"No tolerance for even a hint of scandal." -- just a sad reflection

[kurto]

In light of the news that Bush is calling for executive privilege again to stop ANOTHER person from giving likely damaging testimony before Congress... I just remembered the big promise made by Bush what seems so long ago... when he was first running for the Presidency Bush campaigned that they were the people to restore honor and decency to the Whitehouse. No more scandals.

"No tolerance for even a hint of scandal," he promised. I can't help but wish someone played this back for them every time they appear to covering up for one disaster or another (and its happened enough times to be embarrassing) by preventing testimony. We passed "a hint of" scandals years ago.

[irunnotgood]

He also campaigned on a "humble foreign policy" and no "nation building." But as we know 9/11 changed everything.

[Copernicus]

What actual "scandals" have there been that have been on the part of or not condemned by the administration. (As opposed to trumped up, unproven allegations by the anti-bushies).

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
What actual "scandals" have there been that have been on the part of or not condemned by the administration. (As opposed to trumped up, unproven allegations by the anti-bushies).

[/ QUOTE ]
As someone who recently called Bill Clinton a "serial sexual predator", your standard of proof will be, I'm guessing, a wee bit higher for Republican scandals than for Democratic ones.

But I'll bite anyway. By any reasonable definition, PlameGate, up to and including Libby's conviction on multiple felony counts and the commutation of his sentence, has to be acknowledged as a major political scandal for this administration.

[Copernicus]

Major is quite an exaggeration, and I don't seem to recall GWB condoning Libby's actions, only a belief that the punishment was too severe.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Phonying up evidance to drag country into war?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Phonying up evidance to drag country into war?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part of "As opposed to trumped up, unproven allegations by the anti-bushies)." don't you understand?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Phonying up evidance to drag country into war?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part of "As opposed to trumped up, unproven allegations by the anti-bushies)." don't you understand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it not generally accepted in America that the governments of US, Britain, etcetera relied on selective intelligence data which supported the existence of WMDs in Iraq - even though the much more reasonable conclusion was that they didnt exist?

This isnt contradicted even by the pro-war lobby over here (in Australia).

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Phonying up evidance to drag country into war?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part of "As opposed to trumped up, unproven allegations by the anti-bushies)." don't you understand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it not generally accepted in America that the governments of US, Britain, etcetera relied on selective intelligence data which supported the existence of WMDs in Iraq - even though the much more reasonable conclusion was that they didnt exist?

This isnt contradicted even by the pro-war lobby over here (in Australia).

[/ QUOTE ]

I said "proven", not "generally accepted". The answer to that is "it depends on your definition of 'generally'".

There was an assessment of risk, including an assessment of the likelihood that there were no WMDs or that there were. It was determined (in good faith, until someone proves otherwise) that the level of risk was unacceptable. That is the decision point, not whether "exist" or "not exist" is more "reasonable".

Eg. there may have been only 40% chance that they existed (so "not exist" is more reasonable), and 10% chance that SH could and would deploy them against US interests. Is 4% an acceptable level of risk, when the consequences are so extreme? (Not to mention the benefits of removing a despotic regime that killed hundreds of thousands and aided and abetted terrorism, which many consider to be more important than WMDs themselves).

But this a hijack to a debate on the war, not whether a pledge regarding tolerance for "scandals" was kept or not. I still havent seen anything that demonstrates it wasnt kept.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Phonying up evidance to drag country into war?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part of "As opposed to trumped up, unproven allegations by the anti-bushies)." don't you understand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it not generally accepted in America that the governments of US, Britain, etcetera relied on selective intelligence data which supported the existence of WMDs in Iraq - even though the much more reasonable conclusion was that they didnt exist?

This isnt contradicted even by the pro-war lobby over here (in Australia).

[/ QUOTE ]

I said "proven", not "generally accepted". The answer to that is "it depends on your definition of 'generally'".

There was an assessment of risk, including an assessment of the likelihood that there were no WMDs or that there were. It was determined (in good faith, until someone proves otherwise) that the level of risk was unacceptable. That is the decision point, not whether "exist" or "not exist" is more "reasonable".

Eg. there may have been only 40% chance that they existed (so "not exist" is more reasonable), and 10% chance that SH could and would deploy them against US interests. Is 4% an acceptable level of risk, when the consequences are so extreme? (Not to mention the benefits of removing a despotic regime that killed hundreds of thousands and aided and abetted terrorism, which many consider to be more important than WMDs themselves).

But this a hijack to a debate on the war, not whether a pledge regarding tolerance for "scandals" was kept or not. I still havent seen anything that demonstrates it wasnt kept.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough - and I didnt mean to debate the war as such, I was just surprised to hear that it wasnt universally accepted that there was deception as to the motivation for it.