Can we say it together? Hubris
March 27th, 2006Reading this NYTimes article got the blood boiling. There are a lot of passages that will give pause, but this one strikes me as underscoring the utter disregard for law that the sitting President of the United States has:
“A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.”
For example, this executive order issued by Gerald R. Ford. o
March 27th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
quote: “he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons”
That’s exactly what I thought all along. He was going to do it no matter what. That entire article only proves to me what I’ve thought about Dubya for years now: He’s a dangerous, egotistical ass.
March 27th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Yeah, but there’s really no case against W unless he has been receiving sexual favors. Then we can talk about what’s presidential and American.
How did we get here? Or, maybe a better question, how will we get out of this mess?
March 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Part of the magic of the executive order in our federal government is that the executive can issue any order he likes, including an order that invalidates a previous order.
It isn’t hubris, then, to speak of assassinating a foreign leader simply because that assassination would violate Ford’s order. Bush (or any other president) could simply invoke his own executive order allowing for assassinations and he’d be well within the law of the land the moment the order went into effect.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
At a root level, is it ever ok for one person, or even a group of people to make a decision about what is necessary to protect the United States? That’s a much more shocking question to me than if one person or a group of people sets in motion the events to carry out such an ideal on defense. Take this manís (and this group of peopleís) “hubris” at face value - is it ok then? Is it ok if their only desire is personal gain? I say in the second case it is obviously unacceptable. So then, how can trust ever be laid in a person or a group of people to be genuine in such decisions? Is Dubya to be taken at face value? Most today believe he is not.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Exactly which law is he disregarding?
March 27th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Don, I just want to see some god damn law in this country. My hope is that the hubris would apply to the President after he was prosecuted for violating the laws of the land.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:42 am
The government always has and always will need to take care of and perform business that you, myself, and the general public will have no inkling about. I’m totally ok with this. Does that make me an ostrich with my head in the sand? So be it. If it means that I can openly criticize my government, buy an iPod, be an ugly American, and go to bed knowing that I’ll be able to do it all over again tomorrow? I’ll take a Miller High Life, and please pass the Beer-Nuts!
March 28th, 2006 at 7:35 am
I am always surprised by the lengths people will go on their own personal vendetta while turning to the other side and saying “morals” and “values” and “ethics” and “God.” I am constantly fighting the urge to seek the President, conservatives, and all their following and say, “this God, this God that you all claim to love and honor does not preach on the murder and judgement of others, rather he claims that ‘he who is without sin, cast the first stone’ and ‘he should take the plank out of his own eye before attempting to take the splinter out of yours.’ This God preaches forgiveness, love for all, humility, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless; surprisingly, not mass murder, pomposity, revenge, judgement, or hate. It was God who said that judgement shall take place at the gates of heaven, and is not the job of those on earth.”
And with this I take a deep breath, and again think to myself that if we spent even 30% of the time and resources on causes like poverty, hunger, etc. as we do on war, that “world hunger” thing wouldn’t pose quite as much of a problem. Sigh.
March 28th, 2006 at 7:39 am
Two endless terms of Greek mythology in school taught me: Hubris is excessive pride suffered by a mortal who wrongfully thinks they are comparble to the gods. Such misplaced pride usually leads to a deserved yet really serious punishment delivered by divinity.
Read that generally to say Our Boy Bush is getting well above his raising. Hopefully he will be richly rewarded for it.
Indeed. All together, in four part harmony with shovels and rakes and implements of destruction:
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuubris!
March 28th, 2006 at 8:09 am
And yet 36% of the country still approves of Bush. How does that happen?
March 28th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Because of Bush’s Ivory Tower mindset, surrounding himself with people who only tell them what he wants to hear, he will continue to consider himself above the law–any law–when making his decisions about whatever he considers “good for America”.
As for being comparble to the gods, Bush thinks he’s God’s main man and doing His work. How egotisical and crazy is that????
Would someone please step up and do the whole country a favor by giving Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?
March 28th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
yep, that’s good ole president bush. All clinton did was get a blow job, apparently a republican can attack the world and is exempt from judgment.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:23 am
I have a hard time with media reports (as in being totally accurate and honest) so I tend to dissect them. Like this one you refer to - two of the three points the author refers to are presented as being direct quotes, but the third, the one you list above, is not. That makes me think the the line is the authors interpretation of what was actually stated, or what was actually within the memo.
My first translation of this was the president saying, not so seriously - “Or, we could just kill the guy”.
It’s interesting to read/hear the assumptions made by people, based upon the information they receive from the press.
My thought.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:37 am
I’m totally down with you, southerngirl, but I can I please save the term “Ivory Tower” from being coopted by Bush & co? I mean, he’s got patriot, true american, and good christian already.
The Ivory Tower is a derogatory term for academia, where we students and professors hang out theorizing and refusing to engage with the real world*.
The fact that “academia” enters the definition immediately disqualifies Little Boy Bush from getting to hang out in the Ivory Tower Lounge.
*I have issues with this concept to begin with, but, whatever, I would like my negative lables to be accurately applied.
March 29th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Jon: While I find assassination morally reprehensible, Ford’s EO doesn’t really count as a law. It’s a damn good idea, but it’s not a law.
March 29th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Right on Janell, that why the gospels were originally taught “ideas” and not rigid dogma to be used by bigots as justification for their murderous rage or ability to classifiy others below them on the fundamentalists’s scale of whos the best at being human.
Clinton against Bush, people? it’s over!. Alot of covert ops and out and out deceit ran strait through the last God only knows how many admistrations with regard to our foriegn policy agenda, for every world leaders handshake on the front page was some poor slob (probably with brown skin) getting wiped out or jailed for wanting big fat assed America out of their politics.
I know this is seriously unpopular thinking. That God and country hold us above others in our governments doings and tint us with white light is just juvenile and ignorant assumption.
Hi-eveah, as my southern granny would have said…Jon, I am so with you! we deserve some fucking accountability, I am a member of a free republic, not a socialist system patched together with a corporate band-aid subsidized by big govenments welfare handouts.
Who’s there? ooops, gotta run, Ashcroft is up my tailpipe, he’s determined to quiet me as I am apparently no “Patriot”.
Jess
March 29th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Geof:
http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html
“Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.”
Every president uses them and they are supposed to be legallly binding. Unless you are the King.
Here’s some testimony found on the Cato Institutes website:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wo102799.html
“Lastly, I would say that concerns about presidential lawmaking must not be written off as attacks on the policies underlying the executive orders. This is not partisan politics masquerading as separation of powers issues. It is true that it finds fault with President Clinton, but it is also finds fault with Presidents Reagan, Bush, and others.”
Executive Orders have been and are legally binding. The current president has broken the law. His staff has broken the law. He’s flip flopped on his own statements about firing people who break the law.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Tony Blair’s thoughts “Is this guy fucking serious? I can’t say anything, I am just going to sit here and pretend like I didn’t hear him…My God this guys an Idiot!”
Bush’s thoughts ” I am a genious, look at me go. I am the ruler of the WORLD! Tony Blair is looking at me with such admiration(although we know this isn’t the exact word he used…words this big aren’t in his vocabulary), he knows I am the best, he wishes he was super like me…” It goes on and on. You almost have to feel sorry for a guy this inadiquate for the job…okay you don’t.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Even assuming that the executive order is legally binding, Bush didn’t violate it by talking about assassinating Saddam. If he had decided to do so, he could have issued his own executive order overturning Ford’s (like Don said).
March 29th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
I didn’t say that W broke the law. I said he has a disregard for the law. He has the desire to be King and remake the law, which is what the executive order accomplishes. I don’t think he’d get very far if he issued an executive order that said it was okay to assassinate foreign heads of state.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Actually, you just did say that W broke the law: “Executive Orders have been and are legally binding. The current president has broken the law.” Also, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “My hope is that the hubris would apply to the President after he was prosecuted for violating the laws of the land.” — another way of saying he broke the law — since the word “hubris” means “exaggerated pride or self-confidence” and is not a legal term.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:13 am
shit, I did say that. I want to blame it on the Alka Seltzer plus.
Geneva Convention = broken (tried to alter definition of torture. it depends on what your definition of is is).
WMD = lied, mislead and conspired to mislead.
Treason = allowed staff to break the law involving revealing identity of CIA agent.
Hubris was not meant as a legal term. It was used to illustrate why I feel the president is where he is today. I believe he exhibits the traits every time he speaks. Even when he “accepts responsibility” for the shitty way he and his staff have dealt with the aftermath of two natural disasters. There isn’t an ounce of humility. He can sell a war, but he can’t sell that he cares.
March 30th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Um. What’s wrong with wanting to assasinate Saddam Hussein?
March 30th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Mistee, it’s illegal for an employee of the U.S. government to assassinate members of foreign governments.
Y’all are some cynical fuckers. More cynical than even I.
March 31st, 2006 at 1:10 pm
What’s wrong with Saddam wanting to assasinate ? What’s wrong with Bush wanting to assasinate Saddam?
It’s all about civility if you ask me. If you want to kill a man, at least have the balls to challenge him to a duel.
We could have settled Iraq with a Bush v. Saddam brou-ha-ha involving pistols at 50 paces. We could have erased out national deficit with the pay-per-view rights alone!
It’s all pointless anyway, war is not an extention of politics or diplomacy. No, war’s just like the Sex Pistols - a money-making scheme.