I didn't say any of those things. You're boxing with shadows. I said that Peggy's description of his speechifying on Iraq is correct and apropos of his entire time in office. Contrast it with Tony Blair, for example. I didn't even say I thought one or the other was better.
If I am indeed 'boxing with shadows,' could you explain the meaning of this obvious insult?
Are you saying that if George W. Bush is not eloquent as is Tony Blair, that he is less of a leader?
I'm really asking, Huck, because it seems that you insult the President with one-liners all the time, and it gives an air of superiority on your part.
I don't happen to think that eloquence is a requirement of either character or leadership, and if the President is not capable of flowery speech nor rhapsodic rhetoric, it is absolutely irrelevant to anything at all, and needs not be mentioned.
It is WHAT he says that counts, and that, sir, is profound and visionary. And he expresses that vision in clear, concise, and easily understood speeches. I, for one, see that as a good thing.