George Bush is a Brave Man

Look, this isn’t rocket science. We don’t have to get into the nitpicking details of statistics to realize that being president is a damned dangerous job. Aside from the ones who have been assassinated, consider all the ones that have had assassination attempts made on them. There is absolutely no doubt that being a President is damned dangerous.

But the difference between Bush and other presidents is that Bush has made lifetime enemies of a lot of fanatics. I don’t think there are a lot of maniacs out there gunning for Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford. But as long as Bush lives, there will be people thinking about ways to kill him. Perhaps in organized fashion. He’ll be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life.

Wow, the way some of you folks are talking about Dubya’s bravery, let’s see if we can nominate him for sainthood for the tremendous “sacrifice” he is making for our nation’s citizens so that we may sleep peacefully under our blanket of freedom.

If you look at my posting (#30 I think it was), the advatages to being President far outweigh the disadvantages.

President Bush will always have to look over his shoulder, etc? I would really be surprised if this country just lets Dubya Bush fend for himself after his Presidency is over. Granted, I know he will get Secret Service protection but considering how things have changed since Sept 11, 2001, I wouldn’t mind if extra tax dollars went toward his safety. (And I think you know my politics are not very favorable toward Bush).

I don’t think anyone has mentioned Gerald Ford yet. He had two assassination attempts on his life within one week. He liked to “move among the people” so to speak and the first attempt did not deter him from “meeting the people”. Maybe 2 attempts in one week finally convinced him to be much more cautious. (One attempt would be more than enough to convince me !!!)

Sam, if I chose to do so I could fly back to Canada, find the nearest bar catering to the Hell’s Angels, walk in, and shout “Hell’s Angels are <expletive referring to female genetalia deleted>!” at the top of my lungs. If I were to do so, then quite possibly there would be people thinking about ways to kill me right then and there. Would that be brave?

Or to pick a more extreme example, I could get a gun, stop shaving for a week, get drunk and then run into a police station shooting the gun wildly into the air. Then there would be a number of very serious armed people thinking about ways to kill me before I kill someone else. Would that be brave of me?

Or does the word “brave” imply more than merely doing something with the knowledge that the act will endanger oneself? Does it imply a judgement about the worth and necessity of the action, a judgement which might not be shared by everyone?

One of the things I find most objectionable about Bush is the way he changes his stance on issues without even acknowledging doing so. And I disagree that he didn’t pander to the electorate, at least the portion thereof needed for re-election.

He opposed a 9/11 commission. Then he changed his mind.

He opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. Then he changed his mind.

He ran as a supporter of free trade. Then he supported steel tariffs (after lobbying by domestic steel interests). Then he opposed steel tariffs (after lobbying by domestic auto and construction interests).

Good thing he’s not a liberal, or he’d be guilty of flip-flopping.

I don’t know who the OP is, and I’m too lazy to look, but f* you for saying George Bush is brave. You want to know what bravery is? Ask Nelson Mandela. That mother f*er is the bravest brave you can get. I wouldn’t hesitate in ranking him as the bravest person on the planet. George Bush doesn’t deserve to grovel in Nelson Mandela’s footsteps.

Maybe Bush can lick the floor he walked on.

After Mandela left the room.

He’d probably have to do it wearing a bullet proof vest, too. With 8 SS agents around him.

I think it’s pretty obvious the numbers and situations are too unique to make comparisons. For example, not all soldiers are on the front line so comparing their mortality rates in general to the mortality rates of presidents doesn’t work.

Presidents have security details. They are well protected. And - so I hear - they are pretty much the most powerful men on Earth. So, though they are bigger targets it tends to even out with their defenses.

Also, soldiers are compelled to do dangerous things. Presidents current and past have some leeway in choosing where they tread.

Should I just not bother making a reasonable point, Zagadka? Do you think it would help our side of the case if your shouted ramblings didn’t have to compete for attention with a reasoned, civilized discussion?

Made up out of whole cloth? Not quite. Surmised from obviously bogus crap foisted upon them by Kuwaiti intelligence? That’s more like it.

Having said that, I implied the Clinton administration was entirely responsible for making the whole thing up. In fact, the media is also responsible for never really investigating the matter and the average Joe is repsonsible for repeating the story over and over as if it was proven fact, when it’s actually fiction.

A reasoned, civilized discussion on how a draft dodging man who happens to be the most well protected person on the planet is brave and noble.

Right.

You aren’t allowed to lick Mandela’s footsteps, either.

I mean, the mere premise of this thread is a rape of the word “brave”

Look, I disagree too, but if you’re not careful you’ll end up banned and Bush supporters will just sit smug and comfortable with the implication that our case is argued ad hominem.

The best argument against an irrational assertion is rational. If the other side can’t parse it out - too bad for them; walk away knowing you are correct.

So I’m passionate about the cause of not idolizing Bush. shrugs I’ve almost been banned before, and I know when I’m pushing it. I wasn’t pushing it there.

So my tone of discourse is more suited for the bar on Friday night than the debate floor Tuesday afternoon. shrugs

YES. At least, civilized enough to not say “f* off” to the OP.

I’m not objecting to you being passionate about your beliefs. But right now, your “passion” is reminding me less of Nelson Mandela and more of a drunk man screaming at passers-by on a street corner. What do you think you’re accomplishing with drive-by insults? What the hell do you think you’re contributing?

Remind me to cancel that appointment.

A shred of amusement and respect, something you’re certainly lacking.

Very well.

Bush is not a brave man. He is a coward who has hidden from danger to anything except his liver his entire life. He should not have threads started with vicious lies and absurd claims that he is brave.

Nelson Mandela is a brave man. He should have threads made stating that he is a brave man.

Well it seems there is the same persistent and misguided confusion regarding the concept of bravery as there is regarding the related concept of heroism.

I was dismayed with the october 11, 2004 special issue of TIME (Asian edition). It announced on the cover in large-point lettering “Asia’s Heroes”. The cover graphic was a photograph of a ballerina in pose.

Heroic? Hardly, unless one considers the sacrifice her toes had to make for her career. I flipped to the feature piece and was informed that the 20 “heroes” profiled for the piece were selected on the basis of having done “something brave, bold or remarkable”. Well.

To me, a hero is someone who attempts to accomplish through brave actions a remarkable and worthy result. Out of 20 “heroes” were Liu Xiang (Olympic 110 m hurdles), Ichiro Suzuki (baseball player), Nigo (“Japan’s king of cool”), Shah Rukh Khan (Bollywood actor), Yuan Yuan Tan (ballerina), Anoushka Shankar (musician and daughter of Ravi), Song Aree (golfer), Muttiah Muralitharan (cricket player), and Yuuya Yagira (teen actor).

So, some athletes, a fashion leader, and a few performing artists make up roughly half the roster of Time’s “heroes” (note that I did not include in this laughable list Hong Suk Chun, the actor who was the first public figure in South Korea to admit – and pay for – his homosexuality). These farcical heroes were presented alongside people who actually did something that involved bravery and/or sacrifice, including John Wood (formerly China’s second in command at Microsoft China, who quit to bring literacy, education, schools, libraries, and scholarships to rural India, Nepal, Cambodia, and Vietnam), Pham Thi Hue (she contracted AIDS, and refused to accept the traditional shame and submission mandated in Vietnam, instead going public to educate about the disease; her business tanked and she attracted a lot of ire for it), Mukhtar Mai (Pakistani woman who was officially gang-raped, beaten, and paraded naked on the basis of “honour” because her brother had been seen walking with a girl; instead of submitting as the patriarchal swine wanted, Mai stated that she would sooner die than give up her right to justice; in spite of further threats and a culture generally hostile to women, Mai pursued her case and eventually secured punishment for six of the men responsible for her “judgement”), and so forth.

To compare the heroism, courage, and harrowing experiences of someone like Mai to those of a privileged athlete competing in branded commercial events is to me not only ridiculous, but also deeply insulting and a hideous reminder of the relentless march of stupidity.

How shall we define bravery? I submit “readiness and ability to face and endure danger, hardship, and/or pain for a cause”, barring of course masochism and similar abnormalities. Yes, the 9/11 hijackers and all the rebel fighters being massacred in Falluja deserve the label brave, as objectionable as their cause may be.

And Bush? He is, and no doubt will be until the day he dies, among the most heavily protected individuals on the planet. He doesn’t take risks, he has large reserves of people to do that for him. He even dodged his generation’s war, managing by dint of contacts and influence (not even by conscientious objection) to win a domestic post defending Texas from Alabama while worthier countrymen were shipped off to risk life and limb.

Leaders who are brave include those who actually do live with enormous risks – Arafat in Palestine, Mandela in S. Africa, Karzai in Afghanistan to name a few – not those who are kept snug and secure at the heart of the undisputed superpower, whose security operations capital expenditure is enough to run several smaller countries.

For Bush to do something brave I would expect him (as an example) to tell his various business cronies and interests “the buck stops here; I may have been elected partly thanks to you, but there’s a limit to everything”. I’d expect him to admit he --and his administration-- was wrong on (insert issue here – far too many to enumerate) and apologize, thereby risking the wrath of the democracy. That would be bravery. Being power-hungry, fanatic, ignorant, and stubborn is not bravery by any definition.

Deserve being shot?

No, it’s much too quick.

I think a documented decline & subsequent demise due to rabies would be much more satisfying.

Presidents are brave for reasons given in the OP.

However, I think Bush is less brave than most of the other 42, because he runs such a secretive White House. He is much less publicly accessible than all the rest, so far as I know. On 9/11, didn’t his staff make up the claim that he was a target?

No, on 9/11 he pissed away a few hours while some minions actually did something (and it wasn’t much) until a speech writer pounded out a script for him, magically uniting America.

Whoa… nice post!