I don’t want to believe the following can be true:
Mr. Bush came to office skeptical of Mr. Putin, privately calling him “one cold dude,” but bonded with him during their first meeting in Slovenia in June 2001, after which he made his now-famous comment about looking into the Russian’s soul. Mr. Putin had made a connection with the religious Mr. Bush by telling him a story about a cross that his mother had given him and how it was the only thing that survived a fire at his country house.
I’d so much rather have a House of Cards type President than somebody this facile. The story is simply embarrassing to read. If Bush were a woman, Putin would have probably told him about a copy of Simone de Beauvoir his mother gave him and that was the only thing that survived a fire, etc. And the latter story would have been at least marginally probable compared to the load of crock Putin actually sold to Bush.
The article gets even better later on:
He was even more frustrated by Mr. Putin a year later. “He’s not well-informed,” Bush told the visiting prime minister of Denmark in 2006. “It’s like arguing with an eighth-grader with his facts wrong.”
I have no doubt that Putin laughed for days after hearing these projections.
And the last story:
Mr. Bush in his memoir recalled confronting Mr. Putin, scolding him for being provoked by Mikheil Saakashvili, then Georgia’s anti-Moscow president.
“I’ve been warning you Saakashvili is hot-blooded,” Mr. Bush told Mr. Putin.
“I’m hot-blooded too,” Mr. Putin said.
“No, Vladimir,” Mr. Bush responded. “You’re coldblooded.”
I’m quoting all this so that you see the intellectual caliber of people who control the world’s largest stock of nuclear weapons.
Clarissa's Blog 
Laugh so you’re not crying, indeed.
LikeLike
I remember long ago an american history teacher I had was convinced that LBJ was the single most effective president after WWII maybe in the 20th century.
The basis was that he actually got more legislation through a more hostile congress than any other.
The secret was his comprehsensive knowledge on where the bodies were buried (so to speak) gained by his many years in congress himself and his willingness to use that to bring recalcitrant legislators over to his side.
This is why it’s not a good idea to elect ‘outsiders’ like Carter or Obama. They don’t know anybody (who counts) and they don’t know how to get things done and they bring too many of their own people who have the same gaps.
For effective governance you want a ruthless insider (likeLBJ) who’s on your side.
The big problem is, of course, that the current system selects for candidates who know how to campaign which requires a very different skill set than actually being president.
Every once in a while you get someone who can do both like Bill Clinton but that’s the exception, not the rule.
LikeLike
The chief characteristic of a successful politician is not intelligence, but cunning.
LikeLike