It’s likely Bush has made an “attempt to understand”, and found the anti-war position wanting. It’s equally like he has not made an “attempt to understand”, so then the question is how do you know he hasn’t?
“Who cares what you think?”
-President George W. Bush, July 4, 2001.
Fair enough… you’re right that no source I’ve found actually quotes Bush as using the word “irrelevant,” though I think it also a fair statement to make that Bush wouldn’t disagree with the use of that word. It’s pretty clear from his statements that he feels the anti-war movement is exactly that. YMMV.
I’m also pretty annoyed by Bush’s comparison of the protestors to a “focus group.” Focus groups are usually identifiable by specific demographic characteristics. I wonder, other than being against war in Iraq, what characteristics could be applied to the protestors? Are they part of a specific gender, age group, religion, or ethnicity? Do they hail from a specific locale? Are their economic backgrounds similar? Hmmm… no, no, and no.
Bush’s comparison of the protestors to a “focus group” is an inaccurate analogy, but more than that, it belittles the protestors by trying to fit them into a little box. Bush may not like (or understand) the fact that protestors came from all walks of life to make their voices heard, but his glib dismissal doesn’t make it any less true. And this is yet another sign of his disrespect for the anti-war movement.
I disagree that the likelihood of these things are equal, based on what he has said. His words suggest to me that me has not even tried. It wouldn’t take much to get even a basic understanding of the anti-war movement, enough to respond to it on a more reasonable level than Bush has done.
Again… I don’t expect him to agree. If he’s going to say that he “respectfully” disagrees, however, then I am going to hold him to the standard of respect. He has shown none.
Exactly right, vibrotronica. 
You only disagree because of what you think about Bush, or maybe how you feel about him. You are assigning likelyhood based on your own thoughts and opinions, not on any evidence. In fact, the only evidence you have to go on is his actual words, which as you pointed out speak of “respect” for the opposition’s views.
As to the standard for respect, if we hold to the dictionary defition of
respect , then it’s hard to see how you would disagree with Bush’s remark. IMO you’re posing a standard for “respectfully disagreeing” that 1. can not be reasonably filled, and 2. requires agreement with the opposition.
By the way, do you know what precipitated that remark? Or the context?It might be educational if you posted a link and some references about it.
My opinion exactly - and will be until events prove me wrong.
The problem is, I can see no viable “end game”. The focus of attention cannot be kept on Iraq indefinitely.
Of course he respectfully disagrees. That’s why his administrationed filed a brief urging judges to uphold the denial of the permit for the protest march in NYC.
http://www.syracuse.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion-1/10453017435260.xml?syr
Dr. J
Time for a metaphor.
Millions of people are backing Chirac in a poker game against GWBush. The pot is a War Iraq. If Chirac wins, inspections continue ad infinitum. If Bush wins, war goes on schedule.
Chirac has 3 kings and 2 Aces, and millions cheer him for that.
GWB Bush has a King of Spades, a Queen of Spades, A Jack of spades and a Ten of spades with one card face down on the table. Chirac doesnt have the Ace of spades.
GWBush says, “I respectufully disagree that you have the winning hand.”
He says this based on what he knows about the face down card. No one knows but Bush what it is. Chirac thinks he knows but theres no way hes going to change his cards now. No matter how much the miilions behind Chirac cheer and demonstrate, it will not change any of the cards. the opinion of the millions does not matter. Its whats in the cards.
And you’re basing this assertion on what? Your intimate knowledge of me? Please. Tell me what my opinions are. :rolleyes:
I’ve pointed out the evidence in Bush’s words that tells me that, while he may say “respect,” he doesn’t mean it. Please refer to the OP and subsequent posts for a detailed description, and refute it if you wish. However, just stating “That ain’t true!” and coupling it with an assumption about me doesn’t amount to much.
Again, I detailed what amounts to respectful disagreement in my OP. However, I’ll sum it up again, just for you. To disagree with someone respectfully, you should:
(1) Understand their opinion well enough to be able to discuss it substantively
(2) Do not mischaracterize their opinion
(3) Do not try to make generalizations about their opinion
(4) Do not dismiss their opinion as irrelevant
Please tell me where I say that one must agree with someone to repect their opinion?
I know it can be done because I know many people with who disagree with me and one another respectfully. I’ve seen reasonable people discussing things reasonably, and they respect one another’s opinions whether they agree or not. I’ve seen this in real life, and I’ve seen it here on the SDMB. For example, much of this thread represents my idea of respectful disagreement, as does some of this one.
So, in short, my definition of respectful disagreement does not require agreement, and it can be done. It just takes a little more effort and restraint.
That analogy strikes me as a fair portrayal of the situation, X~Slayer, especially since it doesn’t rule out the possibility that Bush is bluffing and really has a crap hand. However, it doesn’t really address what I was trying to get at in the OP.
You’re talking about the issue of facts, which are important. However, I’m talking about the issue of Bush’s respect (or lack thereof) for the views of others who disagree with him. In my opinion, his statement about the protestors, even though he used the word “respect,” showed no respect or understanding of their opinions. He simply shouldn’t have said “respectfully” in that case. Your analogy doesn’t really apply to that issue.
How did you get that from what Avalonian said? He’s asking Bush to respect his “opponent’s” argument just enough to state it correctly. When he completely misstates or mischaracterizes it, it doesn’t feel too “respectful” to us.
But I kind of admire Bush’ technique. I think I’ll try that with my wife this spring:
Me: I’m going to buy 10 gallons of defoliant and a pressure sprayer for the yard. This crabgrass problem must not be allowed to affect the security of our lawn!
xenowife: Um, honey; I don’t think that’s called for. Last year, we controlled it by weeding and mowing.
Me: What? Do nothing?! It’s not like our yard’s astroturf, y’know! This crabgrass will not stand!
xenowife: But we controlled it by mowing and weeding last ye—
Me: And yet, the crabgrass is still there! Mowing and weeding are a joke!! Just because you think our yard’s astroturf, that doesn’t make it free of crabgrass.
xenowife (patiently): Dear, our yard has fescue, and some patches of crabgrass. If you use defoliant, you’ll kill all of it. Yes, it’s a pain to have to weed and mow, but that has some advantages over defoliating the whole yard.
Me: I respectfully disagree with your plan to let the crabgrass grow wild. Why do you keep insisting that our yard is astroturf, anyway?
xenowife: :smack:
I find this analogy useful. I am anti-war. Well, not really, but I am against unilateral action by the US against Iraq. Well, not really, but I am against a proactive military strike against Iraq without UN support, even with a “coalition of the willing”. We cannot be the world’s policeman without the support of the UN.
On the other hand, I do hold GWB responsible for the national security of the US. If he does know that he holds the winning card, so to speak, something that is an immediate threat to the US’ national security, then I damn well expect him to take proactive action to handle it.
But, at least eventually, he will have to show the card. And it damn well better be the Ace of Spades. While at some point, I might have been willing to trust that he was holding it, after Powell’s last presentation to the UN, I am beginning to really wonder.
Isn’t it reasonable that the rest of the world wants to see the Ace before they believe he has it? Or should they simply trust he isn’t bluffing?
What happens if we invade Iraq, and still can’t find any evidence of WoMD?
“I respectfully disagree” is a lot nicer than, “Those Islamofascist dupes are full of shit!” (One more reason there will never be a President december.) :eek:
(Repetition warning: if you’ve read many of the threads I’ve posted in about Iraq, I’m about to say something I’ve said many times before.)
Well, personally, it’s because even the CIA thinks that Saddam won’t give away his WMDs if he isn’t invaded, and will if he is. Therefore, invasion would be a huge mistake and counterproductive. In short, I fear dying in a terrorist attack directly caused by war when doing something else (ie NOT NOTHING) would have accomplished the same purpose without killing me.
Still, I hear that the CIA has recanted (though I don’t know why), and Sam Stone has, in another thread, graciously been defending the Administration position on this subject, information for which I am very grateful.
Maybe when the Google threads return, I can see how Bush himself explains this point away…
Being a politician, I doubt he can just say, “I’m right, youre all wrong nyeh”
The “respectfully” was placed out of politically necessity. Since he knows what he knows, he has to ignore what he knows is not right. His recent speech indicates he thinks the millions of protestors are wrong but he cant say that directly or they will demand immediate proof.
and I wholeheartedly agree with ** AZCowboy **. the “Ace of Spades” must be shown prior to the kickoff of the war. It conforms with the Powell doctrine of gaining public support. I believe that when these proofs, that everyone has heard about but has never seen, do come come out, war is just about to start.
and if we find no WMDs at all, well someone can kiss a second term goodbye. The WMDs are the ace of spades.
Gee. A return to the genteel methods of the 60’s and 70’s. I’d forgotten how validating it is to be called names by tools of the right wing.
(Remember “commie symp” and “pinko”? Ah, the classics never get stale…)
So, he couldn’t just say “I disagree.”? It would have been, at the least, more honest.
Maybe I expect too much. 
Come to the think of it, Bush was called all sorts of names by some of the demonstrators. Racist, Terrorist, War-monger, Hitler, Corporate Gangster come to mind. His response of merely saying he respectfully disagrees was particular mild in comparison.
If only he cared what exactly he was disagreeing with…