The New York Times, McCain and Obama

English as a Second Language What do you want to talk about?
21

You’ll have to show me the quote, Torsten. I doubt that’s how he put it, if he even said it. It sounds like something that’s been filtered through some media that oppose him.

They use any war they can think of, including wars that occurred 1,000 years ago, such as the first crusade, and wars that happened 500 years ago, such as the expulsion of the Moors from Spain. So not fighting them won’t make them stop fighting.

In addition, they’re using the life of Mohammed as their model, and he started wars simply because other people refused to convert to Islam. He’d have letters sent that told the head of some community that if they accepted Islam they “will be safe”. If they refused, they’d get attacked and slaughtered. Since these people aren’t living in the modern world, modern diplomacy won’t make them peaceful.

A typical European doesn’t have access to all the background information on world politics, and he doesn’t have the interest to educate himself properly, so he bases his opinion on slogans and phrases, such as “war for oil”, on things like Michael Moore movies, and on a general bigotry that leads him to think that Americans are simple-minded “cowboys”.

The only thing that will stop those people is military defeat. Do you think we could have stopped Hitler without a war?

22

Here is the quote. In addition you can watch the interview on Youtube.[YSaerTTEW443543]

TOEIC listening, question-response: How long is Christmas vacation?[YSaerTTEW443543]

23

To Torsten,

OK, I got wrong, he will not talk to terrorists but talk to enemy countries.
At least, he is more ready to talk to those who oppose to US than
Bush or Hillary, any other polititions.

To Jamie

If “October surprise” occurs every time as you say, it could be a big surprise about McCain
not about Obama. You may not agree with me but I just point out one of the possibilities.

I don’t know much about Obama’s detail policy on economy however,
in order to rebuild economy, some people must be suffered.
There is no such a perfect measure which sounds good to everybody.
In Japan, when bubbling economy bursted, our tax was used to rebuilt economy
and lots of people complained about it saying it was truly unfair.
However, something had been done at that time to stop it got worse.
Since there seems no best way, people have to choose a better way,
I mean better than nothing even if it makes some people feel so unfair.

Obama says that the problem is not we don’t have good ideas, the real problem is
that we don’t have a government which functions properly because it is so divided.
I agree with him, one person can not fix problem no matter how clever he/she is.
He knows it, so he emphasize the unity, ordinary people can do unordinary things when they get united.

I don’ know how intelligent this columnist is but
what Obama is saying is not that people should change their views or values in order to get united.
What he tries to make is that people need to talk without assuming it is not worth doing.
As the result, there may be some problems still unsolved but some problems might be solved
if they are caused by preoccupations, misunderstanding or just lack of information each other.

I saw the video she was killed by terrorist.
She was having an rally in the open space with a lot of people.
I know it must be difficult to protect her against terrorist under such situation.
What I am saying is that US could have done something before she
had the rally there, like…give her some advice to choose a safer place for rally.
US military must have a lot of tactics to prevent from that happening.

I think terrorists are not terrorists since they were born.
There must be some reasons to be.
I know it is intolerable whatever the reasons are.
I understand how much American people hate them since 9/11.
But war is not the solution, Obama was the only one who predicted today’s
situation in Iraqi, more and more terrorists are being trained every day.
He knew that hatred only invites another hatred
and it goes endlessly.
Have you read the story “The North Wind and The Sun”?

24

Jamie, who do you mean by “we”? You should ask yourself how Hitler was able to seize power in the first place. The answer: Through manipulating large parts of the German public by using carefully chosen slogans, phrases and expressions. Jospeh Goebbles was a very clever person who lead the Nazi propaganda machine quite effectively. He knew exactly how powerful words can be.

Once the war had started, military force was the most effective tool to stop it and one of the major powers in that war was Russia/the Soviet Union. The difference between terrorists and Hitler’s army is that you can’t identify a suicide bomber until he actually blows himself up and then it’s tool late to stop him. In WWII the enemy was clearly defined. In the current ‘war’ it is almost impossible to say who and where the potential terrorists are.

I also see a difference between saying “I’m a war president with war on my mind” and “I stand for peace and stability”. The US isn’t “a war country”. They have the most sophisticated intelligence services and military in the world. Many Americans also know that language is one of the most powerful tools. The vast majority of publications in the fields of psychology, mediation, negotiation, etc. are US American. When you compare the way American diplomats, politians and industry leaders express their thoughts with the approach of other nationalities, you will find that in most cases the Americans are superior. They know how to “get a message across” and how to use language to achieve positive results. Maybe I’m wrong but I could imagine that there are quite a number of Americans who don’t want “a war president”.[YSaerTTEW443543]

TOEIC listening, question-response: Why can’t the project wait until Monday?[YSaerTTEW443543]

25

Torsten, please explain to me what you think “war president” means, so that I know what you think Bush said.

Other war presidents:

Lyndon Johnson
Harry Truman
Franklin Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Abraham Lincoln

26

Here is another excellent article on what the New York Times is all about:

townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSo … /bad_times

27

Jamie, I think we both agree that words play a decisive role in politics. If I understand you correctly, the thinking process of many Americans is this: If a guy has a funny surname he can’t be a good president. If a guy’s middle name happens to be the same as a very bad guy’s surname, that guy must be a bad guy too. If somebody attended a Muslim madrassa as a child, this person can’t be a good president. Again, my conclusion might be totally wrong but this is how I see it. There obviously is a number of people who make a connection between a person’s name and that person’s ability to lead a country. Now, if somebody thinks that Huckabee can’t be president because of his name then there certainly are quite a number of people who think that Bush wants to fight terrorism with war.[YSaerTTEW443543]

TOEIC listening, question-response: How much does the package weigh?[YSaerTTEW443543]

28

Again, Torsten, please answer my question: Please explain to me what you think “war president” means, so that I know what you think Bush said.

I didn’t ask you about people’s names or whether someone attended a madrassa or not. I asked you what you think “war president” means.

29

‘War president’ to me means that he has been spreading his military force thin by overcommiting his troops in Iraq.[YSaerTTEW443543]

TOEIC listening, question-response: Who’s Jean Carrier’s supervisor?[YSaerTTEW443543]

30

In English, “war president” means that a person happens to be the president in office when a war starts, and he’s the one who has to make decisions and set policy with that in mind. It does NOT mean the guy is a president who goes into office hoping to start a war, which is how most Europeans probably wish to interpret it. Bush happened to be in office when the war started in 2001, so he’s the president who has to deal with it.

What are you reading about the progress in Iraq since Donald Rumsfeld left office and the strategy was changed? Probably nothing, because the European media get most of their cues from the NYT, and that paper wants to downplay it. It doesn’t fit their political purpose.

By the way, “overcommitting his troops in Iraq” and “spreading forces too thin in Iraq” are also both slogans, but they’re not coming from Bush. They come from the same people who made up the slogan “war for oil”, which is also bogus.

31

I mean the British, the Americans and the Soviets, along with whoever else fought on the Allied side.

Exactly! And that’s why many Americans are scared of Obama.

32

Why did you doubt that Bush said he is a war president?[YSaerTTEW443543]

TOEIC listening, question-response: In which month were you born?[YSaerTTEW443543]

33

Because I thought you got it from a paraphrase or translation, not from a quotation, and because the way you used the term made it sound like it had an odd meaning.

34

In what way did I use the term differently from Bush?[YSaerTTEW443543]

TOEIC listening, question-response: We’re not going to play today, are we?[YSaerTTEW443543]

35

Your objection to the term indicated that you understood the term differently from the way it was intended.

36

Jamie, please give some links with reference to the term “war president” so I can read up on the issue and educate myself. Thanks.[YSaerTTEW443543]

TOEIC listening, question-response: Whose turn is it to refill the ink?[YSaerTTEW443543]

37

Torsten, the problem with reading up on the term “war president” is that the people musing over it and writing about it the most are those who choose deliberately to misinterpret it and use it to attack Bush. They’re the ones with the most enthusiasm for the term, so they use it and misdefine it a lot. Other people simply use it in its normal meaning, but they don’t go on writing about it and redefining it. Therefore, to see its usage, the best I can do is recommend you do Google searches on combinations like lincoln “war president”, fdr “war president” and so on.

38

Hi,

I’d like to make a plea for clarity since after all this is a language site. I’d like to make a plea that leaders, presidents and to quote from some prayer I remember hearing in my childhood when attending church, that ‘those in authority over us’ should be careful about comments they make in public. It is those comments that people remember and as they should, take seriously. Sometimes what they say is misunderstood and misfires and that’s why they (I’m still referring to those in authority over us) should seriously check whether any ambiguity could be construed in their speeches. I can think of a couple of examples that stick in my mind from UK politics. In the 1960s a Prime Minister devalued the pound sterling and announced quite happily to us the public that this wouldn’t affect the ‘pound in your pocket’ intending to reassure the populace that the pound note in your pocket wouldn’t overnight turn into 17 shillings and sixpence (about 2/3 of what it had been worth). That was an unfortunate expression but give him his due, he meant well. In the 1980s another Prime Minister of a different political colour told us, the populace that: ‘You have never had it so good’ suggesting that materially we were better off and living standards had risen during his premiership. That was another unfortunate expression and on reflection sounded very arrogant - a thought that never entered his head as he was of the patrician mind.

Now I come to the point at last and suggest that if President Bush actually said: ‘I am a war President’, that was another unfortunate expression because it could so easily be misinterpreted. After all if a President had said: ‘I am a peace President’, would it not be interpreted to mean: I am determined to have peace in my country and that stance will be at the top of my agenda?

My conclusion is to suggest in humility that what he should have said was: I am a wartime President, indicating the fact that he held office during a time of war.

Alan

39

Here is a cartoon about the New York Times that I found in Investors Business Daily. The NYT’s nickname is The Gray Lady.

40

Here are two more cartoons from IBD about the presidential candidates.