|
So there have been quite a few postings, but the general consensus is that he is either above average or average intelligence, with a problem giving speeches. All right, that was pretty much what I was thinking as well.
On a side question, let's get more specific, about selling the war, in our system today a president usually has to gather public opinion on his side before going to war. The question I ask is could Bush have sold the war without WMDs (I hate using that word) if he had good speaking skills? My opinion on the matter is that he could have done it without WMDs. A general argument for the war could have been summed up in: democracy for all, freeing people from tyranny, stopping a possible terrorist state plus getting some oil in the process. I’m guessing a lot of people would go for it, not everyone would agree but still I think it would have worked in spite of the fact that Bush isn't too good at convincing people. Anyway, do you believe that the fact that he's not too effective at speeches deterred him from going on this angle, or is it just that his belief that Iraq had WMDs was so ingrained that it would have seemed illogical to even start pursuing it?
In another part of this question lets assume that he had tried to sell the war without WMDs. Would it have worked with you, what if someone, a great speaker, had been president do you think that person could have convinced you?
Personally I wouldn’t be convinced but I can see the logical reasons why someone would be. I wouldn’t be vehemently opposed if it had been presented that way to me but I would not be supporting it in any way either.
***Just as a side note to this side question this question is NOT asking whether he lied about WMDs or whether it was right to go into Iraq, or what has happened in Iraq, it's just about how it is related to his intelligence/rhetorical skills, please keep your comments geared towards this if you wish to respond, plus it makes it a much more fun debate if people stick to topic.
|