What is GWB saying?

[PeterD]

The president of the United States, appearing last week with Canada's prime minister, opined the following while answering a reporter's question:

"There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that sharply. I believe that the people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarliy -- are a different color than white can self-govern."

If I recall my English grammar correctly, the implied antecedent of the pronoun "ours" is the American people. Is GWB saying that Americans are white only?

Zeus, saviour, almighty, the Emperor has no clothes!!!

[annis]

If I recall my English grammar correctly, the implied antecedent of the pronoun "ours" is the American people. Is GWB saying that Americans are white only?

No, no.

While it is certainly infuriating to the educated classes that someone so prone to basic language blunders should be considered competent to run a nation, I think the intended meaning of his words is generally clear, even if the syntax often is not.

While it can be entertaining to puzzle out his words, it seems wise not to let that distract one from the activities of him and his cabinet.

[benissimus]

Hmm... that is an amusing error.

[PeterD]

Multinational corporations usually employ prominent ex-politicians on their board of directors as a way of gaining a foothold to government ministries.

The Carlyle Group was no exception. In the early 1990s, GWB was put on the board of directors of one of Carlyle's subsidiaries.

David Rubinstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, had this to say about GWB a couple of years ago:

"We put [Bush] on the board and [he] spent three years. Came to all the meetings. Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years -- you know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company."

Rubinstein continued:

"He said, well I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. And I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board. And I said, thanks -- didn't think I'd ever see him again. His name is George W. Bush. He became President of the United States. You know if you said to me name 25 million people who would maybe be President of the US, he wouldn't have been in the category. So you never know. Anyway, I haven't been invited to the White House for anything."

How true -- you never know

"Recession means that the people's incomes, at the employer level, are going down, basically, relative to costs, people are getting laid off."
GWB, Washington, D.C., Feb. 19, 2004

I'd like to see you tackle that one, Annis.

[Emma_85]

Uh, dunno, but I can never work out what he's saying. Sometimes I understand all the words and grammars ok sometimes too, but the meaning eludes me (leads me to believe whatever he says, it has no real meaning).

"Recession means that the people's incomes, at the employer level, are going down, basically, relative to costs, people are getting laid off."


Uh, dunno, but I can never work out what he's saying. Sometimes I understand all the words and grammar's ok sometimes too, but the meaning eludes me (leads me to believe whatever he says, it has no real meaning).
I wonder if his spelling is just as good (I mean bad ) as mine? Where I come from most vowels are pronounced the same, so if you don't know how to spell a word and just guess which vowel to use, you're often going to be wrong. And I'm so crap at spelling that I often end up using the wrong vowels. heheh... eludes for example... I tried to spell it illudes (that's how I pronounce it ), but that looked wrong, so I looked it up.
If I were president I'd practice my speeches before hand and get someone to write them for me (if someone writes them for Bush he should be fired) and if I still messed them up, then I'd practice even more, especially just speaking in public. Maybe to his advisors it's just an amusing character trait though, which is suppose to make him more popular, and that's why no one's advising him to do something about his English language skills?

You know if you said to me name 25 million people who would maybe be President of the US, he wouldn't have been in the category.

You could say that of most politicians though, even the really good ones. Which of Fischer's passengers (he used to be a Taxi driver) would have thought they'd see him again as head of a political party and German foreign minister?

[PeterD]

Where I come from most vowels are pronounced the same, so if you don't know how to spell a word and just guess which vowel to use, you're often going to be wrong.

I know the feeling. Modern Greek is the same way.

You could say that of most politicians though, even the really good ones. Which of Fischer's passengers (he used to be a Taxi driver) would have thought they'd see him again as head of a political party and German foreign minister?

You make a good point Emma, but at least Fischer, unlike GWB, rolled up his sleeves and worked for a living.

P.S. I know where Johnny Depp is.

[mingshey]

Learn Korean. Then his word will sound clearer.

(Er, don't take me wrong. His english sounds like "konglish"- english spoken by a korean who didn't learn english syntax far enough. Tho somebody says it's "broken english")

[incipio]

it's important to remember that ones grasp of english grammar is not the measure of ones intelligence. i hate to think of myself as an apologist of W. i do think that the most important part of language is the ability to express oneself clearly. if poor grammar gets in the way of coherent expression, as it sometimes does with W., then there is a problem. i do not mean to lecture anybody on grammatical elitism because i have no room to lecture. don't get me wrong, i have a sense of humor and find W.'s ramblings amusing, but i don't think that the way he talks has anything to do with his intelligence.

perhaps he has an accute grasp of grammar and all his butchering of the english language is an elaborate ploy to keep us from knowing what he is really talking about. (hopefully no sarcastic emoticon is needed)

[chad]

perhaps he has an accute grasp of grammar and all his butchering of the english language is an elaborate ploy to keep us from knowing what he is really talking about.

http://www.clickfire.com/georgebush.jpg

[incipio]

http://www.clickfire.com/georgebush.jpg[/quote]

thank you for proving my point.

[PeterD]

http://www.clickfire.com/georgebush.jpg

Thanks for the laugh. I owe you one.

[solitario]

I stopped listening when he said "the French don't even have a word for entrepreneur."

[Navin Johnson]

solitario wrote:

I stopped listening when he said "the French don't even have a word for entrepreneur."

- - -

I hope you're kidding. I don't believe this quote has ever been credibly attributed to Bush. Even if he did say it, it certainly reads like it was said in jest. Now, I don't deny that he's made some verbal missteps, but no more so than Gore last time around and Kerry or Dean this time (or for many politicians really).

Whenever a public figure says something silly it can certainly be amusing but I really don't understand why so many people take these things so seriously (not saying you or anyone here does but there are many who do). Politicians, esp. on the campaign trail can get very tired and I know I can say some silly things when tired. Many times the silliness of a statement is accentuated by the reporter's choice in quotation - i.e. many times the speaker will misspeak and then correct himself, but the self-correction somehow never gets quoted (esp. for certain candidates). Or the candidate will same something intentionally silly, in a lighthearted or joking manner, but it gets reported out of that context.

In the case of Gore vs Bush last time around the media seemed to like to cast Gore as a scholar and Bush as a frat boy moron. In reality neither had overly stellar academic careers and Bush even seems to have a slightly better academic record than Gore. The main result of this stereotyping, at least in the context of this thread, was that every hint of a Bush verbal mangling was reported by the mainstream press whereas Gore seems to have gotten a more or less free pass (although you can or could find just as many Goreisms if you look hard enough).

Well, I've rambled on more than I intended or probably should have.

[PeterD]

When I started this thread last week, my intention was not to suggest that improper use of language implied a lack of intelligence or stupidity. Far from it. I had a friend in college of extraordinary intellect and talent when it came to mathematics, but he couldn't write a complete sentence if his life dependent on it!

No. My intention was to vilify and mock GWB, and show him for what he is: a pimp!

Am I being mean?

Come on!

You have a man who capriciously sends young Americans to their deaths for political and monetary gains. If that is not a pimp -- one who procures young lives for the benefits of others -- then I don't know what is.

Please spare me the war on terrorism rhetoric. In the 2 1/2 years since America was attacked, this adminstration has yet to go after the countries (Saudi Arabia ...) and the people who carried out the attacks. And if anyone feels like defending GWB, all you have to do is sign up and go to Iraq, unlike GWB and the other chickenhawks.

PS: Life is beautiful. Young Americans don't be fooled like Paul Tillman was.

PPS: There is a great article in Slate magazine by Jacob Weisberg: The Misunderestimated Man: How Bush Chose Stupidity, at http://slate.msn.com/id/2100064/

[Mongoose42]

No. My intention was to vilify and mock GWB, and show him for what he is: a pimp!

Seeing as your goal was to vilify Bush, please elaborate on why you think the only reason the US is in Iraq is for political and monetary gains.

As for the reason we have not attacked Saudi Arabia, notice the nations in question have so far cooperated with the US and UN, and Iraq and Saddam were not innocent in the 9/11 attack or the multitude of terrorist attacks on foriegn US buildings that somehow failed to make the nightly news.

In the meantime take a look at this and tell me that Saddam obeyed the UN restrictions on Iraq.
http://www.dod.gov/photos/Aug2003/03070 ... C-906.html

[solitario]

My intention was to vilify and mock GWB, and show him for what he is: a pimp!

That is so nice of you. Keep up the good work.
Maybe (while all of our soldiers are in Iraq) you Canadians can invade and set this country straight?
I wouldn't call George Bush a pimp though. He's just the opposite: a whore. Turning tricks for Bible-thumping fundamentalist groups.

[PeterD]

Seeing as your goal was to vilify Bush, please elaborate on why you think the only reason the US is in Iraq is for political and monetary gains.

I shall elaborate.

πετρέλαιον. πετρέλαιον. πετρέλαιον.

Excerpt from the Oil and Gas International, an Industry Trade Publication, Jan. 27, 2003:

"France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want access to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

During the 31 July/August 2003 hearing on Iraq in the US Senate Foreign Relations Commitee, Senator Richard Lugar stated:

"...we are going to run the oil business. We are going to run it well. We are going to make money; and it's going to help pay for the rehabilitation of Iraq because there is money there."

To put it all in its proper perspective, let's read what George Keenan, the man who headed policy planning for the State Department, had to say in 1947:

"We have about 60% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concept. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

As for the reason we have not attacked Saudi Arabia, notice the nations in question have so far cooperated with the US and UN, and Iraq and Saddam were not innocent in the 9/11 attack or the multitude of terrorist attacks on foriegn US buildings that somehow failed to make the nightly news.

Which nations have cooperated with the US? Are you referring to Libya, the country that doesn't even have working elevators?! Please repeat the following phrase several times: Libyan nuclear physics --

See how silly it sounds. What a charade that was!

In the meantime take a look at this and tell me that Saddam obeyed the UN restrictions on Iraq.
http://www.dod.gov/photos/Aug2003/03070 ... C-906.html

Israel and Turkey have violated and ignored more UN Resolutions than any other nation. They have done so with impunity! Shall we "shock and awe" them as well? I can assure the US Christian fundamentalists would take umbrage to that suggestion, what with the rapture and all.

By the way, the text of UN Resolution 1441 (the one GWB used as a pretext to invade) concludes:

"[The Security Council] Decides to remain seized of the matter,'' i.e., that it holds jurisdiction, and has NOT accorded anyone the power to act.

Take care,

Peter

P.S. "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us. If we're a humble nation, they'll welcome us." GWB, during 2000 presidential debates.

P.P.S "Shoot first, ask questions later, ...and I will protect you." Heinrich Himmler.