Hey Mandela, guess what… You’re dead!

I’m sorry. Typically speaking, I pass on posting most “Bushisms” on my blog. But this one is just too precious to ignore.

For the record, no Nelson Mandela is not dead. Not only is Mandela not dead, but Saddam Hussein (who actually is dead), didn’t kill him. Or his family(?). Because he’s not dead.

Say it with me… January 20th, 2009. If we say it enough, and really, really believe it’s possible, just maybe we’ll all wake up tomorrow and it’ll be 16 months later.


12 thoughts on “Hey Mandela, guess what… You’re dead!

  1. Seriously, is it this hard to get the PRESIDENT of the United States a good oratory coach?

    Do you know what date this was given, Shane?

  2. A quick Google News search reveals that it is unfortunately very recent. Within the past few days from what I can tell.

    Now, I’ll come to his defense….

    I can easily see where he may have been talking about the “spirit of Mandela”. As a type of person that may be desperately needed in Iraq. As in “where is the Mandela of Iraq?”

    But still… dude….

    Often people ask me who I’m backing in ’08. As of yet I don’t have an answer this early in the game other than this…

    I want a president that doesn’t EMBARRASS us as a country. I want someone who is articulate, dignified and who speaks and acts like s/he’s been in front of an audience before! That’s all I ask!

    Sorry John McCain.

  3. Well at least your clip didn’t stop at the word “dead” the way it did on the Daily Show. I had NO idea where the comment came from. Now I have a clue.

  4. wow. after seeing this clip, i looked for some site that would explain it or give more context to see if Bush was really this dumb. the best i could find was from a site i totally don’t agree with, except what they said about this news clip sounds similar to what you’re saying. i’ll quote them here so they don’t get credit for a page hit, but their site is this: http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/09/21/reuters-misleads-about-bush-saying-mandelas-dead/

    This one takes the cake as today, Reuters is trying to manufacture a controversy. Apparently al Reuters doesn’t understand the concept of “context” because they’re idiotically claiming that in his Thursday press conference Bush said that Nelson Mandela is dead. Calling what Bush said “an embarrassing gaffe,” Reuters took Bush’s words out of context to make it seem as if Bush was talking about something he was not talking about. But any intelligent person can easily understand Bush’s context merely by listening to his whole sentence instead of shortening it to just two words.

    With a headline that reads, Mandela still alive after embarrassing Bush remark, Reuters does their best to make a Bush “gaffe” where none exists.

    JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) – Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader’s death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.

    Heartwarming that Reuters is so concerned over Mandela’s health, isn’t it?
    But here’s the problem. During the press conference, Bush was not talking about the actual Nelson Mandela. He was talking about people like Nelson Mandela and speaking metaphorically. And listening to Bush’s entire segment, while not artfully stated, makes it clear that he was not talking about the actual Nelson Mandela.

    Here is Bush’s entire segment transcribed: (My bold emphasis)

    “I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, ‘now where’s Mandela?’ Well, Mandela’s dead. Because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandela’s.
    He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families and people are recovering from this. So there’s a psychological recovery that is taking place and it’s hard work for them and I understand that it’s hard work for them.”

    Could it be any more obvious that Bush is saying that there aren’t any Iraqis filling the same sort of role in Iraq that Nelson Mandela filled in South Africa? Could it be any more clear that Bush was saying that Saddam “killed all the Mandelas” of Iraq?
    But even with that, Reuters seems to understand that their headline is a lie because they include this paragraph in their story:

    In a speech defending his administration’s Iraq policy, Bush said former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s brutality had made it impossible for a unifying leader to emerge and stop the sectarian violence that has engulfed the Middle Eastern nation.

    OK, then if you KNOW what Bush meant, what he was actually talking about… then why this trumped up story?

    Ah, it’s solely because you want to make Bush look bad, eh Reuters?
    Now we get it.

  5. But at the same time, Saddam Hussein hasn’t killed anybody in a good long time. I’m not sure how satisfied people should be with the explanation that no one has risen as a figure of national unity in the past five years because “Saddam already killed all the good guys.”

    A more likely explanation is “man, these guys all really, really hate each other – we totally underestimated that factor when we made the decision to obliderate their country and ask them to work together to rebuild it. Oops.”

    Plus, invoking Mandela’s name just seems awkward. It’s not exactly an apples to apples comparison here.

  6. I’m sure none of you laughing finger-pointers has ever mis-spoken before. And you certainly wouldn’t if you had possibly one of the most stressful, all consuming jobs in the world and had to speak publicly and under fire around four times a week.
    Yes, he must simply be an ego-maniacal idiot.

    I don’t think Bush is the greatest president nor is he the worst, despite attempts to make him such. And I certainly don’t think he is the greatest public speaker ever. But I cannot join in the hate wave that has swept this country. The actual, visible, palpable , seething hatred towards one man is incomprehensible to me, and astonishing that so many followers of Christ will chime right in and offer their loathing. Feel free to hate me as well…that is my fear.

  7. Boy, it’s a good thing I was just goofing on a silly comment made by His Majesty and not offering any actual criticism of his policies or the gigantic list of lies, scandals and allegations of impropriety against him and his administration. Then I might have made Jim really, really mad. 😆

    Man, the first time I ever posted a Bush-ism and you would have thought I’d desecrated the Holy of Holies.

    At least my character wasn’t assaulted by a good friend. Oh wait. 😆

    Hugs and kisses Jimbo.

  8. Case in point. Any defense of Bush in the slightest brings nothing but ridicule. So it’s either laugh at him and consider him a lying, scandalous, improper idiot, or you are considered the above. Really, just watch or listen to anything other than conservative talk radio and you find yourself thinking….”geez, if he is such an idiot, and I voted for him (twice), that makes me….AN IDIOT!!!. Am I responsible for Iraq? Is Katrina my fault? Am I evil among the likes of Hitler and Mussolini?”

    And it was not my point at all to assault your character. It may have come across that way by seemingly lumping you in with the masses. I really did not mean it that way. I was commenting in general about the attitude in the country right now. I apologize.

  9. No apologies ever, ever necessary from you my friend. Besides, you’re probably right. We really should be advocating a more constructive dialogue. And I, with my acidic tone and smarmy attitude, am probably chief among sinners.

    I’ll concede that much.

    But, you’ve gotta concede that it’s the same story on the other side of the divide. If I speak out against the war, or show anything less than unwavering support for Bush and his cronies, er, I mean administration, I’m un-American, and anti-partiot who hates the troops and wants the terrorists to win. Listen to conservative radio and the left is a bunch of godless commies who want to take all your money and give it to the gays to spend killing embryos.

    It’s malignant propaganda on both sides of the coin.

    And in terms of unadulterated hatred aimed at one individual – how about Clinton. I have heard – on many occasions and with my own ears – Christians on the conservative side tell me how much they “hate” Bill (and Hillary) Clinton. To steal a phrase from “As Good as it Gets,” I’m using the word “hate” here, about another human being. A word I wouldn’t even personally use about Osama Bin Ladin.

    Same old story. We just take turns spewing the venom depending on who is in office.

    There’s plenty of repenting due on both sides. Hey, maybe there’s an area where the church can be at the forefront for a change!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s