war motivation

[rrpjr]

Anybody who has lived a reasonable length of time in this world (anybody, that is, with the discernment and worldliness to own a Porsche), must knows the meaningless of the “articulateness” yardstick of intelligence. I hope they do, anyway.

No, it is just this: there are many on the left invested in the idea of Bush’s stupidity. They don’t really believe it themselves. In fact, they wish it were true. Then, they think, they might find a way to knock him over. On the other hand, if Bush were suddenly to start orating like Demosthenes, it would do nothing to change their essential view of him as totally unsuitable to the office. The stupidity charge, made by not a single person who has met him, simply feeds a stereotype and thus obviates the need for a better argument. It is lazy. It is also smug. For many well-educated liberals just detest the idea of a simple-minded Texan who refuses to see the world in their infinite shades of gray presiding over the government which clearly should be in the hands of a smarter and more sophisticated crowd, one which would know far better how to run our lives. Government, after all, is their dominion. But after a while one has to wonder about people who persist in trying to get traction from such a treadworn charge, which the average citizen who pays an average amount of attention knows is ridiculous.

Incidentally, G.W. Bush’s SAT scores upon entering Yale were 200 points higher than Bill Bradley’s upon entering Princeton.

[Moneyguy1]

After reading three pages of this thread, I have come to a few tentative conclusions:

1. True neocons will protect the president and, in effect, claim he can walk on water

2. True far lefties will deny everything that even smacks of things that have gone right by the administration

3. Every one else expressing a more moderate view will get blasted by representatives of both extremes.

Did I miss anything?

[on-ramp]

Bush said in his State of the Union address that Iran was part of an "axis of evil"
but now they are "talking" , offering "economic incentives" and "awards" for the taking down of their nuclear program. are they negotiating with terrorists?
i would imagine that a nuclear "axis of evil" terrorist nation would pose a greater imminent threat to the US than a nation that has jets buried in the sand and NO wmds.
where's the Bush/Rice parade conjuring up death and fear over this and telling Iran's president you have 48 hrs for you and your cronies to "disarm" otherwise we are coming in?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by on-ramp
I agree with 350HP930 and Superman, they appear to be the more logical unbiased thinkers around here who tell it like it is.

Now that's an eye opener

[skipdup]

No, it is just this: there are many on the left invested in the idea of Bush’s stupidity. They don’t really believe it themselves.

Exactly. I find it so odd that my post went ignored. Seemed a simple question to me...

"He's stupid cause he talks funny" - who shows lack of intelligence???

Not liking the man, the administration, the war, W's decisions... All this I can at least understand. But calling him stupid is just, well, stupid.

- Skip

[350HP930]

I find it quite interesting that the bush-war lovers want to change the subject from the lies used to attack iraq to whether bush is intelligent or a good speaker.

I guess its the typical change the subject routine they like to use when they need to avoid argument at hand.

[skipdup]

I find it quite interesting that the bush-war lovers want to change the subject

Huh? The thread evolved. Are there new rules I'm not aware of?

The guy has been called stupid so many times... I'm curious if people are just mean spirited or if there was some information (or point of view) I was not aware of. I mean the guy DID get a Harvard MBA!!! Those ain't just passed out!

Skip "The War Lover"

[stevepaa]

My 2 cents.
OFF THREAD ISSUES
Bush isn’t stupid. But he probably isn’t up there near MENSA either. He is a very determined individual with a big ego and a sense that he knows what is right more so than other people. Not unlike many leaders. Most are like that. And IQ and SAT scores are sometimes at best only an indicator of test taking ability
Bush isn’t articulate but that isn’t a necessary qualification for a leader. I would prefer it, and perhaps if we had a more confrontational parliamentary style government we might get it.
And after all, how many of you want one of us high IQ "ingunears" really running the country.

ON THREAD efforts
Thanks to 350hp930 and john70t.

I had a previous post asking if any of the bush supporters would now apologize for getting us into this war. Nada. It seems that they all turn a blind eye. Some gave responses like this

Originally posted by BSiple
Preach on Island. I have seen first hand what Al Qaeda Terrorists are capable of. Wait until they really impact our way of life here in the US.
I suppose we should have fired a couple of missles at Saddam, and then backed away....
whiners.....

Bsiple: IRAQ was not part of 911. End of discussion on that.

Or the other common response

Originally posted by island911 :
I like the way the article starts with a false premise: "War with Iraq" started when Saddams troops invaded Kuwait! Pushing him back to Bagdad. . .the No-Fly zone enforcement -- to keep Saddams genocide in check.
To say it started so simpley, such a short time ago, is really disingenuous.

That is just plain hogwash. This war was sold on fear of WMD. But because there was no WMD, they now will try and resell it. The American public would never have supported this war w/o the WMD fear. End of discussion on this.

And there is the new rationalization

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Jeff, hold your head up. It aint over yet, but it appears good things are starting to happen in the Middle East (Syria/Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, women's rights, voting in Iraq, lots of dead terrorist/insurgents). Imagine if all this comes around while W is still in office, alot of naysayers will be changing their stories and claiming they were for it all along! How funny will that be??!!

I can only hope it all works out well, but I will never say I supported the start of this war. I support that we need to finish what we started, but we were misled at the start. This is just another attempt to rewrite the war rational, to justify a "winners rule" mentality.

Finally,

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Yes, hopefully we have learned something from all of this. It would be nice to be able to set partisian politics asside for just a moment and determine just what it might be that we can learn. We have become so polarized in this country that I often wonder if it is even possible anymore to have a calm, objective debate over an issue of this importance. I kind of boubt it.

One can only hope.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Lowest common denominator? Saddam>Bush? Bush=war criminal?

Wow, On-Ramp, I feel so stupid now. Thanks for turning on the light for me. I have to quit watching Fox and start watching CBS, maybe Rather will report on Bush in a more "enlightened" fashion (oops, I forgot he had to quit due to fraudulent biased reporting).
Well at least I have this forum with the likes of you lefty guys, who are so much smarter and unbiased, to "tell it like it is".

Yuck it up.

US citizens killed by Saddam Hussein's Evil regime. 0
US citizens under threat from Saddam's WMD capacity. 0
US citizens harmed by Saddam's links to AlQaeda. 0
Iraqi citizens killed by the Bush cabal. 100,000.

[fintstone]

Back to the "Bush is stupid" posts again, huh? If he is so stupid, what does that make the "brightest and best" of the Democrats who have spent the last 10 years trying to ruin him...or keep him from election/reelction? I guess that gives them the dubious honor of being even stupider than GW....for what it is worth.

[Moneyguy1]

fint..

Please..Respectfully..How much Republican energy was wasted during the Clinton years?

Was that the best and highest usage that our elected federal officials could find for our time and taxes?

[JSDSKI]

Some addtional opinions:

"Tabs" is to the point - most post WWII president's come from middle socio-economic classes. Roosevelt, Kennedy, and the Bush's are exceptions. The rule of thumb in electoral politics used to be it was hard to convince voters a rich candidate could have the regular voters interests at heart. Roosevelt and Kennedy changed that. BushI moved to Texas to improve his national electability for that reason. I don't really think BushII loves NASCAR.

All Pres's are above average IQ - in the 115 and up range - in my WAG. Dumb people just don't get other people to help them run things or run for things. Observing Darwinian principles in human interaction leads me to this conclusion. BushII is therefore not dumb. If he makes use of the advantages handed him - who among us wouldn't?

Different presidents have different skill sets. Bush is just not high verbal person, that's all. He IS (IMHO and not writing as a supporter) a brilliant political strategist and tactician. He also has exceptional marketing skills. He is extremely focused in a multi-tasking world. This is an advantage for him. Sometimes.

Anyway - Bush used and "sold" the intelligence he had to "market" a strategic position - to spread and introduce democracy into the ME as a means of controlling Islamic fundamentalism (Wahhabi and Hezbollah) and maintaining American imperial economic interests. BushII's most telling remark is "the American people won't buy that" when speaking privately about WMD intelligence. Supporting democratic regime change instead of authoritarian stability represents a 180 degree shift in traditional American foriegn policy. Probably a good thing in the long run and ironically a position created by the liberal wing of the DEM party in the 60's. Maybe all that marijuana induced propaganda worked, after all.

It will be interesting to see how we react when/if a internationally recognized democratic election puts an Islamic theocracy in power through the ballot box. Perhaps Algeria will be the model in that case. If the Cold War is a measure - it will be a long battle and is not near over.

[stevepaa]

Interesting, JSDSKI. thanks

I had dinner with my dad last night. He is a WW2 veteran and a die hard Republican and his comment to me was that "he hoped this thing in Iraq didn't turn into another GD Vietnam". I suggested that it probably wouldn't and that hopefully we will be out in 2 years. And then he wanted to know "why the hell we didn't finish in Afghanistan first", and " why the hell do we think we can make warring tribes live together?". I really didn't have an answer for those as I have the same questions.

[JSDSKI]

You know, if you look at a map of the Middle East - Iran is now surrounded by countries that are effectively under US control with Syria isolated to the north. Afghanistan was just the softer target and more directly related to 9-11. US probably can't continue to use Saudi Arabia as a land base - it just provides stimulus to Wahhabi fundamentalist rebellion. Maybe Iran and its nuclear ambitions were the real targets all along. Syria is the home of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the prime mover in terrorism.

So we move to a more "secular" state - Iraq. Of course, the reality is that there are no "secular" states in the ME - at least not as is meant in the West. But, if Iraqi elections take hold and they take over day to day policing then maybe the US military presence will be tolerated. Next thing you know, oil company's will be partners in Iraq's oil sector like they were in Arabia before OPEC.

We end up with a land base in the middle of the region that allows us to pressure / attack Syria and Iran as needed. It'll be an interesting ride.