Classic Bush-men Quotes

Bookmark

"I've coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically." -George W. Bush, speaking at the Radio & Television Correspondents dinner, March 29, 2001

*so tempted to add/remove marks for the 'bookmark' outburst again... *

Nice one Owi! 2 points to you for that one.

There was a great interview several months ago now, where Bush was asked a hundred questions like "Who's the leader of Nigeria?" and "Which continent is Croatia in?". The responses he gave were some of the best television i saw at the time, but i've had no luck tracking the footage or answers down. Anyone any better at research than me?

Bush to Charlotte Church (Welsh Opera singer):
"Which state is Wales in?"

About crusade: it is not so simple and monosemantic.
The American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary contains several definitions of crusade (the relevant one is marked by me):

It is obvious that the President meant campaign.

It's obvious for you steissd, this does not meen that it's obvious for everyone. Most people will think of clash of religions, when hearing such a sentence. It's rather irrelevant what Bush wanted to say there, it's important what people will read out of it. As president of a country you have to consider the effects of your words. Perhaps he did not consider the effects there or there was some purpose behind his words.

This obviously was a slip of tongue. But usage of the term is quite legitimate: U.S. really intended to respond the terrorists' abuses.

maybe a Freudian slip...

Steissd, you're absolutely right on that alternative definition, and I gotta confess my ignorance at not knowing it.
But I think Owl makes a very sound point about translation problems. I think the recent translation mix ups with North Korea's nuclear program is evidence of that.

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency."
-- G. W. Bush
(June 14th, 2001, speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live TV camera was running)

As far as I know, Mr. Bush is not a Roman Catholic, and all the known religious crusades were sanctioned by the Popes. Therefore, this is just a somewhat inappropriate (given the Muslim sensitivity to this term) usage of the known cliché, and nothing beyond this. Freud has nothing to do with this.

2 points to you owl. I love the quote!

And 1 to Steissd for the valid defence. I never believed that Bush genuinely meant to use the term to say 'Christian war against Muslims', but that is the way the sentence appears. It would be far more worrying if he had meant it that way though.

I think the point of the crusade debacle is to fuel concerns re Bush's ignorance of historical (and other crucial) matters, and their relevance to today.

I was well aware of what he MEANT - crusade is commonly used in the sense in which he used it - but it is as though the man lives in some kind of contextual vacuum.

It WAS very funny, though. In a dark kind of way.

OK, perhaps not Freud this time but lack of basic historical knowledge.

I do not think that Mr. Bush did not know anyhting about the historical Catholic crusades of XI-XII centuries; her merely did not link these to the anti-terror campaign he proclaimed.

Historical knowledge is not only knowing facts and dates. Historical knowledge for me means knowing how to use this knowledge.

This response actually followed a question to Bush about the looting.

2 points to Walter, even though I don't think he's viewing this topic

All this issue of looting seems to me exaggerated artificially in order to vilify the U.S. It was a mere miscount: the war plans implied possibility of the severe battles in the urban areas, and all the arrangements met this requirement. Such battles never happened, and there was no spare plan on how to act. By this time the civilians that have realized that for a certain period of time there is no law and order, tried to use it for self-enriching and started looting everything they considered being valuable. This was not merely anticipated by the liberators, hence the response was too late. I am sure, the U.S. military did not encourage looting; they did not prevent this since they had no orders on how to act under the conditions mentioned.
As far as I know, U.S./British/Australian soldiers were not involved in looting, therefore there is nothing to blame the Allies for.

Nevertheless it's the invasion-troops duty to maintain order in the invaded parts. It is obvious they do/did not maintain this order. Therefor not the soldiers as individuals, but those who ordered them to invade this country are to blame.