No, no. Please do pull up a chair and sit a spell.
I too am very interested in hearing/reading about this rhetoric from Bush that demonized the people of an entire region.
[quote=“JMcNeill”]Thanks JD. I’m not really sure why I jumped into this “discussion”. I guess I felt like pulling my hair out for a while. :s
I will most likely drop back into lurk mode soon.[/quote]JMcNeil -
No no no…stay and watch the spin.
Just remember replying is somewhat like trying to nail jello to a wall.
Bush is the second best president America has had so far in the twenty first century.
[quote=“JMcNeill”]I don’t claim to be as intelligent as most of you guys. I’m getting a bit lost in all of this. You seem to be putting all of the Arab nations into one group and called “them”.
Half the time your lambasting Bush for being friends with them and the other half your slamming him for demonizing them.
A little consistency in your Bush Bashing would be greatly appreciated.[/quote]
ok, when i used the word “them” i wasn’t making a blanket reference to an “us vs. them” scenario…it was simply to refer to the people mentioned earlier in the sentence…yikes, i was simply pointing out what the american public is going to think when looking at the port situation.
the kind of people that frequent boards like this are not your “average” american. the american public is far less informed and in the case of this port deal, they are going to see this whole thing as freaking bizarre…“aren’t we in the midst of fighting a war in the middle east, why would we want to hand over this stuff to a mid-east country…”
this, i think, is how it is seen.
this entire situation is yet another example of how inept bush is.
[quote=“Hondu Grease”]ok, when I used the word “them” I wasn’t making a blanket reference to an “us vs. them” scenario…it was simply to refer to the people mentioned earlier in the sentence…yikes, I was simply pointing out what the American public is going to think when looking at the port situation.
the kind of people that frequent boards like this are not your “average” American. the American public is far less informed and in the case of this port deal, they are going to see this whole thing as freaking bizarre…“aren’t we in the midst of fighting a war in the middle east, why would we want to hand over this stuff to a mid-east country…”
this, I think, is how it is seen.
this entire situation is yet another example of how inept bush is.[/quote]
So, are you saying that you understand the port deal… but, the average American does not?
And if yes, are you saying that you agree that the port deal was a good deal and should not have been opposed?
Just curious.
[quote=“JMcNeill”]So now your blaming Bush for WWII discrimination against Asians? Or are you saying that it was wrong to fight the Japanese during WWII?
I still haven’t hear which rhetoric you were alluding to?[/quote]
Blame W. for WWII discrimination? Uh, that’d be rather silly, wouldn’t it?
Am I saying that it was wrong to fight “the Japanese” during WWII? Are you saying it’s wrong to fight “the Arabs” now?
You seemed to take issue with someone who “putting all of the Arab nations into one group and called “them”.” I agree, that’s foolish.
You countered that if rhetoric alone were enough to evoke discrimination, then there should be rampant discrimination against Asians due to the troubles with North Korea–but we’re not seeing that. I responded that just such anti-Asian racism is apparent if you look back to how Asians were treated during and following WWII. Anti-Asian racism was as foolish then as anti-Arab racism is now. To put a finer point on it, anti-Japanese racism (that indiscriminately directed at individuals, rather than at those responsible) was as foolish then as anti-Emirate racism (in the ports deal), or anti-Arab racism (more generally) is now, because of the actions of a few extremists. Again, I agree that such discrimination is foolish, but take it further: don’t condemn all Arabs/ Asians for the trouble stirred up by one country; but moveroveer, don’t condemn all citizens of that country for the trouble stirred up by a few. A sharper focus does nothing but good.
My view: rhetoric isn’t enough to stir up trouble. Rhetoric plus fear (following an attack), that’s a potent mixture. 
And no, I’m not going to do the “What was really said” argument, again.
Who knows, perhaps I simply have too much faith in the ability of an administration to get out in front of the people and provide leadership… to guide the national dialogue. Or perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans and Arabs and Muslims elsewhere never felt a need to duck and cover following 9/11.
[quote=“Tigerman”]And if yes, are you saying that you agree that the port deal was a good deal and should not have been opposed?[/quote] Not directed at me, but I’ll state my opinion anyways. The ports deal should have gone through, AND the administration should have known that given the political climate it has done so much to create, that there would be trouble. The deal with Li Ka-shing, probably not such a good idea. Li and son seem to have done a lot of good in Vancouver, but a deal to manage ports (not security) is one thing; a deal to do the actually scanning for nukes is another.
My two bits.
Going to skate now. 
Are you going to explain to us what the administration did to create that political climate? Also, to what political climate do you refer? Previously, you stated that it was Bush’s rhetoric that caused the problem… please explain.
Tigerman, we’ve been over this stuff before. I say “Bush: ‘Crusade’”, you say “Bush: ‘Islam is a religion of peace.’” I find intention crafting how the message is received, you find intention in the message as delivered. Lacking a window into the minds of those at the center of this storm of controversy–though I tend to think that those who no longer sit within the inner circle provide such windows, if somewhat tinted–we quickly reach an impass. We might as well be searching for objective grounds to decide whether the sky is blue or black.
So let’s not, ok?
Or if you’d like to, forgive me if I’d rather not.
I’m little confused about this political climate bit and the president’s involvement in this deal. It started off as one company making a bid for another company which was accepted. So far I see no presidential involvement.
The target company runs port operations through out the world, including the US, but is not a US company. It’s new owners will not be American either. Still, it looks like a pretty standard bit of business. No political pushing or prodding yet, and certainly there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the US executive being the driving force behind the deal.
Then what happens? Various unscrupulous politicians in the US see a way to make some political capital for themselves by making a fuss. Now the president (not a chap I admire) has a choice, one which I’m sure he would have prefered not to have to make but he didn’t have control over the decision by DPA to buy P&O now did he. Does he:
-
Join with the xenophobic, illogical, fear mongering, short term political gain brigade and put at risk future investment in the US from the middle east and others, or
-
stand on the side of free trade, capitalism, logic, and against xenophobi fear mongering.
Now I was pleasantly suprised that he went for the second option.
Now after reading what I wrote, can you see my confusion at the bit in bold? For it to make any sense would mean that the White House would have to have been the initating force behind DPA’s decision to purchase P&O, and yet I have seen no evidence of this. There is plenty enough to bash Bush with, coming up with this kind of shite just takes power away from relevant, logical criticism.[/quote]
OED: Rhetoric n. 1. the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, 2. language designed to persuade or impress (often with an implication of insincerity or exaggeration, etc.)
Do you think Bush is actually capable of dreaming such dastardly plans? More like the teams of speech-writers and spinmeisters, whose primary focus is the domestic angle.
Has anyone read “Yes, Minister!”, or “Yes, Prime Minister!”? That stuff is closer to the truth than most of us will ever know. If you impose that framework on the US system, it would appear that the State Department and elements of the Pentagon would have more to blame than ShauBushee, who after all is not much more than a package, or a football, which must be pivoted on the fulcrum of politics.
Which if you remember is the the application of Who Gets What, Where, When & Why.
Well, That doesn’t make much sense, IMO.
I mean, on the one hand you are blaming Bush and or his administration with “creating” some political climate.
On the other hand, you are claiming that intent is in crafting how the message is received rather than how it is delivered.
Well, there isn’t much anyone can do that will influence how others perceive a message delivered. I read the text of the President’s statements and speeches. How I perceive and receive the message in those statements and speeches depends much more on me than on the medium of delivery.
Really, I just don’t understand how anyone can claim that Bush has been sending out a message describing Islam as a “crusade” rather than as a “religion of peace”. Bush has gone to great pains to explain that Islam is indeed a religion of peace and that our enemy is only a small minority of terrorists who follow some bastardized version of Islam.
Blaming Bush in such circumstances is, IMO, extremely unfair, not to mention illogical.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
Really, I just don’t understand how anyone can claim that Bush has been sending out a message describing Islam as a “crusade” rather than as a “religion of peace”. Bush has gone to great pains to explain that Islam is indeed a religion of peace and that our enemy is only a small minority of terrorists who follow some bastardized version of Islam.[/quote]
I agree. Some might argue that indeed Bush has actually laid off painting Islam with a big brush. And that he has actually avoided discussing some of the tenets of Islam that do justify violence, and intolerance. I don’t see much vilification at all.
I disagree.
Imagine that we are discussing Taiwan politics. Imagine that:
-------- I know what “blue” and “green” mean in Taiwan politics
-------- I myself am a DPP supporter.
-------- I tell you “I am blue”
-------- In fact, at the moment I tell you that, I happen to be a little down. So it’s true that I am “blue”, in the sense that I am unhappy, depressed, sad, etc. – so I’m not lying when I say “I’m blue”
-------- I know that that my listeners are going to receive my statement in a different way. I know they will understand it to mean something very different than the “sad, unhappy” meaning.
Question: Am I at all responsible if people later think that I lied to them?
I don’t know. I told them the truth right? I used the word in a correct sense. Why is it my problem if they got some other idea?
Now… it should be said that, in my view Bush didn’t do anything like what I described in my example.
Nevertheless, the idea that a speaker cannot “do anything to influence” how his message is perceived… That doesn’t seem quite correct to me.
Yes.
No.
Okay, maybe yes to the [color=blue]blue [/color]part (in my opinion), but no to the [color=red]red [/color]part.
It is not a logical impossibility to imagine that a person can (1) make a statement that is true according to one interpretation, and at the same time (2) realize that his audience may well interpret his words differently.
Did Bush do that? Open for debate (although I, like you and GingerMan, happen to think not).
Is it possible that a person could do that? Absolutely.
[quote=“Hobbes”]I disagree.
Imagine that we are discussing Taiwan politics. Imagine that:
-------- I know what “blue” and “green” mean in Taiwan politics
-------- I myself am a DPP supporter.
-------- I tell you “I am blue”
-------- In fact, at the moment I tell you that, I happen to be a little down. So it’s true that I am “blue”, in the sense that I am unhappy, depressed, sad, etc. – so I’m not lying when I say “I’m blue”
-------- I know that that my listeners are going to receive my statement in a different way. I know they will understand it to mean something very different than the “sad, unhappy” meaning.
Question: Am I at all responsible if people later think that I lied to them?
I don’t know. I told them the truth right? I used the word in a correct sense. Why is it my problem if they got some other idea?
Now… it should be said that, in my view Bush didn’t do anything like what I described in my example.[/quote]
Hobbes, you are correct. I was being lazy and really focusing only on what Bush said and Jaboney’s assertion that Bush created a certain political climate.
So, I shouldn’t have posted such an absolute… but, for the reason you stated above, I stand by my assertion in the context of this specific issue.
Again, I plead guilty to oversimplifying of the issue. However, speaking again about this particular issue, I assert that Bush did nothing to craft his message so that it would be received in the opposite way that he delivered it.
[quote=“Hobbes”]No.
Okay, maybe yes to the [color=blue]blue [/color]part (in my opinion), but no to the [color=red]red [/color]part.
It is not a logical impossibility to imagine that a person can (1) make a statement that is true according to one interpretation, and at the same time (2) realize that his audience may well interpret his words differently.
Did Bush do that? Open for debate (although I, like you and GingerMan, happen to think not).[/quote]
I don’t think its even open for debate. How did Bush deliver his message? In speeches and statements. These speeches and statements are recorded in text and have been read by many. How does Bush possibly craft his message in such a way that anyone can receive it in a way that causes them to believe the opposite of what he has stated over and over again.
Its not logical, unless the one asserting that the message was crafted in such a way that some can receive it in a way that causes them to believe the opposite of what Bush has stated over and over again can show some evidence of such craftiness. Absent any such showing… well, such an assertion seems several things but none of them logical.
Its possible that someone, even many someones, could perceive anything they wanted if they were not actually listening to or looking at what was actually said and written. But, that isn’t the result of any craftsmanship on the part of the messanger… that’s more the fault of people who are not listening or reading carefully.
Bush gots a little box strapped to his back that tells him what to say.
[quote=“butcher boy”]Does Bush:
-
Join with the xenophobic, illogical, fear mongering, short term political gain brigade and put at risk future investment in the US from the middle east and others, or
-
stand on the side of free trade, capitalism, logic, and against xenophobi fear mongering.
Now I was pleasantly suprised that he went for the second option.
Now after reading what I wrote, can you see my confusion at the bit in bold? For it to make any sense would mean that the White House would have to have been the initating force behind DPA’s decision to purchase P&O, and yet I have seen no evidence of this. There is plenty enough to bash Bush with, coming up with this kind of shite just takes power away from relevant, logical criticism.[/quote] Yes, I see the reason for your confusion, but I see no reason for your conclusion underlined above.
What I refer to as the political climate created by the administration is what you refer to as xenophobia and fear mongering. You rightly point to (what I consider) the opportunistic and debased behaviour of those who used that climate for their immediate, personal, political ends. That kind of bs is unworthy of anyone seriously interested in serving anything other than their own ends, and good for George for standing up to it.
That said, how that political climate arise in the first place? I believe that the Bush administration promoted a climate of fear for it’s own ends, and find it ironic–but entirely foreseeable–that the monster they created turned around and bit them in the ass.
We could argue about whether or not there’s good reason to believe that the administration created this climate, but in the end I think the arguments are going to come down to those Hobbes has drawn out so nicely.
Without getting into it again, I hold that there are other reasons for believing so, but that comments like these provide some evidence for my position.
[quote]Ridge Reveals Clashes on Alerts
By Mimi Hall
USA Today
Tuesday 10 May 2005
Washington - The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.
His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.
Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.
"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'"[/quote]
*Which reminds me, what’s Ridge’s status as a reputable source now? I remember a comedy skit from way back that put him in the axis of evil.
And I concede that such readings remain a matter of interpretation, and that even if this point is conceded only half the argument is made; the other half being to what end is the intelligence juiced and climate manipulated? At which point statements by Richard Clark, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage would be cited, and the argument is off and running again. :s And really, I just can’t be bothered at the moment because I see now way over, around, or through the impass. (Sorry Tigerman, that’s my good-faith analysis.)
I hope that clarifies where I’m coming from, because I’m really out of this one now.
More “poor listening comprehension”:
"Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush’s 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address – that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon – might not be true, according to government records and interviews.
Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although “most agencies judge” that the aluminum tubes were “related to a uranium enrichment effort,” the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department’s intelligence branch “believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons.”
Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” . . .
But Hadley and other administration officials realized that it would be much more difficult to shield Bush from criticism for his statements regarding the aluminum tubes, for several reasons.
For one, Hadley’s review concluded that Bush had been directly and repeatedly apprised of the deep rift within the intelligence community over whether Iraq wanted the high-strength aluminum tubes for a nuclear weapons program or for conventional weapons.
For another, the president and others in the administration had cited the aluminum tubes as the most compelling evidence that Saddam was determined to build a nuclear weapon – even more than the allegations that he was attempting to purchase uranium. . . ."
[quote=“Jaboney”]Heard about this one on Real Time with Bill Maher, but can’t find much mention of it in the serious press.
[quote=“Fox ‘News’ <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl1fc.gif" alt=":roflmao:" title=“ROFLMAO!” />”]U.S. Hires Foreign Firm to Help Detect Nuclear Materials at Bahamas Port
Friday, March 24, 2006
WASHINGTON
whether or not i think the ports deal is a good idea is not important.
what i was trying to point out was what a bad idea it was for bush to make this a priority/talk this up to the american public.
any self-respecting PR man would strongly advise against stumping this deal, i think.
perhaps it is a reasonable business move, i don’t know the nitty-gritty details, but it sure looks like dubya is trying to sell ketchup popsicles to women in white gloves…