Bush's Speech: A Critique

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
ZEB wrote:
According to them he is a buffoon who is evil and somehow at the same time a genius who is getting rich somehow by the invasion of Iraq.

It’s actually comical if you keep a close watch.

That should explain it for you…

It is getting harder and harder to take the left seriously.

The more they talk, the more ridiculous they sound.

Its not too tough to understand that Bush doesn’t have to be a genius. He’s a moron who is told what to do left right and centre. The send off is he makes some cash. Its not too complex I don’t think.

Actually he is a fairly bright guy. The fact that you think he is a moron just shows you are incapable of being objective on the subject.

This is not a good position to put yourself in.[/quote]

I have outlined in this forum before the beginning point for all my viewpoints: that human rights must be upheld above anything else. Not the living standard of one group of people, not profit, not election hopes. Whether I question Bush’s intelligence on a personal level is neither here nor there, it does in no way negate anything I said in my original critique. I’m still waiting on somebody to refute the points I made.

As far as Bush’s lack of intelligence, well maybe when he originally recieved the report on the threat Bin Laden posed when he first came to office he would have acted. That would have been intelligent. Seeing the world in reality as shades of grey not black and white would lead him to not make blanket idiotic statements such as regarding the singular nature of terrorist aims and viewpoints such as:

“The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity,” Bush said. “And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.”

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/bush596.html

Yet I’m fairly sure people like Chechen rebels have a different view, as do the Real IRA or the myriad other groups. If he were astute he would also realise that out invasion of Iraq created that front, greatly bolstering terrorist numbers and we have in effect made our bed, now we must lie in it. I mean thats just a little snippet of why I dont rate his intelligence.

62

[quote]harris447 wrote:

harris447 wrote:

Can you offer some examples of his “brightness”, please?[/quote]

I’d recommend watching a townhall meeting Bush attended and fielded questions.

Much more his strength than canned presentations.

Moreover, it is kind of silly to buy into such lazy stereotypes. Jimmy Carter was considered a moronic bumpkin, but was a trained nuclear engineer. It is a convenient, cheap route to self-satisfaction to bash the President for being dumb, but I suspect claiming this over and over is more a reflection on the critic’s lack or gray matter than the President’s.

63

[quote]Now THIS is the pot calling the kettle black.
And I think this has come up before. You actually must be quite insecure about your own life status to assume that there are President’s of the U.S. who have been morons. Maybe you don’t like or agree with their policies or positions, but to assume that they are not intelligent is merely sour grapes.[/quote]

Sasquatch, perhaps if you could read you’d have seen that I was not saying that Bush was stupid at all. I was countering some silly comment that stated he could not be stupid.

Do you see the difference, [insult here]?

As I said very recently, neither you nor I have the information necessary to know if he is stupid or not. Some people look at his speech and actions and say he must be, others look at the same and say he must not be.

The jury is still out…

64

There goes the ole flip flop vroom, disagreeing with something he posted just at the top of this page. You are priceless vroom. If I had time to go through all your posts I bet I could pick out 100 where you referred to GW as stupid or a moron. I ask ya, Are you now claiming that you never called him a moron or are you just changing position to pick up on another argument?

65

[quote]ZEB wrote:
slimjim wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Why is it then when a republican president who agressively pursues terrorism his impeachment is near? Yet a democratic president can sit idley by as we are attacked multiple times in an 8 year period, lie to a federal grand jury and still be considered a great president. In case anyone didn’t read on MSNBC, information collected in Iraq led to the arrests of the NYC subway threat.

MSN There, that’s for all those that think we would be better off if we weren’t fighting in Iraq.

I had actually forgotten why I had posted the BJ thing in the first place til I reread this.

I know, I know, here I go flip-flopping in true liberal fashion.

You brought it up (I assume) to be sarcastic. And perhaps to steer the debate away from where it was going.[/quote]

As opposed to the way snipeout brought up Clinton’s administration in response to a discussion about Bush?

66

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

harris447 wrote:

Can you offer some examples of his “brightness”, please?

I’d recommend watching a townhall meeting Bush attended and fielded questions.

Much more his strength than canned presentations.

Moreover, it is kind of silly to buy into such lazy stereotypes. Jimmy Carter was considered a moronic bumpkin, but was a trained nuclear engineer. It is a convenient, cheap route to self-satisfaction to bash the President for being dumb, but I suspect claiming this over and over is more a reflection on the critic’s lack or gray matter than the President’s.[/quote]

You mean one of those town hall meetings where the audience is full od thoroughly vetted campaign contributors? C’mon: you’re smarter than that.

They held one of those things at my high school when Clinton was running in 92. The questions were pre-selected, as was the audience. I don’t presume that anything’s changed.

And, please: let’s stop claiming ‘projection’ on the part of people who question the president’s smarts. When you combine a man whose performance has been incompetent time and time again, and lacks the ability to speak extemporaneously (watch the press conferences, not the town hall meetings), you get a man who might be lacking in the brains department.

Answer this honestly…if you met a man in real life who couldn’t do his job properly and couldn’t speak well,wouldn’t you think he was a bit slow? Or, would you keep making excuse after excuse after excuse for him?

67

[quote]harris447 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Answer this honestly…if you met a man in real life who couldn’t do his job properly and couldn’t speak well,wouldn’t you think he was a bit slow? Or, would you keep making excuse after excuse after excuse for him?[/quote]

Here is the honest answer - you assume too much in your premise. What if I haven’t seen evidence that he hasn’t done his job properly? You take Bush’s ‘incompetence’ as a given - I couldn’t answer your question unless I agreed with you.

As for my so-called excuse making, let’s have that policy discussion. You asked for an example of his intelligence - I offered that Bush’s strength is in communication in less formal settings. Well, hell, since speeches are manufactured events and townhall are manufactured events, when else can Bush demonstrate his intelligence?

Well, I am not especially impressed with evidence that Bush doesn’t field questions from reporters very well. I don’t think Bush is good at this at all, but I don’t necessarily think it is a function of low brainpower - I think it is a function of being ill-equipped to provide doublespeak. This can be a disadvantage, and it can be remarkably refreshing in a day and age of slick-used-car-salesman politicians. I think Bush has been on both sides of this.

What I find difficult to understand is that Bush critics alternate complaints - Bush is incompetent and Bush is too competent - seemingly on a whim. I can’t figure it out - is Bush a partially retarded dope or a proto-fascistic dictator carefully manipulating the ‘fear factor’ in order to hold on to power?

Can’t be both. I got a better idea - how about Bush is a competent politician, acting in good faith, whose policy choices you think are wrong-headed and misguided?

Egad! While that seems plausible, such fair and simple explanations just aren’t gonna win you points at a chin-rubbing contest at the local coffee house.

68

[quote]slimjim wrote:
Do I get to blame Bush for the largest and most devastating foreign attack on our soil to date? [/quote]

No one is blaming Clinton for the attacks. They are blaming him for not responding appropriately to the attacks. Do you see the difference?

69

[quote]vroom wrote:

A couple Ivy league degrees, relatively high intelligence testing while in military, sucessful political career.

These are not things morons are capable of.

Ahahahahah! Priceless.

Some people with PhD’s are rich and successful yet they are morons. You have no idea whether or not all the nuts are in the jar or not.

Maybe you can spare us your worthless one line quips for a while and come up with something substantial to say? You know, like actually taking a stand on an issue instead of doing the normal wishy washy fence sitting half-hearted cheerleading while trying to appear even handed bullshit?[/quote]

Don’t have anything constructive or intelligent to say vroom? Attack me. Thats fine, I can handle it.

It just further demonstrates the weakness in your positions when you do this.

70

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
…
Yet I’m fairly sure people like Chechen rebels have a different view, as do the Real IRA or the myriad other groups. If he were astute he would also realise that out invasion of Iraq created that front, greatly bolstering terrorist numbers and we have in effect made our bed, now we must lie in it. I mean thats just a little snippet of why I dont rate his intelligence.
[/quote]

Chechnya and Ireland do not produce a product that is of prime importance to the worlds economy. Iraq and the Mid East do, that is why we are fighting there.

You accuse him of being dumb and then your example illustrates that he is smart enough to figure out that you should fight battles of strategic importance, not in relatively unimportant areas.

Just because you don’t have the first clue why we are fighting this war reflects poorly on your intelligence, not his.

71

Snipe, there’s no flip flop in this thread buddy. I’m sure I’ve said lots of things over the years, but you have to read the thread as a standalone thing in a way snipe, really.

In this thread I’m arguing that it is certainly possible that he is a moron, because the reasoning suggested for him not to be able to be a moron is faulty at best.

However, the fact that I may think he is a moron, doesn’t meant that is what I’m trying to argue. If I were trying to argue it, I would simply state it.

As usual, instead of arguing my own thoughts, I’m arguing against poor arguments from people that disagree with my viewpoint. It might be subtle, but there is a difference.

I’m saying he could be a moron, and that you and I don’t have enough information to know for sure. We’ll each make up our own minds of course, but neither of us will know for sure.

That’s pretty middle of the road stuff, to be getting upset over that type of comment, I’d peg you as a rabid Bush supporter who sees anything except blind loyalty and praise as criticism.

The POTUS is just a man. He has faults and limitations just as any other man. The world spun around in the same direction for him as it did for everyone else. Therefore, when there are other people in his station in life granted privileges, it is possible that he has been as well.

The key word in all this, is possible. If you can’t admit the possibility, and the fact that you’ll probably never have enough information to know, at least stop making up my stance on my behalf, I’ll be happy to promote my own beliefs from time to time.

72

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Answer this honestly…if you met a man in real life who couldn’t do his job properly and couldn’t speak well,wouldn’t you think he was a bit slow? Or, would you keep making excuse after excuse after excuse for him?

Here is the honest answer - you assume too much in your premise. What if I haven’t seen evidence that he hasn’t done his job properly? You take Bush’s ‘incompetence’ as a given - I couldn’t answer your question unless I agreed with you.

As for my so-called excuse making, let’s have that policy discussion. You asked for an example of his intelligence - I offered that Bush’s strength is in communication in less formal settings. Well, hell, since speeches are manufactured events and townhall are manufactured events, when else can Bush demonstrate his intelligence?

Well, I am not especially impressed with evidence that Bush doesn’t field questions from reporters very well. I don’t think Bush is good at this at all, but I don’t necessarily think it is a function of low brainpower - I think it is a function of being ill-equipped to provide doublespeak. This can be a disadvantage, and it can be remarkably refreshing in a day and age of slick-used-car-salesman politicians. I think Bush has been on both sides of this.

What I find difficult to understand is that Bush critics alternate complaints - Bush is incompetent and Bush is too competent - seemingly on a whim. I can’t figure it out - is Bush a partially retarded dope or a proto-fascistic dictator carefully manipulating the ‘fear factor’ in order to hold on to power?

Can’t be both. I got a better idea - how about Bush is a competent politician, acting in good faith, whose policy choices you think are wrong-headed and misguided?

Egad! While that seems plausible, such fair and simple explanations just aren’t gonna win you points at a chin-rubbing contest at the local coffee house.[/quote]

The probem is I won’t concede the point that he is acting in good faith. He has done too much to line the pockets of his friends and cronies.

And the argument that he is “ill-equipped to provide double-speak” is reaching. Reeeeeeeeally reaching. He’s incapable of speaking in public because he’s just too darn honest to bullshit?

Not buying it.

73

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
…
Yet I’m fairly sure people like Chechen rebels have a different view, as do the Real IRA or the myriad other groups. If he were astute he would also realise that out invasion of Iraq created that front, greatly bolstering terrorist numbers and we have in effect made our bed, now we must lie in it. I mean thats just a little snippet of why I dont rate his intelligence.

Chechnya and Ireland do not produce a product that is of prime importance to the worlds economy. Iraq and the Mid East do, that is why we are fighting there.

You accuse him of being dumb and then your example illustrates that he is smart enough to figure out that you should fight battles of strategic importance, not in relatively unimportant areas.

Just because you don’t have the first clue why we are fighting this war reflects poorly on your intelligence, not his.[/quote]

But I thought it was a war on terror as a whole! Finally you’ve admitted something the whole world has been saying for years, that this is economically motivated, not some philanphropic exercise to ‘protect freedom’ or whatever! Now, the PR says ‘War on Terror’ yet we can all see it for what it is- a war of profit, hence my claim of illigitimacy! Finally we connect!

74

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
…
Yet I’m fairly sure people like Chechen rebels have a different view, as do the Real IRA or the myriad other groups. If he were astute he would also realise that out invasion of Iraq created that front, greatly bolstering terrorist numbers and we have in effect made our bed, now we must lie in it. I mean thats just a little snippet of why I dont rate his intelligence.

Chechnya and Ireland do not produce a product that is of prime importance to the worlds economy. Iraq and the Mid East do, that is why we are fighting there.

You accuse him of being dumb and then your example illustrates that he is smart enough to figure out that you should fight battles of strategic importance, not in relatively unimportant areas.

Just because you don’t have the first clue why we are fighting this war reflects poorly on your intelligence, not his.[/quote]

And if you read my example I point out that there would be no ‘strategic’ front if Bush hadn’t created it. It didn’t pool terrorists and show us where to find them, it just gave the world extra terrorists. I don’t think you comprehended my post.

75

[quote]vroom wrote:
There goes the ole flip flop vroom, disagreeing with something he posted just at the top of this page. You are priceless vroom. If I had time to go through all your posts I bet I could pick out 100 where you referred to GW as stupid or a moron. I ask ya, Are you now claiming that you never called him a moron or are you just changing position to pick up on another argument?

Snipe, there’s no flip flop in this thread buddy. I’m sure I’ve said lots of things over the years, but you have to read the thread as a standalone thing in a way snipe, really.

In this thread I’m arguing that it is certainly possible that he is a moron, because the reasoning suggested for him not to be able to be a moron is faulty at best.

However, the fact that I may think he is a moron, doesn’t meant that is what I’m trying to argue. If I were trying to argue it, I would simply state it.

As usual, instead of arguing my own thoughts, I’m arguing against poor arguments from people that disagree with my viewpoint. It might be subtle, but there is a difference.

I’m saying he could be a moron, and that you and I don’t have enough information to know for sure. We’ll each make up our own minds of course, but neither of us will know for sure.

That’s pretty middle of the road stuff, to be getting upset over that type of comment, I’d peg you as a rabid Bush supporter who sees anything except blind loyalty and praise as criticism.

The POTUS is just a man. He has faults and limitations just as any other man. The world spun around in the same direction for him as it did for everyone else. Therefore, when there are other people in his station in life granted privileges, it is possible that he has been as well.

The key word in all this, is possible. If you can’t admit the possibility, and the fact that you’ll probably never have enough information to know, at least stop making up my stance on my behalf, I’ll be happy to promote my own beliefs from time to time.[/quote]

This post is so quintessential vroom, that I don’t even need to add commentary. But I will.

You believe it is so, but that’s not what you are arguing. You are simply arguing that it COULD be so, because the reasoning for saying it couldn’t be so is faulty. WOW

The subtle difference in arguing against anothers viewpoint because it differs from yours–yet you are not arguing your viewpoint is just a ridiculous position. For once vroom, admit a stance and argue on its merits. Not some one shot sniper bullshit that you believe yourself to be so great at.

So you do believe the guy’s a moron, but you’re not manning up for that type of discussion. You’re just shooting down those that think the guy has any intellect at all.

CLASSIC!!

76

[quote]harris447 wrote:

The probem is I won’t concede the point that he is acting in good faith. He has done too much to line the pockets of his friends and cronies.[/quote]

Yea, I have heard that before from Bush bashers. Now would be a good time to give some facts related to those charges. I would like to know who is getting their pockets lined? And of course how they are being lined. If you have such information please post it. If you don’t have quality evidence and are simply spouting off ala Micheal Moore you can admit that too.

77

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:

But I thought it was a war on terror as a whole! Finally you’ve admitted something the whole world has been saying for years, that this is economically motivated, not some philanphropic exercise to ‘protect freedom’ or whatever! Now, the PR says ‘War on Terror’ yet we can all see it for what it is- a war of profit, hence my claim of illigitimacy! Finally we connect![/quote]

Nope - everyone knows full well that the ‘war on terror’ is merely a PR phrase to appease the institution of political correctness.

If the US formally referred to the current war as the ‘War Against Radical Islam’, the Left would hyperventilate and shriek enough to break all the glass in downtown Manhattan - all because some Muslim, somewhere is the world, might get his feelings hurt.

The ‘War on Terror’ label is just a term of art these days - everyone knows what it means.

78

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:

But I thought it was a war on terror as a whole! Finally you’ve admitted something the whole world has been saying for years, that this is economically motivated, not some philanphropic exercise to ‘protect freedom’ or whatever! Now, the PR says ‘War on Terror’ yet we can all see it for what it is- a war of profit, hence my claim of illigitimacy! Finally we connect!

Nope - everyone knows full well that the ‘war on terror’ is merely a PR phrase to appease the institution of political correctness.

If the US formally referred to the current war as the ‘War Against Radical Islam’, the Left would hyperventilate and shriek enough to break all the glass in downtown Manhattan - all because some Muslim, somewhere is the world, might get his feelings hurt.

The ‘War on Terror’ label is just a term of art these days - everyone knows what it means.

[/quote]

True, yet the philanthropic rhetoric continues. Hey, if you’re happy with the government lying like that then ok for you, I just hold people to higher standards. Actually you should talk to Zap because he thinks its an economic war, not one against radical Islam. Good right-wing debate though: is it sleazy or racial? Discuss.

79

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:

The probem is I won’t concede the point that he is acting in good faith. He has done too much to line the pockets of his friends and cronies.

Yea, I have heard that before from Bush bashers. Now would be a good time to give some facts related to those charges. I would like to know who is getting their pockets lined? And of course how they are being lined. If you have such information please post it. If you don’t have quality evidence and are simply spouting off ala Micheal Moore you can admit that too.

[/quote]

Dick Cheney and Halliburton:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

You could do a search for any Enron stuff and see who walked away with money and who paid the cost.

Bush might be hanging out with the bad kid of the street:

Helping the money lenders:

Poor record on nuclear non-proliferation

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0502/dailyUpdate.html

Then the reason why, he obviously likes someone over in the nuclear labs! (Cos having enough weapons to nuke the world 800000000000 times over isn’t enough):

Killing Kyoto:

And then linked to that some nice quotes on why energy efficiency isn’t worthwhile, ooh, he likes some power industry people too:

Ahh, research is fun.

80

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:

The probem is I won’t concede the point that he is acting in good faith. He has done too much to line the pockets of his friends and cronies.

Yea, I have heard that before from Bush bashers. Now would be a good time to give some facts related to those charges. I would like to know who is getting their pockets lined? And of course how they are being lined. If you have such information please post it. If you don’t have quality evidence and are simply spouting off ala Micheal Moore you can admit that too.

Dick Cheney and Halliburton:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

You could do a search for any Enron stuff and see who walked away with money and who paid the cost.

Bush might be hanging out with the bad kid of the street:

Helping the money lenders:

Poor record on nuclear non-proliferation

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0502/dailyUpdate.html

Then the reason why, he obviously likes someone over in the nuclear labs! (Cos having enough weapons to nuke the world 800000000000 times over isn’t enough):

Killing Kyoto:

And then linked to that some nice quotes on why energy efficiency isn’t worthwhile, ooh, he likes some power industry people too:

Ahh, research is fun.[/quote]

JohnGullick, you are one very silly man.

I looked at all of your links which are supposed to be loaded with evidence which demonstrates GW and or his “cronies” lining their pockets in some sleazy fashion.

What I found was debates on nuclear weapons, Katrina and a host of other unrelated topics.

By the way how is the weather in England?