Thread: Blackwater out of Iraq ?

Originally Posted by Ray

Actually Bush thinks faster than his mouth and he thinks that he has said what he has thought.

Hence, it come out as odd.

Some people have this effect.

Otherwise, he is a nice man. At least he says what he means and tries to back it up with action even if it is not palatable.

Ray:

Not to excuse Bush's mangleations of the english language and his propensity to speak like one of the good ole boys, but there is a reason and it can be found in the telling of his undergrad days at Yale.

He has told friends that he could not wait to leave the place because of the "intellectual snobbery."

Washingtonpost.com: Bush: So-So Student but a Campus Mover

Also, the self-deprecating humor is a Southern Thang(tm) that a lot of people just don't get. When he mis-pronounces words that he knows dam' well how to say (strategery; misunderestimate), it's a subtle form of humility and acknowledgement of being no better than anybody else. This egalitarianism is just alien to people that consider themselves 'elite'.

A LOT of what passes for ignorance on Bush's part is actually cultural ignorance on the part of hyper-critical observers: they simply don't 'get' him, and they're eager to assign to him ANY evil motive or personal shortcoming, no matter how thin the fact that they're hanging their argument on.

I can say this with some authority, as I remember well the destructive fury that Reagan was greeted with, and the Oval Office has never had a more decent man in it since Lincoln himself...who, history tells us, was ALSO attacked unmercifully by lesser men.

Oh Blues, you are in no way comparing Bush to Lincoln and Reagan are you? Probably the word you are searching for is "inarticulate."

I happen to think that Bush's ignorance is so transparent that many people, who knew him well, have said these statements of him:

Richard Perle, foreign policy adviser: "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."

David Frum, former speechwriter: "Bush had a poor memory for facts and figures. … Fire a question at him about the specifics of his administration's policies, and he often appeared uncertain. Nobody would ever enroll him in a quiz show."

Paul O'Neill, former treasury secretary: "The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection."

After years of working with his dad in Washington, he didn't understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, the second- and third-largest federal programs. Well into his plans for invading Iraq, Bush still couldn't get down the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, the key religious divide in a country he was about to occupy.

Bush's college grades were mostly Cs (including a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System).

Read some stuff about Lincoln by the people that worked with him.

Too easy.

And Reagan, supposedly asleep at the switch, managed to sweep all before him, domestic as well as foreign.

What else ya got?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

What else ya got?

This isn't the appropriate thread, and if you call me on it, I'll have to move it, but since you asked, I found this while researching the SCHIP bill :

Bush Vs. SCHIP In Texas

In a 1999 article in The Nation, "Running on Empty", Lou Dubose wrote about an episode that should have blown the lid off of all that rhetoric about "compassionate conservatism" (remember that?):

But although Bush may be a good fit for Texas, is he a good fit for the nation? Consider, for a start, his legislative record. As guests of the Black Caucus settled in for lunch, the House was at work on the first piece of his 1999 agenda. "There's a lot of people hurting," the governor had said this past January when he requested that the Senate waive its procedural rules and immediately bring to the floor a $45 million tax break for the oil-and-gas industry. The decline in oil-and-gas prices, Bush argued, erodes the earnings of thousands of "stripper well" owners (most unaccustomed to seeing their annual individual income fall below $100,000). And it threatens the flow of tax revenue the wells provide to a number of Texas school districts.

But then a Democratic lawmaker got a funny idea:

The relief bill for owners of these marginally productive wells was not going to be stopped in the House, the last redoubt of the Texas Democratic Party after Bush's defeat of hopelessly underfunded Land Commissioner Garry Mauro carried Republicans into all twenty-seven statewide elected offices, from attorney general to land commissioner. In fact, House Democrats couldn't even hold their six-seat majority together to limit oil-and-gas tax relief to $200,000 per individual. But a veteran black legislator from Houston did use the debate to direct legislators' attention to another bill, which the governor and his staff were opposing. The oil-and-gas bill is about relief, "about helping people out," Sylvester Turner said, praising perhaps too effusively the tax bill and its Republican sponsors. So he was going to vote for it. Then Turner challenged every representative who was going to cast a vote for the governor's oil-industry bill to vote for adequate funding of the federal/state Children's Health Insurance Program, which would be on the House floor within a few weeks.
Ouch!

And now the details that the American people never heard about in 2000:

While Bush and his staff were pushing the oil-and-gas tax bill through the legislature, they were also fighting to hold the line on health insurance for children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to purchase private health insurance. There are 1.4 million children in Texas who have no health insurance. If eligibility were set at 200 percent of the federal poverty level, more than 500,000 of them would qualify to purchase low-cost insurance policies. Bush insisted, however, that the line be set at 150 percent, eliminating 200,000 children in a state second to California in the number of uninsured children and second to Arizona in the percentage of uninsured children. "It shouldn't even be a fight," said Austin Democratic Representative Glen Maxey, adding that Republican governors in Michigan, California, Florida and New Jersey all agreed to their states' participation in the program. "Christine Whitman is even going to 300 percent," he noted.

That is how the 76th Legislature began in Texas, with the governor flogging a tax break for oil-well owners while limiting a children's health insurance program that brings the state a three-to-one match in federal funds. The two bills illustrate Bush's dual welfare policies: expanding benefits for clients of the corporate welfare state while imposing harsh restrictions on people in need of help. They are also consistent with most of what Bush has set out to achieve since he was elected in 1994.

Bush's whole "compassionate conservative" narrative could have been utterly destroyed if Democrats had simply focused on this deeply telling event. But, they did not.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I disagree. Govern and lead by PRINCIPLE, and not by some notion of accomodation with people that you believe are wrong. A compromise is nothing more than being half-wrong, in order to do something half-right.

Bingo. I'm idealistic about how the world should be, or how it can be, but not how it is. I get the strong sense that was the failing of a lot of organs of the Admin during the Invasion, they only saw what they were looking for not what was there. Can't change that now though.

Well, Julie, once again, when you're bested, you take to your old form and go as far afield as you can to make irrelevent points, and can in no way back up what you've said before, or to refute any of MY points.

If this is all you've got to counter what's been said by me, or to bolster what's been said by you, I'm calling this one:

GAME.

SET.

MATCH.

To ME.

Julie,

Those were interesting quotes.

However, Bush is like an innocent child. He says what he feels and maybe he is not really cut out for the finer issues of politics and governance.

He, unfortunately, is the most powerful man in the world and he does not realise that every word of his is earth shaking and that he should speak with measured nuances.

English, or should I say American English, is his mother tongue. There is no excuse to screw it up as he could were he speaking Spanish. I believe he knows Spanish. And on top of it, he is Ivy League!

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Then you managed, as you always seem to do, to take entirely the wrong lesson away from this.

Try this on instead: the more the Bush-Haters spin everything he says into a scandal/controversy/gaffe, the worse things are for everybody.

THAT is what happened here. Nothing Bush said could be construed by a reasonable person as improper in any way. And yet, look what it was turned into by people of ill-will.

It does not take much for Bush Jnr, to make himself look the arse he is..!
He is inept and constraint of brian cells.... he speaks before his brain engages..!
Since coming into power he has made to many gaffes, and stupid statements.
For a man in his position, The leader of the free world... it is woefull.
.....He will fit in better as a clown in a circus..!! You might as well have Benny Hill as your president.
Unfrotunatley people around the world see this, and persive Americans to be of the same ilk.

Originally Posted by Julie

Bush's college grades were mostly Cs (including a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System).

Could you link me to his transcript? I didn't know it was public.

Originally Posted by Simullacrum

It does not take much for Bush Jnr, to make himself look the arse he is..!
He is inept and constraint of brian cells.... he speaks before his brain engages..!
Since coming into power he has made to many gaffes, and stupid statements.
For a man in his position, The leader of the free world... it is woefull.
.....He will fit in better as a clown in a circus..!! You might as well have Benny Hill as your president.
Unfrotunatley people around the world see this, and persive Americans to be of the same ilk.

With all due regards to your sentiments, I beg to disagree to the extent that whatever be the reason, he was elected as the President. The American public apparently made the mistake, if indeed, that is what you feel.

I do not like his policies; well, some of them; but I do appreciate his frankness and candid opinions, even if I find them abrasive.

I like him as a man and a human being. He is not deviously cunning as politicians are wont to be. To me that is indeed a rare quality and which I appreciate.

He is so naive that his henchmen use him as a stool pigeon/ catspaw for furthering their devious agendas and he is seen, to the world, as overpowering person, when in real life, he is not.

True, he mispronounces words, but it is such great fun to poke some humour at his expense. It is just that his backer's agenda has gone so sour that it all sticks on him.

That is the crown of thorns that he has to bear as the most powerful man in the world!

No offence meant, please.

Just my opinion and defence for a good human being, misused by those who advise him!

I do not defend him in any partisan way as some do!

I defend him for being a simple good human being with warped policies of his friends to enact!

Originally Posted by Ray

Julie,

Those were interesting quotes.

However, Bush is like an innocent child. He says what he feels and maybe he is not really cut out for the finer issues of politics and governance.

He, unfortunately, is the most powerful man in the world and he does not realise that every word of his is earth shaking and that he should speak with measured nuances.

English, or should I say American English, is his mother tongue. There is no excuse to screw it up as he could were he speaking Spanish. I believe he knows Spanish. And on top of it, he is Ivy League!

Ray,

You are right: there is a subtle manner of speaking that practised diplomats and world leaders are used to, that is for the most part indirect in expression but pointed in meaning--"mesaured nuances", as you put it. That's where leader X tells leader Y, "We're gonna blow you apart if you keep ferking with us", but he does it thus. "We have been fast friends over the years, and we trust that any actions taken by you in light of recent developments will not interfere with that friendship."

Bush. perhaps to his detriment, has no use for nuance. He sees it as intellectual dishonesty. Nevertheless, its a red herring to go on about his mangled English and difficulty in communicating publicly. It's snobbery to titter at his mis-elocutions. His views are known, raw as they may be expressed. The media and the world diplomatic community needs to get over it and get on with business. He still sits in the most powerful seat in the world. That's the reality.

JAD,

The world community is used to certain ways and they cannot change.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks!

The world is run by polished and practised chaps.

Intellectual snobbery is the game to fame and power unfortunately. No one likes a country bumpkin to dictate terms. Would you like a hick telling you what you should do? A loveable Huckleberry Finn telling you how to run your life and mortgages?

One can understand the embarrassment of some Americans for Bush's gaffes. Can't have the most powerful nation to appear comical! I would feel the same if I were an American!

Look at Blair. The cleverest of them all! A socialist to grab power when actually a piggyback/ pickaback imperialist at heart!

Originally Posted by Ray

With all due regards to your sentiments, I beg to disagree to the extent that whatever be the reason, he was elected as the President. The American public apparently made the mistake, if indeed, that is what you feel.

I do not like his policies; well, some of them; but I do appreciate his frankness and candid opinions, even if I find them abrasive.

I like him as a man and a human being. He is not deviously cunning as politicians are wont to be. To me that is indeed a rare quality and which I appreciate.

He is so naive that his henchmen use him as a stool pigeon/ catspaw for furthering their devious agendas and he is seen, to the world, as overpowering person, when in real life, he is not.

True, he mispronounces words, but it is such great fun to poke some humour at his expense. It is just that his backer's agenda has gone so sour that it all sticks on him.

That is the crown of thorns that he has to bear as the most powerful man in the world!

No offence meant, please.

Just my opinion and defence for a good human being, misused by those who advise him!

I do not defend him in any partisan way as some do!

I defend him for being a simple good human being with warped policies of his friends to enact!

No offence taken Ray.
Im just saying how some people view him and connect Americans to him.
iv heard it to many times...
As for my own views...yes he is a cluts...and cringe when I hear him talk, and make mistakes/gaffes... one or two can be tollerated within your time span of office...but it aint one or two.... very constant with him...I somehow find that unnaceptable for the position he is in. He knows next nothing outside of America, and has been known to put it wrong with regards to stuff within America. I am not a statements...but when im in a foreign country, talking, training what ever it is im doing...im prepared and do my homework.
It aint his Fault..he rode his luck and got elected...at the end of the day, with regards to Head of states...there mearly puppets to Governments, and Influencial people.
He makes his descion on what info he is given, whether it is right or wrong, beneficial or not.
I do pitty him cause at the end of the day he will be seen as a fool by most people around the world, including Americans, who are not blinded by patratism and ignorance.