quote:Originally posted by Buddha's Penis! hmm.
what does everybody think of that? i'm not sure how to take it, it seems so ill-timed. i have a hard time believing the bush family hasn't talked this over, so why the discrepancy?
edit: i hear a lot about british papers being shit and unreliable (from the british), so maybe that is the case here. convenient interpretation.
has anyone heard anything else about this? smug said that the times weren't all that trustworthy, though i haven't taken the time to look it up elsewhere yet i would assume there either has to be some qualification in bush's speech to alleviate some of the criticism or he's failed to "talk sense" (as he sees it) into his son.
and the only other thing i found was referring to the times, so i left it out. the iowan thing says bush sr has tried not to advise the g-dub, which, if they in fact haven't discussed it, seems kind of irresponsible to me. i mean, i think he would hold considerable influence, seems odd that he wouldn't try to guide his "errant" child.
The Tufts link has it in there in the speech that he made. It isn't a bad speech, although he mentions 'England' instead of 'the UK' and he does make the old allusion to Hitler and perhaps gives the impression (only to the uneducated, mind) that the US entered the second world war to save the jews and poles. Still, I'd take him over his son anyday; I liked him back then, too.
The thing is that I don't see it necessarily meant as a criticism in public of his son (which he could do in private without hurting his son's presidency) but more as if Bush Jr is actually doing those things that Bush Sr mentions; although I don't believe that is true, I think that might be what Bush Sr is trying to imply. I think that it is a criticism of his son in effect (because I don't think that Jr is of the same mind as Sr on this), but I don't think that is its intent.
Of course, maybe I am wrong and he is trying to tell Jr something.
"But he said the best chance for a peaceful solution rests with building a broader, more unified international coalition against the Iraqi leader.
He said Saddam Hussein will continue to resist America and the U.N. as long as global leaders remain divided over how to deal with Iraq. Bush singled out France and Germany as countries whose support is lacking now but was critical to applying pressure on Hussein during the Gulf War. "
it seems that what he's saying runs counter (to an extent) in ideals as to what is being accepted as the natural and inevitable course of events. he seems to support an international response pretty firmly, though of course he may also be for a unilateral one should global channels fail. either way, gw isn't approaching things in that manner.
I just felt that the tone of the whole thing was pretty warm towards his boy. Why hasn't the US press picked up on this (or have they)? It would seem to at least be worth discussion.
For a former president to effectively criticise a standing one is a pretty big deal, we have been told in another thread; why would Bush Sr, a pretty traditional guy, do it, let alone to his own son? They would really have had to have fallen out, surely? Of course, maybe they have. From the future of the world point of view, I sort of hope so (and that pressure were exerted on Bush Jr) because I agree with what Bush Sr said. It is hard to imagine now why the US elected Clinton over him; I guess that Bush was just unlucky to come up against a really very tough opponent (especially when you look at the calibre of opponents in many other presidential elections).
bush sr was seen as ineffectual, i think. kind of a joke. seems pretty pleasant now. to be honest, it seems like the state of american politics is vastly (VASTLY) different now than then, though i was 12 when clinton was elected. i think a guy like bush sr would be greatly appreciated now, actually.
i blame clinton. or, his dick.
i meant that he actually seems like a real person, whereas clinton and gw are crazy caricatures of real people. also, bush=falwell? i don't remember any strong opinions from that guy. he seems respectably moderate (though i don't necessarily agree with his politics). he seems to comport himself in a way that is sorely lacking among the current american political leaders.
not all, of course. ie colin!
Is it not more likely that Bush Jr is in a corner and is unable to say certain things, whereas Bush Sr can? If Bush Jr says what dad just said, all the pressure comes off at the UN. Its one of the privledges of "civilian" life. Freedom.
Actually, rereading the speech there is an enormous amount of noblesse obligue (if i spelt it right) - that when one is priveldged one should serve, do ones duty etc. Is that an old school attitude, or does it come from a still extant class hierarchy in US?
It is all rather strange. It can certainly be read as a criticism of Bush Jr, although I find it hard to believe that it was meant that way. Maybe as lifeisgood says, Bush Sr is trying to convince people of the merit of the diplomatic approach so that if they are convinced, Bush Jr can adopt that approach without appearing weak. Fat chance of succeeding with that, however, I think.