board77

Iavas_Saar wrote:

Wasn't it pretty much charisma that got GWB elected? Wasn't he marketed as this likeable cowboy against Gore?

Berhael wrote:

Iavas_Saar wrote:

Wasn't it pretty much charisma that got GWB elected? Wasn't he marketed as this likeable cowboy against Gore?

I seem to recall that was your opinion of him, anyway. But that was against Kerry, not Gore.

Legolas the elf wrote:

I'd say Bush has a little bit of charisma...I mean, he's kind of charming, at first glance...but once he starts talking for longer than 6 seconds, or is not saying catch-phrases, his cover is blown. His charm turns to comical charm...kind of like: "Oh, this idiot, of himself alone, is harmless! He's too stupid to be of harm! He's kind of funny, too." But it's the fact that he's president that's the ridiculous part.

Dindraug wrote:

So how did it work twice?

Legolas the elf wrote:

I'd say Bush has a little bit of charisma...I mean, he's kind of charming, at first glance...but once he starts talking for longer than 6 seconds, or is not saying catch-phrases, his cover is blown. His charm turns to comical charm...kind of like: "Oh, this idiot, of himself alone, is harmless! He's too stupid to be of harm! He's kind of funny, too." But it's the fact that he's president that's the ridiculous part.

Feredir wrote:

It is saddening to think that just because someone doesn't speak eloquently, he's thought to be stupid. Pretty shallow if you ask me, but no one asked.

Feredir wrote:

Legolas the elf wrote:

I'd say Bush has a little bit of charisma...I mean, he's kind of charming, at first glance...but once he starts talking for longer than 6 seconds, or is not saying catch-phrases, his cover is blown. His charm turns to comical charm...kind of like: "Oh, this idiot, of himself alone, is harmless! He's too stupid to be of harm! He's kind of funny, too." But it's the fact that he's president that's the ridiculous part.

It is saddening to think that just because someone doesn't speak eloquently, he's thought to be stupid. Pretty shallow if you ask me, but no one asked.

Legolas, this is not directed specifically at you because you are not the first to put this in type.

freddy

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

The thing that bugs me is that there are times when he can be eloquent. There is one area in which the wiring works correctly. It is when he is speaking from hostility, his desire to bomb, kill, and destroy his perceived enemies.

Feredir wrote:

It is saddening to think that just because someone doesn't speak eloquently, he's thought to be stupid.

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

Intelligent people can still fall to manichean thinking.

Quote:

Bush expressed strong support for the war but admitted to Tsurumi that he'd gotten a coveted spot in the Texas Air National Guard through his father's connections.

'George, what did you do with the draft?' He said, 'Well, I got into the Texas Air National Guard.' And I said, 'Lucky you. I understand there is a long waiting list for it. How'd you get in?' When he told me, he didn't seem ashamed or embarrassed. He thought he was entitled to all kinds of privileges and special deals.

Quote:

A legacy of torture
George W. Bush has little to show for his war on terror and its betrayal of moral principles

Maher Arar, Citizen Special

Immediately following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, former president George W. Bush launched what he called a "war on terror," a war that did not distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, and a war that left a legacy of death, destruction, and torture. He used his military, law enforcement, and strategic "intelligence" to invade both Afghanistan and later Iraq. We now know the invasion of Iraq was based on faulty CIA information.

The important question to ask is whether Bush achieved his objective of defeating terror, and if he did, at what cost?

It is estimated that the lives of more than 100,000 innocent Muslim civilians have been lost in these two invasions. Untold others suffered permanent injuries.

Inside the U.S., hundreds of Muslims were rounded up without cause, and those who were put on trial did not receive a fair one. Essentially, Muslims in the U.S. came under siege and their loyalty to American values was questioned. The majority of non-Muslim Americans believed that this erosion of civil liberties was confined to a very small portion of the population. But they soon came to realize that the National Security Agency was indiscriminately spying on their phone and electronic communications as well.

In a 2003 speech, Bush criticized Syria for leaving its people with "... a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin." But we know now this was mainly for show and for public misdirection: the record clearly establishes that his administration co-operated closely with Syria and other countries where hundreds of "terror" suspects were rendered and tortured for the purpose of extracting information. That was certainly my own experience.

In fact, it is now established that his administration inflicted torture directly on detainees both at the Bagram military base in Afghanistan, at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and at the infamous camp of Guantanamo Bay, places that have become a disgrace, not only to the U.S., but to the entire western world.

Guantanamo Bay still holds two Muslim former child soldiers, one of whom is Omar Khadr, the Canadian citizen whose story has made headlines for several years. How much longer will our government wait before asking for his repatriation? Is it not enough, even for those who fully believe the U.S. charges against him, that he has spent more than a third of his life in a detention camp where he was regularly tortured, abused and humiliated?

Since Bush began his "war on terror," it sadly appears terrorism has in fact increased instead of decreasing. Had the former president realized that "wars" in the 21st century cannot be won through wholesale death, destruction and torture, he might have achieved some degree of victory.

Now, with the inauguration of Barack Obama as the new American president and his decision to finally close Guantanamo Bay, people all over the world are watching with renewed optimism.

It is my hope, and the world's hope as well, that Obama will avoid the mistakes of his predecessor, and forge policies of hope and honesty to replace those of hate and despair, realizing that any "war on terror" must be fought under the banner of law, moral principles, and ethics, not under that of torture, illegitimate secrecy, misinformation, and lawlessness.

Maher Arar is a telecommunications engineer who was abducted by the U.S. government and sent to Syria to be interrogated and tortured. The government of Canada then ordered a Royal Commission of Inquiry that publicly cleared him of any links to terrorism. Mr. Arar will be speaking at a Canadian Journalism Foundation panel on media leaks and ethics on Thursday, Jan. 29, at the University of Toronto.