September 21, 2007

"'Now, where’s Mandela?' Well, Mandela’s dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."

We all know President Bush could speak more clearly, but, really, you have to will yourself into idiocy not to understand what he means here.

MORE: James Taranto reams Reuters for the willful idiocy.

192 comments:

ZPS said...

Maybe some people will get it, but it wasn't exactly a classy comment (not that classy is a word I'd associate with G. Bush)...but I'd have to will myself into idiocy to bother writing a post that even hints at defending Bush's rhetorical intentions. Why bother?

"We all know President Bush could speak more clearly"...!?!? WOW.

Original Mike said...

Simple dishonesty is a more straightforward explanation for the original post, though "will yourself into idiocy" is a good description of some of the commenters.

And then there's missmolly ("Raynman — if you think you know what Bush was trying to say, could you enlighten me? Because, frankly I am stumped.") for whom idiocy seems to require no extra effort at all.

gkenny said...

Of course, there are those who might argue that one would have to will oneself into a state of moral idiocy to believe that Mr. Bush (whose second-in-command was all for letting the ANC leader rot in jail not so long ago) has any right to ever invoke Mr. Mandela...

Grunt said...

I dislike it when pundits willfully ignore the sentiment of a poorly phrased statement. Sure I got what he meant. But that's beside the point on two fronts.

1) It's not true. South Africa of 20 years ago and Iraq of five years ago are totally different. You can't possibly equate them. Why try?

2) Even if what you're trying to say is 'there is no one in Iraq to unify the country, unlike a country like South Africa where at least we had Nelson Mandela, because Saddam killed anyone who could unify the country.', the very concept that the PRESIDENT can not articulate that idea is offensive to me. Ann, I can understand being a Bush apologist on any number of issues (I may disagree, but I can understand it) but if we are to be intellectually honest people here, this is not one of those times. This is one of those times when you roll your eyes up to the heavens and you say ‘well, I like some of the stuff he does so I will put up with this type of stupidity’.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I found the lead in to the linked post ironic.

Bush inartfully suggests Saddam killed Mandela

Is 'inartfully' even a word? I couldn't seem to find it anywhere.

You know for a group of people who seem to think that an individual's worth as president is measured by his eloquence you'd think they'd have loved Reagan.

vet66 said...

Perhaps Iran's Ahmadinejad can clarify things better for us when he speaks at Columbia University or tours ground zero.

Some people refuse to believe that we are at war with an entrenched and determined enemy. The real question from the Islamic zealots is whether Mandela or any of the rest of us are to be killed because we are infidels, apostates, or non-believers.

Simon said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
"Is 'inartfully' even a word? I couldn't seem to find it anywhere."

I was going to instantly answer "yes," because I've always used that term, but on second glance, dictionary.com doesn't have it, and suggests that the antonym of "artful" is "unartful." A google search brings up surprisingly few hits.

Personally, I've used and will continue to use "inartfull," but it appears it may well be a corruption.

Richard Fagin said...

Mandelas don't come along in this world often enough. I doubt Saddam killed one of them because there are so few. After all, Mandela's successor ain't-a-doin so hot is he? That and no one starved to death in Rhodesia or the Belgian Congo.

danny said...

Huh. There still are some Bush Apologists left! Interesting!

HD, Bush invented the word "inartfully."

Grunt said...

Vet66 what the heck has that got to do with the price of beans? I really should add that to wikipedia under "straw man arguments"

Oh, and I find it truly ironic Ann that your previous post shows how frustrated you are at Clinton apologists when your next post outs you as a Bush apologist.

Adrian said...

of course, there are also those who might argue that, given some of mandela's recent statements, it was very kind and forgiving of Bush to invoke him in such a context.

And before y'all start attacking me for daring to impugn via careless linkage the honor of this living saint, I will concede that, yes, he's a lot better than Gandhi!

cyrus pinkerton said...

Hoosier wrote:

You know for a group of people who seem to think that an individual's worth as president is measured by his eloquence you'd think they'd have loved Reagan.

Reagan was very good at delivering speeches that had been written for him. However, as judged by his press conference performances, he hardly qualifies as "eloquent."

As far as understatement goes, Althouse should win an award for "Bush could speak more clearly." The sad thing about the most recent Bush "blooper" is that it's the norm, not the exception. Of course, I didn't vote for him, so it must be my "BDS" that drives this observation.

Roger said...

I am a Bush supporter who believes the President is the most inarticulate politician I have ever seen; He has failed totally to make effective use of the "bully pulpit."

Hoosier Daddy said...

Reagan was very good at delivering speeches that had been written for him.

As opposed to all other presidents who wrote thier own?

However, as judged by his press conference performances, he hardly qualifies as "eloquent."

Opinions vary. Perhaps eloquence was the wrong term but I'm at a loss for finding any president in modern times who spoke with any Shakesperean qualities.

cyrus pinkerton said...

Reagan, answering a question about whether taxes should be raised (October 1987 press conference):

The problem is the deficit is -- or should I say -- wait a minute, the spending, I should say, of gross national product, forgive me -- the spending is roughly 23 to 24 per cent. So that it is in -- it what is increasing while the revenues are staying proportionately the same and what would be the proper amount they should, that we should be taking from the private sector.

MadisonMan said...

I'm at a loss for finding any president in modern times who spoke with any Shakesperean qualities.

It's hard to do iambic pentameter on the fly.

No one can gainsay that Bush is inarticulate. However, it's clear what he means, especially if you add the couple sentences that precede the quote. Is this even a new quote? I recall hearing it last month? Two months ago? Why the brouhaha now?

David said...

Isn't the fact that Saddam destroyed civil society, making liberal democracy unlikely, a fact more applicable against the war, rather than justifying the continued occupation? Whether Saddam killed all the Mandelas was a fact that should have been made clear before we went in, execpt at the time we were being told that Ahmed Chalabi fit the bill. And how does the U.S. presence contribute to new Mandelas being formed?

People on the left, center, and moderate-right dislike the way Bush speaks not because he is clunky with words but because the thoughts he conveys are usually really bad.

cyrus pinkerton said...

Hoosier wrote:

As opposed to all other presidents who wrote thier own?

My point is that the "eloquence" of a President isn't measured by how well he reads a speech that's been written for him.

Simon said...

Cyrus -
"[I]t must be my 'BDS' that drives this observation."

It's an awful disease, progressive anaplastic BDS, and we know many people are suffering from it. But as long as suffers can hang in there, the disease has a limited lifespan. Just keep drinking lots of fluids - we recommend kool aid - and you're going to get through this, buddy.

(Although there is some indication that the disease may mutate: in lab experiments, indications of GDS have been detected, suggesting that BDS may cause permanent brain damage.)

Pogo said...

The success (and long life) of a dissenter depends on the regime under which he or she arises.

Under English rule, Gandhi ably employed nonviolence with profound results. Under Nazi rule, he'd have been shot and never heard from again.

Under South African rule, Mandela was imprisoned, but survived, and his treatment proved an embarrassment to and finale nail in that regime. Under Pol Pot, he would have been shot and never heard from again.

Under Kruschev and Brezhnev, Solzhenitsyn was able to write and publish and eventually leave, and his documentation of the horrors of the Soviet system were presented to the world. He was imprisoned for writing a letter in which he criticized Stalin as "the man with the mustache", and exiled in 1953 only after Stalin died.

There were no Mandelas under Lenin.
There were no Mandelas under Stalin.
There were no Mandelas under Mao.
There were no Mandelas under Che.
There were no Mandelas under Pol Pot.
There are no Mandelas under Kim Jung Il.
There are no Mandelas under Castro.
There are no Mandelas under Robert Mugabe.
There will be no Mandelas under Chavez.

There were no Mandelas under Saddam. They were shot. Or tortured. Or put into shredders. Being a Mandela requires a government based on Western principles, or the decaying end of totalitarian rule. Otherwise he never exists.

And in this age, permitting such a situatuation to persist is immoral.

Trooper York said...

'Now, where’s My Met”s?' Well, the Met’s are dead because Willie Randolph killed the Met’s."
Doyle…where you at man…don’t fret…you’ll get in…see ya in the series!

Roger said...

Hmmmm--has anyone examined the "link" (to use the media term for "statistical correlation" or more exactly "Spearman's r") between cell phone usage and BDS? I bet we could plot the numbers of cell phones against the rate of BDS; This research could probably answer the question do cell phones cause brain damage. I will repair to my data bases and report back forthwith.

Simon said...

Re Pogo's 10:15: no Andrew Meyers under any of those regimes, either. "Don't shred me, bro!"

Richard Dolan said...

Bush began by saying that he had heard a comment about "where are all the Mandelas?" From the context it's obvious that the comment was made in the course of a discussion about Iraq. In addressing that comment, Bush assumed his listeners understood the context. At worst Bush was wrong in that assumption. I suspect that, if one listed to the preceding 5 minutes or so of the press context, the context would have been clear.

But none of this is about Bush particularly, or the degree to which his public speech is articulate or not. "Bush is an inarticulate idiot" is an article of faith for some; you either worship in that church or you don't.

garage mahal said...

It's an awful disease, progressive anaplastic BDS, and we know many people are suffering from it.

Oh get off it. You actually need a head ailment to figure what this idiot is saying, or what he means half the time. He does manage to slip in the "Democrat Party" at every opportunity though.

What a fucking jackass.

Roger said...

Garage ends his post with: "What a f###ing jackass."

Can someone explain what appears to be the delight in using the F word among some progressive posters? I don't get it. really.

Zeb Quinn said...

I used to think that there was some utility in it, but I decided a couple of years ago that trying to divine Great Meaning from the inner machinations of BDS sufferers and the disingenuous little stories, fictions, and memes they tell themselves and bleat back and forth to each other to maintain their lunacy is a fool's errand.

cyrus pinkerton said...

Pogo wrote:

There are no Mandelas under Kim Jung Il.
There are no Mandelas under Castro.
There are no Mandelas under Robert Mugabe.
There will be no Mandelas under Chavez.

There were no Mandelas under Saddam. They were shot. Or tortured. Or put into shredders. Being a Mandela requires a government based on Western principles, or the decaying end of totalitarian rule. Otherwise he never exists.

And in this age, permitting such a situatuation to persist is immoral.


Pogo, assuming you have no intention of being "immoral," are you suggesting the invasion and occupation of N.Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Venezuela? Will your actions in the name of "morality" be guided by any practical considerations?

Ralph said...

Why not an Iraqi George Washington? They'll probably end up with a Tito or Milosovich.
I saw a chart somewhere that the mean IQs in the Arab countries were in the high 80's or low 90's, which explains a lot of things.

Lana said...

Hurrah, Pogo!!! Our president may be inarticulate, but Pogo sure isn't. AND this "conveyed thought" is far from bad -- it's right on the mark.

cyrus pinkerton said...

Roger wrote:

Can someone explain what appears to be the delight in using the F word among some progressive posters? I don't get it. really.

Ask Cedarford. I'm sure he can explain better than any "progressive" commenter the joys of profanity.

Fritz said...

gkenney,
President Bush compliments Mandela and you feel the need to invoke some criticism. Mandela was a communist, we were in a cold war. Simply because leftist Democrats wanted him free to spread communism in South Africa as they had previously allowed in South East Asia puts Cheney on the right side of history. As did Bill Clinton, Mandela changed, that allowed for progress. Had Mandela not witnessed the collapse of post colonial Africa from his jail cell, South Africa might be as poor as the rest of Africa.

Grunt,
You are really ignorant. Mandela ended apartheid without destructive retaliation. The Shia majority uses it's power to jerk around the Sunnis because they can. If a Mandela type Shia were to provide the leadership to extend power to the Sunnis as Mandela did with the white minority, Iraq would be prosperous as well.

PatCA said...

I didn't see the press conference but his statement makes sense to me. I guess this is a slow news day--nothing to attack the Reps with, so this will do.

Paul Brinkley said...

Something tells me if Aaron Sorkin had written it and Allison Janney had said it, a lot more people would be saying "of COURSE it makes sense; don't you see?".

They would then bask in the moment of poetry before turning back to their lemon biscotti and The New Yorker editorial.

Paddy O. said...

The inability to understand the abstract in written or verbal communication is a hallmark of low intelligence. When comments meant as abstractions are instead interpreted as concrete, literal statements it is not the fault of the speaker but of the listener.

Which makes it especially interesting really. People are illustrating low-intelligence interpretive skills to denounce Bush's intelligence, taking on the air of superiority in the display of poor cognition behavior.

Irony is fun!

Grunt said...

Fritz, Mandela didn't "end" aparthied, internal and external social and economic presures ended aparthied. You know what didn't end aparthied? An external invading army.

By the way, I love the fact that Mandela is being invoked as a great man by people who used to claim he was an "arch-communist" and a "terrorist".

Simon said...

Paul - lemon biscotti is very much an innocent bystander in this crossfire, though.

Roger said...

Simon: pure collateral damage; fortunately we don't maintain biscotti counts in this command.

paul a'barge said...

...South Africa where at least we had Nelson Mandela....

Geez, what is it with you folks and Mandela? The man is a tyrant and a stooge and without a shred of morality.

Mandela is the pocket-friend of the leaders of places like Cuba and Libya and just about everywhere else fascists are having success. And, he's Jimmy Carter's butt buddy.

Do you SA folks think that none of us out here can see through the moral fog you folks have built up around the Monster Mandela?

What is next with you folks? Hero worship for the leader of Rhodesia?

Please stop.

Roger said...

Paul: not to mention his failure to condemn his next door neighboer (pun intended).

Rich B said...

From the transcript-

"Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there's a psychological recovery that is taking place. And it's hard work for them. And I understand it's hard work for them. Having said that, I'm not going the give them a pass when it comes to the central government's reconciliation efforts."

What's so hard to understand to about that?

Luckyoldson said...

"Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas"...

"...you have to will yourself into idiocy not to understand what he means here...."

"...a poorly phrased statement..."

"...an abstract..."

"...Bush inartfully suggests..."

"...it's clear what he means..."

"...I didn't see the press conference but his statement makes sense to me..."

I bet many of his fellow graduates from Yale and Harvard would have a slightly different take on Mr. Bush's comment.

Mortimer Brezny said...

To call someone the Mandela of Iraq is rhetoric. Someone used rhetoric to ask why there is no unifying, post-tyranny leader to transform and reconcile Iraq. Bush echoed the rhetoric in his answer.

It should be obvious.

Rich B said...

LOS-

Are you suggesting that those other graduates have no sense for metaphor?

matthew said...

Geez Roger and Paul, Is it so hard to believe that Mandela was a complicated who accomplished both amazing feats AND had flaws?

Apparently because he supports Castro, is friends with Jimmy Carter, and has failed to fix other African governments he was a bad person and South Africa would have been better without him.

-As for Bush's point, however oddly phrased, I'm not sure it makes much sense... (the person who originally said it also didn't make much historical sense). But if you take the President's comment at face value it's depressing as hell. Anyone who could help develop the country in (mostly) non-violent ways is dead. If it's true, why should we even try?

Roger said...

Matthew: of course I believe that people have flaws--I am a conservative, you know--a great believer in nuance as it were. I don't care that Mandela is a communist or a terrorist; he did do well with the reconciliation in South Africa; he is symbolic; but his inaction with respect to Zimbabwe is sacrificing several millions of Zimbabweans--and that to me is a bit more than a "flaw."

vet66 said...

Mandela: unlike revolutionaries like Che Guevarra, Castro, Chavez, etc., Mandela changed and became, in his own words (HUman.)

He was a great human being who channeled his anger into change. Like Mother Theresa, Ghandi, and many others, he led by a hard earned and equally hard learned life of purpose.

Saddam effectively killed the spirit of Iraqi's "Mandela" types for a generation. In the end, the soft power of legitimate dissent will rescue the Iraqi's and moderate Muslims.

Somewhere in the diaspora that is Islam, a leader is readying himself/herself for the task. A thousand Mandela's are gaining strength for the change as we lead the GWOT ahead of them. The real question is if the west has the strength and fortitude to be leaders instead of weak-kneed cowards accustomed to a life the rest of the world can only imagine or hope for.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Being a Mandela requires a government based on Western principles, or the decaying end of totalitarian rule. Otherwise he never exists. And in this age, permitting such a situatuation to persist is immoral.

Well therein lies the conundrum. While folks have been driving around with ‘Free Tibet’ bumper stickers for 30 years or so, they would be the first ones to cover it up with ‘Not in My Name’ should Bush or anyone else decide to send in the Big Red One to do the freeing. Oh sure Apartheid was bad yet compared to say, Uganda under Idi Amin or any of the President-for-Life’s in the various ‘Democratic Republics of…” the Afrikkaner regime had a long way to go to match the body count.

Mandela didn't "end" aparthied, internal and external social and economic presures ended aparthied. You know what didn't end aparthied? An external invading army.

I would be careful with the equivalency of the South African apartheid regime and Iraq. Pogo is quite right that Mandela would have been fed feet first in an industrial shredder under Saddam and despite the decade of ‘internal and external social and economic presures’, Saddam was firmly in power. In fact, ‘internal and external social and economic presures’ were also being lambasted as killing 500,000 kids a year or something like that and needed to be removed. Doing so would have simply cemented Saddam’s hold over Iraq as well as his continued legacy due to his offspring and everyone would live happily ever after.

This is why I get miffed over the ‘poverty and oppression breeds terrorism’ schtick because whether or not its true, the left will not do anything to change the conditions other than demand we send a multi-billion dollar care package which generally ends up in President-for-Life’s Swiss bank account. Never mind that Western values in terms of establishing a liberal democratic state is the sure fire way to eliminating ‘poverty and oppression’, the current mantra now is ‘you can’t force democracy/our values on other people’ to which I respond, fine. Then they can live in poverty and oppression and breed terrorists. Either way, you just can’t win.

rcocean said...

First, shouldn't it be "Saint Mandela"?

Secondly, this is just more of the standard left party- line. Republicans are stupid, Democrats are smart. Kerry and Gore were much smarter than Bush don't y'know. The only exceptions are Hoover and Nixon -who were of course, evil.

Thirdly, the use of the "F" by the left comes from 3 more sources. Many on the left dislike or don't care about religion, so swearing isn't a problem for them. Secondly, many of them have contempt for religion/Middle America and using the "F" is a way to show it. Thirdly, using the "F" words shows the other lefties you passionate and "down for the struggle".

MadisonMan said...

I saw a chart somewhere that the mean IQs in the Arab countries were in the high 80's or low 90's, which explains a lot of things.

That you wrote the sentence above (apparently) to disparage Arab intelligence is hysterical.

Kirk said...

Roger,

I'm a Bush supporter, too (not in absolute terms, mind you, but certainly prefer him to either of his electoral opponents) and while I agree that he's far from articulate this isn't one of those times! His statement is perfectly understandable, and has a thankfully non-Kerry conciseness and vividness to it.

davidc. said...

I feel bad because I actually understood what he was trying to say. But consider that he was the best of the choices that we had to vote for. That is really sad.

But one thing. He still does not get the Iraq situation. A Mandella would not be able to achieve a thing before or after Saddam. The only thing those people understand is Saddam and we just need to find a copy of him we can live with.

paul a'barge said...

OK folks, here is a concise reveal of the Bush comment, with just enough context to help clarify the discussion.

Upon reading this, I have to tell you that 1) what Bush said makes perfect sense to me and 2) the idiot trying to blame Bush for not being erudite is a worm.

jane said...

Mandela, less an unblemished reformer and brilliant thinker than martyr, icon and ideologue in the right place at the right time with some not so always right ideas.

Occasionally one reads of a thoughtful, constructive Arab reformer, but mostly in conservative journals, since these moderate mavericks don't hawk imperialist victimology as much as sensible, modern self-responsibility, and the left-leaning mainstream press isn't interested in that narrative.

I thought Bush said Saddam killed all the mandolins.

paul a'barge said...

grunt said: You know what didn't end aparthied [sic]? An external invading army.

Grunt, you know what ended the Holocaust? An external invading army ended the Holocaust.

Need I go on? Do you really need several other examples, rr are you completely incapable of a historical perspective?

The Exalted said...

good to see the true nutters revealing their colors by calling mandela a "monster" and defending the odious afrikaner regime

and comparing chavez to stalin -- awesome!

pogo, please tell me which services we should eliminate in order to fund the glorious wars of liberation that you propose.

good show for the moderate blog

Roger said...

Kirk: agree with you that this statement is perfectly understandable--I meant to address the President's overall articulateness--which, charitably, is not his strong suit.

The Exalted said...

also, hostess:

yes, bush's comment is as clear as day. yes, "thinkprogress" is way off. so what?

Smilin' Jack said...

I thought an interesting comment was made — somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, “Now, where’s Mandela?” Well, Mandela’s dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.

In other words, "somebody" else created the Mandela metaphor. Bush understood it as metaphor and responded appropriately. By not getting that, his critics look (whether willfully or not) really stupid.

Original Mike said...

The name "Think Progress" as always struck me as on the same naive level as "Visualize World Peace".

LarsPorsena said...

"The name "Think Progress" as always struck me as on the same naive level as "Visualize World Peace"."

Not quite as bad as "Wage Peace" or
the bumper sticker that says "Peace Monger" but a close runner-up.

Luckyoldson said...

Rich B said..."Are you suggesting that those other graduates have no sense for metaphor?"

Yeah, sure...

Well, it looks like there are plenty of people out there who "have no sense for metaphor":

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.

"It's out there. All we can do is reassure people, especially South Africans, that President Mandela is alive," Achmat Dangor, chief executive officer of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, said as Bush's comments received worldwide coverage.

References to his death -- Mandela is now 89 and increasingly frail -- are seen as insensitive in South Africa.

Luckyoldson said...

Here's another Bush "metaphor":

"I got a 'B' Grade In Econ 101"

*Actual transcripts show that it was a 'C Minus'

Oh, wait...maybe it wasn't a "metaphor"...it was an "abstract."

Yeah...that's the ticket.

DUH...B...YA.

Jason said...

I understood what the President said, and what he meant by it right away.

Further, I thought it was a devastatingly articulate way of expressing the idea.

The characterization of the TP crowd's lack of ability to grasp metaphor, and more broadly, abstract expression, is spot-on.

Jeremy said...

LOS-
Seriously, is that the extent of the article or do you trim it? Did Reuters just jump to editorializing and not even bother to show the quote?

Luckyoldson said...

Bush's "metaphors" aren't getting any better:

1. "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." (11/2/2000)

2. "I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children." (10/11/2000)

3. "The fundamental question is, 'Will I be a successful President when it comes to foreign policy?' I will be, but until I'm President, it's going to be hard for me to verify that I think I'll be more effective." (6/27/2000)

4. "Our priorities is our faith." (10/10/2000)

5. "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." (9/29/2000)

6. "I think we agree, the past is over." (5/10/2000)

DUH...B...YA!!!

Ralph said...

That you wrote the sentence above (apparently) to disparage Arab intelligence is hysterical.
Certainly, there are plenty of fools and knaves with higher IQ. My point is that, with a large proportion of not-very-bright-or-learned people, tyranny, envy, frustration, poverty, and violence are not unlikely, and may be unavoidable. What was your point?

Richard Fagin said...

Yep, Hoosier, no one died of starvation in Rhodesia.

Gedaliya said...

The Reuters story is pathetic. They even quote the president properly, yet they still claim he referred to Mandela as being dead.

Either the reporter and his editors are being willfully obtuse or they are all hopelessly stupid.

Trooper York said...

What we've got here is...failure to communicate." Strother Martin

hdhouse said...

vet66 said...
"Some people refuse to believe that we are at war with an entrenched and determined enemy."

Frankly I think what people refuse to believe that after 7 years Mr. Bush seems lamer than ever, can bare speak a full sentence let alone a coherent one, and, listening to that nonsense, he sounds drunk...not only did he loose his fake Tex accent but he sounds drunk.

Other than that I have no idea what he meant other than he had his head up his ass again.

Original Mike said...

Reuters. News for the willfully ignorant. (Of course, that is a big market. Maybe they know what their doing.)

Gedaliya said...

Other than that I have no idea what he meant other than he had his head up his ass again.

How so? What is confusing about the declarative statement that Saddam Hussein "killed all the Mandelas" in Iraq?

Original Mike said...

Other than that I have no idea what he meant

I don't believe you.

SGT Ted said...

My point is that the "eloquence" of a President isn't measured by how well he reads a speech that's been written for him.

Then you need to read the Reagan Letters and eat your words. Ronaldus Maximus was a very eloquent writer.

This is just more of the bullshit "Republicans are Stupid" meme. God it is so tiring.

James said...

"paul a'barge said...

grunt said: You know what didn't end aparthied [sic]? An external invading army.

Grunt, you know what ended the Holocaust? An external invading army ended the Holocaust.

Need I go on? Do you really need several other examples, rr are you completely incapable of a historical perspective?"


Well, last week Kathy Griffin was Hitler for "making fun of" Jesus, now this week Saddam is Hitler. At least you're getting closer :)

John Stodder said...

Wasn't Bush just paraphrasing something Crocker said? I recall it in his testimony.

Sorry to have to break it to all the Bush-haters but it's actually a profound (if poorly expressed) insight, one that echoes things I was reading from many well-informed writers, not all neo-cons, before the invasion. Not only did Hussein kill anyone who might conceivably become a leader of a revolt against him, his network of spies and thugs suppressed even the thought of an alternative government. If Paul Bremer and Donald Rumsfeld had understood this factor back in 2003, things might be going better in Iraq now.

The progressives' constant use of the f-word, and statements like hdhouse's thoughtful "sounds drunk...he had his head up his ass again" makes them sound like a bunch of dopey rednecks or grouchy old men. In a better time, "progressives" were open-minded, tolerant, intellectually curious and made an effort to understand what others were saying, even their political foes. Now they're a bunch of raging, impotent, fist-shaking coots. So it goes.

Luckyoldson said...

MORE Bush "abstractional metaphors":

1. "I hope we get to the bottom of the answer. It's what I'm interested to know." (4/26/2000)

2. "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas." (9/25/2000)

3. "I was just inebriating what Midland was all about then." (1994)

4. "If I'm President, we're going to have emergency-room care, we're going to have gag orders." (10/18/2000)

5. Here's one of my favorites: "Will the highways on the internet become more few?" (WHAT??? - 10/24/2000)

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yep, Hoosier, no one died of starvation in Rhodesia.

Rhodesia? You mean that African country that used to be referred to as the breadbasket of Africa and was a net exporter of food?

Or did you mean someplace else?

Joe said...

Rich B included the full quote in context, which I'll repeat here:

"Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there's a psychological recovery that is taking place. And it's hard work for them. And I understand it's hard work for them. Having said that, I'm not going the give them a pass when it comes to the central government's reconciliation efforts."

This is clear unless you are being deliberately obtuse.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Other than that I have no idea what he meant other than he had his head up his ass again.

You're right house and none of us could either. Based on how you generally respond to others on here, we were hoping you could translate.

Luckyoldson said...

"...a profound (if poorly expressed) insight..."

Ahhhyhh, yes, John...quite "profound."

Almost as "profound as: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

*A world...without war...with...fish.

mcg said...

Well, I must be as much of an idiot as GWB, because when I read Rich B's copy of the quote in context I understood exactly what he meant. Takes one to understand one I guess. No doubt he should have said "Where's Iraq's Mandela" instead of "Where's Mandela", though, because then those who delight in his gaffes wouldn't be able to ride this one.

Luckyoldson said...

Jason said..."...I thought it was a devastatingly articulate way of expressing the idea."

You mean..."devastatingly INarticulate...."

Right?

If it was "articulate" there would be no discussion.

John Stodder said...

If some of the posters here would just READ A BOOK, they would know Bush was using "Mandela" metaphorically.

Gedaliya said...

"It is human to hate those whom we have injured."

Tacitus

hdhouse said...

SGT Ted said...
My point is that the "eloquence" of a President isn't measured by how well he reads a speech that's been written for him.This is just more of the bullshit "Republicans are Stupid" meme. God it is so tiring."

Get a gripe Sarge. "reads a speech"...hmmm 2 things on that: 1. he wasn't reading a script...he was talking "off the cuff" and if you have no idea what to say that is risky....and 2. Speechwriters at that level are to write in accordance with Bush's cadences and speech patterns...avoiding phrases, words, etc., that don't suit him...not just write whatever.

Mr. Bush may be brighter than he looks but he sure has to be brighter than he talks.

Luckyoldson said...

mcg says: "No doubt he should have said "Where's Iraq's Mandela" instead of "Where's Mandela""

No kidding?

AND THAT'S THE POINT.

G.W. has a tendency to express himself in a manner that is not understandable to anyone except
for those who accept and defend his every screw-up, verbal or otherwise.

Luckyoldson said...

John Stodder said..."If some of the posters here would just READ A BOOK, they would know Bush was using "Mandela" metaphorically."

WOW!!!

Quite the defense, Johnny.

And strangely enough...you're absolutely right.

So, c'mon, Johhny...let's get these people off their asses and into a library.

Daryl said...

Leftists love to pretend they are much smarter than conservatives, but here we see them doing the opposite: being deliberately obtuse and aggressively stupid.

In insisting that what Bush said is indecipherable/incoherent, they are insisting that they are not very smart, because you don't have to be very smart to understand what Bush said.

They are proud to wear the badge of "stupid" when it suits them. Totally unreasonable. Idiots.

jane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gedaliya said...

Mr. Bush may be brighter than he looks but he sure has to be brighter than he talks.

So, do you think the president was right or wrong about what he said regarding the fact that Saddam Hussein murdered all of those in Iraq who, after Hussein was deposed, might have managed the process of national reconciliation in the manner that Mandela did after the end of Apartheid in South Africa?

Luckyoldson said...

Here's an interesting calculator that will tell you who you SHOULD be voting for:

http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

mcg said...

No kidding? AND THAT'S THE POINT. G.W. has a tendency to express himself in a manner that is not understandable to anyone except for those who accept and defend his every screw-up, verbal or otherwise.

This is not one of those times. If you didn't understand exactly what he was trying to say (regardless of whether you agree with it), you're the idiot, not him. If he were anyone but GWB, whether of greater or lesser intelligence, this would have been a non-story. The only reason I agreed he should have been more clear is because, frankly, of people (like yourself, it seems) who delight in celebrating his apparent idiocy.

Original Mike said...

mcg said: No doubt he should have said "Where's Iraq's Mandela" instead of "Where's Mandela"

Why? So that the semiliterate could understand what he meant?

Luckyoldson said...

Daryl said..."In insisting that what Bush said is indecipherable/incoherent, they are insisting that they are not very smart, because you don't have to be very smart to understand what Bush said."

No, we just think it was a really dumb way to say it.

Just because someone thinks they understand what someone is saying or trying to say doesn't mean that's the way it should be said...especially when that person is the leader of the free world and should damn well know better. (Yale-Harvard ring a bell?)

Now...do YOU understand that?

MadisonMan said...

Here's an interesting calculator that will tell you who you SHOULD be voting for:

http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html


Hmm. I should be voting for Mike Gravel, and in fact he matches more of the people going to that site than any other.

Luckyoldson said...

mcg & original mike:

You keep harping on the cunard that people didn't "understand" what Bush said.

It's not the understanding part...it's that he doesn't appear to know how to say things in a straight forward and articulate manner.

Kerry made a comment a few years ago that the right wing tore into for months on end, yet everybody knew exactly what he was saying when he said it...but he didn't say it in a way that would avoid controversy or derision.

(Kerry: "You know, education -- if you make the most of it -- you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.")

The remark provoked a torrent of criticism from Republicans who were quick to take it out of context and broadcast it as a slam on U.S. troops, rather than on Bush.

Here's the joke as it was supposed to be delivered: "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

Of course, that wasn't little Georgie...so most here would never consider that to be similar to this in any way...right?

Anybody here understand this?

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-I-C-A-L

Luckyoldson said...

MadisonMan,
That's who I came up with too.

Luckyoldson said...

jane,
You actually read..."The Globe?

Luckyoldson said...

Oh-Oh...this "metaphor" is from the high and mighty, God of all Gods here...

On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that he gets Sen. Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden "confused," stating that bin Laden's call in a newly released tape "to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and [Pakistani President] Musharraf ... puts him on the same page with" Obama."

Gosh...what do you think he really meant??

Original Mike said...

LOS, I'm breaking my vow not to talk to you this once. In this particular case, there was nothing wrong with Bush's phrasing. You look like an idiot insisting otherwise.

And I think the word you are looking for is canard. Cunard is a cruise ship line

Cedarford said...

The supreme irony is that there are no Mandelas possible in Iraq capable of unifying the country not because of Saddam, but because of Bush, Bremer, and the Neocons.

Any leader will arise from the Kurds, The Shiites, the Sunnis and champion the unity and advancement of THEIR PEOPLE.

I'm someone that believes we were more than justified going into Iraq, and should stay in - but Bush and his cronies bungled the job nearly beyond belief and remain delusional today.

If there was a Mandela* (see Note), someone capable of unifying the nation - there were only two institutional and cultural forces
that crossed ethnic and sectarian lines and served to unify the nation.
The Iraqi Army.
The Original Secular Ba'athist Party - which had plenty of Kurd and Shiite members, even Christians before Saddam began purging out the non-Sunni, non-Arabs - then the non-Tikriti clanners.

Bremer, with the neocon's and Bush's full buy-in, fired any Mandelas in the country that resided in the military or Ba'athist Party. Creating a power vacuum and worse, democratic elections that formally fragmented the country into the Kurds, and various religious extremist parties.

Bush & Co couldn't have messed it up worse if they tried.

Note: Just using Mandela as he was intended by cynical Bush hacks that wrote the drivel Bush said - as Saint Mandela. The Super-Leader and Noble man. Not that he actually was. One of history's greatly overrated modern figures..

Luckyoldson said...

original mike,
GOOD LORD...did I post a fucking typo?

It really wasn't a typo, Mike...it was an abstract metaphor...and we BOTH know that you understood exactly what I was saying...don't we?

And, as for your comment that: "there was nothing wrong with Bush's phrasing..."

That must be why this thread is packed with comments...because it was phrased...just right.

Weasel.

mcg said...

It's not the understanding part...it's that he doesn't appear to know how to say things in a straight forward and articulate manner.

And that's a defensible position to take. But it does the argument no good to enter this particular example into evidence of it. Because, in fact, only an idiot---or someone temporarily lapsing into idiocy---would misunderstand what he's saying here when read and/or heard in its context.

hdhouse said...

Gedaliya said...
...that Saddam Hussein murdered all of those in Iraq who, after Hussein was deposed..."

Gedaliya...can you clarify...Do you mean when Saddam and the US were allies in the 80s? Or do you mean when Bush I sold out the revolution in the south and left those people to die? Or do you mean the gasing of the Kurds with the nerve gas we sold him?

I'm confused. Which time did you have in mind?

He was a barbarian and a thug, but by God, we stood by him for a long time didn't we.

Gedaliya said...

Bremer, with the neocon's and Bush's full buy-in, fired any Mandelas in the country that resided in the military or Ba'athist Party.

Silly nonsense. As the president said, Saddam spent 30 years murdering or exiling anyone capable of unifying the nation in the way Mandela did after the Apartheid regime was dissolved.

Can you name on single Iraqi individual "fired" by Bremer "with the neocon's and Bush's full buy-in" capable of reconciling Iraq's rival ethnic and sectarian groups?

Luckyoldson said...

Cedarford said..."The supreme irony is that there are no Mandelas possible in Iraq capable of unifying the country not because of Saddam, but because of Bush, Bremer, and the Neocons."

You got that right.

If there were actually any "Mandelas" before we went in...we would have heard about them.

*Unless of course, Bush was referring to Chalabi and BFF Curveball.

Luckyoldson said...

mcg,
Right.

Everybody who's ever confused by Bush's inane comments, misstatements or actions is an "idiot."

That's probably why everything is going so well for America right now.

mcg said...

My goodness, forget the surrounding context. Just look at the sentence itself: "Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas." Anyone who claims this isn't clearly metaphorical is an idiot or a liar.

mcg said...

Everybody who's ever confused by Bush's inane comments, misstatements or actions is an "idiot."

No. Read what I said. Anyone who is confused by this particular statement of his is an idiot. I'm not sure how to characterize your misrepresentation of my argument, however. I'd like to think that you're not that much of an idiot, so I prefer to think you're doing it on purpose.

Gedaliya said...

Do you mean when Saddam and the US were allies in the 80s? Or do you mean when Bush I sold out the revolution in the south and left those people to die? Or do you mean the gasing of the Kurds with the nerve gas we sold him?

Saddam's campaigns of terror and murder were a constant feature of his fascist dictatorship. There is no doubt that during the brief time in the 1980s when we gave him tacit support in his fight against the Iran mullahs that he was simultaneously murdering or exiling his domestic political opponents.

I'm glad you agree that some our policies, in hindsight, were wrong in regard to how we treated Hussein. I'm dismayed, however, that you don't support our current efforts to remedy some of the damage that resulted from our misguided efforts 20 and 30 years ago.

Also, please provide a source that confirms your contention that we sold Hussein the gas he used to murder the Kurds during the Halabja Poison Gas Attack.

According the the article I cite, the US and other countries sold Iraq the precursors (ingredients) for the gas used in the attack, but your claim that we "sold him nerve gas" is, as far as I can tell, not true.

SGT Ted said...

HD I was referring to your comment about Reagan not being eloquent as being false. His writings prove that.

GW, not so much.

ron st.amant said...

Perhaps the notion that Saddam had killed all the Mandelas would have served for closer examination before the invasion. In fact, I think at least Dick Cheney knew Saddam had killed all the Mandelas because the lack of adequate, successive leadership was one of the reasons Cheney and others gave for not removing Saddam during Gulf War I.

The time to create (or prop up) some type of Mandela was lost in the early days of the war- back when there were not enough troops to maintain order, when large chunks of the insurgence was formed, and when ethnic cleansing filled the Saddam gap.

To now use the 'no Mandela' card, to excuse the disaster that Iraq has become, is a tragic admission of philisophical failure.

I'm not a Bush-hater. In fact I wake up every day hoping for success because beyond my political party affiliation, I love my country first.

However, to state now, the obvious, that democracy is hard work, and there are no Mandelas, and the like flies in the face of the way the President and Vice-President articulated the war before it began and as it was unfolding. Being greeted as liberators is not a metaphor. The insurgency in its last throes is not a metaphor. Mission Accomplished is not a metaphor.

So while you chide (rightly at times) the left for some intellectual dishonesty, I think we should hold the right (especially the President) to the same standard.

Gedaliya said...

To now use the 'no Mandela' card, to excuse the disaster that Iraq has become, is a tragic admission of philisophical failure.

Iraq is not a "disaster." We're in a tough fight that we will win if we can maintain our national resolve. A real "disaster" will occur if we leave before our mission is accomplished.

Original Mike said...

From Best of the Web.

Now, how did Reuters get the story wrong? There are, it seems to us, three explanations:

Stupidity. The reporter was so bone-headedly literal-minded that he simply did not understand the rhetorical device Bush was employing.

Laziness. The reporter wasn't actually at the press conference and didn't bother to check the context of the quote.

Dishonesty. The reporter knew full well that Bush was speaking metaphorically and deliberately twisted his meaning in order to fit the stereotype that Bush "has a reputation for verbal faux pas."


Sums it up pretty well.

Revenant said...

I agree that only an idiot could misunderstand what Bush was saying here.

However, I have to disagree with what Bush said. I understand that he was speaking to South Africans and that there was therefore good reason to want to suck up to their national heroes a bit. But Mandela was a terrorist, and never renounced terrorism as a tactic. He remained willing to deliberately murder innocent civilians if that furthered his political goals.

Now, we can all agree that the political goal of ending apartheid was a good one -- but the fact remains that if there is one thing Iraq ISN'T short on, it is violent revolutionaries and terrorists willing to killing innocents for political purposes.

A much better example would have been Desmond Tutu.

hdhouse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hdhouse said...

Gedaliya said...
"There is no doubt that during the brief time in the 1980s when we gave him tacit support .."

Oh please God I pray that Gedaliya has a firmer grasp of history than that...Please oh please...

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

Please read this and get back to me.....tacit support my ass. Brief time? Your ass.

Danny said...

I was dumbfounded by the headline. My best guess was that he somehow was replacing 'Kurds' with 'Mandelas.' I never knew Saddam went after Mandela. So I guess I'm the idiot and George Bush is just misunderstood. How long can you keep up the latter claim before you start smelling the bullshit?

Luckyoldson said...

Gedaliya said..."Iraq is not a "disaster."

Well, that should pretty much sums up the overall insanity among many here.

3,800 dead Americans, 28,000 wounded Americans, untold 1,000's of dead Iraqi civilians, electricity available 20% of the day, Al Queada expanding by the day, approaching 1 trillion in taxpayer dollars spent, millions in missing funds, corruption charges leveled at many of the contractors, an Iraqi parliament that has done absolutely nothing of substance, no one can leave the Green Zone with a military escort, with no end in sight for our "occupation"...but it is NOT A DISASTER.

Delusional.

Revenant said...

My best guess was that he somehow was replacing 'Kurds' with 'Mandelas.' [...] So I guess I'm the idiot

If that really was your "best guess" then yeah -- you've pretty much got to be an idiot.

The most obvious (and, as it happens, correct) interpretation was that Bush was speaking metaphorically, referring to the fact that Hussein killed all of the would-be leaders who opposed him.

Gedaliya said...

Gedaliya said..."Iraq is not a "disaster."

Precisely correct. We will win this vital struggle if we keep our national resolve. The price we will pay for defeat is incalculable.

Oh...an Al Qaeda is not "expanding by the day." Its cadres are being eliminated. Its influence is waning. Its leadership is demoralized.

an Iraqi parliament that has done absolutely nothing of substance...

This will change. The antiwar movement in the United States has reached its high water mark. Defeatists like LOS and Harry Reid will henceforth be on the defensive.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Do you mean when Saddam and the US were allies in the 80s?

Do you mean allies in the sense that we and say the Brits are allies (NATO) or say allies in the sense of US&USSR v Nazi Germany in which the enemy of my enemy is my friend sense?

I know the fact that we supplied satellite intell support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war equals an alliance in your mind but if allies is defined by such 'support', the Russians, Frenchies and Germans provided him a lot more hardware than some space based pictures were probably worth.

If we were such good 'allies' why was all of Saddam's military 85% Soviet equipped?

Want more?

DavidEhrenstein said...

Saddam Killed JR!!!

DavidEhrenstein said...

"If we were such good 'allies' why was all of Saddam's military 85% Soviet equipped? "

Ask THIS Dude.

igbalonigbanlo said...

And Desmond Tutu achieved nothing, desperate diseases.....

Seven Machos said...

DavidEhrenstein -- I don't understand. If Saddam didn't have WMD, as you probably claim, and was no threat or menace, as you probably claim, what's the problem with a young Rumsfeld meeting him?

Don't naive fools such as you support talking through problems and diplomacy?

Meanwhile, the ostensible leader of Iran in speaking at Columbia University. I'm sure he'll shake some hands. Bring your camera!

Also, when Hillary! gave a big, ol' lug hug to Arafat's wife...did you get that one? I hope so. And when FDR and Stalin met at Yalta -- were your cameras there?

Please, bring your A-game in the future. This isn't Moveon.org. 'Kay?

Revenant said...

Iraq was never an American ally; anyone who thinks otherwise needs to spend a little less time reading DailyKos and a little more time reading history books. Hussein's Iraq was a *Soviet* ally. America's ally in the region was Iran.

Now, in the late 1970s two things happened that changed the regional dynamic:

(1): Hussein took control of Iraq and began trying to assert his independence from Soviet control.
(2): Iran was overthrown by the mullahs

Item 1 is why the French -- who were trying to assert their independence from *America* -- cozied up to Iraq and started selling them massive amounts of weaponry and nuclear technology; the two nations had a common interest and limited options. France's strategy was dealt a big setback when the USA-friendly Mitterand took over and realigned his country in opposition to the Soviets.

Meanwhile, Carter and Reagan implemented a policy of trying to encourage Iraq to shift its allegiances from the Soviets to us. This strategy was not a success, in large part because the aid we sent them was so trivial compared to what they were getting from the Soviets Bloc, China, and France.

The upshot of all this is that while the statement "we used to want Hussein as an ally" is definitely true, the statement "Hussein WAS an ally" is flat-out false.

Revenant said...

I have to wonder what the people who make so much of the Cheney-Hussein handshake make of the Clinton-Arafat handshake. Are we to assume that Bill Clinton supported the suicide bombing of Israeli Jews?

I'm pretty sure even Sciafe didn't believe THAT about the man.

Trooper York said...

I improve on misquotation.
Cary Grant

Seven Machos said...

When someone on the left shakes hands with a brutal, crazy, sadist leader, it's reaching out and diplomacy and efforts to secure the peace and Nobel Prize-worthy leadership.

When someone on the right shakes hands with a brutal, crazy, sadist leader, it's rank hypocrisy and exposure of their rogue tendencies and a demonstration of just how crazy and sadistic the American right is.

Right David? Ain't that how it goes in your infantile worldview? Read a book, man. Read a book.

Trooper York said...

I think it is good that books still exist, but they do make me sleepy.
Frank Zappa

cyrus pinkerton said...

John Stodder wrote:

The progressives' constant use of the f-word ... makes them sound like a bunch of dopey rednecks or grouchy old men... Now they're a bunch of raging, impotent, fist-shaking coots.

Wow, John, this is such a thoughtful analysis based on the use of profanity by a couple of "liberal" commenters here.

Tell me, can you provide a similar analysis based on the use of profanity by rightwingers? Do you need me to provide you with examples?

antiphone said...

Before the war everyone thought Iraq had Mandelas. Now all these revisionist historians claim they knew there were no Mandelas. I bet Iran has a Mandela or at least a Tutu, can we take that chance?

P. Rich said...

Mandela is primarily a liberal media construct, aparthied was ended by a white leader, F. W. de Klerk:

De Klerk is best known for engineering the end of apartheid, South Africa's racial segregation policy, and supporting the transformation of South Africa into a multi-racial democracy by entering into the negotiations that resulted in all citizens, including the country's black majority, having equal voting and other rights. Wilipedia

and SA has been trending downhill ever since.

There is a serious, ongoing brain drain of educated whites, so much so that the "government" put laws into effect expressly to make it nearly impossible for those leaving the country to take their accumulated wealth with them. And we are NOT talking about millionaires here. As for the crime, well...

Talk to some South Africans who escaped. Look at the ex-pat figures for those who left permanently for Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US. Be aware that what you think you know about what's been happening there is also largely media fiction.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I said If we were such good 'allies' why was all of Saddam's military 85% Soviet equipped?"

davidesomethingorthersaid: Ask THIS Dude. (pic of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam)

Sooooo...the implication your making is that Donald Rumsfeld was a Soviet arms dealer?

Or do you care to elaborate?

Gedaliya said...

Since Saddam wasn't "gay," Ehrenstein really doesn't care about him or anyone who shook hands with him, unless they too were "gay." And since it isn't likely Rumsfeld is "gay," Ehrenstein doesn't care about the handshake, the picture or the issue.

He's simply a gadfly with an obsession.

hdhouse said...

I seriously think some on here are pulling my leg...some sat intel...russian military supplies...iran was our friend...

laughable. preposterous. hey anyone remember ollie north? anyone remember iran hostage? anyone rememmber who sold the mustard and nerve gas to Saddam? no?

read: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/81/81ali.pdf

Gedaliya said...

anyone rememmber who sold the mustard and nerve gas to Saddam? no?

Iraq fabricated its own chemical weapons from materials purchased from various sources, including companies in the United States in the early 1980s. From 1981 to 1984, the US government turned a blind eye to reports that chemical weapons were being used by Iraq against Iranian soldiers. By 1984, the world began to take notice and even the US issued condemnations against Iraqi use of the weapons.

None of these well-known facts have anything to do with the current Iraq war.

What's your purpose in bringing them up?

igbalonigbanlo said...

P.Rich: I wonder how fast the place was supposed to trend upwards after the end of apartheid since by it's very existence apartheid essentially made it almost impossible for the black majority population to get educated properly in order to be meaningful contributors to society.

I suspect since apartheid was their fault in that they lost the war when they were invaded their lack of preparation to handle life after the end of apartheid was also their fault. The blacks there apparently were too busy fighting for equality that they forgot to plan for the day they might actually be equal (or maybe they never thought they would get to uhuru), that is their fault but tacitly blaming the end of apartheid for the downward trend of a country where most of 80% of the population were deliberately undereducated to ensure their suppression is just funny to me.

Or how fast did you expect SA to trend uphill? Since you know better (or like the perfect paul a barge of the "international mediocrity" fame) tell us how that would have been achieved with a majority illiterate population. Or maybe apartheid should never have been abolished. Let us know how you O perfect one would have done it.

m stone said...

I agree with James Taranto of the WSJ who see the remark for what it really is:

"In this context, it is clear that the literal meaning of 'Where's Mandela?' is 'Where is the Iraqi who will play the role in his country that Mandela played in postapartheid South Africa?' This was a pithy metaphor, not an 'embarrassing gaffe.'"

Seven Machos said...

Nothing happened before 1979, when the world started. And if you people would read some books, maybe you'd understand that.

paul a'barge said...

Exalted: ...by calling mandela a "monster" and defending the odious afrikaner regime...

Pal, either you are as stump stupid as the Reuters reporter who initiated this nonsense, or you are deliberately being a knob.

I challenge you to walk back the cat and quote anyone defending the odious afrikaner regime ... go ahead, we'll wait.

Mandela wasn't out of prison very long before he revealed himself to be what he is ... a moral monster. Given that, no one who is critical of him is therefore by consequence a defender of other moral monsters.

So, rise to the challenge, and quote the comment that defends SA apartheid. Or, shut up and crawl back into that moist liberal orifice from whence you were squeezed.

Sloanasaurus said...

This is a really nasty smear by the mainstream media. The AP is now running the smear on Yahoo News, The headline is "Mendala alive after embarassing Bush remark."

Althouse is right. Either the members of the media are complete idiots not to understand what Bush was talking about or they are purposely trying to smear him...

I wonder which one it is?

The AP story is incredible, it actually reads as if Bush thought Nelson Mendala was killed by Saddam Hussein.

I love the last line of the AP story:

"References to his death -- Mandela is now 89 and increasingly frail -- are seen as insensitive in South Africa."

Sloanasaurus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sloanasaurus said...

3,800 dead Americans, 28,000 wounded Americans, untold 1,000's of dead Iraqi civilians, electricity available 20% of the day, Al Queada expanding by the day, approaching 1 trillion in taxpayer dollars spent, millions in missing funds, corruption charges leveled at many of the contractors, an Iraqi parliament that has done

Lucky, you left out the part about no attacks on American soil since 9-11. You remember 9-11? It was an attack where Al Qaeda killed 3000 innocent civilians and cost the economy untold $trillions?

Revenant said...

read: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/81/81ali.pdf


HDHouse has a strange habit of posting links to interesting and fact-filled web pages that, when read, completely undermine his argument.

Don't get me wrong -- I appreciate that he's doing the dirty work of gathering evidence to show why his opponents are in fact correct. I just don't get why he does it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I seriously think some on here are pulling my leg

You know, I've been doing it all night just so I can hear the theme to Bells of St Mary's

laughable. preposterous. hey anyone remember ollie north? anyone remember iran hostage? anyone rememmber who sold the mustard and nerve gas to Saddam? no?

hdhouse, seriously, to quote Luckyoldson, do you even read the stuff you link? Nothing in there even implies that we sold chem/bio weapons of any kind to Saddam. Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam 20+ years ago is the best cheese you got? We sided with Iraq over Iran? Horror!

MrBuddwing said...

The AP is now running the smear on Yahoo News, The headline is "Mendala [sic] alive after embarassing [sic] Bush remark."

No, that's still Reuters. The AP didn't fall into the trap.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Don't get me wrong -- I appreciate that he's doing the dirty work of gathering evidence to show why his opponents are in fact correct. I just don't get why he does it.

Two words:

Rovian plot.

QED

Synova said...

I thought I heard this a long time ago and I *thought* it wasn't Bush bringing up the question but war opponents who think it's a potent point that a unifying leader hasn't risen in Iraq. I don't think that Bush is the one who initially brought up Mandela by name.

But (not having read 130 or more comments) I do have to wonder... Mandela was a focus point in South Africa by sitting in prison for nearly a lifetime.

For a lifetime.

While we, and the rest of the world imposed sanctions.

For a lifetime.

I'm really not certain why we look at South Africa as a success for the tactics taken to get from "there" to "here." Did any of it remove the entrenched rulers or force a change in policy any more quickly than the situation would have evolved without it?

Or (like Ghandi seemed to believe) did the oppressors just finally get tired of oppressing and quit?

Michael said...

hdhouse: I have no idea what he meant

You have spectacularly failed to convince me that you're smarter than George W. Bush.

I can write and speak better than the president, and my reading comprehension skills are considerably better than yours. I'm a professional writer by trade, and I have a degree in English Literature, but I would have been able to understand Bush's simple sentence even when I was in high school. I probably would have understood it even when I was in middle school.

George W. Bush may be the dumbest president in my life time, and he's certainly the least articulate. But it never fails to amaze me how many people who recognize his idiocy are even dumber than he is.

P. Rich said...

Find facts bothersome, Iggie? Try educating yourself rather than groveling at the feet of lib propaganda and resorting to substance-free personal comment.

From Inwood said...

Dan Rather has the answer.

It’s an e-mail letter dated sometime in 1971, tho seemingly typed on Microsoft Word, where W tells his Pa that Nixon’s Sec of War, Donald Rumsfeld, has told him that he, W, is in the National Guard to fight for staunch allies of the U.S. like President Saddam in Mesopotamia against terrorists like that Mandela fella.

What? Saddam wasn’t President of Iraq in 1971, & nobody except the NYT calls it “Mesopotamia”, & Rumsfeld wasn’t Sec of Def (Change made in 1947) until Ford became Pres? Nevermind. It’s “fake but accurate”. And anyway, it’s further evidence of W’s “reputation for verbal faux pas”.

hdhouse said...

John Stodder said...
makes them sound like a bunch of dopey rednecks or grouchy old men. In a better time, "progressives" were open-minded, tolerant, intellectually curious and made an effort to understand what others were saying, even their political foes. Now they're a bunch of raging, impotent, fist-shaking coots"

I am not impotent. I'm not a coot. I admit to raging here and there, I am progressive open-minded and particularly in your case, tolerant.

I am reminded that when Kerry made a joke about Bush and the army some time back and it was "perfectly clear" what he said and what he meant (joke told badly) you knee-jerks were all over him like a cheap suit. Now Mr. President gets up there and "does seem drunk", slurs his words, one incoherent sentence after another, and then this Medelas tripe and you say "hey, it is obvious what he meant".

Well pardner, I listened a few times and laughed every time and nearly tore my hair out in dispair...Is this the best cheese we got?

hdhouse said...

ahhh michael: permit me to help you out some -

You have spectacularly (failed spectacularly) to convince (in convincing me) that you're smarter than George W. Bush.

I can write and speak better than the president, and my reading comprehension skills are considerably better than yours.(oh really?) I'm a professional writer by trade, (is that why you use so many contractions) and I have a degree in English Literature, (whooptido) but (and) I would have been able to understand (I would have understood) Bush's simple sentence even( even? redundant) when I was in high school. I probably would (may have) (less tortured) have understood it even (not a qualifier to be used here) when I was in middle school.

George W. Bush may be the dumbest president in my life time (lifetime is one word), and he's and no "and" just go to) certainly the least articulate. But (no But..just IT) I(i)t never fails to amaze me how many people who recognize his idiocy are even (there you go again with the "evens"..stop that you silly)dumber than he is (you should end the sentence with a verb ...tisk tisk...put the period after "he").

It reads a little better this way but it still doesn’t make any sense. Good try. I am sure you can do better…or am I?:

"You have failed spectacularly in convincing me that you're smarter than George W. Bush.

I can write and speak better than the president, and my reading comprehension skills are considerably better than yours.(oh really?) I'm a professional writer by trade, (is that why you use so many contractions) and I have a degree in English Literature, (whoooptido) and I would have been able to understand Bush's simple sentence (redundant) when I was in high school. I may have (less tortured) understood it (not a qualifier to be used here) when I was in middle school.

George W. Bush may be the dumbest president in my lifetime, and certainly the least articulate. It never fails to amaze me how many people who recognize his idiocy are even dumber than he."

Gosh I know you are a professional writer but geeeze, is this your best cheese?

Sloanasaurus said...

Gosh I know you are a professional writer but geeeze, is this your best cheese?

Nice try hd.

Either you are a total idiot and you really do not understand Bush's speech, or you think it's a cute partisan trick to deny facts when you find it helpful.

Which is it?

MikeSC said...

The sad thing about the most recent Bush "blooper" is that it's the norm, not the exception.

You mean Bush is attacked by idiots who can't comprehend metaphors? You'd think people who think they can write wouldn't admit to these flaws so readily.

Pogo, assuming you have no intention of being "immoral," are you suggesting the invasion and occupation of N.Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Venezuela? Will your actions in the name of "morality" be guided by any practical considerations?

He clearly isn't. Will you now stop whining about how we become "cozy" with dictators since you oppose doing anything to oppose them?

Grunt, you know what ended the Holocaust? An external invading army ended the Holocaust.

Ditto slavery inside the US.

Anybody here understand this?

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-I-C-A-L


So, to criticize people who "didn't get" a joke that Kerry DIDN'T deliver as you claim he meant to, you are going to intentionally not get what Bush was saying?

L-O-O-K-space-I-N-space-T-H-E-space-M-I-R-R-O-R.

Do you mean allies in the sense that we and say the Brits are allies (NATO) or say allies in the sense of US&USSR v Nazi Germany in which the enemy of my enemy is my friend sense?

So, since Reagan and Bush are blamed for what Hussein did --- is FDR to blame for what Stalin did?

It reads a little better this way but it still doesn’t make any sense. Good try. I am sure you can do better…or am I?:

Do you REALLY want to subject your crap to strict scrutiny?
-=Mike

Jason said...

hdhouse,

You just made a fool of yourself. For one thing, it's obvious you don't understand the use of contractions, nor do you understand conditional and subjunctive tenses.

But it doesn't surprise me. Only a linguistic doofus could fail to understand what the President said. It all fits.

The President's meaning was perfectly clear, and accurately phrased. LOS writes that it couldn't be so, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. But that's not the case. The President is not under the obligation to speak at the level of the dumbest person in the room.

That's why you feel lost.

There's a quote I've always enjoyed from Warren Buffett: If you're playing a game of bridge, and 30 minutes into it, you don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.

No go read a book.

Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" might be a good one to start with.

Unfortunately, hd, there are no pictures in it.

AlphaLiberal said...

The idiot here is Bush. If it's such an easy statement to understand, it should be easy to say.

Freudian slip. I think Bush wishes Mandela was dead.

Pogo said...

No one is more disappointed in the lack of Churchillian oratory ability in our president than I am. Tony Blair and John Howard are far better speakers.

But the baseline hatred for Bush in the US and world media -with few exception- leads to a deliberate and relentless drive to undermine his legitimacy every single day. His words are parsed as either bellicose or idiotic, depending on which meme is favored for that story.

Here, he bumbled a bit, but his core meaning is not unclear. Except to those who wish he were not president, and find it a convenient club to hit him with.

Cyrus, when reading my post explaining how Bush's claim is valid, cannot attack the truth of it at all. He is instead reduced to attacking his own straw man.

hdhouse has in recent times made some very good points and criticisms. But in posts about Bush, he reverts to a lefty-troll-bot style that is most unreadable. A pathetic effort by the left these past few days, I think. "it should be easy to say", is only true if the President must tailor his speech to the level of first-graders rather than adults.

I understand the temptation to act as if the right is dealing with a Chauncey Gardner unawares. But really, now. Can't you get over such grade school tactics?

MikeSC said...

The idiot here is Bush. If it's such an easy statement to understand, it should be easy to say.

Freudian slip. I think Bush wishes Mandela was dead.


Yes. And Simon and Garfunkel really thought Joe DiMaggio was missing when writing "Mrs. Robinson".
-=Mike

downtownlad said...

Please.

It is so obvious that Bush thinks Mandela is dead and is using that to make an anology.

To believe otherwise just shows how much the wingnuttia is engaged in Bush Dergangement syndrome, i.e. thinking he can do no wrong.

This is what you get when you vote for a President with a sub 100 IQ.

downtownlad said...

James Taranto by the way is an anti-gay bigot.

His paper has stated quite vociferously that ALL gay people are potential pedophiles and should be treated as such.

Luckyoldson said...

Sloanasaurus said...Lucky, you left out the part about no attacks on American soil since 9-11.

You mean except for the anthrax.

Oh, and we also weren't attacked between 1994 and 2001.

Duh.

MikeSC said...

It is so obvious that Bush thinks Mandela is dead and is using that to make an anology.

To believe otherwise just shows how much the wingnuttia is engaged in Bush Dergangement syndrome, i.e. thinking he can do no wrong.


No matter what A Brilliant Mind claims, you really won't be smarter when off your meds. That you criticize Bush for being dumb when you have barely the intellectual firepower to breathe is telling.

James Taranto by the way is an anti-gay bigot.

His paper has stated quite vociferously that ALL gay people are potential pedophiles and should be treated as such.


Then linking to these comments should be exceptionally easy for you. I mean, with them being so vociferous and all.
-=Mike
...dtl, you are funny.

# 56 said...

DTL, joking? Taranto is pro gay marriage, more a libertarian than conservative of social issues. Although he does enjoy poking the abortion crowd with occasional Roe Effect pieces.
By the way, all gay people are POTENTIAL pedophiles, as are the rest of society. You too have potential, use it. Get out of Downtown and be somebody!

MrBuddwing said...

Agence France Press isn't known for being a Bush shill, but it didn't seem at all confused about this story (unlike Reuters):

"WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush on Thursday declared there were no more "Mandelas" left to help aid reconciliation in Iraq because former dictator Saddam Hussein had killed them all."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrQCcuzVHxb_sBlhF0jAsgXeoIGw

MrBuddwing said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gedaliya said...

James Taranto by the way is an anti-gay bigot.

Piffle.

Post a link or two to back this up kid, or we'll figure you're just making it up.

downtownlad said...

"Then linking to these comments should be exceptionally easy for you. I mean, with them being so vociferous and all.
-=Mike
...dtl, you are funny." - MikeSC

Oh it is so fun watching the wingnuts deny reality.

"Where does post-modern American ethics place Mark Foley's homosexuality on a scale of 1 to 10--a 1 being just another gay guy and a 10 being a compulsive, predatory sex offender?"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110009050


Hmmm. I wonder where Mary Cheney falls on this scale????

I wonder where General Patreus falls on the scale of American soldiers, 1 being your regular military guy and 10 being your Haditha type sadistic killer?

I wonder where Revenant falls on the scale of straight men? A 1 for your regular frat boy up to a 10 for a psychopathic anti-gay bigot who likes to go out killiing innocent people like Matthew Shepard for sport.

Gedaliya said...

What does Daniel Henninger have to do with James Taranto?

Gedaliya said...

In addition, no one reading that piece by Henninger can possibly construe it as being "anti-gay."

Did you even read the piece?

Chip Ahoy said...

Of course, there are those who might argue that one would have to will oneself into a state of moral idiocy to believe that Mr. Bush (blah blah blah extra crap indicating a certain derangement ) has any right to ever invoke Mr. Mandela...

Yes, and those arguers would be just as idiotic. He didn't evoke Mandela, the questioner did.

This is as far as I got in the comments. Too many here to waste time with nonsense like this. I had hoped for better.

MikeSC said...

Oh it is so fun watching the wingnuts deny reality.

"Where does post-modern American ethics place Mark Foley's homosexuality on a scale of 1 to 10--a 1 being just another gay guy and a 10 being a compulsive, predatory sex offender?"

THAT is "vociferous"? Dear God, you're being SERIOUS?

I wonder where General Patreus falls on the scale of American soldiers, 1 being your regular military guy and 10 being your Haditha type sadistic killer?

Ironic since charges are being dropped against them as their trials come up.

BTW, does this mean that you hate soldiers?

I wonder where Revenant falls on the scale of straight men? A 1 for your regular frat boy up to a 10 for a psychopathic anti-gay bigot who likes to go out killiing innocent people like Matthew Shepard for sport.

Do you also hate heterosexuals?
-=Mike

MikeSC said...

Also, should we assume that your employer ALSO hates soldiers and heterosexuals since somebody under him/her wrote such vociferously anti-soldier and anti-heterosexual comments as you did, DTL?
-=Mike

Trooper York said...

When people are in love, I don't see anything wrong with it in the world. If they choose to live their lives and get married, why should we interfere? A lot of people don't agree with me, but that's how I feel.
LaToya Jackson

Luckyoldson said...

Chip Ahoy said..."This is as far as I got in the comments. Too many here to waste time with nonsense like this. I had hoped for better."

We'll do our best Chipper.

Sorry if we're living up to your expectations.

Gosh, you're smart...

Luckyoldson said...

Mandela just put out a hit on Saddam Hussein.

Will the killing never end?

hdhouse said...

Ohhhh Pogo...fell into the trap did you?

I'm reminded of Robert Benchley's famous line about being in an imagined court and the examiner asking him if he would be more comfortable if the questions were asked in baby language to which he replied, certainly, if that would make it easier for you.

So let me get this straight...when bush looses his fake tex-cowhand drawl and slurs his words and generally sounds drunk as a skunk he is really talking at a 1st grade level so people can understand him? Is that would you said Pogo?

A pity.


OHHH and a quick note to Jason....Mr. Bush wasn't speaking in Spanish...or was he...but since he was attempting the unreal conditional tense, he forget the "if" ... but then again you seem to be far the better english scholar...i can tell by how well you write, how lucidly you meld thought to pen and ink, how crisply you etch your phrase...ohhh you artful dodger!

downtownlad said...

What does Daniel Henninger have to do with James Taranto?

Um - let's see. He's the freaking EDITOR of OpinionJournal.com, which published the piece. Duh!!!

"In addition, no one reading that piece by Henninger can possibly construe it as being "anti-gay."

Wrong. When you're a self-avowed anti-gay bigot, as Gedaliya PROUDLY claimed she was the other day on Ann's blog, then of course you're too myopic to see this as anti-gay. Not only did a read the piece, but I cancelled my subscription that day. The piece was widely disparaged in the gay comunity. That's why James Taranto has ZERO gay friends, and ZERO gay people working for him.

As for hating the soldiers, well EVERY soldier serving in the military is a bigot and hates gay people by default (as they are endorsing an institution that expels gay people), so as long as they hate me, I hate them.

And as for heterosexuals, I hate the vast majority of them, as they have voted to make me a second-class citizen in this country. Do I hate you? Of course.

downtownlad said...

It's so funny to see wingnuts like Mikesc defend the murder of at least 15 innocent Iraqis in Haditha.

That's why I hate people like Mikesc - they are are evil.

Just because charges are dropped against some soldiers does not allow one to make the conclusion that the incident itself never happened.

I suppose he believes that since nobody was found guilty in the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, that the murders must have never happened either.

Absurd. There are 24 dead people from Haditha. How did they die if they weren't murdered, and please present one iota of evidence to support your claim.

Jason said...

downtownlad,

Shit happens in a war zone, scoop. But then, since you're so factually clueless you don't know the difference between a soldier and a marine, I don't expect you to realize that.

You might, however, realize that people can die without being murdered. After all, I don't recall you calling for a deep fat fryer for Ted Kennedy to avenge Mary Jo Kopechne.

Revenant said...

I wonder where Revenant falls on the scale of straight men? A 1 for your regular frat boy up to a 10 for a psychopathic anti-gay bigot who likes to go out killiing innocent people like Matthew Shepard for sport.

I sometimes wonder what the occasional newcomer to these forums makes of DTL's habit of introducing a rant about homosexuality into every topic. It must seem oddly jarring if you aren't expecting it.

But there's certainly amusement value in the way he defines the entire range of heterosexuality as stretching from "frat boy" to "homicidal".

Revenant said...

Do you also hate heterosexuals?

Yes, he hates heterosexuals. But don't feel like he's singling us out, because he pretty much hates all the gay people too. So far as I'm aware, the only human being he's ever said nice things about is himself.

MikeSC said...

Wrong. When you're a self-avowed anti-gay bigot, as Gedaliya PROUDLY claimed she was the other day on Ann's blog

Considering how nebulous your view of blatant homophobia is --- I'd LOVE a link to this.

Disliking YOU and hating GAY PEOPLE is not the same thing.

Not only did a read the piece, but I cancelled my subscription that day. The piece was widely disparaged in the gay comunity.

Wow, the gay community is sensitive. Are any of you sane?

As for hating the soldiers, well EVERY soldier serving in the military is a bigot and hates gay people by default (as they are endorsing an institution that expels gay people), so as long as they hate me, I hate them.

I doubt the soldiers give a damn about you one way or the other. Most people don't.

And as for heterosexuals, I hate the vast majority of them, as they have voted to make me a second-class citizen in this country. Do I hate you? Of course.

Feel free. I'd hate you, but my pity for you is overpowering.

It's so funny to see wingnuts like Mikesc defend the murder of at least 15 innocent Iraqis in Haditha.

And, let me guess, those Duke lacrosse players really DID rape that stripper, right?

That's why I hate people like Mikesc - they are are evil.

Hmm, noting the dismissal of charges = evil?

Nobody thinks of gay people as being inferior to them. They just think of YOU as being inferior to them.

Just because charges are dropped against some soldiers does not allow one to make the conclusion that the incident itself never happened.

It means the soldiers you are slandering didn't do it.

Absurd. There are 24 dead people from Haditha. How did they die if they weren't murdered, and please present one iota of evidence to support your claim.

To be blunt, I don't care how they died. The marines didn't do it --- as the whole charges being dropped is indicating.

I guess finding out what happened is not needed as long as you can have your two minutes of hate, right lad?

Yes, he hates heterosexuals. But don't feel like he's singling us out, because he pretty much hates all the gay people too. So far as I'm aware, the only human being he's ever said nice things about is himself.

Well, Revenant, SOMEBODY has to say something nice about him. God knows nobody else in the world would do so.
-=Mike

Jason said...

house,

I wasn't referring to the President's grammar. I was referring to yours.

hdhouse said...

Jason said...
house,I wasn't referring to the President's grammar. I was referring to yours."

See Jason, if you wrote with more clarity many of us wouldn't find ourselves hopelessly confused by your intentions. But until that sun rises we will just have to keep puttering along dreaming the impossible dream of debating with someone (well, how can I put this gently) ....gosh I can't put it nicely...so as Mom used to say "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all".

downtownlad said...

The wingnuts like MikeSc get giddy when innocent Iraqis died. We know that South Carolinians hate people who aren't white, but thinking murder is cool is kind of shocking.

Jason said...

Sorry, house.

Like the President, I don't feel the need to calibrate my comments to suit the dumbest person in the room.

I know that makes you feel left out sometimes.

I really don't give a rat's ass.

The Exalted said...

paul,

there are posts defending mandela's imprisonment and cheney's support of the afrikaner regime, aka, they defended the afrikaner regime. likely including yours with the substance that mandela was "moral monster."

thanks for playing.