What did President Bush say about Syria and Hezbollah?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around comments made by President Bush regarding Syria and Hezbollah, particularly in the context of a private conversation with Tony Blair. Participants explore the implications of Bush's language, the use of expletives in political discourse, and the nature of communication among politicians.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note Bush's statement about needing Syria to control Hezbollah, suggesting it reflects a straightforward approach to a complex issue.
  • Others comment on the use of expletives by Bush, questioning whether it indicates poor communication skills or serves as a concise expression of frustration.
  • A few participants argue that expletives can substitute for more precise language when the speaker lacks clarity on the topic.
  • Some express that casual language, including expletives, is common in private conversations among politicians, contrasting it with public statements.
  • There are differing views on whether Bush's comments should be taken seriously or if they reflect a lack of understanding of the situation in the Middle East.
  • One participant suggests that the context of a personal conversation may allow for more candid expressions, while another counters that both speakers were aware of the complexities involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of Bush's language or the appropriateness of expletives in political discourse. Multiple competing views remain regarding the effectiveness and meaning of such language in the context of international relations.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the effectiveness of expletives in conveying serious political issues, while others emphasize the informal nature of the conversation. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations regarding the communication styles of politicians.

Rach3
"The irony is, what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this sh**, and it's over," Mr Bush was heard to say.

Soon after Mr Blair noticed that the microphone was open and switched it off, reports say.
(BBC) (audio)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For some reason, I hear someone saying "oh god" in the end of the tape.
 
Another slip from the same conversation - seems Rice is going to the M.E. after all.

Bush: Yeah I think Condi's [US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) going to go soon.

Blair: Well that's all that matters but if you... You see at least it gets it going.

Bush: I agree it's a process...I told her your offer too.

Blair: Well it's only if she needs the ground prepared as it were. If she goes out she HAS to succeed whereas I can just go and...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5188258.stm
 
I think we should have more microphones. I think everyone would benefit if there were hidden microphones surrounding all politicans and ministers, than we'd always know what they're thinking.
 
How diplomats think
Well, it would appear that the problem is that they don't.

"The irony is, what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this sh**, and it's over," Mr Bush was heard to say.
He's probably correct though. :smile: Well, actually it may be somewhat more difficult.

The moral of this story is - watch what you say in front of a microphone - no telling who's listening. :smile:
 
What is it with Bush and expletives? I suppose it might be an outlet for someone with very poor communication skills.
 
Rach, saying **** in a private conversation isn't really an expletive... most people say crap like that (see? right there) just as a way of identifying the worthlessness of the object at hand
 
Rach3 said:
What is it with Bush and expletives? (snip)

Same thing as with FDR, Harry, Ike, "John-John," Lyndon, Nixon, Jerry, Jimmy, RR, Bush 41, and Willy --- and, their predecessors, and, their successors yet to win office --- concise communication.
 
  • #10
Rach3 said:
What is it with Bush and expletives? I suppose it might be an outlet for someone with very poor communication skills.
Well, Nixon used expletives. Lots of people use expletives in private, but not in public.

Politicians will say one thing in private, and something completely different in public - I've seen it first hand. :rolleyes:

Reagan is famous for his on-air blooper "My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes." He was 'joking' during a mike check before a radio broadcast, but it was caught on tape and aired. It caused a slight panic.

What you see now is Bush's true side, which is normally kept out of the public spotlight.
 
  • #11
Listening to the clip, I see nothing wrong with what he said. Whats the big deal?

I must say, you always put spin in your threads Rach. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Four letters, one syllable, sums it up nicely --- gets people on to handling it that much more quickly, rather than endless polysyllabic discourses on what to call it.
 
  • #13
Bystander said:
concise communication.
On the contrary, I think expletives often get used when the speaker has no idea what he's talking about and an expletive serves the role of substitute for a more precise description.

A: What's the situation like in the ME right now?
B: Real sh**ty!
A: Oh, thanks for that mindumbingly concise insight!
 
  • #14
Gokul43201 said:
A: What's the situation like in the ME right now?
B: Real sh**ty!
A: Oh, thanks for that mindumbingly concise insight!
Well, B is probably correct. :biggrin: He summed up the current situation in a nutshell.

Given the context - the personal conversation between Blair and Bush, I think Blair probably understood Bush's point. Bush wasn't talking to the public - he was talking to a colleague and an apparent friend.
 
  • #15
Gokul43201 said:
On the contrary, I think expletives often get used when the speaker has no idea what he's talking about and an expletive serves the role of substitute for a more precise description.

A: What's the situation like in the ME right now?
B: Real sh**ty!
A: Oh, thanks for that mindumbingly concise insight!

If "A" has been in a state of suspended animation for the past 8ka, it might be necessary to furnish more detail; likewise, Aztecs, Incas, or other pre-Columbian Americans snatched with a time machine would require an "orientation." As it is, it's a little difficult to avoid familiarity with the roots of the conflict, perfect understanding of what's necessary to resolve the conflict, and full awareness that no one on the planet at the moment is going to take any of those necessary steps.

The ME is a "losen" scenario for everyone with a stake in the region (that's the whole world) --- face, lives, congregations, money, oil, commerce, trade routes, resources, markets --- all up in smoke over the usual "sh*t."

A': Same ol' sh*t.
B': What 'r we going to do?
A': Same ol' sh*t --- let the Israelis look like Ghengis at Samarkand, or Martel at Tours, or Vlad --- but, stop em' before they actually accomplish what has to be done eventually.

"Sh*t" is a perfect descriptor for the situation, its history, and its future. Perfectly clear and "concise."
 
  • #16
Gokul43201 said:
On the contrary, I think expletives often get used when the speaker has no idea what he's talking about and an expletive serves the role of substitute for a more precise description.

A: What's the situation like in the ME right now?
B: Real sh**ty!
A: Oh, thanks for that mindumbingly concise insight!

Huh? I think both speaks in the conversation obviously knew what was going on in the ME. You're statement is a stretch.
 
  • #17
cyrusabdollahi said:
Huh? I think both speaks in the conversation obviously knew what was going on in the ME. You're statement is a stretch.
I guess I didn't get the idea across well enough, but "A" would have been me, after not getting the news for 24 hours.
 
  • #18
Sure, but he was not giving a speech. Everyone uses a curse word once in a while when talking casually to a friend.
 

Similar threads

News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?
  • · Replies 298 ·
10
Replies
298
Views
74K
News Bush & Blair: Making & Breaking Rules for Agendas
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
News Bush says operates secret prisons
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
10K
News UK Diplomats slam Blair on Mid-East
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Bush is leaving a fiscal train wreck for the next president
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
News US congress approves interrogation techniques
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
News Was George W. Bush's Response to 9/11 Justified?
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
14K
News Bush's Reality is for suckers presidency
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
News Did the US Attempt to Overthrow Hamas in Gaza?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
News Do a President's Poll Numbers Influence his Poll Numbers?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K