Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Say What?!: Dyslexic Bush's Speech fails to pass test at Army War College
TeamBush is scared. You can tell by the need they saw to hype Bush's policy offensive on the Iraq War, which began two nights ago with a speech at the Army War College in nearby Carlisle, PA. In the past, the well-oiled TeamBush machine made every effort to dampen expectations about his public pronouncements mainly because they knew he had some English language problems, about which more will shortly follow.
I'd say it's fair to admit that this 'major policy speech' went down like the proverbial lead balloon. The once-solid right is starting to attack itself with increasing frequency, bitterness and divisiveness. As this article from the SF Chronicle indicates, most still favor the idea of the war, but they are very divided over what to do now that our nation is sitting in a mess of its own creation.
The local Inquirer is in line with most of America in thinking that TeamBush is just floundering. Today's editorial states:
"If you missed it, his speech can be boiled down to nine words: Bush does not know what to do in Iraq.
Oh, he surely knows what he'd like to have happen. But not how to do it.
The President's address at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., was brimming with stirring prose about worthy concepts. Bush has strong speechwriters, even if he can't pronounce all the words they've written, including Abu Ghraib."
Note the jab there at the end. I mean, sure I likely couldn't have pronounced Abu Ghraib correctly either two months ago, but this is a story, and a name, that's been plastered on every media outlet in the world for almost a month, and Bush couldn't get it down for his 'major policy speech.' What gives?
My astute wife has maintained since the 2000 election season that Bush has a learning/reading problem. One that has gone untreated his whole life, and it affects the leadership of our country.
Before the emails start pouring in from parents of ADHD, or ADD, or dyslexic folks across the nation, let me say that I do not believe that these conditions per se disqualify someone from high office or fiscal/material/political success. The critical part of it for Bush is that he's never acknowledged or dealt with his issue. Being born with that silver spoon well in hand he simply didn't need to if he didn't want to--and it looks like he didn't.
This theory also has real explanatory power.
As the folks at MSNBC have noted, Bush and his compatriots have a fondness for the great leaders of World War II. Bush fancies himself cut from the same cloth as Winston Churchill. However, there are a few discrepancies:
"Bush eschews complexity; FDR and Churchill embraced it. Bush prefers to decide, not go into details or revisit issues; FDR and Churchill were constantly examining their own assumptions and immersing themselves in postwar planning. Bush is largely incurious about the world; FDR and Churchill wanted to know everything."
The dyslexia tie-in is this: my layman's perspective maintains that lower reading comprehension is reflected in lower analytical and abstract reasoning. Reading not only imparts knowledge but, when accompanied by rigorous analysis, stretches the mind. Reading is a grey matter workout. FDR and Churchill, while not 'A students', were voracious readers and the learning they got from what they read informed their thoughts and both challenged and enhanced their decision-making abilities. They had a nuanced, big-picture view of the gravity of the impact their choices would have on the entire world. Bush, by contrast, "likes his decisions quick and clean. "Let me tell you, in life you've just got to do what you think is right," he told foreign journalists in the Oval Office in the fall of 2001. "That's what a leader does. Leaders take a position not because of some poll or focus group; they should take a position on what they think is right and suffer the consequences. That's what a good leader does."
Judged against the Roosevelt-Churchill standard, this definition is only half the story. Taking a stand is not all a good leader does. FDR could be too tied to polls—Churchill once said as much—but their joint leadership was a complex cocktail of certitude and second-guessing, grand decision making and gritty detail."
TeamBush is scared. You can tell by the need they saw to hype Bush's policy offensive on the Iraq War, which began two nights ago with a speech at the Army War College in nearby Carlisle, PA. In the past, the well-oiled TeamBush machine made every effort to dampen expectations about his public pronouncements mainly because they knew he had some English language problems, about which more will shortly follow.
I'd say it's fair to admit that this 'major policy speech' went down like the proverbial lead balloon. The once-solid right is starting to attack itself with increasing frequency, bitterness and divisiveness. As this article from the SF Chronicle indicates, most still favor the idea of the war, but they are very divided over what to do now that our nation is sitting in a mess of its own creation.
The local Inquirer is in line with most of America in thinking that TeamBush is just floundering. Today's editorial states:
"If you missed it, his speech can be boiled down to nine words: Bush does not know what to do in Iraq.
Oh, he surely knows what he'd like to have happen. But not how to do it.
The President's address at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., was brimming with stirring prose about worthy concepts. Bush has strong speechwriters, even if he can't pronounce all the words they've written, including Abu Ghraib."
Note the jab there at the end. I mean, sure I likely couldn't have pronounced Abu Ghraib correctly either two months ago, but this is a story, and a name, that's been plastered on every media outlet in the world for almost a month, and Bush couldn't get it down for his 'major policy speech.' What gives?
My astute wife has maintained since the 2000 election season that Bush has a learning/reading problem. One that has gone untreated his whole life, and it affects the leadership of our country.
Before the emails start pouring in from parents of ADHD, or ADD, or dyslexic folks across the nation, let me say that I do not believe that these conditions per se disqualify someone from high office or fiscal/material/political success. The critical part of it for Bush is that he's never acknowledged or dealt with his issue. Being born with that silver spoon well in hand he simply didn't need to if he didn't want to--and it looks like he didn't.
This theory also has real explanatory power.
As the folks at MSNBC have noted, Bush and his compatriots have a fondness for the great leaders of World War II. Bush fancies himself cut from the same cloth as Winston Churchill. However, there are a few discrepancies:
"Bush eschews complexity; FDR and Churchill embraced it. Bush prefers to decide, not go into details or revisit issues; FDR and Churchill were constantly examining their own assumptions and immersing themselves in postwar planning. Bush is largely incurious about the world; FDR and Churchill wanted to know everything."
The dyslexia tie-in is this: my layman's perspective maintains that lower reading comprehension is reflected in lower analytical and abstract reasoning. Reading not only imparts knowledge but, when accompanied by rigorous analysis, stretches the mind. Reading is a grey matter workout. FDR and Churchill, while not 'A students', were voracious readers and the learning they got from what they read informed their thoughts and both challenged and enhanced their decision-making abilities. They had a nuanced, big-picture view of the gravity of the impact their choices would have on the entire world. Bush, by contrast, "likes his decisions quick and clean. "Let me tell you, in life you've just got to do what you think is right," he told foreign journalists in the Oval Office in the fall of 2001. "That's what a leader does. Leaders take a position not because of some poll or focus group; they should take a position on what they think is right and suffer the consequences. That's what a good leader does."
Judged against the Roosevelt-Churchill standard, this definition is only half the story. Taking a stand is not all a good leader does. FDR could be too tied to polls—Churchill once said as much—but their joint leadership was a complex cocktail of certitude and second-guessing, grand decision making and gritty detail."
Comments:
Post a Comment
