The Bush Administration is logically disconnected in its political behavior?

Question

Please help me identify a LOGICAL DISCONNECT in the behavior of politics. The Bush Administration for example, contradicts its beliefs in doing things like providing weapons to Israel for their war against Lebanon. Is there a logical disconnect there? Why do we, not just politions, sometimes have contradicting views? An example of a logical disconnect would be if you oppose higher tuition and the ban of welfare, while still opposing higher taxes. My goal here is to ask a critical thinking question. Is there a logical disconnection in the mindstate of our governement? Any other governments?

Answer 1

Examples of Bush's logical disconnect -

Causing the deaths of 650,000 Iraqis but opposing abortion

Attempting to federally ban same-sex marriage when conservatives favor states' rights and marriage is a state right

Promoting Christian values and then promoting torture

Calling one's self a conservative and then ignoring the 800 year old writ of habeas corpus

There are many others, I just don't feel like typing them out.

Answer 2

Where in the "Bush politics book of beliefs" does it state that we shouldn't supply weapons to anyone? I never heard that they don't believe in supllying weapons. Also, Isreal was not fighting Lebannon, they were fighting the Hezbollah in Lebannon.

Whatever the case, I wouldn't call it a conflicting view. I would call it a double standard in the name of conflict of interest. We supply weapons to Isreal because we rebuilt Isreal. It's like supplying weapons to California in the event that Mexico decides to take over California. Were we to supply weapons to the Hezbollah, we would be encouraging a state to attack an ally of ours that we basically brought back to life and have more close ties with than any other country.

If your best friend was being assaulted for his wallet, would you jump in and help him or the assailant? Or would you call that conflicting view and just stand there, not helping him at all?

Yes, Isreal WAS attacked. If you believe otherwise, you are suppressing the truth and seeing what you want to see.

And to the above, when did a baby learn how to shoot a gun from inside the womb? Not saying I agree with anti-abortion at all, but you can't compare that to killing armed insurgents.

When did Bush PROMOTE torture. Last I remember, he condemned it publicly. Maybe he turned his head at it previously, but that's not the same as "promoting" it.

In 1861, the "almighty" President Lincoln actually went so far as to suspend the habeas corpus during the civil war in response to riots. In 1871, President grant also suspended the Habeas Corpus to contend with the Klu Klux Klan. Technically and constitutionally, the Habeus Corpus only applies to those held by officials of the executive branch of the federal government and not felonious war prisoners.

President Bush does not "ban" gay marriage. He endorses an amendment that would restrict marriage licenses to heterosexuals, but would allow civil unions. Only 4 other countries in the world allow gay marriage: the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada. His problem lies in the fact that he has been pressured by other conservatives to support this bill. He did not initiate the idea. The thought, though not a good one, was that we don't want to use taxes to reward people for behavior we don't believe in. But then, we shouldn't reward people who cheat on their spouses or beat their kids either, for those are actually terribly wrong. Homosexuality is considered by the Bible to be a sin within the body, and does not affect anyone else, so I don't see why we should prevent other people from doing things that don't affect us. How it would negatively affect society, I don't know.

But these are Bush's views. While I don't agree with alot of them, they are not conflicting.

I like the answer below me.

Answer 3

This is a good question. The disconnect in the case of the current president has to do with separate agendas. Americans want their country to be safe, their people to be safe from harm (the kind they are exposed to in Iraq now, for example), and to prosper. The president wants these things too, but the president has other agendas that add to those of the ordinary American. GW Bush is maintaining his position on the Iraq conflict because he knows that his entire presidency may tip up or down historically on the outcome of the Anglo-American effort to install a successful democracy there. He desperately wants to prove his decisions correct and his leadership competent, and this substantial weight is added to his want to protect the United States as well as other concerns. He cannot say, of course, that thousands of Americans are dying to save the historical place of his presidency. No! He and his supporters do not frame the issue that way at all. They are trying, in their own minds, to give the Iraqi people a hopeful future - and the president's resulting reputation is not being considered.

But, regardless of what we believe, where we line up on these issues politically, it would be useful to honestly and rationally answer the question of whether and to what extent the competence of the GW Bush presidency relates to success or failure in Iraq.