Bushisms

The Volokh Conspiracy brought up an interesting point the other day regarding the liberal MSM, which is of course the entire MSM. Slate.com… has a daily feature called Bushisms where they make fun of Bush quotes. Volokh puts it into context:

Here’s today’s Slate’s Bushism of the Day:

“That’s George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three — three or four books about him last year. Isn’t that interesting?” — Showing German newspaper reporter Kai Diekmann the Oval Office, Washington, D.C., May 5, 2006

Now it strikes me as a little odd that Slate, one of the pioneers of online journalism, doesn’t take advantage of one of the great advantages of online journalism over offline journalism — the ability to link to the original sources (eithers ones that are already online or ones that are put up on the Web by the journal itself), so that readers can see the context for themselves.

Here is the context for that quote:

That’s George Washington, the first President, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three — three or four books about him last year. Isn’t that interesting? People say, so what? Well, here’s the “so what.” You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you’re gone. If they’re still analyzing the presidency of George Washington — (laughter.) So Presidents shouldn’t worry about the history. You just can’t. You do what you think is right, and if you’re thinking big enough, that history will eventually prove you right or wrong. But you won’t know in the short-term.

Without this context, Bush’s quote seems mysteriously inarticulate, and understandable only as an unintentional self-parody of his own unintellectualism. Why would he say that it’s interesting that he read three or four books about Washington this year? Mystifying.

But the rest of the quote explains the mystery, and makes what strikes me as a pretty sensible (though of course not earthshattering) point.

Another example:

“If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate.”?Washington D.C., March 21, 2006

Of course it’s a bit different when put into context once again:

Secondly, our negotiations with Iran on the nuclear weapons will be led by the EU-3. And that’s important because the Iranians must hear there’s a unified voice about — that says that they shall not have a capacity to make a nuclear weapon and/or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon, for the sake of security of the world.

It’s important for our citizens to understand that we have got to deal with this issue diplomatically now. And the reason why is because if the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could blackmail the world. If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate. This is a country that’s walking away from international accords; they’re not heading toward the international accords, they’re not welcoming the international inspections — or safeguards — safeguard measures that they had agreed to.

And so our policy for the Iranians, in terms of the nuclear program, is to continue to work with the EU-3, as well as Russia and China. Later on this week, there’s going to be a P-5 — that’s a diplomatic sloganeering for the permanent members of the Security Council — plus Germany, and working together to make sure that the message remains unified and concerted.

So he is saying that once Iran gets one nuclear bomb they could give that technology, or weapons to other countries…in other words, proliferate.

And this makes him look dumb how?

Need another example?

“After the bombing, most Iraqis saw what the perpetuators of this attack were trying to do.”?(On the bombing of the Golden Mosque of Samarra in Iraq) March 13, 2006, Washington, D.C.

The whole quote:

The terrorists attacked the Golden Mosque for a reason: They know that they lack the military strength to challenge Iraqi and coalition forces directly — so their only hope is to try and provoke a civil war. So they attacked one of Shia Islam’s holiest sites, hoping to incite violence that would drive Iraqis apart and stop their progress on the path to a free society.

Immediately after the attack, I said that Iraq faced a moment of choosing — and in the days that followed, the Iraqi people made their choice. They looked into the abyss and did not like what they saw. After the bombing, most Iraqis saw what the perpetuators [sic] of this attack were trying to do: The enemy had failed to stop the January 2005 elections, they failed to stop the constitutional referendum, they failed to stop the December elections, and now they’re trying to stop the formation of a unity government. By their response over the past two weeks, Iraqis have shown the world they want a future of freedom and peace — and they will oppose a violent minority that seeks to take that future away from them by tearing their country apart.

Of course we really don’t need anymore proof of the ongoing liberal bias from our MSM so I won’t go on and on with this but you get my point. I could show you hundreds of examples of this kind of stuff from Slate, KOS, DummiesU, the LA Times and all the rest. They get a big chuckle while trying to show the world how smart they are by taking a quote out of context to make Bush look dumb.