In case there was any doubt about how dumb -- or just arrogant -- he is...

College Confidential Community
1

<p>By TERENCE HUNT Associated Press WriterShare</p>

<p>Apr 2nd, 2008 | NEPTUN, Romania -- Are we done here?</p>

<p>President Bush apparently thought so when he ended a news conference Wednesday with his host, Romanian President Traian Basescu.</p>

<p>"Thank you. Thank you very much," Bush told reporters, a code phrase that means, "That's it, folks."</p>

<p>Typically, as a matter of courtesy and protocol, the host decides when such an event is over. But Bush has been known to ignore that practice.</p>

<p>In Colombia in 2004, he sought to end a session with reporters even when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe was ready to take more questions. In Belgium in 2005, he tried to cut off a news conference before his host, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, got a chance to speak his fill.</p>

<p>Then there was Wednesday's abrupt moment in Romania, when Bush figured the question-and-answer session was done. He strolled over to Basescu and asked if he was ready to take a walk by the water.</p>

<p>"Just a moment," Basescu interjected politely.</p>

<p>Oh.</p>

<p>"He's not through," Bush observed. Bush headed back to his podium, on the beach of the Black Sea at Basescu's picturesque retreat.</p>

<p>The Romanian president took a few moments to comment about an important issue in his country, the availability of visas for people to visit the U.S.</p>

<p>Then — finished for real this time — the two leaders took their stroll by the water.</p>

<p>———</p>

<p>Bush is in Romania for the NATO summit, where security officials are on watch for intruders: wild foxes and stray dogs.</p>

<p>While Bush and Basescu met at resort in Neptun, professional hunters scoured nearby forests teeming with foxes.</p>

<p>A local mayor, Traian Cristea, said the foxes often venture onto the roads where Bush's convoy passed, so hunters were trying to frighten the animals deeper into the woods.</p>

<p>Officials in Bucharest, the site of the summit, have rounded up as many of the city's estimated 30,000 stray dogs as possible. They do not want the strays biting anyone in town for the meetings, which began Wednesday and run through Friday.</p>

<p>There is some fear the animals could jump in front of leaders' motorcades and cause crashes.</p>

<p>Strays are usually plentiful. But on Wednesday, it was hard to find an unleashed dog.</p>

<p>Simona Panaitescu, director of Bucharest's Administration for the Monitoring of Animals, said the strays were crammed into overcrowded municipal animal shelters. After the summit, she said, they will be released back onto the streets.</p>

<p>———</p>

<p>Remember Zamfir, "the King of the Pan Flute" who may have sold more albums than Elvis in Europe? No?</p>

<p>Well, the Bush administration wants you to know that the star of those old television commercials is one of Romania's most famous citizens.</p>

<p>On the occasion of Bush's visit to Bucharest, the White House has put Gheorghe Zamfir on a list of Romanian artists and athletes, including former Olympic gymnast Nadia Comaneci, worthy of special note by journalists.</p>

<p>A three-page biography of "Maestro Zamfir," distributed to reporters in a package of background material on Romania, hails the pan flute virtuoso as a "musical pioneer," a "living legend," and, to some of his loyal fans, possibly "the reincarnation of the god Pan."</p>

<p>The bio, downloaded directly from Zamfir's official Web site, notes his international fame and popular appeal, especially in Europe and Asia, where music lovers have no doubt racked up sales of his records.</p>

<p>It also says the world was nearly denied his tremendous talent because as a teenager he was virtually forced to take up the pan flute when he could not get a seat in classes for his instrument of choice: the accordian.</p>

<p>———</p>

<p>Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Alina Wolfe Murray in Bucharest, Romania contributed to this story.</p>

<p>———</p>

2

<p>Well you would have to be a dimwit to realize the incredible bias of this article.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>When you put it like that, it makes it sound really bad. But all he said was “thank you” which shouldn’t be a sign of arrogance (cause then every polite person would be arrogant wouldn’t they?), he is simply been polite. </p>

<p>Of course if you hate him, and you are a reporter, you can put a taste of your venom in it and twist things up. </p>

<p>The reporter could might as well have written:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And then:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, when someone is not done speaking, wouldn’t that be the right thing to say? “He is not through” left unsaid: “thus I shouldn’t move on because it would be unpolite”? </p>

<p>Truth is, stuff like that is so small and so trivial that if it were anyone else people wouldn’t mind. </p>

<p>Ahhh… But there are always unprofessional reporters out there. Just look at Michael Moore.</p>

3

<p>Heh. political people :P</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>And what planet are you from? The reporter provided plenty of context indicating Bush meant the conversation was over. Also, you think these kinds of things are small, you don’t understand anything about politics and international relations. It’s imcompetence, pure and simple – or arrogance. The bar has been set so dramatically low for this idiot – if it were anybody else they would have been pilloried for this and all the other idiocies – and he still surprises us with his idiocies. Case in point, grabbing the German Prime Minister to massage her:</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - Bush-Merkel](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUTwaSPcGno&feature=related]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUTwaSPcGno&feature=related)</p>

5

<p>

Hahaha</p>

<p>There’s nothing left to say about Bush. Honestly, words can’t describe how ■■■■■■■■ he is.</p>

6

<p>While I don’t, in any way, support GWB’s policies, and think that he’s a horrible, incompetent president, MetdethGNR is completely right about biased journalism.</p>

<p>And just because he’s bad doesn’t make liberals any better.</p>

7

<p>

Honestly, what was the point of even saying that? I don’t think anyone even made the claim “Hah, George Bush iz an idiot - Liberalz r much smrter!” And yet, you go and say a completely unrelated thing like that. What if I went into every thread in this forum and posted “Neocons r teh sux! Half of them are too stupid to think and the other half are too heartless to care about the rest of the world!”</p>

<p>Honestly, it feels an awful lot like flamebait to me.</p>

8

<p>The purpose in bringing that up is to compensate for the fact that liberals are hardly ever criticized in the media, which would give one the impression that they’re somehow better. </p>

<p>View it however you want, my point is that democrats = republicans = bad.</p>

9

<p>

I hate this myth. It is clearly not true if you read/watch news sources. Mainstream media generally criticizes both equally, which is to say almost not at all. The myth is so popular that the mainstream media actually over-compensates for this myth by rarely adding any commentary, even if necessary. For instance, I saw an article in the Washington Post recently reporting on a “study” done that conservatives give more to charities than liberals. They didn’t make any mention of the fact that the study has been widely criticized by for not doing any statistical analysis at all, something that must be done to draw conclusions from data unless your data is based on a population rather than a sample. Don’t you think that would have been some important commentary to add? But no, that would have led to claims of “liberal bias” - even if it’s the truth.</p>

<p>

That’s not the way your quote appeared. It certainly appeared to be apologizing for Bush by saying “well, the liberals do it too!” I’d also like to point out that liberal != Democrat. If someone says “I am a liberal Democrat,” they’re not being redundant. They’re two different things.</p>

<p>And, by the way, saying that liberals are bad is just a teensy bit of a generalization, don’t you think?</p>

10

<p>There’s some shed of truth about conservatives not being criticized, but it really depends on what station you’re watching. I think CNN is the most neutral, FOX is to the right, and MSNBC to the left.</p>

<p>And I use liberals/democrats interchangeability, so unless you explain to me the difference, I will continue to do so.</p>

<p>I don’t really get what you’re arguing with me about. Maybe I’m just expressing myself really horribly. I think what I’m trying to get at is that politicians (and partisanship) = bad. Yes, I know I’m generalizing, but since when was that a crime? Most are bad, many if you prefer that.</p>

<p>And why would I be apologizing for Bush?? I don’t even like him.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>MetdethGNR brought up Michael Moore. I saw Fahrenheit 911, didn’t like it so much, but one thing it did do well is pierce the image that Bush’s people had built that he was the MBA president and an effective manager and in charge of things. The media was very much complicit in this image-buildng. I would say that reflected a clear bias in the media in favor of Bush. Among other instances, there he was reading a child’s story when the nation was under attack.</p>

<p>When Putin showed up and Bush said he had “looked into Putin’s soul and seen a good man,” the media said nothing about how naive and bizarre this statement was. Can you imagine if Carter had something that ridiculous? Well, actually he kind of did: he trusted Brezhnev on some missile negotiations and was completely lied to. And rightfully a lot of people pilloried him when he exclaimed in exasperation that he was astonished at being lied to: “I can’t believe he lied to me!” It was ridiculous. Well, Bush was just as stupid. Putin has turned out to be a shrewd operator and sometimes a liar. But Bush got a pass on this, as he has many other things. Media bias against Bush is simply a charge that doesn’t stand up. It is in fact noteworthy in these two cases that someone brought up with the best education in the land is oblivious as to protocol in the case of ending hosted press conferences in other countries. This may seem minor to someone who doesn’t know about how carefully choreographed these kinds of events are. It’s a perfect symbol for the overarching incompetence of the Administration. </p>

<p>UnleashedFury: I am curious that you weighed in to argue against partisan bias against Bush and then implied that “liberals” don’t have a leg to stand on. I don’t think the issue here is liberal or conservative necessarily. It’s competence vs. incompetence. But a lot of conservatives touted this man’s competence. Liberals simply aren’t just as bad as a general proposition; I just don’t think the Democrats could succeed in nominating and getting elected someone this oblivious.</p>

12

<p>

Yes it did. I don’t remember it on the news, but it was made fun of on the Daily Show, and McCain talked about it in the Republican debates.</p>

<p>And I agree with your last point, though I think Bush is somewhat of an anomaly. I don’t think either party would usually elect someone that oblivious, but again, he’s an anomaly.</p>

13

<p>

Liberal and conservative are ideologies, with liberal being to the left and conservative being to the right. Democrats and Republicans are parties, who are not necessarily liberal or conservative. There’s a famous quote from Paul Wellstone that “[he] represent[s] from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.” It was his way of saying that he was a liberal, while the rest of the party wasn’t. The Democratic party is, more than anything else, moderate. The Republican party isn’t really conservative anymore, either, it’s pretty heavily neoconservative (witness the nomination of McCain).</p>

<p>

Reagan. ;)</p>

14

<p>Hollywood is definitely way left. The media has a fair mix, imo. You have people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh on the far right so you can’t say the media is completely biased. I think you hear both sides but I guess if it came down to it, it is generally slightly biased to the left? That’s just from my personal experience. I absolutely abhor and despise people who generalize people into conservatives and liberals and make broad, completely fallible statements. I would consider myself to be liberal but I’ve got some conservative in me (especially fiscally/taxes etc). You get absolutely nowhere by saying LOLZ OMGZ LIBERALS ARE RADICAL WIMPS, etc.</p>

<p>I think everyone gets the point that Bush is a terrible president. I’m pretty sure he’s not actually stupid, he’s just inarticulate and can’t lead a country. this topic is beating a dead horse. I think even the mention of the name is synonymous with bushisms and a bad president.</p>

15

<p>Just search “bushisms” on Youtube. That’s all the information you need to decide if Bush is dumb or not.</p>

16

<p>So Bush is stupid… What does that say about the American public who voted for him? :/</p>

17

<p>. . .twice?</p>