Click Image to Enlarge.
-
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
-
Meta
Sure, Bush answered every question, just not in sequence. Play Bush Jeopardy here and try to come up with the actual question
he was answering here.
From Bush's Cleveland Q&A transcript:
Q: Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?
Bush: Hmmm, uhh, hah — ummm — I, the answer is — I haven't really thought of it that way, heh, heh. Heh. Here's how I think of it. Ummm — heh heh. First I've heard of that, by the way, I, ah — uhh — the, uhh — I, I guess I'm more of a practical fella. Uhh. I vowed after September the 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And, uhh — my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks. I knew we were at a war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to be sophisticated, and lethal, to fly hijacked airplanes, uhh, into — facilities that would, we would, killing thousands of people, innocent people, doin' nothing, just sittin' there goin' to work.
What's your point, Mencken? That the President isn't sure how to answer an idiotic question meant to make him look bad either to the religious right or, alternately, to the rest of us? The problem with Bush critics isn't that they're wrong, it's that they're lazy.
Well Larry he could have just said, " No, that's a silly question" and moved on. Lazy? Explain yourself.
I guess I mean there are many more substantial issues the president can be criticized on. The tiresome focus on his poor articulation and the smug nods to his religious beliefs do nothing to add to any productive debate on important issues. They smack of intellectual elitism, but actually reflect a lack of ideas and a refusal to develop any.
I didn't realize I had to submit my ideas to put America back on track to comment on Bok's cartoons. That was a blog comment, not my doctoral thesis. The point is, if the leader of the free world can't answer policy questions in a clear and articulate manner, then by what other manner should we judge him ? Bush is not a 22 year old relief pitcher explaining his pitch choices in the ninth inning to some sports reporter, he's the President of the United States.
His lack of ability to communicate his agenda meaningfully has eroded his credibility with the American public, it's fractured the Republican Party, and has caused America's image and influence in the world to take a nosedive.
As for Bush's religious beliefs, I'm only concerned about them to extent that they affect public policy.
When Bush told Palestinian ministers that God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, then I think we have every right to question that statement as it relates to US foreign policy. If Bush's environmental policy reflects a religious belief that there's no need to conserve natural resources because the apocalypse is near, then again we have every right to dispute that belief.
That's not intellectual elitism Larry, that's patriotism.
I do understand this is a blog. In fact if you look closely at the cartoon we're commenting on, you might see yourself there on the right.
What you're saying isn't patriotism, it's the same kind of alarmist histrionics the religious nuts plyed during Clinton's term. It precludes any cogent debate.
I don't see any reason to apologize for my criticism of the Bush Administration and hell yes I'm trying to stir things up here.
Most of the cartoons here garner no comments at all unless I toss something out. As for cogent debate, bring it on Larry….
and I mean that with all due respect.
Patriotism means paying attention to the issues, voting, debating, supporting due process and free speech, questioning authority and policy. I have been no more or less pointed in my comments on the issues than Bok has been. I support his right to voice his opinion as well as my right to challenge it from time to time. That's democracy and sometimes elbows get thrown. If all of this exceeds your PC threshold or your rules of engagement then deal with it or leave it alone. As I said previously, if Mr. Bok wants me to move on, all he has to do is ask, it's his house.
Bush said what he said, that's not up for debate. Either he's delusional, or he's pandering to the religious right, or God did in fact tell him to invade Iraq. What's your best guess Larry ?
Well of course Bush panders to the religious right, but politicians have to pander to someone don't they? That's about as relevant and interesting as defending patriotism or railing against political correctness. That said, keep up the good work.
If you know it's pandering, then you just roll your eyes and take it
for what it is. It's basically my opinion that far too many people just don't keep the game in front of them.
Seeing as though patriotism has been distilled down to a magnetic sticker on the back of an SUV, along with an unquestioning allegience to lobbyist owned bureaucrats, then I still think it's worth discussing the definition of the word regularly. PC's not all bad either. At least I don't hear the N word thrown around the
corporate hallways like I used to.
Menken, you're welcome in my house anytime. Just wipe your feet.
-Chip