The Policy Blender

In fairness the argument that he is president is by no means proof that he is or isn't stupid.

A clever man might find it easier to become president but a stupid man might find it easier to be made president.

Although I'm sure a presidential campaign isn't just about intelligence; its about charisma, charm and adept public speaking. All these qualities Bush has in abundance I'm sure... hmmmm.

He has the first two in abundance, though I think it's a cultural difference that might make the cynical see charm as smarm and charisma as cockiness. He's an excellent public speaker when he's permitted to read from something, or when he has a radio earpiece on, and someone can feed him the answers. He's not stupid, or someone who likes him a lot and gains from him being president is remarkably not-stupid.

Ben, I know you have thoughts about this (and probably about Boris and John too).

"someone who likes him a lot and gains from him being president"

Why do they have to like him? He's the son of an ex-president, fairly wealthy in his own right and stupid (or not). Seem like the perfect candidate to back if you were a puppet master (or group thereof).

Either way, I don't like the man, what he stands for or how he stands for it. So, intelligent, charismatic and charming or not I still think that he is a ...... politician! I don't think I can be more insulting than that, it simply isn't possible. Perhaps there are good, honest, hard working, sensible, intelligent politicians out there but he isn't one. Largely I'm of the belief that anyone who wants power is not the best to have such powerer. Who was it that said "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end...liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition...The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to to govern. Every class is unfit to govern...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Lord Acton (1834-1902)

I have little to add to this debate that would not cover ground well trodden many times before. Whilst it's entertaining to poke fun, it's tiring that discussion over the relative merits of America's president seems to have the intellectual vigour of graffiti: "he's an idiot/chimp/bushitler etc"

For what it's worth, I think that Prescott and Boris are tremendous assets for their particular political factions, both capture the nub of an issue in their own inimitable style, both are clearly far brighter than their public profiles, and perhaps their own deliberate stylisations would have us believe. Both are graffitied, both are loathed in equal measure by those of opposite political viewpoints and those of similar viewpoints who lack the perception to see behind the bluster and media characterisation. In short, two excellent examples to draw a parallel to President Bush.

No, this wasn't meant as a throwaway remark about him looking like a monkey. He does, but I don't expect him to suddenly stop looking like a monkey.

The point is, the Conservative Party haven't put Boris in a position where his outspokenness will do any damage. Prescott is in this position, and I'm sure words were had about his election date remark (before the official announcement) and his punching some guy who egged him (which I fully support in general, but would consider a bad move for Prescott at the time, and also for the President should the occasion arise). He'd make a thoroughly excellent backbencher, and probably a pretty nasty Prime Minister.

The point is that the situation with Islam and the West is a delicate one, and this remark can only serve to widen the gap between Islam in the West and everyone else in the West. I don't support Mr Bush, but I'm resigned to the fact he's there, and it is probably to the benefit of America that he is. But if they're going to insist on him answering open questions to the press, let's have him properly briefed beforehand, and not just saying whatever he thinks, hurriedly, so he can get off to lunch.

Perhaps it doesn't help. But others positively hinder.

"Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad.

"The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will.

"The daughters are crying for help and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters."

Then there's the hate-mongers that explicitly call for the death of non-Muslims such as Theo van Gogh. France expelled 12 of them the other day. It's time for other countries to follow suit. The French may not play ball internationally, but when it comes to France's national interests they don't mess about.

Instead of saying that perhaps Bush's comments could perhaps be considered to be divisive, how about pointing the finger at those that are so divisive they want to kill anyone that doesn't share their own extremist medieval-style outlook on religion, society and, yes, her under the burkha.

Do two wrongs suddenly make one of them right?

I don't think that by criticising Bush I'm condoning George Galloway's outspokenness. If he was in any position above where he was, he wouldn't be for long. And I've certainly not gone as far as to say that Bush's remarks legitimise any of the terrorist actions we've seen over the last month or so, or even the last 4 years.

To paraphrase you, I don't want to point the finger at the extremists 'that would not cover ground well trodden many times before.' I applaud George Bush for his resounding condemnation of the extremists, but not for his lack of consideration - having said that, invading a country could be viewed as inconsiderate too, so perhaps I am missing the issue.

:-)

I am well versed in rhetorical questions, since I am engaged to be married, but I will answer your question anyway - no, two wrongs don't make one of them right: they are, by definition, both wrong.

But given that I think you'd be the first to argue that we don't live in a world of black and white, it's all different shades of grey etc, I assume that you would not disagree with the statement that explicit incitement to murder is more divisive than noting that those inciting said murders are brutes to their women.

Actually, if they are, I think it's worth noting, and it's positive. My issue was that thay're no more brutish to their women than many if not most other Muslims, and most Muslims don't feel they're being brutish to their women, and in turn, casual remarks like that are going to group moderate muslims with the extremists. And I think it's important that one side stops being divisive. If we want the Muslim community to stand with us against the extremists, we have to be on their side as much as they have to be on ours. The extremists aren't going to turn round and say 'we're sorry' but the rest of the Muslim community could go either way. This is, and the last four years have been, the time for western civilisation to work to accept Islam in its less extreme forms, so we can all stand firm against terrorism, despite or even in celebration of our differences.

Sorry, got a bit churchillian there. What I mean is the extremists are always going to be worse, almost by definition. That's all the more reason we should be striving to be better.

That first sentence was crap. What I mean is that if they are particularly brutish, then Bush's comments were a good thing.

I'm not particularly bothered about what people wear, and frankly I think neither is Mr Bush. Leave it to Cherie Blair to tug at the heart-strings of the Islingtonites that needed to be persuaded about Afghanistan with tales of tears under Burkhas.

The problem is the culture of violence against and suppression of women that extremist interpretations of the Koran seem to require. Again, Muslims that are assimilated into western society are able to reconcile these differences and in general have a liberated and humane attitude towards women.

Those extremists that hold contempt for western society do not share the view that women should be treated as equals. They see the west as decadent for allowing women equal status and seek to destroy it in the name of Allah. I would venture that these are not the people that we want on our side, and the people that we do want are the ones that are already respectful of women.

It's pretty rough to assume that all Muslims are wife beaters. It's rougher still to assume that we have to put up with the wife-beating in order to get them to stop blowing us up. I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but you surely didn't assume that Bush was merely referring to the Burkha? Or that Theo van Gogh was murdered because he complained about the way Muslim women dress?

Well, it was my concern that it was a popular misconception that women are oppressed in Islam as a matter of doctrine. And I felt Mr Bush's remarks might serve to encourage this - a bit like if he'd said of an Irish terror group "They can't be trusted, they drink too much, and they are killing our citizens" - I would consider the middle clause to be entirely redundant and just insulting to those members of the Irish community who weren't killing people. There are probably extremist interpretations of Catholicism that require drinking to excess...