home

Bush on 60 Minutes

President Bush will be on 60 Minutes tonight, admitting that his strategy in Iraq has led to increased instability.

Anyone watch? Any observations?

Update: Some highlights (or lowlights, depending on your perspectvie:)

  • He watched part of the video of Saddam's hanging but not the part with him going through the trap door. Iraq could have handled the execution a lot better
  • He knows he's unpopular right now but it doesn't bother him
  • Using language like "Bring 'em on" was a mistake. The troop levels could have been a mistake. He's proud of our efforts, we liberated that country, Iraq should show more gratitude.

The first interview took place on a helicopter with Karl Rove right near him. It was loud and only a few minutes of sound from that interview was aired.

Next, He reads the casualty reports every morning and personally signs every letter to the families. While the reporter was there, he spent two hours meeting with families of soldiers who died.

He doesn't worry about his legacy. He's got a thick hide.

He admits he was wrong on WMD's and says he was the first to say so when that was determined. He insisted his Administration has been straight with the American people.

< Duke Lacrosse Case on "60 Minutes" | Saddams' Half Brother and Ex-Court Official Hanged >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    George Bush is Nuts (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TKindlon on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:03:27 PM EST
    The 60 Minutes interview is more proof, very compelling proof, that our President has lost his mind.  He is a crazy person.  A loon.  A wacky, inappropriately grinning psychopath.  Watching him and listening to him leaves no doubt about it. He's completely around the bend.  Gone.  

    Where can I get that bumper sticker that says "Pelosi for President in 2007"?  

    Lost mind (none / 0) (#16)
    by koshembos on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 04:48:13 AM EST
    You cannot lose something you never had.

    Since I don't drink, probably a risky habit these sad days, I didn't watch the mean toddler who never worked a day in his life; he is 60.

    We should be less entertained and more outraged by the Bush junta.

    Parent

    bush interview (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by lennonist on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 08:41:06 AM EST
    I watched the toddler and was fairly impressed with some of the interviewer's questions. I wished for some tougher follow up questions however, as simply asking a question allows the talking points to flow nicely.  for example, why no question about what is to me the most important issue: blatant lawbreaking with no apologies.  

    I also watched the next segment, on the Duke Lacrosse team and, after hearing Leslie Stahl's tough questions of Nifong, I wished she had been assigned to interview Bush, and that the impact of Bush's decisions on families was shown as much as the impact of Nifong's prosecution.  Nifong's unhinged prosecution obviously affects the lives of three wealthy boys and their families, but Bush's decisions have affected the lives of millions.  The statement of the mother, who was asked what she would say to Nifong, really struck me. She said "you messed with the wrong families" and said she'd say this with a smile on her face.  

    But Bush was allowed to justify his decisions in the face of occasionally tough but generally softball questions that allowed him to simply parrot the lines Cheney had previously fed him.  Is it the case that while Nifong "messed wtih the wrong [three] families" Bush has messed with the right ones and thus doesn't have to face as tough of questions as a prosecutor who took on boys of privilege?  

    And who believes that the man who proudly shows off the pistol Saddam was found with, and who cavalierly dealt with executions in Texas truly didn't want to watch Saddam hang because he "isn't vengeful?"  That line was right out of the Onion, wasn't it?

    the interview.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by dc sleeps on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 07:50:54 PM EST
    Do people even watch CBS anymore?  Well, I have pretty much missed it regardless.  I guess I'll go strolling around the internet looking for highlights.

    Loved how he (none / 0) (#2)
    by Maggie Mae on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 08:46:39 PM EST
    after admitting that "Bring 'em on," was a mistake, he showed how little he understood why it was a mistake, when his arrogance just couldn't contain itself and he had to say the Iraqis should be more grateful.

    I'm so glad I started drinking that exceptional bottle of Beaujolais I had, before that aired.  

    thick hide? (none / 0) (#3)
    by k ols on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:10:36 PM EST
    Ha!  He may try to project that image, but underneath he is about to come unhinged any minute.  I hope it happens on camera for the entire country to see what a psycopath he is.  

    Knowing this MSM we are strapped with they would cut off the event and then Bush would make certain the segment is never shown.

    The Iraqis should show more gratitude?  Is he kidding?  We've destroyed their country and left hundreds of thousands of their citizens dead or badly wounded for Bush's ego and they should be grateful.  Grateful to be without electricity, water, sewer, and other services and a bad economic situation.  And lest we forget it sounds like Iraq won't actually own their own oil as western oil companies seem about to get a 30 year contract to pump their oil.

    Those permanent bases we are building are to protect our oil workers.  What ever happened to the idea that Iraq's oil would pay for this war?  Absent without comment it seems.

    Who wants to even claim Bush & Cheney as our leaders?  I don't and never have.  

    Something must be done to remove them from office immediately.  Not next month, six months, or a year from now.  They are truly dangerous, evil men.

    The toll free phone numbers for the Capitol switch board are:
    1-888-355-3588 (Senate)
    1-866-808-0065 (House)

    Call the Congress critters and demand impeachment.  Hound them to death.  If enough people demand it it just might happen.  Does Congress really believe we don't understand what is happening in our police state?

    How much more are you willing to put up with?  

    the interview (none / 0) (#4)
    by DanS on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:11:18 PM EST
    I hesitated to post after watching "Mr. Smug" on '60 Minutes' after the NFL because we had shared a bottle of 10-year old Bushmill's.

    But:

    I went on the phone with folk's around the country who had missed it and sent them the video from CBS; the UNANIMOUS comment after seeing it was:

    "This is a very dangerous loon we have for a President".

    I was amazed that W let the correspondent from CBS ask the hard questions that he did. We need more of that.

    Anyone watch? (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    Pfff...  not me. I don't own enough whiskey to be able to watch that guy.

    "Creating chaos and instability" (none / 0) (#6)
    by aahpat on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:44:07 PM EST
    "admitting that his strategy in Iraq has led to increased instability."

    The United States has been "creating chaos and instability" for years and they know it. bush admitting that his policies are creating instability is like Mike Tyson admitting he has sharp teeth.

    congressional Research Service 2004 report to congress: "Illicit Drugs and the Terrorist Threat: Causal Links and Implications for Domestic Drug Control Policy" http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/i/crsterrordrugs.pdf

    Summary: "The international traffic in illicit drugs contributes to terrorist risk through at least five mechanisms: supplying cash, creating chaos and instability, supporting corruption, providing "cover" and sustaining common infrastructures for illicit activity, and competing for law enforcement and intelligence attention. Of these, cash and chaos are likely to be the two most important."

    Conclusion: "American drug policy is not, and should not be, driven entirely, or even primarily, by the need to reduce the contribution of drug abuse to our vulnerability to terrorist action. There are too many other goals to be served by the drug abuse control effort."

    "Creating chaos and instability" in the world is accepted and expected collateral damage of U.S. government policies. Bush admitting that his policies increase instability is a non-story.

    I have lost all hope that there are any constitutional and democratic means to prevent the drug war policy from destroying America's constitution, democracy, public safety, public health and national security.

    John Conyers and Disappointing Democrats


    Bush on 60 minutes (none / 0) (#8)
    by pax on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:10:30 PM EST
    I thought Pelley did a pretty decent job of asking questions.  Bush was his normal arrogant, smirking, offensive self.  I thought his statements about the Iraqi's needing to be more appreciative for what we have done for them was particularly offensive.  Given what havoc has been wrought in that country since our invasion and occupation, I was incredulous.  It just proved to me what a bubble he's in.  

    Bush: No Limit To Number of Deployments (none / 0) (#9)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:09:57 PM EST
    The appearance on 60 Minutes was all part of a public relations campaign by Bush to build support for his escalation in Iraq.  So he is shown with the troops and he is shown meeting with the families of soldiers killed in Iraq.  

    He generally stayed on message but not always.  For example, there was this exchange with correspondent Scott Pelley:

    Pelley mentioned to Mr. Bush that thousands of those troops have served two, three and even four tours already and if he would impose a limit. . .

    "In Vietnam as you know, you served 365 and you were done," Pelley remarks.

    "This is a different situation. This is a volunteer army. In Vietnam, it was, `We're going to draft you and you're going to go for a year.' This is a military where people understand there may be additional deployments," Bush says.

    Bush is saying that there will be no limit to the number of times that our soldiers will be deployed to Iraq.  I can't imagine the amount of distress that this statement caused for the families of our soldiers.  A person that really cared about our servicemen would not use and abuse them in this manner.  

    Death by Speech? (none / 0) (#21)
    by aw on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 10:46:19 AM EST
    After watching President Bush address the nation on Wednesday night, Howard Alexander went to bed repeating a question.

    "What can I do?" Alexander kept asking.

    His was the question of an anguished 53-year-old Brooklyn father whose son was being held nearly a year beyond his enlistment as he serves a second tour in Iraq.

    "What can I do? ..."

    That tour was itself being extended because the replacement unit had not had adequate stateside time since its own last combat hitch. Bush had now announced he was deploying more troops of an overextended Army.

    "What can I do? ..."

    He had already written countless letters and made endless calls to politicians and military officials in an effort to get his son home.

    "What can I do? ..."

    No answer came. Alexander suffered seemingly minor physical distress during the night, but told his wife he was all right and he rolled over. He never woke again.

    ...

    You cannot help but wonder if perhaps this was the first death by speech.


    NY Daily News

    Parent
    John (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 03:55:54 PM EST
    In WWII they served for the duration.

    So what does the question show besides that Pelley was trying to claim that we shouldn't there?

    Parent

    Obviously (none / 0) (#49)
    by Al on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 06:19:25 PM EST
    The occupation of Iraq does not resemble World War II in the least.

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 09:45:49 PM EST
    The meaning of our words (none / 0) (#10)
    by JHFarr on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:19:30 PM EST
    Bush IS crazy. Go here and download "Bush: Possessed by the Compulsion to Destroy."

    We say he's nuts, but we don't take ours words seriously enough. He and Cheney are completely insane. This isn't a figure of speech. They should be locked up. As Digby says, this can't be swept under the rug. We have a delusional president and vice-president who are about to lose an entire American army and plunge the world into hell.

    If one doesn't recognize and accept that the top two executives are truly insane, then one is delusional too. I put Congress and the MSM in that category.

    Thank God I don't have a mortgage and heat our rented adobe with wood.

    JHFarr, just google the word "failure". (none / 0) (#64)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:40:34 PM EST
    Cheney's (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:45:15 PM EST
    followers populate the entire national security bureaucracy. He has allies, spies, and fellow travelers in State, Defense, the CIA, the NSA, the DNI, the DIA, all of the uniformed services, and throughout the government. They know his world view and don't need instructions on what to do or what he might think. They know it. They know he wants a war with Iran -- and his team of followers are doing what they can to move us in that direction.

    There are many inside the Bush administration who do not want what Cheney and his followers prescribe -- but they are poorly organized and don't have the bureaucratic muscle to compete with Cheney's machine.

    Link



    Parent
    My thoughts (none / 0) (#11)
    by Joseph Hughes on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:32:44 PM EST
    ... here. It was a stunning piece, really. Tonight's most laughable moment: Bush claiming to be flexible. Right, flexible enough to consider breaking the law to stay in Iraq by evading the decisions of Congress. Also, did you notice Bush claiming not to be a "revengeful" person when discussing the execution of Saddam Hussein? We're talking about the same man who once said, of Hussein, "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad," aren't we? Thought so.

    Gettin outta Dodge... (none / 0) (#12)
    by bx58 on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:52:54 PM EST
    I just applied for Irish citizenship( parents from Ireland) and it's the right time.

    They must(the war-profiteers and unhinged Zionists) have pictures of Bush and Cheney snortin coke off some naked hookers backside, ala The Godfather 2.

    How else to expain their treason?

    those darn iraquis! (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:54:39 PM EST
    how dare they be so ungrateful to us, for invading their country, unasked, destroying their infrastructure, sending their country into a seemingly increasing spiral of chaos, violence and terror!

    ungrateful wretches!

    was saddam a world-class prick? you betcha! but, he was their world-class prick, not ours, to deal with, absent a direct request or a legitimate threat to us.

    gee, i wonder why they might be just a tad annoyed with us?

    talk about your complete disconnect from reality.

    I didn't bother to turn it on (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:04:09 AM EST
    I already know the guy is fried. I wonder if he misses his mind, or if he was even in the room the day he lost it.

    Besides, ten minutes of his speech the other night was more than ten minutes too much.

    Why isn't this guy in jail? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:58:25 AM EST
    Anyone still willing to admit they voted for this guy? Twice??

    I watched about 4 seconds of it with the sound turned off. I can't stand to actually hear him so I was doing some lip reading and I swear he said:

    "America, we need more of your kids' blood. Uncle Dick and I, along with our oilmen buddies, have to drink it to survive. Please give us more blood. Thank you and God bless you."

    We still got 2 more years of this?!?!?!?!?

    Thank you, Old Confederacy. You finally have your revenge on the Union.


    Yes I did. (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    And I remain convinced that he has done better than either Kerry or Gore would have done.

    BTW - I find it amusing the amount of pure frustration that is displayed about Bush on this thread. It is as if someone shouted "He's evil!" into an echo chamber.

    Read'em. They are one of the best examples of mental masturbation I have seen.

    Parent

    makes sense (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by syinco on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    It makes sense to me that Jim would say this, that by his measure Bush must be favored.  Jim has been clear that he assigns national security interests inordinately greater priority than any other concern.  

    If only such an absolute position could somehow account for and weigh the moral and political costs inevitably incurred.  Yet it cannot - it would seem that even the slightest threat of harm must outweigh even the gravest repercussions if they do not directly impact national security.

    If only it were so easy to discern whether an action now, apparently in favor of our national security interests, will in the long run, with all ramifications considered, prove beneficial to those interests.  But will our decision to invade Iraq prove to have increased our security, our children's security? How will we evaluate whether our squandering of the world's goodwill, once manifest and genuine in the wake of 9/11, makes us more secure than might have other paths?

    President Bush is the perfect choice for those who favor a simple, single-minded yet still somehow myopic approach to governing our country.  And President Bush is eminently incapable of anything else.

    On the other hand, I believe a more balanced and nuanced approach will better serve our national security interests, and simultaneously maintain our country as something worth protecting.  It would not preclude the paths we've taken, yet provides for a broader set of options.  Such an approach requires a leader with great aptitude, with vision and perception, with broad concern for what our country strives to be, for what it can offer to each and every individual therein.    

    Parent

    syinco (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    Balanced and naunced approach?

    Perhaps the only thing worse than over simplifictaion is to declare the problem too complex, and thus become frozen by indecision.

    Also comes the question as to what value we assign certain results to our actions. And, even more important, is the accuracy of our assessment.

    For example. I do not think we lost any "friends" in other countries. First of all because countries do not have friends, but areas of interest. Did we lose any individuals who claimed to be friends? Perhaps. But if we must surrender our ability to do what we think is right, then their friendship was based on "their self-interest" and nothing more. We used to call them "sunshine friends."

    Do I put national defense at the top of the list? Yes, but I would define it as also "culture" defense. Because if you lose your culture, whatever you found good and worth defending, then you have lost. Whether you lost it on the field of battle, or more subtly through changes to acceptable behavior is meaningless.

    Do I recognize that our present actions may cause problems in the future? Yes. But that must be weighed against the cost of doing nothing, or the cost of not doing enough. I find it interesting that for a long time after 9/11 the Left was arguing that our strategy should be a criminal justice strategy. Wait until after the crime, and then capture and punish the criminal. Besides the fact that a CJ approach doesn't even prevent regular crime in the US, it should be obvious that it won't work against terrorists.

    So to decide to take a certain action doesn't mean that the individual doesn't recognize all the other choices. To criticize those actions with buzz words such as "balanced" and "nauanced" without offering some actual alternatives is to demonstrate an ego that is remarkable in its belief in its own self-worth.

    To paraphrase a certain credit card commercial, "syinco, what's in your plan??"

    Parent

    And to set up strawman like (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 03:51:04 PM EST
    the suggestion that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the simple, single-minded yet still somehow myopic approach to governing our country that bush has taken is to demonstrate an ego that is remarkable in its belief in its own self-worth, and is dishonest.

    Nothing in what syinco said suggested in any way being frozen by indecision, except perhaps to those who cannot see multiple dimensions to a problem or to it's solutions.

    ...they behave as if they are poor since their possessions and money, which are the envy of most of the world, are not enough. They are not preoccupied with producing goods for survival as our traditional peasant is; they are preoccupied with gaining goods and money far beyond a good standard of living. They live in virtual villages where, if they have leisure from their efforts to escape their self-defined poverty, they associate with others who have similar village interests, unaware that their nation expends its wealth, the lives of its soldiers and the lives of uncounted hundreds of thousands of Iraqis half a world away on the basis of lies and deception. This is peasant behaviour.

    What's in your wallet?

    Parent

    Jim ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by syinco on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:03:22 AM EST
    "To criticize those actions with buzz words such as "balanced" and "nauanced" without offering some actual alternatives is to demonstrate an ego that is remarkable in its belief in its own self-worth.

    To paraphrase a certain credit card commercial, "syinco, what's in your plan??""

    You chide me for not offering alternatives.  But the alternatives were already posited in this thread - as Kerry, Gore, or more basically, someone more intelligent than President Bush.  My criticism was not levied against a particular action, but rather, against the capabilities of our president to determine the appropriate course of action, and against those who favor the president based on a single-minded mentality.  

    Or do you stray off course, and instead ask me for an alternative course of action to bring us out of the mire in Iraq?  That I am not in a position to offer; I do not know enough to offer an informed opinion.  So I do not criticize President Bush for his decision to deploy more troops, though I question it.

    That for which I would criticize President Bush is, in part, the decision to invade Iraq in the first place.  In the context of seeking solutions on Iraq, that would be crying over spilt milk, but that is not the context here.  The context here is, lamentably, more along the lines of whether President Bush is capable of the kind of critical thinking, rationality, foresight, and complex analysis, that many here, I think, would require of their leader.  His decision to invade Iraq is a prime example of his shortcomings in these areas. Statements wondering about the Iraqis' lack of gratitude speak to this as well.

    Separately ...

    "Because if you lose your culture, whatever you found good and worth defending, then you have lost. Whether you lost it on the field of battle, or more subtly through changes to acceptable behavior is meaningless."

    What comes to mind when I read this is the behavior we've exhibited in our actions against Jose Padilla and our continued efforts to try and justify that behavior, those violations, as acceptable.  It is shocking to me.  It is behavior such as this that tells me we are losing our war.  

    This is the sort of thing that a single-minded and absolute mentality, one that cannot weigh such costs against the mantra of national security, will produce.  We can do better.  We deserve better.  The Iraqis deserve better. Jose Padilla deserves better.  If we must wait two more years, so be it. Just let our lesson, as voters, be learned so that we do not repeat our mistakes.

    Parent

    Eisenhower or Einstien? (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 07:23:20 AM EST
    Not at all. In fact, it is our culture that allows us to agonize over Padilla. In the culture we are now facing he would have been executed years ago on mere suspicion. That you worry more about Padilla than our troops in the field is instructive.

    Kerry and Gore are not "plans." They are past choices that were rejected. Nothing can bring them back, and nothing will. That time has passed and we must face the fact that it is 7:09 AM on 1/16/07.

    You admit that you have no plan of your own, but don't like the one Bush has brought forth. As do most of the Left, you denigrate Bush's intelligence, yet if you accept grades as a measure, he is smarter than Kerry. Einstien was smarter than Eisenhower, but would you have wanted him in charge during WWII?

    Parent

    mornin' jim (none / 0) (#61)
    by syinco on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 09:41:32 AM EST
    That you worry more about Padilla than our troops in the field is instructive.

    That you would find it appropriate to conclude this from our limited exchange is instructive.  Does my concern for a misguided invasion not reflect concern for the troops?  Is it, in your mind, that if I voice concern for someone then I must care less about anyone else?  That I show concern for our decision to deploy more troops should at least suggest to you that I worry about our troops.  

    Whether I am concerned more for those troops we've put in harms way or for all those we've grossly mistreated, abused, or wrongly killed is a meaningless question, and you know it.  I am concerned for both.

    Kerry and Gore are not "plans." They are past choices that were rejected. Nothing can bring them back, and nothing will. That time has passed and we must face the fact that it is 7:09 AM on 1/16/07.

    Again, my earlier response was in the context of the thread, not that context to which you tried to change it.  The thread, at least the view I took of it, was not about the merits of one plan, or any plan versus another.  

    To suggest, as I did, that Kerry and Gore would have been better choices is consistent with the thread.  It's also not a matter of just wishing for what could have been.  Vis-a-vis Bush, they exemplify certain favorable qualities that we may look for in others in the future, hence the relevance.  

    You admit that you have no plan of your own, but don't like the one Bush has brought forth.

    I said that I question the plan to deploy more troops.  To translate that to not liking the plan is I suppose semantically correct, but I think intentionally misleading.  You might as well have said I don't dislike it.  What I do not do is swallow it hook, line, and sinker just because Bush proposed it and (presumably) O'Reilly and Hannity endorsed it.  In cases where I'm not informed enough to criticize specific decisions or suggest alternatives, I want only to have faith in those making the decisions - and that I cannot do today.

    Einstien was smarter than Eisenhower, but would you have wanted him in charge during WWII?

    That falsely reframes the issue.  Our situation today is radically different from WWII, and the issue at hand is not whether superior intelligence makes for a better wartime leader.  

    To come back to my initial points, I took issue with President Bush for what I perceive as an absolutist position; one that shows little foresight, one that affords no room for concern for costs of that position, one that doesn't seem to be based on, motivated by, or consistent with sufficient analysis or sound reason, and I also took issue with those who support him on a similar basis.

    And Einstein would at least have had the smarts to surround himself with those that complement his strengths by compensating for his weaknesses, whether those weaknesses be in aptitude, experience, or focus.  That Bush has selected only those with a like-minded position on national security is arguably more evidence of his mental shortcomings.

    Got to get to work now ...

    Parent

    uh... Jim (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:20:52 AM EST
    'mental masturbation'? You're the one who gets off on him.......

    Parent
    You are full of it (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:54:19 AM EST
    I used to think you actually believed everything you posted here.  Not anymore.  If you think Bush is doing a better job than either Kerry or Gore would have, you are saying it's better to be stupid than smart.  They may not have been perfect, or even satisfactory, but they would not have embarrassed and disgraced this nation as Bush's complete and utter mental incapacity has.

    Parent
    Freedom to agree. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    Dadler - We both have agreed that our previous assessments of each other were wrong.

    But when you speak of intelligence comparsions, what is you guidelines? That someone agrees with you?
    Freedom of speech as long as you agree with me??

    Bush is a poor communicator at best. Those in the heartland can underestand what he means. To those whose minds are clouded with hate can't understand any he says, and certainly cannot understand his motivation.

    Parent

    ah, the heartland (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by eric on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    But when you speak of intelligence comparsions, what is you guidelines?

    Intelligence is best measured by grammar.

    Bush is a poor communicator at best. Those in the heartland can underestand what he means.

    Apparently, Bush took "heartland-speak" while at Yale.  Grunt twice for a Bud and all that.

    Parent

    And nobody nohow (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 02:51:44 PM EST
    can't understand any he says

    Grunt, grunt.

    Parent

    Intelligence is best measured by grammar" (none / 0) (#32)
    by bx58 on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 02:56:55 PM EST
    Besides the "heartland yahoos"  does this standard apply to poorly educated inner-city black people? Do you include anything besides  English grammar?

    Just trying to get better at spotting the dummies.

    Parent

    People with reasonable levels (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    of intelligence and curiosity generally tend to educate themselves, bx. Regardless of their economic circumstances. And their speech and grammar reflects it.

    Parent
    Thanks, Edger (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 03:49:26 PM EST
    If anyone here has never seen the true spirit of the elitist, read what Edger has written.

    Parent
    You dispute it? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 04:02:05 PM EST
    bx59 (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 03:38:55 PM EST
    As someone who speaks Southern as my first language, and Engish as a distant second, I agree with you.

    Perhaps Edger has forgotten that people can be
    "educated beyond their intelligence."

    Parent

    At least you could (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 04:18:56 PM EST
    get his name right....

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 04:43:04 PM EST
    Well, oh intelligent one, it is obvious that you are not smart enough to recognize some gentle sarcasm.

    And if want make a career out of the fact that I can't spell baens, or type worth a filp, then you will be busy, busy, busy.

    But, since you have demostrated a singular inability  to refute any argument I have put forth, perhaps stewing over insignificant details is the best contribution you can make.

    Parent

    1Adam12, 1Adam12,Thread hijacking in progress... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:44:34 PM EST
    Heh. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 04:38:18 PM EST
    Intelligence is a property of mind that encompasses many related mental abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn.

    I look forward to learning how a person could be "educated beyond their intelligence", Jim. Please enlighten me.

    Parent

    In simpler terms (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 05:01:55 PM EST
    It would be like trying to put 20 gallons of bullsh*t in a 10 gallon hat, no?

    Hmmm? ;>)

    Parent

    Read and you shall have learned something. (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    First, the words education and intelligence are not synonymous.

    Thus the expression should speak for itself.

    bx58 hinted at this in his question:

    Besides the "heartland yahoos"  does this standard apply to poorly educated inner-city black people?

    A person can be wonderful at spelling, better at grammar, memorize all of the various atomic weights and be able to recite for hours, and you could say he is "educated."

    But that does not say that he is especially "intelligent."

    Unless he is an elitist who knows in his heart that he is both educated and intelligent, put here to lecture and lead the great unwashed.

    Of course in many cases many such are neither.

    Want another old saying? If the shoe fits, wear it. Is that a size 9??

    Parent

    Thanks, Jim! (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    I get it, now.

    It's just like torture. You just redefine the words.

    Ingenious, Jim. ;-)

    Parent

    Edger the tickster (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 06:57:03 PM EST
    Edger..... I used your definition. As I said, you can't win a debate.

    Parent
    Whatever you say, Jim... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 07:47:51 PM EST
    I asked for enlightenment. I got it. ;-)

    Oh, and you might look up 'capacity' sometime...... don't strain yourself though.

    Parent

    grammatical intelligence, and all that (none / 0) (#60)
    by eric on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 07:57:16 AM EST
    BTW, I was just making a little light of the grammar within the text that I quoted.  It wasn't meant to be an expression of my deeply held belief that grammar is really the best measure of intelligence.  However, I certainly do think that bad grammar does make one look stupid.

    Grunt, grunt.

    Parent

    Eric (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    Good point and to each his own.

    I would note what I think of people who go:

    "grunt grunt"

    as part of a comment.

    But that's just me.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Intelligence in this case... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 03:08:58 PM EST
    ...Means the ability to think critically and imiaginatively, and not give in to the base instincts that cause more trouble than they solve -- by miles.

    The simple fact he thinks the Iraqis should be more grateful tells me he is not in touch with reality.  At all.  The comprehensive ignorance and inanity and inhumane lack of foresight is on full display in that remark.  

    I simply don't believe, Jim, that this is a matter of disagreement here.  I do not believe it is an honest answer to suggest Gore or Kerry would've done worse than Bush.  It is a defensive reaction, which we are all prone to.  I'll say it again, on 9/11, my wife and I watched speechless, then I said "We're at war" and was full of violent and vengeful feelings.  But then...my rational mind took over.

    Bush's rational mind is non-existent in this matter.  He has been irrational, illogical, and just plain bloody awful wrong ON EVERY SINGLE THING TO DO WITH THIS.

    Facts do not dispute this.  Some things are factual and real, no matter how we try to spin them or deny them.  Our failure in Iraq is our own and no one else's.  When you f*ck up as badly and as murderously as we have, you do not get, nor do you deserve, any satisfactory outcome.  You don't win anything.  You go home and try to learn.  

    Parent

    dadler (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 03:47:18 PM EST
    The ability to restrain yourself from action has nothing to do with intelliegemce.

    However, the inability to believe what someone tells you flat out, especially when they are not pressured to do so, indicates a certain amount of something... I would call it a lack of commonsense.

    As for "getting what we deserve," I would remind you that we are all demanding justice when what we should be begging for is mercy.

    As for "rational minds," I note that many such minds have had the housings for said minds removed from their bodies by the sword of a barbarian.

    Take a breath, dadler. Look at who is out there and what they want to do and then tell me we should try and negotiate.

    Parent

    Who is out there? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:46:14 PM EST
    You mean Bin Laden? The guy we armed and funded up until about 1992 at least? (An action that you have tried and still try to rationalize) The guy Bush gave up on finding in order to pursue the Iraq fiasco?

    Gore could have done worse? How??

    Parent

    Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! Thread Hijack! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    By what measure? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Al on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 06:23:55 PM EST
    And I remain convinced that he has done better than either Kerry or Gore would have done.

    Really? Tell us one thing that Bush has done better that Kerry or Gore could have done, and explain how you know this. One. Tell us about Bush's record, PPJ.

    Parent
    Good luck (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 11:47:52 PM EST
    getting any kind of straight answer here.

    But thanks for playing! ;)

    Parent

    Meeting With The Families of Dead Soldiers (none / 0) (#17)
    by john horse on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 08:04:42 AM EST
    One thing that hasn't been mentioned was Bush's meeting with the families of dead soldiers.  I'm sure that the Bush administration scheduled this meeting for PR purposes.  Not missing a beat, Bush when he described what the families told him, used the old standby line for supporting the war - that the families asked that their "deaths would not be in vain."

    What Bush is saying is that more Americans must die for an even, worse idea in order that those Americans who have died for a very bad idea will have not have died in vain.  (Tom Tomorrow cartoon on the Very Bad Idea here).

    Good stuff, John. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 08:12:36 AM EST
    Here's a Marginally Better Idea. Can we just get it over with this year?

    Parent
    Ernesto, (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    The revenge is, they're goin' (dosnt matter, long as you're Rapture Ready), but they're gonna take us with 'em.

    B.S (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:08:13 PM EST
    That "Bring em on" was no mistake at all, it was a calculated, scripted sound-bite meant to appeal to the yahoo base in lynch mob mode, the way Raygun's fed line "He can run but he cant hide" was.

    Bush's people realize the cowboy schtick has worn thin (with most of us), and are making a belated attempt to repackage him as reflective and capable of learning from his "mistakes".

    Of course bush has learned from his mistakes... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 12:50:26 PM EST
    ...that's why he repeats them endlessly. It's the only thing he knows how to do.

    Parent
    BTW Bill (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 10:43:37 PM EST
    ... I owe you the $$$

    I stroked the kitty.

    I stoked the pot.

    I grilled my stake.

    I came over the top.

    I swung at the low hanging fruit ... not that there's anything wrong with that.

    Parent

    Do fries come with all that? ;-) (none / 0) (#68)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 01:55:23 PM EST
    BS on that yahoo base. (none / 0) (#29)
    by bx58 on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    Keep trying to blame it on the red-state, pickup/gun-rack crowd. That's as deceitful as the "BS" Bush and Cheney are peddlin.

    Parent
    Do the yahoos profit from this war? (none / 0) (#45)
    by bx58 on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 04:48:53 PM EST
    The yahoos are the principal victims of this war. Their sons and daughters,their brothers, sisters,husbands and wives are fighting and dying in this criminal enterprise.

    These so-called yahoos had very little influence over the votes of the majority of senators and congressmen who voted for the war.

    Those votes in 2002 have to be considered as all-time low points in congressional cowardice history, yet you had 29 democratic senators and scores of democratic congressmen voting in the affirmative.

     I know yahoos control Wall Street and the media but God forbid they get hold of Hollywood.

    Parent

    Yahoos? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 06:50:52 AM EST
    Do the yahoos profit from this war?

    Of course not. They just got sucked in. That's what yahoos do best.

    Parent

    bx (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 11:03:22 AM EST
    The "values" voters, i.e., the ones who were sucked in by that protect-the-sancitity-0f-marriage, stem cell scare, wedge issue b.s, were the ones who put it over for Bush.

    "My Pastor says.." I met not-a-few of them here in Western N.Y, and I guarantee there were even more in Ohio and Florida.

    The Virtue of Selfishness crowd on Wall St. and in the places that control the media are a given, but they're a relative tiny elite.