Well you did change your position after being refuted. This isn’t the first time, either.

“That is not my overall claim”

It is w/o you realizing it.

“No, he did not invade Iraq to install a democratic government. ”

This is just silly. Your bias is so thick you cannot make the slightest concession to Bush and even profess to know what he is thinking. The left really does have a lot at stake in Iraq. All they see and all they want is defeat. Of this there is no doubt. You even try to dismiss the known fact of a democratic gov’t being freely elected all in an attempt to discredit Bush. The intellectual dishonest is as astounding as that of the Soviets during the Cold War. Must be ideologically driven.

You are changing your position now as I refute you.
You did not refute me. This is so tiring. I made a minor mistake in a comment thread when I said “every” list. In a subsequent comment I made that minor correction and said “almost all”, which is more accurate. The basic point was that withdrawal of occupation troops was a major issue in the Iraqi election, and Bush immediately ignored it and continues to ignore it. Whether there was 100% or 90% unanimity on that does not affect my argument. You can’t really be this stupid, can you?

The 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive, unless you are of the ilk that wants us invading and toppling every dictator, which I don’t think you are.
Promoting democracy and embracing dictatorships is not mutually exclusive? Please, go on…

supporting democracy does not mean following polling data
That is not my overall claim. In each case of Bush’s hostility to the widely held consensus on matters of war, you can debate how significant that is within his supposed overall democracy agenda. Taken together though, it forms a pattern. I didn’t just cite poll data, that was part of my argument. I also pointed out his opposition to elections in Iraq, his hostility for his own Congress, hostility for foreign governments who did not overrule the wishes of their constituents and obey Washington, his opposition the desires of Iraqis for how their country should be run - expressed in polls and elections, etc.

The rest of your points are not really worth addressing since they don’t have much to do with the argument at hand. If you want to explain how our system of checks and balances work, or perhaps Egyptian art, then by all means, go ahead.

He initiated regime change in 2 nations to install democratic gov’ts… He could have easily swapped one dictator for another.
No, he did not invade Iraq to install a democratic government. As I said, he opposed elections in Iraq - both after the initial invasion and in 2005. The invasion was not to create democracy; the initial plan was to install Ahmed Chalabi, which proved infeasible because of how much Iraqis hated him. (In other words, the plan was to swap out dictators.)

The only thing you have to support your interpretation, other than picking at a misplaced comma here and there in what I wrote without refuting the major points, is what Bush said in public speeches.

My point was they don’t want us to leave right now, as proven by my poll cite. I agreed that they want us to leave (except the Kurds).

“I pointed out that almost all the political parties (and all the ones that won big) in the 2005 Iraqi elections featured American withdrawal on their platforms.”

No, you said “all”. You are changing your position now as I refute you.

“Bush has warmly embraced/supported many dictators around the world”

The 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive, unless you are of the ilk that wants us invading and toppling every dictator, which I don’t think you are.

“Bush has overruled the democratic wishes of the American people with his veto of the latest bill calling for withdrawal”

First, the USA is not a democracy. Second, supporting democracy does not mean following polling data (which supported the war) or require relinquishing Constitutional authority. Third, it is not hypocritical to support democracy elsewhere regardless of any domestic situation. Fourth, the POTUS is not a democratically elected position.

“You have claimed that I am arguing tangentially, but all of the above points are related to the thrust of the argument.”

They are non sequitors.

“So again, the challenge is to reconcile any of the above points with the assertion that Bush is a true champion of democracy.”

He initiated regime change in 2 nations to install democratic gov’ts, despite your petty and misguided complaints which may or may not be accurate. He could have easily swapped one dictator for another. This point seems to have completely escaped you and is central to understanding current events. Your failure to fully comprehend and apply this point has caused you to become very misguided on this issue.

So to summarize, here is my argument: Bush’s supposed love and promotion of democracy is a cynical manipulation of public opinion to curry favor for an otherwise morally dubious agenda.
Here are the key points supporting my argument, the evidence can be found above.
• Bush has warmly embraced/supported many dictators around the world
• Bush has supported the attempted coup of a democratically elected ruler
• Bush opposed elections in Iraq until compelled to allow them by popular Shiite led protest in 2005
• Bush has effectively decreed that Iraqis do not determine when or how the occupying military power in their country leaves.
• Bush has overruled the democratic wishes of the American people with his veto of the latest bill calling for withdrawal
• Bush has not pushed for funding to support democracy building enterprises in Iraq, much to the chagrin of some of his strongest supporters
• Bush has admitted that his rhetorical commitments to democracy do not signify any changes to American foreign policy
• Bush has expressed contempt for governments that followed the wishes of their domestic constituencies rather than Washington’s orders with respect to the Iraq war
• Bush replaced the general who wanted to hold elections in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war and appointed Paul Bremer, who ruled by fiat and rewrote Iraq’s economic and legal rulebooks.

You have claimed that I am arguing tangentially, but all of the above points are related to the thrust of the argument.

Here is my original statement about what Iraqis want, which you are so perplexingly hung up on:
“The Bush administration has continued, and continues, to overrule the wishes of the Iraqi population by perpetuating a highly unpopular military occupation.” See also point 4 above.

When you challenged me to provide evidence of this, I cited a number of polls where the majority of Iraqis expressed a strong desire to see us leave. You have invented a meaningless dispute - that I am arguing they want immediate and you are saying they want gradual withdrawal. I conceded they want a gradual one, not because I ever said otherwise, but because it doesn’t matter either way – Bush still opposes withdrawal!
When your lead sentence in reply to my polling data was “I’ve seen evidence to the contrary”, I didn’t realize you thought I was making a case conditional on immediate withdrawal (see the nature of the comment on 5/1 11:16pm). I thought you were contradicting the withdrawal part entirely, meaning you thought they wanted us to stay, when you were only objecting to the immediate qualifier. This misunderstanding is understandable because I never made immediate withdrawal a crucial part of my argument. But as I keep saying, I’ll concede that is gradual because, again, it doesn’t fucking matter in the context of this argument! Either interpretation supports my point!

So again, the challenge is to reconcile any of the above points with the assertion that Bush is a true champion of democracy.

All you have presented thus far are some public statements/speeches – which is exactly my point: all talk, contradictory walk.

You have refuted none of the above points, other than to claim they are tangential. Instead you have engaged in beside the point discussions, such as what your friends think of Hugo Chavez and the ridiculous mess about whether or not Bush is ignoring Iraqi desires for an immediate or gradual withdrawal.

Lastly,
You made the very snide point last night about an Iraqi’s position in government with regard to his lack of experience with democracy b/c it didn’t suit your argument, and now you cite the Iraqi peoples’ input as if you prior standard didn’t matter. This is, once again, a self-refuting argument by you.
WTF does this even mean? And how does it relate to this discussion?

My point was that the clearly expressed desire of Iraqis is for our forces to go, whether or immediate or on a short timeline is immaterial. That is what they want. Bush has repeatedly stressed that he is not going to do this.

Granted though, polling data, while a good representation of democratic beliefs, are not sufficient. So more to the point, I pointed out that almost all the political parties (and all the ones that won big) in the 2005 Iraqi elections featured American withdrawal on their platforms. Many Iraqis, interviewed after voting, said they were voting to throw out the occupiers. Bush, immediately after the elections, announced that the U.S. was not withdrawing.

How again am I missing my civics?

You made the very snide point last night about an Iraqi’s position in government with regard to his lack of experience with democracy b/c it didn’t suit your argument
Wrong. Read the cite I provided, the point was about the people and funding for building democratic institutions in Iraq. The person appointed by the U.S. to head it up was who I referred to. Nice try.

You are selectively interpreting polls to suit your politics. The very simple fact is they do not want us to leave now. This was proven by a cite I proved to a recent poll and by a poll from last year. After incessant whining by you for a cite on this I finally came across one and you tried to ignore it because it proved you wrong, and later conceded.

“I pointed out that he has overruled the expressed desires of Iraqis”

You made the very snide point last night about an Iraqi’s position in government with regard to his lack of experience with democracy b/c it didn’t suit your argument, and now you cite the Iraqi peoples’ input as if you prior standard didn’t matter. This is, once again, a self-refuting argument by you. But never mind that. Let’s see the next (related) whopper of an error you make…

“Bush has no intention to abide by the democratic wishes of the Iraqi population.”

Bush’s intentions are really something unknowable by YOU. So the very premise of your argument is false from the start. You go downhill from there as you make yet another fallacious assumption that polling data carries the force of a democracy, more specifically the Iraqi government. Perhaps you need to brush up on your poli sci, because your knowledge of government and the force of law is lacking, as evidenced by dozens of fallacious tangents by you.

Here is the conversation to now:
Justin: The Bush administration has continued, and continues to, overrule the wishes of the Iraqi population by perpetuating a highly unpopular military occupation.

Bugboy: Polling data shows they do want us out but not right now, though polling might not be the way to get thru this. I’m curious what you base your interpretation of the wishes of the Iraqis on.

Justin: I am basing my interpretation on what they have repeatedly told us. Here is a brief but by no means exhaustive account:… [polling information]

Duane: I’ve seen polling data to the contrary. But polling might not be the way to run this. Polling data shows Iraqis are very optimistic, and many polls show they want us to leave but not immediately.

My reason for bringing this up is related to whether or not Bush is a democracy loving visionary. As part of my argument, I pointed out that he has overruled the expressed desires of Iraqis, which as you concede, are opposed to occupation and want withdrawal. (I later noted how important this was during the 2005 elections, which Bush completely dismissed.) Now whether or not they favor gradual or immediate withdrawal is irrelevant, Bush has dismissed either scenario. So I’ll concede that the poll you site has it that the majority favors gradual withdrawal, with a caveat we shall get to in a second. But the larger point stands: Bush has no intention to abide by the democratic wishes of the Iraqi population. That is what is related to the issue we are discussing, not whether or not they favor a immediate or gradual process.

Now, about the poll. There is something curious about this particular poll: it does not ask about immediate withdrawal, the options are gradual withdrawal on a six month or two year time line. The only question about immediate withdrawal is a follow-up for those that respond they are opposed to a timetable for withdrawal. A small percentage are opposed to a timetable because they want immediate withdrawal. But nonetheless, your point stands and is immaterial in the context of our discussion. See again, about Bush and democracy. Whether Iraqis want immediate or gradual withdrawal – Bush has still overruled/ignored those wishes in spite of his supposed concern and love of democratic sovereignty.

“We cannot expect to force democracy on Iraq and have them just take it. They are going to resist, like they are currently doing. Why not try something else?”

Not necessarily a bad idea….IF WE DON’T PULLOUT. Ultimately, Bush’s original notion of a free Iraq won’t exist, but let’s hope for something as close as possible.

I can think of no greater joy for the DC Dems than a complete humanitarian disaster following a total pullout. Nothing is more obvious than their cynicism towards the Iraqis as to cause this to happen. I keep bringing this up, but you don’t seem to question these so-called leaders (many of whom voted for the war) and immediately critique the right for not doing the same.