GameBanshee Forums

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:51 pm**

Rein wrote:There is really nothing much I can say. I don't think I've agreed with any of the choices that he has made. Of course I don't really listen to much politics. But if there was something that Bush did, that I agree with, I would know. So......Moron, no doubt.

But isn't that just a wee bit subjective?
Disagreeing with somebody's views or choices does not automatically make that person a moron

I mean, I don't agree with anything Bush has done (though, I'm not in the US), but I don't think he's a moron...

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:28 pm**

dragon wench wrote:But isn't that just a wee bit subjective?
Disagreeing with somebody's views or choices does not automatically make that person a moron

I mean, I don't agree with anything Bush has done (though, I'm not in the US), but I don't think he's a moron...

OK. I give.

He is not a moron, but I do think that he is not the right person to be the president. I guess he just doesn't have what his father did. Out of the choices in the poll, the closest one to how I feel is still the first option.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:58 am**

Beating this dead horse...

For those still in doubt...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/washi ... ref=slogin

A Challenge From Bush to Congress
E-MailPrint Reprints Save

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: September 7, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 — In calling for public war-crime trials at Guantánamo Bay, President Bush is calculating that with a critical election just nine weeks away, neither angry Democrats nor nervous Republicans will dare deny him the power to detain, interrogate and try suspects his way.

For years now, Guantánamo has been a political liability, regarded primarily as a way station for outcasts. By transforming Guantánamo instead into the new home of 14 Qaeda leaders who rank among the most notorious terror suspects, Mr. Bush is challenging Congress to restore to him the authority to put the United States’ worst enemies on trial on terms he has defined.

But the gambit carries with it a potential downside by identifying Mr. Bush even more closely with a detention system whose history has been marked by widespread accusations of mistreatment.

Mr. Bush had more than one agenda at work when he announced on Wednesday that the country should “wait no longer’’ to bring to trial those seized by the C.I.A. and accused of planning the Sept. 11 attacks.

He is trying to rebuff a Supreme Court that visibly angered him in June when it ruled that his procedures for interrogation and trials violated both the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

And he is trying to divert voters from the morass of Iraq and to revive the emotionally potent question of what powers the president should be able to use to defend the country.

Mr. Bush must have known that his call for trials would prompt a standing ovation from the relatives of the Sept. 11 victims who were invited to the East Room for the announcement. It did. What he doesn’t know for sure is whether the transfer of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other terror suspects will create the pressure on Capitol Hill to give him the legal latitude he says he needs.

“It’s one thing for Congress to argue over abstract rules’’ about approved interrogation techniques and the rules of evidence at military commissions, said one senior administration official who sat in on the debates over how to respond to the Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdan case last June. “But it’s another to say, ‘Once you approve the rules, we put these guys on trial — but it only happens if Congress acts.’ ’’

In this case, the White House needs Congress to write the rules in a way that would satisfy the Supreme Court while allowing the military to introduce its evidence at trial — even though Mr. Muhammed and his fellow defendants will almost certainly assert that their own accounts of their roles in terror plots were extracted by coercion.

That is a balancing act Mr. Bush tried for years to avoid, as he and Vice President Dick Cheney, the chief architect of Mr. Bush’s assertions of broad executive powers, argued that it was the commander in chief — not Congress — who had the power to set rules for unconventional trials in an unconventional war.

Besides trying to shape what happens in Congress, Mr. Bush is also trying to ignite a new debate around the country, one that tries to rekindle memories of the days just after the Sept. 11 attacks. On Wednesday, he recalled those days as a moment when the country “wondered if there was a second wave of attacks still to come.’’

That was also a time when the president seemed to have carte blanche to fight terrorists in any way he saw fit, and when the country seemed unified in a way that is hard to remember today.

So in the week leading up to the announcement on Wednesday, Mr. Bush and his aides again cast themselves as the country’s last line of defense. First came Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who used a speech to veterans to accuse critics of the war in Iraq of being appeasers, ideological descendants of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Britain, whose effort to accommodate Hitler in 1938 has gone down in history as an act of cowardice.

Then came Mr. Bush, who used a speech to the same audience to lump disparate groups together as “Islamo-fascists,’’ and then, this week, to warn explicitly that the world had averted its eyes to the rise of Lenin and then of Hitler, propelling the United States into a century of hot and cold wars.

But perhaps more significantly, a president who had rarely mentioned Osama bin Laden — who, of course, remains at large five years after Sept 11 — quoted Mr. bin Laden at length, describing his visions of a “caliphate’’ that circles the globe.

On Wednesday, in the East Room, Mr. Bush’s words were more moderate, but he made clear that he intended to use his pulpit over the next few days to redefine the enemy as a living threat that will occupy generations of Americans — and to argue that he needs every tool available to fight them. “We’re fighting for our way of life, and our ability to live in freedom,’’ he argued. “We’re fighting for the cause of humanity, against those who seek to impose the darkness of tyranny and terror upon the entire world.’’

It was a move that did not surprise Democrats.

“Look, they have won two elections on the basis of terrorism, and that’s the president’s strongest position,’’ said Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman who is now co-chairman of a study group making recommendations to Mr. Bush about how to develop a new Iraq strategy. “And he’s playing to his strength.’’

But it may also force members of Mr. Bush’s party — many of whom have been creating as much strategic distance from the president as possible — to nationalize the midterm elections, making them a referendum on Mr. Bush and his tactics.

Democrats have been trying to do that for months, betting that the chaos in Iraq is their ticket to regaining a majority in the House, and perhaps the longer shot of the Senate. Now Mr. Bush is betting that once again Americans will look at the faces of the terrorists the C.I.A. has captured, and give the president one last shot at fighting the war on his terms.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:47 pm**

OK, but.....

Chimaera182 wrote:For those still in doubt...

“It’s one thing for Congress to argue over abstract rules’’ about approved interrogation techniques and the rules of evidence at military commissions, said one senior administration official who sat in on the debates over how to respond to the Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdan case last June. “But it’s another to say, ‘Once you approve the rules, we put these guys on trial — but it only happens if Congress acts.’ ’’

In this case, the White House needs Congress to write the rules in a way that would satisfy the Supreme Court while allowing the military to introduce its evidence at trial — even though Mr. Muhammed and his fellow defendants will almost certainly assert that their own accounts of their roles in terror plots were extracted by coercion.

IMHO: Is this what Mr. Bush thinks or is he reading off of a script that someone else wrote? If he has some kind of emotion in his voice then it would seem he is speaking from heart. But, he probabily doesn't even know what "coercion" means. :laugh: IMHO: We need a president that knows what is best for the nation rather than just repeat advice from an alternate source, whom most the nation is blinded from.

All that I see in this speech is that a bunch of angry people want to torture their captives. I don't believe that this would do any good taking into consideration that this event happend years ago and if any info on names of persons would lead us to clues on nothing at present day.

Posted: **Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:46 am**

I've repeatedly suggested here that Bush really has no religious convictions at all and plays the issue only for cynical reasons, based on interviews and books that have been published over the years. Yet the image of Bush as a fundamentalist Christian keeps being accepted and subsequently attacked, here on the boards. With that in mind, I thought I'd link a short but pithy review of the latest work on the subject, Tempting Faith. What makes it different from many other, similar expose-style works is that it isn't written by a Bush opponent, or an unfriendly former member of the media, but by a well-known conservative Christian Republican activist with plenty of ties to people who have worked without problems throughout the Bush administration. Here's a typical exchange, as reported by the author, David Kuo:

Bush: "Eight billion in new dollars?"

Kuo: "No sir. Eight billion in existing dollars for which groups will find it technically easier to apply. But faith-based groups have been getting that money for years."

Bush: "Eight billion. That's what we'll tell them. Eight billion in new funds for faith-based groups."

Do you get it yet? The Right Reverend Bush. Is. A. Fake. If you still doubt, check out this book. I've perused a copy at a local library, and it's dynamite stuff. I only hope some of the Christian right that has supported him for so long reads it as well, but I'm afraid their ability to evaluate ideas has long since atrophied.

Posted: **Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:31 am**

According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, "83 percent of respondents thought that Mr. Bush was either hiding something or mostly lying when he discussed how the war in Iraq was going." In other words, when it comes to the centerpiece of Bush's presidency, Bush has practically no credibility.

Since 46% of Americans still approve of the way that Bush handles terrorism, that seems to be his strongest issue, so he will use it as much as he can for political advantage. I like what the folks at Wonkette had to say about that: "Rock Bottom Is When You Need Terrorists To Save Your Reputation". People are finally starting to see the light.

Posted: **Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:37 pm**

VonDondu wrote: I really don't know what it takes to make a good President. But I think it's important to remember that Presidents are ordinary human beings, and in some ways they're just average people. And of course, some are more average than others.

It is scary that medocre puppets have more chances to be elected Presidents of the United States of America. Tells volumes about American Democracy. Abandon hope ye who enter here.

Edit: No, he is not a complete moron, but comes close.

Posted: **Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:05 am**

Easy question, he's beyond moronic.

Posted: **Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:12 am**

LordAce wrote:Easy question, he's beyond moronic.

It's not an easy question; and if you'd bothered reading the rest of this thread, you'd have realized that there have been quite a few books by insiders who have known and worked with him for years that portray him as an extremely ruthless, canny manager and politician who uses a dummy persona to win votes. That's not to say this is 100% accurate, but it's at least grounds for discussion, rather than a one-liner. So if you'd care to elaborate...

Posted: **Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:39 pm**

There is an interesting article in The Washington Post about President Bush's use of the word "unacceptable" in recent speeches. As the article explains:

"Having a president call something "unacceptable" is not the same as having him order U.S. troops into action. But foreign policy experts say the word is one of the strongest any leader can deploy, since it both broadcasts a national position and conveys an implicit threat to take action if his warnings are disregarded."

The article later says:

"Using such a categorical term is not that surprising after a policy setback, according to Steven Kull, a political psychologist who directs the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes. Some people deal with failures, Kull said, 'by intensifying an authoritarian posture and insisting that their preferences are equivalent to a moral imperative.'"

The article cites examples of Bill Clinton's use of the word "unacceptable", for example, although it contrasts the way Clinton used the word with the way that Bush uses the word.

The thrust of the article is that Bush is using the word "unacceptable" more frequently, which allegedly indicates that he is becoming increasingly frustrated with his declining influence:

"Bush's decision to lay down blunt new markers about the things he deems intolerable comes at an odd time, a phase of his presidency in which all manner of circumstances are not bending to his will: national security setbacks in North Korea and Iraq, a Congress that has shrugged its shoulders at his top domestic initiatives, a favorability rating mired below 40 percent.

"But a survey of transcripts from Bush's public remarks over the past seven years shows the president's worsening political predicament has actually stoked, rather than diminished, his desire to proclaim what he cannot abide. Some presidential scholars and psychologists describe the trend as a signpost of Bush's rising frustration with his declining influence.

"In the first nine months of this year, Bush declared more than twice as many events or outcomes "unacceptable" or "not acceptable" as he did in all of 2005, and nearly four times as many as he did in 2004. He is, in fact, at a presidential career high in denouncing events he considers intolerable. They number 37 so far this year, as opposed to five in 2003, 18 in 2002 and 14 in 2001."

The article ends with this note:

"Bush's proclamations are not the only rhetorical evidence of his mounting frustrations. One of his favorite verbal tics has long been to instruct audiences bluntly to "listen" to what he is about to say, as in "Listen, America is respected" (Aug. 30) or "Listen, this economy is good" (May 24). This year, he made that request more often than he did in a comparable portion of 2005, a sign that he hasn't given up hope it might work."

While I believe that there is some truth in that article, I have to say that I'm a little bit skeptical. Bush has a habit of repeating himself, so it's possible that the term "unacceptable" is simply one of the words he uses habitually. If Bush has only used that word 37 times this year, I'm not sure how significant that really is, anyway.

I also think that Bush's governing style explains his increasing use of the word "unacceptable". When it comes to the problems that frustrate Bush the most -- that is, the situations that Bush is most likely to describe as "unacceptable" -- Bush's way of handling them is, in the words of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, "harsh rhetoric and inaction". It's not surprising (to anyone but Bush) that such an approach to problems does little to solve them, and it's not surprising that Bush is frustrated when he cannot solve problems through rhetoric and willpower alone. (I expect him to be very frustrated when he realizes that reality does not bend to his will.) And given this President's history of behavior, it's not surprising that when problems get worse, he continues to use the same approach that has failed before. If harsh rhetoric and inaction didn't work before, then what we need is...more harsh rhetoric and more inaction. Stay the course. So we will definitely see more of the same from Bush. I'm surprised that we need an article in The Washington Post to tell us that.

Posted: **Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:13 pm**

fable wrote:It's not an easy question; and if you'd bothered reading the rest of this thread, you'd have realized that there have been quite a few books by insiders who have known and worked with him for years that portray him as an extremely ruthless, canny manager and politician who uses a dummy persona to win votes. That's not to say this is 100% accurate, but it's at least grounds for discussion, rather than a one-liner. So if you'd care to elaborate...

Whether or not he is perceived by some to be intelligent who uses the "idiot" persona to his advantage is irrelevant. The decisions he has made during his presedency prove that he is a moron. Do I need to make a list?

Posted: **Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:21 pm**

LordAce wrote:Whether or not he is perceived by some to be intelligent who uses the "idiot" persona to his advantage is irrelevant. The decisions he has made during his presedency prove that he is a moron. Do I need to make a list?

Well since you asked... Do you need to make a list of the moronic decisions of a man who has gotten himself elected (or at least chosen) president twice, stacked the Supreme Court, removed several international treaties he didn't like, invaded two countries and gotten away with it, enriched his close buddies, and dismantled whatever we had of a social safety net (with the exception of Social Security)? Yes, I suspect so. I loathe what he's done, but he's been very successful at it. No "moron" could choose such a high-powered team, make them work together, and achieve so much to the detriment of so many.

Posted: **Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:52 pm**

fable wrote:Well since you asked... Do you need to make a list of the moronic decisions of a man who has gotten himself elected (or at least chosen) president twice, stacked the Supreme Court, removed several international treaties he didn't like, invaded two countries and gotten away with it, enriched his close buddies, and dismantled whatever we had of a social safety net (with the exception of Social Security)? Yes, I suspect so. I loathe what he's done, but he's been very successful at it. No "moron" could choose such a high-powered team, make them work together, and achieve so much to the detriment of so many.

Well, I voted "he is not bright, but...” Meaning he is NOT bright. For a person who is not bright the list of achievements is as much impressive as for a moron. The only explanation for the Bush phenomena I can come up with (without digging deep into numerous political articles *shudders*) is that he is not the actual master. He is a tool. He was placed on the very top of the pyramid by certain powerful groups and big business. His blunders and antics are genuine. His ignorance is genuine. He has very formidable advisors because the real masters realize his personal shortcomings and try to alleviate them wherever it counts. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes not; their tool aspires to appear a power tool way too often.
We see the result of combined efforts of cynical Big Business and the “not so bright” President and it is not funny.
At the same time lots of people loathe highbrowed eggheads because they simply can’t follow the long sentences. Dubya is just their kind of guy. His charisma of “that guy next door” is irresistible for a lot of people. Plus he "became" religious and that is a useful heavy duty attachment for a tool after all.

Posted: **Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:02 pm**

Lady Dragonfly wrote:Well, I voted "he is not bright, but...” Meaning he is NOT bright. For a person who is not bright the list of achievements is as much impressive as for a moron. The only explanation for the Bush phenomena I can come up with (without digging deep into numerous political articles *shudders*) is that he is not the actual master. He is a tool. He was placed on the very top of the pyramid by certain powerful groups and big business. His blunders and antics are genuine. His ignorance is genuine. He has very formidable advisors because the real masters realize his personal shortcomings and try to alleviate them wherever it counts. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes not; their tool aspires to appear a power tool way too often.
We see the result of combined efforts of cynical Big Business and the “not so bright” President and it is not funny.
At the same time lots of people loathe highbrowed eggheads because they simply can’t follow the long sentences. Dubya is just their kind of guy. His charisma of “that guy next door” is irresistible for a lot of people. Plus he "became" religious and that is a useful heavy duty attachment for a tool after all.

I agree with this. It also has a lot to do with 9/11. He didn't really do anything, except maybe cut taxes, before then. After 9/11, Congress, and the public, allowed him to do WHATEVER he wanted because they feared that they wouldn't be considered patriotic or loyal. He used FEAR, not intelligence, to accomplish what he has done.

Posted: **Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:59 am**

LordAce wrote:I agree with this. It also has a lot to do with 9/11. He didn't really do anything, except maybe cut taxes, before then.

I beg your pardon, but he was in office for quite a while before that, and had a major impact on policy and the running of government. Literally tens of thousands of jobs changed hands, in a way that hadn't happened in previous federal administrations, where medium- and low-level employees were kept in position despite shifts in the bosses. Entirely new policies dealing with such matters as federal secrecy and monetary oversight were put into place, and new structures such as the presence of a "president's wisemen cabinet" were created. Major international treaties that had been honored for years were abrogated. Within a relatively short period of time, Snow Dubya and his Cabinet of Mental Dwarves accomplished a great deal. Have you researched this?

He used FEAR, not intelligence, to accomplish what he has done.

Fear is a complex and dangerous weapon, and requires considerable intelligence of a kind to exploit well.

The only explanation for the Bush phenomena I can come up with (without digging deep into numerous political articles *shudders*) is that he is not the actual master. He is a tool.

Have you read any of the books produced by former Bush insiders about their boss' behavior? In all of them, without exception, he comes across as a savvy, ruthless authoritarian who asks for opinions but always, always makes the final decisions. We can argue the quality of the decisions he makes, but I've yet to read anything that suggests he doesn't tell everybody when to jump, and how high.

Posted: **Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:23 am**

fable wrote: Have you read any of the books produced by former Bush insiders about their boss' behavior? In all of them, without exception, he comes across as a savvy, ruthless authoritarian who asks for opinions but always, always makes the final decisions. We can argue the quality of the decisions he makes, but I've yet to read anything that suggests he doesn't tell everybody when to jump, and how high.

You don't have to be a genius to be ruthless. As to "savvy", well, please give me a real example of his wisdom and comprehensive knowledge to prove your point. Use the books you are referring to, if you will.
So far I don't buy it.
His former cronies are still faithful republicans who are bound to support their boss and his failed policies even after they were kicked out. They may distance themselves from some obvious blunders in order to preserve their own political skin, and criticize some tactics, but not the general course, God forbid that. Am I wrong?
He shuffled thousands of jobs inside his goverment? Smart move to get rid of people who might get in a way of his stubborn incompetence. But nothing original. Mediocre bosses commonly get rid of intelligent underlings. Just in case.

Posted: **Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:45 am**

Lady Dragonfly wrote:You don't have to be a genius to be ruthless.

No, but you must have a certain degree of intelligence and not be a moron. I'm not asserting that Dubya is a genius. I'm only suggesting he isn't a moron.

As to "savvy", well, please give me a real example of his wisdom and comprehensive knowledge to prove your point. Use the books you are referring to, if you will.

I already did, above, in one little quote from Tempting Faith. Bush quite accurately (and cynically) assesses the response of the Christian Far Right and how he could spin an amount of money already existing in the budget to them and make it sound like it's new funds, when it isn't. Again, this isn't "wisdom." That isn't the subject of this thread. It's whether he's intelligent or a moron, and a puppet-on-strings moron would have simply referred the matter to one of his cabinet, then read the results. Bush said what was going to be done, and how it would be done.

His former cronies are still faithful republicans who are bound to support their boss and his failed policies even after they were kicked out. They may distance themselves from some obvious blunders in order to preserve their own political skin, and criticize some tactics, but not the general course, God forbid that. Am I wrong?

Um, yes. Joseph Wilson, who worked for Bush as an ambassador of high standing, and before that was the top US diplomat in Iraq for several years, left the administration and accused it of lying after he provided Dubya with solid info that the Niger uranium-to-Iraq shipment deal with a forgery. Bush ignored this info and declared that the shipment was real, and one very good reason to invade. When Wilson went public with his criticisms, several highly placed Bush administration officials leaked the info to the press that his wife was working for the CIA--while she was overseas, on assignment, nearly costing several agents their lives. I suggest purchasing Wilson's "The Politics of Truth."

Also worth purchasing is former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's The Price of Loyalty. He criticizes Bush and the entire cabinet endlessly for making all decisions based on ideology without regard to facts. That's the subject of his book, detalied with plenty of data, at great length.

Those are the best, but there are other good ones, too. Note that both Wilson and O'Neill easily fulfill the role of insiders who napalm the administration for a host of stunning failures.

He shuffled thousands of jobs inside his goverment? Smart move to get rid of people who might get in a way of his stubborn incompetence. But nothing original.

It is original, in terms of presidential history. It also corrected the mistake of Lord Ace, that Bush's White House prior to 9/11 accomplished nothing. So whether you like the results or not, the fact that the pre-9/11 Bush White House was very busy and accomplished a great deal, including the replacement of tens of thousands of employees, certainly shows that it was busy putting in place the structure to make a US Bush and his fellow zealots wanted. They have largely succeeded in that.

Posted: **Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:57 am**

And how do Dick Cheiney and Carl Rove fit in this picture? What role do they play in your opinion?

Posted: **Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:47 pm**

Lady Dragonfly wrote:And how do Dick Cheiney and Carl Rove fit in this picture? What role do they play in your opinion?

Advice, excellent advice. Rove *is* the kingmaker of sleaze, the man who has turned Republican campaigning on its head and turned it into a systematic exploitation of hate and fear. Cheney has been repeatedly described as a great facilitator, one who knows many people in big industry, politics, and money. In fact, Dubya would be a moron not to ask for their advice, and profit from it--unless, of course, he had any kind of non-situational ethics at all. Which he hasn't.

Posted: **Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:56 pm**

Thank you for proving my point.

http://www.karlrove.com/

GameBanshee Forums

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