Go to Unsolved Mystery Publications Main Index Go to Free account page
Go to frequently asked mystery questions Go to Unsolved Mystery Publications Main Index
Welcome: to Unsolved Mysteries 1 2 3
 
 New Mystery StoryNew Unsolved Mystery UserLogon to Unsolved MysteriesRead Random Mystery StoryChat on Unsolved MysteriesMystery Coffee houseGeneral Mysterious AdviceSerious Mysterious AdviceReplies Wanted on these mystery stories
 




Show Stories by
Newest
Recently Updated
Wanting Replies
Recently Replied to
Discussions&Questions
Site Suggestions
Highest Rated
Most Rated
General Advice

Ancient Beliefs
Angels, God, Spiritual
Animals&Pets
Comedy
Conspiracy Theories
Debates
Dreams
Dream Interpretation
Embarrassing Moments
Entertainment
ESP
General Interest
Ghosts/Apparitions
Hauntings
History
Horror
Household tips
Human Interest
Humor / Jokes
In Recognition of
Lost Friends/Family
Missing Persons
Music
Mysterious Happenings
Mysterious Sounds
Near Death Experience
Ouija Mysteries
Out of Body Experience
Party Line
Philosophy
Poetry
Prayers
Predictions
Psychic Advice
Quotes
Religious / Religions
Reviews
Riddles
Science
Sci-fi
Serious Advice
Strictly Fiction
Unsolved Crimes
UFOs
Urban Legends
USM Events and People
USM Games
In Memory of
Self Help
Search Stories:


Stories By AuthorId:


Google
Web Site   

Bookmark and Share



The Dedicated FOOL - David/Fearfactor

  Author:  28071  Category:(Debate) Created:(6/25/2006 6:25:00 PM)
This post has been Viewed (1372 times)

I wanted to share an article, written for Slate Magazine, that accurately conveys the President's appitude, or lack there of...enjoy: http://www.slate.com/id/2143250/

The question I am most frequently asked about Bushisms is, "Do you really think the president of the United States is dumb?"

The short answer is yes.

Continue Article

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

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

The long answer is yes and no.

Quotations collected over the years in Slate may leave the impression that George W. Bush is a dimwit. Let's face it: A man who cannot talk about education without making a humiliating grammatical mistake ("The illiteracy level of our children are appalling"); who cannot keep straight the three branches of government ("It's the executive branch's job to interpret law"); who coins ridiculous words ("Hispanos," "arbolist," "subliminable," "resignate," "transformationed"); who habitually says the opposite of what he intends ("the death tax is good for people from all walks of life!") sounds like a grade-A imbecile.

And if you don't care to pursue the matter any further, that view will suffice. George W. Bush has governed, for the most part, the way any airhead might, undermining the fiscal condition of the nation, squandering the goodwill of the world after Sept. 11, and allowing huge problems (global warming, entitlement spending, AIDS) to metastasize toward catastrophe through a combination of ideology, incomprehension, and indifference. If Bush isn't exactly the moron he sounds, his synaptic misfirings offer a plausible proxy for the idiocy of his presidency.

In reality, however, there's more to it. Bush's assorted malapropisms, solecisms, gaffes, spoonerisms, and truisms tend to imply that his lack of fluency in English is tantamount to an absence of intelligence. But as we all know, the inarticulate can be shrewd, the fluent fatuous. In Bush's case, the symptoms point to a specific malady—some kind of linguistic deficit akin to dyslexia—that does not indicate a lack of mental capacity per se.

Bush also compensates with his non-verbal acumen. As he notes, "Smart comes in all kinds of different ways." The president's way is an aptitude for connecting to people through banter and physicality. He has a powerful memory for names, details, and figures that truly matter to him, such as batting averages from the 1950s. Bush also has a keen political sense, sharpened under the tutelage of Karl Rove.

What's more, calling the president a cretin absolves him of responsibility. Like Reagan, Bush avoids blame for all manner of contradictions, implausible assertions, and outright lies by appearing an amiable dunce. If he knows not what he does, blame goes to the three puppeteers, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. It also breeds sympathy. We wouldn't laugh at FDR because he couldn't walk. Is it less cruel to laugh at GWB because he can't talk? The soft bigotry of low expectations means Bush is seen to outperform by merely getting by. Finally, elitist condescension, however merited, helps cement Bush's bond to the masses.

But if "numskull" is an imprecise description of the president, it is not altogether inaccurate. Bush may not have been born stupid, but he has achieved stupidity, and now he wears it as a badge of honor. What makes mocking this president fair as well as funny is that Bush is, or at least once was, capable of learning, reading, and thinking. We know he has discipline and can work hard (at least when the goal is reducing his time for a three-mile run). Instead he chose to coast, for most of his life, on name, charm, good looks, and the easy access to capital afforded by family connections.

The most obvious expression of Bush's choice of ignorance is that, at the age of 57, he knows nothing about policy or history. After years of working as his dad's spear-chucker in Washington, he didn't understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, the second- and third-largest federal programs. Well into his plans for invading Iraq, Bush still couldn't get down the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, the key religious divide in a country he was about to occupy. Though he sometimes carries books for show, he either does not read them or doesn't absorb anything from them. Bush's ignorance is so transparent that many of his intimates do not bother to dispute it even in public. Consider the testimony of several who know him well.

Richard Perle, foreign policy adviser: "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."

David Frum, former speechwriter: "Bush had a poor memory for facts and figures. … Fire a question at him about the specifics of his administration's policies, and he often appeared uncertain. Nobody would ever enroll him in a quiz show."

Laura Bush, spouse: "George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action."

Paul O'Neill, former treasury secretary: "The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection."

A second, more damning aspect of Bush's mind-set is that he doesn't want to know anything in detail, however important. Since college, he has spilled with contempt for knowledge, equating learning with snobbery and making a joke of his own anti-intellectualism. ("[William F. Buckley] wrote a book at Yale; I read one," he quipped at a black-tie event.) By O'Neill's account, Bush could sit through an hourlong presentation about the state of the economy without asking a single question. ("I was bored as hell," the president shot back, ostensibly in jest.)

Closely related to this aggressive ignorance is a third feature of Bush's mentality: laziness. Again, this is a lifelong trait. Bush's college grades were mostly Cs (including a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System). At the start of one term, the star of the Yale football team spotted him in the back row during the shopping period for courses. "Hey! George Bush is in this class!" Calvin Hill shouted to his teammates. "This is the one for us!" As governor of Texas, Bush would take a long break in the middle of his short workday for a run followed by a stretch of video golf or computer solitaire.

A fourth and final quality of Bush's mind is that it does not think. The president can't tolerate debate about issues. Offered an option, he makes up his mind quickly and never reconsiders. At an elementary school, a child once asked him whether it was hard to make decisions as president. "Most of the decisions come pretty easily for me, to be frank with you." By leaping to conclusions based on what he "believes," Bush avoids contemplating even the most obvious basic contradictions: between his policy of tax cuts and reducing the deficit; between his call for a humble foreign policy based on alliances and his unilateral assertion of American power; between his support for in-vitro fertilization (which destroys embryos) and his opposition to fetal stem-cell research (because it destroys embryos).

Why would someone capable of being smart choose to be stupid? To understand, you have to look at W.'s relationship with father. This filial bond involves more tension than meets the eye. Dad was away for much of his oldest son's childhood. Little George grew up closer to his acid-tongued mother and acted out against the absent parent—through adolescent misbehavior, academic failure, dissipation, and basically not accomplishing anything at all until well into his 40s.

Dubya's youthful screw-ups and smart-aleck attitude reflect some combination of protest, plea for attention, and flailing attempt to compete. Until a decade ago, his résumé read like a send-up of his dad's. Bush senior was a star student at Andover and Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, where he was also captain of the baseball team; Junior struggled through with gentleman's C's and, though he loved baseball, couldn't make the college lineup. Père was a bomber pilot in the Pacific; fils sat out 'Nam in the Texas Air National Guard, where he lost flying privileges by not showing up. Dad drove to Texas in 1947 to get rich in the oil business and actually did; Son tried the same in 1975 and drilled dry holes for a decade. Bush the elder got elected to Congress in 1966; Shrub ran in 1978, didn't know what he was talking about, and got clobbered.

Through all this incompetent emulation runs an undercurrent of hostility. In an oft-told anecdote circa 1973, GWB—after getting wasted at a party and driving over a neighbor's trash can in Houston—challenged his dad. "I hear you're lookin' for me," W. told the chairman of the Republican National Committee. "You want to go mano a mano right here?" Some years later at a state dinner, he told the Queen of England he was being seated far away because he was the black sheep of the family.

After half a lifetime of this kind of frustration, Bush decided to straighten up. Nursing a hangover at a 40th-birthday weekend, he gave up Wild Turkey, cold turkey. With the help of Billy Graham, he put himself in the hands of a higher power and began going to church. He became obsessed with punctuality and developed a rigid routine. Thus did Prince Hal molt into an evangelical King Henry. And it worked! Putting together a deal to buy the Texas Rangers, the ne'er-do-well finally tasted success. With success, he grew closer to his father, taking on the role of family avenger. This culminated in his 1994 challenge to Texas Gov. Ann Richards, who had twitted dad at the 1988 Democratic convention*.

Curiously, this late arrival at adulthood did not involve Bush becoming in any way thoughtful. Having chosen stupidity as rebellion, he stuck with it out of conformity. The promise-keeper, reformed-alkie path he chose not only drastically curtailed personal choices he no longer wanted, it also supplied an all-encompassing order, offered guidance on policy, and prevented the need for much actual information. Bush's old answer to hard questions was, "I don't know and, who cares." His new answer was, "Wait a second while I check with Jesus."

A remaining bit of poignancy was his unresolved struggle with his father. "All I ask," he implored a reporter while running for governor in 1994, "is that for once you guys stop seeing me as the son of George Bush." In his campaigns, W. has kept his dad offstage. (In an exceptional appearance on the eve of the 2000 New Hampshire primary, 41 came onstage and called his son "this boy.") While some describe the second Bush presidency as a restoration, it is in at least equal measure a repudiation. The son's harder-edged conservatism explicitly rejects the old man's approach to such issues as abortion, taxes, and relations with Israel.

This Oedipally induced ignorance expresses itself most dangerously in Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. Dubya polished off his old man's greatest enemy, Saddam, but only by lampooning 41's accomplishment of coalition-building in the first Gulf War. Bush led the country to war on false pretenses and neglected to plan the occupation that would inevitably follow. A more knowledgeable and engaged president might have questioned the quality of the evidence about Iraq's supposed weapons programs. One who preferred to be intelligent might have asked about the possibility of an unfriendly reception. Instead, Bush rolled the dice. His budget-busting tax cuts exemplify a similar phenomenon, driven by an alternate set of ideologues.

As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool.

- David/Fearfactor

You can join Unsolved Mysteries and post your own mysteries or
interesting stories for the world to read and respond to Click here

Scroll all the way down to read replies.

Show all stories by   Author:  28071 ( Click here )

Halloween is Right around the corner.. .







 
Replies:      
Date: 6/25/2006 6:40:00 PM  From Authorid: 63026    interesting...I am beginning to wonder though..who is actually running our country. I think Cheney and Rumsfeld is running our country. Those two are nothing but evil. I dont like them too. Bush is a fool who is being played by his administration. After 9-11 he had the whole united stated united, and managed to divide it in 2 years. Incomptence at its best.  
Date: 6/25/2006 6:40:00 PM  From Authorid: 47296    I believe this is in the wrong category. Nothing historical here, only editorial.  
Date: 6/25/2006 6:57:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    two, George W is a part of history whether we like or not. Talking about Presidents is historical perspective. David/  
Date: 6/25/2006 6:59:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    Psy, if you notice, alot of George Bush's actions are his father's unfinished business. David/  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:00:00 PM  From Authorid: 63026    yep   
Date: 6/25/2006 7:00:00 PM  From Authorid: 47296    I stand behind what I stated. There is little if any historical fact here, only editorial rhetoric, and you blsapheme true history by posting such trach as this in this category.  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:05:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    Two, you are entitled to your opinion certainly. However, while the article outlines very little in the way historical events, it does chronicle a historical figure (past, present, and future) in which George W certainly is. David/  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:08:00 PM  From Authorid: 47296    You should learn history since it does not even accurately chronicle a historical figure. As I stated, this post does not belong in history. History should be a category to discuss historical facts, not editorial rhetoric.  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:13:00 PM  From Authorid: 63026    rhetoric...like george bush says...stay the course, wmd's, mushroom clouds, stay the course, its for americas protection, stay the course, al-qaeda, 9-11, iraq...That's rhetoric  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:33:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    two, what are you not understanding? George Bush is part of history. George W Bush is a person, err at least I hope so. A Historical Figure is a person who has made history (past, present, and future).  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:35:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    lol, its amazing, but most anything can be construed as rhetoric... David/  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:38:00 PM  From Authorid: 47296    George Bush is part of history. This post though carries no historical fact or significance whatsoever. The history category should be for posting historical events and facts.  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:41:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    two, this post carrys alot of historical facts..can I point them out to you? David/  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:43:00 PM  From Authorid: 47296    You want to see historical fact, read the post I put in this category regurally. This is all editorial, in other words, someone's opinion. I have asked Admin to take a look and see if this post is in the right category.  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:46:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    thats interesting. I dont see any category rules listed, only your baseless rhetoric. David/  
Date: 6/25/2006 7:49:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    secondly...you agreed with me that George bush is a historical figure, right? Therefore, we are talking about history. Just because its not about dates, doesn't mean the subject is not of historical context. David/  
Date: 6/25/2006 8:45:00 PM  From Authorid: 15228    How historical. Someone thinks George Bush is dumb and has "unresolved struggles with his father" because he didn't want to be pigeon holed into only being viewed as the former Presidents son? And he hasn't trotted his father out on every issue. Deep, very deep. If he did bring his father out, people would read deep seated dependency in that. It's a lose-lose situation. Than there is the "Bush led the country to war on false pretenses and neglected to plan the occupation that would inevitably follow". So, only every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had WMD and that wasn't the only reason given for going to war, but that wouldn't fit the constant lie we hear from the democrats, right? You can make all the plans you want in a war...but win the shooting starts, the plans go out the window and besides, How does this person KNOW that plans weren't made for the occupation??? Do you really think NO plans were made...at all? None? This article is a lot of Freudian blather, save it for Oprah.  
Date: 6/25/2006 8:57:00 PM  From Authorid: 15228    By the way, when I don't provide a link to an article, I'm quickly slammed down and told my post will be deleted if I don't add it.  
Date: 6/25/2006 9:08:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    Kelly, no offense, but did you read it clearly? The author of the article stated that father and son had unresolved issues in the past, but by the age of 40, Junior began to avenge the "black sheep" label even Bush jr had allegedly put upon himself with the Queen of England. Certainly, Dad is VERY happy with his son being President; I'm not sure why you are upset by this? BTW, it's not just someone either that believe the President to be dumb either. Its close friends, advisors, classmates, etc as evidenced by their cited quotes. Now, whether the quotes are true is for you to believe or not to believe. To me, the evidence has always been and will be, that historically, George Bush will be known as one of the dumbest presidents in history. Also, people have known that even with his father in the background, that Bush was a definate outsider that severely lacked political experience. I certainly laughed, when Dubya said he was going to stop the bickering in Washington and bring both sides together in his first run for office. So yes, you are right Kelly, its a lose-lose situation in that regard.  
Date: 6/25/2006 9:20:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html. Check this link out in regards the US not being prepared for occupation. The Administration never publically denied the memo either. David/  
Date: 6/25/2006 9:44:00 PM  From Authorid: 15228    "A fourth and final quality of Bush's mind is that it does not think". How does the author (whoever it is) KNOW that Bush doesn't think? Or debate? Sounds like an intellectual elitist snob talking..if ONLY Bush would listen to this person (whoever wrote the article) than all would be right with the world. You are quite young, in my day Regean was always considered to be the "dumbest" President of all time by ever so tolerant liberals..how times have changed. Now of course, Bush is the dumbest President. Strange how only democrat Presidents are "smart", all republican Presidents are "dumb".  
Date: 6/25/2006 9:55:00 PM  From Authorid: 15228    So, your going to base your assumption that there was absolutely no postwar planning on a British memo that may or may not be accurate? I highly doubt there was no postwar planning..maybe the plans didn't work out, maybe they didn't take into account that there would be an insurgency...but I'm pretty sure our Military isn't all that stupid...they have plans for everything.  
Date: 6/25/2006 9:59:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    there alot of Republican Presidents I've admired A) Lincoln B)Ronald Reagan C) Richard Nixxon D) theodore roosevelt. All these men had great minds in my opinion. Though, Reagan was more or less just a dynamic speaker, not necessarily a brillant policy maker.  
Date: 6/25/2006 10:12:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    Kelly...Few Americans understand what's
actually occurring in Iraq. The Iraqi government and military is thoroughly corrupt and the insurgents are more dedicated
to their cause than any other group in modern guerilla warfare.

I know of someone who recently talked to a Ft. Bragg field grade civil affairs officer who
returned from Iraq a few weeks ago. He told him the Iraqi army
is paid from US funds and their pay is determined by the unit size. Their commanders over report their troop strength by at least 2x
and keep the extra money for themselves. There is no oversight
and US senior commanders don't want to hear about the
discrepency in reported vs actual unit strength. Gee, no oversight? I thought Iraq was all planned-out? This is all coming directly from a ranking military personnel returning from the area overseas. The person reporting this is neither a Democrat or Republican. In fact he despises both parties.

furthermore, He also told him about an experience he had just before
he departed Iraq. Their unit had made good progress in
a village concerning insurgent activity. They rewarded
the people of the small village with projects that directly
helped the people there. They even passed out 5 soccer
balls they paid for themselves for some of the children
in the village. The children ranged from 6 -14 and were
very grateful to the Americans for the gift.
A few days later they returned to the village and noticed
right away a change of behavior in the people there.
They were very uncooperative. Come to find out a day
after the Americans passed out the soccer balls the
insurgents came into town and beheaded all 5 kids
who received the balls.
  
Date: 6/26/2006 4:28:00 AM  From Authorid: 47296    David, while you know of someone that talked to someone that knew or talked to someone else that was in Iraq, I am sure Kelly, and know that I have, actually talked to people that have been there. Do you want to know who a good many of the insurgents and agitators are? They are not Iraqis, but people from outside Iraq, primarily Syrians. They are the same ones that were the insurgents when we were in Lebanon. When it comes to believing third, fourth, and even fifth hand stories coming back from over there over first hand accounts, I will take the first hand accounts any day.  
Date: 6/26/2006 6:30:00 AM  From Authorid: 2030    Actually to attribute Global warming, the entire operation of the War in Iraq, Aids and entitlement spending all to George W. Bush either shows the imense evil power and superhuman intelligence of Bush or the ignorance of the Author.  
Date: 6/26/2006 6:34:00 AM  From Authorid: 2030    And why do you have your name at the bottom of the article instead of crediting the real author, Jacob Weisberg?  
Date: 6/26/2006 7:28:00 AM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    two, I have talked to a few soldiers myself first hand, but none as high-ranking as the person with whom the person that reported to me deffered to. And yes, I know where the insurgents are coming from. The word
"insurgent" alone indicates these are non-Iraqis. Alot of the insurgents are from Jordan as well.
  
Date: 6/26/2006 7:33:00 AM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    BCAR, no one person is attributed to these causes, with perhaps exception to the Iraqi occupation. I don't speak for the author, nor pertain to. I think in jest, that while Bush might not have created these problems he is doing little in his power to help solve them. My name has ALWAYS been at the bottom for every post. I gave credit to the magazine, and provided a link which is sufficient enough. I'm not writing a paper here, so I do not necessarily need full citation ,lol.  
Date: 6/28/2006 8:13:00 AM  From Authorid: 11240    I heard recently (sorry, going from memory here so I don't have a cite that out of a 40 hour work week the average amount of time it actually takes a person to do their work is 14 hours. I bring this up to point out that W's in a very public position in which he needs to look like he is actually doing "something" when in reality, (and I believe this to be true of all presidents), it is the people behind him, behind the scenes, that are the ones doing this "job". So how dumb is a person who manages to "look" busy? Anyway, I don't percieve W. as dumb necessarily, but I do believe the influence of who his father is has given him unfair advantage to get and KEEP this position. Will the history writers see W. as the more successful president of the Bushes because he managed to retain the position twice as long as his father? God Bless.  
Date: 6/28/2006 5:27:00 PM  ( From Author ) From Authorid: 28071    Deb thanks for the post The Presidents do stay very busy, though I hear President Bush takes alot of vacations. In fact, the President has a daily itenary and has to meet with so many people that the White House limits appointments to 15 minutes a piece. Its not uncommon for a president to work from 6 am to 700 pm at night. Just think how long they must work in times of crisis. I know Lincoln wasn't able to sleep much during the Civil War. David/  

Find great Easter stories on Angels Feather
Information Privacy policy and Copyrights

Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization

Pages:340 1047 877 1030 1142 595 1569 1350 1395 1396 1280 1070 1279 212 231 825 1389 558 770 1272 656 1336 1498 1510 1079 252 1389 1111 45 848 1124 942 653 722 4 1189 44 956 1288 1384 520 1539 306 831 275 392 194 1026 515 795 812 488 186 12 871 1180 698 712 462 935 1450 399 773 684 554 434 1023 875 764 1060 579 1502 1395 30 1486 931 251 1227 192 1522 754 1294 469 1256 260 656 1142 158 1192 547