I saw the title, and had to post this:
My God, did the planets align last night?
I actually agree with Chumpsky’s premise that calling Bush stupid is a dumb, tiresome act. I didn’t care for similar rhetoric about Dan Quayle, either. The fact that he wasn’t a deft public speaker didn’t suggest and, frankly, should not have suggested that he was an idiot. Comedians love an easy target, though.
Of course, calling Chumpsky an idiot is just insightful observation.
[sub]What? Too easy?[/sub]
Well, Dubya likes Babylon 5. Clearly, his mental faculties must be lacking in some respect.
Maybe not an idiot, but you can’t deny that Bush is simple. I’ve never heard anything come out of his mouth that displays any insight or even suggests a high school education.
Just something to remember… no matter how dumb he is… he ended up president of the united states… ruler of the most powerful nation on earth…
your so smart… what have you done thats so great? hmmm?
The fact that he has been outsmarted, outwitted and out manuevered every step of the way by Saddam Hussein does not speak well for Junior’s intellect.
Cite?
Well, the fact that Hussein agreed to inspections, for one, completely derailed Bush’s hopes for a pre-election invasion. And now Hussein has called Bush on his transparently obvious bluff that the US possesses “solid evidence” that Iraq has WMD. No such evidence exists, of course, but the Bushies thought they could sucker Saddam into hanging himself by pretending it did. Instead, Hussein has produced a “full and complete” report which utterly denies any existence of WMD, and challenges Bush inc. to put up their “evidence” or go fuck themselves. Since Bush HAS no evidence, he has been shown up as a liar and a fraud by the guy he hates most.
Bush is far too much of a naif to try to play poker with a shark like Hussein
So what? It’s not like he stole the office all on his own, his brother & daddys boys ran the show in Florida.
Cite on Bush’s hope for a pre-election invasion, or are you just talking out of your ass?**
Seeing as how said evidence hasn’t been released how do you know it’s not solid? Oh, right, you’re talking out of your ass.**
Of course said “full and complete” report doesn’t offer any proof that the weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed, like the U.N. arms inspectors wanted and Iraq has lied before, but hey, we’re in Diogenes land so if we can use it to make Bush look bad it must be true.**
Or maybe he hasn’t and you’ve just show yourself to be an idiot by making a whole bunch of unsubstantiated claims against the guy you hate the most.**
You’re a twit. You hate Bush so much that you’re willing to believe any negative claim against him, with or without proof, and then try to use it as evidence of why Bush is just a warmonger or any other slur you can hurl against him.
Let me keep this simple for you, Diogenes the Cynic, you have no proof, and attempting to make factual claims in the absence of proof makes you look like a biased idiot.
Bush is not a moron or an idiot. He is just an average guy from a very wealthy political family. But we should expect a little more from the President of the United States than “average,” don’t you think? We need someone who is articulate and learned. And we need someone who isn’t carrying a very personal grudge against our enemy.
There is a fairly good reason why neither liberals nor conservatives attacked JFK for being stupid. He wasn’t. He even received the Pulitzer when he was in his thirties. His speeches were brilliant. And he actually saved this country from a very real and impending nuclear threat. He had PROOF and he was able to produce it. For a period of about three or four days in October of 1962, we got up in the mornings without any reasonable certainty that we would be alive at the end of the day.
But he was strong enough to make them back down. No one who lived through it could forget it.
Certainly he made mistakes. I think every President does. But no one ever questioned his intelligence – that is until I read this thread.
Sheeeesh!
Ah, I see that this is your first time meeting our friendly neighborhood cynic…
Actually, no. You see, it was Al Gore who tried to steal the election. He managed to get the election officials to delay the final count until after the deadlines set by Florida law. It didn’t do him any good, but he tried.
President Bush may have lost the popular vote in Florida, but by the laws in effect at the time he won. If you don’t like the law, then get it changed. Stop bitching.
The last time I looked at the map, Florida wasn’t the only state in the nation. Bush is what we have, and whether he is liked or not I am glad to have someone with balls to handle dipshits like Hussein. Slick Willy was no door prize and I am glad the security of our country isn’t in his hands.
Otherwise, it doesn’t matter what is said about him, he is what we have and I guess the naysayers will have to do as I did for 8 years while hand jive Willy ran our country like an organ grinder monkey; just deal with it.
Change the words “may have” to the correct phrase “did not, no matter how often they recounted”, and you will be correct.
Regards,
Shodan
Right-o. Thanks, Shodan. German news tends to be rather one-sided. They liked Gore, so a lot of things got slanted that way.
Well, the New York Times reported yesterday that administration officials admit that they have no smoking gun evidence of WMD (I can’t post the link because it’s a pay site). The US has steadfastly refused to provide weapons inspectors with this “evidence” (which puts the US itself in violation of the UN agreement). Bush has already been caught lying multiple times about Iraq, and specifically has lied about possessing a “report” on Iraq’s nuclear capability. The administration was later forced to admit that the report did not exist, Bush simply made it up.
Just a few days ago Bush calimed that the inspections were not going well in Iraq, and these assertions were adamantly refuted by the inspectors themselves.
There simply is no reason at all to believe that Bush is telling the truth NOW, especially since he refuses to show his “evidence” to either the American people or the UN. He is asking us to take his word for it that we need to go to war. Well he has proved, repeatedly, that his word is fucking worthless.
Bush inc. is waging a propaganda campaign at home. It doesn’t matter what the truth is, all that matters is what they can convince the public to BELIEVE is true. Americans are sheep. They believe whatever they’re told. Dissenters are marginalized and villified. European nations which are critical of US policy are demonized or caricatured. Criticism of Bush is unthinkable. Bush is pure good. If someone criticizes Bush, they must be evil, or at least unpatriotic. Americans should be good little seals. No matter how fraudulent the president’s assertons may be, we should simply bang our flippers together and bark our approval.
Well not this little black duck.
From way back:
JFK was pretty conservative for a democrat. I’ve seen quotes where he made fun of liberals and showed a particular distaste for northern liberals. He only acted on civil rights when politically prudent.
Nixon was pretty moderate as well. In fact, he probably wouldn’t be conservative enough to win the GOP nomination today. My point is that he and Kennedy were not that far apart in policy.
Back to this thread:
Why is it that Republican presidents are perceived as intellectual lightweights? Eisenhower, Reagan, now Bush. The fact that Clinton could get deep in policy papers and details could have been a detriment. Same with Carter. I recommend a book, INside the Oval Office, for a great look at FDR through Clinton. It focuses on recorded material but does a great job at summarizing the managerial styles of each. It’s non partisan and is critical and complimentary of each one.
The President is a CEO of a large entity. His managers are supposed to handle the details. The President is there to provide general direction and philosphy, not worry about all the little things.
The CEO loses credibility when she cannot communicate effectively, is caught in lies, hides from the stockholders and shows little understanding of how the company interacts with the business world.
And I would be glad to have someone with the ovaries or balls to wage peace.
Besides, we don’t know yet if Bush has “the balls to handle Hussein.” He’s not “handled” yet.
Man, I just know that I’m going to regret asking Mr. Freap to clarify what he’s talking about, but here goes:
The above statement asserts that Iraq made a direct, stated threat against the US that Bush feels requires an invasion in response. Care to explain what the threatening statement was and when it was made, just so we’re all on the same page here?