June 10, 2002

4:34 PM

After the 9-11 massacre, most of us, eager to hear someone in a position of authority make reassuring noises, gave George B. Jr. some props. Even those of us who had our doubts before were, in that state of anxiety and fear, ready to applaud his actually quite banal statements. Then came the "axis of evil" speech. Die hard conservatives and Bush-lovers said "that's okay, he's just using colorful language - and, after all, those folks are evil." The rest of us groaned a bit. And now, his trip to Europe during which something very funny happened that reaffirms his 'through the looking glass', profoundly deep ignorance of the world.
posted by Modem Ovary (62 comments total)

I can't believe that is true! Sorry that I have nothing to convey here other than utter shock and amazement, tempered only by embarrassment and disgust. I know we don't need another Bush-bashing thread, but this is genuinely too much.
posted by donkeymon at 4:42 PM on June 10, 2002

Okay, I have to say that if it's true it will not be a suprise but I don't really trust the translators at this site. The Der Spiegel article looks legit but can someone confirm and/or translate?
posted by anathema at 4:48 PM on June 10, 2002

"The rest of us groaned a bit."

I groan every time I hear his voice and that horrible speech pattern...
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 4:50 PM on June 10, 2002

I almost posted this twice but couldn't find supporting sites. However, the current poll at Lycos references this report. Can anyone explain to me why 38% of those responding believe that the U.S. press should not report "such stories?"
posted by rushmc at 4:51 PM on June 10, 2002

The Post asks What Did He Say, And When Did He Say It? The fact that it seems more than credible that GWB said this (whether or not he did) speaks volumes already about the Shrubster.
posted by owillis at 4:52 PM on June 10, 2002

I can't belive someone who thinks Brazil is in Europe is complaing about anyone's stupidity.

I mean. My god.

(Even in the artical they mentioned 'latin america', can you even read? Another tidbit: this all hapened way before september 11th. That was also mentioned in the artical)
posted by delmoi at 4:53 PM on June 10, 2002

Snopes has covered this too. Validity - still set as undetermined by them.
posted by kokogiak at 4:56 PM on June 10, 2002

Sorry to ruin to your fun, but check this link here.

The White house dismissed this old old story as "total crap".
posted by mikegre at 4:57 PM on June 10, 2002

Modem Overy: also your mutilation of the English language is far more egregious then anything bush ever spouted.
posted by delmoi at 4:57 PM on June 10, 2002

And in other news, congress wants to move to a new town if they don't get a new building.
posted by willnot at 4:57 PM on June 10, 2002

I can't believe someone who misspells "article" twice in one post is casting stones.
posted by aaronetc at 4:58 PM on June 10, 2002

mikegre:

"I am not a crook"

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

"that story is total crap".
posted by delmoi at 4:58 PM on June 10, 2002

mikegre: Of course, the White House dismisses several bajillion other things as "total crap". Luckily we don't always believe them.
posted by owillis at 5:00 PM on June 10, 2002

I'm sure Bush was simply in one of his Phil Jackson moments, posing rhetorical questions to make abstract arguments about complex policy arrangements. A sort of "Does a bear shit in the Amazon?" type of riff.

mikegre: It truly makes me swell with pride that the White House dismisses reports as "total crap", rather than "patently dishonest" or some such thing.
posted by apostasy at 5:00 PM on June 10, 2002

Shouldn't we be talking about I/P right about now...?
posted by davidmsc at 5:09 PM on June 10, 2002

I remember all the press about Dan Quayle and his famous quote about "how he wished he had studied Latin in High School", so he could converse with People in Latin America. It never happened. But by the time the retractions came in, it was too late.

And I assume that you will furnish film at 11?

I guess they cannot touch this guy no matter what lies they print.

I suppose the rhetoric will increase as we get closer to the November election.

The only thing that I agree with your post is that 911 WAS a massacre and the people behind ARE evil.
posted by Oxydude at 5:12 PM on June 10, 2002

The gyrations Bush's supporters go through to defend him! One day soon, one hopes, they'll get sick and tired of having to do it.
posted by crunchland at 5:16 PM on June 10, 2002

For those of you questioning the legitimacy/accuracy of the translation: In my opinion as a speaker of German as my second language, it's accurate. If you'd like to see my own translation, look here. (I'm not going to crap up the thread with a mostly redundant translation.)

Whether it happened or not and if it did, whether it was a rhetorical question as apostasy suggests ... that's another question entirely. I'm not the biggest Bush fan, but it does seem to me (and I'm the sort of person who's all too willing to believe bad things about people he doesn't like, whether they're true or not) like a lot of urban legends and such about him get passed around as fact. I don't think Bush is the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I don't think he's this dumb either.
posted by zztzed at 5:17 PM on June 10, 2002

The fact that it seems more than credible that GWB said this (whether or not he did) speaks volumes already about the Shrubster. -owillis

Or it clearly shows how a part of the populous perceives Bush.

German magazine Der Speigel has reported on a conversation between George W. Bush and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, President of Brazil. Bush bewildered his colleague with the question Do you have blacks, too? This story has been covered nowhere in the U.S. media. Should the national media continue to avoid reporting such stories? - the poll's wording from rushmc's link

Can anyone explain to me why 38% of those responding believe that the U.S. press should not report "such stories?" - rushmc

I'd love to. Because it's heresy until there is proof. And the Washington Post and NYTimes are not tabloids.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:18 PM on June 10, 2002

Aside from his possibly ignorance, he seems like a good man. Then again, I don't really know from experience, but then, how many of us truly do?

This sort of ignorance is truly serious, however.. it leads to Tom Clancy like attitudes in the high government.

As to the spelling problems, I have to disagree, although I can spell perfectly, at least I have an open mind toward other people's creativity (hehe). Good spelling is little indication of anything, except that you're like me. I guess that must be good.

Although I cannot generalize, it seems that often there are those people who go for the cheap shots.. I had an English teacher once who couldn't spell, but with her force of personality and competence you'd not dare take it up with her.

No, I am not an English major, in fact I hate the subject, and I had an open mind before hand..

I'd like to say that it is in fact the English majors who are narrow minded and picky, especially since the construction of many of the posts appears to imply a literary education (bleh!!), but then again, I know no English types who actively use the Internet. Whatever. =p
posted by firestorm at 5:19 PM on June 10, 2002

Repent.
posted by Postroad at 5:21 PM on June 10, 2002

I would like to lodge a formal protest at being taken seriously. My "defense" of Bush was meant entirely in jest, though at a second glance my attempt at sarcasm was obviously total crap.
posted by apostasy at 5:22 PM on June 10, 2002

davidmsc - nope, I/P is irrelevant. nobody except dhartung has anything to say in today's thread on the subject. the potential for 12 million dead is of minor consequence compared to whether someone is mistranslating an out-of-context gaffe by the prez (they didn't, the translation's fine) or redesigning the yahoo homepage.
posted by sheauga at 5:26 PM on June 10, 2002

Wait a minute!

I/P stands for India/Pakistan now?

I thought it stood for the other MeFi favourite, Israel/Palestine?

Man, you go away for a couple of hours and they change the rules on you...
posted by Grum at 5:33 PM on June 10, 2002

Total crap Apostasy? What are you trying to hide from the rest of us? ;)
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 5:47 PM on June 10, 2002

Jesus, kev. First the smiley face and now me. How many scoops are you going for?
posted by apostasy at 5:57 PM on June 10, 2002

wait wait wait. people were actually reassured by GWB statements at all? at any point in time?

i'm so out of touch.
posted by th3ph17 at 6:34 PM on June 10, 2002

Grum -- I thought I/P stood for the 'net's other hot button issue: Intellectual Property.

I'd love to. Because it's heresy until there is proof.

BlueTrain -- better double check your dictionary.
Heresy: "Theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox."
Hearsay: "That which one hears or has heard some one say; information received by word of mouth, usually with implication that it is not trustworthy; oral tidings; report, tradition, rumour, common talk, gossip."

I assume you made a simple mistake, but knowing how religious Bush supporters must be, I'm not so sure.
posted by Eamon at 7:19 PM on June 10, 2002

Indeed, I did mean "hearsay". My fault.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:23 PM on June 10, 2002

Of course the perception has roots in reality. Even the strongest Bush defenders will admit that their man isn't exactly gifted with the speech gene. Or do you need to see another press conference/media appearance where he's asked to speak off the top of his head and "uh... um... uh..." is the single most repeated phrase?
posted by owillis at 7:30 PM on June 10, 2002

IP stands for internet protocol damnit!
posted by delmoi at 7:46 PM on June 10, 2002

Of course the perception has roots in reality. Even the strongest Bush defenders will admit that their man isn't exactly gifted with the speech gene.

One of the most intelligent people I know is also one of the most inarticulate. The fact that Bush stumbles when he speaks means nothing more than that he stumbles when he speaks. And frankly, so what?
posted by ljromanoff at 7:57 PM on June 10, 2002

I don't think Bush is the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I don't think he's this dumb either.

But what if it turned out to be true?

(beat)
posted by rushmc at 8:08 PM on June 10, 2002

The fact that Bush stumbles when he speaks means nothing more than that he stumbles when he speaks.

True enough. It's what he finally gets out that concerns me.
posted by rushmc at 8:09 PM on June 10, 2002

Another day in the continuing evolution from MetaFilter to LeftyFilter...
posted by revbrian at 8:34 PM on June 10, 2002

And frankly, so what?

Call me crazy, but I'd like a president who can at least get out whats in his brain. Talk about lowering the bar. Ron Reagan deserves most of the knocks he gets, but at least the guy could explain himself. You know, "Great Communicator" and all?
posted by owillis at 8:40 PM on June 10, 2002

Call me crazy, but I'd like a president who can at least get out whats in his brain. Talk about lowering the bar.

That's bull owillis. You'd like a president who more closely resembles your political leanings. That's why Bush-bashing is so popular around MeFi. Because many folks around here would like more liberal policy. If you really felt that Bush's oratorical skills hampered him from being a good president, you'd also have to agree that Clinton's inability to keep his dick in his pants would affect his ability to be a good president. Which, BTW, is also bull.

If you can argue that Bush can't speak properly and, thus, embarrasses the US when speaking to foreign diplomats or American citizens, it can equally be argued that Clinton's scandals were particularly damaging when speaking to conservative leaders such as Vajpayee in India or Arafat, or the conservatives in the US. It's spin. It's crap. Both are completely irrelevant to the president's task to lead the nation.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:54 PM on June 10, 2002

You know, "Great Communicator" and all?

True, but isn't style over substance so much of what's wrong with the presidency lately? (Not that GWB (or [insert 2000 candidate here]) represents Jefferson-class substance.)
posted by darukaru at 8:54 PM on June 10, 2002

Both are completely irrelevant to the president's task to lead the nation.

My apologies. I mean, "Both are completely irrelevant, or equally relevant, to the president's task to lead the nation."
posted by BlueTrain at 8:56 PM on June 10, 2002

That's why Bush-bashing is so popular around MeFi. Because many folks around here would like more liberal policy.

For all this talk about how "lefty" mefi is, the loudest voices sure seem to be coming from the right lately. I think it's time to reasses how pinko Mefi really is these days.
posted by crunchland at 9:02 PM on June 10, 2002

I think it's time to reasses how pinko Mefi really is these days.

This from Mr. Brave New Police State. Believe me, your left hegemony isn't in jeopardy.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:28 PM on June 10, 2002

That's why Bush-bashing is so popular around MeFi. Because many folks around here would like more liberal policy.

Did you ever think that perhaps, just maybe, not all people view the world and all that occurs in it through such a simplistic, binary, biased, partisan, right/wrong, black/white, left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican distortion field?

No, I didn't think so.
posted by rushmc at 9:33 PM on June 10, 2002

I think this definitely calls for a show of hands.
posted by crunchland at 9:35 PM on June 10, 2002

No, I didn't think so.

Huh...you're assuming again, rushmc. What did I tell you earlier about that?
posted by BlueTrain at 9:38 PM on June 10, 2002

That's bull owillis. You'd like a president who more closely resembles your political leanings.

Well, sure I would. Who wouldn't? But even if the president is not of my party, I would like him to be able to communicate himself to the rest of the world. Though I loathed their politics, I had no doubt that Ronald Reagan or George Bush I could accomplish this task. With George W. Bush I cringe every time he opens his yap.

His brother, Jeb, is a hell of a better speaker. While his policy may suck ass, Jebby can get the point across.

All hail BlueTrain, great mind-reader. He'll tell you what you're thinking before you think it.
posted by owillis at 10:10 PM on June 10, 2002

So what we have owillis, is a man who is all flash, no substance (Jeb) and one who is substance with no flash (GW). Would you propose some type of gene splicing so that future generations can have the benefit of both Jeb and George? *Shiver*
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:48 PM on June 10, 2002

That's why Bush-bashing is so popular around MeFi. Because many folks around here would like more liberal policy.

There is always the possibility, of course, that there are some folks who bash Bush because they are convinced that he and his family and their cronies and the whole evil, greedy, rotting edifice that is the American political system is about to come crashing down, thanks in large part to people like ol' Dubya and the fools that almost elected him, and are keen to give it a little push to put into motion the inevitable slow-motion topple.

Not me, of course. But there must be some.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:46 AM on June 11, 2002

naw...

Wait a minute!

I/P stands for Israel/Palestine now?

I thought it stood for the other MeFi favourite, intellectual property!
posted by jkaczor at 3:22 AM on June 11, 2002

Only I have the one true answer.

GWB is , in his compassionate conservative way, adding to the ever growing cottage industry known as "bushisms."

Doesn't anyone else see these all over the place? There's even a book dedicated soley to the stupid things that come out of Dubya's mouth. How can anyone not believe this could be very true considering his past gaffes?

"Of course it's a budget, it's got a lot of numbers in it." -GWB On and on ad infinitum.
posted by nofundy at 5:10 AM on June 11, 2002

IP stands for idiotic politics! or irrelevant posts :) (not this one of course :)

IP, IP ooray!
posted by kliuless at 5:50 AM on June 11, 2002

So what we have owillis, is a man who is all flash, no substance (Jeb) and one who is substance with no flash (GW).

Substance? ::: looks up, puzzled :::

Oh. You mean money.
posted by rushmc at 11:41 AM on June 11, 2002

and one who is substance with no flash (GW).

Oh. You mean money. - rushmc

No, he means a bachelor's from Yale, an MBA from Harvard, and although inarticulate, more brains at his disposal than you could fathom.

There is always the possibility, of course, that there are some folks who bash Bush because they are convinced that he and his family and their cronies and the whole evil, greedy, rotting edifice that is the American political system is about to come crashing down, thanks in large part to people like ol' Dubya and the fools that almost elected him, and are keen to give it a little push to put into motion the inevitable slow-motion topple. - stavros

There is that possibility, but anyone who is that far bent on focusing on one side probably could never understand the Mark Rich pardon, The Buddhist temple scandal, and a countless number of other injustices perpetrated by the Democrats. It takes two to tango, stavros. Just as Republicans abuse their privileges, so do Democrats. But shit, why bother discussing policy when we can discuss petty politics, right?
posted by BlueTrain at 11:57 AM on June 11, 2002

Yeah, let's skip the petty politics -- I'm still worried about the fundamental problem of Bush not actually being our president.

I guess we could keep calling the man "President" Bush. But that seems a little disrespectful of the proper office and title. But then again, because people continue to refer to the guy as the Chief Executive Officer, perhaps the office is tarnished anyway.

Ah, well. All hail the thief and stuff.
posted by LarryPressfield at 12:06 PM on June 11, 2002

Yeah, let's skip the petty politics

OK.

I'm still worried about the fundamental problem of Bush not actually being our president.

Well, that didn't last long.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:40 PM on June 11, 2002

There is that possibility, but anyone who is that far bent on focusing on one side probably could never understand the Mark Rich pardon, etc....

Once again, you commit your usual logical fallacy. It is simply outrageous to claim that because people call Republicans on their wrongdoing and refuse to sweep it under the carpet (and actually want to see some consequences enforced to penalize and discourge it) that they are somehow necessarily unwilling or unable to do the same for Democrats.
posted by rushmc at 12:41 PM on June 11, 2002

It is simply outrageous to claim that because people call Republicans on their wrongdoing and refuse to sweep it under the carpet that they are somehow necessarily unwilling or unable to do the same for Democrats.

Yeah, it's not like there's loads of that happening on MetaFilter on a regular basis or anything! Outrageous!
posted by ljromanoff at 12:53 PM on June 11, 2002

Once again, you commit your usual logical fallacy.

Because you're taking my quote out of context. Read what stavros wrote. There is no sense of open-minded, rational thinking in that paragraph. What I see is a seething contempt for a family that earned a rather good living, and the assumption that their money buys them special favors. I don't argue the special favors, but with his biting language, I can only assume that a similar contempt could not be found when arguing Democrat improprieties. I could be wrong, but I've yet to see evidence of such.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:53 PM on June 11, 2002

I love you,
you love me,
we’re a great big family.
With a great big hug
and a kiss from me to you,
won’t you say you love me too?

posted by y2karl at 1:04 PM on June 11, 2002

a family that earned a rather good living

A family dynasty fortune (hardly earned in the classical sense) that was derived from profits made by Prescott Bush while supporting Hitler during WW2.

No, he means a bachelor's from Yale, an MBA from Harvard, and although inarticulate, more brains at his disposal than you could fathom.

That's a joke, right? Harvard and Yale should be very ashamed and sorry that they allowed family money and connections to buy one of their diplomas. More brains!! Haw!! You're soooo funny!! I believe your ad hominem backfired that time! Better check the timing!! ha!! ha!! Dubya's brains are in inarticulate jail!! Could we trying to communicate to Dubya with the written word then?? Huh? Huh? Can we pretty please?? How 'bout one of those neat electronic communicators our military persons now have? Or better yet, a babel (or babble, if you prefer) fish!!
posted by nofundy at 1:31 PM on June 11, 2002

ljromanoff: stop it; I'm on my third-worst keyboard already and it'll be twelve hours before the shops open tomorrow. (I won't charge you if you cease forthwith).
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:21 PM on June 11, 2002

A family dynasty fortune (hardly earned in the classical sense) that was derived from profits made by Prescott Bush while supporting Hitler during WW2.

Gee, no Larouchian fantasy too good for you, eh, buddy?

stop it; I'm on my third-worst keyboard already and it'll be twelve hours before the shops open tomorrow.

Ha! Thank you, I'll be here all the week.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:44 PM on June 11, 2002

with his biting language, I can only assume that a similar contempt could not be found when arguing Democrat improprieties. I could be wrong, but I've yet to see evidence of such.

So that justifies making assumptions (hmm...who is it that's been feeling put upon lately by posts and posters he felt were making unwarranted assumptions about HIM?), leaping to conclusions, and making an issue out of them here, damning people for things you can't demonstrate them to have done?

I just don't see the sense in that. It wins you no points, no friends, and just sets a very bad tone that others pick up on, ruining any chance of worthwhile discussion/debate. It's one thing to question someone's "biting language," poor rhetoric, or lack of backing facts, but to extrapolate to issues of character is just plain wrong, IMO.
posted by rushmc at 3:13 PM on June 11, 2002