George Bush has a Kindle - WARNING: Politics

[JSWolf]

GWB had another problem that's not really been mentioned. He surrounded himself you staff that were able to convince him to do things that benefited their agenda and not what was best for the country. Chaney was paranoid enough before 9/11 and 9/11 pushed him over the edge. Read The Dark Side by Jame Mayer and you'll see what sorts of things happened that should never have happened.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Well, he didn't for the last eight years (especially history)!

It is hard to know what is true but in support of the observations:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122901896.html

My hat is off to Bush for the sheer volume and, often, high quality of his reading. But his books reflect a man who is seeking to learn what he already knows. The caricature of Bush as unread died today -- or was it yesterday? But the reality of the intellectually insulated man endures.

[katewilly]

I wonder if he has "My Pet Goat" loaded on it.

[yekim54]

Originally Posted by katewilly

I wonder if he has "My Pet Goat" loaded on it.

The actual name of the story is "The Pet Goat", and it's contained in Reading Mastery II: Storybook 1 by Siegfried Engelmann and Elaine C. Bruner. If Bush has it on his Kindle, then he must have obtained it from darknet because it is not available for the Kindle according to Amazon.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

A stupid person would have not been able to get re-elected. Elected, yes. I have a lot of issues with the way that the country was run for the past 8 years and a lot of issues with how it is being run right now. But I do everything I must in order to maintain respect for the office. I think it's cool that Bush has a Kindle. Almost as cool as the fact that he's retired.

Google "caging lists".

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Well, I think his looks might have contributed to this as well... I'm sorry, but he doesn't look like the smartest guy around... (so the "ugly" kindle would fit him )....

Funny, I just saw a study on how people judge competence by politicians' faces:

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-...ete-2009-02-26

Quote"...While our judgments about competence tend to translate into election results, they're not so great at predicting true leadership. What does correlate with a president's performance is his estimated IQ—not his face, according to a 2006 study in Political Psychology. ..."

And just in case someone is wondering, based on SAT numbers, apparently GW's IQ is just short of 130. Not a genius, but a couple of SDs above average.

So, GW is hardly stupid, but is also a bit of an exception, in terms of IQ correlation with both performance in office, and religiosity.

[AuPhinger]

This has been an interesting thread for me, a newcomer, to see here! Surprised to see it here, but interesting.

FWIW, I'm a pretty conservative, bona-fide Old-Fart, but I do no think it matters WHO gets in office. I feel that by now things are so entrenched that with the two-party system it matters VERY little who gets in.

Revolution and term limits are the only fixes I can see (not fomenting revolution here, just opinion!!).

Gene

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by AuPhinger

This has been an interesting thread for me, a newcomer, to see here! Surprised to see it here, but interesting.

FWIW, I'm a pretty conservative, bona-fide Old-Fart, but I do no think it matters WHO gets in office. I feel that by now things are so entrenched that with the two-party system it matters VERY little who gets in.

Revolution and term limits are the only fixes I can see (not fomenting revolution here, just opinion!!).

Gene

I think instant runoff voting and proportional representation would go a long way but we'd need constitutional amendments to get that and the fox is guarding the hen house, so to speak. The folks in the entrenched parties don't want the competition.

[Seabound]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

And how exactly did Bush screw up? It can't be Gitmo; Obama isn't going to shut it down. It can't be warrantless wiretapping; Obama isn't going to stop it either. And I'm sure we can agree that the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary.

Do you intend to deliberately mislead, or are you just expressing your cynicism? Because everyone knows Obama has signed an executive order to close the Guantanamo detention facility within a year. And Bush actually neglected Afghanistan, that's why it's now necessary to shore up the troops there.

You want screw-ups? How about the response to Hurricane Katrina for one?

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I didn't say all; I said most. And the whole point of that was to put Bush's mistakes in a historically accurate perspective. It is not valid to criticize Bush alone when his predecessor or successor agreed with his goal or action, especially when they are of different parties.

Oh, forsooth! I hardly think Bush's predecessor or successor would have conjured invading Iraq under the pretense of Iraq's capability for producing weapons of mass destruction, and for the promotion of which he sent his loyal secretary of state to the U.N. security council to make a dramatic (non)presentation of the case for the existence of such weapons, in seeming contradiction to the report of the chief U.N. weapons inspector. A presentation which I watched and, having done so, made me scratch my head for I saw nothing convincing in the presentation. Criticizing Bush's actions, motivations, mistakes, incompetence solely in the miserable light of his two-term presidency is a perfectly valid thing to do.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Seabound

Do you intend to deliberately mislead, or are you just expressing your cynicism? Because everyone knows Obama has signed an executive order to close the Guantanamo detention facility within a year. And Bush actually neglected Afghanistan, that's why it's now necessary to shore up the troops there.

Cynicism.

Originally Posted by Seabound

You want screw-ups? How about the response to Hurricane Katrina for one?

How is that Bush's scewup? Are you referring to FEMA? Well, let me be the first to tell you that the "M" stands for MANAGEMENT, which is what FEMA is supposed to do. The actual work is supposed to be done by state and local authorities, which had collapsed under the pressure.

And how much of your opinion is based on fact instead of the media's FUD?

Originally Posted by Seabound

Oh, forsooth! I hardly think Bush's predecessor or successor would have conjured invading Iraq under the pretense of Iraq's capability for producing weapons of mass destruction, and for the promotion of which he sent his loyal secretary of state to the U.N. security council to make a dramatic (non)presentation of the case for the existence of such weapons, in seeming contradiction to the report of the chief U.N. weapons inspector. A presentation which I watched and, having done so, made me scratch my head for I saw nothing convincing in the presentation. Criticizing Bush's actions, motivations, mistakes, incompetence solely in the miserable light of his two-term presidency is a perfectly valid thing to do.

Well first of all, go ahead and ignore about most the reasons why we invaded Iraq and focus on the one that fooled everyone. Also, please feel free to ignore the fact that Clinton also wanted regime change in Iraq, which is why the sanctions were kept and strengthened for his 8 years in office.

What would you have Bush do instead? I see that he only had 3 options: relax the sanctions, continue them indefinitely, or invade. To relax the sanctions after 8 years would let Saddam win, and be a sign of weakness. To keep the sanctions indefinitely would hurt the Iraqis and not affect Saddam. This leaves us with invasion.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

What would you have Bush do instead? I see that he only had 3 options: relax the sanctions, continue them indefinitely, or invade. To relax the sanctions after 8 years would let Saddam win, and be a sign of weakness. To keep the sanctions indefinitely would hurt the Iraqis and not affect Saddam. This leaves us with invasion.

Do you honestly believe that the world is a safer place as a result of the invasion of Iraq, or that America's standing in the world has been enhanced by it? When the President of the United States says in public that his country is engaged on a "new crusade" - ie a war against Islam - is it any wonder that the Islamic world is going to consider that in what, to put it mildly, is a "negative light"? To use the word "crusade" is monstrously provocative.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

... Well first of all, go ahead and ignore about most the reasons why we invaded Iraq and focus on the one that fooled everyone. ... I see that he only had 3 options: relax the sanctions, continue them indefinitely, or invade. To relax the sanctions after 8 years would let Saddam win, and be a sign of weakness. To keep the sanctions indefinitely would hurt the Iraqis and not affect Saddam. This leaves us with invasion.

Hm, I remember only one reason, before the invasion, given by the administration: the reason that "fooled everyone." Well, it didn't full some of the senior military commanders, nor much of the intelligence community, nor some in the Foreign Office.

There were deeper reasons for the invasion, but, really, if the ones you are thinking of are good reasons for war, we would be in North Korea, and in Iran, and in Libya, and in Venezuela, and in Russia, and in Kazakhstan, to name a few.

I wonder if such opinion is "based on fact instead of the media's FUD", of which there was quite a bit at the time?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you honestly believe that the world is a safer place as a result of the invasion of Iraq, or that America's standing in the world has been enhanced by it? When the President of the United States says in public that his country is engaged on a "new crusade" - ie a war against Islam - is it any wonder that the Islamic world is going to consider that in what, to put it mildly, is a "negative light"? To use the word "crusade" is monstrously provocative.

I think the invasion was the least of 3 the evils.

And he said the word crusade on 16 September 2001. Once. and he did not say "new crusade". Here is a quote:

...This crusade, this war on terrorism is gonna take awhile. And the American people must be patient. I'm gonna be patient...

[HarryT]

Exactly. He publically stated - in Congress! - that the "war on terror" was a "crusade". A "crusade" is a war on Islam. Is the man so dumb that he did not know that?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Exactly. He publically stated - in Congress! - that the "war on terror" was a "crusade". A "crusade" is a war on Islam. Is the man so dumb that he did not know that?

No, that is not what the word crusade means. Curiously enough, the word crusade only dates to 1706. It's not the word used at the time of "The Crusades".

Hot diggity. Bush new the definition, and you didn't.