The resumé of George W. Bush
October 7, 2004 12:38 AM Subscribe
The resumé of George W. Bush, a carefully annotated curriculum vitae for the incumbent U.S. president, with a foreword and an ongoing errata section to keep it honest.
That's rad. Well, actually, it's sad--but it's sad in that rad way that makes you sort of confused and then you just sigh and go to bed.
posted by The God Complex at 2:09 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 2:09 AM on October 7, 2004
I think this might set a record as the longest unbroken string of Bush admin FPPs
posted by shoos at 3:57 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by shoos at 3:57 AM on October 7, 2004
Whenever I see the orphaned term “one theory is that...” I can be all but sure that within the words that follow nothing will be said.
posted by ed\26h at 4:03 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by ed\26h at 4:03 AM on October 7, 2004
Only when you're born into American aristocracy is it possible to negate gravity and fail upwards. All hail Dear Leader!
posted by nofundy at 4:46 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by nofundy at 4:46 AM on October 7, 2004
Whenever I see the words "I can be all but sure", I can be all but sure that the person using them is making a generalization that won't extend across his/her entire field of belief.
posted by lodurr at 4:51 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by lodurr at 4:51 AM on October 7, 2004
I don’t know how you could have arrived at any rational probability for that one. But anyway; we detract!
posted by ed\26h at 4:57 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by ed\26h at 4:57 AM on October 7, 2004
*sigh*
This doesn't tell anyone anything they didn't know, and it's directly opinionated political. I mean, I dislike him as much as the next guy but why this post?
(Please don't stone me)
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:02 AM on October 7, 2004
This doesn't tell anyone anything they didn't know, and it's directly opinionated political. I mean, I dislike him as much as the next guy but why this post?
(Please don't stone me)
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:02 AM on October 7, 2004
Well, seeing it all nicely laid out like that, I can understand why most Americans are so proudly defending their president. All you have to do now is to vote him properly in office this time.
posted by acrobat at 5:31 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by acrobat at 5:31 AM on October 7, 2004
For some reason this resume entirely skips GW's illustrious service as governor of Texas.
posted by beagle at 5:39 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by beagle at 5:39 AM on October 7, 2004
Various versions of this have been floating around for a while. I'm no fan either, but this is pretty subjective stuff.
posted by psmealey at 5:44 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by psmealey at 5:44 AM on October 7, 2004
Acrobat: That seems quite broad – surely there are some accusations against which he should be defended?
posted by ed\26h at 5:49 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by ed\26h at 5:49 AM on October 7, 2004
Acrobat: That seems quite broad – surely there are some accusations against which he should be defended?
posted by ed\26h at 5:49 AM PST on October 7
Yes, of course. That he has ever known "hard work" or earned any thing, title, or position independent of his family connections definitely qualifies.
posted by nofundy at 6:25 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by ed\26h at 5:49 AM PST on October 7
Yes, of course. That he has ever known "hard work" or earned any thing, title, or position independent of his family connections definitely qualifies.
posted by nofundy at 6:25 AM on October 7, 2004
I take what I said back. After seeing the John Kerry resume on Rx Limbaugh's site, this is fair game, and bit better substantiated than the version that was debunked on Snopes. Btw, Limbaugh has some balls criticising Kerry over Vietnam, doesn't he? I mean, where was he during this time?
posted by psmealey at 6:30 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by psmealey at 6:30 AM on October 7, 2004
Nofundy: What I mean is – Surely there are some accusations, whose acceptance would reflect negatively on him, against which he should be defended?
posted by ed\26h at 6:43 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by ed\26h at 6:43 AM on October 7, 2004
No, ed\26h, the guy never plays fair. Check this nice little bit from the presidential debate.
posted by acrobat at 6:46 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by acrobat at 6:46 AM on October 7, 2004
Nofundy: What I mean is – Surely there are some accusations, whose acceptance would reflect negatively on him, against which he should be defended?
posted by ed\26h at 6:43 AM PST on October 7
Let me research that and get back to you.
OK, here's some stuff:
Someone once said that Jeb farted at the dinner table and blamed it on Dubya but that seems so insignificant compared to all the catastrophic successes he's had.
And it wasn't Dubya but his father who puked on the Emperor of Japan so let's be sure and set that straight.
It may not be true that Dubya is a master debator but not a very cunning linguist so right there's something.
posted by nofundy at 6:58 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by ed\26h at 6:43 AM PST on October 7
Let me research that and get back to you.
OK, here's some stuff:
Someone once said that Jeb farted at the dinner table and blamed it on Dubya but that seems so insignificant compared to all the catastrophic successes he's had.
And it wasn't Dubya but his father who puked on the Emperor of Japan so let's be sure and set that straight.
It may not be true that Dubya is a master debator but not a very cunning linguist so right there's something.
posted by nofundy at 6:58 AM on October 7, 2004
His sidekick is no better either (if not worse). Didn't he lie through his teeth at the debate with Edwards?
posted by acrobat at 7:00 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by acrobat at 7:00 AM on October 7, 2004
Acrobat: Whether or not he ever plays fair, I’m sure you agree that two wrongs don’t make a right?
Nofundy: I think you’re just being silly now, if you like to discuss the issue sensibly I’d be happy to.
posted by ed\26h at 7:03 AM on October 7, 2004
Nofundy: I think you’re just being silly now, if you like to discuss the issue sensibly I’d be happy to.
posted by ed\26h at 7:03 AM on October 7, 2004
First of all, Rush's resume isn't even a resume, it is more of a short biography, but not even that really.
Secondly, the beauty in the Bush resume is the simplicity and plainess with which the information is presented.
And thirdly, I though Limbaugh had got over that prescription drug problem of his, but then he writes things like this:
And unlike President Bush who once proudly wore the uniform of the United States military, Mr. Kerry will never know what it is like to wear the clothes of a working man.
I can't get over the 'support the troop at all costs' rhetoric that the Right likes. When supporting the troops means doing everything in your power to make sure nothing interupts the steady flow of soliders to their deaths.
posted by sycophant at 7:03 AM on October 7, 2004
Secondly, the beauty in the Bush resume is the simplicity and plainess with which the information is presented.
And thirdly, I though Limbaugh had got over that prescription drug problem of his, but then he writes things like this:
And unlike President Bush who once proudly wore the uniform of the United States military, Mr. Kerry will never know what it is like to wear the clothes of a working man.
I can't get over the 'support the troop at all costs' rhetoric that the Right likes. When supporting the troops means doing everything in your power to make sure nothing interupts the steady flow of soliders to their deaths.
posted by sycophant at 7:03 AM on October 7, 2004
... the clothes of a working man.
How does the old drill-seargeant chestnut go? "Don't call me 'sir', boy -- I work for a living!"
Apropos of which my pop-culture brain spits out the following:
How does the old drill-seargeant chestnut go? "Don't call me 'sir', boy -- I work for a living!"
Apropos of which my pop-culture brain spits out the following:
Colonel Hayes Hodges : I'll make you a deal right now. If you can tell me the average life expectancy of a Marine second lieutenant dropped into a hot LZ in Vietnam in 1967, I'll tell you everything I remember about Ca Lu.posted by lodurr at 7:18 AM on October 7, 2004
Major Mark Biggs : One week.
Colonel Hayes Hodges : Negative. Sixteen minutes. Sixteen fucking minutes. And that's all I remember about Ca Lu.
acrobat: does that show a "meeting?" Is that it?! Lying "through his teeth?" It's dumbasses like you who will get Bush reelected.
posted by shoos at 7:24 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by shoos at 7:24 AM on October 7, 2004
shoos, I'm not re-electing (sic) anyone, as I'm not American. But if standing side by side at such an esoteric gathering is not a meeting ("first I met him was when he walked into this room"), then I expect you, obviously not a dumbass, to tell me what it is.
What is it that blinds you so? Maybe this bit of text (not mine) goes a little way towards an explanation:
...
"But the general rule of thumb is that major cities are slightly more attuned due to aggressive media saturation and how issues tend to make themselves known more urgently, more immediately, whereas Middle America is a scattershot conglomeration of the politically apathetic and the actively disenfranchised, full of people far too busy with their lives and kids and jobs and zoning out on "Fear Factor" and "Monday Night Football" to care about following the elitist, ever dire dramas playing out on the nation's gilded stages.
Most Americans, in other words, have no idea what the hell a Halliburton is. Or a Karl Rove. Or a Donny "Shriveled Soul" Rumsfeld. Or a Lockheed Martin. Or a Carlysle Group. Or have any idea that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Or that WMDs were never found. Or that President Bush has taken more vacation time than any president in U.S. history. Or that Jesus thinks Dubya is "sort of a dink." Or where Iraq is on a map."
posted by acrobat at 7:44 AM on October 7, 2004
What is it that blinds you so? Maybe this bit of text (not mine) goes a little way towards an explanation:
...
"But the general rule of thumb is that major cities are slightly more attuned due to aggressive media saturation and how issues tend to make themselves known more urgently, more immediately, whereas Middle America is a scattershot conglomeration of the politically apathetic and the actively disenfranchised, full of people far too busy with their lives and kids and jobs and zoning out on "Fear Factor" and "Monday Night Football" to care about following the elitist, ever dire dramas playing out on the nation's gilded stages.
Most Americans, in other words, have no idea what the hell a Halliburton is. Or a Karl Rove. Or a Donny "Shriveled Soul" Rumsfeld. Or a Lockheed Martin. Or a Carlysle Group. Or have any idea that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Or that WMDs were never found. Or that President Bush has taken more vacation time than any president in U.S. history. Or that Jesus thinks Dubya is "sort of a dink." Or where Iraq is on a map."
posted by acrobat at 7:44 AM on October 7, 2004
does that show a "meeting?"
Alright, I'll stipulate that this "meeting" issue is silly, on the face, because it's possible when you meet a lot of people to forget that you've met someone before. But one would hope that if that person is a Senator, one wouldn't make a big stink about it on national TV unless one was pretty sure about it.
And yes, BTW, that does count as a meeting, because they sat together for two hours. They also spoke 1:1 backstage at one of the Sunday roundup shows. I'll let the Liddy Dole swearing-in go by, because I think there's a good possibility that they didn't do more than shake hands, there. But I'd be willing to bet they did at least that much.
I think it is a little, shall we say, over-eager, to just show the CNN pic and say "Cheney's a bald-faced liar!!!!" There are lots of other, better reasons to say that. But I think this issue actually shows some important things about Mr. Cheney's M.O. Because even if he hadn't ever met Edwards before, it wouldn't mean much: He's only at the Senate offices or chamber to meet with Republicans, break ties, or preside over special sessions: There's no reason he'd meet a first-term Democratic Senator.
posted by lodurr at 7:44 AM on October 7, 2004
Alright, I'll stipulate that this "meeting" issue is silly, on the face, because it's possible when you meet a lot of people to forget that you've met someone before. But one would hope that if that person is a Senator, one wouldn't make a big stink about it on national TV unless one was pretty sure about it.
And yes, BTW, that does count as a meeting, because they sat together for two hours. They also spoke 1:1 backstage at one of the Sunday roundup shows. I'll let the Liddy Dole swearing-in go by, because I think there's a good possibility that they didn't do more than shake hands, there. But I'd be willing to bet they did at least that much.
I think it is a little, shall we say, over-eager, to just show the CNN pic and say "Cheney's a bald-faced liar!!!!" There are lots of other, better reasons to say that. But I think this issue actually shows some important things about Mr. Cheney's M.O. Because even if he hadn't ever met Edwards before, it wouldn't mean much: He's only at the Senate offices or chamber to meet with Republicans, break ties, or preside over special sessions: There's no reason he'd meet a first-term Democratic Senator.
posted by lodurr at 7:44 AM on October 7, 2004
lodurr, I wasn't being over-eager. Cheney used this little lie to support his claim that Edwards was all but absent from the senate floor. He was being his usual snicky self. A liar in my books, any day.
posted by acrobat at 7:50 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by acrobat at 7:50 AM on October 7, 2004
Acrobat, the resource you linked did have some detail. It's not necessarily you I'm talking about. A lot of people do forget that shorthand only works for the "congregation". They put up a single photo, and they don't see a need for more than that.
In a forum like this, it often doesn't matter so much. E.g., when the pic first showed up here, on Tuesday night / Wednesday morning, it was amusing, even foreshadowing, because the point was just to say "[ahem!]". But that was a different context -- it wasn't at that time presented as though it were a slam-dunk argument for Cheney's irremediable moral culpability.
Now, I happen to think the guy's a snake, and always have, but that's just me.
posted by lodurr at 8:03 AM on October 7, 2004
In a forum like this, it often doesn't matter so much. E.g., when the pic first showed up here, on Tuesday night / Wednesday morning, it was amusing, even foreshadowing, because the point was just to say "[ahem!]". But that was a different context -- it wasn't at that time presented as though it were a slam-dunk argument for Cheney's irremediable moral culpability.
Now, I happen to think the guy's a snake, and always have, but that's just me.
posted by lodurr at 8:03 AM on October 7, 2004
Muhahaha... you know a Republican lies too much when Drudge debunks him.
posted by clevershark at 8:17 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by clevershark at 8:17 AM on October 7, 2004
Wait a minute...Bush scored a 1206 on his SATs and that put him in the 70th percentile? When I took it in 87 or 88, I scored like an 1160, and that put me in the 90th or 92nd percentile. I know they made it a lot easier a year or two after I took it. Was it also a lot easier 10+ years ago when Bush took it, or is it just that a lot more dumb people took the test in the same year I took it.
I can't believe Bush scored higher than me. I mean granted, I was still drunk from the night before when I took it, but let's face it. He probably was too.
posted by willnot at 9:06 AM on October 7, 2004
I can't believe Bush scored higher than me. I mean granted, I was still drunk from the night before when I took it, but let's face it. He probably was too.
posted by willnot at 9:06 AM on October 7, 2004
"I am the first President to unconstitutionally restrict my opponents' First Amendment rights by allowing my supporters to remain at the venue while restricting my detractors to "free speech zones," fenced-off areas up to half mile away from the media, the audience, and especially myself."
Um ... though they certainly introduced this novel concept, didn't the Democrats use it to their advantage during their convention?
posted by RavinDave at 9:56 AM on October 7, 2004
Um ... though they certainly introduced this novel concept, didn't the Democrats use it to their advantage during their convention?
posted by RavinDave at 9:56 AM on October 7, 2004
RavinDave, I recall a cite here to the effect that the Secret Service started using the policy to a limited extent with the Gore campaign in '00. But it was by no means a blanket policy at that time, and there was no Gore policy of barring the non-faithful from events. It's certainly been pushed to new extremes under Bush.
posted by lodurr at 10:13 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by lodurr at 10:13 AM on October 7, 2004
... was no Gore policy of barring the non-faithful from events
Except for Nader. ;)
Beyond the fact that they have used it to advantage themselves, the main problem is that no Democrat in a position to do so has ever forcefully opposed it, so it isn't really a chip you guys can play against the Right.
posted by RavinDave at 10:35 AM on October 7, 2004
Except for Nader. ;)
Beyond the fact that they have used it to advantage themselves, the main problem is that no Democrat in a position to do so has ever forcefully opposed it, so it isn't really a chip you guys can play against the Right.
posted by RavinDave at 10:35 AM on October 7, 2004
(ahem... "those guys", if you don't mind.... I've never been able to bring myself to register with a party...)
Yes, it's troubling. But I'm not willing to dismiss Democratic talk on civil liberties as mere cynical rhetoric, since it does actually occasionally lead somewhere. And who knows, maybe they've seen the light.
In any case, the "free speech zone" in Beantown, at least from what I read, wasn't very well populated. Such folk as wanted to protest seemed to have no real difficulty getting into a location to do so. In NYC, it was another story.
posted by lodurr at 6:12 PM on October 7, 2004
Yes, it's troubling. But I'm not willing to dismiss Democratic talk on civil liberties as mere cynical rhetoric, since it does actually occasionally lead somewhere. And who knows, maybe they've seen the light.
In any case, the "free speech zone" in Beantown, at least from what I read, wasn't very well populated. Such folk as wanted to protest seemed to have no real difficulty getting into a location to do so. In NYC, it was another story.
posted by lodurr at 6:12 PM on October 7, 2004
« Older What barry says | Best of the Web Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:14 AM on October 7, 2004