I think the context for that is kind of important, since he then goes on to say that he's trying to get people to go against that idea and participate in economic sanctions even if they prioritize peace over profits.

I'm hardly Bush's biggest fan, but I think it's foolish to put up points that are so easily shot down when there are plenty of legitimate things to complain about.

I agree with you completely on the context issue, but the Right has prospered so mightily from the "soundbite gotcha" over the past couple of decades that I find it terribly difficult to resist something like this. Especially since taken in isolation, this quote pretty much encapsulates the substance of Bush-era Republican policy.

Jay Lake: "I agree with ... the Right ... so mightily" :)

Ain't selective editing grand?

Erm, to add to my last comment -- contrast the substance of this quote, even taken utterly out of context, with the substance of Al Gore's "invented the Internet" quote, taken utterly out of context. "Money trumps peace" is emblematic of the Halliburton-driven Mideast policy we've been pursuing under this presidency. "Al Gore invented the Internet" was nothing more than a deliberate, mocking twist of something the man never meant to say, and didn't reflect his actions.

I thought it was a fairly common phenomenon of Bush speeches. He never *actually* means what he says. He lies through his teeth constantly. We *did* go to Iraq for his buddies to profit. The sheer arrogance of the statement (in context) makes me ill.

I find myself in the unusual position of defending the Decider here. You've quoted him out of context, making it sound like he was bluntly stating his policy, when he was actually observing that putting money ahead of peace is something unfortunate that happens in the world. I read the linked page, actually expecting to see him bluntly claiming this as a policy in a rare moment of extreme honesty.

Perhaps you were simply amused at the deep rich irony that he of all people would chide others for putting money ahead of peace, in which case I will share your amusement.

Yes, actually, the irony was extremely apparent to me. There's always more to the context, but I'm not inclined to extend the GOP the benefit of context, given how badly they've abused the "soundbite gotcha" over the years, per my note above to rosefox.

I agree with rosefox that it's silly to twist someone's words like that. If nothing else, it undermines your own credibility. If Bush says "Some sexual predators think it's fine to rape babies", would you say that Bush said "it's fine to rape babies"?

Besides, 2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do!

Two Wrights, do, however, make an airplane.

Ow. That makes my soul (not to mention brain) hurt.

It was nice to see people at least trying to hold his feet to the fire regarding the similarities between mythical WMDs and Iranian involvement. From what I've read, there's no *actual* proof that there was any Iranian involvement. It looks like just one more trumped up case designed to start another war.

I also thought it interesting how well the last section highlighted his reluctance to ever sit down with someone and try to work through an agreement. Perhaps it's a sign that he really does understand how utterly incompetent he is, or maybe his handlers have just trained him well. Personally, I think he'd wet himself if he were ever put in the position of trying to sit down with a foreign head of state he was trying to threaten into submission. The man's shown nothing but fear responses for as long as he's been in the public eye. At the moment, he's the head baboon, but knows it's only because the other guys are either busy doing something else or all down with food poisoning from eating bad fruit and as soon as they notice, they're going to beat the shit out of him and run him out of the troop.

Here's my problem with attempts to turn around the "soundbite gotcha" to aim it back in the direction from which it has come: it undermines credibility and integrity. Sure, it's fun to roll in the irony like a dog in a five day old woodchuck carcass, but at the end of your fun, you smell bad and people are tempted to hose you down. The other guys are certainly capable of making themselves look bad from statements in full context, and pointing those out are the rhetorical weapons that they cannot, in the end, refute. If you build a reputation for always speaking fairly and honestly, people with differing opinions will listen to you, prehaps grudgingly, but they will. On the other hand, if you sully that reputation by giving in to the temptation to pick up that ball of really stinky stuff that got tossed in your direction and toss it back, that action will be the one that your opponents will latch onto and never cease to remind the world about.

Irony may be delicious, but sometimes it's a cuisine best consumed in private.

While you are absolutely correct in your assessment, the truth of the matter is that at least 50% of the American people don't give a shit about rhetorical tricks, they believe the dog that barks the loudest and uses the fewest syllables.

Sad but true, but honesty and integrity haven't a snowball's chance in hell against a "good" sound bite and a person without the ethical or moral wherewithal to resist saying whatever it takes to get elected.

The evidence is in the Whitehouse ruining our country and a large chunk of the rest of the world.

I have a choice in how I behave, and behaving in less than an honest and honorable manner lessens me. Perhaps this means that I'm a dinosaur doomed to fail before the swarm of those who are prepared to abandon integrity for expediency or, perhaps, if enough people show integrity in their day to day lives (as in politicians who promise that they will not accept money from PACs or lobbyists actually following through on those promises, just to pick an example), people will once again start to realize that such things count for something.

A race to the bottom is always easy to justify, since it's easier to let gravity do the work.

I wasn't saying we should all emulate those behaviors. Merely pointing out an uncomfortable truth. Personally, I'd much rather find an ethical way to counteract it, I'm just not sure I've got what it takes to do so.

The Religious Society of Friends (aka "Quakers"), in which I was raised, has a series of questions, referred to as "the Queries" that you are supposed to reflect upon yearly. A number of those questions deal with how you interact with the rest of the world. It's always interesting to see just where I've managed to step off the path every year.

I don't think it's so much a question of trying to find an ethical way, but simply to choose to behave in a certain way and let the way find you. But then, I'm weird.