Was Bush really a "fundie"? Also, how smart/dumb was he really?

[Shodan]

By golly I sit corrected. You were correct, and I was not.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Hey, thanks. I was expecting some kind of weaseling.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The Bachmanns have reportedly now left that church. Probably to avoid a Reverend Wright type flap during Michel’s Presidential campaign.

[DeptfordX]

I don’t think he was stupid. He was a fighter pilot. It doesn’t matter who your daddy is the Air Force wouldn’t let him fly one of their planes if you couldn’t pass some fairly challenging tests.

The problem was he is a fool. Bad judgement, wisdom was his dump stat.

[Huerta88]

@tomndebb

Similarly, both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have praised specific issues on which he has taken stands, (e.g., abortion), while criticising him for other actions such as the invasion of Iraq, (and the Abu Ghraib scandal, separately), the death penalty, extraordinary renditions, and Guantanamo. GWB liked to hobnob with world leaders and try to make himself appear to be their pals, (see his behavior with Putin), but that did not mean that they actually reciprocated his odd behavior.

The pro-lifers were not thrilled with GWB, both specifically over his stem-cell policy and more generally over his perceived lack of conviction on their issues (perhaps this is cold comfort to the abortion rights advocates, who could rightly point out that he didn’t do much to increase access to abortion, either). Most pro-lifers I know would say (a) he’s better than the alternative would have been; and (b) at least he “got it right” with his S.C. nominees, now that that body has been thoroughly politicized – his appointees are not going to do much to expand/advocate Roe.

[magellan01]

Was Bush really a “fundie”? Also, how smart/dumb was he really?

It’s hard to define “smart/dumb”, but to use a comparative yardstick, he’s a little smarter than John Kerry:

Bush’s Yale GPA: 77
Kerry’s Yale GPA: 76

We also have this about their IQs from The New York Times:

…George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.

That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush’s SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120’s, about 10 points lower than Al Gore’s.

Mr. Kerry’s SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates’ military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.

Mr. Bush’s score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120’s, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry’s I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer’s extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. “People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can’t understand,” Professor Gottfredson said.

*Not that anyone should believe what’s in the NYTimes.

[Maeglin]

FWIW, this was the debate seven years ago.

[gonzomax]

http://www.zimbio.com/American+Politics/articles/41/Bush+s+Past+Business+Failures With some of the best connections in the world, Bush managed to be a failure in business. If he was in charge, it failed. It includes Arbusto, Spectrum 7 and Harken. But he escaped with lots of money and was connected enough to avoid charges.

[Der_Trihs]

@magellan01

*Not that anyone should believe what’s in the NYTimes.

Considering that they have a history of sucking up to Bush, no you shouldn’t.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Der_Trihs

Considering that they have a history of sucking up to Bush, no you shouldn’t.

I suppose you prefer Pravda.

But incidentally it should be noted in addition that Bush is not only smarter than his opponents but also has more environmentally-friendly residences that his first opponent Al Gore.

[Clothahump]

I just got through reading DECISION POINTS. He’s not a fundie, but he does hold deep-seated beliefs. Probably too deep-seated for my liking; I prefer a President who makes all his decisions based on reality. I don’t like the idea of having to ask a mythological being for guidance before making decisions.l

[ralph124c]

Bush is not a stupid man-stupid people do not get to become fighter pilots.
Bush’s problem was his evangelical belief in democracy-I think he sincerely believed that his wars would turn Iraq and Afghanistan into freedom-loving democracies.
In this respect, he resembles Woodrow Wilson.
That is why we need presidents who understand history-instead of democracy, the “Arab Spring” is likely to bring a new crop of despots to power. Egypt is not looking good.

[Kobal2]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I suppose you prefer Pravda.

But incidentally it should be noted in addition that Bush is not only smarter than his opponents but also has more environmentally-friendly residences that his first opponent Al Gore.

Agreed. When assessing the environmental credentials of two people, one of which opens up national parks for strip mining, the decisive factor is whether they sort their domestic trash properly. Have we any proof whatsoever that Al Gore puts glassware in the green bin ?
Chew on that, liberals.

As for the actual topic, I don’t think Bush was particularly smart or stupid (although one thing he certainly wasn’t was a silver tongued devil) - I think the defining trait about him is more that he was lazy, both intellectually and in general.
From coasting through life as a Daddy’s son - not refusing to take whatever oil jobs Daddy said he had to do, but never really making an effort either since Daddy wasn’t going to toss him out ; always more or less agreeing with his cabinet and appointing his buddies because that avoids confrontations and it’s all around easier that way ; barely reading his memos ; spending most of his time Presidenting on holidays at the Ranch…
A C student through and through: just enough to coast by, but not a iota of effort more. Which is fine when like my lazy bastard self you have exactly zero ambition - but not exactly cool for the head honcho of one of the largest countries in the world. Now watch this drive !

[Czarcasm]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I suppose you prefer Pravda.

The 60’s called-they want their insults back. Really, where do you pick up your dialog? Old issues of Reader’s Digest?

[PhillyGuy]

Wow. I haven’t been on this board for many years am quite impressed by the level of discourse. (Sorry for not using the same ID, but it, and the associated email address, is long forgotten.)

Anyway, re Bush and the wars, I have two thoughts to throw out.

1. The idea that wars are caused by the decision of an individual leader, especially one in a democracy, is questionable. I would look at economic, social, and political causes.

2. GW Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was the culmination of a long series of steps from which it would have been extremely difficult to back down. The frequent bombing of Iraq throughout the 1990’s, with no resolution, was an embarrassment any president would try to end. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 made it hard for us to end the low-level long-term conflict by backing down. Another was the pressure from liberal hawks like Tom Friedman. It’s hard to see how Bush could have allowed himself to be seen as being on their left. As for moderate Congressional Democrats, they were also pushing him to invade on grounds of those weapons of mass destruction that almost everyone, not just the CIA, thought Iraq still had.

At any given point in time, our loyal opposition would say that today is the wrong day for invasion. But if Bush had been seen to have backed down from invasion threats, that would have been quite unpopular. Such a show of apparent weakness, post-9/11, was inconceivable for Bush, or perhaps any other president. This of course is not a statement that Saddam was behind 9/11, but that the national mood dictated decisive action against the regime best known for using poison gas.

[Kobal2]

@PhillyGuy

At any given point in time, our loyal opposition would say that today is the wrong day for invasion. But if Bush had been seen to have backed down from invasion threats, that would have been quite unpopular. Such a show of apparent weakness, post-9/11, was inconceivable for Bush, or perhaps any other president. This of course is not a statement that Saddam was behind 9/11, but that the national mood dictated decisive action against the regime best known for using poison gas.

Why, of course. When a bunch of independent, religious kooks fly planes into buildings it is important to quickly enact decisive actions against the secular regime best known for using poison gas.

Ruh roo ?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

A relevent article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/bush-says-creation-incompatible-evolution/

[Czarcasm]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

A relevent article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/bush-says-creation-incompatible-evolution/

Interviewer Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true.

“You know. Probably not. … No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,”’ Bush said.

Yeah, the depth of his religious knowledge is really astounding, isn’t it?

[PhillyGuy]

@Kobal2

When a bunch of independent, religious kooks fly planes into buildings it is important to quickly enact decisive actions against the secular regime best known for using poison gas.

Yes, no joking, that is how it was looked at by not just most Republicans, but, also by most Senate Democrats, and by the third of House Democrats who voted for the Gulf War resolution. (I don’t agree that the Saddam regime was secular, but that’s a minor point.)

Here is what the House minority leader, Dick Gephart, said at the time:

In our view, Iraq’s use and continuing development of weapons of mass destruction, combined with efforts of terrorists to acquire such weapons, pose a unique and dangerous threat to our national security. Many of us believe that we need to deal with this threat diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must. . . .

In response to the President’s desire for congressional support and, in keeping with our constitutional responsibilities, I have worked to draft a resolution that reflects the views of a large bipartisan segment of Congress. My underlying goal in this process has been to ensure that Iraq is disarmed, and to lessen the likelihood that weapons of mass destruction can be passed to terrorists.

As for whether the weapons of mass destruction really existed, even many Iraq resolution opponents were seemingly just as sure of it as GW Bush. Here’s Nancy Pelosi in 2002:

I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence . . .

Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.

Pelose went on, in this speech, to oppose the Iraq invasion on grounds including the idea that our military members will be killed by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. A member of congress could give that as a reason for backing down, but I don’t see how a president realistically could.

[magellan01]

@Der_Trihs

Considering that they have a history of sucking up to Bush,…

You funny.