May 10, 2004

• Interesting link (I don't read Slate, so I wouldn't have found it otherwise). This highlights something that truly scares me about Bush -- not that he's supposedly "stupid" but that he's anti-learning, anti-intellectual, and that he lashes out at the idea of learning as a bad thing.
• ah, yes. mr. bush highlights my example of what differentiates "dumb" from "stupid". "dumb" describes a person who is incapable of learning something (albeit not a very nice way to put it). "stupid" describes an individual who, upon given the chnace to learn something, deliberately chooses not to do so. thus mr. bush is indeed a stupid, stupid man. nice of him to trash our economy, our educational system, and out international reputation just to spite his old man. the dope couldn't run a state, i don't see how anyone thought he was capable of running a country...
• er... i was once given the chance to learn how to type, or at least to proof-read. does typing "chnace" instead of "chance" due to faulty double-checking and lousy two-fingered typing make me stupid, by my own logic? drat...
• That does indeed make you stupid, Mr. Live Frogs. (May I call you "Caution"?) But since you're not running the country or a state, I think we can forgive you. On to the topic of the article. The sacriest thing for me is his squad of enablers and the legions of people who think his intellectual laziness is a good thing.
• Bush's old answer to hard questions was, "I don't know and, who cares." His new answer was, "Wait a second while I check with Jesus." The PBS-Frontline show on Bush's religion was very interesting. I think his born-again transition highlights more of his personality than the pre-born-again stories of coke, drunk driving, school cut-up, etc. Fundamentalist religious people don't usually ask for a lot of input on making decisions now that I think about it . . . actually i'm just happy this didn't turn out to be another double-post - what the heck was that all about?
• caution, caution live frogs. Bush's "trashing" of our economy has netted fairly nice results, from what I can tell of the latest economic indicators. Employment is up, job market is stabilizing, interest rates are still low and are not expected to rise by a whole heckuvalot, manufacturing and retail are both doing well, consumer confidence is at an all-time high, and well, "trashing" just isn't the right word here. Regarding this article, no animus toward Weisberg, but it's a fair assessment to say that judging Bush's presidency based on his linguistic skills is tantamount to saying Bill Gates is ineffective as the head of Microsoft because his company creates software with bugs in it. Second to that, I'll quote Mark Liberman: "I've started to feel the same way about Bush's linguistic miscues. You can make any public figure sound like a boob, if you record everything he says and set hundreds of hostile observers to combing the transcripts for disfluencies, malapropisms, word formation errors and examples of non-standard pronunciation or usage. It's even easier if the critics use anecdotes based on the perceptions and verbal memories of equally hostile listeners. And the whole thing has crossed some kind of line when you can make the AP wire by citing him for using a widely accepted pronunciation, like Nevada with the stressed vowel of cod instead of cad." It's easy to trash someone you don't like, and even more so for someone who's being recorded constantly. For his part, Weisberg isn't as eloquent or "speechifyingly" intelligible all the time, either. On preview, this is certainly no endorsement of Bush's errors. As someone with an English degree, I'm horrified anytime anyone mutilates language and grammar the way Bush does from time to time, but, (esp. living in Southwest, VA), I'm no stranger to it, from hillbillies on up to upper management in my company. Linguistic gaffes should not be the rubrick by which one's leadership and/or character are judged. Finally, thanks for the link, pete.
• Happy to contribute :) I wanted to link it because we had talked a bit about "Bush is dumb" over over here and I admit that I made that call based on his painful public speaking. The article however, starts off about his "nuke-u-lar" comments but then goes into more discussion of his policy-making style. Which apparently involves little to no debate or contrasting opinion. So if you're hell-bent on going to war (to coin a phrase, i.e. his religious convictions) then all the reasons in the world up to and including our international reputation, loss of soldier's lives, post-war occupation quagmire, etc. wouldn't change his mind. And *that's* why he's dumb in the opinion of the author. Back to his public speaking though, I've often wondered why his handlers have him speak so often to groups when it's not his strong point.
• ...Employment is up... Here's some Dept of Labor data to refute that claim...
• Back to his public speaking though, I've often wondered why his handlers have him speak so often to groups when it's not his strong point. Because if he doesn't, people get pissed at him not speaking enough.
• How's that a refutation? We're looking at pretty high employment, compared to say, 2000 or 2001. Matches 1995 records, when Mr. Clinton and the economic heyday were in full swing. Oh, wait, so if employment's not currently at an ALL-TIME high, then it's low, or...what?
• And if I could read, I would see that's UNemployment. Ignore my last post.
• Sorry F8x, I think you're a nice guy and all, but I've got to step in here and call shenanigans. Bush's "trashing" of our economy has netted fairly nice results, from what I can tell of the latest economic indicators. Employment is up, job market is stabilizing, Employment is up only when you compare it to the black hole it's been for the last three years. This is not a net improvement. interest rates are still low and are not expected to rise by a whole heckuvalot, This is a wash, higher interest rates aren't necessarily a bad thing. Especially when you consider the fact that they're near zero now. manufacturing and retail are both doing well Again, manufacturiung is doing well, if you consider an upgrade from critical to serious condition, "doing well" And the fact that retail is booming because people can't find better jobs shouldn't be a source of comfort. consumer confidence is at an all-time high, and well, "trashing" just isn't the right word here. Consumer confidence is not at an all-time high. It's beating expectations, which again, coming off the last three years isn't all that hard. I think "trashing" is rather apt.
• f8x, you're right that it's a cheap shot to criticism a public figure on the details of their speech patterns. Also I think that people jump too quickly to blame Bush for our economic woes, and I'm sorry that that has entered this discussion at all. I don't think that's really the issue here. This is being cited as evidence that our president deliberately rejects knowledge. Someone here or on the Other Site once said that while Clinton (and don't think I don't believe he had serious problems) was evidence that education makes the man, Bush derives his entire image from the claim that Andover/Yale/Harvard didn't change him at all, and that he's really just one of us. Since I believe education to be the clearest absolute good of anything we have in this world, I find that extremely distressing. Doesn't it lower your faith in this man to do his job?
• This is a wash, higher interest rates aren't necessarily a bad thing. Especially when you consider the fact that they're near zero now. So, that's good, right? surlyboi, I wasn't claiming that the economy is the greatest that it's ever been. But coming off a mild recession, we're doing pretty well, I think. Indicators are up, by which I mean that we can look for continued improvements in all areas of the economy. I know an immediate jump to optimal conditions would be nice, but that's not how things work. Considering that these improvements have happened under Bush's watch, I can't agree that "trashing" is the correct word.
• Could Bush's anti-intellectualism be part of a larger trend? Remember all the ribbing Dan Quayle took a few years ago? Both of them from the same party that tried to disband the Department of Education a few years ago. The Dumbing Down of America marches on...
• certainsome1 said: anti-learning, anti-intellectual, and that he lashes out at the idea of learning as a bad thing stunning isn't it, how closely this describes the islamofascist mindset as well? f8xmulder said: It's easy to trash someone you don't like, and even more so for someone who's being recorded constantly. riiiight. gee, if only clinton's utterances had been being recorded and analyzed by "hundreds of hostile observers" with such passion we'd have known what an imbecile that rhodes scholar was as well. your cover is blown.
• The Dumbing Down of America marches on... dumb citizen/consumers are good for business. why do you hate uhmurkuh so much?
• I don't know if it's mostly anti-intellectualism. It would seem that his born-again religion would preclude a vast number of opinions from even getting in the room with him. Taking the Bible literally is almost always a bad thing. A very, very bad thing. And that's what he does.
• Since I believe education to be the clearest absolute good of anything we have in this world, I find that extremely distressing. Doesn't it lower your faith in this man to do his job? rustcellar, I can understand where you're coming from. However, do you think that Einstein was a bad man or a poor scientist/theorist because he didn't finish school? Education doesn't just happen in the classroom. I believe Bush is an example of a "student of the masses."
• Taking the Bible literally is almost always a bad thing. A very, very bad thing. And that's what he does. Explain how.
• quonset, try reading in context. The man's Presidency is being judged because he has a linguistic shortcoming. And yes, Clinton had plenty of gaffes (just not linguistic ones) to get him in trouble. Choose your poison.
• According to Frontline, Bush takes the bible literally, as the Midland church group he was born-again with believes. But his religion, the religion that he seems to have embraced in Midland, seems like a very different religion than the religion of his parents. … His father and mother's church, the Episcopalian Church, is seen by some Methodists almost as a liberal or much-too-tolerant offshoot. The Methodist Church gives you an opportunity, and the Baptist Church even more, to believe in certain absolutes in an absolute way. The inerrancy of Scripture, not all Methodists believe that. But certainly there is that strain of thought that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The advantage of that is it gives someone like George Bush an absolute sense that there are absolutes in the world -- that the world is divided between good and evil; that the Bible is the absolute inerrant truth; that it is the word of God. …
• rustcellar, I can understand where you're coming from. However, do you think that Einstein was a bad man or a poor scientist/theorist because he didn't finish school? Einstien did finish school. (And without family connections to bail him out too...) He just took longer. And the comparison is apples and oranges because 'ol Albert never shied away from education or the pursuit of knowledge. He wasn't as intellectualy incurious as the shrub. Education doesn't just happen in the classroom. I believe Bush is an example of a "student of the masses." Wow, that's a frightening image. I wouldn't trust the masses to teach my dog to roll over.
• Choose your poison. I, for one, will choose adultery over war any day.
• this is more exacting: The easiest way to explain the differences between evangelicals and mainline Protestants is to start with evangelicals, because evangelicals have a clearer set of beliefs that distinguish them than mainline Protestants do. The term evangelical comes from the word "evangel" which is a word from in Greek from the New Testament that refers to the good news of Jesus Christ -- that Jesus came to save humanity. And evangelicals have a particular take on the good news. That makes them distinctive from other Christians. It could be summarized, I think, with four cardinal beliefs that evangelicals tend to hold, at least officially. One belief is that the Bible is inerrant. It was without error in all of its claims about the nature of the world and the nature of God.
• f8x, just curious....are you defending Bush because you actually think he's a good president and an intelligent man (with what you refer to as a "linguistic problem"), or, are you a Republican who's just defending your side's leader? Put another way...if you could choose a president from all available Republicans (including McCain, Powell, etc.), would you actually put George W. Bush at the top of the list?
• why do you hate uhmurkuh so much Best. spelling. ever
• Taking the Bible literally is almost always a bad thing. A very, very bad thing. And that's what he does. Explain how. posted by f8xmulder at 06:14PM UTC on May 10 Here is a pretty decent response
• rocket88, while I am a Republican (though I'd rather not stick to party line for every issue), I'm definitely NOT toeing the party line here. I'm defending Bush because while I question some of the choices he's made as pres., and while I wonder if he and his admin. have strayed off the path, I DO think he's intelligent and a decent President. Certainly no John Adams or Abraham Lincoln, or even Kennedy, but he's got something that people trust, and I believe it's an honest-to-God belief in something, not just politician jive. People have grown so tired of hearing politicians spouting off their expediency beliefs -- the beliefs they hold at a given time in order to attract one voter base or another. You can't say that Bush hasn't been *fairly* consistent with his stated beliefs, and that he's tried to run the country according to those beliefs. To his credit, I think he believes he's doing what's best for the country. He's popular because at least half the country believes the same thing, whatever doubts they may have about his leadership on individual issues notwithstanding - on the overall picture people believe in him. He knows this, and he knows how to milk it. I believe Bush is an adequate politician as well - I think detracting comments seen on this site and elsewhere attest to his political acumen. He's a great poker player, and has played some marvelous hands. He's also made some dumb bets, and kept playing when he should have folded. On the whole though, he's managed to keep many people guessing about what kind of game he's playing, and he's used that to his advantage. Intelligence - sorry, but he's not an idiot monkey chump puppet like you people think he is. I believe he has a firm grasp on events that are happening in the world and in the US, and he understands the big picture. What he's not spectacular at is nuance. I also think he's not got a great grasp on power playing. In that sense, he really has to rely on people like Rumsfeld and Rice, who know how to play hardball while finessing the finer points. He's always been a big-picture President. Part of being a good Pres. is picking a good team, and I think he's got a great team. Hopefully that explains some of my defense of Bush on this site. If not, then I suppose I haven't lost anything by trying.
• Uncle, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read about literal vs. figurative Bible reading. If that's a good argument for not believing the Bible literally, then I'll take my chances.
• Bush is a reflection of the electorate. That in itself says it all.
• but he's not an idiot monkey chump puppet like you people think he is. correct. the term is "idiot chump monkey puppet".
• Here's an interesting post on Bush as a Newtonian politician. I think it's interesting, and relates somewhat to this discussion.
• I don't know if Bush is "dumb", as some would say, or "stupid", as others would say, or perhaps both or perhaps neither. I try to look at everything he has done, some of which I agree with in principle, and other things I disagree with in principle. Do I think he means well for the majority of the nation? No, I think he's pretty much focused on issues that the radical conservatives want and little else. Do I trust him? Absolutely not. Even less so for members of his administration: Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, et. al. I think Bush's election has poisoned Washington and by extension, the nation - driving liberals and conservatives farther and farther apart, contrary to his promise to unite. I think he has gravely misread our allies willingness to support our plans and intentions. These, among many other mistakes. The smell of corruption is not strong, but I seem to catch whiffs of it, every now and then in the protestations of Executive Privilege being so freely flung about. I frequently disagree with conservatives on many issues, but some of them I respect because they at least pretend to be willing to listen to the other point of view. John McCain strikes me as one of those persons. Finally, there is a matter of character. Kerry isn't perfect, but the smear tactics pushed by the Bush campaign, and don't tell me he's not aware of them, do not hold up when comparing Kerry's personal military record to Bush's personal military record.
• He's always been a big-picture President. Part of being a good Pres. is picking a good team, and I think he's got a great team. I quote Dennis Milller (before he sold his soul to the RNC), "Bush surrounds himself with a good team the way a hole surrounds itself with a doughnut". I understand your defense of Bush, f8x, it's all a perspective issue, I guess. From my perspective however, he's done nothing worthy of praise. Perhaps with the exeption of snowing the true believers.
• Bush's unwillingness to hold press conferences that aren't scripted from start to finish is what convinced me he doesn't have a clue what he's doing. That, or maybe he doesn't feel like he has to answer to anyone?
• I believe he has a firm grasp on events that are happening in the world and in the US, and he understands the big picture. See, I'd say almost the opposite with one exception - he seems to think he know's what's going on at that very moment, but neither in the future or the past. There was some comment about his not knowing the history of Iraq (sorry I forget where I saw that) and confusing the branches of government ("The exectutive branch interprets the law") But he's definitely sure of himself for the right now. I don't know that that's "Big Picture", maybe just the "Big Now". On preview: Bush definitely doesn't feel like he needs to answer to anyone Mickey - there was a direct quote of his which basically said "I'm the chief executive, I don't have to explain why I do what I do"
• Werd, Mickey. It's the colossal arrogance of this administration I can't stand. The refusal to even admit the possibility they might be wrong about something.
• And he's not stupid. Just EVIL : >
• I attacked and took over 2 countries. •I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury. •I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!). •I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period. •I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market. •I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner. •In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I did). •After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history. •I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history. More which is probably worthy of it's own thread
• Finally, there is a matter of character. Kerry isn't perfect, but ... -drivingmenuts You scare me.
• Whilst I applaud f8xmulder for defending an unpopular viewpoint skilfully... On the whole though, he's managed to keep many people guessing about what kind of game he's playing, and he's used that to his advantage. Does this really sound like the actions of a president that you want to trust? Also, to risk the topic going, uh, off topic... The very idea of accepting every single word of a series of documents by dozens of different authors, over a period of hundreds of years, translated through two different languages and modified further as other people see fit, as the infallible word of God does not seem too bright to me.
• Where can I buy an idiot chump monkey puppet?
• f8xmulder said: I DO think he's intelligent and a decent President. I think he believes he's doing what's best for the country. I believe he has a firm grasp on events that are happening in the world and in the US, and he understands the big picture. f8x, I'm trying to understand your perspective, and not join the pile-on, but, try as I might, what you see in this guy is beyond me. How can we all have so many different perceptions of the same fellow? A politician hasn't made me this angry since Nixon was in office. You look at Bush and see an intelligent, trustworthy leader. I see a momma's boy in a man's body, full of boasting and bravado, but with little substance. Someone once said of Bush, "He was born on third base, but thinks he hit a triple." That sums it up for me.
• From f8x's link: We acted correctly on the intelligence we had at the time. Here's where reasonable, well-intentioned people can disagree, and I do. And that's a large part of my problem with this administration: presenting a concept as "fact" when it is often "opinion" if not downright "wishful thinking." I find the metaphor of Bush's thinking being Newtonian interesting: Are they 100% accurate? No. They are a highly accurate description of how bodies in motion work. But they are wrong. And the weirder the conditions, the wronger they are. See, I would find that apt in a humorous way, if I wasn't so appalled at the result. On preview: zedediah, that statement was made by Jim Hightower, and it was actually made about his father. But the same sentiment applies.
• i don't think this question is a very difficult one to answer. look at bush's actions... look at his reasoning... look at the things he has said... he's dumb/stupid/idiotic, and more importantly sociopathic!
• ambrosia-- thanks for the correction and link! pete_best-- the "Bush Resume" has been circulating for a year now, so may not be so link-worthy. The original was posted on the excellent BuzzFlash, while a newer version with links is here.
• Regarding character, it says a lot to me that Kerry volunteered for his duty and requested to get sent overseas. Bush requested to stay stateside. For whatever other faults there may be, Kerry was willing to place himself in the line of fire. Bush was not. I have not served in the military, but my grandfather did. I will not fault someone for doing so - in fact, I find it admirable that someone is willing to possibly give up so much. But anyone who does so also carries the burden of acting honorably. Wars are not the fault of soldiers, but politicians. It is our right to protest a war we find unjust, or unsavory, or un-whatever. We have that right under any circumstances because we have the right of free speech. Kerry did his service and decided that the war was wrong and he spoke up about it. Bush apparently bailed on his service and had to do makeup time on it. Who's got the character here?
• Sorry, in my book, the man's a liar AND an idiot. hundreds of hostile observers to combing the transcripts????? Gimme a break, the better half and I sit listening to him blather on and just look at each other--nearly EVERY televised speech he's made has some bloop, mis-spoking, nonsensical statement, contradiction, or outright lie. We don't have to comb anything, it's right outta his face every time he opens his gob. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. This prez and hiz administration has rewritten the book. For the sake of argument let's say employment rates ARE up. And exactly what jobs are being filled? Low pay scut work stuff that won't support an individual. I'm on the lower end of the economic spectrum (the other half being a gummint wage slave) and I know families where couples are each working two and three McJobs just to make their house payments and feed their kids. These are intelligent, college educated people who know how the system works. The ones that don't know how sleep on the streets. Indicators are up, by which I mean that we can look for continued improvements in all areas of the economy Yea, war IS good for the economy. Damn shame we have to kill people to boost our economic status. Bush. A Christian? shiiiiiiiiiit. I've known a few good Christians. Some of my best friends are Christians. Let's not tar all Christian's with the same bush. The man makes Christian into a swear word. Feh! I'm not going to get into it. Big business picked him as their puppet, whether he wins or loses this coming election, it doesn't matter. There'll always be another stooge. Can you spell oligarchy, kiddies?
• thanks zedediah, the one with links was what i was considering FPP-worthy. That one's much better than the one I had. I would just like to get a point-by-point list with sources to make the case that Bush has been a bad President and needs to be booted in November. It's just too easy in this type of forum to slip into a salvo of opinions when it should be more 1,2,3 and that "resume" is the best one I've seen so far. I'd also like to thank f8x for taking on the unpopular view and doing a great job of keeping the discussion above the poo pile. On preview: BlueHorse's POV is understandable (and somewhat shared) but as there are more than a couple of people around my meatspace that agree with f8x (i.e. Bush is not dumb) I'd really like to know why. This article says it's not the language-impairment, that it's his unwillingness to listen to other viewpoints and that works for me. But supporters disagree.
• I'm with BlueHorse, I don't believe for a second that Bush's religion is deep or true. He's a member of a ruling elite. These people are political pragmatists. They have more in common with the Neocon agenda than with the Falwell agenda. Both groups require extreme adherence to their agenda. Neocons have control over foreign policy, and the fundies control the culture war, I mean, domestic policy. Bush is not much engaged with the fundies -- he's using them, just as they're using him. The Neocons are in league with the economic powers that the Bush dynasty favors, however. They're more deeply in bed. To that end, it matters to me not a whit whether Bush is secretly intelligent. He represents his class, and his interests, and this is what's bad for the country and the world. I also see his group fighting like hell to stay on top no matter the cost to American democracy, just like they did in 2000... maybe even harder. I worry about dirty tricks. All this secrecy...
• I always have to leave at the worst moments! I said: On the whole though, he's managed to keep many people guessing about what kind of game he's playing, and he's used that to his advantage. BBF then said: Does this really sound like the actions of a president that you want to trust? The game I was referring to is the political game. A man who plays the game well does so by keeping his opponents guessing. I know what you mean by that comment, but I'm not going to bite :-)
• Also, to risk the topic going, uh, off topic... The very idea of accepting every single word of a series of documents by dozens of different authors, over a period of hundreds of years, translated through two different languages and modified further as other people see fit, as the infallible word of God does not seem too bright to me. I still don't see where intelligence enters into that...
• I'd also like to thank f8x for taking on the unpopular view and doing a great job of keeping the discussion above the poo pile. Doin' what I can *grin*
• Fundamentalist religious people don't usually ask for a lot of input on making decisions now that I think about it . . . "Fundamentalist religious people"! What a fucking brilliant term! See? Sweeping generalizations can be fun!
• Bush isn't a moron, he's a cunning sociopath
• An Open Letter to President Bush's Neoconservative Puppermasters
• Er, that should be puppe_T_masters. I don't even know what a pupper is.
• Pupper is norwegian for breasts. I think.
• Then I am resolutely pro-pupper.
• That open letter is good stuff. Ditto what i feel unusual said. About being pro-pupper, I mean.
• This and this are both somewhat relevant. And funny. is bush a idiot? hmm. kinda. he's not retarded, but he's not very bright. i would guess that he's got an IQ of about 90-95; slightly below average. i'm being generous, too. considering his air nat'l guard test scores (25% pilot aptitude?), his yale grades (he was a C- student!), personal accounts, and the general idiocy of nearly everything he's done (or hasn't done) while in office, i think it's safe to say that bush is no genius. in fact, he's pretty dumb. admit it, f8x.
• Ack! That should've read:

  This and this are both somewhat relevant.

• "is bush a idiot?" hehehe
• Just a sidenote, this is the first MoFi political discussion I've ever witnessed personally, and my personal thanks, f8x, for not getting defensive. I speak as a person of the opposite persuasion to aforesaid, but there's a little population imbalance here, if we're wanting two sides to this issue. Just my opinion. Also, wondering what exactly drove me away from MeFi. Not only that there happens to be poo on some political threads, others of which I follow with interest.
• Wedge, those links are hilarious. I find it hilarious that nearly everyone who has posted here saying Bush is dumb has committed some grammatical, spelling, punctuation, or otherwise linguistic error. I'm not saying you're dumb, just that you're prone to the same kinds of mistakes as Bush.
• The man's Presidency is being judged because he has a linguistic shortcoming. not. even. close. (but an excellent demonstration of bushthink, f8x!) the man's linguistics are being mocked because of his presidential shortcomings.
• Where can I buy an idiot chump monkey puppet? You're soaking in it.
• I find it hilarious that nearly everyone who has posted here saying Bush is dumb has committed some grammatical, spelling, punctuation, or otherwise linguistic error. I'm not saying you're dumb, just that you're prone to the same kinds of mistakes as Bush. That's getting off the point. It's not so much his oral gaffes that are frightening as his anti–intellectual attacks pro-ignorance cheerleading. It's not merely a typo when the leader of our country says: "[William F. Buckley] wrote a book at Yale; I read one." That comment (and many others) betray a piece of his character, which I find lacking. He's obviously got a good sense of humor, which takes a certain amount of leger de brain. It's not that he's vegetative, it's that he seems to refuse to delve into those nuances you say he's not good at, which are what make the world complex. The world is not black 'n white, good 'n evil, right 'n wrong like W and the Biblee want it to be. (Please note: "Biblee" was spelled incorrectly on purpose in a reference to an Eddie Izzard joke.)
• However, the "s" left off of "betray" is just plain ol' my fault.
• That's all well and good, but honestly, if you're getting your opinion on his resistance to learning from this article, then you're making as much of a leap as Weisberg is. He presents little, if any factual evidence of Bush's wilful ignorance--just hand-me-down stories and twice-used rumours. Much of the article is pure Weisberg speculation, which certainly doesn't lend much credence to his thesis, especially in light of Weisberg's publishing deal. I'm not convinced that Bush is anti-intellectual because this article does such a poor job of displaying the facts to support such an allegation. Despite seeing a few articles just like this, I've yet to see any real documented evidence of a thoughtless decision maker. You're telling me that everything Bush has done since becoming President has been done rashly, without thought, ignoring other opinions, displacing reason with passion, foregoing thoughtful counsel, reducing complex problems into simple solutions, and showing an utter contempt for nuanced management, all while contempting learning, eschewing responsible administration, disregarding public and friendly opinions, and flying in the face of intellectualism and educated policy promotion? Just because he was rebellious and believes the Bible literally? And to top all that off, I'm expected to believe that he's done this despite having a capable and intelligent cabinet and staff? Has he snookered the entire administration? He'd have to, to get away with all this anti-intellectualism. Either that, or they're also anti-intellectual. Or maybe he just brainwashed them? I think it's all pretty ridiculous. I know I'm just pissing on a forest fire here, but I just don't see how you all can persist in these unfounded accusations.
• I think the answer to all your questions is yes, however I got bored reading them and started thinking about Jimmie Fox's career batting average. Is there any way this article can be dropped from a crop duster onto middle america?
• f8x - i never said he was dumb. i simply agreed with the article - that bush often chooses to be deliberately stupid. seems to be why fundamentalism suits him so well - the inability to face questions of self-worth or to actually do any sort of soul-searching and sincerely ask oneself why one believes something seems to be a common trait among fundamentalists of all stripes. as far as his grades, service record, etc. goes, well, apparently he was a good pilot but didn't care to continue. he went to yale but couldn't be bothered to give a damn about his classes. this doesn't make him dumb, as some have asserted, just lazy. you can't tell me that a president sitting in office during the biggest attack on the US since pearl harbor, the biggest recession in forever, the biggest job loss, etc. who still gets a full 8+ hours of sleep every night isn't fundamentally lazy. i mean - WTF? i don't go to bed at 9, and i'm not trying to run the entire damn country. the man took daily breaks while texas governor to play computer solitaire? jeez. i reassert my statement that he wasn't qualified to run a state, let alone a country. if that wasn't true, why else are his records as texas governor under lock and key now? you think kerry's records as a politician are locked up, or open to view? you think mccain or gore or hell even lieberman, the democrat who thinks he's a republican, even his records are probably there for anyone who wants to look at them. yet our illustrious leader's track record is bineg quietly covered up. as are any official government information sources regarding reproductive freedom, birth control, or anything else bush & co. think are "immoral". anything that doesn't fit his personal belief system is ignored. see for example the immense body of evidence the state dept. built up, consulting with experts, etc. on how iraq would react to takeover and how the bush admin. decided not just to completely ignore the advice and warnings (which incidentally turned out to be dead-on accurate) but went so far as to "blacklist" anyone involved in the state dept.'s study - including damn near anyone in this country who was qualified to accurately understand or interpret the iraqi response. hence we have the mess we are currently in. my brother was a big bush supporter, before he was shipped off to tikrit. don't know how much he loves mr. bush these days, he doesn't say (or isn't allowed to say); but i imagine any president who sends thousands of troops out on active duty in a war zone, then cuts veterans benefits to the bone, isn't going to get a lot of love from the military. [more]
• and don't start on the press hounding bush. he's bveen given the biggest pass by the media that any president has had in history. bill gets a blowjob, consensually, from a woman of legal age to do so, and we get a billion dollar investigation into the affair, front page stories, parents sqeamishly trying to shield their kids from watching the news, countless press conferences where bill has to defend his actions. under bush, we get a massive failure of security, a federal undercover agent deliberately exposed by name, a manufactured war on false pretenses, a shaky military record with evidence of AWOL, incredibly lucrative contracts in iraq handed over to his veep's former company with no chance for any outsiders to even bid on it, and he's been faced with how many actual question-and-answer press conferences? how much has been spent investigating any of the above - does it even approach the amount spent tracking down the whereabouts of clinton's genitalia? why isn't the "liberal" media tearing this man apart like they ought to be? why do these stories find their way to a page 5 blurb in the newspapers, a two-minute mention on CNN, and land with a resounding silence on the public as a result? liberal media my ass. nobody's willing to make an issue out of any of this, and anyone who tries is met with executive priveliges denying anyone access to the shrub. god forbid he actually be held accountable for the actions of his administration. finally, f8x, you're a republican. aren't you getting just a little bit tired of seeing the republicans not actually act like it? what happened to small government, small deficits, etc.? i for one am encouraging republicans i know to stop donating to the party and to stop voting republican until the party begins to act like republicans are supposed to. ps - again nice work and congrats on keeping this from becoming a shouting match f8x. the conservatives tend to be outnumbered on the *filters, for darn sure; if i seem unjustly outraged here it's mostly because i can't see how anyone could defend this many mistakes from one person. even if i was inclined to vote republican it wouldn't be a bush vote... mccain i respect, i probably would have voted for him in 2000 if he'd won the primaries.
• "Where can I buy an idiot chump monkey puppet?" You're soaking in it. *hands cs1 the award for best in thread*
• f8x- Bush has openly acknowledged that he doesn't read the newspapers. He says that he relies on his aides to tell him what's in the papers. I have always been mystified by this- that a politician would not be, at a minimum, interested to know firsthand what the press is saying about him. Never mind having any sort of interest in what is going on in the world around him. Last October he got heckled in Australia, and seemed genuinely surprised and puzzzled about it. Go figure. again, bananas to f8x for helping us Monkeys prove that it *is* possible to have a reasoned political debate.
• ambrosia, do you have a link?
• if this is the heckling at issue I wouldn't say he seemed puzzled.
• f8x, here and here.
• Character and Kerry.... Regarding character, it says a lot to me that Kerry volunteered for his duty and requested to get sent overseas. Bush requested to stay stateside. For whatever other faults there may be, Kerry was willing to place himself in the line of fire. Bush was not. Kerry did request to go overseas, but as in a request for deferrment to the draft board to "study in Paris" for 12 months. I guess you could consider it 'volunteered' when the request was denied. Is it wrong to hate Kerry more than Bush? I have yet to see good arguments *against* Bush when Kerry's name is mentioned. Bush will defeat Bush; Kerry will defeat Kerry. This election is an anti-Bush referendum, not pro-Kerry. Please do not sink to the level of Kerry endorsement.
• I'm starting to think that f8xmulder is a poster that takes the conservative side on news posts just to fuck with people.
• Sully, if you've seen my website, you'll know I stand by what I say. Nevertheless, you're very flattering ;-)
• Thanks for the article links, Mickey. I had definitely never seen those before.
• pete_best, as a long-time lurker, I know us monkeys are generally a little less susceptible to straw-man-isms than most, but I'd like to talk about the list you have point by point: -- I attacked and took over 2 countries. This isn't, necessarily, a bad thing. While I personally believe Bush was taken in by wanting so badly to believe in the "intelligence" about Iraq (and a POTUS who can mistake wanting to believe for factual veracity IMO should not be in such a high and responsible office (and I voted for the man, though probably not again)), the invasion of Afghanistan is difficult to equate: not only in Afghanistan, there were WMDs in the country (in a sense): a well-supported and entrenched Al-Qaeda presence. This point, I think, is rhetoric, and intentionally conflates the apple of Afghanistan with the orange of Iraq. -- I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury. Here's where I think the rhetoric disserves the purpose: Did your tax refund check (presuming you got one) bounce? The treasury certainly isn't bankrupt. But the exaggeration makes people want to ignore the point: Bush has spent hundreds of billions on the combination of a tax cut the benefits of which are dubious, at best, to the vaunted "middle class" it was supposedly aimed at (swung on and missed, by the way), and a war in Iraq that, had Bush spent more time and effort building his "coalition" would have rendered the US portion of the financial burden much lighter. -- I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!). The point again is lost in rhetoric: was this "biggest" as a total number, or as something more meaningful, such as percentage of GDP? -- I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period. Again, numerical, or percentage? And this does not account for the fact that credit/borrowing was not as common in previous, more damaging, recessions/depressions. -- I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market. Numerical or percentage? And this doesn't address the fact that many ups and downs in the market and the economy have not a great deal of their size attributable to the president. Was Clinton really responsible for the boom? It was the technology. Was Bush really responsible for the bust? If so, was Clinton then not responsible for the irresponsible over-investment which created the dot-com bubble in the first place? Bush's response to the bust -- that would make for more interesting discussion. -- I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner. Could be a very persuasive point: but for previous Presidents, how many federal prisoners have come up for execution having exhausted all of their appeals, and the sitting President commuted or otherwise stopped the process?
• (continued) -- In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I did). Damn straight: Bush takes too much time off. I think it's pathetic; if you sign up to be POTUS, that's basically a 4-year commitment to work harder than you ever have before. Suck it up and take 2 weeks a year like the rest of your fellow countrypeople. -- After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history. He sure did. And to this day, responsibility has not been properly attributed: someone was asleep at the switch, and that someone (or someones) should be out of a job. -- I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history. Excellent point. ------------ So after all of these months, why is it that both sides simply devolve into spewing rhetoric which is exaggerated or filled with straw-men or categorical fallacies? The discourse would be much more compelling, and who knows, perhaps the discussion might even change some people's minds if the discourse from BOTH sides weren't simply ham-fisted politicking which only exacerbates the problem of polarization in US politics and does nothing more than reassure the "true believers" and further aggravate the "other side" -- whichever side it is. I also don't want to just pick on anti-Bush sloganeering: both sides are being, basically stupid and not really convincing anyone of anything (except convincing their own side how "right" they really are). Can't we all just get along and talk these things out like rational people without resorting to crappy rhetorical duckspeak?
• pete_best:-- I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner. chimaera: Could be a very persuasive point: but for previous Presidents, how many federal prisoners have come up for execution having exhausted all of their appeals, and the sitting President commuted or otherwise stopped the process? The federal death penalty was discontinued when the Supreme Court ruled existing death penalty statutes unconstitutional in 1972. No one was executed by the federal government between 1963 and 2001. Background on Federal death penalty here. The first person executed by the federal government since 1963 was Timothy McVeigh, and as troubled as I am by the death penalty, I have to concede it would have been politically difficult, if not impossible, for any President to have commuted that sentence. Since then, however, the US has executed at least two more people.
• Dang frogs that was a highly articulate outburst. ( Sullivan which is it, are you with us or against us? (kidding, kidding . . .) chimaera, your points are well taken and I agree that my initial link did a disservice to it's cause by being overly rhetorical. See the link posted by zedediah for a better version that has many sources linked to it. As for "both sides are being basically stupid and not really convincing anyone of anything", I guess part of my point in posting the slate article was to figure out why people still support Bush in the face of so many, many scandals or baldface political sleight of hand moves. If Democrats or Liberals and assorted anti-fundamentalist Christian groups can't convince anyone of anything - why not? caveat: IMMO no one can successfully argue a point about anything. Alternatives may be presented and accepted but it's not possible to "win" a subjective argument such as "Bush is dumb". on preview: thanks for the info ambrosia. Also to clarify: I posted the link to "Bush's resume" as source for the discussion but it's (a) not mine and (b) i still think it's worthy of an FPP. (step right up! step right up! ring the bell and win a prize for the little lady!)
• Once again, Frogs puts forth a cogent argument. Actually, I'd bet the farm on Frogs OR F8x being able to argue Bush under the table. OK. I'm NOT going to post on this issue anymore. I'm NOT going to read any more comments. And finally, I'm not going to obsess on it. I purely HATE politics and politicians. I'm willing to concede that they're human beings and therefore fallible, however IMHO the number of greedy, lying, power-hungry, self-serving, scheming bastards is twice as high among the lot of them as compared to any cross-section of average citizens. Dang, I'm getting vehement again. Isn't there a saying to the effect that the only man deserving of a political appointment is the one that doesn't want it/would avoid it with a passion? I vote Frogs for MonkeyLand Chief of State!
• finally, f8x, you're a republican. aren't you getting just a little bit tired of seeing the republicans not actually act like it? what happened to small government, small deficits, etc.? i for one am encouraging republicans i know to stop donating to the party and to stop voting republican until the party begins to act like republicans are supposed to. Absolutely. I do not donate to the Republican party, and I vote along personal lines, rather than party lines. Yes, that mostly equates to a Republican vote, but really I'm more often going with the lesser evil rather than the greater good. Sad, but true. That being said, I have to agree with blogRot that this year's election seems to be a referendum on Bush. I, for one, see in Kerry a more serious danger to the safety and success of this nation, both domestically and on foreign shores, and will be giving my (somewhat reluctant) vote to Bush, unless he does something to completely turn me away.
• under bush, we get a massive failure of security You mean 9/11? Are you blaming Bush for 9/11? a federal undercover agent deliberately exposed by name By her own husband, no less! a manufactured war on false pretenses Whether he has them now or not, Saddam DID have effing WMD. This is not in dispute. I am amazed every time I hear this false pretenses argument, because it is completely counter to the evidence that has been known since before Clinton was president. a shaky military record with evidence of AWOL Shaky? Okay, I'll give that to you. AWOL? That story dissolved because it had no substance. The press knew it. incredibly lucrative contracts in iraq handed over to his veep's former company with no chance for any outsiders to even bid on it Actually, Halliburton had to bid on the contract with five other companies. At any rate, this is rather spurious logic. The intimation that the Bush administration is in bed with Halliburton is, again, baseless, and I've yet to see any hard data proving it. Lots of speculation, of course, but that seems to be the currency of the day. Cheney was once CEO of Halliburton. Now he's not. In fact, he's got no connection to Halliburton except for his retirement benefits, which are being paid out over the next couple of years. Connection? Only if you want to see one.
• By her own husband, no less Good lord, is that the latest spin on that? These people really do have no shame.
• a federal undercover agent deliberately exposed by name (f8xmulder)By her own husband, no less! Huh? no no no no no. Valerie Plame was outed by Bob Novak. on preview: i feel unusual beat me to it.
• The previous post is intellectually dishonest. We proven in this group that the military has no records of Bush showing up for duty or of fellow guardsmen ever seeing him on base. I debuked a post by f8xmulder about one person who said he served with Bush in Alabama. Mulder's guy who served with Bush was actually in Pittsburgh at the time. Joesph Wilson leaked his own wife's name? How? Robert Novak brought his wife up and and said that he received the information from the White House. If Wilson leaked a CIA operative's identity then why his (John Ashcroft's) Justice Department investigating Dick Cheney's office? I say this much for you f8xmulder. You sure know how to liven up a thread.
• Shenanigans! under bush, we get a massive failure of security You mean 9/11? Are you blaming Bush for 9/11? Partially, yes. Bush shares some of the blame, despite the admin's "point the finger at everybody but us" stance. a federal undercover agent deliberately exposed by name By her own husband, no less! Negatory. Where, exactly did you get that from? As far as I know, her name was leaked by White House people, ostensibly in response to her husband's speaking out against action in Iraq. (on preview, many people have pointed this out now, follow the linkage.) a manufactured war on false pretenses Whether he has them now or not, Saddam DID have effing WMD. This is not in dispute. I am amazed every time I hear this false pretenses argument, because it is completely counter to the evidence that has been known since before Clinton was president. Of course he had WMDs We gave them to him But we also know he blew his wad back in the 80s on Iran and the Kurds. The false pretenses argument holds a hell of a lot more water than the arguments against it. a shaky military record with evidence of AWOL Shaky? Okay, I'll give that to you. AWOL? That story dissolved because it had no substance. The press knew it. Shaky and possibly AWOL. The press let it go, not because it lacked substance but because pursuing it might rob them of their gravy train. One officer who may or may not remember the shrub showing up and a couple of routine dental X-Rays do not, a military career make. incredibly lucrative contracts in iraq handed over to his veep's former company with no chance for any outsiders to even bid on it Actually, Halliburton had to bid on the contract with five other companies. All those companies American and none of them even remotely capable of the job. The fix was in from the start. At any rate, this is rather spurious logic. The intimation that the Bush administration is in bed with Halliburton is, again, baseless, and I've yet to see any hard data proving it. Lots of speculation, of course, but that seems to be the currency of the day. Cheney was once CEO of Halliburton. Now he's not. In fact, he's got no connection to Halliburton except for his retirement benefits, which are being paid out over the next couple of years. Connection? Only if you want to see one. By that token one could say there's no connection only if one doesn't want to see one. The knife cuts two ways f8x. Still, I thank you for continually showing us what we're missing on our side of the fence.
• Oops. Conclusion: Bogus. My mistake on the Plame statement. I had read something but couldn't find it. I see it was actually Plame who outed herself...on a date.
• Oh yeah, and American Prospect reported that administration officials told Novak NOT to publish the report because it would endanger Plame. One officer who may or may not remember the shrub showing up and a couple of routine dental X-Rays do not, a military career make. No one's claiming Bush had an exemplary military career. The claim is that he was AWOL. Again, lack of evidence is a sinker.
• By that token one could say there's no connection only if one doesn't want to see one. The knife cuts two ways f8x. Well, no, actually the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. The knife most definitely does not cut both ways. Again, no evidence, I'm not convinced.
• My mistake on the Plame statement. I had read something but couldn't find it. I see it was actually Plame who outed herself...on a date. Which, really, means nothing unless you want to snicker into your hands and call her a slut and "bad agent" like the yahoos on that board to which your third link goes. There's a difference between her outing herself to Joe Wilson and to the White House outing her internationally, don't you think?
• pete_best: If Democrats or Liberals and assorted anti-fundamentalist Christian groups can't convince anyone of anything - why not? I think that the problem is that a too-large segment on both sides of the argument don't really care about what the president does so long as he's on "their side." Zealots on the right defend Bush beyond reasonable bounds, presumably because by defending him and his actions they are strengthening their perception of their own power and their own "moral rightness." And the converse is true for those on the left. Hypocrites abound, because by defending or attacking Bush, their personal (and probably very skewed) ideological bent is preserved. The right did it with their rabid hounding of Clinton, inflating personal indiscretion into a national issue. (For the record, they shouldn't have been pestering him, but neither should he have perjured himself: for that alone he was rightly impeached and should've been convicted because Presidents Do Not Lie Under Oath; all that is neither here nor there), but lo and behold last year, the hypocrites at MoveOn.org (and they are, every one of them), who wanted to "move on" from Clinton's accused misdeeds (which tallied all the way up to a string of accusations of sexual harassment while Governor of Arkansas) wanted to vilify Arnold the Governator in California for the same thing. I'm not defending Clinton or Schwarzenegger's actions, but the MoveOn.org people should have "ideological twit and hypocrite" stamped on their business cards. My point is, most people on both sides won't be skewed because by backing someone powerful they feel powerful, and when that person is attacked, they feel their own power and beliefs are under attack. It's irrational, but how many people truly ever want to admit to being wrong? How many people actually enjoy being proven wrong for the reason that the cause of accuracy and veracity is furthered? My contention, though, is that the discourse is best served by trying to avoid rhetoric, and those people (such as perhaps myself; I voted for Bush in 2000, but unless something major changes soon he won't be getting my vote in 2004) who are willing to concede that the decision they made might not have been the better, will be the people that actually decide elections from here on out. If as few as 5% of all the people in the US are willing to consider their votes less on ideological (or as I said above, "me-too-ism") grounds, a truly fair discourse can change minds, change election outcomes, and just maybe we'll have Presidents selected on more pragmatic, rather than ideological, terms. Wouldn't that be nice?
• Whether he has them now or not, Saddam DID have effing WMD. This is not in dispute. I am amazed every time I hear this false pretenses argument, because it is completely counter to the evidence that has been known since before Clinton was president. Except that Bush kept saying Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the U.S., intimating if not outright saying that he could hit us with his WMD. More RECENT intelligence showed no evidence that this was true any longer. It's been reported that W had this information but didn't care. Sounds like he was lying to me and hoping that they'd find something to make his lie good. And that's not "false pretense"?
• ...imminent threat... Sigh. That old canard?
• ...like the yahoos on that board to which your third link goes. What about the first 2 links?
• Sigh. That old canard? Apparently so. Your link meaning what, exactly? Unless you're referring to this paragraph: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." Which is an impressive twisting of logic attempting to join 9/11 and Hussein, using imaginary WMDs as the bogeyman. What about the first 2 links? What about 'em? I was talking about Wilson, not about whether or not he was AWOL.
• "So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,..." -John F'n Kerry, 1/23/03, Georgetown U. Who ya votin for again?
• Anyone but Bush.
• I was thinking of this one: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. What about 'em? Oh, I guess I was wondering if you were going to address 'em...guess not.
• Anyone but Bush Nominate Condi Rice?
• Da Chimp is Dumb....... Bush is dumb. Now the reason why he is dumb is that he does not have the depth of intellect to engage in rigorious problem solving. This is why he tends to resort to a black & white view of the world (see e.g. "evil doers" etc.). The world is very messy, and black & white problem solving does not work very well as a response to the complex problems we presently face.
• ...and such are the false dichotomies typical of an 'us vs them', black and white, good vs. evil, 'with us or against us' mentality. but don't blame me, i voted for kucinich. :p and f8x, are you roman catholic or southern baptist? just curious.
• Catholic...PS: I have a couple of friends who have dated the Breakup Babe, your analysis is correct.....
• Nominate Condi Rice? Yeah, right, like the Democrats would front a presidential nominee that is a *woman* who is a *minority*. Oh wait....
• f8x, I notice that when there's overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing/stupidity/corruption wrt to Bush and/or his administration, but no absolute proof, you dismiss it as hearsay. However, when you want to slag Kerry or Plame/Wilson, or attempt to show Bush in a positive light, any right-wing article or opinion piece seems to be good enough for you. I, along with others here, respected your ability to present a minority opinion with class and conviction. Now I'm starting to see you as just another fucking troll.
• FYI........... Bush is a "uniter not a divider" as evidenced by the above posts...... Just another piece of Chimpy rhetoric....
• just another fucking troll Partisan, yes. A "fucking troll"? I hardly think so.
• Wedge, neither. I'm non-denominational Protestant. rocket88: if it really was overwhelming, as you say, I'd be with you. But I don't see overwhelming evidence, just a lot of baseless accusations ("Bush wanks off to the thought of Halliburton ripping off the Iraqi people" - is just as valid as some of what I've seen here). So far, I've not slagged Kerry (if I have, it was probably off topic), and I've attempted to post links that are at least honest and hopefully thought-provoking. I don't pretend any of this will change minds, but I'd at least like to present a valid case for a side that seems to be most hated/disliked on this site and others. Not that I mind that - I'm perfectly happy discussing and arguing. I've even been known to change my mind before! I don't claim infallibility, but if you think I'm going to rollover and take Slate articles (or any other, for that matter) as partisan-free rhetoric, and if that makes me a troll, then fine. Deal with it. Don't read the thread anymore.
• Um, what Wolof said...
• Disingenuous, thy name is f8xmulder. "So far, I've not slagged Kerry (if I have, it was probably off topic)" -f8xmulder Classic! A nondenial denial. Excellent use of rhetoric. You should run for office.
• i count dots: For the record, I didn't feel like going over this entire thread to see if I made any slaggish remarks toward Kerry, which is why I made that "disengenuous" remark. I have parsed through the comments now, for your benefit. I mentioned Kerry once, here, and it was to say this: "I, for one, see in Kerry a more serious danger to the safety and success of this nation, both domestically and on foreign shores, and will be giving my (somewhat reluctant) vote to Bush, unless he does something to completely turn me away." So thank you, i count dots, for your wonderful applomb in pointing out my disengenuousness. I'm absolutely humbled. And I'm also getting steamed, so I think I'll back off for a while. It's been nice y'all.
• non-denominational protestant? does that mean you are protestant but don't go to church every week or do you mean that you go to a protestant church that officially deems itself non-denominational? OT, perhaps... but as a fellow (non-practicing) protestant, i wonder why so many other christians are willing to just take bush's word that he is also a christian, even though he lives more like a judas or herod. i also wonder, rhetorically, if he is not one of the false prophets that john (or jesus?) warned about. but more importantly, how does the neocon vision of the world, including domestic policy, jive with the teachings of jesus, i.e., his sermon on the mound, the nonviolent way he lived, everything he preached to the pharisees, etc?
• Hey Wedge, ND Protestant, as in I go to a church that is non-affiliated. I honestly don't know if Bush is a christian or not - I actually rather think he's not, but that he professes a kind of "public faith" that appeals to the many many couch Christians in the country. You know, the 80% who claim to be, but who really are simply along for the ride--they believe in God, and don't believe in Buddha or some other religion, so they align themselves with Christianity. It's the closest fit to what they want in religion.
• Feeling better after a leisurely drive home, I retract the modifier and apologize for lowering the tone of the discussion. But the rest still stands. I honestly don't understand how you can be so overwhelmingly supportive of Bush & co. Trolling is the only explanation that makes any sense to me. First of all, he's a politician, which automatically makes him a douchebag. Add to that the strong evidence that he allowed the Oil industry to write the nation's energy policy. Then there's Powell's lies to the UN security council that the administration was 100% certain that Iraq had WMD. Shall I go on?....OK, I will. How about his habit of taking vacation after vacation while his country, and the world, is in crisis? How about the fact that his religion takes the bible literally and believes these are the "end times"...and governs accordingly? (i don't think that one bothers you) How about his refusal to reveal the truth about his military record? The shambles he's made of America's international reputation? (including allies) His polarization of American politics? If none of this bothers you at all, or if you honestly believe that they're all baseless accusations invented by "the left".....if you really think Bush is an intelligent man with a "linguistic problem"....if you can't find or acknowledge a single fault about him, then I'll retract the troll accusation and, as you suggest, not read the thread anymore.
• I think it's all pretty ridiculous. consider the following. is it possible: you got your world view from a shining box in the corner of the living room.(everyone born after 1950 either rejected it or swallowed it whole - most swallowed) you have no frame of reference; you cannot remember huntly and brinkley, and walter cronkite is a familiar sounding name but you never saw him at work. you have no way of knowing or arriving at a belief independently. every source is suspect. every source has an agenda. everything you have been taught with regard to this nation is founded in lies - starting with the discovery and exploration of this continent. (assuming you are uhmurkuhn.) you can be forgiven for wanting to give a guy the benefit of the doubt, it's a common naivete afflicting youth. but i'll leave you with this, f8x: when one person says you've grown a tail, you might laugh and think it was a joke. if two people say you've grown a tail, you might think they have an agenda. but if everyone is telling you all day long you've grown a tail, you're a dumbass if you don't turn around to check. guess what? you've grown a very "bushy" tail.
• You know, I really don't know why everyone gets so up in arms about Viet Nam era records for Bush and Kerry. Seems to me that that happened when both of them were a lot younger. Don't people change in 30 or more years? We all change with time. And, if anyone here is older than those two were then, do you claim that what you thought then is what you think now? I dislike Bush to the nth degree, but it's not based on whether or not he fulfilled his National Guard duties. I can only judge him on what he's done in the last decade when he "grew up." I feel the same way about Kerry's record. Yes, he served, and yes, he reviewed his service commitment and changed his mind, but the years since have an impact. What we need to concentrate on now is they are after all those years. And f8x, my impression is that Bush thinks that God is on his side, in the Christian sense. What makes you feel that it's only a public avowal? Since I'm not on your side of the fence, I'd really like to know what you think.
• What I take from most of f8x's posts are that he's looking for documentation of the smoking gun regarding the items on the "resume" or other Bush accusations. I feel certain such documentation exists, but I would probably be unmoved as he with what we've got so far. I haven't clicked every link in the thread but do all of the accusations end with a wealth of circumstantial evidence and no smoking gun? I know that's what Bush & co _do_ but I'm asking if that's the case with everything - the National Guard disappearing act, leaking the name of an undercover agent, granting war contracts to the Halliburton "bid" -winkwinknudge- (While specifically not putting anti-profiteering language in the funding bill), etc.? It's the most secretive administration since Nixon (or before) but without those documents, without that evidence are we doomed to another Bush term because the Limbaugh crowd can spin the rest away? Can't we view the document where, in Bush's handwriting, signed and notarized, it says "Attack Iraq at any cost and make it look like a front in the war on terror"? I just don't understand the people around me who are smart and informed enough to know better give Bush a pass, and I don't wanna believe it's all media spin and stubbornness. but of course that's all i got at the moment
• Hell, I think we're lucky to have someone like f8x to play devil's advocate (so to speak) -- otherwise we'd be a bunch of like-minded monkeys with nothing to argue about. f8x, thanks for being so reasonable in these threads and not resorting to namecalling, as someone unfortunately has. I'd hope to see an apology, but that's just me and I'm a little optimistic at the best (or worst) of times. I'd get involved in the debate but my point of view has already been clearly stated by others. And, being foreign, I'll leave it up to people who are a little closer to home.
• I left for a couple of hours - needed a break and to cool off. I feel much better now. I have to come clean a little bit here. Sully was partially right when he suspected I post because I like to shake things up. I do. I think likemindedness is what leads to totalitarianism. I do stand by my convictions, though, so I'm not just "playing" everyone here. I want to see genuine discourse here, not just nodding and balls-out agreement. That being said, I'm definitely up for being challenged and if someone can convince me with truth - honest facts -- then I'm wholeheartedly there. As pete_best has struggled to understand, as I'm sure all of you have, is how I can continue to persist in believing the best from Mr. Bush. Pete nailed it when he said there's a lot of circumstance and no smoking gun. Do I absolutely need a smoking gun? Well, no, but pretty damn close. Definitely more than hype, rumour, and that crap that comes from the Democratic Underground. So seriously - I'm all ears here - if you can prove to me that Bush is sucking at Halliburton's teat, or that he personally signed the order to go to war after seeing the piece of paper that categorically declared Saddam free from WMD, or if you can prove any of the other stories that are out there: AWOL, Blood for Oil, Fascist Hitler Puppet, Liar, Thief, Misogynist, Cokehead, Bastard Child of Satan Hisself...you get the idea...seriously, convince me with proof, and I'm on your side.
• Yeah, I don't see troll, I see true believer. Unfortunately, the responses of the two aren't far apart, so it's easy to make that mistake. And as Tracicle said, it is good to have a devil's advocate among us. It makes us stop and consider how well reasoned our arguments are. Better that than preaching to the choir and achieving consensus in a vaccuum.
• Definitely more than hype, rumour, and that crap that comes from the Democratic Underground. But you'll drink the right's Kool Aid without hesitation? (which you seem to have done on a couple of occasions) Please, f8x, if you're going to take us to task for some of our assertions, you'd better be ready to be taken to task for yours.
• is it possible: you got your world view from a shining box in the corner of the living room.(everyone born after 1950 either rejected it or swallowed it whole - most swallowed) Never had a tv as a child. Still don't as an adult. you have no frame of reference; you cannot remember huntly and brinkley, and walter cronkite is a familiar sounding name but you never saw him at work. Hmmm...No and yes. I believe I have a very adequate frame of reference. I'm an excellent student of history, and I've got enough personal education in the school of the "real world" that I can make my own opinions. Yes, I'm only 23, but that doesn't make me an unhistoried (coined?) tool. No, I never saw Cronkite work, and since I never had a tv, I never saw Brinkley or Huntley. you have no way of knowing or arriving at a belief independently. every source is suspect. every source has an agenda. everything you have been taught with regard to this nation is founded in lies - starting with the discovery and exploration of this continent. (assuming you are uhmurkuhn.) As stated before, I'm very confident in my ability to make my own way in the world. Of course every source is suspect, including the ones I trust. Vigilance is what is key. I am uhmurkuhn. Been all over. I was a voracious reader as a child. Everything I was taught as lies? I doubt it, but maybe in fantasyland that's an easy thing to swallow. you can be forgiven for wanting to give a guy the benefit of the doubt, it's a common naivete afflicting youth. but i'll leave you with this, f8x: Yes, how quaint of me to believe a man is innocent until proven guilty. when one person says you've grown a tail, you might laugh and think it was a joke. if two people say you've grown a tail, you might think they have an agenda. but if everyone is telling you all day long you've grown a tail, you're a dumbass if you don't turn around to check. guess what? you've grown a very "bushy" tail. The better to fan myself with, my dear ;-) All metaphors and fairy tails aside, I'm still waiting for the bolt of evidence to strike me in the chest.
• But you'll drink the right's Kool Aid without hesitation? (which you seem to have done on a couple of occasions) Well, I'm not sure what you're implying by this. Am I a right-winger? Of course I am. I'm going to have right-leaning opinions, and I'm going to draw from more right-leaning sources than left. That's a given. Does this mean that if I argue something that I believe that also happens to be right-thinking, I'll be accused of being some Jim Jones cult believer? I am certainly not asking you to stop thinking like a Lefty. I'd ask for the same courtesy. Please, f8x, if you're going to take us to task for some of our assertions, you'd better be ready to be taken to task for yours. Just let me know what your beef is. If I can't adequately address it, I'll change my tune.
• path: "f8x, my impression is that Bush thinks that God is on his side, in the Christian sense. What makes you feel that it's only a public avowal? Since I'm not on your side of the fence, I'd really like to know what you think." Hmmm. No real hard data. Just a sense. I think Bush understands the crowds, the masses, and he knows reasonably well how to play to them. I think he is honest in his desire to be true to the Christian faith - I'm just not sure it's the same Christian faith I adhere to. Like I said, though, it's just a feeling.
• Cripes! That should be fairy "TAILS"!
• Well, I'm not sure what you're implying by this. Am I a right-winger? Of course I am. I'm going to have right-leaning opinions, and I'm going to draw from more right-leaning sources than left. That's a given. Does this mean that if I argue something that I believe that also happens to be right-thinking, I'll be accused of being some Jim Jones cult believer? Only implying some of the same stuff you've implied about us "lefties" I am certainly not asking you to stop thinking like a Lefty. I'd ask for the same courtesy. And I'm not asking you to stop thinking like a "righty". I know how hard that can be. I used to be just like you. But then I looked around and realized my fellow Republicans were selling out their fellow countrymen to line their own pockets. Please, f8x, if you're going to take us to task for some of our assertions, you'd better be ready to be taken to task for yours. Just let me know what your beef is. If I can't adequately address it, I'll change my tune. Already did, with the Plame thing. You were called to the mat on that one and you responded with more, to paraphrase you, "hype, rumour, and that crap that comes from the Republican Underground" From here on out, we will hold you to the same standard you hold us to.
• Just a sense. I think Bush understands the crowds, the masses, and he knows reasonably well how to play to them. They used to tar and feather people for playing the masses. Especially when they were selling snake oil.
• f8x, I certainly don't subscribe to the beliefs of the anti-Bush crowd, but I also don't feel that I need to have something as strong as a smoking gun to believe that Bush has exhibited not only poor judgment, but such poor judgment as to call into question his competence as the Chief Executive. I don't think he necessarily wanted to go into Iraq by hook or crook, but I think that he wanted to believe the evidence so badly that he overlooked the questionable quality of the intelligence. I understand that no President is going to always get the full story -- each has handlers that want to sway the Prez in their own way -- but I think that the fact that he was willing to lower the threshold of evidence to justify a war (which he completely thought would bear out his beliefs, though it didn't) belies some incompetence. My point is, I don't believe there is a smoking gun showing that he intentionally misled the public in order to enter into a completely unjust war -- that's simply leftist rhetoric. But I also believe that, more than insinuation and delicious-to-his-ears rumor, GWB should have had a smoking gun himself before committing US troops to Iraq. I don't subscribe to the contention that "when it's smoking, it's already been fired, probably at you" which the Hannitys and Limbaughs are so fond of. We have sufficient evidence that nobody believes North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons, but Seoul isn't smoldering. That's the type of smoking gun the President should have insisted upon.
• Already did, with the Plame thing. You were called to the mat on that one and you responded with more, to paraphrase you, "hype, rumour, and that crap that comes from the Republican Underground" I'm not sure how I can respond to that. Is the American Prospect on your hit list, or did it simply say something you disagreed with? It's not exactly a shining beacon of conservativism.
• f8x is cute [bats eyes] Seriously, though I'm happy with the last dozen comments. I was panicking, though.
• chimaera, I am not necessarily advocating that a smoking gun is a requirement. I think I said that in a previous comment, but I want to make sure everyone understands I'm not trying to hide behind the elusive smoking gun argument. I believe in due process, innocence before guilt is proven, and a number of other basic tenets of law and social order. I'm not convinced Bush has received his due process, and he's certainly been called guilty without proof. All in all, shoddy dealings - you'd think that for someone who (to you all) appears so blatantly responsible for all these things, he'd be, as surlyboi puts it, tarred and feathered by now. I can believe that Bush put too much emphasis on believing evidence that wasn't on its own strong enough to support what we currently believe, that is, that Iraq no longer has WMD. I can believe that he believed it so strongly that he disregarded other opinions on the matter. He certainly is strongwilled and seems to bear out the "one-track" mentality people think he has. But do you think he manufactured it all from thin air? His enthusiasm for dictator deposition and invasion isn't derived solely from stubbornness. He had to have seen something that indicated that war was at least a remotely reasonable solution to the pesky Saddam problem. 9/11 certainly helped him come to some of his conclusions. Evidence from Clinton's administration pointed to a strong presence of WMD in Iraq. 16 UN resolutions seemed to do as much good as swatting a fly with a hula hoop. In his chair, I see justification for war, even if he doesn't have a photograph of a WMD warhead sitting in one of Saddam's palaces. If he overemphasized the evidence, it was only because the evidence itself points to something far larger than has in actuality turned up. Is that defensible or not? That's where we'll all have to simply agree to disagree. TO me, it's perfectly defensible, and given what I know now, were I in Bush's shoes, I'd still invade Iraq.
• PF: *blush!*
• "I can believe that Bush put too much emphasis on believing evidence that wasn't on its own strong enough to support what we currently believe, that is, that Iraq no longer has WMD. I can believe that he believed it so strongly that he disregarded other opinions on the matter. He certainly is strongwilled and seems to bear out the "one-track" mentality people think he has. " -F8xmulder To me at least, this type of "one-track" mentality is the epitome of "dumb". Intelligence is more than just being able to add number together really fast, or recall arcane trivia. It requires an ability to actively acquire new information, compare and contrast it to the old information as well as an ability to listen to diverse opinions and follow them to their logical conclusions. To use the "track" analogy, smart people can follow multiple tracks, and can find the crossroads between them. To follow this simple analogy, Bush made his decision to invade Iraq based on one track (10 year old intelligence), while ignoring other tracks (for instance, Joe Wilson and the findings of the UN inspectors). Making a decision, especially one that will result in the deaths of thousands, in the face of contrary evidence is, IMO, pretty dumb. Making said decision with no followup plans is even dumber. For proof of the "dumbness" of this decision, try the current situation your country finds it in at this moment. Locked into Iraq, insurgent population, few other major powers willing to help out. Given the lack of evidence of WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda you would still invade Iraq? By yourself? Impressive!
• He had to have seen something that indicated that war was at least a remotely reasonable solution to the pesky Saddam problem Dulce et decorum est pro patria necare.
• "...I'm starting to see you as just another [*expletive already retracted*] troll." -rocket88 "...I post because I like to shake things up. I do." -f8xmulder Q.E.D.
• rocket88: You're wearying beyond the point of patience. Feel free to continue to take things I say out of context. I won't bother to respond unless you can get off your troll obsession and say something meaningful.
• Dulce et decorum est pro patria necare. In some cases, yes.
• As Patton said, you don't win by dying for your country (pro patria mori), but by making the other poor bastard die for his.
• I'm not sure how I can respond to that. Is the American Prospect on your hit list, or did it simply say something you disagreed with? It's not exactly a shining beacon of conservativism. You're dissembling, f8x. The link to the American Prospect did nothing to backup your argument that Wilson outed his own wife. Actually, it backs my assertion that it was someone in the White House that leaked the name to Novak. And it was ostensibly to silence Wilson after he spoke out against military action in Iraq on the basis of ficticious yellowcake from Niger.
• taking Saddam out could have been handled much, much better, but Bush's ham-fisted rush to war screwed up almost all aspects of it and we're all going to pay in some way for that. And that's just stupid. rocket88 ease off them hammers jake
• In some cases, yes. But is it sweet, f8x? The little boy with no arms, stretched across his hospital bed, or the lonely head held up to the camera lens - is it sweet? Say, if you like, that it is meet - but O dear f8xmulder child of God and disciple of Jesus and full of the Holy Spirit, please do not tell me that you find any of it "sweet".
• Patton wouldn't have rushed to war in Iraq on flimsy evidence...
• yes he would have.
• Dulce et Decorum est,
• surlyboi, I already redacted my Plame gaffe here. The American Prospect article points out that it was administration officials who told Novak NOT to release her name. quidnunc, surely you don't think me cold of heart. The taints of war are far from sweet, but Jus ad bellum is definitely meet. And while it's been a long time since Latin, I was hinging on the latter portion of the phrase, "est pro patria necare", more so than the former ("dulce et decorum"). Is it beautiful and sweet to kill those in war who have violated the most sacred tenets of human life, nobility, and decency? Is it sweet to kill for your country? For peace? I honestly can't say.
• taking Saddam out could have been handled much, much better, but Bush's ham-fisted rush to war screwed up almost all aspects of it and we're all going to pay in some way for that. I dunno. Saddam was taken out pretty well. It's the residuals that seem to have been handled ham-fistedly.
• Is it sweet to kill for your country? For peace? I honestly can't say. What do you imagine your Christ would answer?
• "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vestures and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." --Revelation 19:11, 14-16 There's certainly plenty of war in the Bible, much of it considered just. There was even a war in heaven. Is war terrible? Of course? Is it right and sweet to commit to a just war? Is it right and sweet to kill for the good? I can't say it's not. I don't strive for war, but should it come, it can be right and just and, yes, even sweet.
• Do you find this one "sweet"?
• Moments of it have been, yes. Others, not so much.
• "Necare" does not mean "to hold children". Do you find any of the killing "sweet"? Say, Saddam's sons? Did you find that "sweet"?
• Yes, the killing of Saddam's sons was a sweet act of just warfare.
• taking Saddam out could have been handled much, much better I meant that a true coalition, going through the UN, proper measures could have been taken instead of rushing in saying "screw you" to the rest of the world. What was so imminent? Couldn't improved and increased intelligence focused on Saddam have been more useful in preventing terrorism than sticking our fist in the beehive? Now we've got a very angry _region_ not just a regime and much less goodwill from our allies. It's just a stupid way to handle it. It lacks finesse, a broad view, simple - simple diplomacy. I wouldn't trust that kind of effort to a person who's not interested in conflicting viewpoints. With no conflicting viewpoints, you can't plan an occupation very well - which is obvious now. $150 billion dollars and 800 uhmurkin lives are gone - so far - because Bush had to have a war. Fix the intelligence, fund the local emergency services with that money. If he's not an idiot, explain why his war in Iraq is such a great deal. I'm not appreciating the intellegince of that approach. regardless of the fact that a war on 'terror' is like a war on 'grumpiness'
• Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction ... The chain reaction - of evil-hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. ... love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend. We never get rid of an enemy by meeting hate with hate; we get rid of an enemy by getting rid of enmity. By its very nature, hate destroys and tears down; by its very nature, love creates and builds up. Love transforms with redemptive power. ............................................................Martin Luther King, Jr. Apologies for the long quote. It's been on my mind since yesterday, and I could have just as easily posted it on the "violence begets violence" thread, but when f8x started quoting Revelations, I felt it belonged here.
• small nit, ambrosia, it's Revelation (no 'S')
• Now we've got a very angry _region_ not just a regime and much less goodwill from our allies. That depends on who you're hearing from. I've read from soldiers, including my brother, who seem to think that a lot of the "angry region" news is being mostly manufactured. Goodwill from our "allies" is something i'll take with a grain of salt.
• regardless of the fact that a war on 'terror' is like a war on 'grumpiness' I agree that the war on terror is so nebulous, it's nearly impossible to have any kind of strategy without sounding vague and generalized. That's part of the reason Iraq is important. It is a focusing measure.
• What is being focused on in Iraq? Is it removal of despots or potential funding for terrorist organizations? Why did Bush spend so much time and money on Iraq when N. Korea has a despot and verifiable nuclear weapons? "War on Terror" is media manipulation, plain and simple. It makes no literal sense, but it's not being used that way. It's a blanket statement that can be applied anywhere deemed necessary and is part of the ballyhoo preceeding the invasion of Iraq. Why are we tied up in there again?
• Let's not twist Luther's and Jesus' words out of proper context. Loving your enemies is, especially as emphasized by Jesus, an individual act, and doesn't [necessarily] apply to nation-states. Jesus taught almost purely on the level of the individual. He never addresses Israel or other countries as a whole, and his theology is not a government handbook. Yes, nations should respect nations, and foster goodwill, but there's a big difference between loving thy neighbour and a government policy of non-aggression. That being said, I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiments, ambrosia. Love thy enemy is one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
• Somehow, despite everything, transition of power over to the Iraqis seems to be on track. Dan Senor, CPA senior advisor, in a news conference several minutes ago: "[T]he following ministries have already been handed over for daily operational management to the Iraqi people: Ministry of Education, Ministry of Municipalities and Public Works, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Displacement and Migration, and today, the Ministry of Water Resources. The following three ministries are scheduled to transition later this week: the Ministry of Industry and Minerals, which is tomorrow; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is Wednesday; and the Ministry of Planning and Development, later this week, as well. And we will continue to work every single week between now and June 30th to turn over additional ministries to the Iraqi leadership."
• Unlike N. Korea, Iraq is not only centrally located in a hotbed of terrorist states and cells, but it was and possibly still is the source of funding for several terrorist groups, including Al Quaeda, Hamas, and the PA splinter cells. In a region that is unstable to begin with, Iraq made perfect sense to attack and neutralize. The fact that Hussein was in flagrant violation of UN resolutions, had demonstrated use and production of illegal weapons, and was in fact a major "player" in the terrorist-led destabilization of Middle East, only made the decision more concrete. N. Korea hasn't been aggressive, hasn't threatend us with terrorist attacks, hasn't sent men with chemicals and explosives to big cities with lots of people; in short, the need to look to N. Korea is not priority at this time. The greatest threat to national security is not a couple of N. Koreans dressed in coveralls driving a dirty bomb through the streets of DC.
• N. Korea has a despot and verifiable nuclear weapons? N. Korea (pronounced DPRK) has a big brother who carries a big fucking stick. The DPRK is just an inflatable girlfriend used to agitate the West. Every once in a while, even dingleberrys need to be removed with scissors.
• on track to become another fundamentalist Islamic state like Iran? If the ultimate goal of stopping terrorist groups/acts was what caused Bush to invade Iraq, I'd say it's not worth the $175 billion (i added the $25bil they now demand) and 800 service persons. There was a better way to do it, and a smarter leader would have found that way. If there are other reasons to invade that were worth the money & lives, I don't know what they are.
• point taken blogRot. Back to our show!
• I already redacted my Plame gaffe here. The American Prospect article points out that it was administration officials who told Novak NOT to release her name. Actually, I think the proper term is contends, not "points out". An article like this filled with anonymous "sources" is frankly, merely gossip. Not to mention based on potentially criminal acts if contents of the grand jury investigation have been leaked. Didn't we get enough of this style of garbage journalism with Whitewater? What is known for certain however at this time is that the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame was leaked to Bob Novak. It could only have been leaked by someone with the prerequisite knowledge, which indicates a higher-up administration official. Thus, although we will not know the whole story until the investigation is complete, the known and undisputed facts at this time implicate the Bush administration. Further, one final poiont to make. Any alleged actions to prevent the subsequent release of Valerie Plame's name after the initial leak do not erase the initial disclosure, and thus, have little bearing on the discussion of what the Bush administration did or did not do.
• Let's not twist Luther's and Jesus' words out of proper context. Loving your enemies is, especially as emphasized by Jesus, an individual act, and doesn't [necessarily] apply to nation-states. Jesus taught almost purely on the level of the individual. He never addresses Israel or other countries as a whole, and his theology is not a government handbook. I don't wish to derail this discussion into theological argument, but this just doesn't wash. Nation-states are made up of individuals, who make decisions that affect the actions of nation-states. How can an individual who professes to follow Jesus' dictum make a choice for his country which invalidates it? It's hard to love your enemies. It goes against our instincts to truly, honestly feel love and compassion for those who hate us. Watering down the message, making exceptions and loopholes, may appease your conscience, but it's not in the spirit or word of Jesus' or Dr. King's teachings. ambrosia-- thanks for bringing this up.
• zed, read between the lines. I'm pointing out that nations are not bound by the same tenets that Jesus laid out for individuals. Yes, nations are made up of individuals. But if we go by your perception, a nation attacked by a belligerent couldn't attack back, because Jesus said to "turn the other cheek." Could one nation really "die for another" nation? What you're suggesting would be tantamount to destabilization on an unprecedented level. At any rate, a nation cannot "love" another nation, not the way an individual can love another individual. Treaties, alliances, partnerships, international agreements and friendships - these are not love, they're political expediencies.
• a nation cannot "love" another nation not the way an individual can love another individual. nations don't "attack" either then. "All politics are local"? this derailment, it vibrates?
• At any rate, a nation cannot "love" another nation, not the way an individual can love another individual. Treaties, alliances, partnerships, international agreements and friendships - these are not love, they're political expediencies. So universal love and brotherhood, Jesus' main message is just bullshit then? No, this derailment resonates
• nations don't "attack" either then. "All politics are local"? No comment. So universal love and brotherhood, Jesus' main message is just bullshit then? That's it surlyboi, you've hit the nail on the head. And by hit the nail on the head, I mean "completely missed the point." And universal love and brotherhood is a pretty chintzy, disengenuous way of putting it. How about redemption from sins, is that part of your Jesus' message? I give up...
• f8x, my argument is, in part, that "nations" do not act, but people do. A nation is a legal fiction, and to ascribe the actions and motives of an individual to one is disingenious. As an example, Tony Blair almost single-handedly got Britain involved in Iraq, but he certainly does not speak for the nation in this regard, and one would be wrong to say that "Britain" supports the war. As to belligerent nations, I acknowledge that there are times when force might be needed to contain or prevent aggression, but it should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. To me, the use of force seems a failure of all other options, and that indicates a failure to think things through completely. I'd like to able to adopt Ghandi's example, but I'm not there yet.
• Ghandi would have been dumped in AbuGharib and left there to rot.
• Funny, I thought there was only one Jesus Christ. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and if I am, I'm sure you'll quickly enlighten me. As far as redemption from sin is concerned, that was only part of the message."Beat thy neighbor" wasn't anywhere in the stuff he said, as far as I know. But like I said, maybe I'm not reading the right bibles or listening to the right Jesus. Not that I'm saying the open hand should always supercede the closed fist, but that fist is being used to the exclusion of everything else lately and all it's doing is breaking shit.
• Ghandi would have been dumped in AbuGharib and left there to rot. By the prison's former or current management?
• I think f8x was pointing out that the Jesus George W. Bush believes in may not be the same Jesus that he believes in. Speaking of no "smoking gun" there's no proof that anyone named Jesus existed, but that's as far derailed as this thread should get . . . Anyone care to get back to the issue of why Bush shouldn't be considered dumb for leading the rush to war with Iraq and the resulting quagmire there? quag·mire (kwgmr, kwg-) n. 1. Land with a soft muddy surface. 2. A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.
• pete, I would, but I'm heading to New York in a bit and I don't think I have the time.
• Let me see if I can deprive Andrew Sullivan of the straw at which he still clutches. Can he?
• hehe
• smoking gun? Is "from the office of . . " close enough to sway opinions or will the right shrug and let it pass as well? tax-and-spend?
• f8xmulder: Here's an interesting post on Bush as a Newtonian politician. That has to be one of the most nonsensical articles I've ever read. Is it a joke?
• Both the Justice Department and Enron tried to prevent the release of these tapes. worst.administration.ever.
• Cheney's office involved in brokering Haliburton Deal. Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and other Bush administration political appointees were involved in a controversial decision to pay Halliburton Inc. to plan for the postwar recovery of Iraq's oil sector, a Democratic lawmaker said yesterday. The decision, overruling the recommendations of an Army lawyer, eventually resulted in the award of a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton, which Cheney ran for five years before he was nominated for vice president.
• * bangs head on keyboard *
• Tom Tomorrow nailed it... This Modern World: The liberal media compares the candidates.
• Hilarious!
• Quiet, you. /Mr. Peabody
• MonkeyFilter: Quiet, you.
• Hungarian schoolchildren dislike Bush more than Saddam, Osama, Hitler
• Hey, Pete. He's a uniter. Unfortunately, he happens to be uniting everyone against him.
• Pfft - well then why didn't he say that?? I feel so . . cheated.
• Scary, pete. Doesn't this do something wacky to the bar?
• As far as I can t*hic*-tell, the bar is open.
• Awesome. Guinness for everyone!
• Only terrorists drink guinness. (I've seen proof of it in films).
• WHY DO YOU HATE AMERI- *hic* Wha' were we toggin' about?
• George W. Bush as Presidential Simulacrum
• love the book, even better movie -- great thesis. thank you, homunculus. And while we're on the subject, simulacrum is an even funner word when drunk. siiiiim-uuuuuu-lacrum. excellent.
• homunculus- thanks for posting this; it could have been a post all on it's own.
• in the way that his obvious deficiencies are "spun" by supposedly disinterested media pundits. yes! /release_endorphins
• Interesting article, homunculus. Kinda weird to stump for Kerry at the end, though.
• Some of President Bush's own words.

  The President of the United States is not a fact-checker. I

• jenna bush's tongue. for - some reason. *shrug*
• Librarians Against Bush dot Org Mostly PATRIOT-act things (good documents resource for this - which should be self-evident now that I type this out) Doesn't mention anything about him coloring in the books.
• CBS cravenly killed a "60 Minutes" segment about Bush's deceptive case for invading Iraq. What did it contain that was too much for voters to see? I entertain any suggestions as to a better thread to post this to.
• CBS news president Andrew Heyward spiked the story this week, saying it would be "inappropriate" during the election campaign. Jesus H. Ganesha, is there a more appropriate time? I sure can't think of one.
• the_bone, why do you hate America?
• flip-flop
• I found this while reading through the link provided here. I found myself reading through the Scorecard of Evil, which is a condensed account of all the bad things Bush has done in his term. Very interesting indeed. Now I need to find something that counters that, because really, there's got to be a reason why everyday American citizens like this guy.
• i think it's irrational minda25. Sort of like defending a religion - at some point reason gives way and people "just do" support him. I think the "strict father" model George Lakoff put forth makes sense at least as far as I've found in talking to Bushies.
• it's only 216 comments but the Truthmapping thread got me thinking about it again. I think this was the last time I spent any significant time actually trying to debate a point or two. I wonder if it's time for another . . .
• Ah ya limey basterds, whats smart? And another thing, One oppresser is just as good as another, even if it's a texarkana oil slopping, wait a minute. thyis is still Canada right? time for the beautiful music. Da da, du dla di......
• I consider Bush to be lacking in intelligence only as it relates to his job. Overall, I am sure that he ranks as above-average in intelligence. As a president, I would confidently assert that he is below average. This opinion is not based on verbal mistakes. It is based on his appalling inability to think on his feet and express ideas. If he is asked something that makes him veer from his talking points, he stumbles around and says nothing. I remember from one of the Gore debates that they asked a question about what sort of plan would the president have in the event of some sort of international financial crisis. Gore went on about the collapse of some currency in South America and how his administration handled it. Then he tried to broaden his answer. Bush said that he would think it over carefully and consult Dick Cheney and Alan Greenspan. He had no idea what the question meant, or how to answer it. It was terrifying for me to watch. The next day I expected there to be some focus on his lack of understanding of certain topics or the inability to speak or think on his feet. Instead, all I heard about were Al Gore's annoying sighs.
• I'm convinced the reporters that have covered GW up to this point are all robots. Cheney's evil henchmen (and . . henchwomen . . i guess). Their (the MSM's) shocking and sad inability to challenge this administration is the worst thing to happen to America since . . well, i was gonna say since GW stole the election, but it may go beyond that. That run-up to war was abominable dereliction of duty.
• Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
• Bush To Appoint Someone To Be In Charge Of Country WASHINGTON, DC—In response to increasing criticism of his handling of the war in Iraq and the disaster in the Gulf Coast, as well as other issues, such as Social Security reform, the national deficit, and rising gas prices, President Bush is expected to appoint someone to run the U.S. as soon as Friday.
• Top Ten Signs You're Not Going To Be Named The World's #1 Intellectual 10. "Words you use more than any other--'Pro' and 'Rasslin'" 9. "Twice last week you went through a carwash without a car" 8. "You once returned a hat because it didn't have instructions" 7. "Fearing Avian Flu, you traded in your Ford Thunderbird" 6. "All your awards are labeled 'Participant'" 5. "When asked the capital of Nebraska, you answer, 'Capital N'" 4. "Working in chemistry lab, you discovered that 'The blue stuff is delicious'" 3. "You've been accused of lying through your tooth (Sorry, that's a sign you might be a redneck)" 2. "Just put $50,000 on the Jets" 1. "You started a war in Iraq without an exit strategy"
• 1a. You just republished an entire "Top Ten" list without permission from Worldwide Pants, Inc. *confiscates petebest's pants*
• And, when Dave announced the topic of that list, didn't everybody KNOW #1 was going to be a burn on Bush???
• D'oh! Now I'll never get to be on Stupid Monkey Tricks!
• Public speaking am hard "The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the -- the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." --Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003 "" "I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." —as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War
• Mike Wallace on what questions he'd ask George W. Bush -- who has declined to be interviewed by Wallace -- if he were given the chance: "What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? … You apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military … Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [bleeped] up?" link
• "In the last election, only about 10% of the voters knew the stands of the candidates. And it's not because they're stupid or uninterested, it's for the same reason that we don't know the characteristics of a given toothpaste" --Noam Chomsky on how the same PR firms that pitch toothpaste also ran PR for the Presidential candidates via audioblog No One's Listening
• Bush pressed to bulk up staff The constant barrage of incompetence and scandal have some insiders trying to convince White House chief of staff Andy Card to bring in at least one "adult," like a former senator or another "experienced hand," to help him reach out to congressional leaders, troubleshoot and, in the words of one source, "just be in the loop and give advice." To bring in an adult. Fucking unbelievable. AAAiiiiigh!!
• I think he combines incompetence and malice into a new construct that I like to call malcompetence. posted by Astro Zombie at 11:56 AM PST on March 15 heh.
• Bush To Appoint Someone To Be In Charge Of Country Dammit Pete! I got all excited thinking you were talking about THIS country.
• Wow, even Faux News is reporting Bush's approval rating at 33% (lower than Nixon, anyone?). Okay Bush voters - you locked us into four more years of this - what's the scoop? Changed your minds? Suddenly suspecting that maybe Bush isn't that great? Lose that Toby Keith album in a parking lot somewhere? What's the story? Cuttin' and runnin'? I know, I know, it's all a political calculation not to lose the collective Depublican ass this November, right? Riiiiight. Gay marriage!! Gays amongst us!! Aaaiiiighh!
• The Worst President in History?
• A similar question from Canada's Maclean's magazine. Although having a douchebag like Conrad Black defending him is not necessarily a good thing
• i'm surprised black isn't in jail.
• If Past Is Prologue, George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President
• and that's saying something.
• He's the decider!
• Bush Strategery Institute for Presidential Deciderating
• SNL: Funhouse with Bush: Real Audio
• Staged “Mea Culpa”
• Wolffe: ..And for me the big giveaway was at the end of that answer, I don't know if you can see it on camera, but the President flashed a big grin to those of us sitting in the front rows. It didn't seem that he was quite as contrite as his performance. Natch. Earth to Bushies: He Doesn't Care.
• Yeah, it's bullshit. He stuffed up the way he put things, you still have your super man of action at the helm. The message is "acts, not words".
• Bush Is Not Incompetent
• Yes but the piece fails to make a distinction between the administration and Bush himself. Although this makes sense: The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush’s management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Hehe. "She". Heh. Oh . um, sorry. OMG!!J/K!11LOL
• Like ... Elizabeth Dole ...?
• Ask him about the pig. You know you want to.
• If you go back to the aforementioned Frontline show it shows that Bush is not an idiot. The first time he ran for office in Texas he came across as what he is, an Ivy League educated member of the upper class. Needless to say, he got tromped. Bush learned his lesson and by the next time he ran he had perfected good old boy ah shucks persona. He's been riding it ever since. The big problem is that when people claim that Bush is stupid they are underestimating him. This has allowed him to get away with things and come out on top of his opponents time and time and again. The other mistake Bush opponents make is to not take his religious views into account. Almost every action he has taken, from invading Iraq to welfare reform can be explained by his apocalyptic, messianic, radical Christian views.
• it shows that Bush is not an idiot. what, medically? he came across as what he is, an Ivy League educated member of the upper class. A C-average frat leader cheerleading drunken cokehead? Quite.
• Don’t Talk With Your Mouth Full…
• WTF?!
• He's on first-name terms with Angela. Y'know what I'm sayin'?
• He's dumb. Yes.
• Drunken cokeheads make good cheerleaders.
• is a lecherous dry drunk imbecile with fucked up mommy issues. Ouch.
• The whole profanity bit of yesterday's big news didn't bother me as much as the grotesque manner in which chimpy was eating. He looked like an ass eating baboon butt.
• And what about the sweater? (Self-link.)
• He looked like an ass eating baboon butt. As my Grandma used to say when eating liver, "Every part strengthens a part."
• That Washington Post transcript is slightly different to the footage I saw on our local news last night (the video footage as well as subtitles, so you can see their lips match the words), where Bush is heard greeting Blair with "Yo, Blair, what're you doing?" and after Blair says he picked the sweater out himself, he adds, "In fact, I knitted it." The parts about Condi and Syria seem the same, though.
• J: Bet he hasn't even got a wife, look at that sweater! P: Y'never know she may have knitted it. J: She knitted him
• A C-average frat leader Yeah, but, a C-average in the Ivy league is pretty much an A average anywhere else. Now, let me be clear here, I no like Bush. I think he is one of the worst things to ever happen to this country, but ..... The reason Bush has been able to do such damage to this country is because his opponents have consistently underestimated him, and continue to do so. The other thing to remember is the fact that he and his supporters do not believe he has damaged the country. He believes strongly that America should have a religious based, heavily class stratified system with a ruling elite. The scary thing is that almost everything he has done, even the things that didn't work out so well, have brought us closer to that goal.
• ITYM misunderestimated.
• Yeah, but, a C-average in the Ivy league is pretty much an A average anywhere else. My years of experience working at an Ivy League university tell me otherwise. Like anywhere else, it depends on the individual programs and instructors. And even in cases where the academics are more challenging, there are also more resources to help students, especially ones with rich parents who can afford the best tutors and test-prep courses. I'm not buyin' that Mr. Bush has more brains than someone who got all A's at a state university.
• I agree. I have friends who have had high-priced Ivy League educations and gone to decent state schools for a quarter of the price as well, and they reported back to me that there was absolutely no discernible difference at the undergraduate level in the quality of education. Where you get your bachelor's degree doesn't matter nearly as much as where you get your graduate degree. And most of what you pay for with Harvard or Yale or any of those schools is (a) having their names on your resume, and (b) getting the contacts in the business world that come with an Ivy League education. Shit, my wife got a very expensive undergraduate education at a highly-ranked private university. She reported that at least half of her courses were taught by graduate assistants, because the professors were too busy with their research. She wishes now that she'd gone to the University of Arkansas and saved that money for when she moved on to grad school.
• You got a good point there but it doesn't change my central point that Bush's opponents have consistently underestimated him because they consider him stupid. This has allowed him to get his right religious agenda pushed through. For good or bad the man has been responsible for permanent changes to the power structures of American government and society.
• BREAKING: President Bush Really Big Doofus
• Fooling the people
• Bush just contradicted himself (yeah, yeah, I know) in the press conference that homunculus linked to. "Bush: For a while, American foreign policy was just, Let's hope everything is calm - kind of, managed calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested on September the 11th. . . . they[terrorists] would like to harm our respective peoples because of what we stand for."
• "I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!"
• Galbraith argues that because the new Iraq was never a voluntary creation of its people--but rather held together by force--America’s ongoing attempt to preserve a unified nation is guaranteed to fail Weimar Republic much? Anyway, this might indeed explain his failure to foresee the inevitable civil conflict.
• Galbraith doesn't argue nearly as much as he used to in days of yore. And this Avard guy doesn't seem aware there are at least three sects within Islam. Dunno why the Sufis always get left out out of these blanket statements, but I incline to find the Sufis much the most sympatico because of the prodigious outpouring of poetry and the fact they contrive to stay on their feet after twisting about like -- well -- dervishes. I say this even though Islam has never been noted for tolerance of non-monotheistic folk. But the Buddha never gave a damn about such trifles, so why should I? /bees, visiting the Rose
• What a Moronic Presidential Press Conference! It's clear Bush doesn't understand Iraq, or Lebanon, or Gaza, or …
• "Among the many flabbergasting answers that President Bush gave at his press conference on Monday . . " Wow. A new low. Again.
• Strategery, boys!
• Objectivery.
• Little Richard gives us the low down…
• Manly!
• Here's an entertaining review of Mansfield's book.
• ,
• What Exactly Is President Bush’s Job?
• Best TDS in awhile! Thanks!
• Stay the course.
• The Google
• R.I.P. “Stay the Course” 1885-2006
• George Bush + George Michael
• "Is it just me or has George W. Bush checked out of the stumbling national crisis we know as 'Iraq'?"
• I agree, he seems bored with it. Wants to play golf.
• Bush hopes Maliki has a few ideas he can borrow
• Son also rises in testy Webb-Bush exchange
• Praising son Jeb, former President Bush breaks down
• "I'll be dead when they get it right."
• "They don't get it," a GOP mandarin snapped. "The Iraq report was their brass ring to pivot and salvage the last two years, and they didn't grab it." Ha!
• Daily Show: Barney's Holiday Extravaganza
• What Has Bush Learned From His Mistakes? Nothing.
• I'm not dead! I'm getting better!
• Proof that George W. Bush is not Bill Clinton: Bush's approval rating is lower than that received by any other modern president at this point in his second term. Richard Nixon didn't make it to the beginning of his seventh year in office. As Clinton entered his seventh year in office, his approval rating stood at 65 percent -- more than double Bush's current rating -- despite the fact that he'd already been impeached by the House of Representatives.
• GOP's Specter says Bush not "sole decider" on war "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility" Oh shut up.
• Soldier In Iraq Calls Out Bush For Evading His Question About Escalation
• ShrubCo Approval Ratings Chart via the fantastical j-walk.
• GOP insider: Bush is 'Dan Quayle in cowboy boots'
• But he knows howta spell potatoe cuz thas what they make vodka outta.
• Victor Gold, a friend of George H.W. Bush and the Cheney family, will release a book slamming the Bush administration entitled, "Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP." Everyone who supported, rallied, and voted for Bush who now finds it convenient to diminish him or otherwise publicly state the gross incompetencies and other criminal enterprises of this administration may metaphorically apply their dental equipment in an incisive manner to my posterior. buncha turd-munching louses . . .
• George W. Bush Speechwriter
• There's some nice reverb if you click multiple times on an item in the left column.
• White House Claims Bush Was In The Dark About Iraq Troop Extensions
• Bush muses on marriage, chicken-plucking _"Politics comes and goes, but your principles don't. And everybody wants to be loved — not everybody. ... You never heard anybody say, `I want to be despised, I'm running for office.'" _"The best thing about my family is my wife. She is a great first lady. I know that sounds not very objective, but that's how I feel. And she's also patient. Putting up with me requires a lot of patience." _"There are jobs Americans aren't doing. ... If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about." _"There are some similarities, of course" between Iraq and Vietnam. "Death is terrible." _"I've been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times." As he has before, Bush told the story about how his first presidential decision was to pick a rug for the Oval Office, a task he quickly cast to his wife. He told her to make sure the rug reflected optimism "because you can't make decisions unless you're optimistic that the decisions you make will lead to a better tomorrow." Later, when he talked about his hope for succeeding in Iraq, Bush said, "Remember the rug?"
• When I read Bush quotes, I don't hear them in his voice. I hear them in Arlo Guthrie's voice with "Alice's Restaurant" guitar picking in the background.
• They all sound like things Andy Rooney would have said sarcastically.
• Remember when Andy Rooney was entertaining and likable? Now he's just a parody of himself. And possibly senile.
• He SEEMED senile back when, but that could have been an act.
• How Reaganesque.
• If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about. Awwwww yeah, baby. Mm! Hit-Tin the walls, workin' the middle, you know? All up in they brain.
• Bunker mentality
• I just saw the President and the First Lady on American Idol. Without an iota of shame, the leader of the largest/second largest economy on Earth thanked the watchers of a television talent show for raising charity money that would help the poorest children in the U.S.. What the fuck would these children do without the talent show?
• *hits silent "independent thinker" alarm, points guards to roryk*
• Without the show, the kids would die for their country. Y'know, heroes, like. Those who survived would also die for their country -- after being drafted.
• My guess is that many of the poorest children in the US are those of illegal immigrants. So does some money go to help them? They are children in this country.
• The Prez on Idol? Well, ain't that a no-brainer! OK, I can understand the premise. We've had talent search shows for a long time, and good things can come of it. But Idol sucks. Seems to me the atmosphere is more like a gladiator fight than a talent contest. Everyone attached to that show has sprung elbows from patting their own backs on how great they are. And Bushco? He sucks the big one. Dumb a**. Let's get a couple one-time bucks from a TV show and show the world what a great couple we are. Screw any kind of government aid to really help these kids throughout their lives so that they can break the cycle of poverty.
• Life imitates art.
• Or vise versus.
• I know Idol sucks, but I don't get to choose everything that's on the telly in my house. Moreoer, I'm a fan of charity, and I think it's great that the show has raised 70 million dollars to help kids in the U.S. and internationally. But the point here has three aspects: * this guy is the leader of a mega ultra rich economy by world standards * he's appearing on television thanking people for contributing money to help poor kids in the U.S. * he's not hanging his head in shame over his failure to do anything for these underprivileged kids during his six years in office. One of the projects they showed was for people dislocated after and since hurricane Katrina. These folk are living in a trailer park with close to zero facilities. There's a barn-like structure that's missing a few walls that has been co-opted for running kids' events. Some of the money raised by American Idol will be used to add walls to this structure so the kids could, I dunno, maybe have some group activities when it's raining and the wind is blowing... What the fuck? What sort of a hegemonic superpower is this?
• * he's not hanging his head in shame over his failure to do anything for these underprivileged kids during his six years in office. HAHAHahahahaha!! AAiiighh! HAhahahahahaha! . . . Oh . . man, that's too funny *snif* Hoo!
• Thank you for expanding my point, Roryk. It's nice that everyone concerned put in their time to raise that amount of money. Somebody put some effort into it, and Bush comes along to take a bow. Now how much of that money will actually make it's way down into something that benefits the people, rather than ending up as padding in some administrator's or contractor's pocket? Not that it's ever happened before with this administration, right? Oddly enough, I just talked today with one of the execs who works for a large corporation that has a site here in Idaho. Their company had a base donation, plus matching funds with employee donations, and they contributed several MILLION dollars to Katrina aid. They never received a thank you or any accounting of where that money went. Nice, eh?
• Wow. Even his prepared speeches are incoherent. "The peach man said to me, he said, 'I can't find somebody from my hometown who wants to pick peaches. But I can find somebody who wants to put food on their table for a family from, you know, Mexico, for example' ... "In other words, if you can come to our country on a temporary basis legally, you're not going to sneak across the border. Who wants to pay a coyote hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars when you can walk across and say, 'I'm going to have a temporary-work job here in this country. And here's my tamper -- you know, my tamper- resistant card' ... "Under the bill, those who want to stay in our country who have been here can apply for a Z visa. At some point in time, those who are coming to work will get temporary work visas. Those who have been here already can apply for a Z visa. To receive the visa, illegal workers must admit they violated the law and pay a meaningful penalty, pass a strict background check, hold a job, maintain a clean record, and eventually earn English -- learn English. "That's how it works. It says, 'If you want to be here, here's what you have to do.' There is a consequence for having broken the law. As a result of a recent Senate amendment, they have to pay back taxes if they hadn't paid taxes, too. You're working hard. You pay taxes. People who have been here in this country ought to pay taxes, that's what it says. "The hurdles to citizenship are going to be even higher. In other words, if somebody says, 'Fine, I'll take my Z visa, I'm out of the shadows now, I've got an opportunity to, you know, not hide in America, I'm going to continue doing the work I'm doing, I'm going to keep my record clean, I'll pay the penalties necessary so I can stay here.' That's what it says. "But if you want to be a citizen, there's more hurdles. It says the Z visa worker would first have to pay an additional fine. In other words, 'You have broken the law and there's a consequence for breaking the law'; that's what the bill says. *boggle*
• Maybe it sounds better in Spanish? *shrugs
• Maybe it sounds better in Spanish? I'd like to hear it in the original German. /godwin
• Zing!
• I babelfished it into German and back. That is, if to our country on a temporary basis permit-proves you come can, you will not creep over the edge. Who would like to pay a Kojoten hundreds dollar, or thousands dollar, if over here to go and to say be able, ' I will have you temporary-work job here in this country. And is here my Besetzer -- you know, my steady map of the Besetzers '
• Fine and good, but I am looking for a steady map of the Besetzers. Can anyone help me?
• And I'm NOT willing to pay hundreds dollar to some stinkin' Kojoten.
• "Map of the Besetzers! Only $5! GETcher Map of the Besetzers! Riiiight Heeah! Five Dollars!"
• I ain't buyin' that map 'til it steadies up a bit.
• Bush Turns Iraq into Israel/Palestine; Gaffe endangers US Troops
• *sigh* He/they will never get it.
• Bush: Dumb? Yes and yes.
• Four Years Later: “Bring ‘Em On”
• Why Bush Is A Loser
• "Find the Kid a Job"...
• Direct quote from the just published REAGAN DIARIES. The entry is dated May 17, 1986. 'A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.' mmm.
• ...except that this diary entry is not true...
• That's unpossible!
• From a place called "global research", too...
• that link doesn't say it's not true though.
• Ralph's link seems to indicate that Kinsley made it up as one of three hypothetical, imaginary ways Reagan could have mentioned him in his diaries. It looks like global research picked it up out of context and assumed it was true. I would have thought it would be a very easy thing to fact-check.
• What on earth could Reagan have written? I indulged my imagination, and my ego: Indeed. My reading errur.
• Bush can't recall why Iraqi army disbanded
• "Yeah, I can't remember; I'm sure I said, 'This is the policy, what happened?' " Bush said, adding: "Again, Hadley's got notes on all this stuff" -- a reference to national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley. I ... I just don't know what to say. Wow.
• Mmm. Yes he is clearly losing some of the sharpness and knowledgability with which he once deftly ran his administration. Arg.
• Envoy’s Letter Counters Bush on Dismantling of Iraq Army
• Hoo hoo! When the voters get a whiff of this one, boy howdy will they vote for intelligent informed leadership then! MmmmMMmm that's good irony
• I was going to post a cogent statement, but I'm still crackin' up over pete's last couple comments. Later maybe.
• Dazed Bush forgets what country he's in, what summit he's at
• Does this mean our supply of Austrian crude oil will be cut off?
• There's no question this guy is brain damaged. I no longer have any doubts.
• "He's our first MetaPresident."
• Bush: I veto bills to ‘ensure that I am relevant.’
• President Temper Tantrum
• Yeah, I heard this earlier. Thought I was going to gag. I don't know what to say to people who support this maniac. There are people I thought were friends who I no longer want to associate with, because if they think this man is right, what the hell do they call wrong? following the links... From by tristerio... ...2004 interview, reported in the AP, with Garry Trudeau who happened to have the misfortune of being a classmate of Bush's at Yale: Trudeau said he penned his very first cartoon to illustrate an article in the Yale Daily News on Bush and allegations that his fraternity, DKE, had hazed incoming pledges by branding them with an iron. A view of ‘torture’? The article in the campus paper prompted The New York Times to interview Bush, who was a senior that year. Trudeau recalled that Bush told the Times “it was just a coat hanger, and ... it didn’t hurt any more than a cigarette burn.” “It does put one in mind of what his views on torture might be today,” Trudeau said. Indeed it does. And btw, now you know why Limbaugh called Abu Ghraib a fraternity hazing stunt. It was. Courtesy of the Fratboy-in-Chief. Hey, everybody, surfs up! Let's do some waterboarding.
• ACK! *repeatedly punches broken preview button From here by tristerio... ...2004 interview, reported in the AP, with Garry Trudeau who happened to have the misfortune of being a classmate of Bush's at Yale: Trudeau said he penned his very first cartoon to illustrate an article in the Yale Daily News on Bush and allegations that his fraternity, DKE, had hazed incoming pledges by branding them with an iron. A view of ‘torture’? The article in the campus paper prompted The New York Times to interview Bush, who was a senior that year. Trudeau recalled that Bush told the Times “it was just a coat hanger, and ... it didn’t hurt any more than a cigarette burn.” “It does put one in mind of what his views on torture might be today,” Trudeau said. Indeed it does. And btw, now you know why Limbaugh called Abu Ghraib a fraternity hazing stunt. It was. Courtesy of the Fratboy-in-Chief. Hey, everybody, surfs up! Let's do some waterboarding.
• BUSH=IPECAC
• Battle of the Bushes
• Bush on Musharraf: “…so far I’ve found him to be a man of his word.”
• Bush Only Found Out About Iran Intel Last Week?
• riiiight. gee, if only clinton's utterances had been being recorded and analyzed by "hundreds of hostile observers" with such passion we'd have known what an imbecile that rhodes scholar was as well. Remember when this thread allowed for the possibility that Bush wasn't as dumb as all that? Well it did. In theory. What a maroon Bush is.
• Oliver Stone votes for 'Bush' project
• "A Charge to Keep"
• Whoops. Hero, horse theif. It's all good to teh W.
• How to Game a Presidential Legacy
• Afghanistan Envy: Bush's romantic notions about serving on the front lines.
• Conversation I had three years ago: Me: Bush enjoys saber-rattling, and he likes seeing himself as a wartime president. Rightwinger: That's stupid! Nobody in his right mind likes bing a wartime leader. Me: In his right mind, you say?
• This made me giggle a bit. A month or so ago, Bob Geldof travelled with George Bush to Africa, and wrote about it for TIME: "I gave the President my book. He raised an eyebrow. "Who wrote this for ya, Geldof?" he said without looking up from the cover. Very dry. "Who will you get to read it for you, Mr. President?" I replied. No response."
• The President and First Lady were visibly shocked by the museum. "Evil does exist," Bush says in reaction to the 1994 massacres. "And in such a brutal form." He is not speechifying; he is horror-struck by the reality of ethnic madness. "Babies had their skulls smashed," he says, his mind violently regurgitating an image he has just witnessed. The sentence peters out, emptied of words to describe the ultimately incomprehensible.
• Sacrifice.
• Can this possibly be a serious, factual story? I just can't tell anymore.
• Can we possibly have this dickhead as our serious, factual president? I just can't tell anymore.
• 'We Are Going to Wipe Them out!' Gen. Ricardo Sanchez's memoirs contain a transcript from a bloodthirsty and over the top private speech by Bush.
• White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail
• Bush's Banned Interview: An Insight Into Insanity
• Tried to watch, got more than halfway through. That's longer than I usually last. I love how he gets to the end of a sentence, there's a five-second silence, she starts to ask the next quesiotns, and he snaps "Let me finish!" like she would have had some reason to suspect he had more to say. Classic Brat Prince - he's not used to interviewers going off script.
• I couldn't watch it either, TUM. She asks a very pointed, specific question, he goes on rah-rahing about how he's saving the world from evil. I lasted till he dragged in 9/11--and couldn't do it anymore. Enough already! We have created a huge new generation of terrorists. The death toll from Katrina was commensurate, and yet never once has he spoke to the topic that it was unavoidable. Even more reprehensible is that he is doing NOTHING to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
• How Bush Destroyed the Republican Party: A president driven by ideology. A Congress rife with corruption. A political party hellbent on a 'permanent majority.' A leading scholar examines the radicals who hijacked the GOP — and wrecked the longest conservative ascendancy in American history.
• The Final Days: As he hands over control of his party to John McCain, what does George Bush really think about his former rival, the fall campaign and his own presidential legacy?
• In response to a question about how the White House settled on a troop surge of five brigades after the military leadership in Washington had reluctantly said it could provide two, Bush said: "Okay, I don't know this. I'm not in these meetings, you'll be happy to hear, because I got other things to do."
• This just in: Bush is Dumb. Four more years! Four more years!
• Holee shit! A petebest! I thought those went extinct!
• Shhhhhhh! If we're quiet, maybe we can spot a whole flock of Pete Bests, or petebests, or petebeasts! We missed you! Com'er and get a great big GramMa smooch!
• Made my day...! Have missed all of 'ya too!
• So Little Time, So Much Damage
• The Bush Legacy Project
• Bush’s Exit Interview: No Question That Harriet Miers Was a Good Pick
• Bob Herbert: "When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don’t think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country."
• A President Forgotten but Not Gone
• Remember how Hunter S. Thompson said the US deserved Richard Nixon? Somehow, I can't get past the notion that the US, addled by plenty of TV and junk food and religious twaddle also deserved Bush the Lesser.
• Cold, orococo. That's really, really cold.
• You're right BH. I really should have said Reagan, because that's when this mess actually started. GW Bush was merely a knave lackey for the Reaganite crew, which made him good enough for the US, I guess!
• "01/20/09 - The End of an Error"