QUOTE (cyrano @ Dec 27 2008, 18.17)

He is a book lover!

according to Karl Rove

Wow, could I have been misjudging and misunderestimating him all these years?

Until we found out exactly which books he's reading, don't back down from anything. Seriously, he probably counted every 'Little Engine that could' book he read to 3rd grade classes during terrorist attacks.

Maybe its unfair to attack him from all sides, but I've got to ask the question; where the fuck does he find time to run the country while reading nearly 100 books in a year? I mean yeah I can burn through a book in a day or two...if I spend all day reading it. But here he is burning through what amounts to a book every 4 days while juggling Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, general international affairs, the press (ok, so he doesn't really bother with that one), the economy, natural disasters, scandals, etc...I mean where does he find the time?

QUOTE

On today's Countdown with Kieth Olbermann on MSNBC Mr. Olbermann reported that the current count for vacation days taken by Bush is 405. Two out of every 5 days, almost 20% of his total presidency. And that's not even counting time at Camp David, just days spent in Crawford tending to brush.

Ok...makes sense now.

QUOTE (Starkess @ Dec 28 2008, 17.19)

BUT I don't think there is any reason to believe that he doesn't enjoy reading. I'm quite sure his reading level is higher than "The Little Engine That Could." And just because he has trouble with a teleprompter doesn't mean he has low reading comprehension. Do y'all know anyone who struggles with mild dyslexia? It doesn't make you stupid.

This would assume that his poor speaking and occasional Bushism's are the only reason some people find him stupid. Its not. Its not even that significant of one.

QUOTE (Starkess @ Dec 28 2008, 17.19)

I don't think one should be ashamed of their taste in books.

Some people clearly should. And movies too. And television. To qualify that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking bad stuff. So long as you realize its bad. When they start to make claims that its high quality rather than a guilty pleasure, than I think its fair to question their taste. And judgment. Good sense. And sanity.

QUOTE (Starkess @ Dec 28 2008, 18.26)

I know you think that. You're of the "ridicule anyone who disagrees with me" club.

I'm part of the ridicule people who say things as dumb as what you just said. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with my tastes or opinions. I like some pretty bad shit at times. But I generally know that its bad. And I don't insist otherwise. There are absolutely objective standards of quality and some works of 'art' simply don't live up to even the most minimal ones. There's room for intelligent, informed disagreement, but some examples are pretty self-evident. (Godfather is good, Christmas with the Kranks is not. And anyone who says otherwise is a moron. But on say...The Thin Red Line there is a wide gulf of opinion amongst intelligent, critical film-goers.) I won't knock anyone for liking bad books, films, etc. But when they try to insist that they're good and yet (as is usually the case) can't explain to me why they think its good, I'll typically form a negative opinion of their taste, judgment, and understanding of the art form in general. A negative and usually quite accurate opinion.

QUOTE (Starkess @ Dec 28 2008, 18.26)

I don't see why it's legitimate to assume that because you hate someone they are incapable of doing anything good

And more dumb shit courtesy of you. Because absolutely noone has suggested or even hinted anything close to this. I don't know whether you're intentionally misrepresenting what others are saying or whether you lack reading comprehension.

QUOTE (Starkess @ Dec 28 2008, 18.26)

I mean, fine, whatever. I have no hope of changing the attitude on this board, but when it's so blatant I can't sit by and not try to point it out.

Thus far you're the only one whose gotten pissy in this thread and the rest of the board has the attitude problem? What the hell is wrong with a little light hearted ridicule of a public figure who is absolutely deserving of ridicule?

QUOTE (mcbigski @ Dec 28 2008, 21.00)

Doesn't really surprise me that the board, in general, is so anti-Bush that they'd make an issue out of this.

The facts are as follows:

Bush graduated (even as a legacy) from Yale.
Bush went to Harvard business school for his post grad.
Bush flew fighter jets in the air national guard.
A large majority of Americans think Bush is an idiot.

Based on the first three, I can only conclude that a majority of people who say Bush is an idiot are actually dumber than he is.

Tell me which of those schools he gets near without his last name. Look, I don't think anyone here is saying he's too stupid to tie his own shoes or to appreciate the finer literary points of The Little Engine that Could. But there's more than enough to fairly suggest that he's an intellectual lightweight who possess minimal curiosity about the world around him. That he either lacks understanding of a number of issues related to his job or simply doesn't care about any finer details. And that he's never attempted to expand his understanding or challenge his preconceptions in any significant way.

You don't have to be anti-Bush to see this. Its rather obvious.

QUOTE (mcbigski @ Dec 28 2008, 16.02)

I still suspect that people who think he is an intellectual lightweight tend to be judging him more by the lack of their agreement with their previously held conclusions than by an objective assessment of his thought processes.

And I think this statement is complete bullshit and little more than a slight variation of the 'You think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid!!' crap posted above you. For someone coming in here criticizing others for unfairly judging Bush, you seem pretty keen to ascribe some lesser motivations upon a bunch of people you've (probably) never met and know nothing about. At least we've got a massive public record, multiple tell-all novels, countless interviews and statements by which to form our Bush judgments. A shit-ton of people think Bush is dumb (for lack of a better term), but instead of thinking they just might be on to something, its naturally got to be our lack of objectivity and the simple fact that he disagrees with us which motivates this collective 'slander'. Right...

QUOTE (mcbigski @ Dec 28 2008, 16.02)

It's not like Bush as a reader is some sort of last minute reputation builder. His wife was a librarian, for one, and he's always been known as a reader. Kind of funny that after 8 years and two elections people are still misunderestimating him. Not that he's the next coming of Einstein, but let's remember that, based on what transcripts were released, he edged out Kerry for intellectual candle power.

Its kind of funny after 8 years and two elections when he's about to go off into the sunset and historians and commentators are set to discuss his legacy, Karl Rove would push this 'Bush is an avid reader' angle. It seems like they're getting an early start on writing the history. They had 8 years to dispute this 'Bush is a moron' perception. They chose not to. Hell, they were more than happy to cultivate it to an extent. Bush the everyman is how they were marketing him. The guy you'd like to have a beer with. And its not like anti-intellectualism has ever had trouble finding a home in the Republican Party.

QUOTE (mcbigski @ Dec 28 2008, 23.02)

Sure, you can find a whole host of people who despise Bush. 59 million voted against him in '04, so there's plenty of company. Still, the guy flew fighter jets, which takes above average intelligence. Unless you think most Republicans are just plain stupider than most Democrats then the logical conclusion is that Bush is smarter than the majority of people who think he's an idiot, regardless of what is thought about his policies as President.

Have you broken down your argument? If Republicans are not on the average dumber than Democrats, than Bush must be smarter than 51%+ of the people who think he's an idiot. You would absolutely fail at writing SAT questions man. That's nonsensical. You'd be hardpressed to find the flimsiest correlation between one and the other. Yeah people voted for the guy. But intellect probably didn't make the list of their reasons for doing so. Hell, a ton of people voted for him even acknowledging that he wasn't the brightest bulb in the box and that Gore was smarter. It didn't factor in for many and was excused due to other priorities by others. Getting 51% of the vote doesn't make him a smart guy.

But to address your real point, which I suspect is along the lines of 'there are a bunch of dumber people out there', I say 'so what?' I've seen studies where people mix up Canada and Mexico on a map and still think Iraq had something to do with 9-11, I have no doubt that there are a ton of far dumber people out there. But most of them aren't running a 7-11, let alone a country. On the short list of people who've been near the upper echelons of power in a modern Democracy, he's near the back of the class. Hell, I'm sure we've even had dumber Presidents, but not many. Compared to other people whose voice actually makes a difference in the governing of this country, he's trailing the pack by a decent margin.

QUOTE (litechick @ Dec 29 2008, 00.20)

Go ahead and sign me up for a heaping plate of that derision EHK. I'm in the camp that believes people characterize him as stupid because he disagrees with them.

It is a lazy habit of thought to assume that if people were smart and reasonable, they would think the same way you do (general you, not EHK specifically) and that if they disagree it's because they are stupid or evil.

That's where polarization comes from and it doesn't help anybody.

I'm of the opinion that one should always approach differences of opinion with an attitude of "I know you are rational and want the best but I think you are going about trying to acheive that goal in the wrong way."

What's so hard about that?

And I find this to be little more than a lazy way of dismissing the other group's argument without really addressing it. Attacking them and their motivations rather than the argument itself. And it annoys the hell out of me whenever it comes up even in non-political contexts. Yeah some people let bias or disagreement cloud their judgment, but typically that's easy to identify by the glaring flaws in their argument. But that requires actually addressing the damned argument, not just declaring that 'you think he's dumb cause you disagree with him'.

Could it be that we think he's dumb because he's given the outward appearance on countless occasions of being dumb? I can't speak for everyone, but for me I don't give a shit about disagreement. Hell, I love it. But I expect that person to be able to back up their position with sound logic and reasoning. If they cannot do so, if they form their argument with misinformation, baseless rhetoric and disingenuous bullshit, I'm not gonna try to hard to take them or their argument seriously.

I don't expect smart and reasonable people to agree with me. I do expect them to be able to explain their positions honestly and logically however.

Good post Litechick, I'll try to address it.

QUOTE (litechick @ Dec 29 2008, 02.33)

I think you mistake mcbigski's point. In an earlier post one of the points you cited in favor of Bush being an idiot was that people have written 'tell-all novels' supporting that notion. Your argument would be stronger without that bit. Any hack can write about Bush's stupidity and curry favor from an audience already predisposed to believe that and relishing 'evidence' of it.

I know that wasn't Mcbigski's point (I address what I believe to be his point later), but that was the reasoning he used to support it, so I addressed it as written. As for the books, a tell-all presumes that you have something to tell, something a random Joe on the sideline wouldn't have. I'm referring to the growing number of books written by former Administration officials who have less than stellar things to say about Bush's inquisitiveness, interest, knowledge, and understanding of important subject matter, decision-making process, and demeanor in staff meetings and at briefings. Its quite possible that the authors have an imperfect memory or an axe to grind, but dismissing them as hacks is a bit much.

QUOTE (litechick @ Dec 29 2008, 02.33)

Nora is spot on here. I would also note that she was not defending Bush as a leader so much as just breaking up a circle jerk with a dissenting opinion and she got accused of being 'pissy'.

IMO, it weakens your argument against W's intelligence to see you repeatedly call Nora dumb when anybody can see that she is not.

She got the pissy (in part) and the dumb (though I did not in fact call her that) more due to the 'You're the ridicule everyone who disagrees with you club' than she did her initial post. Than she gave further mangled BS that couldn't possibly have been derived from anything anyone wrote thus far with her 'just because you hate someone doesn't mean they're incapable of doing good' crap. The blatant misrepresentations of what others said coupled with casting suspicion (to the point of outright dismissal) upon the motivations of other posters (without justification) were the reasons I called parts of her post dumb.

My problem is what I mentioned earlier, this baseless and quite insulting assumption that we've all reached the conclusions we have simply because we hate the guy or disagree with him. That simple disagreement is ample justification for us to declare someone stupid or evil and that we can't possibly have any other reasons for doing so. We saw instances of this in the General Election thread with accusations that we're all blinded by the koolaid simply because some people actively demolished weak and disingenuous arguments. Or accusing other posters of a lynch mob mentality because they dared to criticize Obama, when in fact it was most likely because they were talking out of their ass and got called on it.

The accusation that one cannot form reasonably objective judgments (which is essentially what all this is) is pretty damned irritating. Its an attack on the credibility of the poster rather than the merits of the post. There are instances when credibility can be fairly questioned, but as I said before, the reasons for that are typically self-evident within the post itself. (whether full of baseless rhetoric, misinformation, unsupportable spin, or incredibly weak reasoning and leaps of logic) And as I said before, it seems a lazy way of avoiding the merits of an argument and even dismissing future arguments. (If I actually do simply ridicule everyone who disagrees and hate all dissenters, what merit can there possibly be to any of my arguments?) Its a cop out defense mechanism often used for indefensible arguments. After all, anyone demolishing my post too harshly surely must be too blinded by their hate or bias to know what they're talking about.

QUOTE (litechick @ Dec 29 2008, 02.33)

Now if you would like to advance an argument that it was a harmless circle jerk, people just having fun and she was an unwelcome party crasher then make that argument.

I thought I did with my "What the hell is wrong with a little light hearted ridicule of a public figure who is absolutely deserving of ridicule?" line.

QUOTE (litechick @ Dec 29 2008, 02.33)

Yes, I see that in you. You prefer debate. I prefer discussion. In a debate you have no obligation to understand and acknowledge someone else's point. In debate you simply support your argument and knock the other person's down by any means available.

Fair point. But I don't think debate (or at least honest debate) allows for 'any means available' and I try to avoid that myself. Blatant dishonesty and gross misrepresentation of evidence or arguments have no place in debate. Spin and hackery is to be avoided and reasoning shorn up when necessary or the point conceded if it cannot be (or if pride blocks concession, simply ignore it and don't bring it up again). Also I think understanding the opposition and their arguments is key to most debate. Easier to point out the flaws and anticipate the rebuttals that way.

But it is typically confrontational and people (myself included) often will cling to points or positions that have the weight of evidence and argument against them.

QUOTE (litechick @ Dec 29 2008, 02.33)

Back to topic. I once saw an interview snipet where the interviewer asked Bush what was the greatest misconception of him that he would like to clear up and Bush said what bothered him most was that people thought he was stupid.

Now clearly, "I'm not stupid" is not an argument that he can make for himself. So Rove shares this book reading game on his behalf to try and counter that image of Bush. I've got no problem with that.

Fair enough interpretation and probably more than a bit of truth to it. It would help if they didn't consciously try to cultivate (in part) that image and if the strands of anti-intellectualism in the party weren't so virulent. Some of them seem quite convinced that stupidity (or at being criminally uninformed) is a virtue and thought + education is to be viewed with suspicion.

QUOTE (G'Kar @ Jan 16 2009, 20.30)

Also, no one really answered my question (which I never really asked). People like to bash Bush, and it is easy to do so. They say he is the worst President in the history of America, and maybe thats true. But I'm wondering what good he has done for the country, and I'm seriously asking. He has been President for 8 years and has done a lot of shit (when he wasn't taking vacations). When people look back years from now, what good things will they say about Bush's presidency? Non-snarky answers please.

The biggest one that will probably be pointed to, but that's pretty much impossible to confirm either way, was keeping us safe. There have been no attacks on America since 9-11. 9-11, the War on Terror, these things have essentially defined his Presidency. But of course its impossible to say how effective his actions were. Whether his actions that any sane President would've taken were enough to ensure our security or whether his 'extra steps' did the trick. We have no idea whether to attribute this 7 years of security to any of his actions at all. But people will credit him for it. First partisans. And to some extent less agenda driven political observers and perhaps some historians.

Outside of that, I don't really know. He had no other major foreign policy coups that are of the image renovating level. He won't be cited for economic good times. I can't think of any major reforms that'll bear his name. At least none that have been proven the least bit successful. Its a good question...and I'm at a loss.

QUOTE (El-ahrairah @ Jan 16 2009, 23.11)

Farewell, soon-to-be-ex-President. May the hindsight of centuries judge you fairly.

Well met, soon-to-be-President. Where I old enough, my vote would have been cast against you last November. May the next four years prove you worthy.

And I will never quite understand this. Just the act of picking Palin alone constituted such a colossal lack of judgment that it should automatically disqualify him from office. Hell, simply placing her that close to the White House (or attempting to) may as well be an act of treason. What else was there to admire in the campaign? The thinly veiled appeals to fear and bigotry? The constant focus on petty character assassination and irrelevant non-issues while the economy burned? What was the appeal?

My 5 year old cousin was a big fan of him because they shared the same first name, and I guess that's about the best reason I've heard this election cycle for voting R.

Should Bush Admin officials be prosecuted?

Bush is not popular. Republicans just got their asses handed to them. But whose calling for heads? Where is this massive grass roots outrage? In pockets most certainly, but its not widespread enough to really call it a popular movement. And there are probably more out there who justify, excuse, or downplay the torture than who are calling for justice. Americans just don't care. At least not enough and not enough of them. We've got other pressing issues facing us that most would like our politicians and press to focus on. Those Americans also do not respond well to political lynch-mobbing. Not that that's what this is, but that is how it will be portrayed. First by the typical right wing nutjobs, and as the echo chamber escalates, the mainstream press will legitimize their rantings by discussing that prospect. Such a prosecution would give conservatives all around the nation a major platform get as self-righteous and indignant as possible...and they'll carry the argument sadly. Some will be persuaded by the thousandth shout of 'protecting innocent American children from evil terrorists!!' and others will be simply frustrated that our politicians seem intent on carrying on about issues that don't effect them while the economy burns.

Look at Clinton, Tom DeLay, Ted Stevens, Kwame Kilpatrick, the frozen money guy in Louisiana, and many others...not that their 'crimes' are equivalent or that they're all even crimes, but people tend to rally around the well-known persecuted. Sympathy for Bush and his cronies will surge. Democrats will pay a sizable political cost if they go this route. And there is the possibility that that cost may be high enough to return the torturers (or their successors) to power.

It also sets a precedent. If we go after the Republicans now, you can rest assured that they will do the same when next they're in power for violations real or imagined. This will devolve into at least one tit for tat and risks becoming the standard for party transfers of power. The new guys come in and throw the legal kitchen sink at the old guard. Whether it sticks or not you have political turmoil to the point where it may dissuade leaders from acting even when its justified and necessary.

I think this is a moment where it is more expedient and practical for principles to be compromised.

QUOTE (Kay Fury @ Jan 20 2009, 00.38)

Why should it be about a chance at power? Since when did enforcing the law become about spending political capitol? These laws are in place to put checks on executive power and to prevent the kind of things from happening that have happened.

Since its essentially one party leading the charge to prosecute the fallen leaders of the other, it very much political and political capitol absolutely comes into play. If they go after this, it most certainly will have political repurcussions for them. I have no idea how severe. But if we can drag out a loaded hypothetical, if it did come to pass that the political costs of pursuing this are severe...if it would put Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and every other relevant figure in prison but would also cost Democrats the White House and Congress in the next election, would it be worth it? If you knew that'd be the outcome would you accept another Republican takeover in order to see justice done?

QUOTE (Inigima @ Jan 20 2009, 00.29)

EHK, I understand where you're going with this, but if anything set a precedent, it was Clinton's impeachment. I don't think political cost should stand in the way of resolving what is very much a question of whether our politicians are above the law. This is a critical issue that demands resolution.

There are a hell of alot of other despicable offenses Republicans are responsible for that the Democrats, at least under Obama, have chosen to rise above. Yes that was a nasty episode, yes if it takes on the characteristic of long term political tit for tat Democrats can say 'They started it'. But that still doesn't make it a desirable reality. And it would become reality because Republicans (their leaders anyway) at their very heart are petty, vindictive children. Democrats could be equally as petty, but its not to their interests; They're not as good at it and most of their base has no stomach for it. Plus one party has to play the adult or all this eye for an eye shit is gonna leave us blind.

It has the appearance of giving in to terrorists or blaming the rape victim, but the sad fact is Republican vendetta and pettiness must be factored in to any political calculation. Whether the Republican response is remotely justified or not, we know what action they're gonna take and someone has to limit the damage their childishness will wreck. God knows I've called for blood at times and I have the taste for it here, but it doesn't work to our political advantage in this instance and is most likely not in the best interests of the country.

Sad fact is, there's probably not too many Presidents in the last century who you couldn't build a plausible case against. The overthrow of the Shah. Meddling in Latin America. Propping up brutal, oppressive dictators. Anyone who had a hand in Vietnam. More political assassinations than you can count. Coup's left and right. Countless other acts of direct or indirect unlawful destruction. Like it or not, this is American foreign policy. None of them were prosecuted for dick. There weren't even any serious calls (at least domestically) for prosecution. The de facto reality pretty much is that yes, they are above the law.

QUOTE (Inigima @ Jan 20 2009, 00.56)

In a heartbeat. And not because Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would be in prison. The goal here isn't revenge -- it's confirming the rule of law.

EDIT: I would hope that the failed policies of the Republicans would prevent such a scenario, although my faith in voters to be sensible isn't the highest. But I think the Constitutional excesses here are far more important.

I'm not as keen on handing over the reigns of the country to a bunch of ideological hacks, theocratic nutjobs, and blubbering incompetents YET AGAIN. The country has already suffered enough.

I recall more than a few stimulus checks during the Bush tenure. I don't think Bush had to pass those things over overwhelming Democratic/Republican opposition. Why the sudden change of heart?

I also recall listening to some schmucks on the radio the other day talking about the stimulus package. Talking about Orwellian wordplay by the Democrats for even calling it a stimulus package. Saying it should be called what it is, a government spending package. Fair enough, I'm all for that. Even if they had no such concerns when Bush was pushing Stimulus packages with the same Orwellian wordplay. Can we now rename the Bush tax cuts the 'Enrich my cronies while fucking everyone else' bill? The estate/death tax elimination into the 'Keep wealth with the elite where it belongs' tax cut? And the Patriot Act sounds better as the 'Cameras in your asshole and due process if we feel like it' bill.

QUOTE (Triskele @ Mar 3 2009, 02.07)

I believe also (but am not 100% positive) that Bush found some creative way to not include war spending in his budgets. Can anyone confirm?

As noted above, most of the Iraq/Afghanistan spending was found in a multitude of emergency spending bills. Nor necessarily hidden, but not included in the official budgets.

QUOTE (lockesnow @ Apr 14 2009, 16.55)

can you imagine how popular Bush would have been if he'd never invaded Iraq, had finished things in Afghanistan including catching and handing Osama Bin Ladin over to the UN for an international war crimes trial? (actually 'accidentally' killing him during the process of apprehending him would increase Bush's popularity more, but it'd make bin Ladin a martyr). How would that have changed the dynamic of the entire middle east area? would Saddam have fallen just from internal pressures, how dramatically would the dynamic be in Iran? etc etc. but nope, we had to make probably one of the most stupid foreign policy decisions in our country's history and invade iraq. ugh. it still makes me mad.

In the short term at least, Iraq boosted his popularity more than anything. It was an ever present reason for security moms and other fence-sitters to lean his way. In 2004 it wasn't almost universally recognized as the unmitigated disaster and example of sheer idiocy that it later became. War support still had better than 50%. Afghanistan was gonna die out in the news regardless. Iraq kept the War on Terror and security concerns front and center, issues that Republicans unfathomably can never lose on no matter how badly they fuck up. The Press had only just begun to come out of their fawning, compliant, uncritical shell. Without Iraq, I really don't see how Bush wins in '04.