Japan should draw for comparison for the reason it was an allied partner and first world power, that turned against us over the same interests(future western petroleum ventures in Asia).

That comparison, a strictly structured society, emerging from rule of local tough guys under the umbrella of a monarch, using its resource and strategic interests to barter its way between western interests...

Quite comparable to the oil-stans of the former Soviet.

They stand on a prize resource, and conflate location between the folds of old world powers and emerging young ones, they have a set culture and a context of warlord rule.

How did we lose some of these potential allies? Why have they gone from potentially great business partners, to hostile foes ready to sacrifice selves against us in their cause...

The new samurai have energy barons for bosses, and a sworn zealous fealty against our culture.

Look closer, the mid Asian expanse is ready to be engaged. Emerging markets, technology, following of pop culture could dilute the wall of ideologues that sets in static denial of what we can share.

Japan took technology and embraced it, and celebrates many Western cultural norms that it shares in including sports and entertainment. They have run business so well it rivals any market in production ability.

Now look back to mid central Asia. The country of Iran held its regional Asian marketing headquarters for IBM in Tehran, around the corner from the embassy that was partaken of a hostage crisis. Nobody burned flags at their headquarters or threw stones through their windows.

They assimilated, working to high levels and becoming part of a broad new order.

Why have we limited the scope of this? Why do we not engage broadly these lands with bright minds? Let us share the chance to develop leadership in the private sector, toward similar long standing shared goals, the ability to thrive within a competitive niche and maximize life's potential is one every culture shares.

Come on, Larry. You left out Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which were included in Bush's speech today as part of the GWOT (used to be the WOGT). We must remember where our bread is buttered.

Japan and WWII and GWOT are apples and oranges. This is THE Global...War...On...TERRORISM! Get with the program. There are no end dates. No withdrawals. No surrenders. No defeats. It is a never-ending process. It requires more Executive authority and unprecedented powers to be vested in our great leaders because they are fighting the good fight agin the angry, backward Arab.

P.S. To be clear, I agree wholeheartedly,we're being taken for a ride.

Bush's speech yesterday - like most of his others - involves saying:

(a) That we are winning the fight against AQ;

(b) He has a "gut feel" about an imminent AQ attack.

I like to refer to this as covering the wingnut spread. He pleases the bozos who think we're fighting some Gloriously Successful War in Iraq, whilst connecting with the Grand Old Pantloaders though the politics of fear.

That's all he does, and it is a pathetic and embarrassing spectacle.

Osama bin Laden == Emmanuel Goldstein

more valuable to Bush alive than dead.

I like to imagine June 12, 1941. That's the day on which Larry Johnson would have said there was no danger of an attack from Japan.

"It's very difficult for many Americans to fully accept that the President is a moron"

That's because it's simply not true.

He's apparently somewhat intellectually incurious (though it's worth noting that he often urges a foreign film, Kandahar, on visitors, thus proving he can read subtitles), and like a lot of second generation CEOs who inherited their position, he tends to think his gut is always right and to be stubborn, which is some combination of to-the-manor-born confidence and, probably, inner insecurity (it can't not affect a man to be the wastrel son for so long).

On the other hand, he has degrees from Harvard and Yale. And his daddy wasn't especially anyone more prominent than John Kerry's daddy or Al Gore's daddy when he got them-- and a hell of a lot less prominent than, say, Jack Kennedy's or Franklin Roosevelt's daddies. So if you want to suggest Harvard and Yale just give those away, well...

So anyway, people probably don't fully accept your premise because it's clearly false. Say what you want about his achievements and failures, but starting from the premise that he's Chance the Gardener just shows that you're not a serious thinker on the subject.

Heck, probably half the bars in the US have one or two regulars who are always spouting crap about nuking Iraq or Iran or just paving the whole M.E. No one cares, and why should they?

Many people parrot the notion that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Given that everything else we've been told since then has been a lie, why do we cling to this as some unbreachable truth?

Labels are very powerful. The powers-that-be have turned the phrase 'Al Qaeda' into a label we instantly recognize, fear, and despise. It all started on the same day the twin towers and building 7 went POOF. The MSM told us Al Qaeda did it.

And wouldn't you know it, Al Qaeda that wasn't in Iraq is now in Iraq. We even call them "Al Qaeda in Iraq."

I've been lied to enough. How about you?

You think a whole lot of yourself for someone who misses a point as big as all the outdoors.

You are arguing a semantic point. Hope it makes you feel good, but you know what, if you need anything other than what the whole world has seen over the past 7 years as evidence that George Bush is a moron I guess you need to take a look at your family tree. You may well be related. Dumbass troll.

It is true that George W. Bush is probably not moron in the clinical sense.

Although the term is now no longer in use, the old medical/psychiatric definition of a moron is, I believe, a person who scores below average on a standardized culturally appropriate IQ test in the range of 51 to 70. Or with an estimated mental age of 8 to 12. The average of course being 100.

Obviously this is clearly inappropriate, since I don't think that there's any credible basis to estimate his IQ as being any lower than 80 to 85 and his mental (particularly emotional age) as being 13 to 17.

I note that I am not being particularly derogatory to the President here, I am simply attempting to compare what might be the lowest estimates that could be reasonably attributed to the President based on observations and history. It is quite possible that the President could be estimated higher based on these observations and history, or that actual clinical testing might give a result placing him closer to average.

In any event, clearly the President is not a moron as that term was clinically defined.

However, it is not clear that this is the definition or sense of the term that Oleeb used. So the matter admits to some ambiguity.

The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/moron

admits to two definitions. One references retardation. The other is simply "a very stupid person."

I think that there is ample evidence to consider the President a very stupid person based on various criteria. There is, of course, his oft admitted and acknowledge incuriousity, his consistent difficulty with the language, his impulsiveness, lack of attention, his difficulty concentrating, his preference for 'gut' decisions, his unwillingness to think, etc.

How much of this stupidity is the innate limitations on his ability, how much is a learned dysfunction, and how much represents deterioration from years of alcohol and alleged drug abuse is unclear. But it seems clear and obvious that we are not dealing with a rocket scientist. Literally every picture or description received from those around him suggests a man whose intelligence, on any objective measure, is likely below average.

In terms of anecdotal proofs of intelligence, it is not at all clear that his recommendation of Kandahar means that he can read subtitles. He often carries heavy books with him while walking to the Helicopter, but its generally known that he doesn't read them. So obviously, he can recommend Kandahar without reading the subtitles or even watching the movie. If he has watched the movie, he may not have bothered to read the subtitles, or had them read out loud for him. And if he has read subtitles, that means relatively little, as reasonably literate children as young as 10 or 12 are proficient at reading subtitles, as any Anime fan can tell you.

Much more dubious is his academic track record. It is very clear that his academic achievement was not sufficient to get him into Harvard or Yale and that his education counsellors were recommending Texas State and other less prestigious institutions. He was clearly a legacy admission. And just as clearly, he failed to distinguish himself in any way academically - his record is essentially straight "C", there is substantial evidence that these grades were bestowed because of his legacy status and that his true level of achievement was dramatically sub-par, and that persons who taught him or attended class found him particularly dense and self absorbed.

I appreciate Mgmax's appeal to American elitism here, but frankly, elitism and achievement do not go hand in hand. Most of America's smart people, by definition, do not go to Harvard or Yale. There's no evidence that Harvard or Yale graduates monoplize the upper end of the intellectual spectrum, or that all their members are exclusively of that spectrum. The best that might be said is that they are on average, above average.

I would give the last word on the subject of Bush's intelligence to Mgmax:

intellectually incurious ... he tends to think his gut is always right and to be stubborn, ...manor-born confidence ... inner insecurity

I dunno, but that spells out: "Very stupid man" to me in big block letters.

So I really don't know what we are arguing about.

In any case, if Bush was well meaning but stupid, we wouldn't have these problems. If he was intellectually stupid, but had a good emotional sense, we'd be doing a lot better. If he was bereft of book learning, but had native cunning, we'd be happy.

The point is that the problem with Bush is not his intelligence and its obvious lack.

The real problem with Bush are the toxic deficits of his personality, most notably his often expressed and only barely hidden pathological sadism.

This is a guy who tortured small animals as a child and who now goes out of his way to mock and belittle people around him. It's very clear that his sadism animates much of his policy and behaviour.

"Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran"

I give that a 10 rating :-)

After seeing what Bush has done as President for the last 6 years I think its pefectly natural for a rational person to see him as a moron.

I have a gifted 10 year old daughter, who may well be able to attend any institution in the world. After four generations of Bushes, I can tell you that Dad has soured on Yale. And, that was BEFORE the mention of Pat Robertson's matriculation! If it's good enough for these knuckle draggers, it ain't good enough for her!

"Is that a banana in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me as a moron?"

"..........invade Mexico..."

heh heh heh