Is Bush trustworthy
From Issuepedia
|
Contributing As always, Issuepedia is open for contributions (pro and con) from any source on this debate. If you do not feel comfortable trying to use the argumenticon templates, you may simply post your point on the discussion page or in normal text after the point to which you are responding; An Issuepedia editor will be automatically notified of the edit and will apply the proper formatting. Title For technical reasons, titles ending in "?" don't work well on Issuepedia, so we have left it off; the title is supposed to be: |
|
Is Bush trustworthy? |
[edit] Overview
This page is a structured debate on the issue of whether George W. Bush is trustworthy, especially on matters of importance.
This debate is currently open for counterpoints (arguing in support of Bush). Even if you are against Bush, it is helpful to document pro-Bush points so that they can be countered; it is much easier to dismiss an argument if you can think of a point which the argument does not address, and this debate currently does not raise any anti-Bush points. See Issuepedia:Reinforcement by Contradiction.
[edit] Debate
|
This page is in need of updating.
The template usage is obsolete. Also, it has not yet been answered by an opposing party.
|
Bush cannot be trusted.
-
In general, Bush displays characteristics which would not lead a sane person to trust him:
- He has lied repeatedly – and unlike Clinton's lie, Bush lies about important things.
- By working against democratic principles, he has broken his oath of office.
-
- He is unashamedly hypocritical, saying whatever it takes to get people to go along with him in the moment and then quietly reversing himself when the spotlights are off.
- Bush's actions in Iraq flatly contradict several statements he made during the 2000 presidential campaign.
- In 1999, Bush attacked Clinton for not having a timetable for withdrawal from the (ultimately very successful) Balkan Intervention. Yet when it comes to his own Intervention, he calls such attacks irresponsible and meddlesome.
- In 2000 (2000-10-03 Bush-Gore debate), Bush claimed that Gore believed in nation-building and that he, Bush, did not.
- In 2000 (2000-10-03 Bush-Gore debate), Bush stated that having a clear mission would be one of his requirements before deploying the military. Prior to declaring victory, Bush pointedly would not permit any discussion of post-invasion scenarios in Iraq – leaving that entire phase of the conflict not only without a clear mission but without any kind of plan at all.
- In 2000 (2000-10-03 Bush-Gore debate), Bush stated that troops would have to be in a high state of morale and readiness before he would use them – but in the face of the vastly overextended and undersupplied military post-invasion, he has steadfastly resisted, by methods both high-handed and underhanded, every attempt to reduce the military involvement.
- In 2000 (2000-10-03 Bush-Gore debate), Bush claimed that he would be very guarded in his approach to the use of force – but the Iraq invasion was pushed through over many strenuous objections and ignoring many diplomatic alternatives.
- In 2000 (2000-10-03 Bush-Gore debate), Bush claimed that the troops under Clinton were "not well-equipped" and "overextended in too many places", and promised to reverse this trend – yet they are now in far worse shape – much of which is due to corruption and poor management, and cannot simply be explained away as necessary under the circumstances.
-
-
- He runs a corrupt administration, and has not only made no efforts to stem the tide of corruption but seems to be covertly encouraging it. Where are the investigations of the following items?
- "losing" several billion dollars in cash, by the side of an Iraqi road.
- "losing" a quarter of a million weapons in Iraq without even keeping their serial numbers.
- "losing" several billion dollars worth of Iraqi oil per month... which is vastly more than the right wing screamed about, during the so-called "Oil-For-Food" scandal.
- complete disinterest in (and even suppressing) discussion of any of the disputes surrounding the events of 9/11, despite increasing furor from increasingly reputable people.
-
- Bush seems to have a fanaticism for secrecy:
-
Note: Secrecy encourages corruption.
- Government secrecy has skyrocketed under Bush, completely reversing what was his predecessor's general policy of opening up the processes of government to increasing levels of accountability and transparency, thus making Bush far less accountable for his own actions and making it very difficult to evaluate his honesty.
- He has also gone to extreme lengths to keep his pre-presidential career secret:
- As president, he first illegally and then quasi-legally prevented access to his Texas gubernatorial papers which normally would have been a matter of public record.
- During his presidential campaign, he refused to answer questions about his past.
-
-
-
