Bush lies in memoirs

[CaptainPanic]

Bush has published his memoirs.

Apparently, those contain a twisted version of the truth... Schröder, the former German chancellor says Bush lies in his memoirs:

 

Schroder says Mr. Bush's description of the exchange is false. He said in that meeting and in others he told Mr. Bush that Germany would stand by the United States if Iraq is shown "to have provided protection and hospitality to al-Qaida fighters." He added, however, that it became clear in 2002 that the alleged connection between Iraq and al-Qaida "was false and constructed." (source)

Bush claims that Schröder had promised America to fight by its side in Iraq... (apparently regardless of the proof of weapons or terrorism connections).

I tend to believe Schröder on this one. Which leads to my conclusion: Bush lied while in office. And continues the lies in his memoirs.

 

Link to the international (English) version of Der Spiegel - which is the newspaper that came with the original story.

 

An interesting quote from Schröder's own memoirs about Bush:

He said Bush used "almost Biblical semantics" and, in reference to the US president's repeated mentions of his faith, wrote: "The problem begins when the impression is created that political decisions are a result of this conversation with God."

Some believe that this is Bush's revenge for being negative in his memoirs.

Edited November 11, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[lemur]

It's ironic that the language "false and constructed" would be used to construct "Iraq" as being unconnected with al Qaida and terrorism. The fact is that global political discourse always constructs institutional entities and the relations among them in an effort to regulate public consciousness and political attitudes. EU politics tends to promote the view that national autonomy should be the highest priority in global power-politics. This is why Bush was criticized for unilateral decision-making and failing to elevate national sovereignty to primary importance. Of course he is also chastised for making reference to "God" because doing so represents the idea that there are higher values than total subordination to social sovereignty.

 

Put simply, this is an age-old battle between cultural relativism and moral universalism. Some people want to divide the world into absolutely sovereign factions with total cultural autonomy about how to regulate the "subjects" of each "regime." Others want to deny absolute sovereignty to anyone on the premise that human authority is always fallible by nature, and it just happens to be convenient to reference the idea of a perfect supernatural being to indicate that it is possible for humans to strive to transcend human authority. I just wish this ideological conflict could be approached reasonably instead of resorting to manipulative ideological tactics that insistently push cultural absolutism instead of recognizing the causes and consequences of this philosophical/ideological divide in the first place.

[skyhook]

Bush : "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

[lemur]

Bush : "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Are there any approaches to authority other than oppressive rule by fear or free self-governance through reason and open democratic discourse?

[John Cuthber]

Are there any approaches to authority other than oppressive rule by fear or free self-governance through reason and open democratic discourse?

 

Sorry, can you clarify something.

Which side does a lying president come under?

[Pangloss]

Bush claims that Schröder had promised America to fight by its side in Iraq... (apparently regardless of the proof of weapons or terrorism connections).

I tend to believe Schröder on this one. Which leads to my conclusion: Bush lied while in office. And continues the lies in his memoirs.

 

Chancellor Schröder's opinion exists within a specific political context that provides an obvious motivation for him to also lie. So it's not objective evidence that Bush lied.

 

And there is evidence supporting President Bush's position. For example, the article below reminds us that after winning re-election in 2002 the Chancellor was much more supportive of the President's Iraq plan. It's not evidence that he was going to provide troops, of course, but it is evidence that the Chancellor was more supportive of the President's position than some would now have us believe. The article also provides context as to why the Chancellor would not have found it politically expedient to put boots on the ground.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/s733232.htm

 

It's notable that Germany didn't even send troops after Hussein was deposed to help with establishing peace in the region, even though German citizens were amongst those held hostage by terrorists during that time. (source) I guess German citizens felt it more important to blame Bush than to pressure their leadership to do something about that. Such is the influence of unreasoning hatred in local politics.

 

Also, I respect people's opinions, but in my opinion a pre-existing disposition to oppose a politician undermines the credibility of one's opinion. I saw an interview with Karl Rove the other day in which he said, "I side with President Bush on this one." I just kinda chuckled and said to myself, "oh, well, okay, if it's just this one, maybe he's right!" Still, Karl Rove has his opinions and I respect that.

 

"We are what we say we are, so we should be careful what we say we are." - Kurt Vonegut.

[timo]

Are you seriously seeing an article explicitly saying that Schröder rejected an invasion into Iraq before his re-election and that "he's still unlikely to supply any troops for the campaign" as an evidence that he promised troops for an Iraq invasion to President Bush?

[Pangloss]

Sorry, what part of "it's not evidence that he was going to provide troops" did you think actually meant "he promised troops for an Iraq invasion", Timo?

[timo]

Nothing. I just somehow thought you had a point and that your point was that President Bush possibly isn't lying and that Chancellor Schröder probably had promised to help invading Iraq. Must have completely misunderstood your post, then. Did you have a point?

Edited November 11, 2010 by timo

[Pangloss]

Yes, my point is that we don't know President Bush to be lying.

[timo]

That seems like a rather trivial fact to me and by definition (of a fact), I agree with that.

I do, however, find it extremely likely that he is either lying or -possibly worse- doesn't remember the situation correctly or wasn't fully aware of the situation back then. In public, Schröder (along with the majority of the German population) never supported invading Iraq, as far as I remember. So it wouldn't exactly make sense to promise troops and hope that later on no one in Germany will realize that they are at war with Iraq. And well, that notion seems to be supported by your link; which is why I was a bit confused that it was brought up in a context that I (mis-)interpreted as saying that George Bush probably tells the truth.

Edited November 11, 2010 by timo

[lemur]

Sorry, can you clarify something.

Which side does a lying president come under?

It depends on what your view of authority is. If you view a president as a top-down command-controller of a managerial government, a lying president is dysfunctional. If you view the job of the president to produce speech acts that stimulate the people to question authority and think critically, a lying president can be a stimulus of anti-authoritian self-governance. Bush's greatest success as a president was in stimulating public opinion from being largely supportive of the government as an economically determinant entity (a la Clinton 90s economic boom government) to being critical of government and institutional command-control ideology. People who like authoritarianism are disappointed in Bush's performance. Those of us who like to see people question government and regard the presidency as a relatively powerless figure-head appreciate Bush's symbolic leadership.

 

I have problems with how government has functioned during Bush's presidency as well as Obama's, but both presidents have had very clever ideas and made impressive and thought-provoking speech acts. Both are good figure-heads with critical representative value, as will Palin, I expect.

Edited November 11, 2010 by lemur

[CaptainPanic]

It's notable that Germany didn't even send troops after Hussein was deposed to help with establishing peace in the region, even though German citizens were amongst those held hostage by terrorists during that time. I guess German citizens felt it more important to blame Bush than to pressure their leadership to do something about that. Such is the influence of unreasoning hatred in local politics.

You seriously think that the Germans stayed out of the war to be able to blame Bush???!! That's just ridiculous.

 

How about the Germans not being too enthusiastic to fight any war after the experiences in WWII? How about a national feeling of guilt? Might that not be a little important too? How about the Germans having severe ethical problems with starting a war - especially a preemptive strike? That was the major influence in this decision...

Afghanistan is in fact the first place where German soldiers did any actual fighting. Until then, the only operations they had participated in were peace keeping missions in Kosovo, Somalia and Former Yugoslavia. (Source)... And from a German point of view, the war in Iraq was not "peace keeping", so they had ethical problems to join that war... and rightly so.

 

Bush and the people in the Pentagon were really not the first thing on their minds. If anything, the lack of pressure against the war (which was not to be interpreted as support) was out of politeness. Politeness to their ally... and because Bush, at that time, was saying phrases such as "if you're not with us, you're against us"...

 

You may search for some phrases from the Germans in the media, and construct a way to interpret that as "support", which Bush apparently did, but that has nothing to do with their actual position at the time.

[The Bear's Key]

And there is evidence supporting President Bush's position. For example, the article below...

You mean opinion piece. That link you provided isn't official news. They might be remembering some news of a real event, but just them saying it doesn't make it so.

[Pangloss]

You seriously think that the Germans stayed out of the war to be able to blame Bush???!! That's just ridiculous.

 

What I think is that relations with America are a highly-charged, dramatic component of German politics.

[lemur]

You seriously think that the Germans stayed out of the war to be able to blame Bush???!! That's just ridiculous.

The reason Bush was attacked was for unilateralism and failing to respect national sovereignty/autonomy above all else. European politics is dominated by national cultural relativism and protectionism. Bush just became the black sheep to attack in support of a certain kind of politics being pushed by EU ideologues.

 

How about the Germans not being too enthusiastic to fight any war after the experiences in WWII? How about a national feeling of guilt? Might that not be a little important too? How about the Germans having severe ethical problems with starting a war - especially a preemptive strike? That was the major influence in this decision...

This relates to the same moral conflict. As long as German aggression against national others is identified as the problem of WWII, the solution/prevention seems to lie in national containment. The idea that any force should transcend national containment out of a sense of universal morality is condemned. Moral relativism is insisted upon as absolutely the privilege of national sovereigns.

 

Bush and the people in the Pentagon were really not the first thing on their minds. If anything, the lack of pressure against the war (which was not to be interpreted as support) was out of politeness. Politeness to their ally... and because Bush, at that time, was saying phrases such as "if you're not with us, you're against us"...

If people believed that something as unethical as wrongful destruction was going on, why would they allow politeness to deter them from speaking up? That is an implausible hypothesis.

 

By the way, this whole grammar of talking about international relations as if all Germans think with the same mind is very Euro-collectivist. Is it really a good idea to imply that Germany or any other nation is a collective social unit with synchronized politics? Doesn't that lead in the direction of the kind of Nazi Propaganda that got Germany a bad reputation during the Nazi period? I think we should be talking about "sources from German media," "spokespeople of German government," etc. instead of promoting populist language.

Edited November 12, 2010 by lemur

[CaptainPanic]

The reason Bush was attacked was for unilateralism and failing to respect national sovereignty/autonomy above all else. European politics is dominated by national cultural relativism and protectionism. Bush just became the black sheep to attack in support of a certain kind of politics being pushed by EU ideologues.

If you're using complicated words to say that European countries dislike war, and use political means to prevent them, and that Bush became the black sheep because he was starting a second war (after already starting one in Afghanistan), then you're right. Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of English (it's my 2nd language only) and your rather complicated choice of words - but you almost make it sound negative that European countries tried to prevent Bush from starting that war.

 

This relates to the same moral conflict. As long as German aggression against national others is identified as the problem of WWII, the solution/prevention seems to lie in national containment.

What else would be the problem?

 

The idea that any force should transcend national containment out of a sense of universal morality is condemned. Moral relativism is insisted upon as absolutely the privilege of national sovereigns.

I am not sure I understand you.

We all joined the UN. All countries signed human rights treaties. We all join in peacekeeping missions. That sort of thing? Or do you mean a different universal morality?

 

Maybe I misunderstood you - again it's the choice of complicated words that confuse me a little. But anyway, I believe that the USA went directly against the UN's wish to continue weapons inspections in Iraq... and therefore went directly against the preferred international political force which was formed to prevent conflicts.

 

If people believed that something as unethical as wrongful destruction was going on, why would they allow politeness to deter them from speaking up? That is an implausible hypothesis.

Oh, the people did speak up (link 1, link 2).

I don't know why politicians sometimes allow their allies to do something they themselves think is morally wrong. It happens all the time. For example, there is no politician in the world right now saying that women's rights in Saudi-Arabia are violated. But they are. It just has some political implications to speak up. And sometimes politians don't wish to offend their allies.

There was strong pressure from America to join the war. So, European politicians who did not want to join chose their words carefully.

 

By the way, this whole grammar of talking about international relations as if all Germans think with the same mind is very Euro-collectivist.

I never suggested that the things I wrote were on the minds of every single German on this planet. I merely suggested that it was a factor of greater importance than the existance of the Bush administration. Pangloss suggested that the Germans didn't join the war to be able to blame Bush. I noted that there is another factor of greater importance. I said that WWII is most definitely a factor of importance when Germany, as a country, decides to go to war. There may be some Germans who do not think about WWII, but I can guarantee you that those Germans relevant to the military decisions will keep their national history in mind.

[John Cuthber]

Yes, my point is that we don't know President Bush to be lying.

 

He's a politician so I'd not bet against it.

Anyway, they guy led your country into an illegal war and you are worrying about whether he did it "honestly".

[CharonY]

Also the German constitution generally does not allow Germany to enter an attack war, unless it is under an UN mandate. Since this was not the case, the German government would not have a heap of legal troubles sending troops in (with the possible exception of medics). Theoretically they could have been allowed to conduct peacekeeping missions afterward, but the government could then be made complicit to an illegal war.

 

The main point, however, is that without an UN mandate it would have been almost impossible for Schroeder to assent to sending troops in.

Edited November 15, 2010 by CharonY

[lemur]

If you're using complicated words to say that European countries dislike war, and use political means to prevent them, and that Bush became the black sheep because he was starting a second war (after already starting one in Afghanistan), then you're right. Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of English (it's my 2nd language only) and your rather complicated choice of words - but you almost make it sound negative that European countries tried to prevent Bush from starting that war.

It is negative when people are willing to put national sovereignty and/or collective rights over the protection of individuals from oppressive governments or human rights interventions. If you strongly feel that moral wrong is going on and the most effective way for you to fight it is by committing acts that will be interpreted as war, how is it ethical to avoid war "at all costs?"

 

What else would be the problem?

genocide? authoritarianism/fascism? national-socialist populism/racism? If the German military had been crossing national boundaries to intervene in ethical abuses instead of conquest, wouldn't that have been legitimate?

 

I am not sure I understand you.

We all joined the UN. All countries signed human rights treaties. We all join in peacekeeping missions. That sort of thing? Or do you mean a different universal morality?

The conflict between state autonomy/relativism and moral universalism in US history occurred in the Civil War period where republicans rejected the kansas-nebraska act that allowed slavery to be decided by popular vote in each state separately. The cultural relativist approach to national cultural autonomy, imo, is very similar to the kansas-nebraska act in that it protects nation-states from moral interventions emerging as "foreign interference." This allows local/national powers to suppress criticism by relying on treaties to avert intervention. It would be like if a father abusing his children would have an agreement with the other fathers on the block that they would not intervene in his family affairs in exchange for him not intervening in theirs.

 

Maybe I misunderstood you - again it's the choice of complicated words that confuse me a little. But anyway, I believe that the USA went directly against the UN's wish to continue weapons inspections in Iraq... and therefore went directly against the preferred international political force which was formed to prevent conflicts.

Yes, this was highly politicized imo in order to send out the message that national governments have the right to restrict inspections. Personally, if there were ethical violations going on in my vicinity, I would want inspections and interventions to stop them. Wouldn't anyone?

 

I don't know why politicians sometimes allow their allies to do something they themselves think is morally wrong. It happens all the time. For example, there is no politician in the world right now saying that women's rights in Saudi-Arabia are violated. But they are. It just has some political implications to speak up. And sometimes politians don't wish to offend their allies.

Women's rights are being violated in the west too, but only certain people will say so while others prefer to pat themselves on the back for allowing women to show their faces, work outside the home, and have abortions, birth-control, and divorce.

 

I never suggested that the things I wrote were on the minds of every single German on this planet. I merely suggested that it was a factor of greater importance than the existance of the Bush administration. Pangloss suggested that the Germans didn't join the war to be able to blame Bush. I noted that there is another factor of greater importance. I said that WWII is most definitely a factor of importance when Germany, as a country, decides to go to war. There may be some Germans who do not think about WWII, but I can guarantee you that those Germans relevant to the military decisions will keep their national history in mind.

Is there any situation where a history-minded person will not say that the benefits of intervening outweigh the risk of looking like a military aggressor? Doesn't ethics outweigh reputational concerns at some point?

 

 

 

 

[padren]

Lemur, military intervention has to be a last resort, even when ethical violations are taking place. Consider the ethical violations going on in the US right now: people do die because they cannot gain access to basic medical services - should some righteous nation charge our shores and dawn and "liberate" us from ourselves? What percentage of the US population would have to die in the invasion before the "liberation" was in fact, less ethical than the violations being addressed?

 

It's nice to pursue Moral Universalism, but who decides what is universally moral? If the US government doesn't stop the marriages of 12 yr old girls to men in their forties in Utah due to a percieved "obstructively high burden of proof" (without cooperating witnesses, you can only charge the adult if sex can be proven) what nation can justify invasion, and the high death toll that would result?

[lemur]

Lemur, military intervention has to be a last resort, even when ethical violations are taking place. Consider the ethical violations going on in the US right now: people do die because they cannot gain access to basic medical services - should some righteous nation charge our shores and dawn and "liberate" us from ourselves? What percentage of the US population would have to die in the invasion before the "liberation" was in fact, less ethical than the violations being addressed?

Why should there be killing to prevent those wishing to intervene from doing so? If their intention is explicitly not to do harm but good, what right do territorialists have to kill them for their presence? BTW, why would you view the liberators as representatives of a nation instead of a cause?

 

It's nice to pursue Moral Universalism, but who decides what is universally moral? If the US government doesn't stop the marriages of 12 yr old girls to men in their forties in Utah due to a percieved "obstructively high burden of proof" (without cooperating witnesses, you can only charge the adult if sex can be proven) what nation can justify invasion, and the high death toll that would result?

Why do you assume a high death toll? What would the planned intervention be? To kidnap the girls and prevent them from marrying? If they would be kidnapped, couldn't their families simply file a complaint with the police, in which case they would have to either testify that they were in fact kidnapped against their will or that they were liberated from marital oppression? You seem to assume that when national borders are transgressed all other ethical considerations fly out the window. People are ethically accountable regardless of where they are doing whatever they are doing, no?

 

 

 

 

[Pangloss]

He's a politician so I'd not bet against it.

Anyway, they guy led your country into an illegal war and you are worrying about whether he did it "honestly".

 

Yeah, I am. I don't think accusatory rhetoric that isn't substantiated by evidence is good for the discourse. My two bits, anyway.

 

 

Theoretically they could have been allowed to conduct peacekeeping missions afterward, but the government could then be made complicit to an illegal war.

 

This is incorrect. The United Nations supported the Iraq effort after it started:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1483

The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, resolved many of the legal and governmental ambiguities that resulted from the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and U.K.-led "coalition of the willing". Its three most important features are that it empowered the US-UK coalition, making it the legitimate and legal governing and peacekeeping authority; recognised the creation of a transitional governing council of Iraqis; and removed all sanctions against Iraq that were placed upon the former regime of Saddam Hussein under resolutions 661 (1991), 778 (1992) and others.[4] Additionally, it terminated the Oil-for-Food Programme.

 

And this effort enabled a number of other countries to get involved in humanitarian *and* security actions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Assistance_Mission_in_Iraq

 

Both of those resolutions passed in 2003.

[John Cuthber]

"Yeah, I am. I don't think accusatory rhetoric that isn't substantiated by evidence is good for the discourse. My two bits, anyway"

OK, why are you content with an illegal war, but not a dishonest one?

Would it have been possible to persuade people to go and die for a foreign country if you started off by saying "this is illegal but we are going to do it anyway."?

[padren]

Why should there be killing to prevent those wishing to intervene from doing so? If their intention is explicitly not to do harm but good, what right do territorialists have to kill them for their presence? BTW, why would you view the liberators as representatives of a nation instead of a cause?

First of all, we have a system of justice in the US that we consider to be held in high esteem - we consider the high burden of proof to demonstrate guilt a good thing, even if some guilty parties are never found guilty in a court of law.

 

So, these "liberators" coming from a foreign land, have to come onto US soil, and trespass on private property to "liberate" this 12 yr old wife against her wishes, against the wishes of her 40 yr old husband, and against the wishes of the child's parents. Once they liberate her, what are they going to do with her? She can't go back to her parents - they'll just take her back to her husband. If she's dropped off in the other side of the nation, she'll find a way to get back to her husband.

 

So what are these "well intentioned" liberators to do? You can't break down locked doors of people who under US Federal and State law have not committed any crimes, or even conducted themselves in a manner to justify a search warrant.

 

How could that not end in bloodshed?

Why do you assume a high death toll? What would the planned intervention be? To kidnap the girls and prevent them from marrying? If they would be kidnapped, couldn't their families simply file a complaint with the police, in which case they would have to either testify that they were in fact kidnapped against their will or that they were liberated from marital oppression? You seem to assume that when national borders are transgressed all other ethical considerations fly out the window. People are ethically accountable regardless of where they are doing whatever they are doing, no?

 

Perhaps you aren't aware of this idiosyncrasy within a subset of the Mormon religion largely limited to areas of Utah: A man in his 40s will "marry" a girl as young as 12 in a religious (non-legal) ceremony, and may take multiple wives in this fashion. Polygamy is still illegal, but unless they get a legal marriage the state can't do anything about the age of the girl or number of wives.

Most of the country finds this to be amoral, but it is difficult to identify and prosecute due to the lack of cooperating witnesses. The parents of the girl consider it not just moral but a duty within their religion, the girls consider it a moral obligation to respect their parents and their new husbands, and the husbands consider it not just moral but their religious duty as well.

 

You can't expect to hold everyone to be ethically accountable to the same standards when everyone believes they are right. Of course, naturally as all involved are human, it's safe to say none of them are right, but some are more right than others - but who is? The people who are more right and the people who are less right both equally believe they are right, so the weight of their moral convictions can't help.

 

 

Secondarily, who in their right mind would trust someone just because they say they have good intentions? If the police show up at my door I have rights and obligations under US law, but if some people from another country do the same why on Earth would I trust them? They are already breaking US law just being in the country for the purpose of usurping US law. So you have law breakers at my door demanding my compliance under threat (I assume they don't just want to make a polite suggestion, or they would have just emailed me) - but they are assuring me if I cooperate I won't be harmed.

 

You think that would go well?

 

You have to consider the guilty, those who are guilty but don't believe they did anything unethical, and of course those who the "liberators" believe are guilty due to bad information. You have to consider the impact on and risk to bystanders, and the fact that the liberators are breaking international law by taking justice into their own hands.

 

I cannot imagine how you think that would end in anything but violence.

 

And BTW, if we let people from Country A march into the US to save the 12 yr old girl because of Universal Ethics, who's going to tell people from Country B they can't do the same thing to stone a US citizen to death for drawing a picture of Mohammad? Under their cultural ethics they believe they are just as ethically justified to intervene in crimes against their God as others believe themselves to be for stopping crimes against human rights.

 

I happen to agree that human rights transcends the issue of borders and local law - but to take will-imposing actions against those violations is an absolute rat nest of trouble, and that's why we have over 175 embassies and consulates on US soil and a whole slew of international treaties and local laws.

Edited November 16, 2010 by padren