Talk:Rogue nation

=Bush Quote=

It's possible that an article titled "Bush can range from inspiring to confusing" by Judy Keen, USA Today, August 28, 2000, p. 8A may have the quote in it, but I can't find it on the net to check it. (found the info here)24.57.157.81 05:57, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)

If anyone wants to change it to a different quote feel free. I think it's pretty clear Bush uses it to describe "America's Enemies" rather than the literal interpretation (and the word rogue implies a contextual status quo anyway, it's just the status quo is defined as America's, rather than consensus--which as "rogue nation" can be considered a new term (at least to the mainstream, right?) no real political consensus on the usage has developed--or ever will even). If anyone disagrees they can change it or even take it out. Or add to it. I think the best quote would be one that illustrates this. One that makes it obvious enough not to be so POV--unless NPOV can't be achieved.24.57.157.81 05:57, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)

quote has been verified
you can listen to the quote here http://www.dubyaspeak.com/grammarian2001.shtml But why do you want to add it? It just makes the point that Bush is dyslexic, but doesnt add to the use/abuse of this propaganda term. PaulR

Well, a) because it's funny, I'll admit that and b) because I haven't found another good "rogue nation" quote and that's the first one that came to mind. I feel it does illustrate the point because he's saying he won't let "rogue nations" hold the US hostage, using it as a subsititute for "enemy countries" rather than just "countries against the (American) status quo," thereby implying that certain rogue nations are holding the US hostage and therefore are the US enemies, and since he uses it generally without qualification all the time, he really means "countries against the (American) status quo are America's enemies." I'll look for a better one though. While it's a funny quote, it's not my intention to make fun of Bush, but to show how I think the term is used. I think it's possible to do it with strict linguistics rather than needing much argument (which could construed as being POV.) 24.57.157.81 20:10, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)