The Presidents Speech

[TheEarl]

And to accuse the United States of terrorism is ludicrous.

NORAID anyone?

Amicus: I supported war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein's a bad man. However I do not see the link between him and global terrorism. In fact Hussein's reign largely kept the extremists out of Iraq.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

Ami can generate more fantasy in one typing session than an army of fact finders can counter. But, here is one case (I can't get more recent figures). I'm sure the June figure will appear shortly, if Cheney/Rumsfeld see fit to release them

Am: Only Army quota's were below target the past four months, but for June they exceed the target level. All the other services met their quota's.[sic]

http://fairborndailyherald.1upsoftware.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=115954

Thanks for posting this, Pure.

Although I imagine accurate facts and figures won't matter much to ami.

I know quite a few military families. Many of them openly support Bush because, and I'm quoting here, "Because we're military. We have to. He controls what will happen to us."

Additional reigning through fear, I suppose.

 

[Pure]

A grain of truth in Amicus' dreams

Apparently there was a June blip, due to high school graduations and the $20,000 enlistment bonus.

Army Surpasses Its June Recruiting Goals but Says Much Work Remains

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, June 30, 2005; Page A05

The Army has exceeded its monthly nationwide recruiting goals for June, stopping a four-month slide and giving recruiters hope as they try to make up a significant deficit in the remaining three months of the fiscal year.

Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced the Army's June success at the end of a town hall meeting at the Pentagon yesterday, calling it a "bit of good news" in what has been a troublesome topic this year. The Army missed its recruiting goals for the active duty forces by increasing margins from February through May, falling thousands of recruits behind expectations.



According to preliminary numbers cited by a Pentagon official yesterday afternoon, the Army has brought in more than 6,150 recruits this month, passing the goal of 5,650 by about 9 percent. The official released the early numbers after Myers's speech but did not want to be identified because the numbers are subject to change. The Army Reserve, which also has been affected by sluggish recruiting numbers, passed its June goal of 3,610 by about 50 recruits.

The slight surplus in June, however, barely chipped away at what has become a major gap in recruiting numbers. The Army hopes to gain 80,000 recruits this fiscal year but is well behind its target thus far.
About 48,500 recruits have joined through the first nine months of the fiscal year -- 7,800 behind the year-to-date goal, or about 86 percent of the expected numbers.

The Army must now add about 31,500 recruits in the next three months, an average of 10,500 each month, to meet the annual goal. January was the only month this year in which the Army brought in more than 8,000 recruits. At the current pace, the Army would miss its goal by more than 11,000.

"We're very pleased we made our June mission," said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the Army's recruiting command. "But it is a difficult recruiting year, and we do have a lot of ground to make up. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us."

Col. Joseph Curtin, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said the rise in June is part of an expected summer surge, when the Army historically has seen higher numbers as students have recently graduated from high school and are mulling over their futures. Curtin said the June numbers reflect the hard work of more than 7,000 recruiters, and Myers said enlistment bonuses of as much as $20,000 are being used to entice recruits.

Myers, echoing President Bush's call to service in a speech Tuesday night, said "senior leaders need to talk out" to try to convince parents and relatives of potential recruits that the United States needs young men and women in the armed services.

Surveys have shown that parents are increasingly inclined to dissuade their children from enlisting.
Staff writer Bradley Graham contributed to this report.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The vote counting issue is a big deal. The CEO of the Diebold company, who made the voting machines, guaranteed a Republican victory in every state they were used in. Then he laughed, as if he were joking. The appearance and evidence of impropriety abounds. Katherine Harris, in charge of the election in Florida in 2000, just happened to be the Bush/Cheney campaign director for the state. It seems a bit disingenuous, at best, to allow the head of one sides campaign to be in charge of the election. Everywhere that something like this was addressed there were massive irregularities. To me that doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory. It sounds like a crime. An investigation would be nice, but the people who would lead the investigation would be the ones the investigation sought to prove criminal acts against. It's like the police in my hometown trying to "solve" some of the crimes they themselves committed.

Now about the traitors...

Exercising our rights as free Americans is treasonous? How does that work? Someone disagrees with you and you consider that treason? That seems really un-American to me. It seems diametrically opposed to what this country was founded on. Liberal principles by liberal people. Liberal - liberty; I see a connection. Liberal is not a bad word no matter how many neo-cons say it is.

I don't really want to get into an argument, but has anyone, anywhere, presented any proof, that stands up to critical evaluation, that votes were fixed?

So far I have seen:

1. The exit polls, which have never been wrong, were wrong.

I have seen admision by one of the companies taking those polls, that the information showing a Kerry victory was released to the net unofficailly and that the raw information was not credible. I have also see fairly strong proof, that exit polls tend to influence elections, if they show a solid lead for one candidate, by discourageing this oposition to come out. Yet, it didn't hapen in this case, because in many states there were other issues (chiefly defense of marriage amendments) that brought conservatives to the polls no matter what they said about GWB's chances.

2. Democratic districs in florida going republican, 2 in partiular.

It shouldn't be surprise these districts went to the GOP. They went to Bush in 2000, BushI and Regan. There are still alot of places down south wehre people register democrat and vote democrat in local, and municipal elections, but vote Repbulican in national and often in statewide elections.

3. A district in ohio where one machine gave Bush something like 200% more votes than people registered.


All well and good, but it gave Kerry the exact same percentage over what he actually polled and the same for nader and third party candidates. It was one machine with a bad processor and it gave everyone several votes for each one registered.

My own opinion is Liberals just can't stand the idea that they lost again. Rather than make fundamental changes to their most unpopular policies they need a reason to have lost besides the obvious one of being out of step with the majority of voters in some states.

I'm not in a mood to argue the point, but if anyone has credible evidence of vote fraud on a scale massive enough to swing a state I would like to study it.

Thanks in advance

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Yawwwnnnn....I see no response to Colleen Thomas's request for even a smidgin of evidence supporting voter fraud in the Kerry defeat. Not surprising, there is none, just a coterie of whining liberals.

And I see no apologies for those who doubted the facts of US Army recruitment figures for June, 2005. I did not expect that either.

A couple things: It does not surprise me that high school and college students are being influenced not to enlist in the military because of the liberal left wing educators that have infected the public school system.

Then you get a real asshole like Ward Churchill from U of Colorado who yesterday in Portland, Oregon said that 'fragging(killing) Officers in a military unit was an efficacious way of slowing the war effort.

It does not surprise me when liberals show joy and glee when even a hint that the US Military did not meet recruiting goals.

They are hoping, I would guess, that Congress will re institute the Draft and compel young people to serve in the military. This is really a vile lot of left wingers in the Ward Churchill and Michael Moore mold, sickening folk all around.

Since the information about Army recruiting was released at a White House press conference, I did not google the information, merely presented what I heard and saw.

The competition for young men and women by the different branches of the military is intense, my son in law, a marine, was offered a $40,000 enlistment bonus if he would switch over to the Army. That amount of money, all in one chunk, if properly invested in this nasty capitalist stock market, might easily provide a retirement nut of around a million dollars, but then liberals don't believe in the 'profit motive'.


and so it goes...


amicus the presenter of false facts....yeah, sure...bite me....

 

[Guest]

*sigh*

I am tired of "Liberal"-bashing. It's ridiculous.

We "liberals" aren't knocking conservatives or most of the conservative values and plans.

We do have issues with the rabid, angry, out-of-control neo-conservative faction. And so should most people.

I don't give a fuck about the election. It's over. Nothing will change that fact and nothing will change in this government until Democratic leaders grow some stones and get to work.

I think democrats didn't believe the neo-con message would actually make sense to people. They didn't prepare, they didn't offer alternatives, democrats just assumed that people wouldn't buy the fear message that was widely offered.

Our fault, our loss. I hope we do better next time.

But now? Now we need to take care of business in a proactive manner. This reactionary approach to problems both domestic and abroad must end.

 

[Guest]

Adding to previous post -

Amicus -

I am sorry that I didn't believe your stated figures.

In my defense, sometimes your stated figures aren't incredibly founded in facts.

But - I apologize for the comment.

 

[amicus]

Apology accepted. Have a good day.

 

[oggbashan]

...If there were no 9/11, we would not be in Iraq today. I think it is shortsighted to place the cause of the war on terrorism on our shoulders, we did not start it.
...
amicus...

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. There is no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein was supposed to be a threat because of his weapons of mass destruction that we now know he didn't have. He may have been a bad ruler and killed many of his people but he did NOT start the war on terrorism.

If you want to look for the origins of the people that caused 9/11 then you should be looking in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Europe and inside the US where some of the terrorists trained. None of the governments of those countries supported Al-Queda, nor did Saddam Hussein.

The hatred of the US (and the UK as the US's staunch ally) is all about 1. the oppression of peoples and exploitation of countries in the name of cheap oil supplies and 2. the continuing war between Israel and its neighbours and native population. Until the oil benefits the ordinary guy in the Middle East and until Israel has the opportunity to live in peace with its non-Jewish population and its neighbours - the war against terrorism cannot be won. Every death creates another martyr to the cause and recruits yet another suicide bomber.

I see some signs of hope in Israel. That hope needs our support and goodwill on both sides to isolate the warmongers. Peace in Israel would be a start towards a wider peace in the Middle East but too many people are committed to armed conflict as the only way forward. It hasn't worked in over 40 years. It is time to talk and negotiate, not to throw armaments around.

Og

 

[superman_cock]

The war is unjust, and ineffective

The way to stop terrorism is not war. Terrorism is only fought efficiently when the world starts to fight out against poverty and oppression. You don't do that through a war that was lied about the whole way through. The strikes in Afghanistan were incredible effective, and did a lot of good. Iraq, however, has become a breeding ground for terrorists. Everyone needs to realize that the terrorists are being sent to Iraq for real world training. It's not some last ditch effort. The insurgency is not in its 'last throes.' This will go on for at least a decade, if not more. It will *always* be that America needs to train iraqis just a little bit more, they need us for a little bit longer, 'until they are ready, and not a day longer.' We will always have a base in Iraq and we will always claim to fight terrorism from it, when really all we are doing is 'helping them out.'

All you people who say it was ok to go into Iraq because Saddam was a 'bad man'? Fuck you all. That's a bullshit unclear excuse. Sure, he was bad. What about the genocide going on in the darfur region of Africa? 400,000 have been killed and *millions* more displaced from their homes, their incomes, their ways of life. I guess that's just not as popular a place as Iraq. What about the thousands of children who die every damn day because of stupid assinine shit like HUNGER. We could feed the entire world for years with the money we have poured into this war. We could provide clean drinking water. We could end poverty. Instead, we have spent 1700+ American soldiers lives, 2000+ Iraqi soldiers lives, and up to 100,000 INNOCENT Iraqi civilian lives over a war that was wrong from the beginning.

 

[Pure]

apologies?

And I see no apologies for those who doubted the facts of US Army recruitment figures for June, 2005. I did not expect that either.

You did not post any figures or documentation. I did, and yes there is a blip for June**. The larger picture, most agree is of a serious shortfall in Army recruiting this fiscal year. Neither do you mention the scandals over inducements, misinformation, and a couple days ago, a recruiter who told a young man he'd be arrested if he didn't report.

Since you never apologize or make corrections, you're in no position to gripe.
I said, there was "a grain of truth" in your otherwise vacuous imaginings.

The larger picture is that support for the war is falling. And a few, aside from you, are realizing the US has not been made one whit safer from terrorists because of the Iraq war. Neither is this intervention operating to 'stabilize' the middle east.

In general, the hawks, like yourself, run a kind of 'hot air' campaign based on 'catch the bad guys.' There are no proper fiscal projections, or time projections, or even projections of required manpower. In short, you all who want the war have kept up others' patriotic zeal through deceptions, evasions, and lies, and it will 'come back on you.' As the death stats and stories tell, it's the small town men and women, usually lacking job prospects and without any particular political 'analysis' that are over there proving that when GWB says 'mission accomplished', it's, well, maybe not quite accomplished but no one should doubt his manhood or the strength of the US military.
----

**In preliminary, not quite official figures. This amount of exceeding the goal may be drastically diminished in the final figures, but by then it will not be a front page story. In any case, the excess could well be the kind who get in under the reduced criteria; writing your name and being of non criminal background being dropped as requirements.

 

[amicus]

The last three posts...

All of these issues are debated daily on the three cable news stations I watch.

They are debated from the left and from the right. With very few exceptions, only the left is represented here on the Lit forum.

I don't mind taking on the left, but I tire of the same tired old mantra, day after day, poster after poster.

Oil.

Every industrial country in the world purchases crude petroleum from the middle east.

When oil was discovered in the middle east, there were no automobiles, no cars, in that area, no use for petroleum products. The Dutch, The Brits and the Americans and the Germans and perhaps more, all invested great amounts of money in oil exploration, drilling, pipelines and transportation.

It changed many middle eastern nations from camel and date societies into modern ones.

The conflict in the middle east between Jews and Arabs, Christian and Muslems has been going on since the time of Cain and Abel.

Because of an infertile wife, a maid servant gave birth to one son. Then the wife became pregnant and gave birth to a son of her own. The son of the maid servant was cast out of the home and the other son became the heir.

Thus began a millenia old conflict and thus it continues today.

The middle east, Persia at large, has been invaded and conquered by almost every other nation on earth, save the Abo's in Australia, and who knows, maybe they will have a shot.

I really don't know what you liberal left wing pussies think the United States 'should' have done in response to 9/11, therapy maybe?

The attack on American soil, the loss of 3000 innocent, non combatant lives, changed the course of history.

The United States has taken a 'proactive' stance in its foreign policy. We do not wish to be attacked again by ragheads of any ilk, Saudi or otherwise.

We have also taken a 'pre-emptive' stance on all fronts, not just militarily.

The 9/11 attack brought about 'Homeland Security' we live under the constant threat of attack from foreign sources. We have increased the security of our borders and our transportation systems and energy resources.

I personally do not expect the United States and the coalition forces to be successful with this level of engagement. I think both Syria and Iran, at least, must fall under the guns and be rebuilt.

There will be no peace in the middle east until all the Theocracies are overthrown and even then I am not convinced the Arabs have a mindset to embrace a truly representational form of government.

In the mean time, piss on all of you and kiss my ass if you don't like it.


amicus the very Ugly American


Hah!

 

[gauchecritic]

The last <> post...

The conflict in the middle east between <> Christian and Muslems has been going on since the time of Cain and Abel.

Anybody want to field that one?

The United States has taken a 'proactive' stance in its foreign policy. We do not wish to be attacked again by ragheads of any ilk, Saudi or otherwise.

I think amico's finally lost it.

The 9/11 attack brought about 'Homeland Security' we live under the constant threat of attack from foreign sources.

But not before Sept 11?

There will be no peace in the middle east until all the Theocracies are overthrown and even then I am not convinced the Arabs have a mindset to embrace a truly representational form of government.

Well that's not a very anarchical attitude.

In the mean time, piss on all of you and kiss my ass if you don't like it.

Yep. Definitely lost it. Looks like it's a win for the liberals.

 

[amicus]

Amicus searches frantically for 'it' where oh where can that damned thing be?

 

[oggbashan]

I don't mind taking on the left, but I tire of the same tired old mantra, day after day, poster after poster.

Perhaps you need to listen to some of the arguments. Just because they are repeated doesn't make them untrue.

Oil.

Every industrial country in the world purchases crude petroleum from the middle east.

When oil was discovered in the middle east, there were no automobiles, no cars, in that area, no use for petroleum products. The Dutch, The Brits and the Americans and the Germans and perhaps more, all invested great amounts of money in oil exploration, drilling, pipelines and transportation.

It changed many middle eastern nations from camel and date societies into modern ones.

Modern? When they are ruled by dictators, autocratic monarchs and religious leaders? They might have some of the appearances of a Western consumer society but women are oppressed, democracy is a sham and the people are shafted by their leaders.

The conflict in the middle east between Jews and Arabs, Christian and Muslems has been going on since the time of Cain and Abel.

Because of an infertile wife, a maid servant gave birth to one son. Then the wife became pregnant and gave birth to a son of her own. The son of the maid servant was cast out of the home and the other son became the heir.

At the time of Cain and Abel if such persons ever existed there were no Jews, no Arabs. Christianity was thousands of years in the future and Muslims hundreds of years after Christianity. Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in harmony in the Middle East until the Crusades and the foolish Pope who started the religious wars to try to stop secular wars in Europe.

I really don't know what you liberal left wing pussies think the United States 'should' have done in response to 9/11, therapy maybe?

The attack on American soil, the loss of 3000 innocent, non combatant lives, changed the course of history.

We in the UK have suffered terrorist attacks for over one hundred years from the IRA and its successors. We did not attack the Scots for what a few Irish fanatics did. What we have done and are doing is to pursue the terrorist through what means we can and try to reach a political settlement by addressing the injustices that bred the terrorists.

The US (and the UK and other countries) have been pursuing Al-Queda and trying to disrupt its organisation and capture its operatives. The parallel strategy should be to try to isolate the terrorists from the general population in the Middle East by dealing with the injustices that many people face. Until those injustices are solved the area is a breeding ground for more terrorists persuaded that the US and its allies are trying to destroy all they hold dear. The pictures of prisoner abuse, the abuse of human rights at Gitmo, the possible desecration of their holy books - all these breed more fanatics determined to die to challenge the invader - their view, not mine. How would US citizens feel if Southern Baptist chapels were invaded by rag-heads who shat on the altar and pissed all over the bibles? That is the strength of feeling that causes freedom-fighters to offer to die.

The United States has taken a 'proactive' stance in its foreign policy. We do not wish to be attacked again by ragheads of any ilk, Saudi or otherwise.

It is that sort of mindless generalisation that irritates your allies. Some of the 'ragheads' as you call them, are our 'ragheads' willing to fight and die for the freedoms and democracy we want to bring to the Middle East. The Iraqi police are dying in far greater numbers than the allied military and for what? To try to create a fair and just democratic society. But they are only ragheads so you don't care about them.

The 9/11 attack brought about 'Homeland Security' we live under the constant threat of attack from foreign sources. We have increased the security of our borders and our transportation systems and energy resources.

You do not live under the constant threat of attack from foreign sources.
We in the UK were bombed to hell by the Nazis in World War II. We have suffered a terrorist campaign for years from the IRA funded by US citizens who felt sorry for the oppressed Irish who had a democratic vote. It was not just US citizens who died in 9/11. Look at the lists of the dead. It was an attack on the Western democracies as well as on the US.

Look at the death toll from your own internal enemies - the deaths from criminal activity; the deaths from drug abuse and its consequences; the deaths from automobile crashes. Over a year or so it makes the 9/11 attackers seem like cheapskates. Your worst enemies, like most societies, are your own people.

I personally do not expect the United States and the coalition forces to be successful with this level of engagement. I think both Syria and Iran, at least, must fall under the guns and be rebuilt.

There will be no peace in the middle east until all the Theocracies are overthrown and even then I am not convinced the Arabs have a mindset to embrace a truly representational form of government.

Are you then surprised that Iran has elected a hardline leader who wants nuclear capability? He sees his country threatened by the strongest power in the world and wants to be able to defend his people. If he can make a bomb he could deliver it clandestinely to New York or Washington or LA. If that is what he has to do to protect his country why should he hold back? What has the US done for Iran that he should feel grateful to them?

As for Theocracies? What is the US? It is the largest theocracy of them all. They have not been alone in that. In World War I the German Imperial Army went to war with a motto 'Gott Mit Uns' - God With Us. The French, British and US forces thought God was on their side too.

I wish you could understand how hated and feared the US is in many parts of the world. If the US could defuse the fear, perhaps they could make a start at changing the hatred. They have a long way to go and the first step is understanding that the enemy is not countries or people, but those who feed on the hatred felt towards the US to create martyrs and victims of their own people.

Og

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Actually, Bush got better grades in college than Kerry did. Perhaps he mispronounces nuclear on purpose just to piss off the pointy headed liberals?

.

I think there's some truth to that. This is just my opinion, but I think Bush is very smart. You don't get to be mega rich, and be president by being stupid.

I think he plays up the dumb role. He mispronounces words like nuclear on purpose. It gives the appearance that he might not be too bright, therefore his political adversaries underestimate him. When a good politician is underestimated, they usually win.

Reagan and Clinton did the same thing. Reagan had the perception of being a simpleton. Clinton used his southern drawl and slow talking to get the opponents feeling a false sense of superiority. In the end, all three wound up being two termers. Someone, somewhere along the line severely underestimated all three of them.

I'm sure Bush likes it when people call him a dumbass. It plays right into his hand. You don't get elected, then re-elected by being a dumbass. He knows what he's doing, and he plays the game well.

 

[ishtat]

Hard Headed Liberalism.

The way to stop terrorism is not war.

This is sloppy thinking .War can stop terrorism and historically it has. However it only works if the reaction to the original terror is so viscious and over the top that it terrorises the original terrorist. Examples include the Mongol destruction of Bagdad in 1247(I think) when some 250 000 men women and children were slaughtered to convince other cities that surrender was a better option.

Cromwell stopped Irish violence in Ireland for 200 years by killing at Drogheda all the officers and some 10% of the men with many of the remainder being transported.

In the 1950's the British in Malaya defeated communist terror by obliterating any village which even looked as though it supported a terrorist.

Later Sukarno and the Generals in Indonesia killed 100,000 Chinese 'Communists' in one night of terror. Most of those individuals were probably innocent but it proved to be an effective counter terrorism action.

I am not advocating these events as a solution but no argument is well served by moralistic assertions which are not evidence based. Note for example that Amicus can rarely cope with Colleen Thomas because her arguments are always founded pretty solidly in fact. I do not always agree with Colleen's logic or her conclusions but one must always respect the fact that she never relies on moral assertion alone and faces up to difficulties in her own arguments.

Earlier in this thread my countryman Ozymandiask asked one or two pertinent questions . They were factually based and a response was put off ,I suspect because it will require some factual research.

Can I conclude with an appeal to those who wish to pursue the liberal line of argument to put no less passion into your views but a lot more hard headed factual analysis . The radical conservatives will have few answers and hopefully they too will consider adopting the more traditional 'responsible conservative' arguments.

 

[amicus]

Hello Og. I don't read all your posts on all the threads, but it seems this is the largest one I have read, I shall attempt to do it some Justice.

The first issue was 'oil' I presented my comments to demonstrate that not just the United States had an interest in Middle East oil and to imply that while crude petroleum is surely a part of the reason for involvement in the area it is not the only and perhaps not even the greatest reason.

You dodged that and came back with a feminist argument and a political criticism of human rights in the area.


Your second issue was the Cain and Abel bit. I am not a biblical scholar and do not care to be, I read that somewhere and related it to demonstrate a long standing conflict between religions in the Middle East and North Africa. I doubt that many will accept your contention that: "...Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in harmony in the Middle East until the Crusades and the foolish Pope who started the religious wars to try to stop secular wars in Europe...."

As far back as history goes, it tells of continual conflict. Perhaps others better qualified than I can offer comment.


Your third issue is terrorism, comparing the current conflict with the Catholic/Protestant conflict in your part of the world. Then you turn it into a rant against the United States. The only rational way to affect change in the middle east is for the free market place to function, freely, until a middle class, educated populace can 'choose' how they are governed.

What you advocate, 'dealing with injustices' is vague and without substance. You put forth the time worn socialist line of curing poverty and eliminating disease by rich countries donating wealth and by a United Nations style intervention, with WHO and the World Bank and a dozen other agencies from the clearly corrupt and ineffectual United Nations. Perhaps you are recalling the golden days of the British Empire where the sun never set. The United States does not conquer, occupy and colonize and that seems to be what you advocate as a solution.


Your fourth issue: I purposely used the pejorative, 'ragheads' to emphasize a point and get your attention. Seems like I succeeded. No rational person could be anything but aghast at the inhumanities that result from a rigid Theocracratic government. I even read Omar (forgot how to spell the last name) who wrote 'The Prophet" as I recall, so no, I do not hate all middle easterners, just the religion that destroys.


As for us being our own worst enemies...sighs....I will save that for another time.

I appreciate your time in reading and offering your opinions, thank you.


amicus...

 

[ishtat]

NORAID anyone?


The Earl

Off Topic, but can the Earl explain why in the various versions of His AV showing red shirted pussycats touching down there are no men in Black shirts in the back ground?

 

[amicus]

Ishtat, thank you for reminding me of Ozmandiak's post, I had forgotten.


amicus...

 

[Guest]

I think there's some truth to that. This is just my opinion, but I think Bush is very smart. You don't get to be mega rich, and be president by being stupid.

I think he plays up the dumb role. He mispronounces words like nuclear on purpose. It gives the appearance that he might not be too bright, therefore his political adversaries underestimate him. When a good politician is underestimated, they usually win.

Reagan and Clinton did the same thing. Reagan had the perception of being a simpleton. Clinton used his southern drawl and slow talking to get the opponents feeling a false sense of superiority. In the end, all three wound up being two termers. Someone, somewhere along the line severely underestimated all three of them.

I'm sure Bush likes it when people call him a dumbass. It plays right into his hand. You don't get elected, then re-elected by being a dumbass. He knows what he's doing, and he plays the game well.

I believe he has very intelligent, strongly driven advisors.

Yes, he's rich. But it's family money, isn't it? Old money?

And the ventures he attempted on his own failed.

I found this article interesting; of course the source must always be considered.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...om/view.cfm%3FStoryID%3D20040114-074349-3947r

Analysis: How smart is Bush?

By Steve Sailer
UPI National Correspondent
Published 1/14/2004 1:12 PM

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 14 (UPI) -- By disdainfully describing George W. Bush's behavior during Cabinet meetings as that of a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people," former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has reopened the debate over just how smart the president is. Some objective numbers from Bush's past suggest he is reasonably but not exceptionally intelligent, but questions remain about his curiosity and openness to learning.

The New Yorker magazine revealed in 1999 that Bush scored 1206 on his Scholastic Aptitude Test: 566 Verbal, 640 Math. While there is something crass about focusing upon a future president's exam scores, these numbers possess a blunt honesty lacking in much of the carefully contrived folklore about politicians' brains.

Bush's 1206 is a better score than it may seem to younger people because the Educational Testing Service "recentered" (inflated) SAT scoring in the mid-'90s. Bush's score is the equivalent of a 1280 under today's dumbed-down scoring system.

How 1206 does that compare to the general population? The contrast is a little tricky because students who are clearly not college material generally don't take the SAT.

Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told United Press International: "I recently converted Bush's SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile." In other words, only one out of 20 people would score higher.

Another IQ expert, Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, the co-author of the bestseller "The Bell Curve," came up with a similar result when asked by UPI. Noting that everybody except high school dropouts takes the PSAT when they are sophomores, Murray calculated from PSAT scores that "I think you're safe in saying that Dubya's IQ, based on his SAT score, is in excess of 120, which puts him the top 10 percent of the distribution, but I wouldn't try to be more precise than that."

By way of comparison, Bush's 2000 opponent Al Gore scored 134 and 133 the two times he took an IQ test in high school, putting him just under the top 1 percent of the public. Not surprisingly, the former vice president's' SAT scores were also strong but not stratospheric: Verbal 625, Math 730, for a total of 1,355 out of a perfect score of 1,600.

According to historian Thomas C. Reeves, author of "A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy," in prep school JFK scored a 119 on an IQ test. Reeves told UPI, "Kennedy was at no time outstanding in school; spelling was always a problem for him."

Bush's other published scores are from the Air Force officer test he took when he applied to join the Air National Guard. The Dallas Morning News reported on July 4, 1999, that Bush's "score on the pilot aptitude section, one of five on the test, was in the 25th percentile, the lowest allowed for would-be fliers."

Gottfredson pointed out, though, that officer applicants are a relatively elite group, so that's much better than the 25th percentile among the whole population. Further, this subtest focused on spatial questions that don't come up regularly in the Oval Office, such as "identifying the angle of a plane in flight ... and figuring out which way a gear in a machine would turn in response to another gear's being turned."

In contrast, the Morning News recounted, "On the 'officer quality section,' designed to measure intangible traits such as leadership, Mr. Bush scored better than 95 percent of those taking the test."

Gottfredson commented, "What do you want in a president -- spatial ability or leadership?"

University of California-Davis psychology professor Dean Keith Simonton has written numerous books using quantitative techniques to assess historical figures, including his 1987 work "Why Presidents Succeed: A Political Psychology of Leadership."

Simonton told UPI, "In raw intellect, Bush is about average" for a president.

On the other hand, Simonton didn't see much evidence that Bush tries hard to use the brains he's got. "He has very little intellectual energy or curiosity, relatively few interests, and a dearth of bona fide aesthetic or cultural tastes." Simonton speculated that this could suggest a low level of "openness to experience."

Indeed, despite being the scion of an elite family with worldwide connections, Bush's hobbies appear limited to not much more than running, fishing and baseball. His biographers state, however, that he has paid relentless attention to structuring organizations and assessing the people who could fill them.

Simonton also suggested, "Bush scores extremely low on integrative complexity. ... This is the capacity to look at issues from multiple perspectives and to integrate that diverse outlook into a single coherent viewpoint. ... Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I hear you,' but he really can't."

 

[Pure]

Fantasies

Amicus opined:
We do not wish to be attacked again by ragheads of any ilk, Saudi or otherwise.

I'm not sure who 'we' is. Amicus, you ignore that US policy is *friendly* to Saudi and Pakistani ragheads, and indeed let a number of Saudi leave the US hurriedly after 9-11. Neither have the Saudis exactly been rigorous in tracking down any terrorist in their own country (unless the terrorists attack them) or terrorist financiers.

The madrasas, schools of Islamic fundamentalism are largely in Pakistan, and, afaik, unaffect by the last few years of US activity *supporting * Mushareff, again, the exception being where a 'terrorist' goes after Mushareff.

As to your other statement about a mideast solution

I personally do not expect the United States and the coalition forces to be successful with this level of engagement. I think both Syria and Iran, at least, must fall under the guns and be rebuilt.

There will be no peace in the middle east until all the Theocracies are overthrown and even then I am not convinced the Arabs have a mindset to embrace a truly representational form of government.

Note: Syria is not a theocracy and neither was Iraq. Iran is, and perhaps Afghanistan under the Taliban (in other words, NOT many cases of theocracy).

I commend you for your honesty about imperial goals. Would that Cheney and Co had been honest with the American people, and had let them vote on this issue of decades of war in the mideast to overthrow several governments; and troop levels and perhaps a draft to achieve such a goal. It has been stated outside the Bush speeches.

Again, has those you admire been honest, they would have talked of the manpower and sacrifice required, and not tried to do it with National Guard and limited forces (150,000 plus a few tens of thousands of mercenaries).

The problem, of course, is that 9-11 is a poor standin for Pearl Harbor, and Iraq is not Japan on the march to Hawaii, something Americans could comprehend as a genuine threat. Further the solution the US undertook to carry out in WWII, matched the problem (Ogg has taken a similar line, comparing Iraq to Scotland; a friendly gov in Scotland would not affect the IRA).

Please note that your grand 'solution' at the scale you imagine would not help with terrorism at all. Were Syria, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan all remade American style, there's no reason to suppose there were be many fewer terrorists. You have this LITTLE problem of Saudi Arabia which is a necessary ally, and host to US bases. It is breeding terrorists, as is Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt-- all countries the US is 'soft' on, and would remain so under your imperial plan, as far as you've described it.

Even moreso will there be failure of the less grand approach of Cheney Rumsfeld and co. Imperialism on a shoestring.

As many have pointed out, the taking control of the mideast (through installing friendly governments) a) has nothing much to do with terrorism, and may exacerbate it, b) has nothing much to do with bringing democracy, as US support of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan shows. To be honest, it's friendly military dictatorships that are wanted, provided they are friendly to 'free trade,' i.e., US companies, and US companies control of and access to resources.

Algeria is a good illustration of the pitfalls of the US approach. Yes, there is military dictatorship not unfriendly to the US. However the country has a strong radicat Islamist mvt, so strong that in the last so called election, the Islamists did very well, and the military had to cancel honoring of the election results.

While I admit the consistency of your pipedream, Amicus, as an imperial Randian scheme, the reality is that the actual goals and actual effects (as opposed to the hot air of speeches, like the one that started this thread) will be completely at variance with what you sincerely hope for and envision.
----

As to your exposure to Islam:

I even read Omar (forgot how to spell the last name) who wrote 'The Prophet" as I recall,

Omar Khayyam did not write "The Prophet." Kahlil Gibran did. Gibran's 'new agey' romantic book made quite a hit in the 60s, and I'd guess that's the thing you admire. Gibran was an Arab Christian, born in Lebanon, where he spent his childhood.

http://4umi.com/gibran/biography.htm

Khalil Gibran

Gibran Kahlil Gibran was born on January 6, 1883, to the Maronite family of Gibran in Bisharri, a mountainous area in Northern Lebanon. Lebanon at the time was a Turkish province, part of Greater Syria (Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine) and subjugated to Ottoman dominion. His mother Kamila Rahmeh was thirty when she begot Gibran from her third husband Khalil Gibran, a tax collector who proved to be an irresponsible husband leading the family to poverty. Gibran had a half-brother six years older than him called Butros and two younger sisters, Mariana and Sultana, to whom he was deeply attached throughout his life, along with his mother. Kamila came from a family with a prestigious religious background, which imbued the uneducated mother with a strong will and later helped her raise up the family on her own.

Growing up in the lush region of Bsharri, Khalil proved to be a solitary and pensive child who relished the natural surroundings of the cascading falls, the rugged cliffs and the neighboring green cedars, the beauty of which emerged as a dramatic and symbolic influence to his drawings and writings. Being laden with poverty, his education was limited to visits to a village priest who doctrined him with the essentials of religion and the Bible, alongside Syriac and Arabic languages. Recognizing Gibran's inquisitive and alert nature, the priest began teaching him the rudiments of alphabet and language, opening up to Gibran the world of history, science, and language. At the age of ten, Gibran fell off a cliff, wounding his left shoulder, which remained weak for the rest of his life ever since. To relocate the shoulder, his family strapped it to a cross and wrapped it up for forty days, a symbolic incident reminiscent of Christ's wanderings in the wilderness and which remained etched in Gibran's memory.

At the age of eight, Khalil Gibran, Gibran's father, was accused of tax evasion and was sent to prison as the Ottomon authorities confiscated the Gibrans' property and left them homeless. The family went to live with relatives for a while; however, the strong-willed mother decided that the family should immigrate to the United States, seeking a better life and following in suit to Gibran's uncle who immigrated earlier. The father was released in 1894, but - being an irresponsible head of the family - he was undecided about immigration and remained behind in Lebanon.

On June 25, 1895, the Gibrans embarked on a voyage to New York. They settled in Boston's South End, which at the time hosted the second largest Syrian community in the U.S. following New York. The culturally diverse area felt familiar to Kamila, who was comforted by the familiar spoken Arabic, and the widespread Arab customs. Kamila, now the bread-earner of the family, began to work as a peddler on the impoverished streets of South End Boston. At the time, peddling was the major source of income for most Syrian immigrants, who were negatively portrayed due to their unconventional Arab ways and their supposed idleness.

At the school, a registration mistake changed his name to Kahlil Gibran, which remained so for the rest of his life despite repeated attempts at restoring his full name. He entered school on September 30, 1895, merely two months after his arrival in the New World. Having had no formal education, he was placed in an ungraded class reserved for immigrant children, who had to learn English from scratch. Gibran caught the attention of his teachers with his sketches and drawings, a hobby he had started during his childhood in Lebanon. They contacted Fred Holland Day, an artist himself but also a supporter of artists, who opened up Gibran's cultural world and set him on the road to fame.

In 1904 Gibran had his first art exhibition in Boston. From 1908 to 1910 he studied art in Paris with August Rodin. In 1912 he settled in New York, where he devoted himself to writing and painting. Gibran's early works were written in Arabic, and from 1918 he published mostly in English. In 1920 he founded Aribitah (the Pen Bond), a society for Arab writers. Among its members were Mikha'il Na'ima (1889-1988), Iliya Abu Madi (1889-1957), Nasib Arida (1887-1946), Nadra Haddad (1881-1950) and Ilyas Abu Sabaka (1903-47).

Kahlil Gibran died on April 10, 1931 in a New York hospital. He was forty-eight years old and had liver cancer caused by a long term battle with alcohol. His family buried him where he was born, in Bsharri, Lebanon. The people who attended his burial service said it wasn't a time of mourning, but of celebration.

Gibran's works were especially influential in the American popular culture in the 1960's. His best known work is The Prophet, a collection of 26 poetic essays, which has been translated into over 20 languages.

Gibran's rather sympathetic, if slightly unorthodox, retelling of the life of Jesus, in "Jesus, the Son of Man" (1928) is at
http://4umi.com/gibran/jesus/

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I believe he has very intelligent, strongly driven advisors.

Yes, he's rich. But it's family money, isn't it? Old money?

And the ventures he attempted on his own failed.

I found this article interesting; of course the source must always be considered.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...om/view.cfm%3FStoryID%3D20040114-074349-3947r

Analysis: How smart is Bush?

By Steve Sailer
UPI National Correspondent
Published 1/14/2004 1:12 PM

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 14 (UPI) -- By disdainfully describing George W. Bush's behavior during Cabinet meetings as that of a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people," former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has reopened the debate over just how smart the president is. Some objective numbers from Bush's past suggest he is reasonably but not exceptionally intelligent, but questions remain about his curiosity and openness to learning.

The New Yorker magazine revealed in 1999 that Bush scored 1206 on his Scholastic Aptitude Test: 566 Verbal, 640 Math. While there is something crass about focusing upon a future president's exam scores, these numbers possess a blunt honesty lacking in much of the carefully contrived folklore about politicians' brains.

Bush's 1206 is a better score than it may seem to younger people because the Educational Testing Service "recentered" (inflated) SAT scoring in the mid-'90s. Bush's score is the equivalent of a 1280 under today's dumbed-down scoring system.

How 1206 does that compare to the general population? The contrast is a little tricky because students who are clearly not college material generally don't take the SAT.

Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told United Press International: "I recently converted Bush's SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile." In other words, only one out of 20 people would score higher.

Another IQ expert, Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, the co-author of the bestseller "The Bell Curve," came up with a similar result when asked by UPI. Noting that everybody except high school dropouts takes the PSAT when they are sophomores, Murray calculated from PSAT scores that "I think you're safe in saying that Dubya's IQ, based on his SAT score, is in excess of 120, which puts him the top 10 percent of the distribution, but I wouldn't try to be more precise than that."

By way of comparison, Bush's 2000 opponent Al Gore scored 134 and 133 the two times he took an IQ test in high school, putting him just under the top 1 percent of the public. Not surprisingly, the former vice president's' SAT scores were also strong but not stratospheric: Verbal 625, Math 730, for a total of 1,355 out of a perfect score of 1,600.

According to historian Thomas C. Reeves, author of "A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy," in prep school JFK scored a 119 on an IQ test. Reeves told UPI, "Kennedy was at no time outstanding in school; spelling was always a problem for him."

Bush's other published scores are from the Air Force officer test he took when he applied to join the Air National Guard. The Dallas Morning News reported on July 4, 1999, that Bush's "score on the pilot aptitude section, one of five on the test, was in the 25th percentile, the lowest allowed for would-be fliers."

Gottfredson pointed out, though, that officer applicants are a relatively elite group, so that's much better than the 25th percentile among the whole population. Further, this subtest focused on spatial questions that don't come up regularly in the Oval Office, such as "identifying the angle of a plane in flight ... and figuring out which way a gear in a machine would turn in response to another gear's being turned."

In contrast, the Morning News recounted, "On the 'officer quality section,' designed to measure intangible traits such as leadership, Mr. Bush scored better than 95 percent of those taking the test."

Gottfredson commented, "What do you want in a president -- spatial ability or leadership?"

University of California-Davis psychology professor Dean Keith Simonton has written numerous books using quantitative techniques to assess historical figures, including his 1987 work "Why Presidents Succeed: A Political Psychology of Leadership."

Simonton told UPI, "In raw intellect, Bush is about average" for a president.

On the other hand, Simonton didn't see much evidence that Bush tries hard to use the brains he's got. "He has very little intellectual energy or curiosity, relatively few interests, and a dearth of bona fide aesthetic or cultural tastes." Simonton speculated that this could suggest a low level of "openness to experience."

Indeed, despite being the scion of an elite family with worldwide connections, Bush's hobbies appear limited to not much more than running, fishing and baseball. His biographers state, however, that he has paid relentless attention to structuring organizations and assessing the people who could fill them.

Simonton also suggested, "Bush scores extremely low on integrative complexity. ... This is the capacity to look at issues from multiple perspectives and to integrate that diverse outlook into a single coherent viewpoint. ... Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I hear you,' but he really can't."

Part of Bush's money is family money, but another part is self made. He made a huge amount in the sale of the Texas Rangers.

I find that article to be interesting, and on the surface I would pretty much agree with it. Top 5% IQ, etc. It backs up my thoughts that the man is not the dumbass that some make him out to be. He's intelligent, and he knows what he's doing. The one thing the article doesn't/can't address is how well does he play the political game. He's intelligent, but he plays up the dumb role. Being underestimated is a valuable thing in the political arena.

The one part that really struck me is the very last part of the piece:

Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I hear you,' but he really can't."

He sees things his way, and his way only. I don't think anyone would dispute that from either side.

 

[Guest]

Part of Bush's money is family money, but another part is self made. He made a huge amount in the sale of the Texas Rangers.

I find that article to be interesting, and on the surface I would pretty much agree with it. Top 5% IQ, etc. It backs up my thoughts that the man is not the dumbass that some make him out to be. He's intelligent, and he knows what he's doing. The one thing the article doesn't/can't address is how well does he play the political game. He's intelligent, but he plays up the dumb role. Being underestimated is a valuable thing in the political arena.

The one part that really struck me is the very last part of the piece:

Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I hear you,' but he really can't."

He sees things his way, and his way only. I don't think anyone would dispute that from either side.

Agreed.

Sheer stubbornness, however, is not an effective quality in a leader.

And to score between the top 5-10% IQ among those who took the standardized tests makes him merely average among presidents. And that has always been one of my difficulties with him.

It's an act, isn't it? The good-ol-boy jargon, the joking references during commencement speeches about his poor grades, his facade of understanding what the "common" folk in this country are having to deal with these days.

In many, many situations, and by his own choice, I don't believe he has a clue.

 

[Pure]

Hey, back to reality

Didn't anyone note the blatant bias of the Sailer article?


Another IQ expert, Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, the co-author of the bestseller "The Bell Curve," came up with a similar result when asked by UPI. Noting that everybody except high school dropouts takes the PSAT when they are sophomores, Murray calculated from PSAT scores that "I think you're safe in saying that Dubya's IQ, based on his SAT score, is in excess of 120, which puts him the top 10 percent of the distribution, but I wouldn't try to be more precise than that."

Murray is a political scientist not an IQ expert:


http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/dorffman.html

The second author of The Bell Curve, Charles Murray, has a doctorate in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is currently a Bradley Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group in Washington, DC. Murray often publishes his research and theories in The Public Interest (e.g., Murray, 1994), a neoconservative magazine edited by Irving Kristol, also a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and sometimes considered the founding father of neoconservatism (Atlas, 1995). In an article recently published in The Public Interest, Murray listed the first priority of his political agenda: "And so I want to end welfare" (1994, p. 18). Inasmuch as the media sometimes refer to The Bell Curve as Murray's book, perhaps the book represents Murray's summing up of a body of objective scholarly research that he had published in scientific journals on the genetic basis of IQ and poverty. But like his coauthor Richard Herrnstein, Murray has never conducted or published any research in scientific journals on the genetic basis of IQ and poverty in his entire career.

The content of Murray book (summarizing what some others on the right have published) is
In the final part of The Bell Curve, titled "Living Together," Herrnstein and Murray propose a solution to the supposed dysgenic downward pressures on our national intelligence caused by the large number of children born to "low-IQ women," and to the recent large-scale Latino immigrations to the United States. They argue that America's current fertility policy "subsidizes births among poor women, who are disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution" (p. 548). They seem to urge eugenic foresight to counteract dysgenic pressure: "We urge generally that these policies, represented by the extensive network of cash and services for low-income women who have babies, be ended" (p. 548).

With regard to the supposed dysgenic effects of Latino immigration on national intelligence, their central thought about immigration "is that present policy assumes an indifference to the individual characteristics of immigrants that no society can indefinitely maintain without danger" (p. 549). "But," they conclude, "we believe that the main purpose of immigration law should be to serve America's interests" (p. 549). For those members of groups who will not be excluded from the American dream by eugenic foresight or new immigration laws, Herrnstein and Murray propose "that group differences in cognitive ability, so desperately denied for so long, can best be handled--can only be handled--by a return to individualism" (p. 550).
----

Murray is simply saying Bush is smarter than most of the 'low IQ' Latinas that have invaded our beloved white land.
----
The truth is closest to what Simonton says in the article. GWB is of average intelligence, but has no interest in learning, studying, reading, etc. He is cunning and has advisors who are effectively so. He is charming on occasion, and lovably self deprecating (saying his wife could read better than he). His family is of great wealth and allied with a number of MAJOR military, industrial, and resource interests. That is his true cause.