Bush a moron

Some minor government official in the Canadian government, in a non-public conversation calls Bush a moron and the media in the US goes ape poo.

I seem to remember similar sentiment from the US before the last election. Bush, despite his excellent academic credentials, could get no respect for smarts.

Could I see a show of hands of people who have never verbally expressed doubts about the intelligence of an elected official.

Now take our prime minister, Jean Chretien, there's a semi-literate moron.

 

There was an interesting 60 minutes I only caught part of that interviewed journalist Bill Krystal (spelling??) who said Bush tended to dominate the other members of his cabinet. One quote was something to the effect that "I don't need to answer questions or explain myself to you (cabinet members) because I am the President; you may need to answer my questions". Neither Gore (whose academic record was not great) nor Bush are the creme de le creme of intellects. Nontheless, as you point out Bush has excellent credentials and his 'C' at Harvard was proabably worth a 'B+' or 'A' at most state universities.

As for Jean C., he at least has style. He took matters into hand when the protester threw a pie (?) at him.

Canada has taken quite a beating on the O'Reilly Factor (most watched cable new program) for it's standing on the war on terror and basically being unrealistic and out to lunch. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Canada, a country that for a few years in a row came out as having the highest standard of living in the World (taking into account all quality of life issues). Recently the UN said it had the highest standard of living for women in the world. Canada is behind the US in my opinion on individual rights (hate speech laws, etc). I remember during your last election respected politicans were taking shots at Reform Party Head Day's faith (ridiculing his conservative Christian beliefs). Even for those who do not like Christians, I do not think this would have flown in the US (especially for leading politicians). We have a lot of repect for individual rights and beliefs.

On the other hand, if it were not for Canada the US would be short the game of basketball, a number of inventions, and prominent musicians, actors, and newscasters.

Anyway I somewhat wandered off topic (thank goodness this is the off topic forum).

North

 

Hey, "moron" is OUR word for him. Get your own. (Word, not moron.)

 

Your continuous contemptuous statements against the President amaze me. In a previous post, you were right on, when addressing disrespect. It's hard to believe that the retired officer who made the statement below is so contemptuous of the President.

"This is unfortunate. I worked for a number of officers I had absolutely no use for. Still, it was not my prerogative to chose which I would address with their grade or as "Sir/Ma'am." This is disloyal. It is the duty of every subordinate (and we are/were all subordinate to someone) to actively follow our leaders. "Active followership" means to engage the superior, providing your input, guidance, and suggestions. However, once heard, it is your responsibility to carry out his/her orders with the same enthusiasm as if they were your own.

If your subordinates see you overtly disrespect a superior officer, how can you expect them to obey the orders
you give that they might not like or agree with? I had 900 people under my last command; I never believed for a minute that every one of them liked or even respected me. But to allow any of them to undermine my authority would hurt the effectiveness of the entire unit. And my superiors? Their grade and authority were simply not mine to take away.

As for the OTS/ROTC/Academy schism, it is real, but it is not as strong in the Air Force as it is in the other services, IMHO. Our schism is between pilots and everyone else. I was promoted to Staff Sergeant at 21, commissioned through OTS at 24, taught AFROTC at 28, and retired at 36. I have a little bit of experience in this area".

http://www.degreeinfo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4121&perpage=30&pagenumber=2

 

In fairness to Rich, the president, as commander-in-chief is a politician, and subject to criticism relating to abilities.

My commission was awarded, albeit indirectly, by Queen Elizabeth. Now, she is beyond criticism.

I have no negative opinion about Bush's intelligence, I just wondered what the media fuss was about.

 

I don't work for the idiot. Now he works for me. And I'm not impressed. (Of course, others disagree, which is certainly their prerogative.)

Am I supposed to abandon my right to free speech because I once served in uniform? How asinine.

During the Clinton presidency, there was no shortage of officers willing to say degrading things about the CINC, while they served under him. I don't recall anyone ever being arrested for it. Besides, I'm retired. And I'm entitled to criticize this country's leadership; I'm an American. It is unpatriotic to do otherwise.

 

"Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism, a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals of national adulation ... In the abstract we celebrate freedom of opinion as part of our patriotic liturgy; it is only when some Americans exercise it that other Americans are shocked."
      -- Sen. William Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power (1966)


Cheers,

 

Incidentally, I should add that:

(a) As a minor non sequitur: although I have strong reservations about the 2000 elections, I think Bush was legitimately elected according to the rules of the electoral college. The fact that the inscrutable 5-4 Supreme Court decision was split along party lines (with Stevens as the only Republican dissenter) does not change the fact that the Supreme Court held legitimate authority to make that call. If the situation had been reversed and Gore benefitted from a Supreme Court decision while losing the popular vote, I'm sure many Democrats and Republicans alike would be arguing the exact opposite of what they're arguing now.

(b) While I don't care for Bush's policies, I certainly don't think he's an idiot. But I can understand how someone else might.

(c) The rank-and-file issue tells me that folks get played the "you shouldn't have an opinion" card from both sides of the deck. Just as there are probably people who believe that Rich can't support the opposition party if he ever served in the military (Charles: I realize this is not the point you were trying to make), there are people who believe that I, as a civilian, don't deserve to have an opinion on foreign policy issues at all. It's a strange world.


Cheers,

 

Definitely not. However, you are, although retired, still a commissioned officer. It is your public contempt of the president that surprises me. It is one thing to criticize, but calling the President an idiot and a moron surely goes beyond criticism.

At least two senior officers were disciplined for being contemptuous of President Clinton. To my knowledge, no retired personnel were disciplined. Retired personnel in receipt of pay are still subject to the UCMJ. Although, I seriously doubt that anyone try to court-martial you, your continuous contemptuous statements against the President appear to be a clear violation of UCMJ Article 88.

 

Anyone who would suggest that civilians don't deserve to have an opinion on foreign policy matters or even military matters is unfamiliar with our constitution. In the United States all of the military falls under civilian control, our elected and appointed leaders.

This is not the case everywhere. In Turkey, one of our best allies in my opinion, the military are the guardians of Turkey's constitution.

 

I think that Canadians are more interested in this little embarrassment than Americans are.

 

I second Bill; I like to think I keep up with the news, but this situation didn't even show up on my radar until I saw your post.


Cheers,

 

Ironic Search Results

I'd been told some time ago that an enlisted officer wrote a letter accusing President Bush of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks; I was curious as to whether he was ever charged under UCMJ Article 88, so I did a search on news.google.com for "Article 88." The four articles that came up dealt with this case, in which Vietnamese journalist Le Chi Quang was sentenced to four years in prison for investigating human rights abuses. He was charged with "opposing the socialist government of Vietnam" under...(you guessed it)...article 88 of the penal code:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0211/S00040.htm


Peace,

 

Tom,

This may be the story.

"06/25/02 - WASHINGTON -- A May 26 letter to the editor in a civilian publication sent by an Air Force officer expressing his personal opinions about the president of the United States has called into question freedom of speech in the military.

The letter accused President Bush of knowing about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks beforehand and allowing them to take place for political reasons. At issue was whether the officer's letter violated Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice".



http://www.af.mil/news/Jun2002/n20020625_1017.shtml

 

This sounds like it, Charles--thanks!


Cheers,

 

That sounds too draconian.

 

I hate to burst Charles' bubble (and his nonsensical attack on me), but I am most certainly NOT subject to the UCMJ. Even active reservists are not subject to the UCMJ while they're between either training days or active duty sessions. As a retired reservist, I am under no one's command, including that idiot Bush. Were he to recall me to active duty, however, I would certainly cease public commentary about his inanities. But that isn't going to happen.

 

I quite agree that the Turkish military is the best guarantor of the western-oriented (sic!) inheritance of the great Ataturk. Despite the spoliations of the Carpathian homeland at the hands of the Ottomans, the C.P. is a passionate Turcophile. He would not, however, choose to exchange American freedom of speech for that which is able to be exercised in the Republic of Turkey, nor would he care, under any circumstances whatever, to have his freedom of speech in the gift of any military organization. He is, therefore, mighty glad that it is the Constitution, not the sentiments of active or retired members of the officer corps, which defines the extent and guarantees the permanence of his civic liberties.
The C.P. also declines to concur with the sentiments of a minor official in the government of Vichy Canada.

 

I would like to know if anyone can present any proof that President Bush was a C student at Harvard. I did not think one could graduate with a C average. In fact, I don't think they will let you continue with Cs in 2 classes. If we are talking about about a C in one class at Harvard, I hate to see criticism of some of us who may have gotten a C at other (lesser) colleges. Cs happen, then you die.

 

A quick search shows that Harvard's printed policies certainly don't support your notion of them. In fact, in order to graduate it is only required that one receive a "C-" in 10.5 (12 for a degree with honors) of the 16 required full courses. I've never attended Harvard, so I can't comment with any authority on the difficulty of getting a "C-" in one of its courses. However, it doesn't seem implausible that Bush (who really does come off as a moron, whether or not he really is one) would have graduated with a C average. See these pages:

http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/handbooks/student/chapter2/bachelor.html

http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/handbooks/student/chapter2/progress.html

http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/handbooks/student/chapter2/academic_performance.html