Rhodes Scholar Clinton v Chimpy

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
"The reason this is not Vietnam is that 58% of the eligible voters showed up and voted in Iraq," Clinton told the magazine. The South Vietnamese government was "never legitimate" in the eyes of the Vietnamese, he said.

The former President, who has teamed up with President Bush's father to raise money for victims of Hurricane Katrina and last December's Indian Ocean tsunami, said the key to success is getting the Iraqis to defend themselves against the insurgents.

"Having said that, it could go wrong," Clinton admitted. "Since the end of World War II, the only major foreign power that succeeded in putting down an insurgency was the British putting down the Malay insurgency, but the British stayed 15 years.

"So you can say for historical reasons, the odds are not great of our prevailing there," Clinton pointed out.



[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
We discussed the way forward in Iraq, discussed the importance of a democracy in the greater Middle East in order to leave behind a peaceful tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Matty]

Our Leader was just on television. He taught me a lot about how terrorists hate democracy and freedom. I used to kinda like them but now I don't. I hope he gives more speeches.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
"So you can say for historical reasons, the odds are not great of our prevailing there," Clinton pointed out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder, then, why Clinton himself chose to militarily intervene in so many situations.

[benfranklin]

I'm not sure if there was any point to this post other than to show that Clinton is a more eloquent speaker (slicker, if you will) than Bush, and that Clinton is more of a student of policy.

We already knew that. Neither of those things are necessary for, or indicative of, being a great leader. While lacking the benefit of historic perspective, I'd say that neither qualifies.

P.S. The title of the post and the choice of pictures make the partisan nature of the post blatantly obvious. Why bother preaching to the choir?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if there was any point to this post other than to show that Clinton is a more eloquent speaker (slicker, if you will) than Bush, and that Clinton is more of a student of policy.

We already knew that. Neither of those things are necessary for, or indicative of, being a great leader. While lacking the benefit of historic perspective, I'd say that neither qualifies.

P.S. The title of the post and the choice of pictures make the partisan nature of the post blatantly obvious. Why bother preaching to the choir?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's got good reason to believe that Bush is a dumbass.

According to a study by the Lovenstein Institute, President Bush has the lowest IQ of all presidents of past 50 years.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if there was any point to this post other than to show that Clinton is a more pompous windbag (slicker, if you will) than Bush, and that Clinton is more of a student of policy.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[zipo]

Look, the real question isn't whether Clinton is smarter than Bush.

The real question is - is an asparagus smarter than Bush?

Is this really what passes for a post in the "Politics" forum. So far I've seen a lot of this dumb crap, Bush bashing. Now I didn't vote for GWB either, but c'mon people are you really stupid enough and for some reason mad enough to waste your time doing this? Give me a break.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, the real question isn't whether Clinton is smarter than Bush.

The real question is - is an asparagus smarter than Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who underestimates President Bush should read this article from the Atlantic Monthly, titled When George Meets John (for a free version of the article, try here - although be forewarned that the text is almost unreadable, and I suggest copy & pasting to Word for easier readability).

Anyway, for some background: Fellows (the author of the article) is previewing the (then upcoming) debates between President Bush and Sen. Kerry. Some highlights from the article, IMO:

"<font color="blue"> This spring I watched dozens of hours' worth of old videos of John Kerry and George W. Bush in action. But it was the hour in which Bush faced Ann Richards that I had to watch several times. The Bush on this tape was almost unrecognizable...the real difference was the way he sounded.

This Bush was eloquent. He spoke quickly and easily. He rattled off complicated sentences and brought them to the right grammatical conclusions. He mishandled a word or two ("million" when he clearly meant "billion"; "stole" when he meant "sold"), but fewer than most people would in an hour's debate. More striking, he did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones. </font> "

" <font color="blue"> For years I had been told by people who knew Bush from business school or from Texas politics that he was keenly smart—though perhaps in a way that didn't come across in his public statements. Perhaps! The man on the debate platform looked and sounded smart and in control. If you had to guess which of the two candidates had won the debate scholarship to college and was about to win the governorship, you would choose Bush. </font> "

" <font color="blue"> I bored my friends by forcing them to watch the tape—but I could tell that I had not bored George Lakoff, a linguist from the University of California at Berkeley, who has written often of the importance of metaphor and emotional message in political communications. When I invited him to watch the Bush-Richards tape, Lakoff confirmed that everything about Bush's surface style was different. His choice of words, the pace of his speech, the length and completeness of his sentences, all made him sound like another person. Even his body language was surprising. When he was younger, Bush leaned toward the camera and did not fidget or shift his weight. He arched his eyebrows and positioned his mouth in a way that, according to Lakoff, signifies in all languages an intense, engaged form of speech. </font> "

-------------------------

Here comes the part (in bold) that everyone should read 4 or 5 times, if not more, before they roundly criticize Bush for being stupid. Frankly, I think the joke's on us (us = those who don't support him):

(note: I think we should all consider Lakoff's point, even if it is a wholly Machiavellian one)

" <font color="blue"> Obviously, Bush doesn't sound this way as President, and there is no one conclusive explanation for the change. I have read and listened to speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President's peculiar mode of speech—a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder that makes him so uncomfortable when speaking off the cuff. The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate. George Lakoff tried to convince me that the change was intentional. As a way of showing deep-down NASCAR-type manliness, according to Lakoff, Bush has deliberately made himself sound as clipped and tough as John Wayne. Moreover, in Lakoff's view, the authenticity of this stance depends on Bush's consistency in presenting it. So even if he is still capable of speaking with easy eloquence, he can't afford to let the mask slip. </font>"

The author goes on to say 'maybe' in answer to Lakoff's view. As for me, I don't think it sounds so outrageous, either. Never will you hear me call Bush stupid. Like I said, we underestimate to our own detriment.

More on Lakoff, for those who are curious.

[slamdunkpro]

You could be on to something. There’s a saying in the intelligence business that “the best cover for an intelligence officer is not to show any”

I too have been struck as to the public personality difference between Gov. GW Bush and Pres GW Bush.