I can't stand it. I just can't stand it. I can't believe it...
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com>
Subject: Bush to Cardoso: you have blacks too?
Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
Status:
[Translated from Der Spiegel. Original at
<http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,196865,00.html>.]
<http://www.gwbush.com/copies/trans.html>
BUSH'S GENERAL EDUCATION
Do you have blacks in Brazil?
It is said, that, before September 11, George W. Bush thought the Taliban were a Bavarian brass band. Now, thanks to his comprehensive knowledge, the most powerful man in the world has got into hot water again.
Washington - It was Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor, who helped her boss out of the embarassing situation. During a conversation between the two presidents, George W. Bush, 55, (USA) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, 71, (Brazil), Bush bewildered his colleague with the question "Do you have blacks, too?"
Rice, 47, noticing how astonished the Brazilian was, saved the day by telling Bush "Mr. President, Brazil probably has more blacks than the USA. Some say it's the Country with the most blacks outside Africa." Later, the Brazilian president Cardoso said: regarding Latin America, Bush was still in his "learning phase".
The question on the table now is, how stupid would someone have to be to fall for this obvious hoax?
Preposterous on its face (how likely is it that a person with both a Yale degree and a Harvard MBA, who probably owns a television set where he could catch Black Orpheus on Turner Classic Movies, who would have been briefed about current goings on in any foreign country he visited, would not have known that there were "blacks in Brazil"?)this has been reported in exactly ONE publication, in Germany.
And not at all in the U.S., where the papers were not shy about inventing the story that George H W Bush didn't know what a supermarket scanner was.
Have we no clue?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 5, 2002 09:21 AMThe original source of the story appears to be http://www.estado.estadao.com.br/colunistas/pedreira/2002/04/pedreira020428.html. Its author, Fernando Pedreira, is close to Cardoso.
I *really* hope this isn't true...
Posted by: Brad DeLong on June 5, 2002 03:57 PMActually, Brad, you *really* hope it is true. That's why you posted it.
Which is piquant irony, given your comments (feeling "slimed") about Andrew Sullivan (no relation to me, btw)over a trivial attempt at a joke at The Economist's expense.
The Washington Post has just tracked down "one participant" at the meeting, who does not support the story. And the White House told the Post it was, "total crap".
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 7, 2002 07:58 AMI am not a liar...
Posted by: Brad DeLong on June 7, 2002 11:17 AMPeople who live in glass houses shouldn't ostentatiously take sponge baths. Urban legend debunker snopes.com sees it my way:
http://www.snopes2.com/quotes/brazil.htm
" In another case of a quote reflecting what many people want to believe -- in this case that President Bush is an appallingly ignorant racist with little understanding of the world outside the USA...."
Stick to economics, Brad. You're good at that.
It's more muddled than you imply....
Posted by: Brad DeLong on June 13, 2002 08:36 PMOn June 5, 2002, Patrick R. Sullivan wrote:
Preposterous on its face (how likely is it that a person with both a Yale degree and a Harvard MBA, who probably owns a television set where he could catch Black Orpheus on Turner Classic Movies, who would have been briefed about current goings on in any foreign country he visited, would not have known that there were "blacks in Brazil"?)
How likely is it that such a person would have made any of the other gaffes that Bush did make on the record?
But as to being "briefed about current goings on in any foreign country he visited," Bush is not described as visiting Brazil during this meeting.
In fact, Brazil's President Cardoso did meet with Bush in the Oval Office in October 2001, and Condoleezza Rice was at that meeting.
this has been reported in exactly ONE publication, in Germany.
Der Speigel reprinted the story from a Brazilian periodical, O Estado de Sao Paulo, whose editor (and the author of this article), Fernando Pedreira, is a friend of President Cardoso. This story appears to have been relayed in Portuguese and not in the original English; even the English version of the question appears to be a translation. Thus the source is more likely to have been a Brazilian at the meeting than any of the USA participants; either Cardoso himself or one of his staff.
And not at all in the U.S., where the papers were not shy about inventing the story that George H W Bush didn't know what a supermarket scanner was.
[grin] How often have USA news media given wide coverage to articles from Brazilian newspapers, on any subject?
During the 2000 presidential campaign, and even more notably during the months immediately after 9/11/01, the major corporate news media of the USA were quite favorable toward Bush, and silent concerning his errors of fact and of phrasing, especially compared with their previous blaring coverage of (often manufactured) "scandals" involving Clinton and Gore.
This compliance has been remarked upon in the "alternative press" on- and offline, e.g. political "watch" websites like The Daily Howler, BushWatch, and Buzzflash.
Let us remember that even the Reagan-Bush era scandal involving the USA sending arms to Iran in exchange for funding to the Contras ("Contragate") was broken by a Lebanese periodical, and initially not reported in the USA press despite making headlines in other foreign periodicals.
By sheer coincidence, back then USA publishers were frequent guests at White House dinners; their news agencies were being bought out by companies with large federal contracts, like General Electric; they ceased to report major errors by those companies (such as accidents with nuclear reactor fuel or nuclear waste).
These same news agencies kept silent about serious allegations against Reagan: accusations of rape in Hollywood, corruption while SAC president, mob connections early in his political career (see Dan Moldea's Dark Victory: Reagan, MCA, and the Mob), the 1980 "October Surprise" deal with Iran, the "Black Eagle" drug-running (on the return trips of the same planes than ran guns to the Contras), etc. These had sounder basis and graver implications than Whitewater, Travelgate, and Filegate; yet which set of accusations made years of headlines, and which made none?
Have we no clue?
Good question. Do you have reason to allege political bias on the part of Cardoso or Pedreira, neither of whom are involved in USA party politics?
Political bias on the part of these USA news agencies, however, has been fairly obvious.
So there is a difference in credibility; unfortunately, it's not to the USA news agencies' advantage.
Posted by: C.M. Joserlin on August 3, 2002 01:52 PM
The above is a picture I have received twice via email. Yet, according to Snopes, it's in fact a complete fake. It's too bad because I was really inclined to believe it.
Yet, according to the same Snopes, the status of the Brazil blur is not false but undetermined. Just to set this piece of the record straight, Patrick.
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on October 4, 2002 11:41 PMBut, don't you think Democrats aren't the object of such scams as well!
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on October 5, 2002 12:59 AM