leave no president behind

[chm2023]

The first three years...

can the English language survive?

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."

- George W. Bush



"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."

- George W. Bush



"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."

- George W. Bush



"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

- George W. Bush



"The future will be better tomorrow."

- George W. Bush



"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."

- George W. Bush



"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."

- George W. Bush

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."

- George W. Bush



"Public speaking is very easy."

- George W. Bush



"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."

- George W. Bush



"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."

- George W. Bush



"For NASA, space is still a high priority."

- George W. Bush



"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."

- George W. Bush



"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

- George W. Bush



"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."

- George W. Bush



Sleep well gentle citizens.

[karen]

Well, that's so all the Democrats can understand...;)


Seriously, I am sure his wife cringes every time he does that-but at least his grammar appears to be corrrect!

[keithbenjamin]

A) I doubt the veracity of all of these, as I know at least a few of them were attributed to Dan Quayle (stupid democrats can't even come up with new stupid quotes).

B) I'm sure if someone followed you around, recording every word for 3 years, you'd have some pretty stupid quotes too, especially if you had to speak as much as the President and your quotes could be taken out of context. I would be willing to bet you could do this with just about any President. I seem to recall Al Gore being on a tour somewhere, pointing to busts of the great Presidents and asking, "and who are these guys?"

You just keep telling yourself, Bush is moron. I know it makes you feel better. Besides, it's always helpful when your competition underestimates your ability. :bbg:

[chip anderson]

Seems to me I saw the same set of quotes given to Al Gore a few years back.

Chip:hammer:

[EyeManFla]

Look, I voted for 'W' knowing this guy wasn't a MENSA candidate.

Do you really want an English major running the country?

[shanbaum]

Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

I believe that the ability to express one's self is crucial in every aspect of life - and the inability to do so, devastating. I continue to be amazed at the extent to which people can talk right past each other, whether in a project meeting, a casual conversation, or a political argument.

I believe that the current unpleasantness is to some extent a direct result of our leader's inability to express himself clearly. Certainly, he cannot express ideas clearly to others, and personally, I doubt that he can do so to himself, which is another way of saying, he can't really think any more clearly than he can speak.

In fact, I think that many people actually cut the man a lot of slack in this regard, thinking that he can't possibly be as stupid as he sometimes sounds.

Oh, believe it, he can be. I think he means exactly what he says. And contrary to KB's comment, this does not make me feel one bit better.

Leaving the syntax-mangling aside, how does one explain what he says in his moments of relative intelligibility? For example, the big interview on December 16:

DIANE SAWYER: [You] stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

Every time I read that, I find myself dumbstruck (as was Diane Sawyer at the time). What's the difference? Between an actual threat and a potential one?

This isn't a matter of seeing things in black and white; it's a matter of confusing the two. As I have no doubt stated elsewhere (because I like saying it so much), the dumber one is, the more everything looks the same.

But does that make any practical difference? Well, only if war and peace, and life and death are equally interchangable.

After 9/11, we didn't commit ourselves to wiping out militant Islamic fundamentalists in general, or al-Qaeda in particular; we declared war on terrorism. War means, we use our armed forces to conquer our enemies. Bomb. Shoot. Invade. One doesn't use crime prevention techniques, because that's not what one does in a war. War is so much more serious than crime prevention; it has to be better. Tougher. We'll show 'em; no more fooling around with this police ****.

Except, the police **** might be exactly what's needed. What army would have prevented 9/11, or 3/11, or any of the earlier attacks? These attacks were devised in people's houses, and at flight schools. How, exactly, does an army engage such an enemy?

Answer: it doesn't. Unless it's an "army" of agents, and detectives. In other words, policemen.

An army invades countries, which is why, in the president's mind, we're not even at "war" with al-Qaeda; we're at war with "terrorism" - which word he chose to use, because "ridding the world of evil-doers" must have sounded like just a little too broad a target; Karen Hughes must've asked him not to repeat that one. But being at war with terrorism allows us to justify invading anybody who we might sorta suspect could maybe be on, you know, the other side. And therefore, maybe, possibly, someday pose a threat.

This is the nature of the logic (however misguided) by which the "war on terrorism" led us to Iraq, where, as Richard Clarke (a genuine patriot, who, by the way, appears to be able to express himself with reasonable clarity) has pointed out, we have done our real enemies a big favor.

All because we didn't express ourselves clearly.

[chm2023]

Very well reasoned and put. And I really don't hold your ability to articulate against you but hey, that's me. Many people shrewdly see this as evidence of some sort of intellectualism which is nearly academic-like which is the same thing as being a communist. (Imagine the mental acrobats it takes to convince yourself that someone's wince inducing language skills are somehow not a major indicator of their mental skills. Someday soon I expect to see SATs replace the verbal half of the test with brush clearing. I suggest you do what I do to really get into the mind of GWB, read his extensive writings. My fav is "Note to self, no pretzels unless a medic is on duty")

Well he's done it again. Condi Rice repeated and repeated that she would not testify in front of the 9/11 committee as "a matter of principle, to protect exec priv and not set a precedent"; I personally saw her say this at least 4 times. Now the WH is saying, ok she will testify (GWB: "...gee Dick remember when we had principles, seems like only yesterday." DC: "It was yesterday you moron"..) BUT this will not be setting a precedent. Which leads one to the conclusion that somebody doesn't understand what "precedent" means. I mean, the WH kept saying we won't do this because there is no precedent (meaning, oh let me take a stab at this, an act that sets an example), no NSA has done this before....oh never mind, it's so ridiculous.

The hearings are interesting; have gleaned so far that what could have been done to perhaps avoid 9/11 were things within the US, not abroad. Also clear that the Bush WH decided to de-emphasize terror and emphasize Iraq. Now with hindsight it's easy to pick that apart; the question I believe is, knowing what they knew, was that a wise choice? I guess I see the answer to that a little more broadly, I think it was un-wise to put Iraq before North Korea and Palestine/Israel, never mind terrorism. I would be interested in your POV.

[BobV]

dyslexia lures.

Bob V.

[Darris Chambless]

After reading some of the posts I (Darris Chambless a.k.a. Mr. Fun) was completely "dumbstruck." I am so amazed at the complete inability to reason and think rationally and intellectually that I'm speachless.

Oh well, I didn't really expect anything less I guess.

Darris C.

[shanbaum]

Darris Chambless said:

I am so amazed at the complete inability to reason and think rationally and intellectually that I'm speachless.

Darris C.

Well, then, my work here is dunn.

[Joann Raytar]

Donald Rumsfeld:

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Clarity
I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

Does anyone know what he is talking about? (I hope he fired his writers)

[chm2023]

Donald Rumsfield and haiku. Who knew? (Oops! Bad word choice!)

The known/known, known/unknown, unknown/known and unknown/unknown thing is a tired old chestnut, forget the origin. Rumsfield tends to ramble and his thoughts seldom appear to be well organized--it's comical when he gets himself into a sentence he can't get out of and just mumbles to a stop. But to give the man his due, he at least is regularly available to field questions. How about Cheney rebutting Dick Clark on the Rush Limbaugh show--clearly a venue where he could expect the really tough questions. Does anyone remember the last time Cheney talked to the (real) press? Limbaugh of course broke his own sycophant record. (Coming soon, State of the Union on Imus).

[chm2023]

http://slate.msn.com/?querytext=bush...ction=fulltext

Read just a couple of these and ask yourself, if I were interviewing this person for a job, would I hire him?

[Darris Chambless]

As to what you posted even I can't say what he was talking about or what questions were being asked to illicit his resonses because I can't find anything on them. One source I went to that has nothing but transcripts has nothing on this briefing, but does have the others given on that date so I'm not sure what he was responding to. A lack of verification sure makes it hard to discern.

If someone finds something please post it. I too would be intrested in what the questioning was for this and if it was actually part of the briefing. Snopes didn't bring anything up on it but ever since Robert posted a link to a snopes page regarding a particular subject that they hadn't even verified themselves I'm not sure I'm all that inclined to believe or not believe their site anymore.

I'm not saying Donald Rumsfeld didn't say this but I'm just not coming up with anything. If he did say this I would definitely like to read the questions from those doing the questioning.

Take care all,

Darris C.

[keithbenjamin]

Here ya go Darris.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042

[chm2023]

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/...rs-2-12-02.htm

here's one

[mrba]

shanbaum said:
Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

I believe that the ability to express one's self is crucial in every aspect of life - and the inability to do so, devastating. I continue to be amazed at the extent to which people can talk right past each other, whether in a project meeting, a casual conversation, or a political argument.

I believe that the current unpleasantness is to some extent a direct result of our leader's inability to express himself clearly. Certainly, he cannot express ideas clearly to others, and personally, I doubt that he can do so to himself, which is another way of saying, he can't really think any more clearly than he can speak.

In fact, I think that many people actually cut the man a lot of slack in this regard, thinking that he can't possibly be as stupid as he sometimes sounds.

Oh, believe it, he can be. I think he means exactly what he says. And contrary to KB's comment, this does not make me feel one bit better.

Leaving the syntax-mangling aside, how does one explain what he says in his moments of relative intelligibility? For example, the big interview on December 16:

DIANE SAWYER: [You] stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

Every time I read that, I find myself dumbstruck (as was Diane Sawyer at the time). What's the difference? Between an actual threat and a potential one?

This isn't a matter of seeing things in black and white; it's a matter of confusing the two. As I have no doubt stated elsewhere (because I like saying it so much), the dumber one is, the more everything looks the same.

But does that make any practical difference? Well, only if war and peace, and life and death are equally interchangable.

After 9/11, we didn't commit ourselves to wiping out militant Islamic fundamentalists in general, or al-Qaeda in particular; we declared war on terrorism. War means, we use our armed forces to conquer our enemies. Bomb. Shoot. Invade. One doesn't use crime prevention techniques, because that's not what one does in a war. War is so much more serious than crime prevention; it has to be better. Tougher. We'll show 'em; no more fooling around with this police ****.

Except, the police **** might be exactly what's needed. What army would have prevented 9/11, or 3/11, or any of the earlier attacks? These attacks were devised in people's houses, and at flight schools. How, exactly, does an army engage such an enemy?

Answer: it doesn't. Unless it's an "army" of agents, and detectives. In other words, policemen.

An army invades countries, which is why, in the president's mind, we're not even at "war" with al-Qaeda; we're at war with "terrorism" - which word he chose to use, because "ridding the world of evil-doers" must have sounded like just a little too broad a target; Karen Hughes must've asked him not to repeat that one. But being at war with terrorism allows us to justify invading anybody who we might sorta suspect could maybe be on, you know, the other side. And therefore, maybe, possibly, someday pose a threat.

This is the nature of the logic (however misguided) by which the "war on terrorism" led us to Iraq, where, as Richard Clarke (a genuine patriot, who, by the way, appears to be able to express himself with reasonable clarity) has pointed out, we have done our real enemies a big favor.

All because we didn't express ourselves clearly.

Ummm. Ok. You are dumbstruck by "whats the difference"?

Well lets see...

There is an immediate imminant threat of a nuke going off in Salt Lake City.

VS.

It is confirmed that Al Queda tried to buy a bomb, money is no object to them, and they have a great human resouce dept. that finds suicide bombers, and if they got a bomb they will use it.

Yeah GB is a real dummy.

[chip anderson]

English Major?

Acutually Wm. F. Buckley wouldn't have made a bad president in his younger days. Although I am sure he would have been too much of a snob for most of us to take and unfortunately his command of the English language would have most of us carrying dictionaries trying to figure out just what he said.

Chip.

[shanbaum]

mrba said:
Ummm. Ok. You are dumbstruck by "whats the difference"?

Well lets see...

There is an immediate imminant threat of a nuke going off in Salt Lake City.

VS.

It is confirmed that Al Queda tried to buy a bomb, money is no object to them, and they have a great human resouce dept. that finds suicide bombers, and if they got a bomb they will use it.

Yeah GB is a real dummy.

Look, I'm sure you must be a busy guy, and you don't have a lot a lot of time to spend refining your posts, but neither do those of us trying to read them have a lot of time to spend interpreting them, and what you've written here is very close to being unintelligible. Which, I guess, means there's a twisted sense in which it's topical.

Are you trying to say that because al Qaeda is willing to purchase WMD to use against us (I get that much from your penultimate paragraph), we have no choice but to invade and occupy any country that may have a capacity to produce WMD, that may be willing to sell them to al Qaeda?

If that's what you're suggesting, then I submit that it's simply not a practical strategy. We'd have to occupy about half the planet, and we haven't demonstrated a capability to successfully occupy a desert backwater .

And invasion and occupation itself is probably not an efficacious strategy - even now, it's not absolutely certain that our invasion and occupation of Iraq didn't scatter the alleged WMD to the Islamic winds.

If they existed at all.

That's why a large number of thoughtful people believe that the conflict with violent religious fanaticism will in fact require a well-coordinated, well-thought-out, global effort, and that the actions of the present administration have undermined if not precluded any such effort in the near term.

[keithbenjamin]

That's real sound logic there Robert, because everyone knows WMD were the ONLY reason we invaded Iraq.

Didn't have a thing to do with say, Saddam giving his middle finger to your precious UN for 12 years, or lets see, firing missiles at US planes on a daily basis, or perhaps that he was known supporter of terrorist groups, or hmm, oh I know, he was a murderous evil dictator. That last one, by itself, seemed to be enough for us to invade Yugoslavia. We could also throw in for good measure: using WMD to murder thousands of Iraqis (probably far fewer than he had his thugs rape and murder on an individual basis), the invasion of Kuwait, eyes on ruling the Arab world, an assination attempt on a US President. How about setting an example ...seems to have had an effect in Libya, Pakistan, may soon have an impact in Iran and ripple effects have been seen in most Arab nations (I know it's that "giddy" vision of a democratized Middle East again.).

And whatever happed to the left being the great humanitarians anyway?

Oh, I forgot the left owns the rights to humanitarianism, so it only counts when it's a Democrat's idea. How silly of me.

-KB

[shanbaum]

Well, the threat of WMD was certainly the administration's main selling point, perhaps because they knew that the American people wouldn't go for it for the reasons you enumerate (most of which have been the case for a decade - or I should say, happened over a decade ago).

"Humanitarian grounds" may be the rationalization for the invasion in retrospect, but to suggest that it was the justification going in is either ignorant or duplicitous.

Do you actually believe that, had Bush said to the American people before the war, that he knew that Iraq posed no present danger to the U.S., but that we're going to take a detour from fighting al-Qaeda to go invade Iraq and remove Saddam because he's a very bad man - do you think he would have obtained support for such an action (especially, a unilateral action certain to corrupt our international relations)?

Most people would have thought he was nuts, because most people are more or less rational.

In fact - imagine just that, for a moment. Assume that it's late 2002, all the best intelligence says that there's essentially zero threat from Iraq. Would you have argued for doing what we did, just to get rid of Saddam, just to do the Iraqis a favor (because he's a very bad man)?

Remember, 600 of your friends and relatives are going to die in the effort.

Along with 10,000 people you don't know from Adam (that is, you don't know if any of them are evil, or just unlucky).

Do you turn the switch?

[mrba]

shanbaum said:
Look, I'm sure you must be a busy guy, and you don't have a lot a lot of time to spend refining your posts, but neither do those of us trying to read them have a lot of time to spend interpreting them, and what you've written here is very close to being unintelligible. Which, I guess, means there's a twisted sense in which it's topical.

Are you trying to say that because al Qaeda is willing to purchase WMD to use against us (I get that much from your penultimate paragraph), we have no choice but to invade and occupy any country that may have a capacity to produce WMD, that may be willing to sell them to al Qaeda?

If that's what you're suggesting, then I submit that it's simply not a practical strategy. We'd have to occupy about half the planet, and we haven't demonstrated a capability to successfully occupy a desert backwater .

And invasion and occupation itself is probably not an efficacious strategy - even now, it's not absolutely certain that our invasion and occupation of Iraq didn't scatter the alleged WMD to the Islamic winds.

If they existed at all.

That's why a large number of thoughtful people believe that the conflict with violent religious fanaticism will in fact require a well-coordinated, well-thought-out, global effort, and that the actions of the present administration have undermined if not precluded any such effort in the near term.

Before I respond, I will make a point to honor Shanbaum with my utmost elloquence, without yammering or being verbose, because he finds it soooooooooo important. And yes I do work more than anyone in the optical business... and I have references if you doubt that for a moment.

I will answer your points in reverse order. I agree that attacking religious fanatics is not a good idea... Unless of course you slaughter them, pour their blood until the ears of their friends become deaf to them, due to the agonized screams. Show them the true meaning of Jihad. I am not saying invade and occupy I am saying carpet bomb.

But this wont happen because this country has become so de-balled by the liberal left it is impossible. When the USS Cole was attacked we were given a diversity lesson by the white house. Such an apropriate response! Please kill our soldiers again so we can have another lesson! When 911 happened we were given another diversity lesson by hollywood during prime time. The Kings and Queens reaped pennies from the paupers as I remember.

I think it is an untruth that most folks in the middle east are fanatics. The suicide bombers are relatively few, and I think it is possible to greatly reduce their numbers with apropriate violence!
The WMD's are probably buried just as Saddam was found buried. They are also probably in Syria, and that would really be a religious fanatic war wouldn't it? And spare me the "If he had them at all." I for one can face the pictures of dead Kurds... entire villages murdered by non existant weapons!

What I am suggesting is, even a hint of terroist support or terror activity be met with complete retaliation. Total war.

And one other point related to this. It has been said that we would have to occupy 1/2 the earth, and that our military is streched too thin, to police terrorists ourselves.

For those of you who believe this, you should rexamine our military capacity. Any thinking person should shudder at what the US military is capable of. What we have seen thus far is but a glimpse...

I occurs to me that you may think what I have said is off the hook, but am I really that extreame? Would Japan have been defeated if it weren't for massive targeting of civilians??? I would say the fanaticism of imperial Japan is equivalent to that of militant Islam...

Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of having an intellegent and agreeable conversation wth a Saddam, Hitler, OBL, or Stalin. This is ultamately what I don't understand about intellectuals that think the rest of the world wants to just sit and talk and have peace. Lets be reasonable and say unreasonable situations require likewise solutions.

The saddness of the situation the world is coming too is absolutely terrible. To think that massive killing is nessecary to quell those that would murder the innocent, and yet murdering more innocents in the prcess. Terrible. I find no other solution in history however. Extreme evil doesn't reason, doesn't go away, and doesn't stop until it is stopped by someone else. And thats what the libs just don't get.

I hope that was better reading...

[mrba]

shanbaum said:
Well, the threat of WMD was certainly the administration's main selling point, perhaps because they knew that the American people wouldn't go for it for the reasons you enumerate (most of which have been the case for a decade - or I should say, happened over a decade ago).

"Humanitarian grounds" may be the rationalization for the invasion in retrospect, but to suggest that it was the justification going in is either ignorant or duplicitous.

Do you actually believe that, had Bush said to the American people before the war, that he knew that Iraq posed no present danger to the U.S., but that we're going to take a detour from fighting al-Qaeda to go invade Iraq and remove Saddam because he's a very bad man - do you think he would have obtained support for such an action (especially, a unilateral action certain to corrupt our international relations)?

Most people would have thought he was nuts, because most people are more or less rational.

In fact - imagine just that, for a moment. Assume that it's late 2002, all the best intelligence says that there's essentially zero threat from Iraq. Would you have argued for doing what we did, just to get rid of Saddam, just to do the Iraqis a favor (because he's a very bad man)?

Remember, 600 of your friends and relatives are going to die in the effort.

Along with 10,000 people you don't know from Adam (that is, you don't know if any of them are evil, or just unlucky).

Do you turn the switch?

Saddam a very bad man???
Lets not forget the 1.5 million (estimated) in mass graves. 10K doesn't begin to compete. At least at the end of the 10K deaths we can say "all done". And lets not forget the torture chambers for the children that didn't want to join the "Saddam Youth." Lets not forget the people missing fingers and toes for being suspected anti loyalists.

I think the true threat from Iraq was that the world (who's support you hold so dear) found these atrocities acceptable. The UN wanted to talk as thousands died, and they didn't want to talk about the death part...They were content to profit from cheaper oil, and increased world oil supply, as five year olds had their arms and legs broken for being naughty!

Did you ever stop to think that the WMD thing was pushed by the press and not the president? In his state of the union speech he sighted 10 reasons, WMD being one reason. Does anyone even remeber the other nine reasons? Of course not, it wasn't reported.

I find the callousness of the liberal mind astounding. We could carpet bomb the middle east for a week and not kill as many as Saddam killed. Although the death would be an unspeakable tragedy, those living would know a life of freedom... at least a real life.

[mrba]

I realize my previous posts were extreame. But my hope was for a slight shift to reality. I am of the opinion the world can be a nasty place, and that sometimes diplomacy is for the ignorant.(did I just use a lib vocabulary word?)

If anyone wants me to delete those posts I will gladly do it. Optiboards is fun and a learning experience for me, and I may have taken it a bit far with this one


:shiner:

[keithbenjamin]

No Scott, I think you made some good points. Extreme, yes, But the point being these people (Islamic fundamentalists) can't be pandered to, appeased, or negotiated with. They will be stopped at nothing short of death, and frankly that is all they deserve. Look at the bombings still going on in Spain. And they went as far as changing their government to appease the terrorists. Seems to have worked well for them so far.

Robert, you're very good at picking out a single point and saying we can't justify war based on that point alone. But for some reason in this instance you fail to use your hallowed "thoughtful, intellectual, shades of gray" analytical method and accept there may be more than one motivation here. Nope, for you it's black and white. Bush is dolt. There is no possibility there is a shred of intelligence in the man's head. Everyone he has surrounded himself with is either as big of a dolt as he is or is somehow in it for Haliburton. No possiblity there are a number of valid reasons for going into Iraq. No possibility there are good intentions at play. Because once again, the rights to good intentions are owned by the left.

Do you actually believe that, had Bush said to the American people before the war, that he knew that Iraq posed no present danger to the U.S., but that we're going to take a detour from fighting al-Qaeda to go invade Iraq and remove Saddam because he's a very bad man - do you think he would have obtained support for such an action

There you go again wanting to base the war on a single point And again, I say, "Kosovo?"