Would GWB be more convincing if he could pronounce 'NUCLEAR'?

Question

NOT 'nukular'.......

and shouldn't he desist from trying to undermine the NIE report by saying it is a 'warning to the world'....

I suppose his war-mongering has been twarted..

Answer 1

He would be more convincing if he actually managed to tell the truth instead of resorting to lies all the time. That is the main reason i don't like him. He thinks the American people are f*cking stupid and disrespects us with all the made up crap he and his ugly crew of bastards keep spewing from their vile, wounded mouths. Makes me want to scream, i swear.

Answer 2

Being able to pronounce something correctly is no indication of any ones intelligence or honesty. Those are separate issues. However, it does sound somewhat uneducated to keep mispronouncing nuclear, just as it sounds bad when someone spells thwarted as twarted or does not use the spell check provided.

DFA has a very valid point.

Just my 2 cents. You all have a nice day.

Answer 3

It couldn't hurt if he could pronounce 'nuclear' correctly, but the real problem with his 'nuclear credibility' is ignorance. For about fifty years, US nuclear weapons policies focused on the principle that 'nuclear weapons are bad regardless of regime', with overall goals of non-proliferation and disarmament. The man who can't pronounce the word has changed the playing field in a most dangerous and volatile manner.

Current nuclear weapons policy incorporates judgmental bias by shifting focus to 'good vs bad' regimes, even though such designations are highly arbitrary and subject to change. Most importantly, it diminishes the importance of securing and disposing of existing weapons/materials that already exist and doesn't effectively discourage proliferation of new weapons-grade materials. The inherent bias and hypocrisy of such a policy sends mixed, ambiguous messages to the rest of the world. The most dangerous mixed message from this current overly-simplistic, 'good vs bad', vendetta-based policy played out in Iraq and (almost?) Iran... "you'd better get your own nukes and get them fast... or face US invasion/occupation".

If the US was serious and sincere about nuclear non-proliferation, we'd only use federal funds to reward 'GOOD' behavior. In other words, we would NOT support ANY 'nuclear nation' (Pakistan, Israel, etc.) with ANY Federal funds. The only exception would be funds designated and used exclusively to disband, secure and properly dispose of their existing weapons-grade nuclear materials. Such a 'play no favorites' policy would give the US credibility among other nations; a 'do as I say, not as I do' policy gives the US NO credibility.

Answer 4

At this point, nothing that man says is convincing.

Its funny that taxpayers paid for that NIE that he spent so much time trying to discredit. If it is such a false piece of sh!t, why bother funding it at all?

The only good thing to come out of this is that the call for war with Iran is essentially dead.

Answer 5

He can pronounce nuclear, he chooses not to.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1921276117304287501&q=white+house+correspondents+dinner&total=110&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

And since when did evidence get in the way of Bush's war making, he does not need authorization from the American people, or congress, he is not running for election, and he has said he will not leave office without dealing with Iran.

Who can stop a US. and/or Israeli attack on Iran?

Answer 6

No - he's irrelevant now. But you are right, the "nukular" thing is astonishing.


If he had just accomplished this ONE thing and learned how to pronounce this word correctly, I would actually have had some respect for him.

Answer 7

Nope. If he said the sky was blue, I'd have to go outside and check.

Answer 8

CURTIS, you NEED *enriched* Uranium to run nuclear power stations, they do not run well on uranium ore... DDDUUUHHH...

Answer 9

So why you think Iran is enriching uranium?

Answer 10

No, he would still be a liar. *sm*