« Debate Polling | Main | Lame »
Only In Dreams
Bush last night:
Understand how hard it is to commit troops. I never wanted to commit troops. I never - when I was running - when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that, but the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.I thought Bush was dumb (did a whole feature story about it) but I never thought he was that dumb? Bill Clinton committed troops in Kosovo, Haiti, and postwar Bosnia. He conducted airstrikes on Serbia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Bush's father committed troops in Panama, Iraq, and Somalia. Ronald Reagan committed troops in Lebanon and Grenada with a side order of airstrikes on Libya. And of course the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon-Ford administration's fought a major war, as did Truman-Eisenhower in Korea and Roosevelt-Truman in the Second World War. Was Bush's big idea to be the second coming of Jimmy Carter? Of Herbert Hoover? (of course on the jobs front he is in Hoover territory). Apparently he's a man of such arrogance that he decided to run for president despite a lack of basic understanding of how the world works. Clearly, he's a man of egregious petulance who can't stand to have his leadership questioned without subjecting the country to a series of childish outbursts -- "you forgot about Poland!"
October 1, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83432dbc853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Only In Dreams:
Comments
Good catch.
What Bush meant to say, of course, is that he was planning to invade Iraq since the day he decided to run for president. He knew people wouldn't support it in 2000, so he didn't mention it. But in 2004, not supporting the invasion means you can't be a good leader.
Posted by: Grumpy | Oct 1, 2004 11:00:18 AM
Interesting to see all the military interventions listed out like that. Didn't Clinton also send troops to East Timor? My memory's a little fuzzy on that one.
Posted by: right | Oct 1, 2004 11:27:08 AM
I think the difference was that Bush II was committing troops when he knew they were going to meet resistance that would almost certainly be life threatening for a large number of people versus say going into Panama.
Posted by: Chad | Oct 1, 2004 11:27:48 AM
I was wondering if, when he said "the enemy attacked us", he really said "the Enemy attacked us", meaning that Satan attacked us.
Posted by: Jon H | Oct 1, 2004 11:37:37 AM
You're being a bit petty here, Matt, and you're off the mark: none of the Clinton-era escapades you mentioned involved significant levels of troops on the ground -- the majority were airstrikes, and many of them were laughable (Sudan, Afghanistan...) Bush understands the difference -- his comment obviously referred to larger levels of troop commitment -- and fair observers will not take his remark in its absolute literal sense. Another obvious retort is that Bush has an incentive to present himself as more pacific than public opinion currently believes -- this isn't dumbness, as you put it, but decent campaign strategy
(And if we're going to play the literal game, shall I say something about Kerry's enunciation that America's time-honored tradition is fighting wars of necesity? Is he that dumb? Obviously not, unless I employed your analysis.)
Posted by: Rajeev Advani | Oct 1, 2004 12:03:47 PM
Good point Rajeev. Pettiness seems to be par for the course these days here and at other liberal blogs.
Posted by: Cheeky Lawyer | Oct 1, 2004 12:35:25 PM
My theory was that Bush had been prepped to answer a question directed at his "no troops for nation-building" statement (recall that in the 2000 debates, he made the statement that he wouldn't use troops for nationbuilding) . . . and a little piece of that prepared answer ("the enemy attacked us") came out.
Good ol' rusty rolodex-head.
Posted by: Kenneth Ashford | Oct 1, 2004 12:45:24 PM
Bush was trying to pre-empt a possible thrust that he had flip-flopped on the desirability of nation-building. Though I don't think Kerry planned to "go there", to highlight this inconsistency in the debate, since Kerry presumably thinks that nation-building is sometimes a worthwhile military pursuit.
The notion is dubious and deserving of much greater scrutiny, that 9/11 "changed everything" to the point that the reasons why nation-building was a bad idea in 2000 were no longer persuasive in 2002. But I don't know what Kerry gains from pushing it, other than a little bit of inoculation on that flip-flopper business.
Posted by: son volt | Oct 1, 2004 12:52:08 PM
I don’t know why so many liberals live and die on the notion that Bush is dumb. Here is a challenge to all of the “smart” liberals who think Bush is dumb. Get a Yale degree, a Harvard MBA, become governor of a state, become president of the U.S., massively change the course of U.S. foreign policy in response to an attack on the country, and get re-elected despite being called dumb (prediction there :). The notion that Bush is some stupid puppet just shows that smart people become dumb when they are blinded by partisanship.
Keep misunderestimating him, works for me.
Posted by: thedragonflies | Oct 1, 2004 12:56:58 PM
W looked like Dan Quayle. If JFK had really been on his game, he would have said "I kow George Bush. I worked with George Bush. George Bush was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no George Bush."
Posted by: C.J.Colucci | Oct 1, 2004 1:09:45 PM
Jean Pierre Le Kerri was the petty one. He didn't fool me last night with his facts and his truths. Boy, what a weak man he is. His messages are so mixed he's forgotten what freedom is! Things are going great everywhere, we're making the world free, and all Le Kerri can do is complain that people are dying. Oh, and North Korea now has the bomb? Please. They don't know what to do with it. I'll tell you one thing: talking to them makes us less safe.
What a weak nonleader LeKerri is. I'll take Mr. Rock Steady George Bush anyday. At least He will not forget about our ally Poland. What a great nation Poland is. Resolute. Free. Loving of the Lord.
Posted by: Free Lover of Freedom and Free Liberty | Oct 1, 2004 1:49:33 PM
Gentlemen (i.e. thedragonflies):
Think what you will about John Kerry: President Bush does dumb down the debate - any debate. At one point I think he started telling us about how he meets with so and so and has meetings every morning. Yes, sometimes, I, too, forget that he is Potus - when I'm on ecstasy. Good campaign strategy? We'll see about that. You may think that you're in on the joke - underestimation of the President is so cool and clever - but you'll have been fooled simply in another way. The rest of us hopefully know better than you.
Posted by: politicsanon | Oct 1, 2004 2:18:41 PM
"none of the Clinton-era escapades you mentioned involved significant levels of troops on the ground "
18500 in Bosnia.
5000 Kosovo
(The acutal numbers may be more. That was simply the result of a cursory Google of American troop levels.)
Definitely not just air strikes.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | Oct 1, 2004 2:45:03 PM
"I don’t know why so many liberals live and die on the notion that Bush is dumb."
It would be convincing if we didn't know of such things as legacy admissions to schools. And had never heard of people like Mark Hanna.
And if Warren Harding had never been president.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | Oct 1, 2004 2:47:27 PM
Apparently he's a man of such arrogance that he decided to run for president despite a lack of basic understanding of how the world works.
I think the really arrogant ones are the party leaders who knew Bush's faults but picked him to run anyway. They could have done better. It betrays the attitude that the presidency is not important enough to require only the very best.
These people are not serious. In these serious times we can't afford them.
Posted by: ...now I try to be amused | Oct 1, 2004 2:48:16 PM
>"none of the Clinton-era escapades you mentioned involved significant levels of troops on the ground "
Of course, in addition to Bosnia and Kosovo, there was also the little incident in Somalia early on during Clinton's administration. That was a bit of a holdover policies from Bush I and was intended to be humanitarian, but missteps did get a few Americans killed and wounded.
Posted by: raj | Oct 1, 2004 3:07:33 PM
"..he's a man of egregious petulance who can't stand to have his leadership questioned without subjecting the country to a series of childish outbursts.."
Bingo!
Believes in his own self-entitlement.
Suffers from delusions of grandeur.
Use to getting his own way on everything.
Used to getting away with everything.
Not used to people telling him 'No!'
Too full of pride to say he was sorry.
Too full of pride to say he was wrong.
Belittles the worth of other people.
Lazy and underestimates the needs of others.
** "Don't know how poor people think."
MYOB'
.
**Actual quote.
Posted by: MYOB | Oct 1, 2004 3:24:42 PM
By the way
>Clearly, he's a man of egregious petulance who can't stand to have his leadership questioned without subjecting the country to a series of childish outbursts -- "you forgot about Poland!"
Well, at least Bush didn't yell "you forgot about Tonga"
Posted by: raj | Oct 1, 2004 3:40:34 PM
Bush may or may not be "dumb" in some objective sense (MY has already covered this elsewhere), but he does himself admit that he doesn't "do nuance" and when he appears in an unscripted setting he lacks command of the facts and a facility for expression that should be a minimum qualification for the job. Bush supporters like to complain that Kerry doesn't "get it." Bush may get "it," whatever that means, but Bush's steely resolve and steadfastness in the face of blah blah blah bears no relation to the outside world and is not a solid basis for concrete effective policy. In the meantime people are getting blown up and all we have to show for it is steely resolve and noble steadfastness in the face of blah blah blah blah.
What else you got? I'm not buying what Bush is selling anymore.
Posted by: Handle | Oct 1, 2004 3:43:22 PM
If my father were President and my Grandfather a Senator my prospects for high acievment would be greatly inhanced. Pretending that these things do not matter is falling into the Pesident's whirlpool of spin.
Just ask Ben Barnes if these things matter.
Posted by: Nutthuis | Oct 1, 2004 4:36:48 PM
I thought that line "I never expected..." was quite disturbing. Not only is commander-in-chief one of the defining characteristics of the presidency, but we were actively engaged in quite hot enforcement of sanctions and no-fly in Iraq during the 2000 campaign. So for someone to say that they ran for president without considering that they might be responsible for committing troops, particularly to a known trouble-spot with which we are actively engaged, is a serious slip or a serious flaw.
Posted by: Jonathan Dresner | Oct 1, 2004 4:43:01 PM
"... he decided to run for president despite a lack of basic understanding of how the world works."
Bizarrely, Bush actually said "I understand the way the world works." Do tell, you simpering chumbucket. Was it "hard work" figuring it out?
Posted by: Rob | Oct 1, 2004 5:11:55 PM
Bush understands the difference -- his comment obviously referred to larger levels of troop commitment -- and fair observers will not take his remark in its absolute literal sense.
Nobody can ever take Bush literally on any statement of substance, because he never shoots straight. "Fair observers" have learned this over the course of years now. People like Rajeev will never learn or, more likely, they know damned well about Bush's obvious inadequacy for the job of President, but they stand to gain personally from Bush's quagmire. What moral and intellectual lightweights.
Posted by: robbo | Oct 2, 2004 3:58:54 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble Robbo but I'm actually voting for Kerry. What vexes me is the extent to which certain Democrat-supporters jump at every opportunity to castigate Bush for tongue-slips that are hardly meant to be taken literally. Matt Yglesias, here, is no better than the right-wing pundits who take Kerry's "global test" seriously. And frankly, such people are just not credible or worth listening to.
Posted by: Rajeev Advani | Oct 2, 2004 11:48:35 AM
I think that several posters make good points--that Bush may have given half an answer to a prepped question that was never asked strikes me as quite plausible. And if one wanted to be sympathetic with Bush, one could point out that the 'I-never-thought-I-would-have-to-do-this' line is really a rhetorical bridge towards what is Bush's main point--that sending troops into danger is not trivial and he finds it (like so much of the rest of his job) 'hard'. But the fact that we have to allow Bush such a large handicap when it comes to explaining himself and his program is itself troubling. Does this not amount to affirmative action for the inarticulate?
Posted by: jf | Oct 2, 2004 5:57:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
