Bush: Mandela is dead
George W Bush’s public speaking skills have improved noticeable during his presidency. Passable is noticeably better than atrocious. But sometimes I’ll bet he rues the confidence he has gained speaking ad lib during press conferences.
Here’s a very funny example, from a press conference yesterday:
The transcript of the relevant section, in which he is speaking about progress in Iraq:
I thought an interesting comment was made, I heard somebody say, you know, “Where’s Mandela?” Well, Mandela’s dead. Because, Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. You see, he was a brutal tyrant…
The real Nelson Mandela is, as we all know, very much alive and (I trust) well. But the literal-minded anti-Bush crowd is having a field day with this comment, treating it as yet more proof, if any were needed, that Bush is an imbecile. See here, for example, or here.
To those with half a brain, who are able to understand a statement in context (as a spokesperson for the Nelson Mandela Foundation urged listeners to do on Radio 702 earlier today), it seems clear that the question, “Where’s Mandela?” refers not literally to Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, a.k.a. Madiba. Rather, it refers to a peacemaker, a unifier, a conciliatory figure in Iraqi politics. Where is Iraq’s Mandela? In this sense, Bush’s response makes perfect sense. It is biased towards an adult audience, perhaps, because it uses advanced literary devices like figurative speech, but it does make sense.
It may still be wrong, of course, and vulnerable to rational argument. I don’t know whether Saddam did indeed kill all Iraq’s unifying figures. But the statement is not stupid. Here’s some free advice for the over-wrought anti-Bush crowd. If you’re going to argue about Iraq policy and disagree with the Bush administration’s prosecution of that war, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, it would help your cause if you didn’t prove your own pettiness and stupidity first.
Of course in 1990 when Mandela was released, politicians like Bush and particularly Cheney were blind to the power of the democratic spirit— to unifiers or peacemakers as you say. Cheney for example, voted against the resolution calling for the South Africanan aparteid regime to release Nelson Mandela from prison and negotiate with the African National Congress, on the ground that Mandela and his organization were terrorists who would establish a Communist dictatorship.
Seriously? You’re going to defend that moronic remark as acceptable when parsed by “those with half a brain” or “an adult audience”? I’m sure that you had the same reaction to John Kerry’s “you end up in the Army” joke. Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt, Monsignor. In this case (as in the Kerry example), the absolute verbal butchery of what may at one time have been a prescient point renders the attempt at that point invalid. Bush may have been trying to say that all the Mandela-like unifiers were killed by Saddam. If so, he should have used the phrase “Mandela-like” to denote the quality of “Mandela-like”. Defending this gaffe as figurative speech requires Bush to have spoken figuratively. Unfortunately for him, he spoke literally with figurative intentions. And until “Mandela’s dead” becomes a generally accepted figurative convention (along the lines of “it’s raining cats and dogs”), we can all safely regard this as yet another linguistic blunder by our inarguably least-erudite president.
You know, I’d think you guys would be bored of trying to rationalize the Bushisms by now. I respect your commitment in the face of adversity.
Bush is a complete moron. He may have gone back to his former habit of taking cocaine and excessive alcohol.
It is amazing how many still suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
What baffles me is exactly how Mr. Bush identifies the existence of potential Mandelas or future Mandelas or quasi-Mandelas or whatever.
Weapons of Mass Destruction ostensibly are items rather large and bulky and hard to miss. Yet Mr. Bush and the others could not deal with WMDs.
How, then, do we go back in time and hypothesize potential Mandelas living in Iraq?
Disagree with you that what Bush said made perfect sense… If he had said “where are all the Mandela’s?” it would, I agree, make sense but he didn’t, he said “Where is Mandela” which implies he was actually talking about Nelson.
http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4047524
Read the last two paragraphs.
My point exactly, Trevor.
Well, actually, kids, Saddam didn’t kill all the “Mandelas” in Iraq. Over a million Iraqis left the country after we toppled Saddam, and among that group were the most affluent, educated, politically involved and influential citizens of that country who might have made a difference in the shambles we created. Government officials of all levels, businessmen, policemen, doctors, nurses, professionals of all types just left…and that had nothing to do with Saddam’s brutal reign. It had everything to do with the beginning of our occupation, and in retrospect they were pretty smart to have left when they had the chance.
Keep spinning, Bushistas. Your boy perpetrated one of the greatest foreign policy blunders of all time, and the blood of tens out thousands of people are on his hands and the hands of people who still blindly support that miserable, lying shithead.
I explicitly said that the statement may well be wrong and vulnerable to rational argument, and you consider that “spin”. You consider that “blind support”. Nice going.
You’re being both aggressive and uncouth. Since name-calling doesn’t qualify as rational argument in my book, I suspect that you don’t have very much authority on or knowledge of the subject.
I’d have that fever checked out if I were you.