The Scary Little Man

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Scary Little Man
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 08 October 2004

"He had a feeling that the answer was quite different and that he ought to know it, but he could not think of it. He began to get frightened, and that is bad for thinking."
- J.R.R. Tolkien

George W. Bush, still smarting from his embarrassing performance in the Florida debate, decided on Friday night in St. Louis that volume was a good substitute for strength, that yelling would be mistaken for gravitas. The result was an ugly, disturbing, genuinely frightening show.

In my report on the first debate, I described Bush as, "Shrill. Defensive. Muddled. Angry, very angry. Repetitive. Uninformed. Outmatched. Unprepared. Hesitant." As bad as that display was, it honestly paled in comparison to the frenzied hectoring Bush sprayed at 140 Missouri citizens who had the ill fortune of watching the man come unglued before their eyes.

John Kerry, by comparison, was every inch the controlled prosecutor pressing his case to the jury. It was, perhaps, that calm delineation of Bush's myriad errors which caused the Republican candidate to blow his stack. Exactly 30 minutes into the debate, Bush became so agitated by Kerry's description of the "back-door draft," which is literally bleeding the life out of our National Guard and Reserve forces, that he lunged out of his chair and shrieked over moderator Charles Gibson, who was trying to maintain some semblance of decorum.

"You tell Tony Blair we're going alone," Bush roared. "Tell Tony Blair we're going alone!" The disturbed murmur from the crowd was audible. Bush, simply, frightened them.

More unsettling than Bush's demonstrable agitation was his almost uncanny disconnect from reality.

The voluminous report released by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group, compiled by 1,625 U.N. and U.S. weapons inspectors after two years of searching some 1,700 sites in Iraq at a cost of more than $1 billion, stated flatly that no weapons of mass destruction exist in that nation, that no weapons of mass destruction have existed in that nation for years, and that any capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction within that nation has been crumbling for the same amount of years.

"My opponent said that America must pass a global test before we used force to protect ourselves," said Bush during the Iraq phase of the debate. "That's the kind of mindset that says sanctions were working. That's the kind of mindset that said, 'Let's keep it at the United Nations and hope things go well.' Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working."

What? First of all, the Duelfer Report proves beyond any question that sanctions had worked incredibly well. The stuff wasn't there, because Scott Ritter and the UNSCOM inspectors destroyed it all during the 1990s, along with any and all equipment and facilities to make it. The stuff wasn't there because the sanctions put into place against Hussein prevented him from getting any material to develop weapons. The stuff wasn't there because Hussein stopped making it years ago, because the sanctions were breaking his back. The sanctions worked.

When Bush made the statement about Hussein giving weapons of mass destruction to "terrorist enemies," the needle edged over from 'Dumb' to 'Deranged.' How many different ways must one say "The stuff wasn't there" before George picks up the clue phone? How does someone give away something he doesn't have?

Bush continued in this appalling vein when he said, "He keeps talking about, 'Let the inspectors do their job.' It's naive and dangerous to say that. That's what the Duelfer report showed." Welcome to Bush World, where everything is upside down and two plus two equals a bag of hammers. It is naive and dangerous to point out that the inspectors got the job done in the 1990s, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever? No, George. It is simply the truth.

The mental disconnect reared its shouting head repeatedly throughout the evening. Bush somehow lost track of where he was at one point and called his opponent, "Senator Kennedy." He told one questioner that he would control the deficit by stopping Congress from spending, only a few minutes after defending the fact that he had never, not once, vetoed a spending bill from Congress.

He made an accountant crack about "Battling green eyeshades," a statement that immediately became a first-ballot nominee for the Gibberish Hall of Fame. When asked what kind of Supreme Court Justice he would nominate if given an opportunity, he wandered off along a free-association rant about Dred Scott. Clearly, this President will make sure to nominate people to the bench who are opposed to chattel slavery.

Perhaps the most telling moment came when questioner Linda Grabel asked Bush, "Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it."

As with his April prime time press conference, in which he was asked a very similar question, Bush absolutely refused to admit to any errors in judgment, beyond a cryptic quip about mistakes in personnel appointments which he would not elaborate upon. He opened himself up to the judgment of history, a sad straddle given the simple fact that no President can avoid such a judgment. That was all he was willing to offer. Ms. Grabel did not hear about three mistakes. She did not even hear about one.

Bush was every inch the angry man on Friday night, which is dangerous enough. But to witness anger combined with belligerent ignorance, with a willful denial of basic facts, to witness a man utterly incapable of admitting to any mistakes while his clear errors in judgment are costing his country in blood, to see that combination roiling within the man who is in charge of the most awesome military arsenal in the history of the planet, is more than dangerous.

It is flatly terrifying.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,824 • Replies: 26

No top replies

What was it he said about haters at the end? That seemed to imply that we either were with him and his view, or haters... at least, that was how it came across to me...

But his performance, overall, was more animated, and he didn't let Kerry leave him tongue tied. He even cracked jokes throughout, although kind of lame ones... I thought the accountant crack was some sort of inside joke he was making to some listeners, in fact... Confused

There were many puzzling statements from him last night, but being animated, there was a feeling conveyed that he was being genuine and perhaps sincere in his convictions... he was working what he had to work with last night...

What's scary is that so many of our fellow Americans agree with him. Confused

0 Replies

Thanks for that, BBB.

Funny stuff.

0 Replies

Yeah, what was "Battling green eyeshades" anyway?

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

Yeah, what was "Battling green eyeshades" anyway?

I imagine it's an insider's joke: I'm picturing Dubya sitting around joking with his pappy and big Dick and a whole buncha their cronies and one of them calls accountants, "green eyeshades," and everybody sitting round w/them laffs their heads off... Because back in the olden days accountants wore green eyeshades so they could see all those little columns of tiny numbers and not go blind from peering at the numbers for 8 hours at a stretch... So that is how Dubya thinks of accountants, as "green eyeshades," and because there was a discrepancy between his figures and Kerry's, they had "battling green eyeshades," Hiyuck yuck chuckle yuck... Rolling Eyes

Like I said, an inside joke, and a lame one at that...

0 Replies

What about the part about environmental policy including harvesting our forests?

0 Replies

I saw the title & thought this was a thread about John Howard! Laughing

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

What about the part about environmental policy including harvesting our forests?

It's a great idea if you live in the west like I do. Did you see the huge fires we had several years ago? They wouldn't have been as bad if the forests had been thinned. With all that growth the forests were so think the fire spread like crazy. With nothing being done about it, there was plenty of fuel for the fires.

0 Replies

Quote:

Exactly 30 minutes into the debate, Bush became so agitated ... he lunged out of his chair and shrieked over moderator Charles Gibson, who was trying to maintain some semblance of decorum.

"You tell Tony Blair we're going alone," Bush roared. "Tell Tony Blair we're going alone!" The disturbed murmur from the crowd was audible. Bush, simply, frightened them.

I thought Bush's behavior was bizarre and I am surprised more was not made of the incident. It seemed like a 'Howard Dean' moment.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

princesspupule wrote:
What about the part about environmental policy including harvesting our forests?

It's a great idea if you live in the west like I do. Did you see the huge fires we had several years ago? They wouldn't have been as bad if the forests had been thinned. With all that growth the forests were so think the fire spread like crazy. With nothing being done about it, there was plenty of fuel for the fires.

and
the requirement to demonstrate that the sale won't harm nearby streams or endangered salmon runs. Under Bush's proposals, this would no longer be a consideration. Yet he feels that he's a good steward of the environment??? I feel he's been breathing in too many toxic fumes, Baldy... What other reason can you give me that makes his "logic" make sense?

Also there is this to think about: http://forests.org/archive/general/engrcirt.htm

Old growth are much more dependable carbon sinks than new growth. Also, if I remember my botany, old growth trees are harder to burn down than the brush that crops up where forests are clear cut and harvested...

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
princesspupule wrote:
What about the part about environmental policy including harvesting our forests?

It's a great idea if you live in the west like I do. Did you see the huge fires we had several years ago? They wouldn't have been as bad if the forests had been thinned. With all that growth the forests were so think the fire spread like crazy. With nothing being done about it, there was plenty of fuel for the fires.
and
the requirement to demonstrate that the sale won't harm nearby streams or endangered salmon runs. Under Bush's proposals, this would no longer be a consideration. Yet he feels that he's a good steward of the environment??? I feel he's been breathing in too many toxic fumes, Baldy... What other reason can you give me that makes his "logic" make sense?

I live in Colorado.

If Bush were pushing a plan of clear cutting then I would agree with you. This hasn't been done. As a matter of fact he has said that the decision would be placed in the hands of the managers of said forests. People in D.C. can't make a call if a forest needs to be thinned due to the fact that they aren't there. The people put in change of managing the forests are there and know the correct call to make.

Do you remember when they shut down logging in the Pacific Northwest? This was done to preserve an endangered species of owl. Well 20 years later they did some more research and found out the owl was still in danger. With no logging allowed in the area for 20 years they wondered why there was still an issue with the owl. Well it turned out that another owl species had moved into the area and had started to take over the 1st owls area.

The moral of the story is that it had nothing to do with logging in the 1st place and the enviro wacko's lied about the logging effects on the owl. It was nature that had an effect on the owl. Did you know that thousands of people lost their jobs because of said enviro wacks? Now I love nature as much as the next person, thus the reason I left Cali and moved to Colorado, it is a much more beautiful state. There are now places in CO that have nothing on the sides of the mountains due to lack of thinning. These places are now ugly and besides that they now have to contend with flash floods in the summer and spring. Thank you enviro wacks!

0 Replies

And that owl story sez what about Bush being a good steward of our environment??? Confused

0 Replies

And what about the wild salmon industry that suffers when logging causes erosion? I've never figured out why one industry was more important than another.

0 Replies

primergray wrote:

And what about the wild salmon industry that suffers when logging causes erosion? I've never figured out why one industry was more important than another.

<Nodding in agreement> EXACTLY! Bush was asked a general question about environment, and only harvesting the forests popped out of his mouth in response. Nothing came out about genetically altered food, or foods pumped full of antibiotics and how they pollute the environment or any other concerns!

http://www.enature.com/feature/feature_news.asp?storyID=508

It's truly scary how our president sees only 1-dimensionally, or at least responds as though that is all he sees. Shocked

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

And that owl story sez what about Bush being a good steward of our environment???

It doesn't say much about him, but it says tons about the enviro people who try and push junk science down the throats of the American people to try and influence the politicians. With these people if you don't give into their junk science, they will label you a person who doesn't care about the enviroment.

The article about trout is another example of speculation with out proven science, just like the owl in the Northwest.

Care to answer my previous post about the forest fires?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Care to answer my previous post about the forest fires?

I can if you want to talk about subjects covered in most fifth grade science classes rather than Bush's policies regarding our environment and why they are scary. Frankly, I thought we were debating politics, Baldy. Confused

I wanted to talk about why Bush's environmental policies add to the scary little man image many have of him. That's why I brought it up.
And Baldy, I'm still waiting for you to launch a defense of his policies regarding the environment. Any defense, Baldy. I won't hold you to launch a logical one if you can't. Laughing

Oh, wait! Maybe this was it:

Quote:

If Bush were pushing a plan of clear cutting then I would agree with you. This hasn't been done. As a matter of fact he has said that the decision would be placed in the hands of the managers of said forests. People in D.C. can't make a call if a forest needs to be thinned due to the fact that they aren't there. The people put in change of managing the forests are there and know the correct call to make.

You realize that the Administration is attempting to alter one of the central and most important tenets of forest management - the National Forest Management Act -without giving the public the opportunity weigh in with comments and otherwise going along reinterpreting things to evade accountibility and abandon common-sense guidelines for Forest Service management - guidelines that were created under President Ronald Reagan and have proven to be effective for more than two decades, don't you?
http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20041007.cfm

0 Replies

Here's another criticism of him and his environmental policies.
http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20040810b.cfm

Quote:

I hope the communication's director of the Audobon Society and the executive director of American Land Alliances aren't too left wing liberal wacko sources to cite for you to listen to their opinions, Baldy. Wink

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

Care to answer my previous post about the forest fires?

You realize that the Administration is attempting to alter one of the central and most important tenets of forest management - the National Forest Management Act -without giving the public the opportunity weigh in with comments and otherwise going along reinterpreting things to evade accountibility and abandon common-sense guidelines for Forest Service management - guidelines that were created under President Ronald Reagan and have proven to be effective for more than two decades, don't you?

I understand where you are coming from, but as a Colorado resident the fires of 2 years ago were devastating on the forests as well as on the health of Colorado citizens. The National Forest Management Act was not done under Regan, it was done in 1976. Forest management in this area was a failure. We had several forest fires that year and they were large fires that spread very fast. The largest of the fires was the Hayman fire, it burned about 140,000 acres becoming the largest fire in Colorado history. With out thinning of this area it allowed old dead trees to act as gasoline and fuel the fire. In the last several years many states have seen an increase in fires due to drought, but they would be as bad if these forests were allowed to be thinned and the old and sick trees to be removed.

Quote:

I wanted to talk about why Bush's environmental policies add to the scary little man image many have of him. That's why I brought it up. I'm still waiting for you to launch a defense of his policies regarding the environment.
http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20041007.cfm

Could it be that the reason he is described as "the scary little man" has to do with Bush not bowing down to special interest enviro groups? I don't see a need to defend his policies on the environment. He is trying to run a prosperous country and most enviro work gets in the way of this. If we were talking about the dumping of chemicals into lakes and streams, like what was happening over 20 or 30 years ago, then I would see an issue. Most if not all of these issues have been resolved and the govt has placed plenty of controls over these types of concerns. Any company that is stupid enough to do something like that now days, is just asking for trouble.

I happen to think that humanity is more important then nature. If humanity needs to spread in order to prosper then so be it. There is enough open land in the US that we shouldn't have to be careful of any animals. Look at ANWR in Alaska, there is so much land up there, that the area of land that they want to drill is very very very minimal. 2000sq miles is nothing in Alaska. I don't see the policies of the enviro groups doing anything to help humanity, but instead I see them as a way to control humanity. They don't like it when humanity has the control and doesn't listen to them. They happen to turn into groups like ELF and do more damage then they do help.

Quote:

And Baldy

I don't mean to sound rude but could you please not call me Baldy? I prefer anything but baldy. Call me Baldimo, dimo, even just B but not Baldy. And before you ask, I'm not bald. I'm gray early for my age but I'm not bald. :wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

The article about trout is another example of speculation with out proven science, just like the owl in the Northwest.

Quote:

trout?

The article that 'princess' linked has some reasonable speculation (genetic diversity issues), some opinion (wild tastes better than farmed), and respectable science. Levels of contaminants (such as PCBs) are higher in farmed than in wild. Levels of beneficial fatty acids are lower in farmed salmon, but saturated fat levels are much higher.

For what its worth, IMO fresh wild salmon tastes best. Wish I could afford to eat it as much as I'd like.

0 Replies

primergray wrote:

Quote:
The article about trout is another example of speculation with out proven science, just like the owl in the Northwest.

Quote:

trout?

The article that 'princess' linked has some reasonable speculation (genetic diversity issues), some opinion (wild tastes better than farmed), and respectable science. Levels of contaminants (such as PCBs) are higher in farmed than in wild. Levels of beneficial fatty acids are lower in farmed salmon, but saturated fat levels are much higher.

For what its worth, IMO fresh wild salmon tastes best. Wish I could afford to eat it as much as I'd like.

Junk science doesn't get too much fishier than last week's scary headlines about farmed salmon being a cancer risk.
Farmed salmon is so contaminated with PCBs (search), dioxins (search) and other "toxic" chemicals, reported the news media, that it shouldn't be consumed more than once per month.
It was gullible media alarmism run amok as even the "scientists" whose much-reported study appeared in the Jan. 9 issue of "Science" plainly acknowledged there was no factual basis for concern.
"The potential risks of eating contaminated farmed salmon have not been well evaluated. Three previous studies reporting contaminants in salmon are inconclusive because of their very small sample sizes and narrow geographic representation. As a result, the extent of this problem and potential risks to human health remain unclear," the study's authors wrote.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how one gets a scary headline out of a study with that disclaimer.
In fact, there has never been a single health effect associated with consumption of farmed salmon (search) despite countless people eating millions of tons of it over the last 20 years. That's no surprise since PCBs, dioxins and the other so-called "contaminants" considered in the study have never been scientifically shown to cause harm in humans at typical exposure levels.
Moreover, PCB levels found in commercial fish are well within the hyper-safe levels set by the Food and Drug Administration and have been declining for some time. FDA testing in 1989 indicated an average level of PCBs in salmon of about 0.39 parts per million. Last week's study reported PCB levels about 20 times lower.
Though the news reports made it seem as if we might actually taste the PCBs in the salmon, in fact we can just barely detect the PCBs with sophisticated lab equipment.
Modern technology can be used to detect exceedingly small and trace levels of a variety of naturally occurring and manmade substances in food. But the mere presence of any such substances in food doesn't mean the food is dangerous. It's the dose that makes the poison and, short of being poisoned, there's no evidence that anyone could eat enough farmed salmon to be adversely affected by PCBs.
We can expect that the media will ignore such facts in favor of hype ― fear-mongering, not level-headedness, attracts readers and viewers. That the study authors decided to hype their results with a media release titled, "Farm raised salmon presents greater health risks" ― despite conflicting statements in the fine print of the study ― is also no surprise given the study's origins.
David Carpenter, the study leader who gave many interviews to the media last week, has crusaded against PCBs for years. From the Hudson River-General Electric controversy to the Anniston, Ala. -Monsanto controversy, Carpenter has consistently tried to foment panic about PCBs. He's a well-known health-scare hyperventilator who likes to masquerade as an impartial "expert" from the University of Albany's Institute for Health and the Environment.
Another study author, Jeffrey Foran, is associated with the eco-activist group, Citizens for a Better Environment (search), which is currently waging a cleanup crusade over PCBs in Wisconsin's Fox River and Green Bay.
The study's roots in eco-extremism (search) extend to the radical Environmental Working Group (search). EWG released a small but similarly hysterical report last summer about PCB levels in farmed salmon.
Coincidentally (or not), the same Canadian laboratory tested the salmon for EWG's report and the salmon for last week's study.
Last week's study was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts ― the piggy bank for many extreme environmental groups and eco-activist "researchers."
Again, coincidentally or not, Pew also supports EWG.
The larger context here is that Pew opposes, and is doing what it can to stop, fish farming ― including giving Carpenter $2.5 million for his "study."
Toward its goal of ending fish farming, Pew carps that farmed fish can escape and breed with wild fish, supposedly producing young fish that are less fit for survival in the wild. (There's been no evidence of this despite some large escapes.)
Pew claims that waste from farmed fish result in undesirable nitrogen and phosphorus releases to surrounding waters. (What, wild fish don't make waste?)
Pew has also prodded Congress for a moratorium on new fish farms.
But Pew has failed to gain traction with these efforts and has unfortunately taken to funding "research" to scare the public about the safety of farmed fish.
At least the Pew Charitable Trusts are appropriately named. Like their bogus salmon scare, they stink.
Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
-----------------------

0 Replies

The Scary Little Man

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know