No joke. If all he had was an associates degree from College of DuPage he wouldn't be President. Can you really disagree with that?
Bush's SATs were in the high 1200s. Not Ron Unz territory, but far from stupid. It qualifies him for Mensa, I believe. And that was on the old test, kids. Probably higher than a couple of people that are here calling him stupid. And higher than the scores of Boy Genius Al Gore.
And if we're going to talk about sons of prominent families with shaky Harvard grades who became president, we can talk about Franklin Roosevelt. He did OK.
You guys are missing the point here. He uses these words to stump the Iraqi code breakers. Crawfishing is the secret code for the troops to get ready to move in...crawfish is like defcom 3 or whatever. Some prople need to watch more Jon Stewart. It is all in the war of words!
You sure about that? I don't have the source in front of me...but I remember it as 1) Gore had a higher SAT score than Bush, and 2) Bush was in the high 1100's. I could be wrong....not that either score has anything to do with my earlier comments.
In 1999 the NewYorker obtained a copy of the future president's transcripts and revealed that he scored 1206 on his Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)--566 on the verbal and 640 on the math. Bush had higher grades than Gore throughout college. Not to mention that Bush actually received a Masters and didn't flunk out of seminary school or law school like good ol' Gore. Getting back on topic. It is kind of funny watching people bash him for making up words then finding out they were the ones who were the jackasses. In some warped way it's poetic justice. Now if Georgie could only prove that Saddam was crawfishing his way out of a sticky situation then I might buy his invasion desires.
I know that Gore isn't the sharpest tack in the box because I read his book. But this isn't about him. I would love, love to read some of the college papers Bush the Younger wrote for his classes. Heck, I would like to see W write something now. This is really the best way to tell how smart someone is.
Bush was the public face for some sort of "secret cabal of investors," which the Dallas media spent years trying to uncover. His investment represented about 2% of the purchase price. Obviously, he wasn't the one calling the shots. But if he was the one calling shots, then he traded Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines. I love no-lose situations.
It is sad really that there are people who had GW so much, that even when he is right, they will oppose him just for the sack that they don't like him. They will lie or distort his credentials and they will harp on him for using a regional dialect. I hated Clinton to the core, but when he did something right (like normalizing relations with Viet Nam), I applauded him for it. Some of y'all desparately need a life.
According to the New Yorker, W got a 1206 (how do you get a 6 at the end?) and Gore got a 1355. BTW - Bill Bradley got a lower SAT than either, with a less than 500 verbal. Maybe it isn't the best way to tell how smart someone is. > It is sad really that there are people who had GW > so much, that even when he is right, they will > oppose him just for the sack that they don't like > him. Call me when he does something right. > They will lie or distort his credentials and they > will harp on him for using a regional dialect. His so-called regional dialect is not known to the Texans and other southerners here, yet strangly shows up in the Oxford English Dictionary. Oh, yeah, he's a Texan alright. I loved seeing him ride a horse with Putin... oh, that's right. Bush didn't know how! Hahahahahaha.
The only thing I found out was that "crawfish" is a real verb. But really- can you blame me: http://www.columbiacentral.com/dubya/
Remember that Bradley went to Princeton to play basketball. The fact that he parlayed that opportuinity into a Rhodes scholarship AND an NBA championship ring says something for him. Forget the whole "crawfished" thing -- the question I have is what makes anyone think that Iraq is going to attack the US with anything. Saddam is not that stupid, y'all. If Afghanistan proved anything, it's that you cannot even breathe in the direction of the US without taking nukes up your ass. Hussein's primary aggressions have been against Iran (and we supported him then), his own Kurdish people (not the only country to hate them), and the Kuwaitis (which Iraq's got a semi-legit claim to own). After we attacked him, he tried to throw a couple of lame scuds against Israel in an attempt to gather pan-Arab support, but he was desperate to gain any value at that point. His #1 goal is to maintain his own power, and any new aggression against either the US or any US ally is going to end that reign quickly. This "he's got weapons" + "he doesn't like the US" = "he's going to attack any minute" is foolish math. What rich, secure national leader would ever pick a fight with us now? Why isn't Dubya answering this question?
What scares me the most about this is that Israel has stated that it would not sit this one out. I can only imagine what would happen if Israel attacks Iraq with us, we'd be worse off than we are now.
Well, we haven't seen any nukes, not even the hypothetical tactical nuke used, so obie you lost me. Afghanistan is not even close to being secure when the president was almost killed today (as of print) and we had our own special forces guarding him. Maybe that is not their primary job, but in no way should the US claim any victory yet. That aside, you are spot on about Bill Bradley. Also spot on about Saddam. The only thing you might be missing is that what military tactics he would be using to maintain power. Bunker defense anyone? It got KC a few cans o' whoop ass but it also got them a championship. I always thought soccer, chess and war are so similar. not to mention marriage. What kind of proactive/post 9/11 thinking would it really take to understand the legit reason to embark on the first preemptive military strike in our history. Can W make the case? I mean, come on, how many second quessing, Monday morning quarterbacks did we see on cable news programs on September 18, 2001 (I gave them a week)? Even Clinton was with Larry King saying 'I'm sorry' because he didn't get bin Laden. Heck, even US basketball can lose two straight games.
What's more pathetic, really pathetic, is when someone tries to disagree with GW and the only response they get is a whiney complaint of personal attack. Don't worry about other's lives, buddy. Get a brain first...
Not to steal Segroves thunder, but this comes from a guy who supports a country where people don't even have a chance to question their government unless they want twenty tanks taking down their entire village just to send a message. Heck, even China gave their support to Iraq today. But, in the true American spirit, do we really care what "they" have to say?
Yeah, because most of the "disagreements" have nothing to do with "Bush is an idiot / moron / dumbass" etc. -- just honest, sincere disagreement. A few people can actually disagree with Bush's policies/decisions without personal attacks, but you have to sift through all of the petty bullsh!t to find them.
Did Afghanis fly the planes into the WTC? No. Did the Taliban fund the effort? No. The Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda leaders, which, while not exactly a pro-US strategy, was likely more out of need for the money that OBL gave them to stay in power than any agreement in international political philosophy. The Taliban were more than happy oppressing their own people and their own people alone, not attacking the US.
OK, I'll apologize too. Had no idea crawfish was a verb. I've never heard it used as such, even though I've grown up in the south. More importantly, though, I think Bush's use of the English language does injure our message to the world. As we attempt to justify an attack (the first in modern US history btw) the President says Saddam has "crawfished" and "stiffed." International relations are about capabilities and intentions. Capabilities can largely be measured, intentions are much more difficult to understand. The US in trying to justify an attack on Iraq needs to come up with better than muddled, confusing colloqualisms (I've never claimed I could spell). The US needs to clearly lay out the case for the imminent threat of Saddam. Right now no one else in the world (except the UK, maybe) senses the same risk. Even his neighbors, who would be the ones likely to suffer an attack do not support his overthrow. I personally don't see the imminent threat because Saddam can be deterred. He's acted rationally in the past and while he has supported terrorists to a minor degree, they are entirely used to harass the Iraqi opponents of Saddam throughout the world (the ineffective INC for example). I would like to get rid of Saddam, but I think the costs outweigh the benefits. I'm open to the argument that Saddam is a threat that needs to be removed, but I need to see some type of evidence. Bush hasn't provided that and "crawfishing" and "stiffing" just don't seem like pursuasive arguments to undertake the first aggressive war in modern US history
As I recall, it was a blown call by the ref, who failed to whistle a foul, that resulted in KC's championship. As for SAT scores, they are not considered for acceptance into MENSA, just IQ scores. And finally, it doesn't matter because Bush is a sock puppet of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and Rove.
Wait, wait. Spejic and GringoTex just said it wasn't a southern expression. Shouldn't you guys get your stories straight? I thought he used "crawfished" because his "Yankee" writers told him to?