OT - Question about comment from Bush speech
 

Did he say brown skins when referring to Arabs? Is this an accepted phrase now? Hmmm...

No, he didn't

anyone know where I can find a transcript of the speech/Q&A?

edit: nevermind. available from whitehouse.gov "soon"

yes he did. that made me do a double take. i'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear of that comment.

I keep searching to see if anyone has mentioned it, but they haven't. I couldn't believe it when he said it. I just thought I was missing something on a new phrase that was accepted.

Clear channel just fired him.

:D

It's all over the yahoo message board that's tied to the news story. I'm just interested in seeing the context of the statement.

He was just talking about Muslims and said something to the effect of "The Muslims... the brown-skins..." or something like that. It was just matter of fact... odd.

Dang, I didn't think I was ever gonna find this.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../13/bush13.DTL
"Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that."

write it down!

Thanks Jon, I was looking everywhere for it.

I think that's an appropriate use of the phrase.

The transcript is available on NY TImes. com. I looked for it, and found it on page 8 or 9. Here's the specific quote:

"Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that.

I reject that. Because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society"

I don't want to blow it out of proportion, but it seems odd.

Edited to note that Jon in the Middle beat me too it.

Well, there doesn't really appear to be any racist intent there... but it's just an unbelievebly odd statement to have in a speech.

It is odd, that's for sure.

I've never heard anybody seriously argue that "brown-skinned" people can't govern themselves, but it's a cheap rhetorical trick that is used sometimes. It's an effort to imply that people who don't agree with what you are doing are racist.

And in the news tomorrow, Bush Fires Speechwriter

I've actually heard people say that. :(

by the way, it was an off-script comment.

I was just going to say that - It was him thinking on his toes. :D

It wasn't in the speech, it was in the Q&A session that followed.

In tomorrow's news: Bush hires 12 new speech writers, refuses to ever speak a non-scripted word again.

Come back Karen Hughes.

I think his "speech" accomplished exactly what it was supposed to.

Bush supporters that were starting to stray were refocused. I really think that's all this was about.

I know wigneedy finished watching the speech and commented "Wow, he's really what the country needs." I suspect a lot of his straying supporters feel the same way.

Maybe you haven't, but I've heard that argued quite seriously
more times than I could possibly begin to count.

Amen to that.

you brown-skinned crackas

I had someone say it to me this afternoon, in fact.

That's kind of messed up.

The worst part about people that are ignorant enough to say stuff like that, is that they can vote. :(

I just had Shorty say it to me.

or be elected president of the United States. :D

Maybe it's because I live in the biggest melting pot in the US, but I don't see where any arguement would be? He seems to allude to the fact that if someone insinuates that because you are of a certain color that is stereotyped, that you can't rule yourself? i mean, isn't that what we basically do in the airports? I'm pretty sure every airport screen checks a bit more thorough when they come across someone who looks "brown skinned" or like an Arab.

Obviously there wasn't any ill-intent with what he said... but damn, that is a pretty weird thing to say...

well...he was gonna say "towel-heads", but stopped himself just in time to use the slightly less inflammatory "brown-skin."

Good strategery! :cool:

Brown skin may be an exaggeration, but I've seen it argued many times that Iraqis/Arabs in general/people in the third world don't believe in the same certain values (freedom of speech, representative government) and can't be expected to run their own country. Sort of like the White Man's Burden, except that these people generally have been opposed to American/Western intervention in the case of Iraq.

Some of it might be values, but a lot of it is just lack of, and lack of support for, democratic institutions. When you don't have a free press, a history of representative government, etc, and when you have a history of warlord rule and no guarantee that any elected official would actually step down when their term is over, it makes it hard for democracy to blossom. There is an excellent policy paper on the subject here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-505es.html

Or maybe he could always ask Rummy for some vocab choices:

"Mr. President how about Ragheads,Camel Jockeys, or Sand Nazis" so on and so and as for "Bush is what this country really needs right now!"-Wig....................ARE YOU F@#$%^& KIDDING ME!

What's that? Someone who can read? Yeah, I hope we can get one this time around too. :)

I'm a little shocked that the President would use such a term. I'm sure comments like this will surely help our foreign relations.

It was not meant in a racist manner at all. He was opposing naysayers. Not a big deal.

Who are the naysayers who argue brown-skinned people can't be self-governing or free? Please point them out to me.

(I agree that it was not meant in a racist manner and that it's not a big deal)

I agree with the thinking that the reason democracy hasn't bloomed in the Middle East has to do with cultural and historical factors, not anything inherent in the people. That's why I find it ridiculous when someone says that "they just don't think the same way we do. It won't work."

yabanci - When I was at an ANSWER teach-in, it was stated by a number of people that the people of Iraq and Arab people in general didn't want and couldn't handle democracy.

I think some people interpret, or maybe misinterpret, this as part of the cultural factors you mentioned. For example, the lack of equality and voting rights for women is often mentioned as a major stumbling block for democracy for Middle Eastern states. Is this just because their religion supports a subordinate role for women, and their culture reinforces this? Or is it just that "They don't think the way we do, women will never really be equal." Interesting way to think about it I guess.

Im brown skinned, and Indian- I have the worlds largest democracy, one that's been headed by a woman, a minority, and many a former member of a disenfranchised class. Do you know what a load of bullshit that is ?

That's a totally different argument than saying brown-skinned people can't be self-governing or free, and you know that ANSWER does not argue that the capacity for self government or freedom is somehow determined by the color of a person's skin.

There are a number of very valid arguments as to why democracy will not take hold in different places, but I was asking this guy to point me to the "naysayers" to whom he referred.

As you know, there is no such "debate," which is why it's a cheap rhetorical trick designed to imply that those who disagree with your policy are racist. It's a variation of the strawman argument.

This is my thought and I wish I could say different as I'd rather have anyone but him in office.

Anyway, we talk about best and worst presidents so here's my list, in my lifetime.

From worst to first.

1. George W Bush - I hate the asshat. I don't see much plus side really.

2. Ronald Reagan - many love him but I don't. He did his best to polarize our society and took a cavalier world view. I really didn't like this guy one bit. He's the only guy who has been president I've hated. Maybe should be #1 but as much as I hated him, as a president I think W is worse.

3. Lyndon Johnson - here's an award winning asshat. Escalated vietnam, did zip at home. He didn't even try. He is an asshat supreme and is easily amongst the worst. His only redeeming value is that the two above him were in office once I was older and therefore I'm more more critical. He may easily be the worst and if argued correctly I'd probably concur.

4. Jimmy Carter/ Gerald Ford - I love both of these guys. Neither was a good president maybe but they both served us as best as they could. They are both great guys. I could talk about successes and failures but I was proud of both of these men though neither would win any awards as president.

5. George Bush - I really love this man. He was a great president working in a difficult time. His choice here is by a nose. The man didn't get a lot of respect but handled a lot of world changes in a great way. Maybe the economy didn't exactly do well but he layed the groundwork for a world economy. He doesn't get credit for this.

6. John Kennedy - ok, he loses points for only living 21 days into my life. I understand his value and respect his life achievements but his accomplishments, minus the MM connection while admirable aren't memorable.

7. William Clinton - damn it's a close one. I had a better life under Bill and I'm not morally againsy blow jobs nor lying about them. I really want to put him as #1 and really he should be maybe. All presidents have warts, both domestically, in foreign policy and in their personal life. Bills didn't affect the country. His were deeply personal but I never felt he didn't care about me. It was great but not quite #1.

8. The winner is, Richard Millhouse Nixon - Sorry, he is my man. RMH had personal flaws and they were big ones. For me though, he was a hero. I was a child during vietnam. I can remember sincerely feeling that the war would go on forever and that I would surely die in a war I didn't give a damn about. This man ended that fear.

That alone would give him a bump sure, but he also championed detente, opening the door to normalized relations to China and brokered the first peace we had in the middle east, a feat we've never been able to really duplicate ever again. Kissinger was the cause? Sure, but who appointed him?

RMN had his faults and they were biggies but overall, his years in office were great ones. We can't easily ignore his warts and we payed for those, but how can we ignore his successes? I just don't get it. Yeah, I was a fan boy. I'm still alive. The world is more stable. All of these have been influenced by RMN. I just can't put an election scandal ( and an unnecessary one at that ) above what good he did. I'm not defending it but it just didn't matter in terms of history.

I imagine this post will piss off almost everybody but trust me, it's from the heart.

I'm as far from a Bush-ite as you're going to get, but saw the comment and completely understand Bush was not making a racist comment here...

Bush attributes the words to un-named other people in an attempt to conjure the idea of nameless, faceless racists who believe democracy is impossible in Iraq so that he can then say but I'm not one of those racists.

The effect is to paint anyone who opposes the administration's particular vision of democracy in Iraq as a racist and, so, anyone who supports it as tolerant and decent. Of course, this thinking doesn't allow for any debate as to what KIND of democracy there should be in Iraq, or how we should go about pursuing it.

Racist? No. Political? Check.

A Republican president used a strawman to justify a war in a nationally televised press conference?

Um... can somebody drop by and knock on John Galt's door? You know, just to make sure he hasn't gone catatonic on us...