I asked him if he had enjoyed the fame.
"Yeah, to a certain extent. I mean, it wasn't my life. It wasn't the center of my life. But I mean, when you're -- let me rephrase that. I enjoyed being president. And when you're president, you're famous. Now whether I enjoyed fame itself, I just, you know, you'd have to get the psychoanalyst on me," he said....
"I don't long for [fame]. Nor do I long for power. I've come to realize that power can be corrosive if you've had it for too long," Bush said. "It can dim your vision. And so I came to the conclusion that, you know, I don't long for fame. And really, gonna shy away from it. Not shy away from it. Avoid it. I'm not very shy. Avoid it."
३१ मे, २०१३
"Fame can become very addictive. And I've had all the fame a man could want."
Said George Bush.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११० टिप्पण्या:
Good man.
Some of us knew it all along.
Interesting he came out against AmnestyCare.
W needs to do Dancing With The Stars. Then we will see how he handles fame.
come to realize that power can be corrosive if you've had it for too long," Bush said. "It can dim your vision. And so I came to the conclusion that, you know, I don't long for fame. And really, gonna shy away from it. Not shy away from it. Avoid it.
-----
Can you imagine the current President ever saying this?
Ever?
By fame I assume he means fawning attention.
GWB. The opposite of a progressive Hollywood narcissist.
It would appear he understands the power of the One Ring, and has managed to let it go, albeit at a high price.
I love GW but he's so freaking awkward answering these personal response questions. It always strikes me that if he's that awkward talking about those things it's because he really doesn't know how to think about them. He's not stupid, so the things he knows how to think about he can respond to coherently.
But this personal response stuff - sounds like he just doesn't understand himself at all. Very little insight and nobody to work it out with apparently.
Miss him. Disagree wherever but he was an adult. The current occupant is an immature "nice guy" who has not moved the country forward but only whines about how he can't lead because the mean Republicans won't follown him. Funny how you never heard such stuff from Bush and he also had a divded Congress.
Miss him everyday.
Obama whines about Constitutional limits on power and violates them.
if phx finds Bush's answers incoherent, that doesn't necessarily mean Bush is the one who is incoherent.
I love GW but he's so freaking awkward answering these personal response questions. It always strikes me that if he's that awkward talking about those things it's because he really doesn't know how to think about them.
Perhaps some people are not comfortable talking about themselves. W always struck me as a guy who is very private, if not humble. On the other hand you have the likes of Obama or Clinton who, when they get tired of talking about themselves, implore others to pick up where they leave off.
It's just the difference between an ordinary person and a narcissist.
This is a fundamentally decent man. It is part of why the lefts efforts to destroy him never gained much traction, despite having the press in their pocket.
phx complains about style, not substance. Which perfectly fits with the superficiality and political expediency of the left. President uhh...uuhh...uuh ..Teleprompter Jesus escapes scrutiny for being even worse than Bush when it comes to public speaking.
Cn you imagine any Dem saying this?
But this personal response stuff - sounds like he just doesn't understand himself at all. Very little insight and nobody to work it out with apparently.
It's how he was raised, where you let your character do the talking. Before Bill "boxers or briefs" Clinton, no other President was any different. Kennedy, Eisenhower, Regan, Truman, Lincoln. I'm glad Bush is in that category. Again, it's the difference between an adult and, well, someone who is still a boy.
GWB's opinion on fame spreads like wildfire.
But this personal response stuff - sounds like he just doesn't understand himself at all. Very little insight and nobody to work it out with apparently. -phx
Utter narcissistic projection and conjecture. How the hell could you possibly know BETTER than Bush how he see's himself?
You haven't a clue as to how he see's or understands himself. You just don't want to give him any credit whatsoever. Just another mindless lefty "Booosh is STOOOPID" accusation, revealing more about the person making the charge than the subject of the charge.
Don't be such a douche.
phx complains about style, not substance.
Actually I don't think I was complaining about his style. I like GW's style.
I was noting his substantial inability to coherently discuss his personal responses to his experiences since being elected.
I don't disagree he's a fundamentally decent man. I think he's inarticulate on these issues for a reason though, and it can't be blamed on "he was raised not to talk about himself." He's a grown-ass adult with rich experiences that most of us will never dream of. If he can't talk about it it's because he doesn't understand significant aspects, IMO.
Don't be such a douche.
Take it back.
...sounds like he just doesn't understand himself at all.
Nonsense. The indication that a man knows himself is whether he recognizes and takes responsibility for his limitations and failures.
If there is one thing that George shared with Reagan was understanding himself and his limitations. Neither man ever focused on or crowed about his victories. Both focused on how to meet the next challenge. Not always successfully - all men are fallible - but with the knowledge and sense of what they could personally bring to bear on a problem and then applying it.
Neither men ever made excuses for their failures. Both were apt to take responsibility for them, apologize for them, learn from them, and move on. Romney shared that same sense of personal responsibility for his actions and their consequences.
None of these qualities are evident in Obama. That's the stark contrast between Bush and Obama. Between taking responsibility and avoiding it and between leadership and being a figurehead. The left in its shallow and selfish norm will never see this.
Too bad for America and the world he didn't have that view before he decided to run for governor and president. The guy is full of crap. His whole family is power hungry. W now wants his brother to be prez. One of the most power-hungry families to ever exist. And boy did W make a mess of things. When he left office America felt less like America than I ever imagined I'd live to see.
There is something a little Gollum-like about all aspirants to power, but to my mind, especially progressives.
Idealists and true-believers, no keys for you.
everyone else understood what he said phx. ponder that.
See, in TEXAS we have a phrase, "shy away from" like a horse shies from a snake, or a good Baptist shies away from a hooker, or a recovering alcoholic on Antabuse shies from Happy Hour, without being akshully shy towards other people, if you know what I mean, that's the problem with French it doesn't have a word for them double intenderies.
A little too much circular firing squad here. phx didn't say anything about Bush that he probably wouldn't happily say himself.
When we bend over too far to praise the man, we look almost as silly as the commenters at Huffpo who are mortally offended by an article saying actual nice things about the former President. Maybe "almost" is too strong. 10% or so...cause those commenters over there sure are silly.
phx said...
But this personal response stuff - sounds like he just doesn't understand himself at all.
Actually, it sounds like you're stupid.
He doesn't understand himself!!!!
"I don't long for [fame].... Nor do I long for power... I'm not very shy. Avoid it."
Not at all!!
What kind of moron takes to the Internet to say such stupid shit?
everyone else understood what he said phx.
By everyone else you mean "diehard righties"? That's supposed to impress me?
Bush revealing himself to be sickeningly normal. THE BASTARD!
Arnold Schwartzenager (sp?) said a similar thing as he left the governership - that the power can be addicting and he would surely miss it.
We've given so much power to our government, it really tends to attract the kind of person for the job. It seems to attract the power hungry. As a result, we are becoming subjects not citizens.
By everyone else you mean "diehard righties"? That's supposed to impress me?
No, we mean real human beings. Yuo should try to get out and meet some sometime.
By everyone else you mean "diehard righties"?
Loafing Oaf got it. you didn't. so therefore Bush must not know himself. logical.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln.
@phx -- Actually I think the rephrasing is the sign of a person who is thoughtful. It is difficult to turn insight into words. The fact that W makes a point of differentiating between shyness and avoidance is telling. A glib talker would have just stuck with the first thing that came into his or her head and blustered forward to the next thought.
There are some few people who are both loquacious and thoughtful. But most of the time the ability to talk and the ability to reveal are not all that connected.
To paraphrase whatshername:
It is always tempting to attrib
unlikely virtues to the glib.
First, Bush is really smart. And I mean really smart -- more so than most of us. But, so is Obama and Clinton and just about anyone else that has become president. Bush campaigned strategically as a "every-man" type of politician, so he played down his intelligence. This worked because although he's really smart, he's not fluid in his delivery and that frustrates many of us who think we’re smart.
I'm very interested in how History will ultimately judge his presidency. I think his leadership through 9/11 was extraordinary -- certainly the best response to crisis I've ever seen. I also think his response to Hurricane Katrina was far better than the press gave him credit -- he did the right things for NOLA but he lost the narrative.
But I think after long years of distillation, two issues will emerge as critical judgment points. 1) the invasion of Iraq with missing WMD and, 2) Approving torture techniques on terrorist detainees. Once we really know how the decision to invade Iraq came to be, he may get a pass on the invasion -- possibility a CORRECT (based on available information) but BAD (based on hindsight) decision. The torture issue is going to be much tougher.
I believe there is a legitimate case to be made that he could be prosecuted as a war criminal. (That Obama hasn't addressed this also makes him complicit, complicating the narrative).
My personal view is that Bush was a good president in a very tough time and far better than either alternative. He made some wise and unwise choices in difficult circumstances. And he's done a lot since leaving office to improve judgment of him and to demonstrate he's a decent man who once held a lot of power.
Let's compare wives.
Mrs. Obama never saw a luxurious vacation she wouldn't take.
Mrs. Bush went camping with friends.
"Can you imagine the current President ever saying this?
Ever?"
Of course. But Bush actually means it.
You go from being the most important and powerful man in the world to being just another celebrity. There's some decompression involved. Bush and his father have both handled it gracefully. The Bush family, whatever you think of their policies and judgement, is sane and centered.
Was Tom embarrassed by his praise for W or by his charge Bush is a potential war criminal? Come on, Tom, have the courage of your convictions and re-post your comment.
George W is a decent fellow for a liberal. If the left had a scrap of decency, they would openly acknowledge that the war policies created by the Bush Administration have been continued in their entirety by Obama.
When he left office America felt less like America than I ever imagined I'd live to see.
Since your imagination seems so keen, how do you imagine Algore or Sen Swift Boat would have done? Did you ever imagine what's taken place since? Is America more like the the America you've imagined now? Is it still Bush's fault? Imagining minds want to know.
bpm4532 said...
Let's compare wives.
Let's not. For once. Please.
Some people say freaking awkward and some say modest and humble.
Same same.
"When he left office America felt less like America than I ever imagined I'd live to see."
And how does it look now after 5 years of Obama? More like America? More like Europe? Less like freedom? More like a dictatorship? More like a country out to destroy itself from within.
Maybe it's a matter of passing time and degree of slide. Faster with libs slower with conservatives, but always down.
And really, gonna shy away from it. Not shy away from it. Avoid it. I'm not very shy. Avoid it."
Typical word salad from a complete imbecile.
Typical word salad from a complete imbecile.
Don H obviously knows his competition. I'll have fries.
Don H no understand. Bush words confuse and frighten him.
Carter and Clinton. two guys who can't let go of the spotlight.
"everyone else understood what he said phx.
By everyone else you mean "diehard righties"? That's supposed to impress me?
Count me in with the ones who understand, and are bright enough to know that a Yale MBA, fighter pilot, recovered alcoholic that stayed sober and became a successful Texas Governor, and U.S. President is likely not a "complete imbecile", and probably knows himself pretty well.
Do you really need to be a "diehard righty" to see that? It seems more likely that you need to be a diehard lefty to not see it.
Here's what I don't like about Bush.After Obama was elected, there was talk about prosecuting a number of Bush underlings.Bush remained silent.It was Cheney who spoke up in their defense.
When he left office America felt less like America than I ever imagined I'd live to see.
Same for me.
And it's getting even less even faster now.
There's something so normal about this.
Clearly W does not have a ready answer for questions about celebrity, not having deeply considered, agonized about, the issue.
Which is a good thing.
A glib talker would have just stuck with the first thing that came into his or her head and blustered forward to the next thought.
Like when Vice President Joe Biden told a guy that he (Biden) had a much higher IQ then him?
"When he left office America felt less like America than I ever imagined I'd live to see."
I got this feeling at the end of Carter's term (and I voted for him) and was feeling quite a bit better after Reagan. 9/11 was gonna give the government a bunch of new power no matter who was President. Both sides were fighting to be more over-reactive than the other.
The current scandals with the IRS targeting small-time political enemies, attacks on the press, abandoning embassies without a fight, gun running, and stupid lies to cover it all up is the most un-American period I have ever lived through, and probably of all time.
Don H no understand. Bush words confuse and frighten him.
What's frightening is this abject moron was leader of the free world. His legacy totally predictable: ill advised and utterly stupid war making and an economy in smithereens when he left.
When he left office America felt less like America than I ever imagined I'd live to see.
So how do you like BHO's fix?
Appalling, I'd say.
Absolutely, utterly appalling.
And the press is still covering for him, not covering His Contemptuousness and his abuses of power.
And no -- those words and thoughts will never come out of his "let me clear's" brain or mouth.
I missed you a long time ago, W.
Keep cyclin'.
And boy did W make a mess of things. When he left office America felt less like America than I ever imagined I'd live to see.
I wonder if you would care to share specifics and for extra credit what Obama has done to rectify those issues?
A person with command of the english language is looked on as somehow suspect in America. Ergo our barely able to mouth a coherent thought presidents. You have to go back to Coolidge for short, pithy and yes, profound articulations.
Do you really need to be a "diehard righty" to see that? It seems more likely that you need to be a diehard lefty to not see it.
Maybe. So do you have a theory why he's so inarticulate? You going with the "He wasn't raised to take about himself" explanation?
LoafingOaf said...
Too bad for America and the world he didn't have that view before he decided to run for governor and president. The guy is full of crap. His whole family is power hungry. W now wants his brother to be prez. One of the most power-hungry families to ever exist. And boy did W make a mess of things. When he left office America felt less like America than I ever imagined I'd live to see.
5/31/13, 10:31 AM
Change the name to Obama and you are 100% accurate. Speaking of power hungry....naturally you don't support a Hillary run for the presidency. Like another commenter said up thread, thank God this country dodged a bullet twice, first "count every fraudulently cast ballot" Al Gore and then Lurch. So what was Bush really at fault for? Being President when the Clinton crony housing and banking IEDs went off on his watch? Or the Clinton intelligence and foreign policies disaster screw ups that were in place on 9/11?
@phx/
America abounds with a plethora of glib, articulate fools--especially in academia and the "chattering classes", I'll take inarticulate wisdom anytime..
"So do you have a theory why he's so inarticulate?"
No, because I don't really see that so much. I look at what is said and done, not how it's said or portrayed. That's how you avoid falling for stuff like "the most transparent administration ever", or |"post-racial", or "stop the rising of the oceans". Things that are nothing but articulate crap.
The comment about you being obsessed with style over substance was spot on. Obama is the poster child for this. Your poster child.
phx said...everyone else understood what he said phx.
'By everyone else you mean "diehard righties"? That's supposed to impress me?'
You can find commenters that defend George Bush in certain threads here but very commenters who defend him without reservation. Conservatives predicted ahead how and where some of his policies would fail and sometimes made the same predictions about his policies that succeeded.
The point here is that republicans of any stripe, especially conservative republicans, never put George Bush on a pedestal and don't to this day. We know his failings from our point of view. That may not agree with his point of view on his failings but both his supporters AND George know and admit that failings where there.
Contrast that with Obama, progressives in general, and you yourself in particular. Obama hasn't enough introspection or self awareness to ever admit to a failing except to say he fails to understand why his opposition does not agree with him.
Progressives in general, and you yourself as an example of them, cannot bring yourself to even entertain the idea that Obama is fallible.
The article is at Huffington Post. The writer can't help but like Bush, despite editorializing about things that "many believe" and reminding the reader of Bush's alcoholism and asking Bush if he feels bad about although those wounded and dead warriors. What to do to advance the Narrative?
Compare him to ... Carter.
"So far his post-presidency seems to be on a track more like that of Jimmy Carter, who has largely focused on a few issues dear to his heart, only occasionally making news."
And ratifying elections of dictators. And constantly running down Israel. And generally being a go-to for any tin-pot socialist leader who needs a publicity shot with an American president.
Yeah, just like that.
So do you have a theory why he's so inarticulate? You going with the "He wasn't raised to take about himself" explanation?
What makes you think he was raised that way? Again, some folks aren't as comfortable as others in tooting their own horn. Is it tour position that he's inarticulate about talking about himself is that its a flaw?
Perhaps you set a high bar for articulate responses to responding to introspection. I found it rather natural and honest. Particularly in the age of teleprompter responses.
Some people are capable, honest, or wise, as well as articulate, but the articulate part is just a bonus prize - the free tank of gas with the free car.
Being articulate is often developed as a result of needing to cover for lack of other abilities - to use as a tool for deception that is often learned very early on.
Which is worse and articulate con man or ..., well you can't really be a con man without it, can you?
America abounds with a plethora of glib, articulate fools--especially in academia and the "chattering classes", I'll take inarticulate wisdom anytime..
No doubt. My apparently very controversial argument was that if someone that bright and that rich in experience is so inarticulate about his personal experiences there must be a better reason besides "he's not comfortable talking about himself." The theory I lean towards is that he doesn't understand himself very well in his role. I could be wrong, it could also be that he is pretty uncomfortable with the results of his personal experience as president, so he doesn't like analyzing it, at least in front of the public.
Of course others don't see him as inarticulate at all, in which case there's not much for us to discuss since we have so little common agreement of the premises.
Perhaps you set a high bar for articulate responses to responding to introspection. I found it rather natural and honest.
For most people I don't set that high a bar, Colonel. But for Presidents in particular I do. These are people who have dined with kings and been offered wings, after all.
"Of course others don't see him as inarticulate at all, in which case there's not much for us to discuss since we have so little common agreement of the premises."
Now you're getting it.
Now you're getting it.
I have no problem ignoring your bagoh20-centric comments at all. I never have.
If you don't like mine or feel we have enough in common to lay the grounds for a good discussion, feel free to shove off.
cubanbob said....Or the Clinton intelligence and foreign policies disaster screw ups that were in place on 9/11?
I agree with everything you said in your comment but this. One can point to intelligence and foreign policies disaster and screw ups over 25 years and 5 presidencies that set the stage for 9/11.
if some of those screw ups haven't been there or fallen in a different why 9/11 itself might have been prevented but all that means is that it would have been some other Islamic terror mass murder on US soil that woke some of us up. Actual culpability for that wakeup being 9/11 was AlQ's and ALQ's alone.
The idea that Obama is articulate and Bush is not is counter to the fact that Bush addressed the nation much more often without a teleprompter or a prepared response.
Discussing big things without prepared statements is a sign of honesty that this administration is completely devoid of, and shows that even they don't think Obama is articulate enough to pull it off.
I don't think GWB is inarticulate. I do think Obama is a trumped up phony, with his silly speech writers and his pathetic teleprompter.
and.. what Bagoh said.
Are the sea levels lower yet?
"I have no problem ignoring your bagoh20-centric comments at all. I never have."
You have two problems: You can't effective argue against my comments, and you can't ignore them. Ignoring is far easier, but you can't even do that.
phx is lying. she understood Bush just fine but wanted to bash a little and say the man doesn't know himself.
You have two problems: You can't effective argue against my comments, and you can't ignore them.
Oh, okay. I guess you told me.
For most people I don't set that high a bar, Colonel. But for Presidents in particular I do. These are people who have dined with kings and been offered wings, after all.
Fair enough. Personally I think its just he isn't comfortable with "look at me and what I've done" types of discussions. Perhaps its because of the legacy he left or just because that's just the type of person he is. I think the latter since he would just shun these types of interviews if it was the former.
Fair enough. Personally I think its just he isn't comfortable with "look at me and what I've done" types of discussions. Perhaps its because of the legacy he left or just because that's just the type of person he is. I think the latter since he would just shun these types of interviews if it was the former.
Completely logical and a decent counterargument.
The rest of you posers take note how you argue a point that can't be proven one way or another. Where you get this childish "You're lying!" or monomaniacal "You can't effective argue against my comments" is beyond me.
Learn from your betters.
phx said...My apparently very controversial argument was that if someone that bright and that rich in experience is so inarticulate about his personal experiences
You don't seem to grasp the controversy or are trying to deflect it with one logical fallacy after another.
Here's a cluebat. People are not addressing your wonderment over George Bush's failure to understanding himself and why that should be, which was your point before you restated it, because they do not agree with the strawman premise.
There is every indication that Bush understands himself very well. That you cannot see that is your failing to understand what the indicators are.
If you were to ever leave the comfort of the shallow waters that being a progressive restricts you to you might begin to understand. But I hold out little hope of that for any Obama fanboy. You prefer the shallows versus critical thinking.
Bush was faced with recession and 9/11 right at the beginning of his first term, then two terms with two wars, and all the constant terrorist threats after 9/11, and much more. He handled it without attacking the press, or individual companies and citizens. He talked openly and often unprepared about these things.
Obama's biggest challenges are his own administration's corruption, and you can't go off-the-cuff with that stuff, especially if every time you do, you tell a bold-faced lie that nobody buys except your sycophants.
The rhetorical challenges before the two men is not even comparable, yet Obama is struggling to avoid saying anything, especially without it be carefully prepared and well vetted so it can be walked back later.
You prefer the shallows versus critical thinking.
Fine. Do YOU have a theory then why he's so inarticulate when he talks about his personal responses to his experiences as president. Or do you simply say "He's not inarticulate!"
Maybe you cosign to Colonel Angus's beliefs on the matter?
"You have two problems: You can't effective argue against my comments, and you can't ignore them.
Oh, okay. I guess you told me."
I am fucking irresistible, ain't I?
Where you get this childish "You're lying!" or monomaniacal "You can't effective argue against my comments" is beyond me.
I tried to give you an out but you're doubling down on feigning stupidity. you understood what he said.
Is it tour position that he's inarticulate about talking about himself is that its a flaw?
Maybe he just hates talking about himself? Lots of people are like that. I loathe interview questions that focus on interpersonal nonsense rather than work.
That said, I didn't find him inarticulate, at least in the quote. He was clarifying his thoughts, rather than rattling off talking points. That's far more interesting. (and chip's right about the shy away thing. Maybe he thought the interviewer wouldn't understand and that was the reason for his clarification)
I am fucking irresistible, ain't I?
Yes. You're like my retarded brother, but I love ya.
my apologies phx. didn't know mental retardation ran in your family. I now believe you actually couldn't understand the words coming out of Bush's mouth.
It's a face to face conversation - not a speech for Christ sake. Any transcript of any conversation reads like that. Are you going to read all the umms and aahs, in an Obama discussion and say he's articulate. This is just stupid partisanship on display here.
Obama's biggest challenges are his own administration's corruption, and you can't go off-the-cuff with that stuff, especially if every time you do, you tell a bold-faced lie that nobody buys except your sycophants.
Witness the ‘I just found out about this on the news’ comment that he brings out every time something bad happens that he actually knew about. Having a well prepared lie is NOT more laudable than an imperfectly stated truth
phx, dude, seriously? There are other posts. You're done in here.
Phx has been told that George W. Bush is stupid. Phx accepts this without critical examination. Hence phx assumes that anything Bush says is stupid. No need to delve into his accomplishments, and barely any need to read what he actually said.
Phx confuses glibness with intelligence. Phx is smart enough to grasp that this is not a good thing. So phx insists she is not confusing glibness with intelligence. But she is.
So let's stop feeding the troll.
phx, dude, seriously? There are other posts. You're done in here.
Dude, seriously. We always need an nonpartisan winger here to tell us who's done and who isn't.
phx, why don't you love your retarded brother, or was your phrasing just inarticulate?
Hence phx assumes that anything Bush says is stupid. No need to delve into his accomplishments, and barely any need to read what he actually said.
"I love GW but he's so freaking awkward answering these personal response questions. It always strikes me that if he's that awkward talking about those things it's because he really doesn't know how to think about them. He's not stupid, so the things he knows how to think about he can respond to coherently." phx @10:08
Talk about not reading what somewhat actually said.
Obama's biggest challenges are his own administration's corruption,
To be completely fair, Obama did walk into an economic shit storm and two ongoing military conflicts. How both turn out remains to be seen but it certainly wasn't the Carribean Cruise that Bill Clinton walked into.
Iraq was Bush's war and he never should have gone in there. The economic crisis was years in the making and there was little, if anything that he could have done to prevent it.
Fine. Do YOU have a theory then why he's so inarticulate when he talks about his personal responses to his experiences as president. Or do you simply say "He's not inarticulate!"
The second. That is the evidence in front of us. He made his points well, and he did that in full understanding of himself. Your initial argument, and I am well aware that you shifted the goalposts, was that he did neither.
The first statement is just your spin. It means that you are unable to understand what he said or a strawman you are putting up because that understanding belies the progressive meme that Bush was unintelligent.
It's beyond me why you insist on jumping into threads with nothing but inaccurate or false premises in your quiver. You act so affronted when people who can apply logic and critical thinking to understanding the subject make up their own minds and take a reasoned position.
You should fall back into your usual I don't have all the facts but I will nonetheless indict conservatives on every matter but don't hold me to it because I don't really have an opinion on it because I don't have all the facts shtick. It's more you and has the added advantage of supplying comic relief.
"To be completely fair, Obama did walk into an economic shit storm and two ongoing military conflicts. "
One conflict actually. Dubya had pretty much ended the need for our involvement in Iraq, but yea, the economy was a big issue, but other than being used to distract or justify spending on unions when needed, I don't see him much concerned with it. It's been improving and getting better ever since his inauguration. Haven't you heard?
One conflict actually. Dubya had pretty much ended the need for our involvement in Iraq, but yea, the economy was a big issue, but other than being used to distract or justify spending on unions when needed, I don't see him much concerned with it. It's been improving and getting better ever since his inauguration. Haven't you heard?
Actually it has improved since 2008 although more due to the natural economic cycle then anything he has proposed and despite the additional $6 trillion in debt. It remains to be seen if growth continues and if he can spend more time golfing or glad handing his cronies than pushing more progressive crap, I'll wager it will continue to improve.
All, I think my comment was removed (or at least I did not remove it). I stand my statement that Bush could be charged.
I don't think the final judgement of Bush ends there, just as the assessment of Andrew Jackson doesn't end with the Trail of Tears. It's complicated.
First, Bush is really smart. And I mean really smart -- more so than most of us. But, so is Obama and Clinton and just about anyone else that has become president. Bush campaigned strategically as a "every-man" type of politician, so he played down his intelligence. This worked because although he's really smart, he's not fluid in his delivery and that frustrates many of us who think we’re smart.
I'm very interested in how History will ultimately judge his presidency. I think his leadership through 9/11 was extraordinary -- certainly the best response to crisis I've ever seen. I also think his response to Hurricane Katrina was far better than the press gave him credit -- he did the right things for NOLA but he lost the narrative.
But I think after long years of distillation, two issues will emerge as critical judgment points. 1) the invasion of Iraq with missing WMD and, 2) Approving torture techniques on terrorist detainees. Once we really know how the decision to invade Iraq came to be, he may get a pass on the invasion -- possibility a CORRECT (based on available information) but BAD (based on hindsight) decision. The torture issue is going to be much tougher.
I believe there is a legitimate case to be made that he could be prosecuted as a war criminal. (That Obama hasn't addressed this also makes him complicit, complicating the narrative).
My personal view is that Bush was a good president in a very tough time and far better than either alternative. He made some wise and unwise choices in difficult circumstances. And he's done a lot since leaving office to improve judgment of him and to demonstrate he's a decent man who once held a lot of power.
From personal experience I know fame and power can be addictive. I come here as a humble, anonymous commenter to help fight my addiction to them.
W. A class act. Libs/progs can't get their minds around that.
phx: "Yes. You're like my retarded brother, but I love ya."
If you really had a brother who was retarded, you would never have used the word "retarded".
@phx, you write that "he's not stupid" but your belief system is otherwise.
It is pretty amusing that Loafing Oaf felt that America was not America after Bush left.
How about now after the Jug Eared Jesus continued most if not all of W's policies in places like Gitmo and the war on terror. Stepping it up in fact with constitutional violations left and right. Using drones to kill American Citizens. Using the IRS to destroy political opponents. Wiretapping and reading the emails of journalists.
I think you need to concentrate on Sarah Palin's vagina buddy.
Phx wrote:
You prefer the shallows versus critical thinking.
Fine. Do YOU have a theory then why he's so inarticulate when he talks about his personal responses to his experiences as president. Or do you simply say "He's notinarticulate"
what do you inarticulate in his discussion? MAYBE you're looking to paint what he says as inarticulate because you have been beating the bush is dumb drum for so long that you can't say anything but that.
Maybe it's just me, but I got where he was coming from and it didnt strike me as all that inarticulate.
What an odd way to talk. Just more proof that Bush II just wanted to *be* President, as opposed to doing things AS President.
Some men want power to change things, others just want power. Or fame.
Smart man.
"But this personal response stuff - sounds like he just doesn't understand himself at all. Very little insight and nobody to work it out with apparently."
Really? I think he sounds just right in this quote.
Just more proof that Bush II just wanted to *be* President, as opposed to doing things AS President.
what odd thinking. probably proof of something odd about your brainpan. care to explain how you got from A to B?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा