President Bush in the Church Administration Building
On the occasion of his first overnight stay in Utah during his Administration, President Bush met with the First Presidency of the Church yesterday morning (8/31) (White House photo by Eric Draper, hat tip: the free republic). The meeting lasted for 40 minutes and was closed to reporters. It would be interesting to know what kind of chit-chat would occur between the First Presidency and President Bush, or any President of the United States:
PoUS: “So, sorry about that whole forced migration thing and the Utah War.”
FP: “Yeah, ‘it was the largest forced migration in the history of America.’[1] That was sad but, in the end, we found a place safe for us — at least for a while.”
PoUS: “Well, it looks like you have a beautiful city here.”
FP: “Yeah . . . So, have you ever heard of the Book of Mormon?”
This was much harder than I thought. At the very least it betrays my own awkwardness with small talk. I have absolutely no idea what they would talk about. I am sure that they wouldn’t have too difficult a time exchanging pleasantries for 40 minutes.
Meanwhile, this is the photo German media is running of President Bush’s visit to Salt Lake City (hat tip: Die Welt). Carefully selected, I am sure.
——————-
[1] This is a quote from an article President Hinckley wrote for the Wall Street Journal in July 1997.
This game could be fun.
[silence]
PoUS: “Sooo, I hear you guys don’t drink.”
FP: “Nope.”
PoUS: “Me neither. I gave it up a few years ago.”
FP: “Good for you.”
————————–
PoUS: “Any idea what you’re approval rating is?”
FP: “Well, we don’t want to be immodest…”
——————————–
PoUS: “Do your people belly-ache as much as mine?”
FP: “Probably not as much. Gay marriage seems to get them going, though.”
PoUS: “Oh, I totally know what you mean.”
———————————-
PoUS: “…I told them to stop being close minded–I am the president of all Americans. So I deleted Mormons from the “axis of evil” list.
FP: “We appreciate that.”
Comment by Jared — September 1, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
Jared, that was hilarious.
Comment by J. Stapley — September 1, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Ditto. Made me laugh out loud.
Comment by Mark Butler — September 1, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
I wonder if he came to give this speech in Utah because it’s the last place in the States where the man could say just about anything and still receive an applause.
Nice, Jared. I spat Coke all over the monitor.
Comment by David J — September 2, 2006 @ 12:01 am
I wish President Hinckley had asked President Bush how it felt to be responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 people — ten times the number killed on 9/11 — and if he felt he needed to repent for any of that.
But, unfortunately, that probably didn’t happen.
Comment by Mike Parker — September 2, 2006 @ 12:27 am
Mike, bravo! Maybe he’s responsible for 9/11 too. Who knows.
Comment by David J — September 2, 2006 @ 3:22 am
Gosh Mike and David, don’t stop there. Let’s blame Bush for Katrina, too. As a matter of fact, let’s even blame Bush for the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. ;-D
O.K., I’m being facetious. Actually, I’ll bet Bush probably wanted know why the LDS Church continues to grow so fast and how the Church deals with the complex social problems of the age. President Hinckley may have discussed the array of youth programs deployed by the Church to keep young people gainfully occupied and to divert their powerful energies and impulses in constructive directions. Or perhaps they discussed the Church’s welfare system, which promotes empowerment instead of entitlement.
Despite the popular portrayal of Bush, I think he’s a genuinely curious and engaged individual who wants to do the right thing. Unfortunately, he’s been misused by ideologues such as Dick Cheney and opportunists like Donald Rumsfeld. His staff has walled him off from the public just like Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski got walled off from Alaskans by his staff, which is why Murkowski was so thoroughly repudiated in Alaska’s August 22nd Republican primary election, finishing third with 19% of the vote behind winner Sarah Palin and runner-up John Binkley. Unlike Murkowski, at least Bush has a personality.
Comment by Anchorage Activist — September 2, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t believe the 9/11 attacks were staged to provide a pretext for invading Iraq. And I don’t believe the Bush administration purposely withheld aid to areas affected by Katrina. (I believe they’re incompetent, but not maliciously evil.)
My original claim about Bush being responsible for 30,000 deaths came from his own admission on 12 December 2005 at the link I provided:
Bush, as the one who ordered U.S. forces to invade and occupy Iraq, is directly responsible for those deaths. I wonder if he feels the loss of (mostly innocent) life on that scale was justified.
I certainly don’t believe it was.
Comment by Mike Parker — September 3, 2006 @ 1:16 am
I’d like to give Bush a little more credit than that. I think he probably does feel bad about the loss of life, and I believe it probably bothered him as he was making the decision to start the whole thing.
But personally, I think Bush probably sees himself as Harry Truman in Korea.
Comment by Seth R. — September 3, 2006 @ 9:27 am
While we’re blaming Bush for so many deaths, let’s not forget the previous failures of our government to prevent unneccesary killing.
Incompetence runs on both sides of the aisle.
Comment by Jon in Austin — September 3, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
I know I’m late to the flamewar, but I just had to pull this out:
If posting images doesn’t work in the comments here, click here.
Comment by Capt. Obsidian — September 5, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Mike Parker,
It has been credibly estimated that the Baath Regime in Iraq killed about 20,000 of its own subjects annually. Over the 4 years of the war, that adds up to 80,000 innocent lives that would have been taken, had Saddam remained in power.
Is it possible for us to see the invasion of Iraq as saving 50,000 innocent lives (80,000 – 30,000)? It certainly is for me.
Comment by Mark IV — September 5, 2006 @ 7:37 pm
Mark, that’s an interesting perspective — one that I honestly hadn’t thought of before.
Comment by john f. — September 6, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
PoUS: “You know, at your BYU, there’s this guy, um whats his name? Oh yeah, Stephen Jones…â€
FP: “Give us a day or two on that…â€
Comment by a random John — September 10, 2006 @ 12:59 am
Here are the real figures gentlemen…
Half a million Iraqi children estimated to have died due to our embargo/sanctions on basic medicine and supplies from entering the country. These deaths are reported to have occured from post 1991 Gulf War to the present Iraqi invasion. (per Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Int’l)
And the death figures for the INNOCENTS are estimated at over a 100,000 since the Iraqi War started (Per Amnesty Int’l and Human Rights Watch). I dont think we’ll ever know the shameful embarrassing figure that exists nor does the Bush Admin. want that accurate info out there.
Moreover, Iraq is spiralling into a Civil War and more deaths certain. All we’ve done is take a secular leader/dictator who was not a Muslim fanatic (A very bad man mind you and a murderer) and stir up a giant hornets nest. What have our Billions and loss of human life accomplished? Its appears we have goose egged on this one.
Comment by David — September 10, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
The Iraq War has been responsible for well over 600,000 violent deaths of innocent citizens since we occupied. And I believe that Bush mentioned he wanted Steven E. Jones silenced.
Comment by Kelly Winterton — October 13, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
That’s still a new study Kelly. And I don’t know how much credence to give it until the figures have been duplicated or closely approximated by other sources. It’s a disturbing study, but I don’t want to make a verdict on it yet. If I understand correctly, those numbers were extrapolated from a sample segment of Iraqi society. Is that correct?
Mark IV,
we’re not even close to finished with this Iraq problem. It’s a little early to be celebrating the amount of “lives saved” versus “lives lost.” The death toll is still rising and no one knows when we’ll be finished here or what is going to happen.
Comment by Seth R. — October 14, 2006 @ 12:26 am
Seth R. -
yes – the study only confirmed something around 575 actual deaths – the rest were extrapolated by cluster sampling (that’s a bit of a simplification, but it’s the basics).
I have not the training to know whether the study is accurate. I do know the editor of the journal is a staple at anti-Bush and anti-war rallies in the UK and elsewhere, so there may be a bias problem. But as for the study itself: I’ve read pro- and con- and can’t decide who’s right.
I’d prefer a more non-partisan source, though.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 14, 2006 @ 12:22 pm