The Bufoon-In-Chief Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Albert, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 8, 2007 at 7:28 pm
The latest gaff of Ďpresidentí Bush while addressing Queen Elizabeth is the latest indication that the current resident of the white house is a bufoon of unprecedented proportions. Itís is just an embarrassment to be an American traveling the world right now. Having to explain the unexplainable:how a bufoon became the leader of the only super power is impossible. The only response Iíve been able to come up with is that every nation has the potential to produce its own Idi Amin. However, I have no explanation for the fact that 28 percent of the population still support this bufoon.
Posted by Dave, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on May 9, 2007 at 6:58 am
Tt's not the first time Bush embarrassed himself in front of Queen Elizabeth. The last time she visited, in 1991 when his father was president, Barbara Bush made sure her frat-boy son was seated far away from the queen so he couldn't act out. He did anyway, telling Queen Elizabeth that he was the "black sheep" of the Bush family and asking who was the black sheep in hers. "None of your business," the queen replied famously. You could see that she remembered the exchange in the icy look she gave the president before, during and after his callow wink at her yesterday. And Bush didn't seem to give a damn. "The 'black sheep' is now president, lady," his smirk seemed to say, "and you and and my mom can go to hell."
Posted by What royalty??, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on May 9, 2007 at 9:23 am
Let's not forget that we are americans and as such we do not need to bow or scrape before so-called foreign royalty. The british people can bow to Liz and Phil--for me she is just a rich person who never had to work a day in her life and is due no respect from me.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 9, 2007 at 9:32 am
What manners. I am glad never to have been invited to your home for dinner if that is the way you would treat your guests.
The Queen was invited here. She accepted. This was a State occasion not a private occasion. Would the White House serve meat to a vegetarian dignitary? No, when someone is invited here in their official capacity, it is just good manners, common sense and international diplomacy to treat them the way they expect.
The Queen is a very hard-working head of state. At 81, most people start thinking of retirement, not continuing on as head of state. You may think that she has never done a day's work in her life, but it comes down to your definition of work. I for one, would not like her job. She spends a great deal of time in public service and if you think it is not hard work speaking to often dozens of people a day and appearing interested in who they are and what they are doing, then I would be pleased to see the job that you would do. She never appears bored, or slighted by any criticism. She brings in hundreds if not thousands of visitors to the Royal events she attends and backs which does much for the British economy.
I am not saying the Monarchy does not have its faults, but please do not criticise someone for doing their job the way they always have.
Posted by What royalty??, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on May 9, 2007 at 9:51 am
Resident--that is all fine and good for her and the british people. However as an american, I feel no need to bow to her or show her any deference to her royal state. if I would meet her, I would address her as Elizabeth and leave it at that.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 9, 2007 at 12:32 pm
yes, I am positive that none of you critics have ever mangled a number or a sentence. Especially in front of millions. Glass houses etc.
Give me an honest and sincere person who makes human errors that I may disagree with on some issues but I can trust, over glib, slick and double talking person that I agree with ( when s/he is speaking to my group).
Especially when such honest but erroneously speaking person recovers with such a great sense of humor.
Posted by Davey, a resident of another community, on May 9, 2007 at 1:07 pm
This thread displays an infantile mentality that one would think beneath the dignity of the average 6th grade class - let alone residents of supposedly sophisticated Palo Alto.
There is SO much real room - and need - for substantive criticism of Bush and his policies. Are people around here really so warped in their hatred of the man that they lose the ability to think rationally and critically and resort to juvenile ad hominem as a substitute?
Posted by Mike, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on May 9, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Bush is sincere; he believes what he's doing. He's not a bad person, but he is probably the worst President in American History, given his recent gaffes, and the surely negative long-term fallout from his military and budget decisions. His tenure has been a disaster.
The one positive thing about Bush is that his service will speed America's decline to a point where our wonderfully diverse culture will rebound with new solutions. Without Bush, this process might have taken another decade.
Posted by sarlat, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 9, 2007 at 5:46 pm
even many republicans admit now that bush has been the worst and most embarrassing president in our history. the damage he has caused to our strategic standing in the world,to our military, to our reputation and to our long term financial stability is incalculable. the only positive that may come out of this dark age in our history is that the public will be extremely cautious from now on when voting in the presidential elections. of course, there's the small detail of how in the world do we survive 20 more months of this.
Posted by sarlat, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 9, 2007 at 7:25 pm
"Hate Bush crowd'? It's like saying the hate Stalin or hate Idi Amin crowd. Bush, in his incredible immorality, hubris, ignorance, stupidity and incredible incompetence and buffoonery is the one responsible for the 'hate Bush crowd'. He and those who forced him on us are to blame, we are only the victims.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 9, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I don't hate Stalin as much as I hate the US commies who did everything they could to advance Stalin and cripple the US because of their failure to comprehend that freedom and capitalism go hand in hand. I have contempt for the well meaning but really stupid one man one vote one time advocates who robbed Africa of the order so necessary for human progress. I have contempt for the idiots who, by banning DDT in the face of evidence that Carson was a twit, condemned more people to death than Stalin did. The nadir of my regard is reserved, however, for those who would have left Saddam in office and given reliance to the promise of a liar to preserve just a bit more of "Peace in our time."
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 9, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Yes, Stalin called them "useful idiots" if I recall. ( Or was that another dictator? Can't remember)
Many books about this era, by people who came to understand they were being duped. The first one that comes to mind is David Horowitz's book, "Radical Son". A somewhat boring, but fully enlightening read. Of course, he has been skewered by the far left of his generation, but oh well.
Another one is by a gay man called "Coming out Conservative", and his journey from left to right. Can't think of his name right now.
Another one is by a lesbian, named Tammy Bruce, and her more recent journey from left to right-ish. Read her first one.
Posted by Albert, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 10, 2007 at 7:02 am
The Buffoon-In-Chief is just as mean and immoral as Stalin, Idi Amin and Saddam have ever been. The B-I-C however is far more dangerous, because none of them had the arsenal of weapons he has at his disposal.
Posted by tim2, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on May 10, 2007 at 7:28 am
Bush didn't invite any writers or academics to the white house dinner he gave for the Queen. he invited football players, a used car dealer from Arizona and a number of Texas oil tycoons. he also invited the jojocky who had won the kentucky derby. George W. invited the jockey, because the Queen likes and knows horses. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
She was very brave even to come here. I hope she is safely back home in her civilized country, out of G.W. Bush's grasp.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on May 10, 2007 at 10:50 am
You guys are amazing. Where is your outrage at Obama's "slip" in saying 10,000 died in the Kansas tornados? Or Sharpton saying that people who REALLY believe in God will defeat a Mormon who runs for President. Or the same dude saying certain names for Jews that I can't even write here ( and wouldn't want to).
You don't know about that because moveon.org and dailykos don't mention that.
WAKE UP. YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED. Read Horowitz's book
Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 11, 2007 at 10:23 am
At what point is Bush actually guilty of treason? What about the apologist for him like Roger Ailes and others? Are they traitors too? Bush has done more to undermine the United States than any other politician but he has been good for Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Posted by Albert, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 11, 2007 at 11:41 am
Lying and deceiving yur nation into war is an act of treason. Trampling all over the Constitution is an act of treason, since it is the legal foundation of our nation. Prohibiting the FBI from questioning the Bin Laden family members who were present in the US during 9/11 and then providing them with a chartered plane so they can flee to Saudi Arabia, the only plane allowed to fly over US skies on 9/12 by the way, is an act of treason. The only issue is:will the US Congress fulfill its sworn duties and obligation and do the right thing once and for all and remove Bush/Cheney and Co from office so they can be tried for treason.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on May 11, 2007 at 11:56 am
Looks like world opinion is turning against you Bush haters.
A Conservative just won France's election, and publicly declared his liking of Bush, and stated he wanted America and France to be friends. And he got a standing ovation.
Germany's Merkel is pro-Bush and pro-America.
England looks set to elect another conservative.
Italy went more conservative with Berscollini ( spelling?).
Australia is unabashedly pro-Bush, pro-American.
And, of course, all the recently ex-communist states of the former Soviet Union are unabashedly pro-Bush, pro-American.
The facade of "right-hating" by the world that the left has tried to build is tumbling down. It is being proven wrong by democracies voting, not by riots and bombs. What is truly interesting is that not one of these countries has the freedom of speech we have, not one has any alternative in news to CNN/BBC, and they still have managed to figure out the truth.
Posted by Jeff Derman, a resident of Portola Valley, on May 11, 2007 at 1:05 pm
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
I've recently been to all the countries mentioned and their population is overwelmingly ant-Bush. As a matter of fact, you can't hear or read even one comment that is supporting of Bush anywhere in Europe, Latin America, Africa or Asia. Don't confuse effection for the USA, the American people and American values with support for Bush, which is practically non-existent anywhere in the world, and it rapidly vanishing even in the US. Gordon Brown has already hinted that he will oppose Bush's Iraq policy,Tony Blair in his resignation speech yesterday has hinted that he may have been wrong about Iraq. Merkel in germany is against the Iraq war. The Italian government is opposed to the Iraq war, Sarkozy in France, although pro-American values, is firmlyopposed to the Iraq war and just issued a scathing criticism of the Bush administration's postion on global warming. The Australian prime minister is a far right goon who is a clone of Rupert Murdoch and is certain to lose the next elections to Labor. On a recent visit to Australia, I read very harsh criticism of Bush even in publications that support the right wing prime minister Howard I and didn't hear or read even once a view that is supportive of Bush. Even in Israel, Bush is ridiculed everywhere and the prevailing view, exluding predictable government statements is that the Iraq war has been a total and unnecessary disaster.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 11, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Britain is not having an election. The prime minister has resigned and there will be an election within the parliamentary Labour party to see who will become leader of the party and thus Prime Minister. I am glad to see that you said he is conservative, but be careful because if you had said he was Conservative, you would have got it all wrong.
Posted by sarlat, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 11, 2007 at 2:03 pm
DTL, Blair's successor, Gordon Brown, is also a member of the labor party, is to the left of Blair and has already indicated that he will oppose Bush more than Blair. He's expected to pull out all British troops from Iraq fairly soon. Berlusconi has lost the elections in Italy to the Center-Left, has been indicted for massive corruption and is widely considered to be the most corrupt prime minister in Italy's post WW2 history, quite an achievement. The Italian public as all polls indicate is overwhelmingly against the Iraq invasion. Sarkozy in france has reiterated is opposition to the Iraq war. Poll after poll in Australia have indicated that the public is against the Iraq war by wide margins. In the UK, every poll since 2002g has indicated that 90 percent of the population is against the Iraq invasion and against Bush, the same is true for France, Germany and the rest of Europe. In other parts of the world, bush is despised even more. In the US, bush approval ratings are at 28 pecent, the same as Nixon the day he resigned in dosgrace. His ratings seem to keep going south to the point where he would be the most despised president in US history when he leaves office, if he isn't already.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on May 11, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Resident - yes, I didn't go into the detail and I should have. Thanks for clarifying.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Look at who they are electing, not who is screaming the loudest. Disagreeing about Iraq, either then or now, is not Bush or America hating. Reasonable, intelligent and well-meaning people disagreed then and still do about Iraq. However, having the press/media/"street" in any country sound like our far left Democrats is no surprise. Our far left Democrats like Kennedy, Reid, Kerry, Pelosi, and the Screamer, all sound like Chavez and Al-Qaeda leaders, which sound like "street", so what do you expect? I think most people are recognizing this.
Sorry, same things that are repeated ad nauseum now were said during Thatcher and Reagan..I was one of those who bought into the chronic brainwashing, but I no longer buy it.
I believe the results of votes, and the actual consequences of actions. Pay attention - notice which way Europe is going with Iran and illegal immigration now. I think they have learned something.
We/Bush have been a nice little lightning rod to take the heat of the left in the world, but while the left/fascists have been screaming, the rest of the people of the world have been noticing what is happening all around the world in their own countries, who is the greatest threat to them, and reacting.
Laugh and deride if you want, but my prediction is that by the time this President dies ( may he live long!!), he will be honored as the President who turned the tide against this brand of terrorism/fascism, just like Reagan was honored for bringing the cold war to an end. He will be remembered for turning around our economy, which had inherited the beginnings of a recession. He will be remembered for trying to establish standards in education and tying the standards to federal funding, and as the president who prophesied, correctly, the demise of social security if we dont fix it now. People will look back and wonder what was wrong with us that we didn't listen, as they turn social security into a strictly means-tested system in order to make it solvent without burdening our children more.
Are you old enough to remember all the screaming about Reagan?
Posted by sarlat, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 11, 2007 at 3:25 pm
The fact is that the whole world population, laymen, intellectuals, campesinos, upper middle class, blue color, rich and poor, is united on only one thing:the opposition to the criminal and fraudulent Iraq invasion. Bush is the most hated individual in the world. The British Labor party has lost most of its huge advantage in the UK because of the perception that Blair is 'Bush's lapdog'. Reagan was one of the worst presidents in our history, responsible for mamouth deficits and social cruelty, he has failed in everything and had nothing to do with the end of the cold war, it was ended by Gurbachev who knew that his nation had to end communism. The only president worse than Reagan is Bush who has always been a disaster trying to walk like a cowboy.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on May 11, 2007 at 4:04 pm
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Bush is the most hated individual in the world?
No, there are many hated much more, but people can't speak out about them or they are "disappeared".
Got a good book for all of you. By ex Muslim-terrorist Whalid Shoebat. "Why I left Jihad" He, of course, along with every other Muslim or ex-Muslim who speaks out, has been completely vilified, and has to hide to preserve his life.
He writes simply, clearly, no emotional manipulation, about his life growing up in Jordan/Palestine, how he became a terrorist, what he did, and how he came to understand that he had been lied to his whole life. He is trying to wake us all up.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 11, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Why does the Bush basher crowd resemble British soccer mobs so much? When they lose, they tear the place down. Incidentally, the folks citing Bush low ratings don't mention that the congress ratings are as low or lower, and the left bent press is going out of business.
Posted by Jeff Derman, a resident of Portola Valley, on May 11, 2007 at 6:11 pm
No, Bush is hated even more than Bin Laden, and for good reasons. Osama is a Sunni wahabbist thug who is holed up in the mountains someplace. Bush is an imbecile who hallucinates about conversations he has with god, believes in armageddon and has control of the largest stockpile of WMD in the world, capable of destroying the planet a 1000 times over. Osama is a fanatical terrorist, bush is a moronic hallucinator capable of destroying the world. Any American traveling around the world is immediately aware of the colossal hatred for Bush, not the American people. Bush represents everything that is wrong with our nation, and people realize that he is an aberration, not the rule. The US people are lining up to come to is the exact opposite of Bush'e America. Bush is the real Anti-American
Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 12, 2007 at 10:29 am
Bush is smarter than the act he puts on. He was born into a political family and inherited his roledex and his oil connections. But he does the "everyman" act to make himself seem more sincere and likable. It's a cynical acting job but apparently very effective.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 12, 2007 at 10:32 am
This is shocking. Walter has it right. If you allow this sort of tirade about the president, why don't you allow even mild criticism of a local person aiming at political office. Conversely, if you won't allow any criticism at all of a local personage putting their feet in political waters for the first time, why do you allow this hateful criticism of the president.
This sounds very much like double standards. What is said on this thread is way over the top and you know it. The thing is that this president, even though some may say was not fairly elected the first time round, was elected not once, but twice, by the American people. Like it or not, it was the people who not only elected this president to office, but elected him to be the one on the ballot. He was not a vp who got their because of his office. Any criticism of the way he is doing his job is also a criticism of his electorate. I do not hear anyone saying that they voted for him and now feel that they made a mistake. I think the Bush supporters are for the most part still Bush supporters, at least those I know personally.
And before someone calls me a Bush supporter, I am not. I am just a supporter of the democratic way. (I was not a Kerry or Gore supporter either, although I think Gore was a much better choice all round).
Posted by sarlat, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 12, 2007 at 12:19 pm
What nonsense. There are many millions of former Bush voters who are now against him. His approval ratings are the lowest of any president in the last 100 years.There's a reason is support pummeled so mcu and a eason the democrats regained control of the Congress. Every person I know who voted for Bush is telling me now what a terrible mistake they made. Bush definitely lost the 2000 elections, and even if he somehow didn't lose Florida, he certainly lost the popular vote. As far as 2004, there was massive Democratic voter suppression in Ohio, some in Florida(as usual) and great suspicion that many electronic voting machines had been hacked in favor of Bush. Areas, especially in Ohio, which were polling for Kerry a day before the lections, turned out with a majority for Bush, with no paper trail to examine them for hacking. The notion that it's not permissble to criticize bush is a manifestation of his fascist rule in which the opposition to his policy is immediately equated with treason and support for terrorism.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 12, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Criticize Bush for his faults, which are many. When you descend into insulting his dog and his bicycle you say much more about your own deficiency. This is the enemy of free speech and responsible government. It is also, just incidentally, an insult to half the electorate. Mocking is acceptable and encouraged, but blood feud rhetoric poisons the well of compromise, and without compromise no nation is governable.
Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on May 12, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Attention editors, and Walter -
Someone is posting using Walter's name. The Walter I know would never say what was attributed to him above. The Walter we all know is the kind of guy who labels war critics as Saddam lovers, and civil libertarians as Al Qaeda sympathizers.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 12, 2007 at 8:31 pm
People who would have preferred Saddam be left in office must account for that preference, and people who lack the discrimination to tell the difference between cutting off someone's hand and cutting off his TV privileges needs guidance.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on May 13, 2007 at 8:21 am
Jeff - You and people who talk like you crack me up. You talk like Bush was not elected by a majority, as if he forced himself on the poor, stupid, unsuspecting American people, therefore is an "aberration". No, he IS the president, albeit he has moved a little too far to the left, that I voted for. Get used to it. There are a lot of us.
Ahmadinijad - Now HE is an aberration, forced on the Iranian people. Saddam was an aberration, forced on the Iraqis ( who are now voting for what they want), Assad is an aberration, the poor North Koreans are forced to starve under an aberration, shall I continue?
Your rage at losing the ability to brainwash the American people through the Walter Cronkites of the nation has you all tied up in knots. Your fury at having true and open information in the USA, so that the American people are better informed than they were in my Vietnam generation, has blinded you to the reality that the rest of the world does NOT have free information flow, and therefore we pity them, and regard their opinions with the same attitude we regard the opinions of an uninformed and brainwashed 15 year old.
Better get used to it, and start learning to speak intelligently about facts and ideas and visions, not hate and name-calling and tantrums, if you wish to ever win the American people back.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on May 13, 2007 at 8:24 am
Skeptical Al: This whole thread has the same Walter on it, you just haven't been able to understand his pithy comments. They all boil down to the same thing. Defense of the basic human liberties and rights guaranteed in our constitution and bill of rights, not for just some here, but for all here: not for just some nations, but for all nations.
Posted by Carolyn, a resident of another community, on May 13, 2007 at 9:08 am
Draw the Line,
To address the first point: If I felt that Bush had been elected, his holding the office would have to be acceptable. But there are reports of disenfranchisement that occurred and still persist. How can one not wonder after reading reports such as this, that millions of votes were not counted in 2000?
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 13, 2007 at 1:17 pm
How many unvotes were counted for Sanchez in Orange County and for Greigore in Washington State last year?
And remember that special team of lawyers dispatched to Florida to throw out military absentee ballots. Crooked elections are as American as apple pie, and democrats discover them quicker because they know what results they paid for and get upset if they don't get the votes they bought. There are just a really large contingent unclear on the concept of representative government.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on May 13, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Been down this before. Newspapers from all over the nation went to Florida to recount..not one found that Gore won the counties in question.
Note, Gore didn't try to recount any counties but a few select ones. He knew that ALL counties have errors in both directions, and feared recounting the ones he narrowly won for fear it would be revealed that he hadn't actually.
In any case, noone can dispute the clear win in 2004.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 13, 2007 at 5:52 pm
When was the last time anyone was prosecuted for voting illegally? When was the last time someone was prosecuted for registering illegally? Don't come whining to me about voting irregularities until you are ready to punish illegal votes and registrations.