In the Wise Words of President Bush ...
Far from being an eloquent speaker
, Bush provides great laughs
The first couple of months of President George W. Bush's term in office have provided us with some memorable comedic moments. I don't know if it's from the coke or the booze, but the man cannot talk. I have yet to hear him clearly present a complete thought.
What makes it even more entertaining, though, is that Bush loves to talk. He seems to be totally unaware that the whole country is laughing at him, or at least trying to stifle its laughter as he poops out sentence after meaningless sentence. But why should I continue ridiculing him when he does a better job of it himself? Let the show begin.
Bush realized he was entering a hostile Washington
two months ago. He claimed that people had "misunderestimated" him. I would concur, except that I would not be sure what I was concurring with, considering that "misunderestimated" is not a word.
But even with this misunderestimation, he would like to assure us that he is capable of the job at hand. One of his goals while in office
will be to make America
a "literate country and a hopefuller country," which will be easily accomplished, as he is well-informed of each of the three branches' governmental roles. According to a Nov. 22 interview conducted in Texas: "It's the executive branch
's job to interpret law."
Despite this insignificant misinformation, Dubya is "hopefuller" about our country's future. In a Dec. 8 interview, he said to an Austin source: "The greatest thing about America is that everybody should vote
." Well that's true, but is that really the greatest thing about America? I thought the most depressing thing about America is that everybody should vote
but hardly anyone does.
But don't judge Bush
too quickly. He and Dick Cheney
have set before them an ambitious agenda (especially considering the brain power they have to work with). Bush has been heavily endorsing his tax cut plan recently: "My pan plays down an unprecedented amount of our national debt
." And I have no doubt that his pan will do that.
would like to be a strong president
so as to continue "preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well," because we all know his predecessors will be affected by his performance in office.
One of my favorite Bushisms consists of Bush explaining the ambitious climate in the District of Columbia
: "I know there is a lot of ambition
, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure." So that means success is better than failure? Thanks for clarifying, Dubya. We weren't sure about that one.
In the arena of foreign policy
, Dubya has been busy clarifying his administration's position, which is that it likes everyone. In case our neighbors up north were having doubts, Bush tried to make clear that we want to be friends with Canada
: "I confirmed to the prime minister that we appreciate our friendship." I'm sure Prime Minister Jean Chretien
is grateful that Bush likes being friends with himself.
Defense has also become a key issue in the agenda of his new administration. Bush would like to have "a ballistic defense system so that we can make the world more peaceful, and at the same time I want to reduce our own nuclear capacities to the level commiserate with keeping the peace." I looked "commiserate" up in the dictionary and I don't think Bush's objective was to feel the peace.
Bush has also become interested in discontinuing the U.S. participation in NATO. Using one of his more well-thought sentences, he unsuccessfully explained the task of removing the country from NATO: "Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment." So we have to enable ourselves to keep the peace as well as keeping the peace from the peacekeepers. And what percentage of the United States understood that sentence? Yeah, two of us. And neither of them was you, Dubya. If those controlling you wanted to advocate the United States leaving NATO, why not just say that, instead of tripping over yourself more than once in the same sentence?
Mr. Eloquent has been hard at work formulating his positions on domestic issues. We are all aware of California's current ongoing power shortage. Well Bush, the scientist that he is, has discovered why we're having such difficulties in the Golden State. "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants, and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants." So our problem is, according to that mess of a sentence, that we do not have enough power to power our power plants. Oh. Right. I'll leave that one alone.
In the past month, Bush has created the new White House Office for Faith-Based Initiatives. Let's recollect what the objective of this office is before I allow Bush to further embarrass himself. Essentially, this office is charged with the distribution of funds to charities run by churches.
All right, I'll let Dubya take over. Bush wants to reassure all of us that although he has "heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state," this won't happen. So, Georgey, explain to me how doling out money to religious organizations is dangerous to the bond of church and state. First of all, unofficially we are not supposed to have that important bridge between church and state here in the United States. Secondly, your office will reinforce it instead of destroying it.
The next four years will sure be interesting. We will be entering new territory in the sense that when our president represents us internationally, he will be conversing with non-English-speaking leaders who know how to speak his native language better than he does.
I would like to leave off with one of my current favorite Bushisms. When asked about his appointment of Linda Chavez as labor secretary, Dubya displayed his normal muddled state: "I would have to ask the questioner. I haven't had a chance to ask the questioners the question they've been questioning." Well done.
**The above is taken from the March 5, 2001 issue of the UCSD Guardian and is written by Valerie Burns