Name me a President or politician who doesn’t fit that description.
A quote from Diogenes’s website which he alleges proves that Bush wants war with Iraq: (which, incidentally, quotes Colin Powell, not Bush)
BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Sorry, no, but thanks for playing our game. Perhaps you could comb thru the World Socialist Network for more nice, unbiased, clear-headed evidence. Or perhaps not.
Regards,
Shodan
Surely you jest? I don’t think even Bill Clinton’s worst political enemies believe him to be a dumbass, even if his libido led him to do some very moronic acts. Whatever his faults, intellectual abilities aren’t among them.
RE Bush: Though I did not vote for him, and don’t like his policies, I don’t feel its just a bias I have when I think he’s not particularly intelligent. I listen to Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell and hear very intelligent people, even though I’m in disagreement about what they’re saying. But even while I’m in disagreement, I feel that any three of them could handily win a debate against me because they come across as being so informed on the issues.
Bush reminds me of the American president in the adaptation of the (vastly superior) Vonnegut short story, “Harrison Bergeron” (starring Sean Astin). There’s a sequence where the American president quells some enemies by ranting away and promising nuclear destruction. Bergeron, the character, responds by saying how such simplistic tactics could never make a real foreign policy; within minutes, however, he is proven wrong as the enemies do back down and everything returns to its normal, albeit horrific, state. The entire sequence in that movie feels like it was just played out between Bush and the United Nations.
Read the first paragraph, please:
Powell gave this speech in February. I think that it is fair to say that “a few months” probably meant less than nine.
And your attempt to make some kind of distinction between the words of Colin Powell and the intent of GWB is rather specious and silly. Powell was clearly speaking in an official capacity, on behalf of the administration.
Nothing more than what Bush, Clinton or anyone said to threaten Bin Laden.
I’ll let you connect the dots, it seems were assembling your picto-gram.
Sorry, Diogenes, still no soap.
If they were so hot for a pre-election war in February, how come it is December, post-election, and still no war?
Why didn’t they plan one sooner? My quote shows that they weren’t planning one in February. History shows that we haven’t had one since.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, really the statement asserts that Saddam is a dipshit, a sentiment with which I, for one, agree. Mind you, there are dozens of dipshit leaders around the world.
However this makes no sense at all:
Um, what? You’re saying that since Clinton and Bush said something to threaten Bin Laden, the US was attacked? Or are you trying to imply collusion between Al Qaeda and Iraq? My “picto-gram” of what you’re trying to say is all over the floor at the moment. 
I gave you a cite which showed that in February of this year, the administration was planning to invade Iraq “within months,” which would have obviously meant before the November elections. The reason the invasion got derailed was that Hussein suddenly agreed to cooperate with UN inspections, thus undermining the administrations ostensible justification for an attack.
This move by Iraq supports my original point that GWB has been consistently out-manuevered by Saddam. Agreeing to inspections bought time for Iraq, and removed UN support for a unilateral US invasion.
I would submit that Bush has been shown up again in the past few days by trying to bluff Iraq into thinking he has “solid evidence” of WMDs and demanding that Iraq give a “full and complete report” of said weapons. Saddam has effectively called that bluff by producing a report which flatly denies any such WMDs and challenges Bush to show his so-called “evidence” to the contrary.
Bush has not only refused to share his evidence with the American people or the UN, he won’t even share it with the weapons inspectors, (which he is actually MANDATED to do by the UN agreement). If it is GWB’s desire to prove that Hussein is a liar, then what possible reason could he have to withhold information from inspectors? If Saddam has denied having bio’s, for instance, and Bush knows that the Fuqqa Duq Palace is housing small pox in a secret basement, then wouldn’t it be a simple matter to clue the inspectors in to something like that, rather than just let them grope around blindly? This would prove Saddam wrong, vindicate Bush and justify his dirty little war once and for all.
The only reason for Bush to violate the UN agreement by withholding valuble evidence from inspectors is that no such evidence exists. He was trying to bluff with a busted hand and he got called immediately.
A couple of days ago, the New York Times ran a story in which administration officials admitted they do not actually possess any “dramatic intelligence” which proves that Iraq has WMDs, but they are hoping they can go to the UN with a few scraps of circumstantial evidence, cobbled together with some shoe polish and bullshit, and convince the international community that they’ve actually proven something-- and if the world doesn’t buy it-- TOO BAD. We’ll invade anyway.
The problem is that by overstating his evidence early, as Bush has, he has allowed Iraq to make him look like a demagogue and a fool by forcing him to prove it. It was a stupid tactic on Bush’s part, one that his father was far too internationally savvy to even have contemplated.
Just because you have degrees doesn’t mean you’re not a dumbass.
Look at my coworker, 4 degrees and he can’t add. Can’t follow directions and has no critical thinking skills.
At least he doesn’t post to message boards while sitting at his desk at work. 
Nice try, but putting a heavy spin on the words Powell actually said doesn’t make it true. The fact that the author of that editorial referred to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as psychopaths should have been a big red alarm bell that he’s not exactly unbiased. To boil down Powell’s words to their basics all he said was that the U.S. could go into Iraq in a matter of months, not that they had plans to do so. You’re being disingenuous trying to spin it otherwise.
Also the NYT is not a paysite, and after perusing it I couldn’t find the article you mentioned. I also checked out the Washington Post and BBC websites and couldn’t find the any reference to what you’re claiming concerning U.S. proof, or lack thereof, of Iraq’s possession of WMD’s. So, how about ponying up a link that states the U.S. doesn’t have a “smoking gun”?
Having said all this you may be surprised to find out that I also have doubts about what info the U.S. possesses concerning Iraq having WMD’s. I also think that whatever info they have should be made public at this point. However I can think of a couple of good reasons for the Bush administration to not give out said information if they do have it: exposure of secret sources or the info could get out prematurely giving Iraq the chance to move any WMD’s that they do possess.
Also regardless of whether or not the U.S. does possess such said information it’s “saber-rattling” has gotten U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq and focused international attention on a known despot, and how do you know that wasn’t the Bush administration’s goal in the first place? Oh, right, that would mean Bush outfoxed Saddam, and he’s an idiot so that’s not possible.
Ultimately what all this shows is that we have a lot of speculation, and nothing wrong with coming to the best conclusions you can with such speculation, but somehow your speculation turns into Proof.
And yet here we are, after the elections, and no invasion. So perhaps this is not so obvious after all.
Or perhaps you are mistaking Bush’s intentions.
Bush says, in essence, let the inspectors back in, and no backing out this time, or the US will invade you and put someone else in place who will do as was agreed to in the ceasefire. Saddam does this. I rather suspect he knew perfectly well that Bush was serious about this.
If Bush’s only idea was to get a war before the election, it was
a) not successful, and
b) not necessary, since the Republicans won big-time with no war at all.
If Bush wanted a war all that much, he could have declared the hundreds of times Iraq fired at our aircraft as material violations, and had his war as pretty as you please. But he didn’t, which suggests he didn’t want it as badly as you seem to think.
I would hardly classify this as out-maneuvering by Saddam. He went nose-to-nose with Bush, and blinked. It is, of course, fairly likely that Saddam noticed who won the elections in 2002, and which party is more likely to support war with Iraq, so if you care to classify this as electioneering by Bush, I would agree that the elections had an effect on the outcome with Iraq. How could they fail to?
But I just don’t understand what you liberals are complaining about. You keep saying Bush is a horrible war-monger because he wants to invade Iraq. Then when he doesn’t do it, it is because he is weak or indecisive or outmaneuvered or something.
Make up your minds. If Bush shouldn’t act unilaterally, then don’t complain when the UN approves a resolution to get Iraq to do what they promised in the ceasefire agreement. If Bush only wanted a war to win the election, then he wouldn’t have waited until after the election to invade.
And certainly, if Bush is continuing to apply pressure on Saddam to be sure he continues to do what he should have been doing since 1998, then don’t complain both when it is working, and if it does not, and we have to invade.
Regards,
Shodan
Everyone in here should be careful of what they say… You all could be going to prison. Land of the free indeed…
I thought the US Gov’t was supposed to be one of the “good guys”. (notice I didnt say people)
Anyway, read on:
Here is the link.
Here is the pertinent quote:
Bush had absolutely no legal authority to threaten such an invasion, or to “put someone else in place.” Either one of these things would have been a gross violation of international law, and would have made W. a war criminal. Unfortunately, he didn’t seem to be aware of these things before he ran his mouth off.(stupid, you see)
Who complained about the UN resolution? I thought it was a good thing. It hamstrung Bush’s warmongering.
He didn’t have a CHOICE about waiting until after the election. Saddam’s agreement to let in the inspectors took the decision out of W.'s hands.
and Asylum, if Bush’s intent was only to “focus attention on a known despot,” then:
1.) Why didn’t he care about Hussein during his first year in office?
2.) Why doesn’t he care about other, far more legitimate threats? (I refer you to the recent news regarding North Korea)
3.) why was he so eager for a unilateral invasion, with no evidence and no international support? (actually, none of these things have changed very much)
There’s no indication that the author of the “cunning sociopath” article, Bev Conover, ever met Bush. She’s simply picking and choosing bits from the writings of others to support the conclusion she’s already decided on.
Which, actually, is what Chumpsky does all the time, so I guess it’s not unexpected.
It’s kind of a pity, since I was hoping that in this thread Chumpsky would actually stay halfway reasonable, i.e. saying that it’s pointless to describe Bush as stupid, since he obviously is NOT stupid, whether you agree with him or not.
Calling him a sociopath is equally dumb. You’ve slid back to your hyperbole roots, Chumpsky.
Unless you’re just trying for irony, in which case I’d advise you to put a little more effort into it.