Mr. Bush noted: “The enemy declared war on us. Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president. The next four years will be peaceful years.” He repeated the words “peace” or “peaceful” many times, as he has done increasingly in his recent appearances. (emphasis added)
A few weeks ago, Kevin Drum asked, just what is it that people who support Bush on security grounds think that Bush will do and Kerry will not? Gregory Djerejian at the Belgravia Dispatch answered, in part:
To Kevin’s query: “(b)ut does anyone think there are any more wars coming up in the near future?”I’d answerwe’re in the middle of a war right now….
There’s, er, a lot going on—and I’m not confident that Kerry a) fully gets the stakes and b) will field a national security team that will be up to the challenge.
I’ve seen some version of this sentiment on a lot of pro-Bush blogs, and I think that it enjoys a lot of support. But how can it hold if Bush has decided to go around making the ludicrous promise that the next four years will be peaceful?
Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan
How can it hold? The same way it always does. Candidates say whatever they think will get them elected, and are seldom held to account for not living up to what they say. Or at least seldom held to account enough. The gaps get mentioned, but they seldom if ever seem to make any actual difference to popularity or votes the next time around.
The disconnect from reality boggles the mind. A three time purple heart winning Vietnam Vet is somehow lax on national security while captain AWOL, who couldn’t be bothered to show up for national Guard duty, is tough? WTF? I’ve never understood this line, as it is simply the most illogical statement I’ve ver heard (asside from the whole, “God wnats me to be president,” line)
Usually, however, the flip is not so soon after the flop.
Bush sets case as ‘war president’
“Mr Bush said he was a “war president” and the top issue for voters should be the use of American power in the world.
“I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind,” he said.
“I see dangers that exist and it’s important for us to deal with them.”
“Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president. “
George just slipped up. Don’t mind him.
It’s just like with bin Laden. “He’s our top priority on the terrorist list. We’re gonna smoke him out. Bring it on”. “I’m not really that concerned about him to be honest.”
If you only knew how hard it is for a man like him to keep track of what they tell him to say, you’d show a bit more compassion. What is it with you liberal people? Give him a break. It’s not easy to be the President, nevermind deciding if you’re the war President or peace President or war and peace President. So many choices, it’s complicated.
Also, didn’t Bush tell Bob Woodward that he had a mandate from God to liberate all the oppressed peoples of the world?
How can he liberate them as a peace president? Has he lost his mandate, or is he going to affirmatively disobey God?
But Richard, war can lead to peace and peace can lead to war so what he’s saying is, to make peace you need war so he’s the war president but in order to become a peace president. He is like Janus. He can be both things at the same time. Yin and Yang. He keeps the balance. The book of changes.
There. Doesn’t it make sense now? Don’t you see the spiritual beauty of it?
It’s really quite simple.
War is peace.
Rinse and repeat.
Ted-
I am not sure what can be obtained by analysing the speeches of George W Bush. I would like to take-him-at-his-word but he prefers popularity and his hidden agenda over honesty and truth.
So I suppose he is trying to appeal to people who don’t want a war president? Good for him???
Something that catches a lot of otherwise sensible and aware individuals is their lack of experience with and of the deprived, the products of the chaotic underside of society. So that when there is direct confrontation it’s often bewildering, the rules aren’t clear, and all those TV shows didn’t provide any useful guidance.
I’ve seen bad people, strong and ready-to-be-violent young men, intentionally use irrational behavior to unbalance a mark, to announce unequivocally that all rules were now their sole prerogative.
It’s disorienting for people who were raised to believe that irrationality is for losers.
This constant harping on Bush’s inability to speak coherently, and the hammering away at his absurd lies and justifications for the poisonous debacle in Iraq seems to be coming from a desperation, a need for reassurance on the part of people who believe that sanity and moral goodness are supposed to win. Every time. On their own, without commensurate force.
It corresponds with a lot of the “unite behind Kerry” as pragmatic, as “our only hope”.
I’m looking for some contemporary accounts of the Vichy bureaucrats, the rationalizing, the justifications, the necessities of collaboration. There’s validity to the general argument, but the Resistance had all the fire, and that’s where the soul of France was kept alive.
The very arguments that produced the “surrender monkeys” of the egregious Limbaugh’s elocution were absolutely repudiated by the underground.
Kerry’s America’s Blair.
If you can’t draw a line here and now, you won’t be able to draw one when it’s too obvious to ignore.
a need for reassurance on the part of people who believe that sanity and moral goodness are supposed to win. Every time. On their own, without commensurate force.
I agree with your disagnosis, but I think you have it wrong when it comes to this campaign. Trust me on this one. I don’t think anyone is supporting Kerry because they believe he’s the candidate of “sanity and moral goodness.” It’s because he’s the one that can use “commensurate force” during the campaign. “Unite behind Kerry” isn’t just pragmatic. It’s more like… Machiavellian.
Why is Kerry going to win? Because he plays the game better than Bush. He is the candidate that Americans look at and think, “yeah, he seems to be president.” Is it rational? No. But it’s a game that needs to be played.
The constant “harping on Bush’s inability to speak” is not a complaint about the “unfairness” that such a inadequate man is in the Oval Office, but rather an attempt to portray Bush as an overgrown child who is dwarfed by the office.
Bush’s failings as a human being, his inadequacies, his delusions, mean virtually nothing to me. It’s his failing as President of the United States. What he’s presided over. The things he’s done, and the things he hasn’t done, as well as the things he’s undone. In every general and specific Kerry is his synonym. Kerry is the left hand to Bush’s right.
This is infantile. It’s hiding under the covers. Kerry supported the war in Iraq. He wants to drill ANWR. He backs Sharon all the way. He hasn’t said one damned word about Abu Ghraib that has any backbone to it.
He might just maybe put a little more weight behind social programs, but Congress will block his feeble attempts, and in the long run, or even the intermediate, it won’t matter a bit.
Trust you on this one? You didn’t say anything, not one word, to differentiate them, except the obvious, that they’re two different men, with different names and faces. I knew that already.
Tony Blair is different than the two of them, and he has an accent into the bargain. So now there’s three. Peas in a pod. Interchangeable hollow men.Worthless the lot of ‘em.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review