Bush's latest boner

[Gentle Giant]

Tease the disabled. Good.

President rues his barb about sunglasses -- to a victim of vision loss
By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press | June 15, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, who often teases members of the White House press corps, apologized yesterday after he poked fun at a reporter for wearing sunglasses without realizing they were needed for vision loss.

The exchange occurred at a news conference in the Rose Garden.

Bush called on Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten and asked if he was going to ask his question with his ``shades" on.

``For the viewers, there's no sun," Bush said to the television cameras.

But even though the sun was behind the clouds, Wallsten still needs the sunglasses because he has Stargardt's disease, a form of macular degeneration that causes progressive vision loss. The condition causes Wallsten to be sensitive to glare and even on a cloudy day, can cause pain and increase the loss of sight.

Wallsten said Bush called his cellphone later in the day to apologize and tell him that he didn't know he had the disease. Wallsten said he interrupted and told the president that no apology was necessary and that he wasn't offended because he hadn't told anyone at the White House about his condition.

``He said, `I needle you guys out of affection,' " Wallsten said. ``I said, `I understand that, but I don't want you to treat me any differently because of this.' "

Wallsten said the president said he would not treat him differently, so Wallsten encouraged him to ``needle away."

``He said, `I will. Next time I'll just use a different needle,' " Wallsten said.

Wallsten said he thought that was a pretty good line. And his only complaint is that the president didn't answer his question at the news conference.

Wallsten, who is also author of a book coming out next month titled ``One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century," had asked about White House credibility in the aftermath of Karl Rove having been cleared in the CIA leak investigation. But Bush said he wouldn't comment while another top White House aide was still facing prosecution in the case.

[shrugs]

what was up with the nice scarf coment?

[Scott Dolan]

had asked about White House credibility in the aftermath of Karl Rove having been cleared in the CIA leak investigation.

Huh?

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by shrugs

what was up with the nice scarf coment?

Bush is a typical superficial Republican who makes decisions on how he treats people depending on how expensive their clothes are. (remember his constituents are the "haves and the have mores")

If its' the same comment I am thinking of, Bush commented on NBC correspondent David Gregory's "pocket square," which was bright red.

It was another way for Bush to avoid answering a question with an inane remark that his flunkies giggle hysterically at.

This is Gregory wearing a (NOT RED) pocket square.

[Vince Kargatis]

You mean this kind of boner? (One only needs the slightest provocation to link to that - always funny.)

[steve(thelil)]

This is has too much substance for a boner thread.

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by steve(thelil)

This is has too much substance for a boner thread.

Agreed.

This is kind of like the time when he waved at Ray Charles.

On the other hand:

How many of us have asked a woman when she is due only to find out she is not pregnant?

On the other hand:

He eats kittens, no really. See?

[Gary Sisco]

America's war for hearts and minds

Mind your language
Jun 15th 2006
From The Economist print edition

A little politeness goes a long way

IT SEEMS unfair to single out the hapless Colleen Graffy. America's deputy assistant secretary for public diplomacy is far from being the only official in George Bush's administration who has a tin ear when it comes to—well, to public diplomacy. When three of the Muslim inmates held for years without trial at Guantánamo in Cuba hanged themselves last weekend, she called this “a good PR move”. But she was hardly alone in sounding callous. The commander of Guantánamo, a sensitive soul, grumbled that by hanging themselves his three charges had committed an act of “asymmetrical warfare” against the United States. Plenty more tin ears and sharp tongues belong to bigger heads higher up in the administration.

Inside the clever head of Donald (“stuff happens”) Rumsfeld, America's defence secretary, for example, wags a tongue that may on its own be responsible for having needlessly alienated more former friends of the United States than any other instrument since the invention of the B-52 bomber. As for John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, he appears to take particular pride in ignoring the advice of the Founding Fathers for America to pay a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. Mr Bolton is trying to force various management reforms through the UN's glass palace in New York. Reform is sorely needed. But instead of using persuasion, Mr Bolton too often plays the bully. His tone is that America is numero uno, the UN's chief paymaster, and so must be obeyed. Some potential allies are put off.


To his credit, Mr Bush himself has been learning. Under the civilising influence of Condoleezza Rice, a secretary of state who took up her job intent on putting the diplomacy back into American foreign relations, Mr Bush has lately been politer about other countries, and readier to admit some of his own mistakes. He now says he wants Guantánamo closed—just as soon as America figures out what to do with all the people it has scooped up and dumped in legal limbo there.

But in some ways the president still doesn't get it. Take something that went down well in America—Mr Bush's surprise call this week on the new prime minister of Iraq. Nuri al-Maliki had been building up the elected government's credibility by putting a careful distance between himself and the Americans. The last thing he needs is to look like the superpower's stooge. But he seems to have been given no advance notice of the visit. After Mr Bush was choppered into Baghdad, a bemused Mr Maliki was obliged to stand squirming alongside his beaming visitor, as pictures of president and stooge were flashed unhelpfully to Muslims in Iraq and around the world. It is sometimes bad manners to drop in uninvited.

Manners maketh multilateralism
Manners and tone of voice matter in international relations. Go back to those suicides. Though Ms Graffy ought not to have called them a good PR stunt, she may have been right to imply that they were a political act, rather than individual expressions of despair (see obituary). The point, though, is that if much of the war against terrorism is a contest between values—in short, a PR war—America should be winning hands down. A brand that stands for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an easier sell than a brand that stands for beheading unbelievers and reviving the Middle Ages.

And yet America is not doing half as well as it should be. The annual Pew survey of global attitudes this week reports yet another fall in its standing almost everywhere. Why? In part, because actions speak louder than words, and America sometimes betrays its own values. The Guantánamo inmates should be tried or released. In part because some American actions are right but unpopular. America should, for example, stay in Iraq until the new government can stand alone. But also because of those tin ears and sharp tongues. That problem cannot be fixed by hiring “public diplomacy” experts. Mr Bush needs to remind his top people that, especially in a superpower, a little politeness goes a long way.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Doc Martin

He eats kittens, no really. See?

Sorry, but even *I* know that what he's eating there is a *cub*, not a kitten.

[John P. Cooper]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Tease the disabled. Good.

Why do you say he is "disabled"? He is vision impaired. He is quite "able" and seemingly rather successful.

Bush was unaware and apologized. A week old story is now a weak, old story.

"Disabled"? How insulting.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by John P. Cooper

"Disabled"? How insulting.

A search on 'disabled' or 'disabilities' certainly seems to indicate that it's not generally considered an insulting characterization. Eg. the ADA, or this-or-that 'disabilities association'.

[Gary Sisco]

Vince -- I believe Cooper was making a sardonic commentary on pc-ness. There are people who consider the word demeaning.

Bronwyn, by the way, who is nearly disabled as it gets, does not. She considers it to be nothing but honest and real. It is the case that she is dis-abled. And it is the case that she is either bedbound or wheelchairbound. It isn't a matter of language. What is demeaning, in her view, is the ways in which people like her are forced to overcome the many obstacles, physical and social, in their way to participating in social life like other people. I happen to agree with her. Too much attention is paid to language, not enough to the objective social and physical reality of people's lives as they have to be lived in the existing circumstances.

I think it lame to rank on Bush over something like this, though. It's not like he meant, or even had any reason to believe he was, mocking someone's disability. There are too many all-too-real things to rank on him about than nonissues like this one.

Originally Posted by John P. Cooper

Why do you say he is "disabled"? He is vision impaired. He is quite "able" and seemingly rather successful.

Bush was unaware and apologized. A week old story is now a weak, old story.

"Disabled"? How insulting.

True. The guy accepted it as an honest mistake.

This thread's bullshit.

[Ron Thorne]

No, this thread is not bullshit, it's just not reporting as onerous a gaff as Dubya makes on a regular and frequent basis.

Don't get me started on what's bullshit when it comes to Bush.

Your avatar suits you perfectly, jazzbluescat. Have I already told you that?

[crawjo]

I think the average man has about 20 erections per 24 hours, so I'd guess that Bush's latest boner was within the last hour or so. By the time you read this, he will probably have had another one.

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

No, this thread is not bullshit, it's just not reporting as onerous a gaff as Dubya makes on a regular and frequent basis.

Don't get me started on what's bullshit when it comes to Bush.

Your avatar suits you perfectly, jazzbluescat. Have I already told you that?

Sorry, I thought this was about one particular incident. Funny how one little honest mistake can be lumped in with other verbal snafus, instead of giving the man a little credit for owning up to it.

Have I told you that you're an idiot lately? If not, you're an idiot.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

Sorry, I thought this was about one particular incident. Funny how one little honest mistake can be lumped in with other verbal snafus, instead of giving the man a little credit for owning up to it.

You don't understand. The man has used up all his credit years ago. He is knee deep in billions of debt now.

[patricia]

Here's something interesting, related to Wallsten's eye condition.
I don't know what the situation is in the U.S. but here in Canada a drug that was formerly only used in the treatment colon cancer has been effective in treating Wallsten's degenerative eye condition, Stargardt's disease.
The drug is Avastin, which is relatively inexpensive, about $20 a shot. It's been used here, off label, with about 7,000 patients, injected directly into the eyes, with good results.

The manufacturer of Avastin, Genetek [sp?], it's manufacturer is objecting to it's off-label use and is doing so because they have a drug for the treatment of Stargardt's disease, which they are going to release, Lucentis, which is much more expensive, about $2,000 PER SHOT. They are refusing to conduct tests on Avastin for use to treat patients with Stargardt's disease!!
The legally blind are a source of income it seems, along with cancer patients for drug companies. Why use an already on the market drug, reasonably priced, when you can push a ridiculously expensive drug instead??