re Re: NP Bushspeak

[Paul Mackin]

Monica Belevan wrote:

> I don´t know about the speech´s equilibrium--it´s obviously the same preclear bollocks an optimistic fifth grader could say. It doesn´t promote any viable action, for better or worse, and is simply Bush playing his old lampshade role for the Republican tourniquet in Washington. He has a way with all things lackluster which permits him what in theory should be the assets of a crafty politician ( mainly, saying nothing with persuasive, evocative efficiency), but he is not even convincingly alive..

Monica--you are wise beyond your years.  The Israel-Arab wars began at exactlly the same moment in history as did my own adult existence (21 in '47) and will surely outlast the latter.  American presidents have to appear to be trying to promote a solution and they must do it n a way that will be least damaging to themselves. The words they use are never going to be pretty. Clintons' were naturally prettier than Bush's but if the difference is of that great importance, somebody please tell me. You
may be the girl to do so.


p.