Is George Bush savvy, or a moron? (No spam. Stay the course.)

[fable]

Thank you for proving my point.

http://www.karlrove.com/

Not sure I know what your point is, then. I've just basically shown evidence that Bush is an intelligent man who hires specialists to provide him with advice very much in keeping with his own ruthless, scheming nature. If that's what you meant, then we're in agreement.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Bush is intelligent enough to allow his advisors to run the show. Unfortunately, he can't be kept on a short leash at all times, and it is embarassing when he cuts himself loose from the strings.

[fable]

Bush is intelligent enough to allow his advisors to run the show.

Er, no. I just gave you an example proving the contrary, from a book, and suggested two more that decisively show otherwise. Bush is intelligent enough to solicit advice and make up his own mind, as I'd said.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Er, no. I just gave you an example proving the contrary, from a book, and suggested two more that decisively show otherwise. Bush is intelligent enough to solicit advice and make up his own mind, as I'd said.

Well, early Bush was more compliant. Anyway, if he was smarter he would have allowed his advisors who came from the older Bush's camp and knew the dirty business much better to keep running the show. If he was. There is that little "if".

[fable]

Well, early Bush was more compliant. Anyway, if he was smarter he would have allowed his advisors who came from the older Bush's camp and knew the dirty business much better to keep running the show. If he was. There is that little "if".

Bush had no use for Daddy's advisors, and in many ways, he's Daddy's opposite: where Bush Sr used to openly smirk about what he called "the vision thing," Dubya is all about "the vision." I personally find that vision repellent, but he clearly has one, and neither he nor other neo-cons that remain among the faithful are going to let the politics-as-usual crowd keep them from achieving their goals.

Even the smartest zealots (and Dubya's hardly that) miss out on common sense. Bush won't take advice that runs contrary to his ideology, and like other ideologues, he gathers those of similar mind around him. They are extremely well-educated, even brilliant people, academics of the first water, industry leaders that have made billions, not millions; and yet--they engage in politics with filters that only allow them to see what they wanted to see.

You seem to think I regard Dubya as brilliant. No, I merely don't regard him as a moron. He's shrewd, authoritarian, and weighs up people very well. I think he's the worst thing that has happened to this country, and one of the worst things to happen to the world, in an ailing 100 years that has seen some truly wretched and horrific dictators on both a small and large scale.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Bush had no use for Daddy's advisors, and in many ways, he's Daddy's opposite: where Bush Sr used to openly smirk about what he called "the vision thing," Dubya he all about "the vision." I personally find that vision repellent, but he clearly has one, and neither he nor other neo-cons that remain among the faithful are going to let the politics-as-usual crowd keep them from achieving their goals.

Bush Sr. (and his Missus) is much more sophisticated and intelligent person than his son and heir. The genetic degradation happens even in the best families. Alas.

Even the smartest zealots (and Dubya's hardly that) miss out on common sense. Bush won't take advice that runs contrary to his ideology, and like ideologues, he gathers others of similar mind around him. They are extremely well-educated, even brilliant people, academics of the first water, industry leaders that have made billions, not millions; and yet--they engaged in politics with filters that only allowed them to see what they wanted to see.

Because he is "not so bright". I am not convinced that his policies are completely of his own making because it is hardly possible. I am sure he is being instructed on a regular basis even if he has temper tantrums over it. The ideology factor plays role because it has to. They need to cover-up the mean and greedy actions of their... contributors with whatever useful ideologies available. The best cards are "patriotism", "moral values", "God's inspired hard decisions" etc. Don't you just love it.
The brilliant people are just too eager to taste the power because the power is the most potent lure ever. Who would refuse to play a super-power game? To influence the History? Well, the ruthless power-games are hard to play. The political battlefield is littered with the bones of brilliant people. Sometimes the brilliant minds turn bitter and start writing memoirs.

[fable]

Just came across this interesting article, which lends further credence to my opinion that Dubya is a not a moron, but a perfectly average businessman with a vision. Mind you, it's one that's entirely out of alignment with reality, but it's built soundly upon PNAC neo-con principles, and adheres to all this group of intellectuals, political movers, and industry leaders fervently believe.

I especially like the author's quote from Susskind of a senior Bush advisor:

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

This, and Rosen's clear articulation of all the things the national press could have done after the invasion, but never did, are outstanding, in my opinion.

[VonDondu]

Fable, that's a very interesting article. However, it doesn't seem to focus solely on Bush but rather on his administration as a whole. Here's another article that details how the Bush administration systematically suppresses reality whenever it interferes with their objectives:

Bush Admin: What You Don't Know Can't Hurt Us

Excerpt: "Over the years, they've discontinued annual reports, classified normally public data, de-funded studies, quieted underlings, and generally done whatever was necessary to keep bad information under wraps."

[fable]

Fable, that's a very interesting article. However, it doesn't seem to focus solely on Bush but rather on his administration as a whole.

I find that when you combine the insights expressed in that article with the personality that emerges in so many books written by former staffers and friends--the cynical, paternalistic dictator who rides herd over hs people in a very top-down management style--the impression emerges of a man who is hardly the fool so many wish him to be. He appears to have all the force of a dynamic leader with none of the insight into the human condition that turns a manipulator into an advocate.

As for the Muckraker article, it's quite good, and up to the standard I expect from things on their site. I used to catalog here some of the abuses to governmental transparency committed by Bush, only to be greeted with "that's your opinion," when it wasn't: it was simply fact. Now the voices of alarm are becoming much louder, but I'm afraid the true record of what Bush has done will be lost behind dismissal for a simpleton. He's been anything but a simpleton; Bush has been expert at converting government into a tool for his own personal will.

[fable]

From economics wonk and American Prospect columnist, Ezra Klein, earlier tonight:

I didn't watch the President's final speech. In fact, I didn't even think to watch it. I don't care about the defenses. I don't care about the rationalizations. I don't care what a highly trained team of speechwriters can do with the data furnished by a highly trained team of political hacks who are working with the themes developed by a highly trained team of pollsters. At this point, the facts of the case are clear. Because George W. Bush was president, innocent people died in large numbers. Because George W. Bush was president, the earth grew hotter and disaster edged nearer. Because George W. Bush was president, more children live in poverty. Because George W. Bush was president, the rich wield more power. Because George W. Bush was president, more people hate America, and with good reason. Because George W. Bush was president, more Americans view the presidency cynically, and with good reason. Because George W. Bush was president, this country is worse off, and this world is worse off. I have no interest in engaging the debate that asks whether he was a cynical monster or a hapless fool. It is enough to say he was a failure, and leave it at that. His final rationalizations sound quiet and tinny against the roar of his record.

[Moonbiter]

Amen. My sentiments exactly. I still think he is a sock-puppet with a slightly below average IQ, but that's a moot point now. Good riddance to bad rubbish, don't let the door hit you... and all that.

[dragon wench]

I read about his final press conference... He was still in denial that the Iraq War has decreased America's moral standing in the world...

.... Good Riddance indeed.

[Tricky]

So I take it he'll receive a little more than social welfare provision regardless?

[fable]

So I take it he'll receive a little more than social welfare provision regardless?

He will supposedly be putting some time into overseeing the start of the George W Bush Library (I'm not joking) at Dallas' Southern Methodist University--which, despite its religious connotations, is considered an excellent school of higher learning.

When the SMU administration took money for the university in exchange for hosting Bush's dedicatory library, more than half the faculty of the religious school that is part of the overall institution cast a symbolic vote of condemnation. And at the dedication ceremony, they stepped down from their platform, and walked out. They were largely religious scholars--hardly social progressives, but people who denounced the Iraqi invasion and unprecedented corruption of government under Bush's sway.