RSSThis guy was “almost” properly elected?
Apr 14
Bush is a masterful public speaker. His press conference tonight was yet another example of a lot of talking without saying anything. Watch as he pulls from his deep bag of tricks:
Offend a large portion of the worlds population
“…that if you?re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can?t be self-governing or free…”
Answer a different question
“QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 commission? …
BUSH: … And, secondly, because the 9/11 commission wants to ask us questions, that?s why we?re meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you?re appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.
BUSH: Because it?s a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I?m looking forward to answering them.”
Show ineptitude in simple tasks to deflect future, tougher, questions
“QUESTION: … You?ve looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?
BUSH: I wish you?d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.
John, I?m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could?ve done it better this way or that way. You know, I just – I?m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn?t yet.”
This guy wants people to believe he can make the most important decisions in the world when he also feels tremendous pressure trying to deflect questions at a news conference? I’m glad he’s in control of the worlds most powerful military.
Ah, the contemporary art of debating. It’s more like a good game of bait-and-switch. As an answer to pretty much every question you can see the templatized list of points about terrorism, commitment to the war on terror, etc, etc. This is probably why a large portion of the population hates politics. It’s hard to not feel insulted when watching someone like this treat you like an idiot by thinking you don’t realize they’re not answering the questions being asked of them. I felt insulted just reading the transcript, and this guy’s not even my president and I’m not one of the “brown-skinned people” he decided to single out.
As a sidenote, I think there should be some international law against electing a major political figure who feels it’s ok to characterize a large portion of the worlds population by “brown-skinned people.” Geez.
Apr 14, 2004 @ 18:39:24
In his defense though, the muslim and brown-skinned comment was expressing a good thought… its just that it could’ve been worded better. I don’t have a problem if a person lumps a group of people together on some random characteristic, external or internal… the “good guys”, the “christians”, “brown-skinned” or “under-developed” if it helps them make sense of the world, as long as they realize that these are just labels, and there’s no prejudice.
Apr 15, 2004 @ 05:44:46
I see your point, however, my issues with this comment are:
1. there are many other “brown-skinned” people in the world aside from the limited portion he is seemingly trying to characterize who have been quite successful at self-governance (in spite of western involvement)
2. given that a lot of people around the world feel that this is the beginnings of a war against Muslims, this kind of remark definitely gives an air of “us against all these different looking people.”
3. given the predominantly white, western, worlds history of abusing and oppressing all other “peoples,” this kind of comment – from anyone, especially the “leader of the free world” – is exceptionally crude and crass
Apr 16, 2004 @ 04:48:35
On a semi-realted topic (on self goverance), I was watching Charlie Rose interview the Egyptian president Mobarak yesterday. He seemed like a decent person. I liked what he said about bringing democracy to a region – that the people must be prepared for it, and that even if Iraqi democracy were to happen overnight, the region wouldn’t change as quickly. Democracy is not everyone’s cup of tea, and if the “brown-skinned” function with oligarchies with religion playing a central role, then so be it. Change must come from within.
Apr 16, 2004 @ 05:48:32
I completely agree. I still can’t help but feel somewhat skeptical that the US will release the Iraqi people to vote in a fully democratic election. As has happened many other times when the US attempts to install a new government, the government that gets elected is not friendly (or at least not a pushover) towards the US. They are then inevitably branded as a rogue government.
More towards your point, I think it is not unreasonable to expect he Iraqi people will end up electing a government that will want to form something more religious than a western-style democracy. If that’s what they want, then that should be fine. I can’t imagine the currently imposed constitution will last for long.