A Kinder, Gentler George Bush

[BigJohn&TheLions]

4 years into his presidency he discovers the importance of diplomacy??? I need to call my kid's mother up and discuss birth control!!!


http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...storyID=653818

Bush regrets hurting U.S. diplomacy
Fri Jan 14, 2005 01:01 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush says he regrets sending the wrong impression of the United States by using phrases like "Bring 'em on" and "dead or alive" in his first term and has pledged to be more diplomatic.
In an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters to be broadcast on Friday, Bush said some of his past remarks were too blunt.

"'Bring it on,' was a little blunt," the president said in a transcript of the interview released on Thursday.

"I remember when I talked about Osama bin Laden, I said we're going to get him dead or alive. I guess it's not the most diplomatic of language," Bush said.

The president in July 2003 used the phrase "Bring 'em on" when speaking of insurgent attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. The comment was widely interpreted as a challenge to the insurgents but Bush said his intent was to rally U.S. troops.

Days after the September 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted to catch Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," a phrase that reinforced the U.S. president's international image as a cowboy.

Bush said his wife, Laura, disapproved and "chewed me out right after that."

"So I do have to be cautious about, you know, conveying thoughts in a way maybe that doesn't send wrong impressions about our country," he said.

Asked about bin Laden, who remains at large, Bush reiterated his vow to "bring him to justice."

Bush's expressions of regret over his use of language contrasted with his comments at a news conference in April 2004, when he struggled for an answer to a reporter who asked him to name his biggest mistake since the September 11 attacks.

In another mea culpa, the president said he felt his administration had done a poor job bolstering its image in the Muslim world.

"Our public diplomacy efforts aren't ... very robust, and aren't very good, compared to the public diplomacy efforts of those who would like to spread hatred and ... and vilify the United States," Bush said.

But he said he thought U.S. efforts to aid victims of the December 26 Indian Ocean tsunami would help improve Washington's image abroad.

Turning to domestic politics, Bush played down expectations that his brother Jeb, who is governor of Florida, would someday run for president.

"I don't think he's interested in running," the president said.

In a separate interview in USA Today, Bush said he was concerned about the Education Department's decision to pay conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to promote his "No Child Left Behind" law, which sets accountability standards for U.S. public schools.

He said he wanted to prevent another such incident.

"There needs to be a clear distinction between journalism and advocacy," Bush said. "All of us, the Cabinet, needs to take a good look and make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again."

[CamEdwards]

elections over, John. time to moveon.org

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

elections over, John. time to moveon.org

This is a new article about an interview to be aired tomorrow. I have moved on. Funny. Should I march in lock step with the Bush agenda too?

BTW... I didn't vote for Kerry.

[EagleFan]

I guess it's dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn't.

[Joe]

I am kind and gentle.

[Radii]

I'll be the first to admit that I am very pleased with what I've seen out of Bush since he won the election. This article, if backed by even a small change in how Bush presents himself and the United States to the rest of the world, will do wonders for how I view Bush's second term.

This is coming from someone who would never in a million years considered voting for Bush and who felt that his first four years was one of the most horribly misguided 4 years in American History.

[SackAttack]

I love how people who've been alive for only a fraction of "American history" are yet well-versed enough to definitively say, despite a sample size of perhaps four presidents, whether Bush is the best or worst President in American history.

Because you guys were around for Ulysses Grant, right?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Radii

I'll be the first to admit that I am very pleased with what I've seen out of Bush since he won the election. This article, if backed by even a small change in how Bush presents himself and the United States to the rest of the world, will do wonders for how I view Bush's second term.

This is coming from someone who would never in a million years considered voting for Bush and who felt that his first four years was one of the most horribly misguided 4 years in American History.

Ditto.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I love how people who've been alive for only a fraction of "American history" are yet well-versed enough to definitively say, despite a sample size of perhaps four presidents, whether Bush is the best or worst President in American history.

Because you guys were around for Ulysses Grant, right?

I was. I was a dentist in Boston. I only reincarnated because I didn't think there could be a worse president.

I was wrong.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I love how people who've been alive for only a fraction of "American history" are yet well-versed enough to definitively say, despite a sample size of perhaps four presidents, whether Bush is the best or worst President in American history.

Because you guys were around for Ulysses Grant, right?

On another note, quite frankly I feel far more confident judging the past than the present because it is presented through the eyes and minds in many cases of some of the best minds in the world. The present I get from my own perceptions and while that works for me, I don't presume to have the ability or the training to analyze current events anywhere near as well as an exceptional historian. My perspective covers a rather small bit of real estate over a very limited timespan. It's just not enough.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Axxon

It's just not enough.

Thank you. That's exactly my point, and I would direct that towards both the Clinton haters and the Bush haters.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Thank you. That's exactly my point, and I would direct that towards both the Clinton haters and the Bush haters.

Ah, but it sounds like I'm saying that we can't judge because we don't have the proper perspective on Bush and you're saying we can't judge because we don't have the proper perspective on Grant. Same conclusions but totally opposite thought processes.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Ah, but it sounds like I'm saying that we can't judge because we don't have the proper perspective on Bush and you're saying we can't judge because we don't have the proper perspective on Grant. Same conclusions but totally opposite thought processes.

Sort of. What I'm saying is that our field of experience is too limited in either direction to say "Worst President in American history."

Best/worst President of your lifetime? Now that's a judgment you may be qualified to make. But "best/worst in American history" implies an understanding of historical American politics that I'd wager most of us don't have.

[JeffNights]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I was. I was a dentist in Boston. I only reincarnated because I didn't think there could be a worse president.

I was wrong.

I HEART AXXON

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Sort of. What I'm saying is that our field of experience is too limited in either direction to say "Worst President in American history."

Best/worst President of your lifetime? Now that's a judgment you may be qualified to make. But "best/worst in American history" implies an understanding of historical American politics that I'd wager most of us don't have.

But I'm saying we're not even qualified to do that. At least I'm not. Every action a president takes has both widespread and longterm effects. I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to determine the president's current effects on much more than my own life and my own neighborhood and we can't be knowledgable about the long term effects for obvious reasons.

I can do a fairly good job ranking presidents from 30+ years back because I can read enough history from several perspectives to be able to far better cover the effects both in terms of how it affected the world/country both during his term and after. That's what I'm saying.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

In December 1972 the view of Richard Nixon was determined largely on how people felt about Vietnam. 32 years later history paints a much different picture of Nixon than it did soon after his sweeping re-election.

The view of Bush is very similar in effect. How Bush is viewed in a few decades is likely to be very different than how he is viewed today. Most second terms are horrible failures. If Clinton had lost to Dole his view in history would be much different. Of course I know that this means that every Bush supporter will say comparing Bush & Nixon is unfair, and that Bush's second term will be nothing like Clinton's. All I'm saying is that time will tell. Who knows... Maybe Bush will turn into the greatest thinkg to ever happen. Iraq could be peacefull meadows with flute music and doves. He could cure cancer, solve world hunger, and balance the budget. Time will tell...

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

In December 1972 the view of Richard Nixon was determined largely on how people felt about Vietnam. 32 years later history paints a much different picture of Nixon than it did soon after his sweeping re-election.

The view of Bush is very similar in effect. How Bush is viewed in a few decades is likely to be very different than how he is viewed today. Most second terms are horrible failures. If Clinton had lost to Dole his view in history would be much different. Of course I know that this means that every Bush supporter will say comparing Bush & Nixon is unfair, and that Bush's second term will be nothing like Clinton's. All I'm saying is that time will tell. Who knows... Maybe Bush will turn into the greatest thinkg to ever happen. Iraq could be peacefull meadows with flute music and doves. He could cure cancer, solve world hunger, and balance the budget. Time will tell...

Yeah, but he'll still talk funny though.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Axxon

But I'm saying we're not even qualified to do that. At least I'm not. Every action a president takes has both widespread and longterm effects. I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to determine the president's current effects on much more than my own life and my own neighborhood and we can't be knowledgable about the long term effects for obvious reasons.

I can do a fairly good job ranking presidents from 30+ years back because I can read enough history from several perspectives to be able to far better cover the effects both in terms of how it affected the world/country both during his term and after. That's what I'm saying.

Sure. That's why I said may be and not are qualified.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Sure. That's why I said may be and not are qualified.

But if you are one of the ones who are qualified to judge the presidents in your lifetime then you also may be one of the ones who has read history and is qualified to judge that as well ( it is easier as you just acknowledged ) thus you indeed can judge who is the worst president in history and neither you or I are qualified to say whether such a person exists on this message board or whether they've posted their take on it. In fact, it could be that Radii is just such a person.

[SackAttack]

Indeed. But it's a sentiment I've seen so frequently that I had to comment on it.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I love how people who've been alive for only a fraction of "American history" are yet well-versed enough to definitively say, despite a sample size of perhaps four presidents, whether Bush is the best or worst President in American history.

Because you guys were around for Ulysses Grant, right?

Well, you should note that I was very careful not to say "worst president ever" because of the exact reason you gave.

I also didn't even blame Bush personally, it doesn't really matter I guess, I blame the people bush surrounded himself with, and I guess with the WMD revelations I can lay some blame on the intelligence community, Tony Blair's "Iraq can launch weapons that can hit us in 15 minutes" statement still rings in my ears and makes my head hurt every time I think of it.

I have said many times before, and I'm sure I will say many times again, that I felt that after 9/11 there was such an outpouring of support for the United States from so many people around the world, and there was such a strong feeling of the world working together to get the terrorists, that the invasion of Iraq and the way George Bush and his administration presented our country to the rest of the world in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq, was the worst political move I've seen in my lifetime, or read about in any American History book IN TERMS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN RELATIONS (to avoid sticky subjects like slavery and abolition and stupid and terrible/stupid domestic shit we've done being thrown back my way).

It is based on my knowledge of American history, which is yes, shaky like most American's between Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt with the exception of the Civil War, that I say that the last four years have been four of the most misguided in American History.

Is that enough qualification? I know and respect all the arguments against what I just said about Iraq, so I hope this doesn't turn into some Iraq bullshit thread b/c I felt the need to clarify my statements.


The next time I see someone say "Barry Sanders is the best RB ever" I expect it to be qualified with a disclaimer stating how many times said person watched Jim Brown, Red Grange, Walter Payton, Emmit Smith, Gale Sayers and any other RB in the conversation so I will know if I should discount that person's opinions or not.

I've posted the same opinions in more than enough political threads over the past 2-3 years here that anyone who is going to take the time to imply that my opinion isn't valid because I'm not 230 years old should know that I'm not some commie left wing "bush hater" b/c it's a popular thing to be, that I actually read and have well thought out opinions and don't just fucking spout off about how bush is EVIL.

Hell, I was even giving the man a very big compliment in my post.

[flere-imsaho]

Whatever.

I'm convinced that history will not look kindly upon the Bush Administration. Will history view him as the worst president to date? Probably not. Coolidge & Hoover, for instance, were real winners. And Teddy Roosevelt was one hell of a warmonger. Almost as much as Bush, in fact. Actually, pretty much everyone from Lincoln to Wilson are kind of suspect, from a stature standpoint.

That aside, LBJ's a good candidate. Entrenched us further in Vietnam and what, really, did The Great Society accomplish? Nixon was a paranoid drunk, but he played the geopolitical game better than pretty much everyone other president in the 20th century.

And then there's Reagan. I continue to feel that history will have a lot of unkind words for Reagan, and Tip O'Neill's idiot Congress, and the Baby Boomers in the 80s, down the road.

Anyway, Bush is bad, yes, but it's probably hyperbole to say he's the worst, at this point. Cheer up, though, he's still got 4 years to get the title!

[Glengoyne]

I never really thought I'd see Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt named in a worst presidents thread. I'd say that the two of them are probably in the top five best presidents of all time. With Lincoln right there as possibly the very best president this country has seen.

As for GW. I'd definitely say it is too soon to tell. I'd say the results are in on Reagan, and apparently no one briefed you Flere. Because he is considered to have been a very good president, and that just isn't likely to change.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I never really thought I'd see Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt named in a worst presidents thread. I'd say that the two of them are probably in the top five best presidents of all time. With Lincoln right there as possibly the very best president this country has seen.

Sorry, I meant "after Lincoln to before Wilson". I don't think Lincoln was one of the worst presidents ever. I'm not saying T. Roosevelt was one of the worst, either, but he wasn't exactly one of the best either.

I'd say the results are in on Reagan, and apparently no one briefed you Flere. Because he is considered to have been a very good president, and that just isn't likely to change.

Well, I disagree. It's still too soon for truly objective studies of Reagan. Heck, the guy is still revered by one half of this country and despised by the other half. Wait until 2038 or something.