bush doesn't know what he's doing

[WHEATTHlNS]

tIME oUT tOKYO - City Guide - 19.95

Fodor's City Pack - 11.95

Best Of Tokyo - 11.95

Lonely Planet - Tokyo - 14.99

Frommer's Tokyo - 14.99

24.99

Another dumb idea, privatizing Social Security, that's a bad idea because SS is social and if it's privatized you can't call it Social Security anymore.

That's - an interesting "analysis" of Social Security. Privatized SS would not completely remove the system from Fed Regulations. Also - the fact that SOCIAL SECURITY is running out is a problem. It may not be petering out at the pace the ADMIN says - but it does not have an infinite lifespan (nor was it ever meant to). SS is problematic, and the President deserves praise for at least bringing the issue to the table.

I just thought it was amusing to watch. I really have no clue if any of that footage mixed with the naration is true.

Its true insomuch as every other "documentary" is true - the filmmaker sets up shots in such a way that is meant for the viewer to come to their own conclusions. That's the way good prapodanga works - the unspoken truth.

But I'm puzzled about why someone doesn't find him some better speech writers!

Bush is a "country boy" - that in no way means he is an "idiot" or doesnt know what hes talking about - but his rearing comes out more so than his Presidential Pedigree. . .and he could care less. Being President isnt a popularity contest or a Speech Club.

he rushed into war just because he THOUGHT they had weapons of mass destruction

WMD was the tent-pole in which the march to war was structured around. It was not the only reason.

I liked Clinton better, even if he had some scandals

You call sexual harrassment, campaign finance violations, and potentially putting the interest of Chinese campaign contriubers (who work with the Chinese government) above American interests. . ."some scandals". Wowzers -

The alleged ties to 9/11 and the exaggerated links to terrorists are another.

Noone in the admin made overt suggestions that Saddam was tied to 9/11. The "exaggerated" ties - you mean like enfranchising terrorist bombers by promising payouts to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel? Those kind of ties?

There is also the obvious fact that in 1998 President Clinton didn't have a traumatized post 9/11 public that would willingly follow him into a horrendously costly invasion of Iraq over an issue that very few Americans would have felt justified those costs.

No - Bill Clinton simply launched a few missles at IRAQ (when the sex scandal was gaining tranction) and botched numerous attempts to secure UBL - all documented.

The only problem is that nobody except the Bible Belt and the Mr Blair seems to like him

You realize. . .that though a President can WIN a state - that very often he does so by as slim a margin as the national popular vote. Meaning - that in NY city there were a significant number of people who dont fit the "Bible Belt" (do you know where that is) who did vote for George Bush.

I think China is more economically popular than Japan atm.

Respectivelly disagree. CHINA's economic growth is impressive. . .but ANY growth in a region completely nationalized with no true representative government would be something to marvel at.

The main problem I have with Bush is he sees the world through his eyes only. This whole issue about spreading democracy in the Middle East and spreading our freedom, is narrow minded.

I disagree. Would you have a problem spreading SCIENCE to communites that believed in the GODS even though they have prescribed to this for numerous years?

 

[noyhauser]

Some comments on language slips and intelligence. Slips of tongue might be a good thing for 2nd class slap-stick comedy, but not even that. Although the general intelligence of a person is not to be derided by isolated speech errors, what is sad is the fact that he doesn't care, which strikes the audience with a sense of disbelief at first, and then offense by being served arrogant langugage. If we are talking about high-intelligence, not general intelligence, that would be required of a political leader of the capitalist world, a certain degree of precision in language is expected only naturally.

I think he communicates well enough. He speaks in easy clear terms that the general public understands. He does make slips, does it detract from his ability for people to understand him? Certainly not. Also Bush used to speak publically using more precise political terminology, what we call as policy wonkism. But he lost an election in the 1980s because he was too complex. What good is High language if the population can't understand it? Thats exactly the problem that John Kerry had in the last election, when he was unable to connect with the voter.

I for one detest personal attacks exchanged in political campaigns, yet the public should be encouraged to express their discontent at their representative in the oval office. The mild criticisms found in this thread on the President are full of humour pointing out the crude language habits he has exhibited, which is meant exactly to emphasise high intelligence that is expected of a president of his standing, and to put down lazy talk -- somewhat similar to a post strewn with misspellings, grammatical slips, and faulty logic, not to mention political ideals that do not have a possiblity of gaining universal acceptance. These things are unacceptable, and insulting at best.

I think you should actually watch bush speeches rather than Generalizing what you've heard. I watch countless interviews, each State of the Union Address since 2002, all three public debates during the election, and god knows how many other speeches. I do so because they are important policy markers, and tie into my research. In all of them I haven't seen him make any serious gaffes. So don't make it out to be as if he makes gaffes in every speech. I don't see any more than I do by other politicians.

 

[lexico]

Good solid post coming from you in a long while. This is the kind of post that counts. Keep up the good work, Noyhauser.

 

[Ardeo]

I think he communicates well enough. He speaks in easy clear terms that the general public understands. He does make slips, does it detract from his ability for people to understand him? Certainly not. Also Bush used to speak publically using more precise political terminology, what we call as policy wonkism. But he lost an election in the 1980s because he was too complex. What good is High language if the population can't understand it? Thats exactly the problem that John Kerry had in the last election, when he was unable to connect with the voter.

Just curious to know what election Bush lost in the 1980's due to using "more precise political terminology"? He ran for the House in 1978,and lost - partially due to the statement "Today is the first time I've been on a real farm." (guess all those lovely pictures of him bailing hay and driving his truck around his Crawford ranch that we all have seen in the past 6 years are an accurate depiction of this homegrown Texan) It is true that he did turn off voters in Texas who thought him to be a "brainiac". But lucky him - in steps Karl Rove to assist him in his gubernatorial bid in 1993 and et voila - the downhome plain speakin' W was born.

His persona that is projected to the world is as carefully crafted as anything else in politics....it's an act for the "population". Is he stupid or ignorant....hardly.

 

[noyhauser]

It was likely 78. I read it a while ago and I guess I messed it up.

Futher his election loss in 78 was quite a respectable showing...first he won the primary against a candidate supported by Reagan. Then he lost by 6 points, against Democratic State Senator Kent Hanse. Not too bad

And his 1994 Gubantorial win based on this new more plain speaking has little to do with Rove. Rove is a strategist and keeps the issues and media part of a whole strategy. You're probably thinking of Karen Hughes, who has been instrumental in making his public image, and softening up his style.

 

[Ardeo]

It was likely 78. I read it a while ago and I guess I messed it up.

Futher his election loss in 78 was quite a respectable showing...first he won the primary against a candidate supported by Reagan. Then he lost by 6 points, against Democratic State Senator Kent Hanse. Not too bad

And his 1994 Gubantorial win based on this new more plain speaking has little to do with Rove. Rove is a strategist and keeps the issues and media part of a whole strategy. You're probably thinking of Karen Hughes, who has been instrumental in making his public image, and softening up his style.

You are likely right about Hughes. Rove, however, along with Hughes, helped to complete with persona of George W. I find it very interesting that they took a cadidate and "dumbed" him down to the people.
W comes across as a very jovial and affable fellow when speaking about non issues. There is an interesting documentary by the daughter of Nancy Pelosi (please dont take my interest in this documentary for an endorsement of the quite annoying Pelosi) that shows Bush joking around quite often during the 2000 campaign. In the documentary you can see how quick witted the man is. I think it is very advantageous for W to be under estimated by his opponents.
I guess my basic point is that the W. persona has been sold to peole. It is not genuine - it is only another political tool to make you believe in a candidate. Much the same with Kerry, who they kept trying to make into a war hero and telling you that qualified him for the Presidency. The people who hate Bush call him stupid and ignorant because he bumbles his words. But time and time again he has turned that into a strength. That shows cunning and timing - something lost on many politicians. The title of this thread "bush doesn't konw what he's doing" couldn't be more wrong. He, along with his NeoCon foreign advisors and Big Business economic and energy policy writers know exactly what they are doing. They are doing what is in their best interest, not the interest of the people. But people just love their Dubya - I mean come on, he could be the guy next door, why not support him, right?

 

[noyhauser]

I actually think its very clear. Pelosi's documentary show's his lighter more jovial side, which I don't think is very out of the ordinary. He can connect with the public.
Bush believes in values, and its quite apparent that his policies are informed by those values. He's probably the most transparent and solid candidate.

Secondly, I'd funametally disagree that Neo Conservatism is designed to be in the pure naked interest of the US. The most self interested policy is Realism. Neo Conservatism as discussed by the Kristols and co. is based on a international transformation, pushing for politcal and human rights development to increase regional and US security. Democracy promotion is one of the most fundamental tenets of the Neo Conservative agenda. Of course US interest is present, but compared to other forms of US foreign policy, its not as self absorbed as traditional US foreign policy strategies as realism and isolationism. Its likely the most idealistic foreign policy with the exception of idealism... but its probably the most dynamic foreign policy strategy today.

 

[bossel]

Democracy promotion is one of the most fundamental tenets of the Neo Conservative agenda.

Ah yes, very obvious. Although I would substitute tenets with propaganda formulas.

 

[Mike Cash]

Somebody explain to me what a "NeoCon" is, please. This is a word which seems to have entered the lexicon since my departure from the U.S.

I tried looking it up online once, and it said that it means something like "conservatives who are former liberals".

But every time I see it used it seems to be used by liberals saying it as though it means "ultraconservative". I suspect that they're trying to gain some mileage through subconscious word association with "NeoNazi", but would love to find out that I am mistaken on that.

 

[lexico]

I suspect that they're trying to gain some mileage through subconscious word association with "NeoNazi", but would love to find out that I am mistaken on that.

Good question Mike !! I really like your analysis, although no one would openly claim that in fear of criticism. I think you've nailed one subtle aspect of the conspiracy of name-calling; without the insult-effect, what are names good for ?
As to the exact definition, my lexicon too limited to be any useful; but I was under the impression that the conservatives grouped under the umbrella neo- were roughly identical with interest groups of the Christian Coalition and the pro-business anti-labor ideologues esp. the proponents of arms mrf'ers and oil production/refinery businesses, including the family business of one big family .

edit: One reporter told me that while Bush junior is neocon, his father is not; Rumsfelt is neocon, while Rice is not. Unfortunately, I do not know how the reasoning goes.

 

[Mike Cash]

But at the very least, you did not have the impression that the "Neo" in "NeoCon" has its traditional meaning of "New".

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/180


Here's a site which gives an interesting little test, though with dated questions:
http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=zeron

My top three matches came out:
1. Conservative
2. Neoconservative
3. Centrist

I guessed that my result would be "Paleoconservative", by the way.

 

[Glenn]

I guessed that my result would be "Paleoconservative", by the way.

LMAO! I just found that to be hilarious.

 

[Pachipro]

Follow this link to find out where the term NeoCon originated. To find out just who the NeoCons are click on Statement of Principles, read it and then look at who signed it. These are the NeoCons.

Any names sound familiar?

Any in the present government under Bush?

Any write for some major publications that foster public opinion?

Any in Big Business?

Remember, this statement was written in 1997! Their aim and goal is the so-called New World Order.

After you have read the Statement of Principles, click on the link at the top of the page, "ABOUT PNAC" and then click on each name and see where they work or used to work.

Also, have some fun and read some of their publications/reports and Letters/Statements.

Do you think they are suceeding in their goals? These, and their friends who think like them are who is referred to as NeoCons (New Conservatives).

 

[jovial_jon]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/disaster.asp

Check out this picture to see Sky News's interesting opinion of Mr. Bush. I wonder if that was intentional or not...I doubt it, but still, it's amusing nevertheless.

 

[noyhauser]

Mike,

I'll post a explaination either tonight or tomorrow...

 

[noyhauser]

Ah yes, very obvious. Although I would substitute tenets with propaganda formulas.

IT should come to no surprise that I fundamentally disagree with your point. You can get a very strong idea about how a government will respond by understanding what its members think. Their intentions and the ideas that guide them are vital to understanding the actions of individuals, whether it be a man on the street or the president of the United States. The members of the Bush administration (especially neo conservatives) have consistently stated their positions since the early 1990s. The choices that make up the policy have reflected these statements. Read the charter of the Project of for a New American Century, the promoting democracy in the Middle East,
The members of the Bush administration has been very consistent about their beliefs, which they have stated since the early 1990s . The US?fs action has followed the beliefs of these individuals.
At this point you'll probably say that I've been duped by this propaganda and bought into it. Actually personally I don't agree with many of the basic points of Neo-conservatism. But in order to make the best analysis possible, you need to understand what people think. Most of these individuals, served within government far before they had links to business. They are socialized into the culture of national security. Making sweeping erroneous generalizations about the intentions of others does nothing to aid the future you want to create. IT will it only help to defeat the very cause you hold dear because you will be ill equipped to understand how the system works.

So what is neo-conservatism? Really Neo conservatism is not so much an ideology, but more a theory of international relations, that ranks along side older theories like Idealism and its follow on neo institutionalism, and Realism and its refinement in Neo-realism. It is the most radical departure of the concepts of American Foreign Policy since 1941, when the US was forced to abandon isolationism in response to Pearl Harbour. Neo Conservatism believes that the US should use its military and economic power to help spread US values such as free trade and democracy across the world, and that this spread would help contribute to the peace and security of the world. The idea that peace and security can come from the spreading of democratic and free market values emerged partly as a result of the end of the USSR. In the early 1990s Francis Fukayama wrote his book ?gThe End of History?h where he made the claim that the victory of liberal democracy over communism, and its spread across the world would herald a new era of peace. He made his claim, based on the idea that free market liberal democracies do not go to war with each other, which has generally held true. They also believe that protestant work ethics is what has made the US great, and that these values must be promoted to ensure that the US remains predominant in the 21st century.

Now a lot of you probably are rolling your eyes and think that this is a bunch of American propaganda. However its not as American as one might think. In 1972 Francois Duchene unveiled the Civilian power model for how the EU should act in the international sphere. It believes in the spread of the values of democracy, free market and social democracy to achieve peace and security in the periphery of Europe. Although Duchene believed that Europe should not use military force achieve its aims, later versions like the so-called normative power model has stated that military force may be necessary at times. Interestingly if one looks at the EU security strategy and the 2002 National Security Strategy, they are very similar, with the real difference being found where the US uses the word Preemptively, the EU uses the word Preventively.

Where Neo conservatism goes deeply awry (as I would argue) is that it believes that US values are ascendant over European ones and the rest of the world. IT has a fundamental distrust of international institutions like the European Union and the United Nations. It sees such institutions (moreso the UN than the EU) as being based on lesser values. The UN bears the brunt of neo conservatives wrath as they see its membership consisting of states that are basically despotic, which seek to tie down the United States through the organization. Checks on US power through the UN are seen as an impediment to the basic goals of the democracy promotion ect. Contributing to this is the belief that States are the basic units of the international system, which cannot be invalidated.

Furthermore I completely disagree with how the lack of understanding Neo-conservatism has with the means to create this transformation. Basically they are very quick to use military force to achieve their aims, which has caused the disaster in Iraq. A better understanding of the problems of nation building would have alerted them to the

Finally, believing your values need to be promoted is good and all, but not understanding others cultures and basically imposing your own without any consideration, is a very easy way to ensure that one will fail in their endeavor to create a transformation.

Sorry for the lateness of this reply since I?fve been busy all week. Its not as complete as I would like it to be, but it hits all of the basic points.

 

[bossel]

The members of the Bush administration has been very consistent about their beliefs, which they have stated since the early 1990s . The US?fs action has followed the beliefs of these individuals.[...] But in order to make the best analysis possible, you need to understand what people think.

What people think ("democracy is a nice/good/valid concept"), say ("democracy needs to be propagated, established & supported") & what they do ("Saudi Arabia? Ah well, who cares? They are our allies, buy our weapons & support our election campaigns. Iraq? They weren't nice to our daddy! They don't want to sell us/let us control their oil!!! They need to be told a lesson in good, solid, democratic warfare!") are often very different things.

Actually personally I don't agree with many of the basic points of Neo-conservatism.

Actually, neither do I (well, don't know if it's "many", but those that I know of). I'm all for promoting democracy & free market. But I don't see this happen in the neo-con reality. They are as protectionist as the governments before Bush & as negligent to failures regarding human rights & democracy when it comes to allies.

 

[noyhauser]

What people think ("democracy is a nice/good/valid concept"), say ("democracy needs to be propagated, established & supported") & what they do ("Saudi Arabia? Ah well, who cares? They are our allies, buy our weapons & support our election campaigns. Iraq? They weren't nice to our daddy! They don't want to sell us/let us control their oil!!! They need to be told a lesson in good, solid, democratic warfare!") are often very different things.

The funny thing is bossel, if the United States did that you'd be the first decrying the US for its attack on another country. By all accounts, Hussein was one of the most depraved dictators of the modern age. And it was the weakest.


And lets be honest with ourselves, not just the US, but the world runs on oil, over half of which exists under the middle east. Going around and pushing democracy in every state without understanding the dynamics of the international system could be catastrophic, so your assertion is really very weak.

I'm pretty sure if the Neo conservatives could snap their finger and change the world into their own utopia, they would. Their actions however do follow these beliefs.The bush administration has dramatically altered its position towards these countries as well. Despite Michael Moore's assertions, the bush administration has made it a point to criticize the country's human rights record.

Actually, neither do I (well, don't know if it's "many", but those that I know of). I'm all for promoting democracy & free market. But I don't see this happen in the neo-con reality. They are as protectionist as the governments before Bush & as negligent to failures regarding human rights & democracy when it comes to allies.

Are they protectionist? I'd really like you to back that one up.Comparatively the United States is more open than any other western state save for Canada.

 

[senseiman]

The funny thing is bossel, if the United States did that you'd be the first decrying the US for its attack on another country. By all accounts, Hussein was one of the most depraved dictators of the modern age. And it was the weakest.

Yes, it was by far one of the weakest, which totally blows apart the Bush administration's national security rationale for the war, which was far and away the main justification for it.

Are they protectionist? I'd really like you to back that one up.Comparatively the United States is more open than any other western state save for Canada.

Speaking of protectionism and the neo-cons, the Bush administration just recently reacted to a binding NAFTA decision that US tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber were illegal by saying they would ignore the ruling and that the US government would keep the 5 billion dollars in tariffs it had collected despite being ordered to return it.

 

[Mike Cash]

Thanks for the posts clarifying the meaning of NeoCon.

I'm sure that intelligent and informed people use the term largely in accordance with what has been presented here.

But I still get the impression that some less-informed persons throw the word around, as an insult, based on some (probably) unconscious word association with "NeoNazi".