Ah, but you forgot. When Bush doesn’t go out of his way to accommodate anyone that might be hurt by war, he’s a heartless inhuman monster. When he does go out of his way to accommodate anyone that might be hurt by war, he’s a selfish inhuman monster.

You know, as pissed as I get at him sometimes, I feel bad for him more often. Bush honestly cannot take a dump in the morning without people like that saying he’s racist because he’s flushing brown things.

It’s true, the man can’t win. I think the candidates ought to pay close attention to how the President is perceived, because whoever wins is also going to give up his ability to win.

I wonder how much of this phenomenon is due to our expectations ,and how much is because political campaigns seem to make pie in the sky promises that no mortal human being could actually keep.

I think there’s also a certain exaggerated idea of just what kind of power the PotUS has. People hear him referred to as “the most powerful man in the country/world” and whether subconsciously or not they take that to heart.

Without understanding or, I think, wanting to understand the complex legal situation of his office and just how things work, they believe that he has every resource of the country available to him with all the speed of a phone call.

It’s a rather weird dichotomy that the people who think George W. Bush isn’t fit to be a pool boy also want him to have and use all the powers of God.

The point isn’t that Bush is evil for playing golf/not playing golf.  When Moore included the “Now watch this drive” scene in his movie, I think it was used symbolically to express what Moore perceived as general insensitivity and shallowness on Bush’s part towards the “war on terror.” I don’t think Moore seriously believed that the president playing golf itself was a problem.

I think what the left-wing commentators are getting at this time is that giving up golf is a shallow and ineffective way for Bush to address the mounting concerns among the American people about the war in Iraq.  Nobody thinks Bush is “evil” for playing or not playing golf during a time of war, but I think someone like Olberman is offended that Bush believes giving up golf would be a meaningful gesture.

Anyone else have the feeling that Moore and Olbermann would get along famously?

So Ogden, how does the President (not just Bush, but any future president as well) win, when no matter what action he takes someone will find fault with it?

Playing golf was a meaningful enough gesture to include in Moore’s film, and not playing golf was meaningful enough to elicit a long diatribe from Olbermann.

We set our leaders up on some very, very small pedestals, so that no matter what they do, they fall off.

“So Ogden, how does the President (not just Bush, but any future president as well) win, when no matter what action he takes someone will find fault with it?”

A fair question.  I think people like Moore, Olbermann, and, for that matter, the rest of America are worthy of a president whose actions - in this case, giving up golf in the name of the war effort - are not shallow and superficial.  Moore and Olbermann continue to find fault with Bush’s actions not just because they’re hell-bent on trashing Bush at every opportunity, but also because they legitimately feel that Bush’s actions are consistently at fault.

“Playing golf was a meaningful enough gesture to include in Moore’s film, and not playing golf was meaningful enough to elicit a long diatribe from Olbermann.”

Do you remember how Moore used the “now watch this drive” footage in Fahrenheit 9/11?  He had it interspersed in a montage of news footage in which the government officials alternate between what Moore perceived as fear-mongering and upbeat speeches with a “go about your lives” flavour.  Moore, in this section of the film, was showing what he believed was Bush and company’s manipulation of the American people.  He used the golf footage within this montage as a playful way of illustrating this point, not to condemn Bush for being a golfer.  It was certainly not a major point in the film.  The fact that it WAS a major point in Fahrenheit 9/11’s marketing campaign is not necessarily Moore’s fault.

Olbermann is attacking Bush for a completely different reason than Moore.  Where Moore was attacking Bush’s manipulation of the American people’s emotions, Olbermann is saying that Bush’s refusal to play golf in a time of war is symbolic of what Olbermann believes is Bush’s out-of-touchness with families of the fallen.  Olbermann also believes that giving up golf is a very superficial way to show that one cares about the war.  It’s not Bush’s golf playing that Olbermann is attacking, it’s Bush’s shallowness of thought.

The fact that both these examples involve Bush playing golf is purely co-incidental.  Golf is not the key thing here.  I think both Moore and Olbermann would be surprised to see their arguments - which attacked Bush for different, equally valid reasons - linked so tenuously by this website.

Ogden, I agree with you that this Olbermann-Moore angle is much like apples and oranges, but the point is very much obscured by Olbermoore’s hell-bent consistently-faulty attacks on Bush.  After all, is the POTUS wrong when he says playing golf sends the wrong signal?  Would Olbermoore be any happier if Bush continued to play golf?  Do you honestly think that such an image would not be used by the Dems to indicate “Bush’s out-of-touchness with families of the fallen”?

I think people like Moore, Olbermann, and, for that matter, the rest of America are worthy of a president whose actions - in this case, giving up golf in the name of the war effort - are not shallow and superficial.

So, what… he should keep playing golf like he doesn’t care?

Or what, he should dress in rags, crawl everywhere on his knees, and spend his nights whipping himself and screaming “Why God, whyyyyyyyyyy?!” to try and give a truly meaningful show that he’s in touch with the pain of the deployed?

You’re just another attack dog looking for any superficial piece of flesh to latch your jaws on, rather than having to actually address meaningful issues that could spark meaningful debate and require you to invest yourself and defend a real position.

Bismarck, you make an interesting point.  Bush isn’t exactly wrong when he says that playing golf sends the wrong signal - Olbermann would argue, I think, that it’s a fairly meaningless and superficial gesture.  However, you’re right, the point is very much obscured by Olbermann’s partisanship.  When a partisan pundit like Olbermann (or, for that matter, Limbaugh or O’Reilly), one must definitely take it with a grain of salt, because their bias has become so deep.

Now, onto Rann’s comment…

“So, what… he should keep playing golf like he doesn’t care?

Or what, he should dress in rags, crawl everywhere on his knees, and spend his nights whipping himself and screaming “Why God, whyyyyyyyyyy?!” to try and give a truly meaningful show that he’s in touch with the pain of the deployed?”

Well, obviously not.  I do not require Bush to spend his nights whipping himself.  And frankly, I don’t care whether or not he continues to play golf.  I was simply pointing out that I think Bush’s giving up golf is not a terribly effective gesture.  You may, however, disagree with me.  And no, I confess, off the top of my head I have not thought of a gesture that would be more meaningful, although I assure you, if I ever do, it won’t be one of the two options you’ve given me.  Rest assured.

You’re just another attack dog looking for any superficial piece of flesh to latch your jaws on, rather than having to actually address meaningful issues that could spark meaningful debate and require you to invest yourself and defend a real position.

Well, to my credit, I have attempted to be civil. I’m not an “attack dog,” and I agree with you that this whole business of golf playing is “superficial” (in fact, I think Mr. Olbermann would agree as well, but never mind...).  I am interested in having a meaningful debate.  Considering your previous two paragraphs, which jokingly offered me a choice of two completely ineffective means of Bush showing his remorse, I am surprised to find you lecturing me on having a meaningful debate.

You’re right, this is not an issue that, in the grand scheme of things, that merits serious thought.  But I did try my best to have a “meaningful” debate, sir.  I came to this website, saw a post that I found somewhat faulty, and offered up my humble attempt at inspiring political dialogue.  Sorry it didn’t measure up to your lofty standards, sir.

If you are truly sorry, then you shall fetch me… A SHRUBBERY.

Ogden, I would like to hear the gesture(s) you might make, were you in Bush’s shoes.

Well, this might just be my left-wing fanaticism talking, but setting some goals for withdrawal would be a nice start.

Ogden, I was actually hoping you would respond with a real-world gesture, not a Utopian gesture.  Do you really think it’s advisable during a war-time situation to alert the enemy that you’re stepping back?

Well, y’see, bismark, the problem with ogden and those of his stripe, IE the aforementioned left-wing fanatics, is that they are completely and totally incapable of separating the concepts of “what the people and nation want” and “what I personally want”.

Since Bush effectively declaring failure and setting a date of retreat would make ogden happy, clearly it’s what’s in the best interests of the morale of the nation.

Posted by Rann Aridorn on 06/24/2008 at 12:55 PM (Link to this comment | )

“Since Bush effectively declaring failure and setting a date of retreat would make ogden happy, clearly it’s what’s in the best interests of the morale of the nation.”

Clear as day.

Ogden, I’m curious.  Do you know what Bush was actually referring to when he made his comment, followed by the golf swing?

Here’s a hint - it had nothing to do with US troops, 9/11, Bin Laden or Hussein.

I’m back.  Lots of comments.  This is getting ever more enjoyable.

Ogden, I’m curious.  Do you know what Bush was actually referring to when he made his comment, followed by the golf swing?

Here’s a hint - it had nothing to do with US troops, 9/11, Bin Laden or Hussein.

I confess, I do not.  All I know is that the golf swing was preceded by a comment in which Bush said something along the lines of “we must stop these terrorist killers” (I paraphrase, of course).  I do, however, know the context that Moore presented it in his movie, and I believe it’s that context that we’re comparing to Olbermann’s rant, right?

Since Bush effectively declaring failure and setting a date of retreat would make ogden happy, clearly it’s what’s in the best interests of the morale of the nation.

I don’t see how setting a date would be declaring failure.  I like what Ron Paul said - “We marched right in, we can march right out.” Anyway, no, “declaring failure” doesn’t make me happy, but I am a realist, and at this point, five years after the start of the war and with increasing guerilla warfare, increasing hostility and resentment among the Iraqis, and an all-time high in anti-American sentiment from almost the entire world community, I simply cannot see how this arrogant notion of ‘victory’ is possible.  (Although I’m sure you folks will probably correct me on this point).

But yes, perhaps I, like a considerable majority of the world and the American people, am being fanatical in wanting to see a war based on faulty evidence with little success come to an end.  Would it be okay for me to suggest the government try gestures simpler than withdrawal but more meaningful than giving up golf.  Ending the stop-loss procedure, perhaps?

Ogden, if you are truly a realist, why do you claim there is “increasing guerilla warfare, increasing hostility and resentment among the Iraqis, and an all-time high in anti-American sentiment”? 

That statement implies that you’re not entirely up-to-date on world events, whereas a realist would actually look at (for example) the success of the troop surge. 

Furthermore, a realist might look at past conflicts and notice that guerrilla warfare has been a problem since (for example) Alexander’s conquest of India. 

Or a realist might look at the elections in several European nations of America-friendly (even PRO-American!) administrations, and realize that claims of all-time-high anti-American sentiment are questionable—or possibly even irrelevant.

I could go on, but I’m sure you see that I’m finding fault with your claim to being a realist.  If you are like most liberals/Democrats/progressives/[insert term-du-jour here], you are in fact an idealist...and there’s not much in your posts that indicate otherwise.

All this brings me back to my original question: what real-world gesture would you make to show solidarity with the troops?

Now, I’m sure you guys already know this stuff, but I think it merits repeating anyway.  In 2003, these were some countries opposed to invasion of Iraq: France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Austria, Lichtenstein, Serbia, Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Zealand, and all 52 members of the African union.  Granted, Bush had the support of several prominent countries going in, but the majority of the international community was against him, both in government positions and public opinion polls.  Since the war, I would be astonished if you told me that support has increased.  Even the countries that supported us at the outset have, for the most part, lost enthusiasm for the war (particularly in Britain, of course).  Yes, governments have been elected that have been close in ideology to Bush, but I believe that in most cases this has less to do with increased support for Bush and his war and more to do with domestic issues.  (Take Canada, for example.  Since the invasion, this generally liberal country has elected Stephen Harper’s conservative government.  Harper was pro-war from the start, but the main campaign issue was not war, but corruption that plagued the Liberal Party).

I can see no scale on which support for the war - in Iraq, in America, or in the world at large - is increasing.  As early as 2004, 82% of Iraqis opposed the occupation (http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/protest/iraq/2004/0513poll.htm).  This number is not increasing.  If the country you’ve occupied is becoming increasingly resentful of you, and the world at large is increasingly resentful of you, I don’t see, at this point, how this war can be “won.” I hate to say this, but I think you folks are being idealistic for thinking it can be.

(Thank you, Wikipedia, incidentally).

Yes, guerilla warfare has been and always will be a problem throughout history.  Perhaps I’m just disappointed that, after being told by our government that we’d be greeted as liberators and that the insurgency would not last long, both predictions were a little off base, to say the least.

All this brings me back to my original question: what real-world gesture would you make to show solidarity with the troops?

As I said earlier, perhaps ending stop-loss.  Or at the very least, how about more support for the Post 9/11 Veterans Education Act?

Anyway, terribly sorry that this has strayed so far off topic from the Olbermann/Moore/golf wackiness.

Posted by ogden on 06/24/2008 at 07:00 PM (Link to this comment | )

“I am a realist, and at this point, five years after the start of the war and with increasing guerilla warfare, increasing hostility and resentment among the Iraqis”

Increasing hu?

Okay, look… nobody’s ever going to accuse me of being a left-wing fanatic. That’s for sure. So I feel relatively safe when I say, Rann… you’re wrong, here.
Ogden just doesn’t seem like an unreasonable, wacko leftist with BDS, to me. He’s actually making salient points, whether or not I agree with them.

So let me reapproach the original subject, here. There are few in the real world that would deny Olbermann’s rabid hatred of all things Bush. (or anything republican, at that.)

The entire story gives insight into this hackishly partisan attack dog’s method. He was eagerly going over this interview, just looking for something else to attack Bush with. No matter Bush’s answer to the golf question, it would have been an open door for Olby, and we all know it. He hunts the trivial. It’s his M.O.

As for the trivial nature of the gesture… sure, I would agree that it’s silly to give up golf as a show of solidarity for our fallen. I would be annoyed by it, as well, if I were as short-sighted as Olbermann; blinded by hate.

But… I am not quite so intellectually dishonest as to portray this as a significant, stand-alone gesture on Bush’s part.
I could not, with a straight face, say that Bush’s answer to respecting our war dead is to hang up his 9 iron.

I realize that this is just a single, small gesture supported by a host of other actions he has taken, or stopped taking. To portray this as his end-all-be-all tribute to the grieving families is not only insipid, but blindly partisan and blatantly dishonest.

But then, that’s the best description one can give of Olbermann’s entire career.... Insipid, blindly partisan and blatantly dishonest.

In short, to be completely honest with ourselves, we need to do two things, regarding this story;

1> Realize that this is one, small thing Bush is doing, and not the entirety of his gestures.
and
2> Realize that we’re talking about Keith Olbermann… then sit back, breathe out and do what everyone else in the country does… turn off MSNBC and watch something else.
(Seriously… you could fit the guy’s rating block into a Wal-Mart kiddie pool.)

Are we going to start obsessing about what some cable-access host in Humboldt, Kansas thinks, next?

Not much I can argue with there.

I’m behind you there, artmonkey.  I’m consistently disappointed by left-wing fanatics who obsess over things like this golf gesture (incidentally I was once leftish myself, though never a fanatic).  How can such a supposedly intelligent group continue to paint such cartoonish images, as Olbermann/Moore do?

bismarck, I find it hard to be disappointed with the likes of Moore or Olbermann, frankly.
See, to be disappointed by someone, they must somehow fall short of your expectations.
Neither of these buffoons do that, or are capable of doing that, as I expect virtually nothing or worth from either of them.
As for you once being leftish, well… who wasn’t?

Seriously, we were all teenagers, once. And when was the last time you met someone between 15 and 21 that wasn’t filled with romantic, yet completely mindless, idealism?
The reason liberalism is such an attractive prospect to youth speaks directly to the nature of youth; that tendency, through complete ignorance of one’s own mortality, to believe yourself virtually infallible. Couple that with the obsession of image over substance, and the amusing belief that our youthful ideas are superior because, either nobody has ever thought of them, before, or because they just weren’t (unlike us, of course) genius enough to make them work, and you have the very core of liberalism.

I apologize to ogden, and any other liberals reading this, beforehand. My intention is not to denigrate. This is, however, simply the truth as I see it, forged in years of experience;
That is, that, the entire underpinning of liberal thought is a juvenile thing, and is eventually cast off like a pair of baggy skater shorts by all but those with the most stubborn self-imposed illusion of youth.

***Relevant Side Note: You know what annoys the hell out of me? That stupid commercial (I think it’s for an investment firm or something) that starts with some 50-somethings in surfing gear, and the voice-over stating, “The generation that swore it would never get old… didn’t”.
At the end, there’s some white-haired douche saying, with a stupid smile, “Never trust anyone over 90.”
What a fucking douchey commercial. Seriously.
And it is a prime example of the self-delusion of the hippie generation.
Yes, asshole, they did get old.
That’s why they’re investing their money.
They’re going to die, soon.
Guaranteed, that twit breaks a hip on the next wave.
Christ, the arrogant idiocy of that whole commercial just burns my ass.
FUCK.

...

...

<Ahem...>

Sorry ‘bout that. I’m sure we’ve all got one of those commercials that we hate so much it makes us scream at the TV. This is mine.

Okay… rant over.

I hear ya artmokey. The baby boomers fit that old saying about the French aristocracy.

“They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”

They’ve already set us up for bankruptcy with their previous government mischief (while they collect Social Security and Medicare off our backs.. which they created / expanded to these levels) and now they want to vote in national healthcare right before they pass on… thanks guys… a*sholes…

The point isn’t that Bush is evil for playing golf/not playing golf. When Moore included the “Now watch this drive” scene in his movie, I think it was used symbolically to express what Moore perceived as general insensitivity and shallowness on Bush’s part towards the “war on terror.” I don’t think Moore seriously believed that the president playing golf itself was a problem.

Do you remember how Moore used the “now watch this drive” footage in Fahrenheit 9/11? He had it interspersed in a montage of news footage in which the government officials alternate between what Moore perceived as fear-mongering and upbeat speeches with a “go about your lives” flavour. Moore, in this section of the film, was showing what he believed was Bush and company’s manipulation of the American people. He used the golf footage within this montage as a playful way of illustrating this point, not to condemn Bush for being a golfer.

Ogden, I’m curious. Do you know what Bush was actually referring to when he made his comment, followed by the golf swing? Here’s a hint - it had nothing to do with US troops, 9/11, Bin Laden or Hussein. I confess, I do not. All I know is that the golf swing was preceded by a comment in which Bush said something along the lines of “we must stop these terrorist killers” (I paraphrase, of course). I do, however, know the context that Moore presented it in his movie, and I believe it’s that context that we’re comparing to Olbermann’s rant, right?

Ogden, it’s this very situation that leads to trouble with Moore defenders here. You see, you know the context Moore presented it in his film, but you don’t know the context from which Bush’s quote was taken. Bush had just found out about another suicide bombing in Israel carried out by a Palestinian. The press, who were following his every move while he was relaxing on a golf course, so he made a generic “stop terrorism” statement to them, then went on to give the “watch this drive” line. Moore interspersed that quote among talk of 9/11, and how the attack on US soil changed our lives. He brings up the fear-mongering, and the talk of “mixed signals” sent to Americans, leading to our confusion and worry. Yet he backs this with a dated, generic response to something unrelated to anything under the umbrella of 9/11. So I ask you, Ogden...who’s the “insensitive” one here? More directly, who’s doing the “manipulation?”

Just found this. Apparently Bush isn’t the only world leader to get flak for not spending 24 hours a day 365 days a year worrying about things in the exact right manner the leftist media thinks they should. Tony Blair got flak for taking ten minutes out of his schedule to do a guest bit for The Simpsons.

I’m suprised this only just came up - it was all over the political satire sites and programmes.

I don’t think it’s something being used to attack Bush for being evil. It’s showing how fecking stupid he is. Guarunteed after both these incidents there were a hundred Whitehouse PR people slapping their foreheads and reaching for the prozac.

As for the Moore clip - I don’t really want to get into it here, because it’s Moore, and therfore almost certainly a fabrication.

But as to the ‘giving up golf’ thing....just a really really stupid thing to say on his part. It comes across as a fuck you. It’s such a small gesture, that it’s worse than no gesture at all.

ilovecress, what real-world gesture would you make as president?  You play president, and I’ll play reporter responding to your gesture.

Apparently, ilovecress would do… nothing.

Sorry Rann, time difference....

ilovecress, what real-world gesture would you make as president?  You play president, and I’ll play reporter responding to your gesture.

In short I wouldn’t. I would probably play less golf, as I would be too busy, but I certainly wouldn’t assume that this is a gesture to somehow make “Some mom who’se son may have recently died” feel better.

Do you see my point that by making such a tiny gesture, its worse than making no gesture at all? Its the fact that he thinks giving up golf (perception - idle rich mans pastime) for a bit somehow means something to someone who has lost a family member.

It’s a PR gaffe. He fell for it - and don’t pretend that if Obama did a similar thing the right wing sites wouldn’t be all over it. Even the language is ill advised...."some mom...?”

If you’re asking how I would ask answer the question:

Q: Mr. President, you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?
A: I simply don’t have time any more.

Bear in mind I’m not being coached by a highly paid team of public affairs experts....

Yeah, a week’s a pretty big time difference.

You would play less golf?  You’re not allowed to have a past-time, even as president, arguably the most stressful job in the world?  Am I to understand that the man with his finger on a nuclear button isn’t trying to reduce any personal tension?  Why aren’t you making at least some small gesture to the world to show that you’re in solidarity with the troops?  Or are you showing no solidarity with the troops because you’re too busy (too busy for a hobby!) to focus on the war in Iraq?

Granted, I’m no trained journalist, otherwise I’d have better questions, but those were just off the top of my head.  Give me a bit and I’ll find other questions for you.

and don’t pretend that if Obama did a similar thing the right wing sites wouldn’t be all over it.

I think a strong case could be made for the above.  That said, don’t pretend if Obama did a similar thing the mainstream media wouldn’t have given him a total pass. 

Olbermann would have outright applauded it.

Now, I’m sure you guys already know this stuff, but I think it merits repeating anyway.  In 2003, these were some countries opposed to invasion of Iraq

You’re right, we do already know this.  We spent a good deal of time at the onset of the war pointing out that the primary opponents to both the ouster of Saddam by UN fiat, and then later the invasion by the US, et al, were France, Russia and China.  The same countries that were selling contraband weapons to Iraq in exchange for assistance in gaming the Food-for-Oil program.

One of my favorite moments in Bowling is an image of Iraqi tanks rolling across the desert with the caption “Iraq invades Kuwait with US weapons” or similar.  The tanks in the clip were Russian T-72s.  Likewise, the missiles and anti-air radar that had been firing at our planes for a decade, the RPGs that shot down our helicopters, the missiles that tried to blow up the hotel where Rumsfeld was visiting: all Russian and French.  Their infantry use Chinese assault rifles.  The list goes on and on.  Like it or not, the chief opponents of the war had a vested interest in retaining Saddam.

Also, while admittedly I skimmed a lot of the longer posts, am I the only one to read this article and observe that the question about golf was offered TO Bush by the INTERVIEWER?  That this is not something Bush just threw out there to sound sympathetic or saved for a stump speech in Podunk, Illinois?  Five years since we ousted Saddam and have any of you ever heard one word of his golf hiatus before this?  So I ask, should he be crucified for giving a direct and honest answer to a question that he did not provoke?