News Bush's Disastrous Interviews: A National Embarrassment

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaap de vries
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    interviews
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on perceptions of George W. Bush's recent interview performances, with participants expressing embarrassment and concern over his demeanor, suggesting he appears less competent and possibly under the influence of alcohol. Critiques highlight his lack of seriousness during economic crises, with specific examples of his flippant responses to pressing issues like rising gas prices. Participants also reflect on Bush's tendency to make light of serious topics, such as war, which they find disrespectful to troops who face real dangers. The conversation touches on broader themes of leadership, accountability, and the disconnect between Bush's optimistic rhetoric and the harsh realities of the economic and military situations facing the country. Many express frustration over his perceived failure to adequately address the consequences of his policies, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the impact on veterans and active-duty service members. The dialogue reveals deep-seated anger and disappointment, framing Bush's comments as trivializing the sacrifices made by military personnel.
  • #31
Gokul43201 said:
What's horrifying is that the person who, when he was "slightly younger and not employed here", pulled every one of his daddy's strings to avoid going to the front lines, can now insult the troops who have volunteered to go to Iraq (right to their faces) with the words:

What nerve!
I'm still not seeing it. I believe that he has the same 'i wish i could be a hero' personality component that a large fraction of males have. His past doesn't make him a hypocrite or mean he's insulting him, it just means he's a coward. Which puts him in very good company (most people are).

He's not saying anything hypocritical because he neither said that he would nor that he could do it.
Astronuc said:
I would have been impressed if Bush had thanked the troops, whom he put in harms way, and had honestly stated that he doesn't have the guts to do what they do.
As would I, but for a President to admit to being a coward would be irresponsible and wrong.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ivan Seeking said:
We have a cousin who during his forth tour in Iraq had to clean up the mess left when they blew away a bunch of civilians. He was real gun-ho until then, but now he's all screwed up.

I have a customer whose kid ran to Iraq when Bush waived the flag, He came back as an alcoholic who can't hold down a job.

I'm so envious. How glorious it must be.
So what's your point? What you imply here is that Bush is naive and idealistic, not that he's insulting the troops.
 
  • #33
Gokul43201 said:
Since I never made such a claim, I don't see why I should prove it. What I did say was that the President's words were an insult to the troops. Whether or not they perceived the insult is not something I speculated about.
If they were neither intended nor taken (by the intended audience) as an insult, then how can they be an insult?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Astronuc said:
Um - no one questioned that. There is no mob mentality here - simply a common expression of incredulity at the braggadocio expressed by the president.

Veterans, particularly combat veterans, I know would take exception to the president's statement.
But Bush is not a combat veteran and he isn't claiming to be. He's talking as an idealistic outsider. And by the way, trying to remind people why they joined the military in the first place is an extremely common way to attempt to improve both morale and recruiting. This source of motivation is the best one for soldiers to have.

I was on a warship on 9/11. I considered (briefly) requesting a transfer to a ship that would be deployed to the ME. I know exactly what feelings Bush is trying to evoke in those troops, because I've had them too.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
Bush's comments were over the top. Are you saying that we're not entitled to our opinions?
No, I'm saying that your opinions are knee-jerk reactions that don't match what was actually said or why.
What doesn't seem to get across to some people is that the outrage against Bush is genuine. It's not political anymore; it's personal.
Yes, I understand that. That's why, entitled as you are to those opinions, you are wrong. These opinions are not rational, they are knee-jerk reactions that don't fit with what was said or why it was said. What you got out of the speech isn't what was actually said.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
russ_watters said:
I was on a warship on 9/11. I considered (briefly) requesting a transfer to a ship that would be deployed to the ME. I know exactly what feelings Bush is trying to evoke in those troops, because I've had them too.

Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. To tell soldiers that it's romantic to fight in a war that is pointless and without end in sight is just stupid.

What's more, there's the REAL war going on next door (Afghanistan) that we aren't paying 1/10th of the attention to, militarily, politically, or financially.

You felt the way you did because WE WERE ATTACKED ON 9/11. You wanted to defend your country and avenge the people that died that day. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so it's just stupid to say "Hurr hurr it sho is sexy to fight down there!" when people all around are dying for NO REASON.
 
  • #37
Poop-Loops said:
Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. To tell soldiers that it's romantic to fight in a war that is pointless and without end in sight is just stupid.

What's more, there's the REAL war going on next door (Afghanistan) that we aren't paying 1/10th of the attention to, militarily, politically, or financially.
I guess you didn't bother even reading the article, he was addressing troops and people in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Russ didn't mention Iraq.

How on Earth did you make the leap to Iraq?
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Evo said:
I guess you didn't bother even reading the article, he was addressing troops and people in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Sorry, my mistake. I read most of the article, but didn't read the title, so I missed the "Afghanistan" part. I just assumed he was discussing both wars.

But that changes everything. I can't imagine anything more boner-inducing than being left to die in the desert because, well damn, turns out there is a more important war going on just next door.
 
  • #39
Poop-Loops said:
Sorry, my mistake. I read most of the article, but didn't read the title, so I missed the "Afghanistan" part. I just assumed he was discussing both wars.

But that changes everything. I can't imagine anything more boner-inducing than being left to die in the desert because, well damn, turns out there is a more important war going on just next door.
Right now Afghanistan is a hornets nest about to explode, with the NATO controversy. Astronuc started a thread about it after my rant, but no one seems to care.
 
  • #40
Russ, I think you are very wrong on this one. What Bush said was inexcusable. The greatest sacrifice any person can make for his country is to fight in a war. It is a horrible wrenching experience. To equate that sacrifice to some "adventure" as if it were some kind of vacation is to belittle it to the point of meaninglessness. It is NOT a vacation. It is not an adventure. It is a GREAT sacrifice and the men and women who make that sacrifice, whether a volunteer or not, deserve greater respect from the President than he gave them.

But then Bush swift boated two great heroes of the Vietnam War. What should I expect from him...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
40K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 191 ·
7
Replies
191
Views
12K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K