Your callous attempt to use his malapropism as a means to forward your political views is a sad comment on the depths to which people will sink and will not be forgotten.

Well I thought it was funny :)

my, my, that's quite the memory you've got there ...

I'm not trying to further anything - I just thought it was funny (that's why the post is labelled "humour").

I do, occasionally, use humour to prick the balloon of ego ...

mp

Well, I know what he MEANT to say and I give him credit for it despite the slip of the tongue, because I think it is the right message. Yes, he does misspeak often, but what I find amusing is that those who are so quick to criticize him for that are also quick to cover for other politicians who either lie or flip-flop every time they open their mouths. And yes, I can chuckle at Leno or Letterman or SNL when they poke fun at him because they don't do it in a mean-spirited Garofalo/Moore/Maher/Franken/etc. kind of way.

Yes, goodness knows that only Democrats engage in mean-spirited, low-handed commentary or personal attacks. I just wish Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, etc. and the "Swift Boat Vets for the Truth" or whatever they call themselves would do so as well!

"Helloooo Nevada!!!!" Right after that Kerry leaned over to his wife and said "We're still in Arizona." She quickly corrected herself. "Oh, Arizona!" she replied. "We're in Arizona. We're still in Arizona.

<a href>http://www.cnn.com/...index.html</a>

I know it's totally separate from his beliefs and policies, but aren't polished communications skills supposed to be part of the job description?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

no, the ability to lead can not be learned in Speach class.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

Effective communication is a big part of leadership. Leaders who can't communicate don't lead for long.

mp

The president is not just a leader. He is a statesman, a diplomat, and the face of America to the rest of the world. He has to talk to foreign leaders, and more importantly, to the American people. I would prefer that whoever is in that office be both a leader and a talented public speaker. You may not be able to learn leadership in "Speach?" class, but you should learn to speak in the process of making your career in politics.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yes, W's (lack of) linguistic skills is both endlessly amusing and deeply troubling.

I can see why the families of soldiers killed in Iraq spurn his attempts to eulogize their loved ones.

Just imagine the indignity of dying for nothing compounded by repeated mispronunciation of "nuke-u-lar" over your final resting place.

I can see how you have problems with people who are not articulate enough to be on all sides of every issue.

Todd Beamer was inarticulate as well. After the men voted to attack the hijackers, all he could muster was "You guys ready? Let's roll."

Some might suggest that dying for the freedom of millions is not dying for nothing.

"Todd Beamer was inarticulate as well."

Todd Beamer wasn't running for President of the most powerful nation on Earth.

"Some might suggest that dying for the freedom of millions is not dying for nothing."

I think his point was that we didn't need to go to war, and therefore, the deaths of the soldiers was unnecessary. I agree that they didn't die for nothing, but I'm not so sure that we needed to lose 1000+ men and women in Iraq. Their job is not to save Iraqis, it's to defend the U.S.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

>>>I can see how you have problems with people who are not articulate enough to be on all sides of every issue.

Who's on all sides of every issue?

Not me...my position has been very consistent on this.

But I think I know the sort of double-talking vermin to whom you are referring...pointy-headed nuance-jockeys like Dick Cheney, who said the following in 1991:



You're not going to stand for that sort of flip-floppery, are you Art?

Good thing for us he changed his mind without bothering to answer all them pesky questions.

>>>Some might suggest that dying for the freedom of millions is not dying for nothing.

That's true...they might.

But they would have to have a uniquely broad definition of "freedom", and it would need to include a non-elected government with no power to make or change law, an foreign occupying army of 140k trops, constant carbombs, sporadic assassinations and less electricity, fuel than when the freedom fiesta started.

Add to that a tenfold increase in murder rate, decreased oil production and a total destruction of the medical infrastructure and we've got a strange sort of "freedom" that I doubt you'd enjoy.

And as I've said before, the human toll isn't really what bothers me, it's the money.

That $250B is lost and gone forever...I would think that would a "conservative" like you would be pretty angry about that.

But if I know my Art, he'll somehow take both sides of a President flushing a quarter-trillion of the people's dollars down a hugely-unsuccessful social program for non-citizens with no Congressional oversight.

Have at it, bud!

Sit on that fence...and pat yourself on the back when we get to 1000 around Labor Day.

Curious, do you actually think Todd Beamer was inarticulate? I find his words inspiring. Yes, inspiring, despite the fact that there were no literary illusions, no bitten lower lip, and no Oprah like tear called up on command. Inspiring, despite the fact that it was just a clear statement and call to action from someone that you understood.

The US military has freed one billion people during our history. It is hard to argue that part of its job is not to bring freedom and democracy to other parts of the world. It is easy to argue that bringing freedom and democracy is the best way to defend the US in the long run.

Others can bring and defend separate opinions. That is fine. If Bush is so inarticulate, how is it that we all know exactly where he stands and what principles guide his decisions? If Kerry is so articulate, how come no one has a clue where he stands?

Who is on all sides of every issue? That would be Kerry, not you. I agree you are consistent.

I guess those look like very thoughtful questions from Cheney in 1991 that remain difficult problems today. I don't see the flip flop. Situations change over time, and those changes cause people to take different actions. Something happened on 9/11/2001 that you might want to keep in mind.

We won't know the results of the efforts to bring freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan for years. I was actually mostly referring to Japan and Germany. Things are proceeding relatively well in Iraq compared to those countries in the aftermath of WWII. I pray that continues to be true. I am sure that you do not so pray.

"Curious, do you actually think Todd Beamer was inarticulate?"

I think Todd Beamer said exactly what anyone would have said. Maybe "Let's go." instead of "Let's roll", but either way, good stuff. My point is that I don't see what he has to do with a Presidential candidiate being eloquent.

"The US military has freed one billion people during our history."

Who? Maybe the slaves in the Civil War, although there were a lot of other reasons for that, and at least that was here at home. WWI, not really. WWII not really. Stopping genocide and freeing people are not the same thing. Vietnam, nope. Gulf War 1, maybe there for Kuwiatis. It is indeed easy to argue that bringing freedom is the best way to defend the U.S., but it is equally easy to argue, as most conservatives would, that forcing our values on other cultures and nations only adds to the threat as it pisses people off, weakens some alliances, and generally sets us up as the blundering over-bearing country that a lot of the international community sees us as right now. Instead of helping, it is easy to see how our interference can also lead to more problems. I'm not saying we shouldn't do some of those things, but it's an uneasy balance.

"If Bush is so inarticulate, how is it that we all know exactly where he stands and what principles guide his decisions?"

There is more to being articulate than just making yourself understood. If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had just said, "We need equal rights!", I don't think he would have made the same impact that he did, even though we would have understood what he meant perfectly.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I find it really hard to believe that you don't think the US freed Europe and Japan from tyranical, abusive governments in WWII. It is pretty hard to argue that the US military didn't win the cold war resulting in the freedom of the old Soviet Union (well, a lot of it anyway, some has slipped back into tyranny) and Eastern Europe.

Freedom is not an imposition.

I do agree that there is an uneasy balance and the chance for adverse consequences. It is a tough business, but sometimes we must engage.

No Bush is not an inspiring orator like MLK. He is articulate though. Here is the obvious definition:

Distinctly uttered; spoken so as to be intelligible;
characterized by division into words and syllables; as,
articulate speech, sounds, words.

I think that applies to Bush and Beamer. Neither are inspired orators.

"I find it really hard to believe that you don't think the US freed Europe and Japan from tyranical, abusive governments in WWII."

We ensured that Hitler's power would end, and we defeated Japan, but both of those countries, and Italy for that matter, picked their govts. We didn't free them, we beat them. As for France and other countries rolled over by the Nazis, you could make the case that we freed them from a temporary occupation, but that's about it.

"It is pretty hard to argue that the US military didn't win the cold war resulting in the freedom of the old Soviet Union"

It's actually not that hard. The military hardly even engaged the Soviets. Our nations policy of outspending the Soviets in defense areas certainly played a big part, but not a whole lot of U.S. soldiers died fighting the USSR. That's why they call it the "Cold War".

"No Bush is not an inspiring orator like MLK. He is articulate though. Here is the obvious definition:"

Ok, Pres. Bush meets the dictionary definition of articulate. That's fine, but that's not what we were saying, and I think that's pretty obvious. Pres. Bush is not a very talented public speaker. He doesn't do well in prepared speeches, or in interviews, or in press conferences. I think that is a talent that an elected Pres. should have. I think the word that was used first (maybe I'm wrong) was "eloquent" which is defined as :

-skilled in, or marked by, fluent forceful expression

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Your historical perspective seems a bit warped. It is really hard to imagine believing that democracy would be on the rise around the globe without the force of the United States behind it. Pretty clever winning a war without firing a shot, isn't it? That is by far the best way. "The Art of War."

It might well have worked in Iraq as well, but for the support of Hussein by his employees in France, Russia, and, to a lesser extent, Germany.

You may, however, believe as you will.

>>>Things are proceeding relatively well in Iraq compared to those countries in the aftermath of WWII.

Ohhhh, Art...how very sad.

Quick recap:

Hostile deaths of US personnel in Iraq (as of this morning): 655

Hostile deaths of US personnel in Japan & Germany (1945-51): 0

So how, exactly, did you arrive at the conlusion that, when compared to Germany/Japan, Iraq is going well?

Please develop this "comparison" to the best of your ability...or we'll have to dismiss it as the rantings of a uninformed codger who doesn't want any facts sticking to his dentures.

For those interested in the micro on why Art's dead wrong on this one, here's more on how the Iraq = Germany/Japan analogy is specious in the extreme:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/...003/1109parallel.htm

And if you want a fascinating, well-written look at the very unique cultural characteristics that made Japan so productively pliant in MacArthur's hands, John Dower's impressive "Embracing Defeat" is now available in paperback.

http://www.amazon.com/...315-3413555?v=glance

Freedom is untidy.

"It is really hard to imagine believing that democracy would be on the rise around the globe without the force of the United States behind it."

Yes it would, which is why I never said anything like that. I said that pushing democracy on the rest of the world is not necessarily in our best interests, especially if we do it by force.

"Pretty clever winning a war without firing a shot, isn't it? That is by far the best way. "The Art of War."

Again, sounds fine to me, but we were talking about americans losing lives to free people. That's not exactly what the Cold War was about.

"You may, however, believe as you will."

Thanks for your permission.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Sounds like a threat.

I take it that calling Kerry "French-looking" is perfectly within the bounds of political commentary, or do you forsake that particularly high-minded attempt at voter persuasion?

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"