Is GW Bush a Moron>?

[bonoman]

So is he. I dont want to debate it just poll!

 

[Angela Harlem]

No debate, just FYI

mo?ron ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m?rn, mr-)
n.
A stupid person; a dolt.
Psychology. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

 

[Tizer]

It's in the eyes that you can see it, cos it's just not there

 

[Discoteque]

yeah, he puts on a 'good ol' boy act', but that don't mean he's a moron and he ain't edjumacated.

Didn't he go to both Harvard *and* Yale?

I believe he's a lot sharper and more intelligent than people give him credit for. He may have outwardly simple ways, and may not be the great orator that Clinton was, but I often wonder what Al Gore might have done after 9-11 if he'd been elected....and if he would have had the same national rallying power as GWB did.

And doesn't GWB have some of the highest overall ratings of *any* president *ever*according to some polls?

Moron??? No way, mon.

 

[bonosloveslave]

yeah, he puts on a 'good ol' boy act', but that don't mean he's a moron and he ain't edjumacated.

Didn't he go to both Harvard *and* Yale?

I believe he's a lot sharper and more intelligent than people give him credit for. He may have outwardly simple ways, and may not be the great orator that Clinton was, but I often wonder what Al Gore might have done after 9-11 if he'd been elected....and if he would have had the same national rallying power as GWB did.

And doesn't GWB have some of the highest overall ratings of *any* president *ever*according to some polls?

Moron??? No way, mon.

I agree - all the Bush-bashing lately has made me sad....

 

[DrTeeth]

And doesn't GWB have some of the highest overall ratings of *any* president *ever*according to some polls?

That only means he's not the only moron around.

 

[BVS]

Absolutely

Didn't he go to both Harvard *and* Yale?

"Born on third, thinks he got a triple"

 

[BAW]

No, I don't think he's a moron. And I agree with Disco and BLS.

 

[Hanana]

I'm not sure.
He lacks any common sense whatsoever but he must be doing something right to make us believe his lies.

I've abstained from voting so far, but I'm tempted to vote yes at the moment.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Tis interesting ya know, none of us can say for certain the man is a moron. Sounds honestly like *general dislike* is being confused with a somewhat inappropriate term.

 

[diamond]

Tis interesting ya know, none of us can say for certain the man is a moron. Sounds honestly like *general dislike* is being confused with a somewhat inappropriate term.

 

[bonoman]

Or maybe we are having a laugh and you are taking it to seriuosly!!

 

[Danospano]

I've heard good points from both sides. I think Bush is doing a better job than most Americans would do, but that doesn't say much about the state of the union.

By definition Bush is not a moron, but how often do we resort to calling "stupid" people as morons? All the time, right? That being said I don't know if we should assume that the Canadian representative that brought this conversation about should be held to Webster's definition.

Bush is definitely stupid in front of the camera. Maybe he's still camera-shy....it could happen

One more thing: Discotheque asked if Gore would have been able to unite the masses after 9/11. My answer is, yes. Any president would have done a satisfactory job. Does anyone honestly believe that it would have been any different had it been Gore? First off, the media would never criticize anyone after an event like 9/11. Bush was guaranteed to jump in the polls due to the level of the atrocity. Bush did whatever anyone else would have done.

That brings up my last point. It's off-subject, but worth it.
------If 9/11 never happened, how would Bush be viewed by the American public? I think the attack was the best thing that ever happened to Bush, because his approval rating skyrocketed from the 50% to over 80%, it took focus away from the economic problems, etc.

 

[Anthony]

Yes, Angela Harlem. it is a possibility to confuse the 'general dislike' with the true nature of his intelligence.

However, one should ask WHY this general dislike exists.
I certainly know about mine, and I am pretty sure I'm not confusing the elements.

Ant.

 

[cloudimani]

That only means he's not the only moron around.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Here's an article about an American author who wanted to write a humorous book about Bush's use (or lack thereof) of language, but in the course of writing it he thinks far from being a moron, based on his speech patterns, Bush is in fact an angry, violent Sociopath!!

Bush anything but moronic, according to author
Dark overtones in his malapropisms President

When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, about the ever-growing catalogue of President George W. Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh. But what he came to realize wasn't entirely amusing.

Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all ? on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien agree.

But according to Miller, he's no friend.

"I did initially intend it to be a funny book. But that was before I had a chance to read through all the transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture and communication at New York University, said recently in Toronto.

"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."

Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide personality disorder, almost makes one long for the less menacing notion currently making the rounds: that the White House's current occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot.

If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In studying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a pattern emerging.

"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge.

"When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine," Miller said.

"It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."

While Miller's book has been praised for its "eloquence" and "playful use of language," it has enraged Bush supporters.

Bush's ascent in the eyes of many Americans ? his approval rating hovers at near 80 percent ? was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his language of retribution was clear.

It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before the Supreme Court in 2001 had to intervene and rule on recounts in Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate man in a position of power not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one term in office.

But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell "potato" is a dangerous assumption, Miller says.

At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush was scripted to offer an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What came out was the following:

"Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool me ? can't get fooled again!"

Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe.

"There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said.

"What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."

If what Miller says is true ? and it would take more than just observations to prove it ? then Bush has achieved an astounding goal.

By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as "just folks" ? a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.

This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful families as a regular, imperfect Joe.

But the depiction, Miller says, is also remarkable for what it hides ? imperfect, yes, but also detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the "folks" he's been designed to appeal to.

An example, Miller says, surfaced early in his presidential tenure.

"I know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as saying.

"That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, `Put food on your family's table' ? it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says.

So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or observes on some point that "it's not the way that America is all about," Miller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean nothing to him.

"When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," he said.

This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says ? not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels.

"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper."

Miller, without question, is a man with a mission ? and laughter isn't it.

"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."

 

[diamond]

 

[Anthony]

Interesting enough points. He's either as stupid or he looks or more sinister than he looks.

Great, this bodes well for the future.

Ant.

 

[diamond]

yep.
sure.
prolly next anti-christ..if u ask the correct political wonk

children..

DB9

 

[Zoomerang96]

want another reason why bush is an idiot? fine, ok, its not just bush, its the entire american government and the governments they control like puppets ie canada, the uk, etc.

who the HELL is terrorizing who? they keep bombing iraq, throw sanctions on them and for what? theyve been doing this since 91!

inspectors are searching the country and have found nothing thus far. meanwhile, as theyre doing their job (with the iraqi's being cooperative), "coalition" planes bomb air defence systems and kill at least three people. go to cnn.com if you want the full story.

this has been going on and on, and its brutal. who gave the americans the right to do this?! its not their country! they want absolute control and it sickens me.

as a canadian, all weve been hearing from the americans lately is "spend twice as much on your defence" and that were "soviet kanuckistan." thanks, if you werent so busy TERRORIZING other countries, maybe youd take some look at some of your own DOMESTIC issues. how handy is a war to divert the attention of the public when your healthcare is practically privatized, and your economy sucks balls.

the general american public is nice, but have their eyes hidden behind the red white and blue banner that is american politics.

this latest bit really pissed me off. i am so sick of the americans bitching to us "friends" on what to do.

and we call bush a moron and people are upset. big deal. we do that to chretien all the time, and even throw pies in his face and brake into his hotel room.

not an attack on the americans, but the american system which does NOT speak for the people of the states.

 

[Zoomerang96]

you know, i believe most of this so called "american ignorance" stems from what bono said earlier in response to the terror attacks. he said something to the effect that the states will no longer think of themselves as an isolated island."

i go to the states often, as i only live 5 miles from the border, and i need not go further than 2 hours south and people dont even know where manitoba is. theyve never been there.

people believe we live in igloos. i go to a u2 concert in minneapolis in may, and when people ask me where im from they respond and say "wow, you must feel really warm here."



uh, no. do you know where manitoba is?

how many of you posters can even find afghanistan, iraq, north korea, iran, yemen or new brunswick on the map?

yes, i am angry. sue me.

 

[Hi Bias]

Zoomerang,

I have posted before that Iraq is only about oil. Here is a long editorial making that argument plus more.

I did not post the link because it requires password login.

Beyond Regime Change
The administration doesn't simply want to oust Saddam Hussein. It wants to redraw the Mideast map.
By Sandy Tolan
Sandy Tolan, an I.F. Stone Fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley, reports frequently on the Middle East. Jason Felch, a student in Tolan's "Politics and Petroleum" class, contribu

December 1 2002

BERKELEY -- If you want to know what the administration has in mind for Iraq, here's a hint: It has less to do with weapons of mass destruction than with implementing an ambitious U.S. vision to redraw the map of the Middle East.

The new map would be drawn with an eye to two main objectives: controlling the flow of oil and ensuring Israel's continued regional military superiority. The plan is, in its way, as ambitious as the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between the empires of Britain and France, which carved up the region at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The neo-imperial vision, which can be ascertained from the writings of key administration figures and their co-visionaries in influential conservative think tanks, includes not only regime change in Iraq but control of Iraqi oil, a possible end to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and newly compliant governments in Syria and Iran -- either by force or internal rebellion.

For the first step -- the end of Saddam Hussein -- Sept. 11 provided the rationale. But the seeds of regime change came far earlier. "Removing Saddam from power," according to a 1996 report from an Israeli think tank to then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was "an important Israeli strategic objective." Now this has become official U.S. policy, after several of the report's authors took up key strategic and advisory roles within the Bush administration. They include Richard Perle, now chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, special assistant in the State Department. In 1998, these men, joined by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (now the top two officials in the Pentagon), Elliott Abrams (a senior National Security Council director), John Bolton (undersecretary of State) and 21 others called for "a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad."

After removing Hussein, U.S. forces are planning for an open-ended occupation of Iraq, according to senior administration officials who spoke to the New York Times. The invasion, said Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya, would be "a historic opportunity that is as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire." Makiya spoke at an October "Post-Saddam Iraq" conference attended by Perle and sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute.

Any occupation would certainly include protecting petroleum installations. Control of the country's vast oil reserves, the second largest in the world and worth nearly $3 trillion at current prices, would be a huge strategic prize. Some analysts believe that additional production in Iraq could drive world prices down to as low as $10 a barrel and precipitate Iraq's departure from OPEC, possibly undermining the cartel. This, together with Russia's new willingness to become a major U.S. oil supplier, could establish a long-sought counterweight to Saudi Arabia, still the biggest influence by far on global oil prices. It would be consistent with the plan released by Vice President Dick Cheney's team in June, which underscored "energy security" as central to U.S. foreign policy. "The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy," the report states.

Some analysts prefer to downplay the drive to control Iraqi oil. "It is fashionable among anti-American circles ... to assume that U.S. foreign policy is driven by commercial considerations," said Patrick Clawson, an oil and policy analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in an October talk. Rather, Clawson said, oil "has barely been on the administration's horizon in considering Iraq policy.... U.S. foreign policy is not driven by concern for promoting the interests of specific U.S. firms."

Yet Clawson, whose institute enjoys close ties with the Bush administration, was more candid during a Capitol Hill forum on a post-Hussein Iraq in 1999: "U.S. oil companies would have an opportunity to make significant profits," he said. "We should not be embarrassed about the commercial advantages that would come from a re-integration of Iraq into the world economy. Iraq, post-Saddam, is highly likely to be interested in inviting international oil companies to invest in Iraq. This would be very useful for U.S. oil companies, which are well positioned to compete there, and very useful for the world's energy-security situation."

Indeed, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, whose close ties with Perle, Wurmser, Rumsfeld and Cheney predate the current Bush administration, met recently with U.S. oil executives. Afterward, Chalabi, the would-be "Iraqi Karzai" and the hawks' long-standing choice to lead a post-Hussein Iraq, made it clear he would give preference to an American-led oil consortium. He also suggested that previous deals -- totaling tens of billions of dollars for Russia's Lukoil and France's TotalFinaElf -- could be voided.

Next month, key Iraqi exiles will meet with oil executives at an English country retreat to discuss the future of Iraqi petroleum. The conference, sponsored by the Center for Global Energy Studies and chaired by Sheik Zaki Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister, will feature Maj. Gen. Wafiq Samarrai, the former head of Iraqi military intelligence, and former Iraqi Oil Minister Fadhil Chalabi, now executive director of the center.

Fadhil Chalabi estimates that total oil reserves in Iraq could exceed Saudi Arabia's and that daily production one day could reach 10 million barrels, making it the world's largest producer. Hence, on the center's conference agenda is a discussion of Iraq as a "second Saudi Arabia," and the prospect of a world without OPEC. Oil executives and analysts heading to the country retreat will also be able to purchase the center's 800-page analysis of the prospects for exploration in Iraq. The cost: $52,500.

But taking over Iraq and remaking the global oil market is not necessarily the endgame. The next steps, favored by hard-liners determined to elevate Israeli security above all other U.S. foreign policy goals, would be to destroy any remaining perceived threat to the Jewish state: namely, the regimes in Syria and Iran.

"The War Won't End in Baghdad," wrote the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal. In 1985, as a consultant to the National Security Council and Oliver North, Ledeen helped broker the illegal arms-for-hostages deal with Iran by setting up meetings between weapons dealers and Israel. In the current war, he argues, "we must also topple terror states in Tehran and Damascus."

In urging the expansion of the war on terror to Syria and Iran, Ledeen does not mention Israel. Yet Israel is a crucial strategic reason for the hard-line vision to "roll back" Syria and Iran -- and another reason why control of Iraq is seen as crucial. In 1998, Wurmser, now in the State Department, told the Jewish newspaper Forward that if Ahmad Chalabi were in power and extended a no-fly, no-drive zone in northern Iraq, it would provide the crucial piece for an anti-Syria, anti-Iran bloc. "It puts Scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel," he said. "This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition."

Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli groups was "at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein." And Perle, Wurmser and Feith (now in the Pentagon), in their 1996 Israeli think tank report to Netanyahu, argued for abandoning efforts for a comprehensive peace in favor of a policy of "rolling back" Syria to protect Israel's interests.

Now, however, Israel is given a lower profile by those who would argue for rollback. Rather, writes Ledeen, U.S. troops would be put at risk in order to "liberate all the peoples of the Middle East." And this, he argues, would be virtually pain-free: "If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support."

Perle concurs on Iraq -- "The Arab World ... will consider honor and dignity has been restored" -- as well as Iran: "It is the beginning of the end for the Iranian regime."

Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran "the day after" the Iraq war ends.

The vast ambition of such changes to the Middle Eastern map would seem an inherent deterrent. But it is precisely this historical sweep, reminiscent of Sykes-Picot and the British arrival in Iraq in 1917, that many close to the administration seek. Publicly, Perle and Ledeen cling to the fantasy that American troops would be welcomed in Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus with garlands of flowers. Yet they are too smart to ignore the rage across the Arab and Muslim worlds that would surely erupt in the wake of war on multiple Middle Eastern fronts.

Indeed, the foreshadowing is already with us: in Bali, in Moscow, in Yemen and on the streets of Amman. It's clear that even in Jordan, a close ally of the U.S., the anger at a U.S. attack on Iraq could be hard to contain.

Indeed, the hard-liners in and around the administration seem to know in their hearts that the battle to carve up the Middle East would not be won without the blood of Americans and their allies. "One can only hope that we turn the region into a caldron, and faster, please," Ledeen preached to the choir at National Review Online last August. "That's our mission in the war against terror."

 

[Zoomerang96]

thats a really interesting article, thanks for posting that.

 

[bonoman]

I agree with Zoo, when i turn the tv onto a political program ie crossfire, meet the press all i see is people at eachothers throats. How can anything get done if neither side is willing to give an inch? We will never all be able to agree but we must compremise to go forward in life. Bush was elected president by a very small amount, lets say for arguements sake 52-48, does he not owe it to the other say 48% to hear from their reps and take what they want into conserderation. Yes it is a democracy and yes you should be looking out for your voters but you must look out for everyone.

It seems to me that alot of the worlds political arenas, not only the US, have become a place of fighting and in-fighting and just seems to piss people off. Why is it so hard to sit down and come to an agreement anymore? Our politicians should be looking out for everyone, not only the voters that voted for them.

 

[Zoomerang96]

nicely put bonoman.

 

[STING2]

Zoomerang96,

For your information, sanctions were put on Iraq in 1990 because of their invasion of Kuwait. Those sanctions have not been lifted because of Iraq's failure to comply with 16 United Nations resolutions passed under chapter 7 rules.

The United Nations established no fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq to prevent Iraqi aircraft from being used to kill and obtain information on Shia's and Kurds living in those area's. Iraq fires on United Nations aircraft flying on UN approved missions. The pilots of those aircraft respond in self defense and fire missiles or drop bombs on the anti-aircraft missile sites that engaged them.

This is not about absolute control. Its not about who's country it is. Its about Iraq's continued violations of the international laws and aggreements it agreed to abide by after their unlawful invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. Absolute control? This USA wants to see an Iraq liberated of Saddam.

The United States is not "terrorizing" anyone. Rather around 16% of a annual budget goes to national defense primarily to defend area's outside of US borders and important to the global economy and dozens of countries.

I'd like to see what the Canadian Economy would look like without US consumers buying your stuff. Canada needs the US economy like a child needs its parents. Most of Canada's exports go to the largest economy in the world, the USA. Most countries in the world envy Canada's close proximity to an Economy that generates 10 trillion dollars in goods and services every year.

The Canadians should be spending double of what they do on defense and contribute more to certain international efforts. They will have to double that defense budget before effectively doing so though. The USA picks up Canada's slack in international security issues and of course provides Canada free trade with the largest and richest consumer market in the world.

 

[bonoman]

Sting, my friend, my neighbour, my ally i think you are right in so many ways but for your comments you must go and do a little research.

Has Canada ever been attacked, militarly or terrorist?

No, so why the need to bulk up our military? Againist what? The person that someday come and bomb us. Well for what i see, i dont see it happening. Canada is seen as a peaceful country that accepts all races and lets them come here and then bring there whole family!

Your comment on our economy, well in two words, you're wrong!

Oil, you's love it and we got it and you want it and we sell it to you. Maybe we should go find someone else to sell it too. I'm postive you wouldnt be happy about that, especially when your gas and heating bills go up drasstically. Canada ships 1.8 million barrels a day to the USA. I wouldnt think you'd like to go to Iraq for that. The US is the most powerful nation, the richest and the best, blah blah blah. But the one thing they have nearly zero control over is oil. And you's hate it. The one thing that other countries have you by the balls( and they love to squezze). Up hear in Alberta, oil capital of Canada, we say we are just your gas station and when we go out of business you will be pushing your cars as we drive by in SUV's.

You underestimate Canada, ya we love hockey and live in igloos and drive snowmoblies to work but we came out of this recsession better off and quicker then you's.

But you are right you are the richest and we love you for it becasue you'll pay good money. My dad makes 200,000 a year because you love our oil. So i guess i have to say thanks for paying for my education!!

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Canada needs the US economy like a child needs its parents.

Patronizing statements like this, and another comment someone made about all of the countries of the world being like a bunch of kids needing to get bailed out by their daddy, the USA, is one of the reasons why we get so annoyed with the States and its superiority complex! If the States wants Canada to "pull its weight" and be an ally, they should 1) learn more about us 2) care that we exist and 3) give us some more respect!!!!

I'm not yelling at you, STING2 per se, and I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, but I just get so tired of this......here's an article about this very topic to illustrate my point.

Even before the `moron' flap, Canada was petty in U.S. eyes
Bush White House regards neighbour as minor irritant President's relationship with Chr?tien extremely poor


WILLIAM WALKER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON?Lost in the fiery cross-border debate over a former Prime Minister's Office staffer calling President George W. Bush a "moron" is the sobering reality of current Canada-U.S. relations.

As bad as the "moron" comment was, the underlying truth is much more troubling for Canada as one half of the world's two largest trading partners.

Canada is viewed inside the Bush White House as a minor irritation; a nation with little credibility on major issues such as the war on terrorism that nonetheless still "cries out" occasionally like a child angered with its parents.

Canadians are a bunch of "weenies," said CNN Crossfire host Robert Novak, summarizing the conservative view.

"We may be able to trust the Saudis, but can we trust our shifty neighbours to the north?" Novak asked this week.

Canada is "a whining kid who's got to start acting like a man," wrote conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg in a cover story he penned for National Review magazine.

Novak and Goldberg are plugged in to Republican senior officials. Their views echo the unspoken words Bush's White House officials are too well trained to utter in public.

In Bush's view, Canada doesn't contribute enough militarily to warrant being a major player. It can be part of the team for symbolic reasons, but when it wants to have a say on the play calling, the coach ? Bush ? smirks and sends it off to the sidelines.

When Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien called Bush a "cowboy" several months ago in a closed-door Liberal caucus meeting ? as revealed by the Star's Tim Harper ? this newspaper's story was circulated around the White House via e-mail.

One White House staffer reacted with mild amusement tinged with boredom.

"Look, as far as this White House is concerned," he told the Star at the time, "the U.S.-Canada relationship is defined by Canada. If they want to trade with us, fine. If they want to co-operate on bilateral security issues, fine. If they want to bitch and complain, fine. We're doing our thing."

In Washington, the Bush White House views Canada ? as have other administrations for decades ? with benign neglect.

Bush, the first MBA president, has no time or inclination to get involved in personal disputes. Aides say he finds Canadian complaints, including the one about a lack of recognition from him after the Sept. 11 attacks, a waste of time.

His relationship with Chr?tien, whom White House aides have nicknamed "Dino," is extremely poor. Chr?tien is the only leader of a major U.S. ally who hasn't been invited to stay at the White House, at Blair House (the Washington residence reserved for foreign heads of state) or the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Even Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has stayed at Crawford. But the chances of Chr?tien ever seeing Bush's sprawling ranch, except as a tourist, are bleak.

Presidential-prime ministerial relations between Canada and the U.S. have historically been a mixed bag.

President Richard Nixon once referred to Pierre Trudeau as "that a--hole." But Brian Mulroney had infamously close ? some say too close ? relationships with Ronald Reagan and Bush's father. Chr?tien and Democratic president Bill Clinton got along well, even though their personalities could not have been more different.

Those relationships have little to do with Canada-U.S. policy and how it affects Canadian citizens. The U.S. has proven in the past it will deal with Canada on substance if Ottawa is engaged.

The problem now is that Canada ? despite the crucial importance of its economic relationship with America ? has not enhanced its status in Washington, but diminished it.

Bush is far more engaged with Britain, and its Prime Minister Tony Blair, than with Canada. Bush's focus on Mexico has diminished, but still exceeds his interest in America's northern neighbour.

When it comes to border controls, North American perimeter security, the war on terrorism, or other issues, Bush would rather hear substantive Canadian contributions than gripes about perceived slights, such as the PMO's assertion that Bush was "hijacking" the NATO summit in Prague to promote his Iraq strategy.

Clearly, what Bush would prefer is irrelevant to Canada.

Still, the White House is said to be waiting patiently to deal with Paul Martin as prime minister, a man Bush knows and someone who has close ties to U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill from their dealings with the G-20 group of international finance ministers.

In the meantime, Chr?tien's spokesperson Francie Ducros has resigned over her "moron" comment. That should not end the debate over Canada-U.S. relations. Unless Canada steps up to the plate, it risks being steamrolled under a new North American and world order that this Bush administration intends to establish.

 

[STING2]

Bonoman,

Or perhaps it is you that needs to do more research. I'm happy to do more research, it only helps. Still the points I made are true.

First, a country does not have to be hit on its physical territory to actually be attacked. Second, Canada is a member of NATO. 9/11 was an attack on the USA a fellow NATO member with Canada. Any attack on any of the now 26 members of NATO is an attack on them all. In addition, because of the interdependent world we live in, attacks on major trading partners of Canada and anything that would effect the Global price of oil is an attack on Canada because their effects can often be greater than a literal physical attack within Canadian borders. But remember, even if you were just thinking about the physical security of Canada, Canada has 25 other countries physical security to think about because its a member of NATO.

I'm wrong about the Canadian Economy eh? Who buys most of the oil that Canada sells? It is the USA I believe. Fact is though, we could replace Canada with Russia in a heartbeat. Canada will not be able to find customer as large and as rich as the USA because none exist. So if you want to think in terms of who has who buy the balls, its the USA that has Canada and many other countries by the balls because of the massive size of our economy.

But something the USA and Canada want our low oil prices. The only way to do that is to insure that consumers everywhere have full access to the worlds supply of oil. Its not really about where you get your oil from, but what the world market price of oil will be. If supply is cut off in the middle east by a dictator or some other event, then the Global price of oil will rise, because as supply decreases, the demand for the remaining supply goes up.

Its in Canada's interest to keep the price of oil from rising because Canada like all western economies rely's on oil for their energy. If you over pay for energy, it will have a major negative impact on the Canadian economy. Canada may be able to produce much of its own oil, but without foreign oil in the Canadian market, the price would go up and hurt the economy.

Its in Canada's interest to have a strong military to support international law and internatinal stability in the middle east so that global oil prices and there by the price of oil in Canada does not go up for an extended period.

The USA has a lot of control over oil and can if need be, produce most of its own(Alaska). The concern for the USA , Canada, and the whole world for that matter, is the Global price of oil. Is far better to let there be a free flow of oil and competition because it drives the price down for the engine of all economies, consumers.

I've not underestimated Canada, just laid the facts on the table. Oh and about who has recovered better from the economic recession, check these facts out from The Economist!

Current Unemployment rate in Canada: 7.6%

Current Unemployment rate in the USA: 5.7%

Average economic growth rate in Canada this year: 3.2%

Average economic growth rate in the USA this year: 3.2%

 

[diamond]

Patronizing statements like this, and another comment someone made about all of the countries of the world being like a bunch of kids needing to get bailed out by their daddy, the USA, is one of the reasons why we get so annoyed with the States and its superiority complex! If the States wants Canada to "pull its weight" and be an ally, they should 1) learn more about us 2) care that we exist and 3) give us some more respect!!!!

I'm not yelling at you, STING2 per se, and I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, but I just get so tired of this......here's an article about this very topic to illustrate my point.


WILLIAM WALKER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

still "cries out" occasionally like a child angered with its parents.

Canadians are a bunch of "weenies," said CNN Crossfire host Robert Novak, summarizing the conservative view.



Canada is "a whining kid who's got to start acting like a man," .

In Bush's view, Canada doesn't contribute enough militarily to warrant being a major player. It can be part of the team for symbolic reasons, but when it wants to have a say on the play calling, the coach ? Bush ? smirks and sends it off to the sidelines.

.

One White House staffer reacted with mild amusement tinged with boredom.

"Look, as far as this White House is concerned," he told the Star at the time, "the U.S.-Canada relationship is defined by Canada. If they want to trade with us, fine. If they want to co-operate on bilateral security issues, fine. If they want to bitch and complain, fine. We're doing our thing."

In Washington, the Bush White House views Canada ? as have other administrations for decades ? with benign neglect.

including the one about a lack of recognition from him after the Sept. 11 attacks, a waste of time.

His relationship with Chr?tien, whom White House aides have nicknamed "Dino," is extremely poor. Chr?tien is the only leader of a major U.S. ally who hasn't been invited to stay at the White House, at Blair House (the Washington residence reserved for foreign heads of state) or the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas.

.

Presidential-prime ministerial relations between Canada and the U.S. have historically been a mixed bag.


Those relationships have little to do with Canada-U.S. policy and how it affects Canadian citizens. The U.S. has proven in the past it will deal with Canada on substance if Ottawa is engaged.

The problem now is that Canada ? despite the crucial importance of its economic relationship with America ? has not enhanced its status in Washington, but diminished it.

Bush is far more engaged with Britain, and its Prime Minister Tony Blair, than with Canada. Bush's focus on Mexico has diminished, but still exceeds his interest in America's northern neighbour.

Bush would rather hear substantive Canadian contributions than gripes about perceived slights, such as the PMO's assertion that Bush was "hijacking" the NATO summit in Prague to promote his Iraq strategy.

Clearly, what Bush would prefer is irrelevant to Canada.

Still, the White House is said to be waiting patiently to deal with Paul Martin as prime minister, a man Bush knows and someone who has close ties to U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill from their dealings with the G-20 group of international finance ministers.

In the meantime, Chr?tien's spokesperson Francie Ducros has resigned over her "moron" comment. That should not end the debate over Canada-U.S. relations. Unless Canada steps up to the plate, it risks being steamrolled under a new North American and world order that this Bush administration intends to establish.

Canada needs to grow up, and follow Britan's example.

Britan owns them anyway....

thank u-

DB9