Bush Surely Back on the Sauce

[Anorakphobia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjlo8QR9 ... ed&search=

Astonished this hasn't been posted.
News conference yesterday.
Heard it on CNBC live but assumed I had mis heard it but no.

Abs impossible to know what the hell he was trying to say.
What's more he hasn't a clue either.

Makes our man sound articulate and concise.

[CookieMonster]

Non-issue. He's not the best as-lib speaker, we all know this.
But he's talking about the type of action taken by Mandela in South Africa in the context of Iraq and that such people don't exist because Sadam had them, or would have had them, killed.

[Insider2007]

Oh god. Even by Bush standards that is bad.

The meaning is not to difficult to decipher. The trouble with Bush-speak is that you have to decipher what he is saying, because his appalling choice of words, verbs, nouns, etc completely hides the point.

What he meant there was: why wasn't there a unifying figure from the opposition who could emerge after the fall of Saddam. someone who could provide in Iraq the moral leadership Mandela provided in South Africa? Bush's point was that Saddam executed his opponents, so all the Mandelas that might have existed were dead when Saddam was overthrown. Of course it shows no comprehension of the fundamental difference between Iraq and South Africa. A more articulate president might at least have explained the point more clearly. Trying to work out what Bush is trying to say is often like trying to solve a maths theorem. Usually there is logic behind it, but man can it be difficult to find it sometimes.

[CookieMonster]

Oh god. Even by Bush standards that is bad.

Oh it's not really...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8EvNJWM_NDg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8EvNJWM_NDg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

The "is our children learning" one has been a firm favourite of mine.

[32]

Karl Rove is gone. QED.

[saratoga]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjlo8QR9KVY&mode=related&search=

Astonished this hasn't been posted.
News conference yesterday.
Heard it on CNBC live but assumed I had mis heard it but no.

Abs impossible to know what the hell he was trying to say.
What's more he hasn't a clue either.

Makes our man sound articulate and concise.

Actually, speak for yourself. You mightn't have got the point, and I don't know about everyone else, but I only had to watch the video once to see what he meant. Also, he certainly did know what he was saying - he was making the simply point that you have very few Mandela-type leaders emerging in Iraq because Saddam had them all killed.

You'll find plenty of funny videos of Bush on Youtube. This isn't one of them.

[saratoga]

Oh god. Even by Bush standards that is bad.

The meaning is not to difficult to decipher. The trouble with Bush-speak is that you have to decipher what he is saying, because his appalling choice of words, verbs, nouns, etc completely hides the point.

What he meant there was: why wasn't there a unifying figure from the opposition who could emerge after the fall of Saddam. someone who could provide in Iraq the moral leadership Mandela provided in South Africa? Bush's point was that Saddam executed his opponents, so all the Mandelas that might have existed were dead when Saddam was overthrown. Of course it shows no comprehension of the fundamental difference between Iraq and South Africa. A more articulate president might at least have explained the point more clearly. Trying to work out what Bush is trying to say is often like trying to solve a maths theorem. Usually there is logic behind it, but man can it be difficult to find it sometimes.

Good post in general. I never subscribed to this ludicrous notion that Bush is an actual idiot. He can be a woeful communicator, and should be arrested for crimes against the English language, and as you can see on Youtube he has made some terrible gaffs time and again in front of a microphone, but none of this makes a person an idiot.

[Fionn_McCool]

I never subscribed to this ludicrous notion that Bush is an actual idiot. He can be a woeful communicator, and should be arrested for crimes against the English language, and as you can see on Youtube he has made some terrible gaffs time and again in front of a microphone, but none of this makes a person an idiot.

I'ts not a ludicrous notion at all... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFyv6ntEb8M

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PFyv6ntEb8M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PFyv6ntEb8M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I subscribe to the old dictum, “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a duck”

[CookieMonster]

What's the context of the human-fish quote?

I don't think he's an idiot, he's an awful communicator, for sure, but you don't get to be president of the US if you're an idiot.

Unless he's some sort of Manchurian Candidate... Mister Bush, Mister George Walker Bush...

[Fionn_McCool]

What's the context of the human-fish quote?

I don't think he's an idiot, he's an awful communicator, for sure, but you don't get to be president of the US if you're an idiot.

I am not too sure about the context of the human-fish quote, but it's hard to think of any context in which it would make sense.

I am under the impression that some of the big wigs in the Republican party realised that a person of limited mental capacity as president was not really such a bad thing, and maybe even desirable (for them).

They had coped with Reagan, who was in the early stages of senile dementia, from 1981–1989 without too much bother. So why not get a "dry drunk", who would not have too many ideas of his own, into the White House.