on which the global economy depends,
8) has been deemed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, virtually every intelligence agency in the civilized world and the previous Democratic administration (including the President) to have an advanced nuclear weapons program
...is removed from power, for many of the above stated reasons.
In a prelude to the invasion, the intelligence service of our British allies says Saddam has "sought" such material from Niger.
The President says so in his SOTU.
After the invasion and SH's removal, it is discovered that a document, one piece of the overall puzzle the US reviewed in assessing the British claim, was forged.
The US thus withdraws its claim, the head of the CIA takes responsibility for allowing those words to be in the SOTU speech, and our British allies insist to this day that the information is accurate.
Now Bush's opponents, frothing at the mouth, call him a liar and cry for investigations to unlock this conspiracy by our President to mislead the American public.
Assinine.