Yes, I think Bush is stupid. I also think wild bears defecate in forested areas, and the Pope is a member of the Roman Catholic Church. The
defenders of Bush on this thread are also making fools of themselves. One Bush defender says that evidence of Bush's many misstatements and
inability to communicate coherently doesn't mean he is stupid, he may just have a learning disability. Well, one of the main ways we judge
intelligence is by oral communication ability. One definition of intelligence is the ability to learn, so if Bush has a learning disability, then, by
definition, he is stupid. I know that sounds cruel, but it is true.
Another Bush defender dismisses mountains of evidence as speculation and opinion. That is nothing but rhetorical hand-waving, and contributes nothing
to the discussion. When confronted with actual quotes from Bush, you need to either dispute the accuracy of the quote, or make an argument as to why
the quotes don't show that Bush is stupid.
I mean, come on guys. Listen to Bush in any unscripted situation, when he has not been able to rehearse his answers. He is invariably unresponsive
and incoherent. His appearance on Meet the Press and his last prime-time press conference are classic examples. I also strongly suspect that he was
given the questions in advance for both those dismal performances. Carole Coleman, the Irish journalist, said she was required to submit her
questions three days in advance. For a ten-minute interview? Please. Dick Cheney, Condaleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Bill Clinton could all sit
down for such an interview and give reasoned coherent answers without any advance preparation. That's what intelligent people do in interviews. The
fact that Bush had Coleman's questions three days in advance and was still unresponsive and rambling is compelling evidence that he is stupid.
Want further evidence? Bush has referred to Africa as a country and the people who live in Greece as Grecians. Finally, consider a couple of Bush
responses in an interview with Diane Sawyer on December 16, 2003.
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire
those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
If this answer doesn't convince you that Bush is stupid, you are simply refusing to honestly evaluate the evidence. There is no difference between
actuality and possibility? Only a moron would say that.
DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.
That second answer is totally unresponsive to the question. In my opinion, giving unresponsive answers is a good sign of stupidity, because it shows
a lack of understanding of the question.
Please read the entire interview. You will find many more examples of incoherent, unresponsive answers by Bush.
[edit on 7/5/2004 by donguillermo]