If you listen to Hitler's speeches, you find that he's often sounding very angry and frustrated too. The difference is; Hitler was angry at Germany's foreign enemies. Bush is angry at his domestic enemies. Uh oh.

"This is a symptom of what I find so mysterious about Bush's popularity: his speaking style always strikes me as irritated and angry, as if he's nearly ready to jump out of his skin in frustration that his audience just doesn't get it. Even though he keeps explaining it! And explaining it again! And again! What's wrong with you people?!?

This feeling is almost palpable, and it's the reason I don't understand why his supporters continue to find him attractive. Especially over the past couple of years, he seems increasingly angry, defensive, frustrated, and completely unable to understand why he can't control events around him."

It's in his tone. It's a very simple thing. He raises his pitch toward the end of the sentence. It's a very bad habit and one of his assistants should have corrected it years ago.

Anyone who grins when they're angry should not be trusted.

"Even though he keeps explaining it! "

I find that Bush does very little of what I would call explanation.

His preferred mode of discourse is raw assertion, repeated endlessly. Hardly what I'd call argumentation.

Even teaching children, there comes a time when you do more than point at something and say "That is a [insert noun]." Bush seems to be stuck at pointing at things, naming them as he chooses, and thinking he's going to convince people that way.

So he ramps up his rhetoric, by adding "Listen!"

Now when Al comes here to tell you grave-robbing baby-killers that it is all Bill Clinton's fault, you treat him with all the respect he is due! Stop being name-calling meanies!

If you were one of the worst presidents this country has ever had and everyone hated you, wouldn't you be angry and defensive, too?

Bush simply needs to fix the technical glitches in his propaganda catapult.

I find GWB unacceptable. Fat lot of good it's doing me. It's ironic that he might have a What's wrong with you people?!? tone. I rather have the same feeling toward those who so staunchly support him.

BDS comes in two flavors. The enablers suffer Bush Devotion Syndrome.

Listen, what's more likely - that Bush is a horribly incompetent President, or that most Americans just don't get it, and therefore need to be hectored? (apologies to Jon Stewart)

Troll on the Contempt thread below.

More wingnuttery from the theocrats

Bob

In their book Frogs Into Princes Grinder and Bandler make the comment that the response received from a communication is its meaning. I have always taken that to mean it is the communicator's responsibility to make herself understood, not the listener's. It should not be surprising that Bush refuses to take responsibility for his own failure to communicate, since he has refused to take responsibility for anything in his career.

increasingly angry, defensive, frustrated, and completely unable to understand why he can't control events around him.

This description also works for those who follow Bush, and closely reflects the ideas of Erich Fromm's about the loss of confidence of the middle-class to control their destinies and the lower classes.

My favorite is W woodenness when recites an important talking point. He has so few tricks to convey emphasis: bob the head, lean forward, talk louder, pause for effect. It's the same every time.

What's sad is that we've all known this for years, yet we're only saying it recently. The propaganda was so effective that no one wanted to say the obvious for fear of being shrill or unAmerican.

Bush is the most grating, humiliating and unlistenable President we have or ever will produce.
I am so embarrassed for him and by his policies, I simply turn the channel. Immediately. I also turn off any of his apologists. They are like tongue interpreters in a fundmentalist church. How can his popularity be in the 30s? The unsupportable assertions, lies, and illogical syntax is beyond the endurance of regular minds.
His lack of ability and ideas place him in a select category of worst Western leaders, ever. I think you would have to go back to a medieval Pope and Lucretia Rove to approach this President in raging incompetence and stammering dullardism.

GW always talks to his base only. That's all you need to understand.

Bush is a cult of no personality.

And all this time I thought I was the only one...
The thing that I find most annoying is the high-pitch, which always sounds to me like it's one degree short of whining. Well, that and the over-the-verge-of-exasperation tone. Forgive the sexism implicit in my conditioning, but I had always associated deeper tones with the presumption of authority, and never really got why the wingers -- the last people you'd expect to be looking to be major proponents of feminist ideals -- would give so much cred to someone who sounds like nothing so much as a spoiled little girl.

A base? A President who does not recognize, in his second term, that his base is posterity is no leader at all. In fact, I think I solved the conundrum.
It is high time we had leaders who recognized that they serve all the people.

Do you remember during the Election 2000 months when he stood there like a deer in the headlights with a big zit on his face talking on his ranch?

He looked about as unpresidential as he could, yet the media --- and many others --- never have managed to notice.

It made me aware of just how subjective every damn things is.

This feeling is almost palpable, and it's the reason I don't understand why his supporters continue to find him attractive. Especially over the past couple of years, he seems increasingly angry, defensive, frustrated, and completely unable to understand why he can't control events around him.

1) He is the quintessential angry white male.

2) Like attracts like (esp. amongst that sub-breed of humanity).

A lot of people identify with him.

So when my mother was watching the debates with a Bush supporter, and said something about how he couldn't communicate, the Bush supporter said "Why are you picking on him?" Then went on to defend the idea that being president really is hard work.

So I think the odd comment Bush made about being able to see into Putin's heart is the same principle many Americans apply to Bush - they know this guy, they [think they] understand him, and that he understands them.

That the identification is so perfectly irrational makes it hard for reasonable people to see.

I think you would have to go back to a medieval Pope and Lucretia Rove to approach this President in raging incompetence and stammering dullardism.

And yet we are willing to be cruel about it, where otherwise we might feel sorry for him, because he is so arrogant. Not to mention that his policies are inflicting immearurable suffering on the world. He is so isolated and certain that it's us peons who are wrong, couldn't be him, because he is a son of the wealthy and powerful Bush dynasty, after all.

I applaud Americans for their courage in the face of that which is unacceptable. I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of the unacceptable that they accept.

and you can count me among them.

LOL! At first I thought that you were among the things GWB found unacceptable, and I was like "cool!"

Saam: I suppose the implicit inability to actually SEE that there is no there, there is what I find so frustrating with lingering Republicans. He is a projection of 30% of Americans who believe that education, ideas, and genuine courage are overrated.
The same people who cheated on tests, cheated their friends, or believe they can fool an all-seeing God and tormentor with belated acts of contrition. . .
The rest of us need to yell above the self-absorbed din of the GOP Wurlitzer.

I was lucky enough to see Idiocracy, which played in selected theaters for about 15 minutes. The basic idea is that Luke Wilson, who is in every measurable way completely average, is frozen and wakes up 500 years in the future, where he is now by far the smartest person on earth.

There is a very funny scene where he's a cabinet minister and is trying to explain to his fellow cabinet members that watering crops with Gatorade (or some fictional equivalent--I can't remember what they called it) is a bad idea.

The cabinet members keep repeating these stupid counter-arguments to Wilson, explaining in increasingly aggravated terms why he's wrong (because Gatorade has electrolytes!!!!). Their exasperation and sheer disbelief that Wilson could disagree with them reminded me powerfully of Bush.

For years we've heard from people that Bush may not be articulate, but he's actually quite smart and his very lack of speaking ability was sign of his common touch and connection with the people. And anyone who disagreed with this was a tea-sippin' elitist!

But now I think more and more people are waking up to the fact that this guy is just in over his head. Reporters ask him mildly challenging questions, and his response is, "Listen, Gatorade is good for crops 'cause it has electrolytes! OK? Next question! (Nice suit, by the way.)"

"Thank you, Sir. I'll pass on my tailors information."

My favorite Bush rhetorical device is when he blurts out "See..." and then goes on to explain a point, like how bad it is to open a dialogue with a rogue tyrant, as if he's reinforcing his understanding of the talking point as much as he's explaining it to us.

I just imagine his advisors and speechwriters sitting down with him with power point slides, explaining these basic concepts, trying to drill it into his head, as if studying for a final. Then, he's up there in the lights, talking through it and finally -- BING! "The economy is doing great from my tax cuts! See, if you cut taxes, then people have more money to spend!"

Everything about his way of speaking makes my skin crawl. The cadence, the inflection. If you listen, whatever he's speaking about has the same rhythmn. Even after 9/11, when the nation was behind him, I couldn't stand to hear his voice. I was watching TV with a friend (who is a Bush admirer) before the Iraq invasion. He saw a great leader, I saw a monkey.

Among the many mysteries:

a) How life originated

b) What is dark matter?

c) What 40% of Americans still see in Bush.

For years we've heard from people that Bush may not be articulate, but he's actually quite smart and his very lack of speaking ability was sign of his common touch and connection with the people. And anyone who disagreed with this was a tea-sippin' elitist!

I guess it depends on how you define smart. I think he does have a certain political shrewdness. Wisdom is what he is severely lacking.

He gets on a roll, he throws so many "see's" in there I think he is exhibiting echolalia.

Bush's speech has always reminded me of a stern, lecturing parent. The message and tone is always simplistic, unforgiving and judgmental. Completely authoritarian.

" as if he's reinforcing his understanding of the talking point as much as he's explaining it to us."

Yes, Forsythe, you nailed it, not just in this quote but in your whole post.

Always reminded me of the kid trying to bluff his way through an oral report in the 5th grade.

it is most likely a fair assumption that no one likes bush anymore except poppy and beautiful mind. 35% or so approve of having a republican hold the power of the presidency no matter what they think of the idiot occupying the position.

My wife and I have been amused (or not) by Bush's "unacceptable" habit for some time. So glad to see that someone has actually been counting how often he says it. We wonder also if anyone has counted his other favorite phrase, "I strongly disagree." To us, over and above his pernicious signing statements and his inability to contend with messy constitutional limitations on his power, it is these phrases that are the prime evidence that Bush confuses the presidency with monarchy.

When he utters "unacceptable" or "I strongly disagree" he does so with an air that goes beyond raw assertion and becomes something on the order of proclamation, as though his mere utterance of dissatisfaction is the only cue needed for someone else to follow up with some action of one kind or another. He leaves it up to his kingly court and us poor subjects to correctly infer His Majesty's unspoken punctuation that follows these phrases: "I strongly disagree," so sayeth my lord. "That's unacceptable," the case is closed.

Old Hat: "...one of the worst presidents this country has ever had."

One of?

As to notions of political shrwedness, assuming he has some, as opposed tp puppetmasters (not that he can't have both), what good does that do a guy when he's not running for anything. And this election cycle, it would be shrewd of him to stay the fuck away from any Republican running for anything anywhere.

Bush should take solace in the biblical assertion that a prophet is often without honor in his own country. Now when do we get to crucify him?

In the mean time idiots like David Broder continue to insist (last time was just yesterday in a WaPo chat) that wilful deception for leading us into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people including 3000 of our own is no offense at all, but Clinton should have resigned over consenual sex.

American elites have gone bonkers. As have about 40%-50% of the general population.

He always struck me as coming from the "I know you are, but what am I?" school of argumentation.

He has been able to transmute his lecturing about his job and his "policies" for years into being portrayed as deep conviction and moral certitude. However, now that this image of Bush the moral, Bush the always right is slipping even within the GOP base let alone with the rest of the voting populace it is being seen for what it truly is. A dim witted in over his head man that relies on simplistic certitudes to "cope" with reality who cannot understand why his clear understanding of the world is not shared by everyone else, and that everyone that does not share his vision is clearly anti-American and unpatriotic. Personally I have never understood why this was not obvious from the start since it was clear to me back before he ran for President and was Gov of Texas.

His lecturing so pedantically is really grating on people when they look for substantive information and evidence that those in charge actually know what they are doing. The more Bush does this in such an environment the more he will drive away all but the fully propagandized members of the cult of Bush, which while a sizeable fraction of the GOP base is not the entirety of it let alone the majority of Americans in this time. I mean really, a C average from Harvard makes him the most knowledgeable person in the world on issues of foreign policy and domestic policy?!? Puuuuhleeeeeze!

He may have been able to mask this with his folksy good old boy routine and his nasty frat boy sense of humour to steal two elections with but it is not going to serve him well in this midterm and the last two years of his Presidency (barring impeachment, which I think is necessary to restore American credibility internationally among her allies). Somehow I doubt he is most people's choice to have a beer with these days given how most people think he lied to them about going to war and how a war has been going for several years now. I've always said that when things started to come apart for the GOP and Bushco it would be a cascade failure and not just one or two scandals, and lo and behold that appears to be exactly what has been happening to Bush and the Congressional GOPers.

Incidentally, I caught this on Washington Week last night, did anyone else? It appears that there arte next to no to no Dem Congressional races in trouble at this point, it is all GOP incumbents that are in trouble. This indicates that not only is there and anti-incumbency mood in the populace but it is not aimed at all of Congress just the governing party despite what some GOPers have tried to claim. This is not a good environment for them three weeks out, and I suspect any major October surprise that would appear to help GOPers will be met with suspicion by the electorate more than anything else given where things are and how they got there. Once folks realize they have been conned on the most serious of matters it becomes far more difficult to do so again. What has always amazed, disturbed, and worried me is how many Americans were able to be bamboozled by Bushco and the GOP for as long as they have been. Finally though the long night may finally be about to end, although until I see the results of the midterms I am not counting on anything, not after what I saw happen in the 2004 election theft.

Has anyone dial tested or otherwise focus grouped Bush's recent speeches and/or pressers? I'm biased, but I think the general public has now has negative reaction to Bush rhetoric and mannerisms.

Let me be the first to say: Bush Fatigue!

That fact is...many folks are accepting of that sort of speaking. They're used to it. Secretly, many of them crave listening to someone who sounds just like they do...except who has power. It's self-confirmational at a deep emotional level.

Too bad what they usually have to say is very self-centered and often seeks to irrationally control others through intimidation and brow-beating rather than reasonable, intelligent, problem solving.

But...there I go again!

Jon Stewart really nailed it. He said that Bush does two things:

1. talks to people like they are stupid
2. "answers" questions by simply repeating inane facts, eg, "Denny Hastert is a father, a teacher, a coach. He's a mammal. Has live young - doesn't lay eggs."

That's precisely what W does. And it's precisely why 70% of the electorate don't like him any more.

What about his seemingly all-time-favourite: "LET ME FINISH!"

Especially when nobody is interrupting him.

Kevin, in part since I'm an atheist, I don't buy into everything AA says. But it's not all wrong, either.

Take its description of the stereotypical alcoholic. If you understand where AA comes from, I think you can accept that as a legitimate description of a certain class of white male alcoholics, into which George W. Bush fits perfectly.

That said, while recognizing that an oft-used term in AA, "dry drunk," can be, and is, used as a control/beatdown label, it has a degree of validity, too.

And that's what you have here: George W. Bush, petulant dry drunk, doing the psychological equivalent of holding his breath until his face turns blue.

"Six years into his presidency, there are a lot more things I find unacceptable about the world too. The only difference between Bush and me is that I recognize the correlation and he doesn't."

Causation, not correlation.

I, too, have always found Bush impossible to listen to. The combination of whine and anger that so many have mentioned is, to me, completely off-putting. But what puts me completely over the top is is frequent use of the phrases “as president” and “as commander-in-chief”, as if he's so insecure in his position that he needs to keep reminding his listeners – and himself – that it's not all a weird dream. He must pinch himself to see if he's dreaming when he wakes in the morning and again realizes that he's actually the President of the United States. It must be comforting when he tells himself that it could only be the hand of God that made him the most powerful person in the world is spite of his many weaknesses and shortcomings.

aa

I can't help but think of a fucking monkey throwing his feces around every time I hear this asshole motherfucker open his fucking mouth.

catapult that fucking propaganda!!

One of his other tics is "By the way," which usually precedes the main thing he had to say in the first place. It's maddening.

Shrub's use of "See" and/or "Listen", reminds me of Yaphet Kotto playing Idi Amin Dada in "Raid on Entebbe" When talking with the hostages, he would lean forward and say, "Now, this is very important, very important" Well, similar thugs and all that.

Similar to Bill O'Reilly's heavy use of "With all due respect", them sliming the person.

If only a press person could end his career in the Rose Garden by saying, "Mr President, with all due respect, you are full of crap".

Classic -- Kevin Drum and his liberal friends giving likeability advice to a two time elected governor of Texas and president of the United States.

And that's what you have here: George W. Bush, petulant dry drunk, doing the psychological equivalent of holding his breath until his face turns blue.

Great minds and all...Google "whiny dry drunk little bitch" and see how many hits come up attached to my screen name.

Hay Brian,

Crawl back into your corner and resume eating your own feces.

Jerk.

You guys beg the question of why Bush's speaking style was popular in the first place. I was a McCain supporter in 2000, and I wondered the same thing for awhile until I realized the contrast. After eight years of the loquacious Slick Willie the public found Bush's grammatical pratfalls somewhat endearing. First, most folks and identify with screwing up while public speaking, and, more importantly, they saw it as kind of a badge of honesty... Bush would be sharp enough on his feet to lie to them convincingly the way your guy did.

Sorry for my own Bushisms in the last post - hit the send key while editing... last line should say "...not be sharp enough."

Two more Bush speech tics I find maddening:
"The American people (or the Mexican people or whoever) have to understand...", which makes me want to scream, "No, we don't!" The second: "We're going to catch such-and-such a terrorist and bring him to justice." In my understanding, "bring him to justice" means bring him to court, and that apparently is the last thing Mr. Bush wants to do.

> His preferred mode of discourse is raw
> assertion, repeated endlessly.
> Hardly what I'd call argumentation.

Contrary to what Kevin says above, however, W's style (presumably backed by Rove and Hughes' writing) seems to have worked quite well for its intended purpose. I am not sure that liberals will ever be able to understand why that is, but it is a fact.

Cranky

Well, let's face it. His behavior now is just further confirmation of the accuracy of that 2004 bumper sticker: "Bush: Like a Rock -- Only Dumber".

Even though he appeals, or used to appeal, to "folks" with authoritarian impulses, the question now is whether he's authoritative enough to carry it off. Apparently not. Hitler and Mussolini were angry all the time, but they sure seemed, you know, pretty convinced about everything. Stalin had that fake-genial Uncle Joe thing going. BTW, why did women in any category go for the Pretzel Chimp, ever?

Scotian, your comments made me think of something Kevin (hello?) may well have some thoughts on. Obviously, they are unloading the coffers to derail the Dems ready to run right over weak Repubs. If/when that doesn't work, will the money dry up for 2008? We know that crowd doesn't like losers.

And is it time to launch a K Street Project of our own?

parrot: "...many folks are accepting of that sort of speaking. They're used to it. Secretly, many of them crave listening to someone who sounds just like they do...except who has power. It's self-confirmational at a deep emotional level."

Indeed, Bush has perfected the mannerisms, tone and didactic speech patterns of a Southern evangelical preacher.

So while the rest of us hear nothing but delusion and platitudes, his way of talking reassures his base. They hear the word and authority of God. They cut him slack because Bush is just human!

I always believed that Germanys political blunder in 1933 was a unique madness in history. Now I see that other nations make grave mistakes, too. Fortunately the consequences will not be as bad and it will be over soon. Americans today are politically more experienced and more savvy in plractical democracy than Germans were in 1933. I wish America good luck and plenty of wisdom in November.

The reason he keeps shouting "Listen!" is most people have stopped. Period.

...Fortunately the consequences will not be as bad and it will be over soon. . . .
Posted by: Jörgen in Germany on October 14, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

How so?

Hitler didn't have Diebold.
And he didn't have nuclear weapons.

Listen, I find the war lies unacceptable, the torture unacceptable, the deficit unacceptable, the billions of taxpayer dollars missing and stolen in Iraq unacceptable, the abandonment of Katrina victims and leaving them to drown or die of thirst unacceptable, the increased uninsured population unacceptable, the increased pollution, poverty unacceptable, the cover-up of scandals from Abu Ghraib to pedophilia unacceptable, the outing of CIA agents unacceptable, the increased terrorism and civil war in Iraq unacceptable.

Listen, I find them all unacceptable, see. And I'm gonna find the person responsible and hold him to account, see. Listen, I'm gonna git the terrist responsible for this mess. See, I want him dead or alive.

..Bush would be sharp enough on his feet to lie to them convincingly the way your guy did.
Posted by: minion of rove on October 14, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

. . . so he just lies unconvincingly.

And thus Bush does for snarky grammarians what he did for Lombrossian phrenology.

His ".... They attacked us!" meltdown in his first debate with Kerry is still my all-time favorite Bush Moment.

Bob

Sparko said it.

This post is so sadly, sadly true.

It always infuriated me that the MSM (that vaunted, liberal MSM) didn't point out again and again the that audiences at Bush 04 events were hand picked, and those showing up at Kerry's were spontaneous. All those Stepford Thuglican audiences, it was sooooo clear that the propaganda machine was turning them out, but no one said anything, and they just kept showing up on the news, as if they were real.

Listen, George: Being hectored just isn't a good way to people's hearts, and repeating the same words over and over isn't a good way to influence actual events in the world.

It's totally unacceptable.

I like Bush, but his speaking style isn't the reason. I do admire his ability to defend himself against the "gotcha" questions that dominate his press conferences. The partisan, ignorant reporters make Bush look good by comparison.

What I like about Bush is that he takes things to a logical conclusion. His talk isn't divorced from his action. E.g., Clinton said that Saddam had WMDs, but he did nothing. Bush said the same thing, but he took the action top his belief.

Today, many blame Bush for having allowed NK to get nukes. In effect, they're saying Bush should have already mounted a military attack, Maybe they're right. This is a case where Bush is blamed because his action hasn't matched his words. OTOH we don't blame Clinton for failing to mount a military attack against NK, because nobody expected Clinton's actions to match his words.

"What 40% of Americans still see in Bush."

I think it's just basic denial. They can't admit they fell for this idiot.

And don't underestimate the lingering fear from 9/11. Bush on the Pile. They still cling to that. "Maybe we weren't wrong...please, please, please?"

And what pluege said at 1:58 PM. These folks are praying to their Episcopalian God that Baker can pull Jr.'s cojones out of the fire one more time.

I also want to give a shoutout to Scotian, but as to "impeachment, which I think is necessary to restore American credibility internationally among her allies..." no President ever deserved it more, or had a better insurance policy against it -- President Cheney. Tho if we could send a microwave signal, ... first woman president, ...

No, no. Can't go there. NSA is watching ...

And yes, Scotian, I saw Washington Week (love that show. Best of the MSM, reporter to reporter rather than talking heads), and also Brooks and Shields on Lehrer. Brooks predicted both House and Senate gone, and Shields predicted 30 House seats. So hope you're right.

Finally, thank you george w bush at 4:33 PM

I understand that during the revolutionary war about 30% of the population were British sympathisers. (Correct me you history buffs if I got my numbers wrong.)

That should explain a substantial percentage of Bush's residual popularity. A certain percentage of the population will always support authoritarian figures ...

...And is it time to launch a K Street Project of our own?

Posted by: Kenji on October 14, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

...Fortunately the consequences will not be as bad and it will be over soon....

Posted by: Jörgen in Germany on October 14, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

First, no! No Dem "K Street". It should be obvious how corrupting and corrosive that has proved. I'd prefer if they got all corporate money out of the election and lobbying system -- or atleast severely curtailed.

Bush and his US-first policy has destroyed all the nuclear arms limitation, weapons reduction, weapons in space, and anti-ballistic missile defence treaties, undermined the non-proliferation treaty. Also not made his best effort to secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the old USSR. Not to mention Iran, N.Korea and the deal with India. In short, completely changed the nuclear weapon environment across the globe.

Not only has he ignored finding peace in the Middle East, his behavior over Lebanon and, obviously, Iraq has totally undermined US standing in the Arab and Islamic world, only reinforced by his deliberate abandonment of the most basic rights and resort to torture. He's done more to damage the US in the eyes of the world than could have been thought possible in January 2001.

It put any solution or amelioration to global climate change on the back burner for 8 years. Eight valuable years when the US should have been leading the world towards some kind of solution.

And a tendency to prefer bilateral or bloc trade agreements rather than progress in the world forum. The losers have been the poor of the world.

His total inability to actually secure the US, even to the degree as recommended by bipartisan committee three plus years ago.

His policies have continued to accelerate the divide of the richest society in the world into have-a-lots, getting-less, and have-nots, effectively throwing the great US success story into reverse gear.

Oh, Yeah! Bush's legacy will last some time and may well be seen as the Presidency that marked the world's slide towards the third use of a thermo-nuclear device as an agent of death, and/or the irreversible slide into climate change that killed millions.

I really resent the possibility of his behavior labelling the baby-boom generation the "Me-now-and-fuck-the-future-generation".

ex-liberal:

Oh jesus. We've been over this fifty gazillion times.

While Clinton was president, the seals stayed on NK's plutonium. As it happens, they built a secret facility and began to try to enrich uranium on the sneak. But while it's easier to build a crude Hiroshima-class nuke from uranium 238 than it is to make an efficient, implosion-triggered plutonium device -- it is much more technically arduous to process the uranium to do it and takes many years to homegrow the technology, as we are witnessing in Iran.

The Pu they could just harvest from the control rods and stick in a crude, gun-type device and get a highly inefficient explosion, as they apparently did last week -- the smallest yield (well below Hiroshima) for a first test of any nuclear nation.

George Bush *expedited that process*. Here's how:

You'll recall that NK became open about its uranium program *and* unsealed the plutonium control rods *after* Bush's "axis of evil" speech, and well after he had made it clear to Kim that it was No More Mr. Nice Guy and the technology deals he made with Clinton were off.

Had Gore won the election and continued the "sunshine policy" of working with Kim to keep his filthy mits off the bomb-grade plutonium, doubtless at some point the world would have discovered the uranium facilities (probably through inspector reports). And there would have been world condemnation, etc. -- but if we kept Kim on board, especially with the security guarantees, it's also likely that he would have left his Pu alone, regardless of how he wished to handle continuing to try to enrich uranium from a different type of reactor.

The net result: North Korea in 2006 with *no* nuclear weapons.

So Clinton people are absolutely justified in saying that it was Bush's declaration of NK as "intolerable" which led directly to Kim building crude nukes out of pre-processed plutonium.

Bob

ex-liberal: “What I like about Bush is that he takes things to a logical conclusion. His talk isn't divorced from his action. E.g., Clinton said that Saddam had WMDs, but he did nothing. Bush said the same thing, but he took the action top his belief.”

It must be nice to live in your simple little world. Only black and white. Rhetoric = actions. Iraq bad = attack Iraq. Korea bad = attack Korea. No diplomacy. No sanctions. No weapons inspectors. The only thing that counts is military force.

My neighbor is a jerk. Maybe I should shoot him.

aa

I have a hypothesis about this, which is that the reason his supporters don't mind is that they don't just agree with him about some aspect of policy, or think he's a Strong Leader, or whatever. More than that, they're precisely the people whose worldviews are equally simplistic, and who reason in precisely the same way.

So when he starts with that "Listen," stuff, they don't hear him as speaking to them. Au contraire: They hear themselves speaking along with him, addressing the smarty-pants reporters or libruls who persist in wilfully refusing to see how very simple the issue is. How can they do other than smile? They hear themselves say exactly the same things to their annoying kids, or in-laws, or else about those America-haters in the blue states, at least once a week. And they sound petulant when they say those things too, because it's so simple that it's easy to think a person would have to be deliberately evil to disagree. But no, you're a decent person so you give them the benefit of the doubt and try to explain it to them in words that even they will finally understand.

I hate this hypothesis, inasmuch as it suggests that we share the country with enormous numbers of idiots. But there is one positive implication to it. If it's true, then the minute his supporters start perceiving him as talking to them when he pulls this, rather than talking for them, he's toast.

The other night Jon Stewart was on David Letterman's show; and, they came to the conclusion that W talks to us like WE are stupid. I personally have always thought that his style was somewhat third-gradish (if Bush can make up words so can I).

ex-liberal: I hate to rip off your republican rose colored glasses but there haven't been any "gotcha" questions from bushie's press conferences. here are a few gotcha questions: Where were you in '72?, why didn't you take action in response to the 8/6/01 PDB, why didn't you verify Iraq "intel" before pulling inspectors and launching a war, where's the 9 bil you can't account for? and why can't you account for it? why have only grunts been punished for torture? who will be punished for erroneous extraditions and torture? why did you sit on your besotted behind for 4 days while Americans died in N.O.?

Bob - NK cheated on their agreement with Clinton. Bush called them on their cheating. So, their continued non-compliance with their agreements is Bush's fault. OTOH if Bush had ignored their cheating, then their continued non-compliance would have been Bush's fault. Moral -- everything is Bush's fault.

aa - it is Bush who showed nuance with regard to negotiating. The civilized world had been negotiating with Saddam for over 10 years with no results, when Bush finally resorted to military force. Iraq had ignored around 17 Security Council resolutions. OTOH, negotiations haven't been tried as much with Iran and NK, so Bush is negotiating with them.

Chrissy - I watched the last press conference. Well over half the questions involved second guessing past events. ONly a few sensibly were of the form, "What are you doing to do now about X?"

"Third-gradish" is a perfectly crommulent word.

ex-liberal, you're such a dimwit it hurts. It actually hurts.

Enthusiastic stupidity like yours isn't all that common (for Darwinian reasons). You are the Ministry of Truth's wet dream.

ex-liberal: “it is Bush who showed nuance with regard to negotiating. The civilized world had been negotiating with Saddam for over 10 years with no results, when Bush finally resorted to military force. Iraq had ignored around 17 Security Council resolutions. OTOH, negotiations haven't been tried as much with Iran and NK, so Bush is negotiating with them.”

Here's Bush nuance: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are the axis of evil. Then invade Iraq. So what's a self-respecting monomaniacal dictator supposed to do? Set around and get attacked? I don't think so. How about developing some nukes? Yes, that's the ticket. Now Mister Nuance will have to think twice about that invasion thing.

Ten years without results? Perhaps you didn't notice that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. Even Condi said that Iraq was “contained” before her boss (read Cheney) sat her down and told her the facts of Neocon life. Oh, and maybe you didn't notice the independent and prosperous Kurdish region. It wasn't perfect “before W”, but it was a hell of a lot better than we have now.

aa

I think he does have a certain political shrewdness. Wisdom is what he is severely lacking.

I've always been quick to admit that Bush would be better than I am at picking up women in a bar, or verbally humiliating people who irritated us. This talent extends to being able to bilk investors out of their money, another thing Bush is better at than I am. Does that make him more "intelligent" than me? I guess in the same way that a successful used car salesman canbe said to be more "intelligent" than a rocket scientist, sure.

minion: After eight years of the loquacious Slick Willie the public found Bush's grammatical pratfalls somewhat endearing.

This post and discussion isn't about Bush's "grammatical pratfalls." This is about Bush's patronizing attitude he always takes. Why do people find it attractive? The only compelling explanation I've heard here is gironde's explanation that Bush's fans are "speaking along with him," not viewing themselves as the targets of Bush's petulance and patronizing attitude.

This is a great thread. Thanks, Kevin.

ex-liberal: What part of democracy don't you get? It's the duty, responsibility and obligation of every member of a democracy press or citizen to second guess, third guess, fourth guess etc. their leaders and their decisions disastrous or good. Whether it's their past, present or future decisions. Wise up.

Constantine

To the yokels out in the red states, Bush's verbal tics and "patronizing" direct speech patterns convinced them he would not parse the definition of "is" and tell them it was their fault they believed him when he wagged a finger in their face and said please believe me. I know you Dems hate that fact but we are still paying for it today. I think this country would be light years ahead of where we are now had McCain been elected in 2000, I'd even concede at this point we would not be too much worse off under Gore, but good ol' Midland boy Bush is a direct reaction to Slick Willie's betrayal of the public trust, and there's no way for your team to get around that.

The only word to sum up Bush is: Fraud!

Oh and the word nasty. Bush is just plain out and out nasty. I'm suprised that UN members would even take calls from Bush, Cheney or Rice. It should be nothing beyond lip services. "It's Bush on the phone." -- "Oh Jeebus, please tell little lord of the flys that I'm out of the office today."

Listen, George, you are the most unacceptable President we've ever had.

To the yokels out in the red states, Bush's verbal tics and "patronizing" direct speech patterns convinced them he would not parse the definition of "is" and tell them it was their fault they believed him when he wagged a finger in their face and said please believe me.

I still believe you're conflating two issues-- you originally referred to Bush's malapropisms and grammatical errors (a not unconvincing take on the issue), but that was not the topic of the original post. Your claim now that Bush's angry petulance and patronizing attitude when he speaks is something that people find appealing is not convincing. It doesn't even make sense. You're welcome to try to back up your assertion, though. I simply don't see the evidence for it.

"1) He is the quintessential angry white male."

@$&*(#$, blame him on someone else, we don't want him!

Oh, and there aren't people like President Hugo Chavez, Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf, and host of countries trashing the Bush administrations, and who change political course and thrown out pro-Bush in several elections.

UK is just latest to start saying bye-bye Bush's BS.

but good ol' Midland boy Bush is a direct reaction to Slick Willie's betrayal of the public trust, and there's no way for your team to get around that.

Nope, sorry. After 9/11, Bush had the public trust, as evidenced by his high poll numbers. And yet, through cynical political opportunism and just plain incompetence, he managed to completely squander that trust, all by himself. Clinton had nothing to do with it.

Responsibility. Look into it.

My neighbor is a jerk. Maybe I should shoot him.

Ex-liberal is a jerk...

The civilized world had been negotiating with Saddam for over 10 years with no results...

Riiiight. Saddam had no WMDs and was no threat. But keep telling yourself "no results"

Constantine

I concede your point - I should have said my comment was not directly aimed at Kevin's original premise.

Minnesota Public Radio had a program that might answer many of the questions of the why and how of the partisan brain. You will have to admit it works for both ends of the partisan spectrum.

Prof. Drew Westen of Emory U and research psycologist Jonas Kaplan of UCLA did brain mapping of subjects answering political questions and contradictory information. Basically comes out that we can self-reward with dopamine, suppressing our logic circuits and accepting the emotional gratification of resolving the conflict.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/08/21/midmorning2/

It's worth a listen.

aaron aardvarka wrote: Here's Bush nuance: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are the axis of evil. Then invade Iraq. So what's a self-respecting monomaniacal dictator supposed to do? Set around and get attacked? I don't think so. How about developing some nukes? Yes, that's the ticket. Now Mister Nuance will have to think twice about that invasion thing.

Libya made the more sensible decision to abandon their nuclear program after Bush invaded Iraq. Iran and NK could have done the same.

More importantly, I don't like a foreign policy designed to placate monomanical dictators. When the Islamic government of Iran asks us to execute gays and Jews, I don't want to be in the position of thinking about it. We should be resisting that sort of evil.

Ten years without results? Perhaps you didn't notice that Iraq didn't have any WMDs.

That's right, I didn't notice. Bill Clinton didn't notice. Hillary didn't notice. John Kerry didn't notice. You can find quotes from all of them affirming Iraq's WMDs.

Oh, and maybe you didn't notice the independent and prosperous Kurdish region. It wasn't perfect “before W”, but it was a hell of a lot better than we have now.

Actually, things remain just fine in the Kurdish regions. Life is good there.

Note that things were fine in the Kurdish regions under Saddam, only because US military might maintained a no-fly zone protecting them. Without our protection, Saddam would have continued his genocide against the Kurds.

In short, the US was in a state of permanent war against Iraq in order to protect the Kurds. I think it was better to finish Saddam for good, rather than to remain at war with him forever, in order to protect the Kurdish minority.

Bush reminds me of the anchor-bots on those weird "prayer network" stations you find monopolizing the latenight airwaves when traveling through some sparsely-populated red state.

Same stilted cadence, same relentless circular logic and baseless assertion, same invulnerability to empiricism and reasoned argument, same posture of permanent self-righteous outrage despite having "God" plus all 3 branches of temporal government on their side.

Christ, how much omnipotence does it take to be happy and content every so often?

...I think it was better to finish Saddam for good, rather than to remain at war with him forever, in order to protect the Kurdish minority.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 14, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Then I guess there is a very good argument that you thought wrong.

Actually, things remain just fine in the Kurdish regions. Life is good there.

How long do you think that will really last if the US is forced to conceed Bush's folly and withdraw? Our NATO ally Turkey will not abide an independent Kurdistan. I know something about Turkish policy. I lived there for two-and-a-half years. The Turks are chafing already at the Kurdish independence brewing on their border.

Yep, GC, the Kurds have been more-or-less screwed for years. With Turkish antipathy, Saddam's antipathy, and no support for a Kurdish state, they have no permanent security.

Meanwhile, the world is clamoring to give a state to the Palestinians, although their conduct has been atrocious. Maybe the Kurds should start murdering Jews. Then, perhaps the world would support a Kurdish state.

ex-liberal: Libya made the more sensible decision to abandon their nuclear program after Bush invaded Iraq. Iran and NK could have done the same.

Please note that Libya wasn't labeled as part of the axis of evil. The fact is W screwed the pooch with the axis of evil thing. He practically invited Kim Jong Il to revive his nuclear weapons program. Are you actually saying that we should base our foreign policy on the expectation that monomaniacal dictators will make sensible decisions from our perspective? It seems to me that his decision was very sensible from his perspective.

That's right, I didn't notice. Bill Clinton didn't notice. Hillary didn't notice. John Kerry didn't notice. You can find quotes from all of them affirming Iraq's WMDs.

Yes, the Clinton policy worked even better than we thought – a fact that was being confirmed by the UN weapons inspectors before W prematurely pulled the out of Iraq so he could get his war on.

Note that things were fine in the Kurdish regions under Saddam, only because US military might maintained a no-fly zone protecting them. Without our protection, Saddam would have continued his genocide against the Kurds.

I don't exactly see you point here. Before the war about 1/3rd of Iraq was free and prosperous under Kurdish rule thanks to US protection, and after the war the same 1/3rd of Iraq is still free and prosperous under US protection. So??? How is that a justification for the war?

aa

More importantly, I don't like a foreign policy designed to placate monomanical dictators.

Our alliances with such bastions of liberty as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan must really keep you up nights.

That's right, I didn't notice.

Scott Ritter noticed. Hans Blix noticed. Too bad our leadership was too busy mobilizing materiel for its foregone decision while whiting out caveats from the NIE to listen. Strangely enough, even those Democrats whose quotes you now hide behind did not choose to invade and occupy Iraq. Your guy did that.

I think it was better to finish Saddam for good, rather than to remain at war with him forever

Closing the book on a casualty-free air war against Hussein's low-tech radar outposts and pathetic air defenses kind of loses its appeal when the replacement strategy is an equally perpetual and maddeningly faceless sectarian enfilade involving 150K American ground forces. Try thinking that one through some more before you print the T-shirts.

Try thinking that one through some more before you print the T-shirts.

Thank you. Perfectly put.

It took a long while for the usual rubes and trolls to infest this post; this is a wonderful place when the likes of its core users interact and wax philosophical.

I find it sad however, that the even the trolls have to try and justify, explain and otherwise clarify the words of the "Being There" President. It was so clearly obvious that Karen Hughes was speaking through Mr. Gardner duringthe debates--he even had to wait for the earpiece to clear before he tried to reassemble the verbiage.

Imagine what we will find out in the next few years? His amorality is surely as bottomless as his lack curiosity. My most emphatic wish is that we hold the MSM accountable for the coming hungry times, and that we never again allow them to repackage reality to fit their corporate earnings statement.

"Listen!" Sage advice for oneself as President.

I think Lionel Birdbrain, Attorney at Law ought to go back and read what the world thought of our sanctions and no fly zones -- if the UN had been willing to step up to its obligations, and if the kind of people that read this blog had been willing to stand with our president rather than snipe from the tall grass when we were trying to get smart sanctions in place - maybe this war could have been avoided.
Bush is going to be judged for a long time for his conduct in this matter, but I wonder when folks like Global Citizen will focus on the Dem's policy of obstruction that facilitated it. On Sept 11 Bush had been in office eight months, yet had only two of his appointments confirmed to the Dept of Defense. Likewise the constant attacks on Bolton today serve no useful purpose except puffing the egos of blowhards like Biden while weakening our negotiators at Turtle Bay.

"I also want to give a shoutout to Scotian, but as to "impeachment, which I think is necessary to restore American credibility internationally among her allies..." no President ever deserved it more, or had a better insurance policy against it -- President Cheney."

Posted by: Cal Gal on October 14, 2006 at 5:16 PM

The beauty of it is the things that I expect proper oversight investigation will bring up as evidence for impeachment of Bush will also impeach Cheney as well, especially when one considers it is the foreign policy arena where most of the worst sins were done and Cheney was always the foreign policy director of this Presidency. If it were not for that believe me I would not recommend impeachment even knowing the need for it as I have said I believe to be the case. If anything I expect Cheney's record of criminality to be far more extensive than GWB's since Cheney was the actual "intellectual" force of this Administration and not Bush himself. Thanks btw for the kind words, and wasn't this week's Washington Week such an amazing thing to watch? I mean really, hearing the GOP lacks enough money for all the races they have in trouble was remarkable, and to hear no Dem Congressional incumbent appears to be in trouble was downright amazing.

President Pelosi. Hmmmm. Paybacks really are a bitch, huh?

I hope that Washington Week repplays in my market. I missed it. But the news I gleened here was heartening.

Maybe the Kurds should start murdering Jews. Then, perhaps the world would support a Kurdish state.

If by "murdering" you mean launching guerilla attacks against a country they believe to be oppressing them, then the Kurds have been "murdering" Turks for years.

Feh.

If you try closing your mouth when you breathe you will hyperventilate less and your ideas are likely to be less hallucinatory.

According to Open Secrets the dems are better set in their house and senate campaign committees, while the publicans have more in the general party account and the RNC than the dems do in their corresponding accounts.

If the publicans are spending like drunken sailors trying to hang on to an evaporating majority, I say let 'em. I encourage them to spend, spend, spend, spend, spend. Oh yes. Spend. Bankrupt your party coffers like you have bankrupted the nation.

Alf Landon and Barry Goldwater are spinning in their graves.

Surprised that no one has mentioned Wallace Shawn's character of Vizzini in "The Princess Bride"

"Inconceivable!"

Double your impeachment, double your fun ...

Just talking with a neighbor about the prospects of impeachment, and he, too, is rarin' to go.

If for no other reason than payback ... you impeach our Pres for nada, we impeach yours for killing hundreds of thousands.

However, I think rather than starting out with impeachment, the Dems need to hold hearings on just exactly what happened, and if the wave builds strongly enough, and high enough, they won't be able to stop it from breaking.

I think it needs to come from the bottom up, the public needs to demand it, though thorough hearings might be enough to get it to that point.

Well, Gerry Studds is dead at 69. Obviously he committed suicide after reading Nathan's and Will Allen's 250-page diatribes about how he hadn't been punished enough. Perhaps the score is even now.

minion,

I do agree with you, by the way, regarding the appeal of Bush's malapropisms (though he doesn't appeal to me). In a similar vein, my main complaint about Edwards, for example, was the fact that I could never be sure whether he really beleived what he was saying, because I figured he'd be just as polished if he didn't believe a word of what he was promoting.

Shrub is just as inarticulate and confused as his father was when it comes to public speaking. But be glad that he continues to be irritating, arrogant and buffoonish. The more he talks the less likely it is that the media and electorate will fall in love with the next Bush and make Jeb president.

"However, I think rather than starting out with impeachment, the Dems need to hold hearings on just exactly what happened, and if the wave builds strongly enough, and high enough, they won't be able to stop it from breaking.

I think it needs to come from the bottom up, the public needs to demand it, though thorough hearings might be enough to get it to that point."

Posted by: Cal Gal on October 14, 2006 at 10:27 PM

Oh I quite agree! I am just certain that a proper job of investigations and oversight function performed will provide the necessary evidence to cause such a bottom up response, and the beauty of it is this would simply be a result of performing the oversight and responsible government that the GOP failed to do coming back to haunt them. It would not be seen as a simple payback exercise done in this manner, and I would like to hope that the Dem leadership is smart enough to see this for themselves, which may be one reason why they are prior to the election downplaying the idea of impeachment hearings. We shall see.

All I do know is that the policies of GWB need to be strongly repudiated while he is still in office. Rejecting him in 2004 would have been better, since the world generally thought 2000 was a questionable election, so rejecting him once his policies like Abu Ghraib and no WMDs found by that point in Iraq along