Blackwater out of Iraq ?

**Ray** · 07 Oct 07, 19:06

Simullacrum,

I understand your position on the issue and I feel the same way as you do.

I was only trying to understand why he does it.

He is a simple chap. It is the devious backroom boys who are ruining his standing and his mouth faster than his thoughts is what is adding to the problem.

A good man, but.......

What can I say except feel sorry.

**JAD_333** · 07 Oct 07, 19:08

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!

General:

I appreciate your defense of Bush however tongue in cheek it may be.

The flaw in your analysis is that he is used by his advisors to advance their own agendas. For example on Iraq, it was he who initiated the planning to
topple Saddam. In general, it may be that he is in accord with his advisors'
views or they were selected to their positions because their views matched his own.

Former Secty of Treasury O'Neil, who was asked to resign during Bush's first term, later publicly delittled Bush's brainpower and released a ream of official documents to prove his point. They are interesting to read because, far from proving his point, he only proved that he did not understand the role of the president and chaffed at adhering to administration policy. He expected Bush to be conversant on all the minute details of the economy, etc., and provided him with background materials that would take weeks to digest. The president is a generalist, not a policy wonk. This is the genesis of today's rap against Bush's mental prowess. Later O'Neil backed off somewhat on his accusations, but the damage was done.

It's in history's hands now.

**JAD_333** · 07 Oct 07, 19:31

Originally Posted by Ray

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?

Ray:

I am a builder, as perhaps you know, and although I have a college degree and was raised in Washington's embassy district, I often have to deal with men who you might call plain-speaking "hicks". They are the subcontractors who do the electrical, plumbing, and other work on the houses I build. I assure you that their advice is not only worth listening to, but ignoring it leads to serious problems down the road. Any one of them could have been a bank president, a leading politician or a military officer had the circumstances of their upbringing been different. When one of these "hicks" tells me what they like or dislike about Bush or Hillary, I listen, because they get to the point in as few words as possible, and usually they're spot on.

The problem with the high and mighty of this world is that they listen to each other and not to the "hicks" of the world. And their bias divides along such lines as ability to phrase things in the required language. I believe Bush could have been wiser and not press his distain for high language. You know--go ahead and use the established tools of international relations to win the game. But he is what he is--true to his distain. If this so offends world's leaders who place great value on polite verbage, then why are they so impolite as to snicker at Bush's gaffs? Seems a bit hypocitical, doesn't it?

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!

Well, we Americans tend to be blunt. Remember the General who responded to the German's demand for surrender during the Battle of the Bulge--"NUTS".

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

That's another subject.

)

**Ray** · 07 Oct 07, 20:28

JAD,

Hicks maybe important to you, but when my life and future is in your hands as the most powerful nation in the world, I rather have a chap who tends to beyond the hickish philosphy!

The day everyone is hickish, I am game!

Till then, give me someone who can think and work the nonsense that is the world!

Patton cannot be compared!

**JAD_333** · 08 Oct 07, 02:19

Originally Posted by Ray

JAD,

Hicks maybe important to you, but when my life and future is in your hands as the most powerful nation in the world, I rather have a chap who tends to beyond the hickish philosphy!

The day everyone is hickish, I am game!

Till then, give me someone who can think and work the nonsense that is the world!

Patton cannot be compared!

Ray:

Our points missed each other by a mile. I was speaking about language and you're speaking about leadership ability. My point is, how one speaks isn't a measure of their ability. Cheers.

**Julie** · 08 Oct 07, 02:39

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Ray:

Our points missed each other by a mile. I was speaking about language and you're speaking about leadership ability. My point is, how one speaks isn't a measure of their ability. Cheers.

I disagree to the point that the content of what they speak can measure a certain amount of intelligence.

**texacali** · 08 Oct 07, 04:11

The use of precise language in communicating matters of importance is not only a mark of respect to your listeners but a measure of the value you place on what you intend to convey. Ambiguity and un-anticipated misunderstandings growing from thinking faster than one can talk are only two of the problems the audience will have. Speaking directly to an enemy requires only ' I am going to kill you ' , if it indeed needs saying at all. To acquire and retain allies one had better make oneself quite clear.

**JAD_333** · 08 Oct 07, 05:36

Originally Posted by Julie

I disagree to the point that the content of what they speak can measure a certain amount of intelligence.

That's a fair statement.

**Julie** · 08 Oct 07, 05:43

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Former Secty of Treasury O'Neil, who was asked to resign during Bush's first term, later publicly delittled Bush's brainpower and released a ream of official documents to prove his point. They are interesting to read because, far from proving his point, he only proved that he did not understand the role of the president and chaffed at adhering to administration policy.

Forgive me, but I mis-read this earlier while scanning. Are you saying that O'neil's statements about Bush were due to Bush not understanding the role of the president? Wasn't his father President, of which his son played a hands-on role in his campaign?

**JAD_333** · 08 Oct 07, 06:02

Originally Posted by texacali

The use of precise language in communicating matters of importance is not only a mark of respect to your listeners but a measure of the value you place on what you intend to convey.

Another fair statement.

Ambiguity and un-anticipated misunderstandings growing from thinking faster than one can talk are only two of the problems the audience will have.

I suppose you are referring to Bush, since it's been postulated that he thinks faster than he speaks. Ambiguity and accidental misunderstandings may be
the results of that condition, but you are begging the question. Assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence of that claim.

Anyway, what is it you don't understand?

Perhaps you disagree with him and simply don't understand how anyone can see things differently than you. I take it you are opposed to his Iraq policy.

**Julie** · 08 Oct 07, 06:45

Originally Posted by Stan187

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

Bush/Gore Grades and SAT Scores

In a Thursday morning morning press conference at the White House, the President engaged in a little bit of grade inflation about his academic record.

"You need to talk to economists," he answered when asked if there was a risk of recession in the US economy. "I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A however in keeping taxes low, and being fiscally responsible with the people's money."

President Bush as an undergraduate at Yale did not in fact receive a grade of B in his economics course. Bush received a grade that would correspond with a C-.

A copy of Bush's Yale transcript posted at the humorous website GeorgeWBush.org states that the president received grades of 71 and 72 in Economics. The president took the course during successive semesters of his sophomore year, 1965-66.

President Bush, who earned a Bachelor's degree with a major in History at Yale, has long described himself as a 'C student.' He also has a Masters of Business Administration from Harvard.

**gunnut** · 08 Oct 07, 07:07

Originally Posted by Julie

Bush/Gore Grades and SAT Scores

In a Thursday morning morning press conference at the White House, the President engaged in a little bit of grade inflation about his academic record.

"You need to talk to economists," he answered when asked if there was a risk of recession in the US economy. "I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A however in keeping taxes low, and being fiscally responsible with the people's money."

President Bush as an undergraduate at Yale did not in fact receive a grade of B in his economics course. Bush received a grade that would correspond with a C-.

A copy of Bush's Yale transcript posted at the humorous website GeorgeWBush.org states that the president received grades of 71 and 72 in Economics. The president took the course during successive semesters of his sophomore year, 1965-66.

President Bush, who earned a Bachelor's degree with a major in History at Yale, has long described himself as a 'C student.' He also has a Masters of Business Administration from Harvard.

So you want him to remember what grade he received in a class more than 40 years ago? If he can't, he's either a lying cheat or stupid?

I can't remember what grade I got just 10 years ago in upper division econ, and that's my major.

Your highly touted Albert Gore is no smarter than that dumb ass George W. Bush.

**JAD_333** · 08 Oct 07, 07:18

Originally Posted by Julie

Forgive me, but I mis-read this earlier while scanning. Are you saying that O'neil's statements about Bush were due to Bush not understanding the role of the president? Wasn't his father President, of which his son played a hands-on role in his campaign?

Julie:

Last questions first. No, O'Neil did not serve Bush Sr.. Yes, Bush Jr played a role in his father's campaigns, more so in the second one. He was quite effective from what I heard at the time--didn't suffer fools and was a quick study when it came to political operations.

Back to your first question. I meant O'Neil wasn't clear on the role of a president (any president).

Here is some filler on what happened. O'Neil was a brilliant detail man, and he relished the prospect of sitting down with Bush to discuss the details of economic policy. He was disappointed when he met with a blank stare. (So he says.) He assumed Bush would be eager to discuss the minutae of economic issues. To do that Bush would have had to spend huge amounts of time going over reams of statistical material. Bush was not an economic expert by a long shot, certainly not in the mould of a Bill Clinton, who knew his stuff and loved details. My guess is, Bush, like Reagan and Bush Sr before him, expected his Council of Economic Advisors and the Budget Office to do the detail work and develop big picture recommendations for him to act on, and the blank stare was probably annoyment that O'Neil was inundating him with details he didn't understand. Bush is very up-front in person.

O'Neil problems started early. First he tried to nix or delay the tax cut enacted early in Bush's first term. He argued correctly that they would slow down retirement of the national debt. He didn't grasp that the administration had to act while Congress was in the mood. Gradually, perhaps out of frustration, he began championing policies separate from the administration's, which is ok internally, but not in public. He was constantly being reminded to stay on message in his public statements. Even his own assistants dispaired of keeping him on message.

To know what went wrong between the two is beyond all of us. Perhaps because O'Neil had been CEO of Alcoa and as such had been used to getting his way, he chaffed at working under "a boy". One thing is for sure; he didn't grasp the political implications of openly disagreeing with a president's policies. While cabinet officers are expected to argue vociferously for their positions in cabinet meetings, once the president decides what the policy is going to be, they are expected to defend it in public. O'Neil simply went his own way. Finally, he was asked to resign, which is what he should have done on his own, once he felt he could no longer accept the president's policy.

He is not the first cabinet officer to suffer that fate, but he is one of the very few who contributed to a kiss and tell book criticizing a president still in office. Basically he complained that the president had no grasp of economic issues and choose dubious issues to raise at NSC meetings, e.g., dethroning Saddam. To make things worse, he handed over official internal memoranda, some of it classified, to the author of the book. To me, it doesn't matter whether a president is a democrat or a republican; I would condemn what O'Neil did. To this day, Bush's image has never recovered from this petulant act.

Probably more than you wanted to know. Only in America, eh?

**Bluesman** · 08 Oct 07, 07:29

AWESOME post; a put-away shot. Kudos.

**JAD_333** · 08 Oct 07, 07:39

Originally Posted by Julie

In a Thursday morning morning press conference at the White House, the President engaged in a little bit of grade inflation about his academic record.

"I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A however in keeping taxes low, and being fiscally responsible with the people's money."

President Bush as an undergraduate at Yale did not in fact receive a grade of B in his economics course. Bush received a grade that would correspond with a C-.

I think he said I think...that implies uncertainty...creeping uncertainty is what you're worried about...

Good thing for Andy Jackson you weren't around when he was president. His spelling was atrocious.

)

Thread: Blackwater out of Iraq ?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Why We Are in Iraq

The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq

Iraq in Books - Review Essay

Arab volunteers killed in Iraq: an Analysis

Quagmire or not?

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions