August 06, 2004

GAFFE HIGHLIGHTED

George W. Bush stumbles during a speech, so the Sydney Morning Herald runs it on the front page, provides video of the incident, and conducts a reader poll.

Imagine how they'd react if Bush said something really stupid, like "Zionists control Australia and the US".

UPDATE. From The Age, the SMH's sister paper: "Anti-Kerry ad mars presidential campaign"

Posted by Tim Blair at August 6, 2004 05:48 PM
Comments

Yeah, I heard about his gaffe here at base. Everyone knows president Bush isn't the greatest communicator/orator; is this really front-page newsworthy? It reminds me of Kerry's gaffe during the DNC, where he stated he would use Special Forces to conduct "terrorist operations" [he meant anti-terrorist, of course]; but I don't remember the media going apeshit over that one.

Posted by: Cpl. Menno at August 6, 2004 at 05:54 PM

If the stumble was recorded with a VCR, would it be a 'gaffe tape'?

/commits hara-kiri for dishonourable punnery

Posted by: EvilPundit at August 6, 2004 at 06:03 PM

I heard it on the radio and I took his meaning to be that the US is trying to anticipate terrorists' attacks by sorta thinking like the terrorists.

Whatever.

Did you also catch Kerry saying asthma in black children in Harlem was caused by "hair pollution"?

Kill the hippies!

Posted by: JDB at August 6, 2004 at 06:12 PM

How nice it is that we can all ridicule George W, knowing that the inference in his gaffe is absolutely ridiculous.
Now, imagine if the same statement was made by the leaders of Nth Korea, Zimbabwe or Sudan.
I don't hear anyone laughing.

Posted by: Johnny Wishbone at August 6, 2004 at 07:27 PM

I AM A MONKEY!!!

Posted by: frog at August 6, 2004 at 07:28 PM

How nice it is that we can all ridicule George W, knowing that the inference in his gaffe is absolutely ridiculous.
Now, imagine if the same statement was made by the leaders of Nth Korea, Zimbabwe or Sudan.
I don't hear anyone laughing.

Posted by: Johnny Wishbone at August 6, 2004 at 07:28 PM

Tomoorow is thursday. BRING YOUR RAINCOAT!!

Posted by: noog at August 6, 2004 at 07:28 PM

MY ANUS IS BLEEDING

Posted by: Jim bob at August 6, 2004 at 07:29 PM

Apologies for the double post.
Couldn't help but notice the random comments. has Margo suddenly figured out how to post here ?

Posted by: Johnny Wishbone at August 6, 2004 at 07:36 PM

I heard it and laughed and laughed.
Do I think it makes him any less of a leader?Hell ,no!!!!!!!
He kicks ass.

Posted by: gubbaboy at August 6, 2004 at 07:48 PM

Sorry to digress but could anyone tell me the origin of Moonbat.

Posted by: gubbaboy at August 6, 2004 at 08:15 PM

If he was stupid he wouldn't.be.President.

Posted by: gaz at August 6, 2004 at 08:17 PM

If he was stupid he wouldn't.be.President.

You are so right. And he wouldn't have flown a fighter plane, and survived, either.

But the lefties love their myths. Reality just won't touch them.

Posted by: EvilPundit at August 6, 2004 at 09:05 PM

Being unable to express oneself is different to being stupid. Many medical practitioners leave school with the highest scores on exam results but ask them a simple question and they are dumbfounded or reply inappropriately - and so the concept of the nerd.
They also pilloried Ronnie Regan but he goes down in history as one of the best and "The Great Communicator." The conservatives, that is those who think and act strategically, as opposed to liberals who "feel" and act according to their hearts will always be denied legitimacy both in the US and OZ by those who consider themselves progressive and superior.

Let 'er rip George.

Posted by: wallaby at August 6, 2004 at 09:07 PM

Yeah, like gubbaboy... I'm curious where the word 'moonbat' comes from.

Posted by: AuSkeptic at August 6, 2004 at 09:38 PM

I wish Bush was a better public speaker than he is. I cringed when he and PM Blair spoke at the same event. (Blair is a very good speaker.)

So Pres. Bush will never be a great orator. Fine by me. For the times it really counted, right after the attacks on 9/11, he did very well.

Pres. Bush is a gutsy leader, 'speech problem' and all. I don't care if he mangles a few words now and then as long as he continues to wage war on people who want to see us all killed or converted.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 6, 2004 at 09:43 PM

Sheesh, he ought to pay more attention to his advisors. Tom Ridge made it perfectly clear:

"The preferred means of attack would be car or truck bombs," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in a briefing with journalists. "That would be a primary means of attack," he said.

Posted by: Andjam at August 6, 2004 at 10:00 PM

"If he was stupid he wouldn't be president". Thanks Gaz, I'm glad someone can hold unwaivering faith in the president's intelligence despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary. Research into Bush's senseless drivel initially found that he may have suffered from an abstract form of dyslexia. Until they conclusively refuted this and held that he really was a babbling idiot.

It reveals an acute misunderstanding of American Politics to suggest that a fairly dim guy cannot reach the presidency. Quite the reverse. Money, connections, nepotism and crucially the consent of the guardians of the vested interests in America helped Dubya into power. George Bush may be dim but the people lurking behind him are certainly not.

Another interesting assertion is that "those who think and act strategically, as opposed to liberals who "feel" and act according to their hearts will always be denied legitimacy both in the US and OZ by those who consider themselves progressive and superior." Ironically this statement is somewhat true but not in the manner that it is supposed to be.

It is true that the deeply entrenched structures of power in the US Administration display characteristics of masculinity & toughness. For Robert Kennedy, one of the first things he wanted to know about anybody who was suggested for participation in the administration was whether he was tough enough. Being tough, Secretary of State Dean Rusk sent a cable to his ambassadors and said, stop using the word “feel” in your dispatches. Women feel, men do not feel. They act.

If you choose to look at anthropological data, you'll find that one predictor of whether a society is warlike or not is whether the males have a tendency towards being ambitious and competitive. So ,in short, the above statement is correct. It is a measure of Wallaby's ignorance that he feels these are characteristics that should be championed.

Let 'er rip Tim

Posted by: James at August 6, 2004 at 10:06 PM

James scrawls: "George Bush may be dim but the people lurking behind him are certainly not."

Ah, you managed to combine the stupid meme with the evil one, in a pseudo-rational manner.

And me, I'd rather have tough guys heading up my government, rather than a bunch of feelers.

Posted by: ushie at August 6, 2004 at 10:18 PM

My friends in the States can't wait for him to go - they think he's a complete joke. Just an embarrasment. Similarly, I also have friends living in Germany and the UK who report that the press is less than flattering about Howard and Downer.

International government by dinner party friends.

How was the wine?

Posted by: ilibcc at August 6, 2004 at 10:27 PM

"Thanks Gaz, I'm glad someone can hold unwaivering faith in the president's intelligence despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary."

I'm amazed someone can believe Bush is stupid, despite the massive amounts of evidence to the contrary:

o Harvard MBA. We're not talking Cow College U.

o Fighter pilot. Dunno if you've ever bothered to look, but even civilian pilot training involves physics and dynamics. A jet fighter takes a hell of a lot of brains, and quick thinking, to effectively pilot. Bush flew a model that was known as a widow-maker, and survived.

o Political career. People keep calling him dumb, but he keeps outsmarting them.

Hey, maybe that's it. Bush is dumb, but his political opponents are retarded. It certainly would explain a lot.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 6, 2004 at 10:33 PM

James

do you really mean to imply that you equate dyslexia with being a "babbling idiot"?.

Can you tell us who "conclusively refuted" the possible dyslexia diagnosis and concluded that he really was a "babbling idiot". I assume you have some access to his medical records.

I would hold that it has been proven that there is no link between dyslexia and idiocy but a very strong link between babbling and idiocy.

Go read you own post.

Posted by: Dave at August 6, 2004 at 11:17 PM

Until they conclusively refuted this and held that he really was a babbling idiot.

The sign of a really, really stupid person is asserting something in this way that hasn't been proven at all.


Except in their own mind.

Posted by: Quentin George at August 6, 2004 at 11:18 PM

goodness knows all these radio commentators who are informing us of this have never misspoke, gosh no.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 6, 2004 at 11:29 PM

For those that believe Bush is not a good public speaker, you should listen to the speech he gave at Reagan's memorial service. It was eloquent, warm and funny.

I was young at the time, but I still remember the the 'Reagan is an idiot propaganda' from the left...haven't they got anything better?

Posted by: Art Vandelay at August 6, 2004 at 11:48 PM

Oh enough already with the "he went to Harvard so he must be smart" line. NO-ONE flunks out of Harvard. Did you know that? So if you have the connections to get in (they still matter and certainly mattered 30 years ago) you will come out fine. I am not saying he is stupid, just that the Harvard degree is not evidence of brilliance. Now, if he had gone to Tufts...

Posted by: Boston Brahmin at August 7, 2004 at 12:23 AM

Boston...

Or Divinity School...

Here is another question. Do we really want our presidents to be super-smart? It could be argued that most intelligent presidents of the 20th century were Hoover, Nixon, and Carter.

Think about that.

Posted by: Brent at August 7, 2004 at 12:48 AM

Maybe John Kerry shouldn't have been so keen on swiftboat waterskiing, especially with Larry Fishburn on the twin .50.

Posted by: Habib at August 7, 2004 at 01:14 AM

After some investigation it turns out that Bush apparantly does suffer from a form of dyslexia (although it's not conclusive; does anyone know?)

In any case dyslexia per se does not equate to being stupid. I note that my comments were miscontrued above. What remains though is a phenomena called "bushisms" and books can be found documenting these hiccups. Should you really expect your head of state to be such a poor public speaker? Granted his substantive policy decisions should be more important than his communication skills. But that hardly does him much credibility now does it?

Nature very often compensates the dyslexic with a higher IQ or some grant of intuitive intelligence. If this is true for Bush it hasn't yet become obvious; his Texas chief of staff, Clay Johnson, told Vanity Fair that the attention span of his boss is somewhere in the vicinity of fifteen minutes. In other words he has only the downside of his difficulty, which is attention-deficit disorder.

Look what happened when he was informed of 9/11. Without the help of his aides he sat baffled by a monkey. Furthermore University education can be a vague indicator of someone's intelligence. Uni is like a lot of other things; corners can be cut. This is the man who dropped his dog thinking a dog- like a cat- always lands on its feet.

Go dumya go!

Posted by: James at August 7, 2004 at 01:19 AM

Bushisms are no different than any other gaffe from a public figure. The only difference is that some people think IHATEBUSH=HITLERANDHALLIBURTONOILOILOILOILOILOIL!!!!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 01:23 AM

He really scares you, doesn't he, James? Admit it: you're just a frightened, powerless little man whose self-worth is dependent on denigrating those who are far more successful than you. What a miserable, petty life you must lead.


Isn't playing amateur internet psychologist fun?

Posted by: Spiny Norman at August 7, 2004 at 01:26 AM

James, I'd be much more impressed by your fanciful criticisms of Bush's communication skills if you could type a few coherent paragraphs.

Posted by: John Nowak at August 7, 2004 at 01:26 AM

Gubba, AuSkeptic --

I think that “moonbat” is partially if not entirely a play on noted idiotarian for Al-Guardian in London, George Monbiot (sp?). Tim has specifically gone after him over, among other things, his recent statement to the effect that the Wright brothers discovery of flight is nothing to celebrate due to 100 years of warplanes, environmental destruction caused by aircraft, capitalist exploitation enhanced by same, wah wah wah, you-know-the-drill….. then of course Monbiot hopped on an airplane to go to Australia to enlighted you backwoods Iraq-supporting yokels on same, etc etc. Typical.

Anyway, “moonbat” works so well as a combo of a play on his name, and the obvious imagery of these nutcases madly barking at the moon. It wouldn’t have worked five years ago, before the Left hurled itself so completely off the deep end.

Posted by: Andrew X at August 7, 2004 at 01:28 AM

Oh, and James? All you are saying is "BUSH IS DUMB!" with $10 words. Ooops! You did use "monkey" instead of "simian". Well, we'll let that one slide, you are using better sentence structure than most of the anti-Bush crowd.

But in spite of your backstep on dslexia (nice footwork!), you are still sticking with your original premise of "BUSH IS DUMB!" by moving the goalposts. Alas, your debating skills are not up to par with writing skills.

So I hereby designate you as a Literate but Not Logical Leftoid. Go in peace, my son.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 01:29 AM

It reminds me of Kerry's gaffe during the DNC, where he stated he would use Special Forces to conduct "terrorist operations" [he meant anti-terrorist, of course]; but I don't remember the media going apeshit over that one

this is what kerry's said during his convention speech. contrast the non-reaction to this to the reaction to bush's gaff of yesterday. then tell me about the unbiased media.
frankly, any front-page news coverage of this stuff is ridiculous. you, me, and everyone we know do this all the time; shit, actors do this all the time, and they exist to read other people's words.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 7, 2004 at 01:37 AM

d'oh
"kerry" i mean, not "kerry's"
i'm a lazy-assed cut-and-paster-poster sometimes.

most times

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 7, 2004 at 01:46 AM

In response to John Nowak, I'd just like to query what part of my entry you found incoherent?

In response to The Real Jeffs, give yourself a pat on the back for identifying the crux of my argument. I believe it is still acceptable to add detail to particular points so as to further aid the reader's understanding. I'd also like you to explain how I've changed my premise; I've always thought Bush was dumb. My understanding of the reason behind that dumbness is the only thing subject to change here.

The fact that you even bothered to comment on my writing style highlights the level of debate you must be used to. What word exactly is a $10 word to you?

Posted by: james at August 7, 2004 at 01:47 AM

James asks:

"I'd also like you to explain how I've changed my premise; I've always thought Bush was dumb."

I actually said in my post:

"But in spite of your backstep on dslexia (nice footwork!), you are still sticking with your original premise of "BUSH IS DUMB!" by moving the goalposts."

Which means I did not think you changed your premise -- I said that you changed the "supporting" facts and logical analysis in your argument, a tactic known as "moving the goalposts".

Clearly, your reading and comphrension skills are equal to your debating ability, i.e., poor.

Therefore, I must demote you from "Literate But Not Logical Leftoid" to "Idiot Savant Leftoid".

Remember to wipe the drool off your chin.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 01:55 AM

Notice how James is ignoring the fighter pilot point.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at August 7, 2004 at 01:55 AM

>Without the help of his aides he sat baffled by a monkey.

You actually wrote that, James. While claiming someone else couldn't communicate.

Go back to school, boy.

Posted by: John Nowak at August 7, 2004 at 01:56 AM

the tinfoil interferes with flying, robert.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 7, 2004 at 01:57 AM

I thought he meant just what he said. The 9/11 commission said we failed from a lack of imagination. Thinking like a terrorist, trying to find your own weak points like a terrorist, and even tasking people to simulate terrorist attacks (cyber, infiltration, observation, etc.) would be legitimate exercises in the war on terror. You can find gaffes in anyone's speech, it's the context that's important. The context here can imply a couple of different things and a competent, objective or mature person can construe neither way as a bad thing.

Posted by: Guy from Ohio at August 7, 2004 at 02:01 AM

Thanks for pointing that out John. Now run along to the shops and buy yourself a chocolate watch for your efforts in highlighting irony. You can eat it while you watch your cartoons.

In reponse to the Real Jeffs I'll concede that I misunderstood your last comment. That aside I still think you're dwelling on a side issue. After my first entry I sought out some info, which allowed me to change my opinion on the nature of Bush's dimness. Whatever the reasons behind it the fact remains that Bush is a poor public speaker who is not renowned for reading important memos or information e.g clemency appeals for Texas death row cases.

In response to the fighter pilot point I think it is first important to highlight that there are multiple forms of intelligence. Because someone is adept at one particular skillful act does not necessarily mean they will be adept at another different task. Presumably a fighter pilot would have quick reactions. In that case it seems that Dumya has been unable to transfer those skills to the White House; especially when informed of 9/11.

Posted by: James at August 7, 2004 at 02:16 AM

Ah yes, because running out of the room like a fighter pilot rushing to take off during a scramble would have been the appropriate thing to do amongst a bunch of schoolchildren.

You might want to stop torturing the facts until they fit your prejudices. Stammering "there are multiple forms of intelligence" when someone points out that morons tend to not pass fighter pilot training isn't going to help.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at August 7, 2004 at 02:30 AM

So James, what would you have done as president on 9/11?

Posted by: Syd Barret at August 7, 2004 at 02:32 AM

James, you just don't get it. You are not proving your point, your are describing your prejudices, to wit:

"After my first entry I sought out some info, which allowed me to change my opinion on the nature of Bush's dimness. Whatever the reasons behind it the fact remains that Bush is a poor public speaker who is not renowned for reading important memos or information e.g clemency appeals for Texas death row cases."

You believe that Bush is dumb in spite of points to the contrary brought out by other people. This is your prejudice speaking, not a logicial point. An emotional reaction on your part that you can only describe, not justify.

"In response to the fighter pilot point I think it is first important to highlight that there are multiple forms of intelligence. "

Excuse me? You actually said "forms of intelligence"? Do you think intelligence is categorized by some arcane system, like the animal kingdom? Or perhaps the sun type classification used in astronomy? Is this a Jamesism?

If you meant "levels of intelligence", I would agree. Some people are more intelligent than others. But "forms"? People may use their intelligence potential in different ways, based on their culture, environment, training, and natural potential. But to say "forms of intelligence" is to say people are inherently different at some micro-level (it has be that small -- human beings are manifestly the same physically, with minor geographical variations).

The problem is that this sort of thinking is generally used by people who define other people as being "inferior" for some reason (religion, race, etc).

So the less charitable would accuse you of being a racist. Me, I know you're just a prejudiced idiot.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 02:53 AM

What did Kerry do on 9/11?

Red State tracked it down. Rudy was right. Kerry should not be using MM's talking points on this.

Posted by: mailman at August 7, 2004 at 02:56 AM

Near as I can tell, lefties wanted Bush to respond to being told (very little) about the WTC attacks by invoking the Panic Rule: When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. When I see the video, I see a man anxiously awaiting further info (pretty much always a good idea if you have any time at all) while trying not to upset some little kids.

James and his ilk (God, I love using that word. Almost as much as myrmidons.) obviously wanted him to jump up and Scream, "Oh, my God!! We're under attack!! Quick!! Bring me the nuclear launch codes!!" After all, that's what *they* would have done. The most useful act they could have thought of.

Fighter pilots have extremely good reflexes which they try to avoid having to use by not getting into trouble to start with. "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are damn few old, bold pilots."

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 7, 2004 at 02:57 AM

After my first entry I sought out some info, which allowed me to change my opinion on the nature of Bush's dimness.

Nice a priori assumption that Bush simply must be a dim bulb that propelled your research there. Way to have yourself and your "analysis" taken seriously around these parts.

Anyway, since I'm all in favour of equal-opportunity bashing, yes, I snickered almost as much about Bush's blunder as I did about Affleck's noted a few threads down. (Note to moonbats: I'm saying "almost" because I find bad word usage slightly more funny than awkward sentence construction. YMMV.) Neither matters much in the long run, except to people on the far ends of the spectrum, i.e. in this case the "OMGBUSHISADUMBMONKEY(EXCEPTWHENHE'SANEVILGENIUS)" crowd. Hmm, can I still say "monkey" after the recent hubbub about "diversity"?

Posted by: PW at August 7, 2004 at 03:03 AM

mailman, that is the find of the week.

well done.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 7, 2004 at 03:08 AM

I live in a giant bucket!

Posted by: James A. Wolf at August 7, 2004 at 04:44 AM

Hey, you think James might be Lunch Boy? He writes with that same C+ elementary school essay style -- you know:

"Monkeys can fly airplanes. I saw it in Project X. That was a movie with Mathew Broderick."

And of course, he's still just as incapable of thinking as he ever was.

Posted by: John Nowak at August 7, 2004 at 06:12 AM

Literally what he said is true : ``Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.''

A chess champion never stops thinking about ways he might be defeated, yet the implication is not there that he is trying to defeat himself.

A chess challenger never stops of thinking of ways to defeat the champion, and neither does the champion. There the implication is back.

The mistake is syllepsis; a parallel grammatical structure unfortunately implies parallel contexts, for instance ``and intending to use them.''

I'd guess that the speech-writer revised the wording to use parallel structure without stepping back to see the slightly larger context that also makes the implications parallel.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at August 7, 2004 at 06:50 AM


JAMES: They thought Dubya had dyslexia, but it turns out he was just stupid.

RighWingDeathBeasts: Are you sure he didn't have dyslexia?

JAMES: Um, turns out he did. But he's still stupid.

RWDBs: But he got good grades at Harvard.

JAMES: Good grades at Ivy League schools are meaningless.

RWDBs: Er, okay.

JAMES: And his aides say he has a short attention span.

RWDBs: Well, that's often a sign of intelligence, isn't it - active mind gets bored easily, wants to keep moving, and all that?

JAMES: No, ADD is a sign of stupidity. You'll never see a genius with ADD.

RWDBs: Riiiiight. Well, he was a fighter pilot. That take SERIOUS brainpower. Have you ever tried one of those hyper-realistic flight sims? My God, I can't imagine trying to do that in real life.

JAMES: That doesn't require intelligence, just reflexes.

RWDBs: Say what?

JAMES: Reflexes, that's all.

RWDBs: Piloting a high-performance fighter jet requires only quick reflexes?

JAMES: Sure. It's super easy to learn.

RWDBs: Really...

JAMES: Seriously.

RWDBs: So, you could strap a housecat in an F-104 and it would do fine?

JAMES: Of course not. But it would still be smarter than that Harvard-grad fighter-pilot retard in the White House.

RWDBs: Uh huh. You know, Mark Steyn said of someone, "He was stupid in a way that only clever people can be." Who do you think that better applies to, President Bush, or yourself?

JAMES: Dumya. Huh-huh-huh-huh-huh! He's stupid.

Posted by: Dave S. at August 7, 2004 at 06:55 AM

Well I think that James is right! Bush should have
rushed off so quickly that he started a panic. Then
every one could feel that they were doing something.
Course, they might not have known what they were
*doing something* about since no one had been told
at that particular moment (for the sake of the
children, James). But let's not worry about that.
What a beautiful day, all the little undercurrents
of hatred running through life, isn't it wonderful
to be alive?

Posted by: Mike H. at August 7, 2004 at 07:04 AM

...And there's the bizarre combinations of random words which he seems to think represents scathing wit.

"Chocolate watch?" WTF? Does anyone over eight talk like that?

Well, except maybe on the Goon Show...

Posted by: John Nowak at August 7, 2004 at 07:08 AM

Hmm, Dave S. is on a roll today. :-) Brilliant recap.

Posted by: PW at August 7, 2004 at 08:00 AM

If Bush's gaffe were a one-off, it might be excusable. If it were not from the (supposedly) most powerful man on the planet - in history! - it might be excusable.

But this is just further proof that the man in the Oval Office is a ventriloquist's dummy, and a bad one at that.

Posted by: gandhi at August 7, 2004 at 08:23 AM

"Hmm, Dave S. is on a roll today."

Call me Butter, cuz I'm on a roll.

Call me Bus Driver, cuz I took James to school.

Boo-yah!

Posted by: Dave S. at August 7, 2004 at 09:04 AM

"But this is just further proof that the man in the Oval Office is a ventriloquist's dummy, and a bad one at that."

This from a character who quotes left wing talking points and borrows the name of a major world leader to make his point.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 09:19 AM

I've read Gandhi. And you should be ashamed of youself for using his name.

Posted by: John Nowak at August 7, 2004 at 09:32 AM

Looks like gandhi has decided to be James' ventriloquist dummy today.

Posted by: PW at August 7, 2004 at 09:40 AM

Gosh! It was only the other day that Sir Francis Drake was playing bowls on Plymouth Ho when word came that the Spanish Armada was sailing up the Channel.
Instead of running around being decisive, he finished his game (actually waiting for some change in tide or wind.)
His calm demeanour really affected the morale of the men around him.

Posted by: david at August 7, 2004 at 09:49 AM

Leftist: Bush is dumb! He only parrots the talking points of others! By the way, Farenheit 9/11 has provided me with dozens of posts...
Booyah!

(By the way, it must be embarrassing for the left to be continually outwitted by a moron. I hope they have a big hanky in November.)

Posted by: Quentin George at August 7, 2004 at 09:53 AM

>But this is just further proof
>that the man in the Oval Office
>is a ventriloquist's dummy"

So, who is/are the ventriloquist(s)? And keep in mind, conspiracy theory is the sophistication of the ignorant.

>ventriloquist's dummy, and a
>bad one at that.

{snort!} Ahem... pray tell the difference between a good ventriloquist's dummy, and a bad ventriloquist's dummy?

"Dude, Charlie McCarthy rocked, but that loser Mortimer Snerd totally brought the act down."

Or are you talking about good dummies versus evil Cliff Robertson Twilight Zone dummies?



Posted by: Dave S. at August 7, 2004 at 11:40 AM

Ahem... pray tell the difference between a good ventriloquist's dummy, and a bad ventriloquist's dummy?

Gabbo from the Simpsons - good dummy
The dummy Krusty uses in the same episode - bad dummy.

Now by my estimation, GWB would have to be the best damn ventriloquist's dummy I have ever seen, as his operator (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Illumination, ZOG) doesn't even seem to be in the same room!

Now that's talent.

Posted by: Quentin George at August 7, 2004 at 11:54 AM

Mmmmm,
I have to admit it the SMH has got it right this time.It is very important that our leaders are eloquent and precise in their speech and not some dumb ass Texan.
My favorite orator's of the 20th Century?Hitler closely followed by Goebells.
Funny that, their the same as Margo's.

Posted by: gubbaboy at August 7, 2004 at 12:34 PM

Tim Blair

Sweetie, you are absolutely fabulous! Keep it up! Everytime I log on here, I just become more appalled at the bourgeoise left lunatics who control our media.

Posted by: neoconchick at August 7, 2004 at 03:19 PM

clemency appeals for Texas death row cases.

A little refresher on the death penalty in Texas:

Art. 48.01. [952] [1051] [1016]

In all criminal cases, except treason and impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of punishments and pardons; and upon the written recommendation and advice of a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, he shall have the power to remit fines and forfeitures. The Governor shall have the power to grant one reprieve in any capital case for a period not to exceed 30 days; and he shall have power to revoke conditional pardons. With the advice and consent of the Legislature, the Governor may grant reprieves, commutations of punishment and pardons in cases of treason.

In other words, the Governor of Texas cannot pardon death row inmates without a majority vote of the Board of Pardons & Parole.

Posted by: Albedo at August 7, 2004 at 03:28 PM

I am not a very good public speaker. Am I dumb, dyslexic or both?

Posted by: Dave at August 7, 2004 at 03:33 PM

I think you're missing the point here, which is how Bush should have behaved on September 11. On hearing that the second plane had crashed in the WTC, Bush should have immediately:

1) Signed Kyoto.
2) Dramatically increased income and capital gains taxes
8) Dramatically increased government funding for the arts, humanities and social sciences.
9) Announced a new package of unemployment benefits at 110% of previous income.
15) Handed over absolute control over the US Armed Forces to the United Nations.
11) Announce automatic American citizemship to all muslims.
3) Declared war on Israel.
7) Declared Marx-Lenin-Chomsky thought to be the true path to proletarian victory.
1) Revealed his secret divorce and subsequent remarriage to a gorgeous airline steward from San Francisco named Doris.

Posted by: Leftist Parasite at August 7, 2004 at 04:05 PM

Exactly, Leftist Parasite!! Perhaps also:

13) posed for a photo op, looking Presidential by barking orders and hovering his finger over the little red button. (No furrowed brow, possible, though)

13.5) re-enacted this historic moment next day for film archival footage and for a Schwarzenegger production company, incorporating "literary flair", sound, and furrowed brow pencilled in by make-up artist.

Posted by: cream kerry at August 8, 2004 at 03:17 AM

It's actually "barking moonbat." Here's the link: Scroll down to moonnbat. Since the guy who coined it is British, it could very well have something to do with Monbiot. This definition is more entertaining, though.

Posted by: Kathy K at August 8, 2004 at 04:21 AM

Thanks Kathy K. I think ,therefore I'm beginning to understand.

Posted by: gubbaboy at August 8, 2004 at 01:28 PM

Do Australian journos and pols who make (cheap and unremitting) negative commentary on Bush think that "Australians will vote in the US election"? Then, why do they bother?

Are they not to be answered, or do the Australian media enforce a single group-think onto matters related to Bush's America? Bashing is good! Supporting is bad! Non-conforming journos get trolled and called unAustralian and agents for America, yes? Conforming journos who agree with Chirac and "world opinion" are authentically Australian, oui?

What a brave anonymous Aussie you are. Aren't you a journo, too? Maybe the Enforcer Journo?

[This comment refers to one that has been removed. -- The Management.]

Posted by: c at August 8, 2004 at 01:28 PM

Miranda,Borg are everywhere!
Why so hostile?

[This comment refers to one that has been removed. -- The Management.]

Posted by: gubbaboy at August 8, 2004 at 01:31 PM

How come no media organisation picked up on this quote?

"We will double our special forces to conduct terrorist operations." - John Kerry

Posted by: Quentin George at August 8, 2004 at 06:21 PM

In response to the person who asked why the Australian media go to such lengths to present Bush in a negative light:

It's obviously true that Australians don't vote in US elections, but they do vote in Australian elections. The next election will be decided in large part on foreign policy. (Those of you with long memories will recall that, immediately following the fall of Baghdad, when foreign policy was an automatic plus for the government, the commentariat dismissed it as an illegitimate campaign issue. Not surprising that, as events have moved, so too have the journalists' opinions.)

If the folks in the street agree with Howard's foreign policy priorities, he wins - easily and emphatically. If Labor's foreign policy vision get the nod, things will be a lot closer.

So, what do we know about the two sides' foreign policy visions? Well, one thing we do know is that Howard and Bush are bound tightly together. If Bush can be made to look a bad leader, that's bad news for Howard's re-election campaign. The Australian media has been very effective in doing exactly that; where there will usually be some semblence of balance on domestic issues - an unavoidable state of affairs, because voters can see the truth with their own two eyes - news from the States is presented very selectively. The result? Bush is made to look one of the worst leaders of the past hundred years (with the possible exception of Hitler, and the definite exception of Carter), and unless you have access to an American news source you're not well positioned to see through the facade.

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at August 8, 2004 at 06:59 PM

Right, Grand Old Elephant. My comments were in response to Miranda Troll whose post, since deleted, attacked Tim's criticism of the media's ridiculously negative coverage of Bush. The troll reasoning was something to the effect that, since Australians don't vote in US elections, why would Tim make the (unAustralian) effort to be fair to (really bad) Bush? This is peculiar logic, of course, for it could more easily apply in reverse: why does the Australian media go to such lengths to discredit Bush in the first place, if Aussies don't vote in US elections?

The answer is as you say. The Left and its international media are intent on bashing, trashing and thrashing Bush, even though most do not "vote in US elections". The stated purpose may be to change US policy, but the real reasons are bound up in domestic politicking at the local level and the sport of choosing up teams.

May the Howard/Bush/Blair team prevail over the dark forces of asymmetrical warfare and survive the grim forces of asymmetrical media coverage.

Posted by: c at August 9, 2004 at 03:04 AM

Grand Old Elephant,
You are quite right about the next election in Oz being about foreign policy. Thankfully the current government has done a damn good job on that issue, despite what denigrators may say. I believe that even if Bush and Blair are kicked out of office that the Teflon Man will still be in place for another term.

John Howard comes across as someone who will do what he thinks is right, despite the protests of others. Well, we only have to look at the noise over whether to send troops to Iraq or not to see his character. I believe the majority of people do respect him as he appears to keep his vision focused on where we should be down the track, not going into crisis management mode at all the petty issues the opposition and media rake up.

On the FTA he'll concede ground to the opposition, but he still wins when the overall picture is looked at. Bet the media only notes Latham's small victory though. But really, I wouldn't be surprised if Howard is in total agreement for an alteration to the FTA on the PBS issue but needed support from the opposition to get it through.

I'm not a staunch Liberal supporter, having voted for Hawke previously. But Hawke lost me when he got the military to provide flights during the pilots strike. Disgusting for a former ACTU boss to do such a thing when it wasn't a national emergency. Didn't hear his labor co-horts protesting at the low act.

On a lighter issue with Howard, he comes across as quite a dag in his trackies doesn't he?

Posted by: Lofty at August 9, 2004 at 09:09 AM

What's all this talk about the media "making Bush look bad"? For goodness sakes, the man is a walking disaster and the mainstream media don't cover half of it! OK, it's bad enough he can't speak English properly, but surely the main issue is that his administration have made mistake after mistake after mistake... and if they are not mistakes, they are lies.

The key to the next election - in Australia as in the USA - is that we, the people, were told the invasion of Iraq was necessary because there were WMDs and there were not.

We were further told the WMDs could be used AT ANY MOMENT. That was why Bush and Howard said they couldn't wait for the UN process to deal with the threat. Remember?

Lies, lies, lies, lies - and the media reported all of them as fact. How is that "anti-Bush"???

You right-wing nutters get your backs up whenever somebody reports facts that disagree with your neo-con ideology. Blaming the messenger is easier than debating the real issues.

A year ago, it seemed that our governments' continued lies were teflon-coated permits to do whatever they wanted. Now the elections loom and people are starting to see that ultimately LYING DOES MATTER!

Posted by: gandhi at August 9, 2004 at 11:02 AM

If LYING DOES MATTER, gandhi, is that why Kerry did it in 'Nam in his reports, in Congressional testimony about his fellow "war criminal" soldiers, and then ever since? And what about his equivocation? Does WAFFLING MATTER, too?

Bush didn't lie. He took calculated risks in unseating Saddam for reasons in addition to WMD and which were articulated at the time. This war very well may pay off in terms of national and international security in both the near term and long. Many voters believe that TAKING CALCULATED RISKS MATTERS, especially post 9/11. Your Kerry is risk averse and has only promised the electorate to 'react swiftly' to an attack.

Under Kerry, the US posture would be one of a SITTING DUCK MATTER.

Posted by: c at August 9, 2004 at 11:44 AM

"OK, it's bad enough he can't speak English properly, but surely the main issue is that his administration have made mistake after mistake after mistake... and if they are not mistakes, they are lies." One teeny, tiny question, Gandhi, more of a quibble, really- Why do Bush's mistakes automatically translate into lies, when other people's mistakes just stay mistakes? And second, I'm really confused, because I think I read recently that a roadside bomb was found in Iraq and was found to have sarin gas inside, which is a nerve gas which can be used to kill large numbers of people all at one time. How, exactly, does this NOT derail your entire argument about Bush lying about WMD's? He and the Russian, British and American intelligence services may have been mistaken about the quantity of WMD's or their readiness to be used on American troops moving into Iraq, but why, exactly, is it all an evil plot? Please, use small words- I'm from Oklahoma and I don't speak English very well either.

Posted by: VerityKindle at August 9, 2004 at 12:06 PM

ghandi said:

"You right-wing nutters get your backs up whenever somebody reports facts that disagree with your neo-con ideology. Blaming the messenger is easier than debating the real issues."

Do you mean like this, perhaps?

Heh! Once again, the pot calls the kettle black. Better check your Barking Moonbat Handbook, I think you missed the chapter on "Pretending to be intelligent".

Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 9, 2004 at 12:13 PM

c,

Responding to criticism of Bush by saying "Kerry is just as bad - or worse" is not very grown-up. And if anyone made the USA a "sitting duck" surely it would be the guy who let 9/11 happen on his watch despite repeated warnings.

VerityKindle,

You have been duped by the standard White House policy - lie loudly and retract quietly. There were, as usual, lots of reports of the "sarin" WMD and - as usual - not many stories covering the retraction about 48 hours later. Don't make me look it up for you.

Real Jeffs,

As per C above, criticizing Kerry doesn't absolve Bush of lies. And personal insults don't make you sound too intelligent either.

Posted by: gandhi at August 9, 2004 at 12:57 PM

ghandi, have you ever considered the concept that Bush did not lie? That much of what you believe is just so much error, spin, or distortion?

If it will make you feel better, I do believe that Bush could have lied. About some things. Maybe. And he certainly has made some major blunders in office. I don't believe that he lied about the Iraq war, or the war on terrorism. Political slight of hand? Probably.

But when you objectively compare Bush against other Presidents (regardless of party) since 1950, Bush at least comes out average. There were far worse in that period. Carter and Ford come to mind.

I say "objectively" because clearly you are not objective. People have countered many of your points. And your basic response has been "NO! I TOLD YOU! BUSH LIED! WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT??!?!!"

OK, you don't use all capitals. But that's the gist and attitude of your posts. Virtually all of your posts have been answer deflection.

Oh, and don't complain about me calling you a dumb Barking Moonbat, when you refer to us as "right wing nutters". Tit for tat, ghandi. Again, the pot calls the kettle black.....hypocrisy seems to be your middle name.

So, tell me, ghandi, how about answering a simple question? Consider it a challenge to prove you aren't just quoting the Moonbat Handbook, and are willing to engage in a meaningful discussion:

Do you still believe that "...Blaming the messenger is easier than debating the real issues" is strictly a tactic of us "right wing nutters"? Please refresh your memory here.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 9, 2004 at 01:31 PM

I've banned ghandi because I'm sick of his noise. Any further comments by this entity will be removed.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 9, 2004 at 01:50 PM

Ghandi,
yes there are a few right-wing nutters out there. However, there would be enough people on this website to tell them a thing or two about some of their leanings, if they began to speak rubbish.

Not everything any government does is one hundred percent correct, but to say they are out and out liars?

Is everything you do correct or is it based on what information is available at the time? When it's found to be wrong, do people call you a liar? Do they search for any sort of evidence and manipulate it in a way to give you the accusing eye?

Very easy with hindsight to come up with alternatives to the invasion of Iraq, but would one or multiples thereof have worked? Obviously the UN with the pool of knowledge it should have had available to it, hadn't worked out a viable option. Nor did it care, while it and its employees were making money out of the food for oil scandal. What a bunch of thieving low life oxygen thieves some of them are.

I can't remember the UN, French, Germans or Russians saying there were no WMD in Iraq. Do you? However, I do recall physical evidence (not using tele footage as verification as to location or weapon spent)provided by the UN, that he had used them in the past.

Yes the election looms as you pointed out. If there was a better alternative than Latham I may have considered voting for Labor. But to allow a bloke that has only had one job all his life, stuffed up a council, shafted his mentor, broke a taxi driver's arm, attempts to king hit an old chap, denounces a President as the most incompetent and dangerous in living memory, bashes his first wife around and sprukes flaky orations while opposition leader, to be PM....no way in hell!

Or if you'd like another way of comparing Latham against Howard why not base it on positive achievements?

One other thing Ghandi. If you are going to use that name, please use it as its former owner would have intended.

Posted by: Lofty at August 9, 2004 at 01:58 PM

I went and fact-checked myself, which is really something I should have done before I ever brought up the subject of sarin bombs on roadsides in Iraq. Ghandi has accused me of being duped by the Bush administration about the content of those bombs, but I googled "Sarin gas Iraq May 2004", then checked Fox News, a lefty blog, whitehouse.gov, The Command Post and a few other places and yet I can't find any kind of retraction of the story from anyone. Can someone else confirm this, please? Was I correct in citing that incident? I'd feel a lot better if I knew that Ghandi The Banned did not in fact catch me off-balance. Thanks.

Posted by: VerityKindle at August 9, 2004 at 05:34 PM

gandhi:

You're right; it looks as if there are no WMDs in Iraq, and we were told they were. That fact disturbs me as much as it no doubt disturbs you, but allow me to make two observations:

First, it is my opinion and the opinion of many others that the invasion had merit in its own right. We're talking a thousand casualties to date, which is utterly tragic. (No Australian casualties, thank God.) The question you have to ask yourself is whether, for you, a thousand casualties is too high a price to pay for the removal of a dictator and the chance to bring some semblence of order to the Middle East in the longer term.

As far as I am concerned, George HW Bush should have pressed through into Iraq at the end of the First Gulf War. A thousand lives would have been a tolerable price then, and it remains a tolerable price now that we've had to re-fight the war from scratch. The adventure's success will ultimately hinge on whether democracy starts to take hold in the Middle East, or whether the whole of Iraq is plunged into chaos. Too early to tell, but I will note that they've hit us with the worst they have, and we're still standing strong.

The second point is one that is no less valid for having been made ad nauseum: it wasn't just the Americans who believed Iraq had WMDs, and it wasn't just the Australians, either. The whole world believed it. Probably even Saddam believed it. It's (apparently) turned out to be not true. But that doesn't change the fact that governments the world over perceived Iraq's WMD stockpile as real and growing. That's an (apparent) failure of intelligence. It's not a failure of foreign policy.

What would be a failure of foreign policy? Allowing Saddam Hussein to stare down the world and defy the terms that ended the Gulf War - whether his arsenal was real or imaginary. The consensus now seems to be that they weren't real. But, prior to the invasion, they were real in the eyes of every country in the world - including every country that had thoughts of defying the United States and its allies.


[This comment refers to one that has been removed. -- The Management]

Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at August 9, 2004 at 07:50 PM