Well color me purple and call me Sam. Now that he’s got no other election he could possibly lose, George W. Bush is finding the words to admit he’s only human.
President Bush says he now sees that tough talk can have an "unintended consequence."
During a round-table interview with reporters from 14 newspapers, the president, who not long ago declined to identify any mistakes he’d made during his first term, expressed misgivings for two of his most famous expressions: "Bring ’em on," in reference to Iraqis attacking U.S. troops, and his vow to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
"Sometimes, words have consequences you don’t intend them to mean," Bush said Thursday. "’Bring ’em on’ is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn’t the case."
The more cynical side of me thinks this is a calculated ploy to soften his image as he sees battle lines being drawn around Social Security, but at least it’s goin’ in the history books!
I’m speechless.
.
.
.
No, I’m not: what’s the angle?
Should we take this to mean there’s no non-cynical side to you?
:p
Should we take this to mean there’s no non-cynical side to you?
LOL
There is, I hope, but not when it comes to politics. Cynicism is required armor in that arena.
He better be contrite about the “crusade” stuff, too.
what’s the angle?
maybe i’m being too kind, but it sounds to me like he really means this stuff. he just wasn’t able to say any of it during the election, but now he can.
Its a start. I give him some credit for it. Now if he could just admit he is wrong on his economic, environmental and foreign policies, that would be progress.
You’re a better man than I, cleek. I hope to God that you’re right; I believe in my bones that you’re wrong.
I’m cynical, but thrilled.
He’s softening his image for what he knows will be a long hard fight to get Social Security “reforms”.
what’s the angle?
Something to do with having the lowest approval rating for a president starting his second term, and blowing $40M on cake and champagne.
On the downside, he’s following in his father’s footsteps by stating that one can’t be a patriotic American without believing in a deity. Specifically, his deity. And it might even disqualify you from being President if you don’t.
I know that the inaugural ceremonies are historically lavish and are privately funded. That said, why? I mean there is celebration and then there is throwing money around.
Via Phil’s link:
President Bush said yesterday that he doesn’t “see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord,” but that he is always mindful to protect the right of others to worship or not worship.
There’s so much wrong with that, it’s hard to know where to start…
So only a Christian can protect a nonChristian’s right to worship or not worship?
I think I prefered it when he wasn’t explaining himself.
If he’s reflecting on possible errors in his use of words, maybe he shuold reflect on his more troubling misuse of words, …
like fraud or other forms of lying.
Fairly relevant contribution from Marshall:
At least they’re admitting they read Orwell to get campaign advice. That’s a start.
praktike,
He better be contrite about the “crusade” stuff, too.
Why? “Crusade” means “struggle”.
votermom,
and blowing $40M on cake and champagne.
The price tag is no higher then the one from the last democrat president’s inauguration. But nice try, anyway.
The price tag is no higher then the one from the last democrat president’s inauguration. But nice try, anyway.
You know, during Clintons’ last inaugural, I missed hearing about the economic downturn, recent natural disaster of epic proportions, the record budget deficit, and the mounting American and foreign military and civilian casualties. I must not have been paying attention.
The conspicous consumption in times of widespread suffering smacks of Marie Antoinette’s cluelessness. Of course, she probably never listened to bad news either.
The price tag is no higher then the one from the last democrat president’s inauguration. But nice try, anyway
In addition to votermom‘s point: they’re also taking money from Washington DC’s anti-terrorism funds in order to do it.
votermom,
I missed hearing about the economic downturn, recent natural disaster of epic proportions, the record budget deficit…
All of the above would be relevant if the $40 came from our tax money. Another nice try.
Let’s get silly and see what happened in 1992.
Hurricane Andrew – $30-billion in property damage, making it the costliest disaster in U.S history.. Feel free to adjust that for inflation.
Anarch,
For security?
Why? “Crusade” means “struggle”.
Uh, no. “Crusade” pretty explicitly means “war for the cross”, and directly refers to wars launched by Christians to retake the Mideast from Muslims (as well as portions of former Byzantium from the Orthodox church). Invoking “Crusade” in the context of the war on terror is one of the biggest foot-in-mouth moments Bush has had of his entire career.
” Why? “Crusade” means “struggle”.”
So does ‘jihad’. Why just this morning I declared a jihad on a recalcitrant printer.
Edward says “So only a Christian can protect a nonChristian’s right to worship or not worship?”
Certainly not, but as The President, he might encounter an opportunity or two to address individual rights. Now, let the snarking continue.
Iron, sidereal
Uh, no. “Crusade” pretty explicitly means “war for the cross”…
That word took on a different meaning since (crusade vs drugs, smoking, etc), but fine, this is what I was trying to stir up.
Does “jihad” mean “holy war” or “struggle”?
That word took on a different meaning since (crusade vs drugs, smoking, etc), but fine, this is what I was trying to stir up.
Not in the middle east, it didn’t …
votermom,
And what does “jihad” mean?
And what does “jihad” mean?
technically
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
But the point is, using “crusade” when they use “jihad” reinforces the terrorists’ pov that it is a religious war, ergo the terrorists are martyrs. That’s why “crusade”, being so emotionally loaded in that culture is a stupid choice of a word, if you are actually trying to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims, rather than radicalize them.
That’s why “crusade”, being so emotionally loaded in that culture is a stupid choice of a word, if you are actually trying to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims, rather than radicalize them.
Could not agree more.
Edward: “Color me purple and call me Sam?”
Sounds like a Molly (Well, cut off my legs and call me stumpy.) Ivans-ism gone horrible wrong.
Edward: “Color me purple and call me Sam?”
Sounds like a Molly (Well, cut off my legs and call me stumpy.) Ivans-ism gone horrible wrong.
Make that “horribly” (X 2). grrr.
And another thing: Make that “Ivins” (X 2) grrr. grrr.
Blogbuds: but as The President, he might encounter an opportunity or two to address individual rights
Ya think?
He hasn’t yet…
“Color me purple and call me Sam?”
OT, but I used to say “Paint me silver and call me Megatron.”
</geek>
I don’t suppose ol’ George mentioned that time when, for grins and giggles, he mocked the search for WMD (while US soldiers searching for ’em were getting blown to bits) as an instance of words having unintended consequences?
I can’t get too worked up about his admitting an inability to govern without recourse to godly contacts. I just wish he’d picked a different triumvirate than Ba’al, Mammon and Kali.
Like any attempt at humor, it’s destroyed the instant you explain it, but “Color me purple and call me Sam” was meant to imply I feel a bit more patriotic about Bush for making this admission. (Purple, as in purple state, Sam, as in Uncle.)
One of my main themes the whole time I’ve been blogging has been that after 9/11, when he had skyrocketting approval numbers, Bush had good opportunities to be a President for all the ages…a real national leader, but he settled for being the leader of the GOP instead.
Admitting that those statements “Bring ’em on” and “Dead or Alive” were poorly chosen actually makes me like him more, which again, I suspect, is the point, but let him try more of this, calculated as it might be. It might just eventually make him a better President.
Admitting that those statements “Bring ’em on” and “Dead or Alive” were poorly chosen actually makes me like him more, which again, I suspect, is the point, but let him try more of this, calculated as it might be. It might just eventually make him a better President.
I agree Edward.
But he wasn’t admitting that they were poorly worded. The worst he admitted to is that people misinterpreted what he said.