On the one-year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, we were surprised to note the following:
On the local 11:00 news, a lead story that devoted several minutes to a young 21-year old widow of a soldire that died as a result of wounds received. She said on camera that she didn't think we should be in Iraq (but not stridently).
Also on the local news, a statement that 570 soldiers have died; of that total, 430 since the "mission accomplished" event.
An ABC Nightline program devoted to soldiers recovering from battlefield injuries. Injuries that caused them to lose one or more limbs. (Always a difficult thing to watch.)
These items are a contrast from the triumphalist rhetoric we had expected. (For example, while our television viewing was not extensive today, we didn't see any footage of Saddam's statue being pulled down.)
This Friday, Charles Krauthammer writes: (excerpts, emphasis added)
When confronting an existential enemy ... there are only two choices: appeasement or war.
In the 1930s Europe chose appeasement. Today Spain has done so again. Europe may follow.
Today there is no doubting the intentions of Arab-Islamic radicalism. It is not this grievance or that (U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia). It is not this territory or that (Palestine, Andalusia). The intention, endlessly repeated, is the establishment of a primitive, messianic caliphate -- redeeming Islam and dominating the world.
Spain will now withdraw from Iraq, sever its alliancewith America
First of all, there was never an alliance in the generally understood definition that applies to states:
A formal agreement establishing such an association, especially an international treaty of friendship.
Second, why all the attention to Spain? Krauthammer asserts that radical Islam is out to dominate the world. So why isn't he spending more of his time critiquing most of Latin America, most of Asia, and virtually all of sub-Sahara Africa? At least Spain showed up for a while in Iraq, and it was involved in Afghanistan. Spain makes up 0.6% of the world population. They've done their share.
Q Candidate Kerry has suggested he has support of world leaders. Do you think he should -- that should be a factor in the campaign? Was that an appropriate thing for him to say?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I think it's -- if you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts.
STATEMENTS BY BUSH: (all we did was search for "talk" in his speeches and addresses in 2004 - you don't expect us to read them all, do you?)
March 3, 2004 -- I talked to some people who I think would say, my life is changed because of a miracle.
February 16, 2004 -- I just want to remind everybody that tax -- the child credit is going down next year. And if you listen to some of them talking out of Washington these days, that's fine with them.
February 19, 2004 -- I've talked to a lot of small manufacturers who explained what it means to have their power disrupted as a result of an antiquated electricity grid.
TO BE CLEAR: The first item is cited because some people, like the "foreign leaders" Kerry referred to, may not want their identies known. As to the last item, we don't deny that manufacturers are concerned about reliable power, but we are skeptical that president Bush himself has "talked to a lot of small manufacturers" about the electric grid.
BusinessWeek has a story on Bush's mangled syntax:
"Analyzating" Bush's Grey Matter The President's tendency to mangle words and syntax may be due to an undiagnosed language and hearing disability, say some experts
The BusinessWeek article is linked to from a CNN page on "bushspeak" - which includes a link to our own analysis of Bush's use of language.
In the BusinessWeek story, we read:
To some learning-disability experts, the signs are clear: Bush might want to pay them a visit. These experts haven't tested the President, so they caution that they can't be certain of the diagnosis. Yet, ample signs indicate that something unusual is going on in the left side of his brain, where language and hearing are processed.
and
[One] reason [Bush has trouble speaking might be] something called central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). ...
According to an article on the Internet by Judith W. Paton, a San Mateo (Calif.) audiologist, CAPD is a physical hearing impairment that doesn't show up as hearing loss but rather affects hearing beyond the ear. In effect, the auditory nerves don't handle the raw data from the ear properly. It's usually found with a cluster of other symptoms. Among the tell-tale signs she cites: Confusion of similar sounding words, terse communications, better hearing when watching the speaker, and trouble hearing when it's noisy.
Well, maybe. All we can say is that when we analysed the Bushisms, we didn't find any clear pattern. Sure, there were sound-alike problems, but there were instances where the noun or verb was the opposite of what was called for (e.g. "at home" instead of "abroad"). There were even subject-object switches. And many other errors that don't fit into a pattern of auditory failure. The overall impression we got from the analysis was that Bush was a lazy speaker (and thinker).
But we're certainly interested in learning more about what ever it is that makes Bush speak the way he does. There are known special-function areas of the brain for visual processiong (e.g. edge filters), so perhaps there are similar special-function areas for language processing (hearing, thinking, and speaking). And maybe some of those are unusual in Bush (either congenital or from long-term alcohol consumption).
What we need to do to settle the matter, is have Bush's head in an NMR scanning device while he is being interviewed by Tim Russert. Wouldn't that be something? (While we're at it, let's scan Russert's head as well.)
William Safire writes today in the New York Times: (excerpts, emphasis added)
... Senator John Kerry, campaigning last week in Chicago, let loose with his opinion of Republicans opposing him as "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen."
Was it wise for a candidate for president to characterize Republicans - tens of millions of American voters, including even veterans - as thieves and liars?
[Safire writes of the] blunderbuss slander of Republicans as "the most crooked, you know, lying group"
... Kerry now revels in reviling millions of those crooked, lying Republicans.
That was not what Kerry was talking about. Kerry was not characterizing "tens of millions of American voters." Kerry was not engaged in "slander of Republicans." Kerry was not "reviling millions of ... Republicans."
Kerry is a smart politician and he would love to get Republican votes. He would not offend millions of potential voters.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your National Security Advisor:
From the Meet the Press transcript of the interview with Condoleezza Rice: (emphasis added)
... after 9/11, the president was looking at a situation in which he was presented with an intelligence picture of a Saddam Hussein who had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons ...
The international community had a serious credibility problem where it came to weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to enforce tough resolutions, and what the president and the coalition did was to rescue, really, that credibility ...
[Iraq had] the most dangerous regime in the world's most dangerous region ... MR. RUSSERT: More dangerous than North Korea? I think more dangerous than North Korea ...
The president wants to know, as much as anybody, and probably more than anyone else, what became of the weapons of mass destruction. We were all somewhat surprised that we have not yet found them.
Did we know on September 10 that September 11 was imminent? No, we did not.
The president, of course, is the president, and he does have a schedule to keep ...
MR. RUSSERT: Will you testify under oath in public about September 11? Tim, this is not a matter of preference; this is a matter of principle. It has long been a legal and constitutional principle that assistants to the president, the presidential staff, do not testify before legislative bodies. But this is not a matter of preference. ... as a matter of principle, we cannot breach this wall between the legislature and the executive.
Bush praises man in speech on women's rights - 03-12-2004 U.S. President George W. Bush has marked International Women's Week by paying tribute to women reformers -- but one of those he cited is really a man.
If Barbara Bush was your mother, you would not know the difference between a man or a woman either. People need to back off and recognize.... bush is a darn good president. I will vote for him again and I will vote for jeb too when he runs against tipper gore in 2008. I think jeb has a son that I would vote for too. I know jeb's brother marvin has presidential aspirations, so I will vote for him in 2016 when jeb's term runs out. By this time in election 2024, I will vote for jeb's kid. Not noelle, the crackhead first daughter of florida, but jeb's son, the rightful air to the family throne. By this time one of saddamm hussein's illegitimate sons will have taken over iraq and we can go ahead and fight gulf war III, Saddam's illigit grandson vs. Bush's great nephew. After this, the world will enjoy global peace .
