Clayton Cramer links to a surprising article by a liberal American English teacher in Damascus.
One afternoon I was explaining the passive tense of verbs, and I used an example that came to mind from American culture. I asked them if they knew who was nominated by the two main parties to run for president. "John Kerry was nominated by the Democratic Party, and George Bush was nominated by the Republicans," replied one of the brightest in the class, a veiled Muslim engineering student named Rahaf. "Very good," I said. "Now, who do you think will be elected?" "Bush," cried several of the students at once, smiling. Abandoning my lesson plan for the moment, but curious at this sudden display of interest in the election, I ventured: "Who do you want to win?" "Bush," said Rahaf, while a number of others nodded in solid agreement.
The world is full of surprises. What to make of that one!
Read deeper into the article. I'm not really suprised at all.
I too believe George Bush is a good Christian man who thinks he's doing good in the world, so on this level I agree with many of these people in Damascus. My contention throughout the last two years has been Bush is in way over his head.
Posted by: Scott | December 13, 2004 at 10:47 AM
I suppose only time will tell, but methinks you misunderestimate the man. The conventional wisdom is that Iraq is a mess, but compared to what? Have you ever heard of anybody actually compare it to another war? Without wishing to diminish the sacrifices of those who have given their all, the fact is there were American Civil War battles where more soldiers died in an hour than have died in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the last three years. Try this essay for a different perspective on Bush. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3378
Posted by: Tom Bowler | December 13, 2004 at 12:09 PM
Soldiers dying in Iraq is not my argument against Bush--war is war, it is what it is. All warriors fight bravely at risk of death. My contention since two years ago has been Iraq was a critical strategic error in the War on Terror. I thought this well before this became such a popular rallying cry from the left. Iraq is not the only issue on which I think he is in well over his head, but it is a critical one.
Posted by: Scott | December 13, 2004 at 02:53 PM
I read the piece you linked--interesting. I've always wanted a President with the acumen to quantify choices and assess probabilities based on available information. In mind and spirit, I too consider myself an entrepreneur and poker player/mathematician type (I was an economics major in college). In fact I think we should have more Presidents with MBAs in addition to or rather than JDs.
However, I don't believe President Bush enjoys the sort of acumen, or instincts, to make the correct decisions for our nation. Granted, the last 4 years have been among the most challenging in our nation's history and would be extremely difficult for any commander-in-chief, but he has failed miserably in my mind on the one thing that matters regardless of party, foreign policy. Just to reiterate, this is not about partisanship or comparisons with the other candidate in this past year's race (he was not up to snuff either), I am merely making standalone statements about George Bush.
Posted by: Scott | December 13, 2004 at 04:10 PM
We will continue to disagree and I'll continue to enjoy our discussions. I don't consider Iraq a stategic error. On the contrary, I think it was exactly the right move. But one thing I hadn't counted on was the press and the Democrats actually trying to undermine the effort. Very nearly traitorous in my view. Anyway the topic deserves a post rather than a comment, and I'll try to get to it soon.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | December 15, 2004 at 07:25 AM
I came originally came here because I have a social libertarian mentality. My intent was not to disagree at every turn. George Bush however is a topic about which we will probably always have our differences.
Posted by: Scott | December 15, 2004 at 09:09 AM