<p>Wow, how ignorant do you have to be to believe that history teaches nothing about what would happen if Saddam were deposed?</p>
<p>The lesson of history was the lesson of the First Gulf War–When Bush and Cheney made the decision not to remove Saddam because of what clearly would happen if they did. Are you really that uninformed of all that Bush and Cheney said about this?</p>
<p>Additionally, thousands of years of sectarian violence in Iraq would have given a clue to any but the most obtuse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I beg your pardon? You’re the one who advocates for a totalitarian society, with your calls for an Imperial presidency above the rule of law. Once again proving my point that everytime a right-wingers tries to points a finger, it’s to hide his own secret, fourfold shame.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Proving another point of mine. Some of the neocons are thrilled with how the war is going. They want trillions more in debt; they want needless US casualties; they want global terrorism on the increase. All of this reaffirms their belief that the world is coming to an end, so there’s no need for them to take any personal responsibility for their lives.</p>
<p>They don’t see any mistakes in how Iraq has been handled, because it’s giving them exactly what they want: chaos, death, and an ever-present scapegoat for their own failures.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no reason we “had to” die for it this time. There were no WMD, no ties to Al Queda, no link to 9-11; no threat to our security whatsoever. It was a choice you necons made for your own self-destructive reasons.</p>
<p>The theory about Bush’s psyche I like is that he’s the idiot son. Jeb was the heir apparent, Neil the flunkie, W the idiot son who made everyone laugh. Oddly, it was the idiot son who got enough Bush-related money to get him elected in Texas and then to get him nominated… Jeb merely secured the post by delivering Florida. To the dismay of the Bush family, the idiot son got the White House, Jeb got to leave politics with his heirdom in tatters, as papa Bush wept openly.</p>
<p>Just a theory folks… just a theory. If Will Shakespeare were alive he’d write quite the play about it all… wonder if it would have been a tragedy or a comedy.</p>
<p>It’s a little like what happened with the Kennedys. The old man was grooming Joseph for the White House, but he died in a plane crash over London while serving in WWII, and Jack, who had been somewhat marginalized in the family due to poor health, is tapped.</p>
<p>I wonder if that’s why W. made sure to check on his National Guard papers that he “did not volunteer” to serve overseas during wartime?</p>
<p>Hey wait a second. Sjmom, did you just post in support of someone making extrapolations of people’s IQ without testing them? </p>
<p>How wonderfully ironic. It takes about 3 hours of in person diagnostic testing and records review by a trained professional under controlled conditions to get an accurate statement of someone’s IQ–and yet you expect us to believe that a “conservative columnist” can do such a thing without no special training and no examination of the individuals?</p>
<p>Do you mind if I point at post #96 and at least chuckle a little?</p>
<p>My theory that Bush is the idiot son is proven every time W opens his mouth. </p>
<p>Andover Yale and Harvard - the finest schools in the land - failed to teach this man English as his FIRST language.
His diplomat father’s company failed to teach him how to behave in public (remember him rubbing A. Merkel’s shoulders as she cringed in embarrasement?) </p>
<p>The list goes on folks – if inded his IQ “may have been” (lol) higher than Kerry’s – it only goes to show how meaningless IQ is in the real world.</p>
<p>Katliamom, it’s clear that you don’t like Bush. But it’s not exactly a very tolerant point of view to make fun of his accent or use of the language. We’ve discussed this before on CC, but he did live in Texas from around age 4 until high school. Actually, the Boston Globe had an article about his upbringing in the paper today – he really identifies himself as a Texan. Wouldn’t you think it was disingenous if he suddenly affected a New England accent, a la John Kerry? My FIL grew up in a one-horse town in east Texas, and hasn’t lived there in more than 50 years. But all he has to do is open his mouth, and you’d know right away where he’s from. People’s speech patterns are largely set in childhood, and it takes some effort to change those.</p>
<p>I actually think he’s probably a really nice guy in person. I like people who are down to earth, not stuck on their own importance. But I must be an exception here.</p>
<p>I bet that you’re an exception if you think that being a nice guy in person (to sympathetic Americans, anyway) is relevant to whether someone has the skills to be a competent president.</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that he’s a nice guy in person. I just don’t care. FDR might have been a flaming jerk in person, but he knew how to run a country and a war. That’s all I’m asking for.</p>
<p>Hanna, if you re-read my post, you would see that I never said that being a nice person was a qualification for President. What I did say is that calling someone an idiot because of speech patterns is intolerant. Saying that they are “stupid” because you disagree with their policies or decisions is not the best way to debate the issue. It seems more intelligent to me to say something along the lines of “I disagree with this policy based on these facts.” Just repeating, over and over again, “Bush is stupid” does not further the discussion.</p>
<p>Well, if you think the thread should be focused on policy debate, why did you bring up whether you think you’d like him in person? You’re defending his personality on the merits, not pushing the thread back toward more substantive issues. That’s what I was trying to do by pointing out that whether he’s nice in person just doesn’t matter in a president.</p>
<p>But while we’re on the subject, I don’t think those of us who view Bush’s mangling of the English language as evidence of a dull mind are referring to his Texas accent. May she rest in peace, twangy Ann Richards never gave anyone the impression that she didn’t understand her own point. Public speaking IS a critical element of presidential leadership, and discussing Bush’s failures at that skill is no less substantive than discussing his failure to secure the Green Zone.</p>
<p>Since someone introduced Texas politics by posting a nostlagic reference to Ann Richards, why don’t we remember what Bob Bullock thought of then Gov. Bush? </p>
<p>Of course, none of the posting harpies would ever recognized that the “twangy” state could set its bi-partisan and obstructionist policies aside for the benefits of its citizens. Washington is unfortunately not Austin.</p>
Out of both courtesy and respect for the TOS, I have refrained from making any comment on those who even now navigate the tortuous path required to support Bush. </p>
<p>I’m inclined to think it a process more akin to religious faith than anything else.</p>
Bush in Austin did not govern with a “bi-partisan means to smile and do it my way” attitude. There are any number of Texans who are on record as being dismayed by his transformation upon arriving in Washington.</p>
<p>It’s my personal theory that W is dyslexic and that accounts for all the lanquage problems. From my own work with dyslexic kids it became apparent pretty quickly that was his problem. There were colums written about it during the 2000 campaign but I haven’t seen anyone mention it nat’lly since the reelection. </p>
<p>I’ve read that Bush Sr. supposedly has the same problem, and I think it is publicly acknowledged that Neil was/is dyslexic. They went to a lot of trouble during the 2000 campaign to dispute or deny that W had it, but I think it would have been better to just admit it. He could have been a role model (you too can grow up and be president!) or something. Anyway, that’s my theory and I also think it’s why Barbara was such an activist for reading programs and why Laura pretty much does the same thing. The two of them are compensating for the family flaw.</p>
<p>mercymom, I do remember the dyslexic stories way back when. However, it’s my impression that this disorder affects the way people read – not speak. I could be wrong though and frankly I’d be relieved if I were: dyslexia at least could explain some of what to me now seems to be plain idiocy.</p>