That’s a very important distinction, TKoS. Thanks for stating it so clearly.
Dunno if she was the original coiner of the term (although I wouldn’t be surprised), but she was the one to use it earlier in this thread.
Like I said, if want to bash Bush about this, bash away. He deserves it.
But is it too much to ask that, on a board dedicated to fighting ingorance, that you not misquote people?
Bush did not say “The baby was pink and tender.” Bush said, “The baby was pink and delicious!” On a board dedicating to fighting ignorance, don’t you think you should get it right, Biggirl? Because this difference in what was said completely invalidates the claim that Bush is a eater of pink and tender babies!
A wise person once said:
Unfortunately the tape that has been played is an edited version of the meeting asthis Los Angeles Times story states.
In the short clips of it I have seen the warnings as to possible damage are not clear or definite. They seem to be put in the careful and qualified terms that most technical people use. Like the statement that no one can predict with certainty what the effects on the levee system will be.
To me this reveals GW’s detachment and lack of follow through. Way down in the Times story, which is long, is the statement that “Bush asked no questions.” I don’t know about you but faced with statements about a serious storm and that predictions about the effect on the levee system are difficult I think I would have pressed a little more for answers. Like asking the weather guy what the minimum height of the storm surge on Lake Pontchartrain would be. And then asking the Corps of Engineers guy what would be the effect of that on the levees. And ask for probability estimates on their predictions. Ask where would be the best place to put emergency supplies and personnel so they wouldn’t be flooded but would be near at hand. And asking the Homeland Security/FEMA guys if the supplies are along the Gulf Coast already or on the way there. Silly stuff like that.
I’m not sure that GW is evil, but he apparently detaches himself once he has told someone else to handle it. And he doesn’t appear to have the experience to know what questions to ask or to know enough to tell specialists in the matter to ask the right questions.
Didn’t someone once say not to ascribe to active malice what simple incompetence could easily explain? I don’t know whether or not GW is malicious but I do think that as President of the US he is a disaster that we will be long in getting over.
I see from matt_mcl’s post that someone did say that about malice. His post wasn’t up when I started mine which took a long time what with finding the Times story and all.
Right. Not stupid, not even knowingly malicious, simply lazy and arrogant.
This is a guy who’s spent his whole life having things taken care of for him. No matter what trouble he’s faced, what situations he’s had (superficial) responsibility for, he’s been bailed out by his rich/connected father or his friends or just by others’ knowledge of his position. He often hasn’t even *known * he was being taken care of, just that whatever he wanted, whatever he thought, just turned out that way. He’s never had to adjust his wishes or conceptions in response to reality, and he’s never even had to confront somebody who was screwing up if he even recognized it.
He’s run his Presidency the same way, as this episode further illustrates. He had people who knew about the storm, therefore everything about it was all somehow going to be taken care of. No questions or challenges were necessary or even appropriate. When it didn’t turn out that way, why, it was once again reality’s fault for not matching his desires.
I think I’ve suggested that if Bush could be charged with something, it might be “depraved indifference.” I’m not a lawyer, and have no interest in arguing whether he would legally meet the criteria. I just think the category that it connotes to me would fit what is known about Bush’s actions. I personally believe, however, that his actions go beyond that, but that’s just my severe bias.
First of all, the corollary’s a hoot. Took me a coupla seconds to remember just why it looked so familiar, and then I was ROFL.
In the case of Bushism, though, it’s become increasingly hard over the years to argue for stupidity and incompetence, except as the offspring of an underlying malice. My observation is they’re really quite talented, skilled, and capable when it comes to the things they care about (see below), so their stupidity and incompetence with respect to everything else does, IMHO, rest on a foundation of malice. The Bushies don’t really believe government should work, so even when they’re not actively undermining the ability of government to properly function, they’re busily putting Chertoffs and Brownies in important roles, which has the same effect.
Some time ago, I crafted my Grand Unified Theory of Bushism - that nearly everything this Administration does can be explained by one of two motivations:
- To help rich people and big corporations become even bigger and richer; and
- To maximize its domestic political power, largely in order to keep doing #1.
IMHO, the last big Bush initiative that was even a decent challenge to fit to the theory was No Child Left Behind, and that was back in the first year of his Administration.
Well, bless his heart, he means well.
I guess that leaves me out - I only drink with people I like.
Anyone wonder how many of the folks who split semantic hairs over the definition of “breach of the levees” didn’t bother to split the same hairs over what the definition of “sex” is?
<aside>
Y’know, for a guy who claims to be a political independent, John Mace sure does a damn good impersionation of a die-hard Bush apologist…
</aside>
Has he claimed that? I asked what his political leanings were a while back, and he said he was a small-l libertarian.
Don’t pay attention to rjung. His stupidity is only exceded by his blind hatred of Bush. Only someone is brainless has he could post something like that when just a few posts above I wrote:
Spoken like a true Bush apologist! 
Like momma always said, an apologist is as an apologist does.
John subscribes to the Bill O’Reilly school of “Ignore my actions, I’m whatever affiliation I claim to be, and anyone who disagrees with me is an irrational pinhead.”
See?
Precisely. Bush does a heck of a job by these criteria.
Seriously. Remember that Bush-Rove are running a base-only strategy. And it’s working. Despite manifest incompetence with regards to Iraq, Katrina, the budget and the prescription drug plan, Bush remains extremely popular among Republicans.
When faced with evidence of such awe-inspiring incompetence what do most Republicans do? Well it varies. Some blame the liberals. Others blame the media. Still others make bizarre comparisons with Clinton. Some play word-games on message boards.
But the huge majority retains their schoolgirl crush on President Bush. In January, W’s approval rating among Republicans stood at 88%. Now it is at 82%, compared with a rating of 33% among independents.
I predict that this latest piece of news will not cause the Republican approval rating to drop below 75%. Facts or blatant dissembling does simply not sway the emotion and feeling conservative.
I congratulate the President for successfully executing his base-first strategy.
I would too, except that it seems exceptionally easy to do. Apart from tax cuts for the wealthy, what has Bush been able to deliver for his base? What have they gotten that makes up for everything else?
Fresh, foreign blood.
Has there been any response from the White House over this? Besides Trent Duffy basically doing a Richard Pryor imitation with his Who are ya gonna believe, the President or your lying eyes comment.
Nary a peep from the administration.