i posted this in the 9 votes thread:

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.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

It's all a smoke screen, I gotta believe Sr. is involved to some degree. I believe he does not want the public to think he is pulling strings.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

no time to chew on this now, but thanks to google news, here's the plastic people comments on this: http://www.plastic.com/article.html.../03/13/18073117

including a link to a recent Bush Sr. speech: http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/030303BushSpeech.htm and http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/030303BushQandA.htm that I didn't have time to read either but may be the source of this.

bye!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

bye!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

"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.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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).

Last edited by Smug Git on 03-14-2003 at 12:31 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Some people would appreciate Jerry Fallwel.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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.

Anyway - did you read the womb joke?!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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?

Just seems interesting

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

'Noblesse Oblige' I think.

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.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged