Re: No wonder everyone has gotten so goosey about grammar:

But, success is not, "no violence."

It's difficult to put quotes around sections of text that might be better off if they were set aside by them. Given the constraints presented by the means by which the statement was made, the statement is difficult to improve upon. Success is not no violence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you occasionally chimed in with the "schools aren't what they used to be" chorus?

Yes, I have. Not because the schools I get to send my kids to suck, but because nearly every report and poll that comes out says it is true.

Having said that, GWB is my age, and schools were okay then. So, my point - that it is difficult to speak with the same notation that one might write with - stands. Success is not "no violence," in the written word looks much like, "success is not no violence," in the spoken word. Sometimes it is important to remember that the transcript may not include puncutation that was intended but not picked up by the transcriber.

In that case, Bush should have phrased it differently, knowing full well it would look stupid in print. All good speakers do that. The only ones who don't are known as idiots.

And as long as we're talking about what victory isn't, it's also apparently not no Saddam, not no WMD, not no nukes, not no mobile weapons labs, not no ties to al Qaeda, and not no anything else that Bush claimed before the war started. It amazes me to no end that people still quibble about Bush's grammar when he's made far larger mistakes and continues to do so. Mind the followups header.

Or, you could read differently, or put it into print so that it reads as it should be spoken. "Success is not no violence," is a perfectly fine thing to say. There is no grammatical problem just because you might need to read it twice to figure it out.

It's a matter of style and class, neither of which Bush has. OK - he gets a little style when he has a script in front of him. But, not much.

Success is not defined as the absence of violence.

That's how an adult would write it.

An *educated* adult. Junior only did two years at Ha Vaud.

He is light years more class than you jsb.

In a press conference, success is not no violence, is the same thing. The OP pointed out as a grammatical problem. It _might_ be a style issue, but it not a grammatical problem. You might argue that it is factually wrong, but it is not grammatically wrong. I would argue that is is not factually challenged either, but there is cleary no problem with the grammar.

Alanon flashback or permanent alcohol damage?:

"Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment." -George W. Bush, Jan. 2001

On his pal Kenny boy working the miracle of supply and demand:

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants." -George W. Bush, Jan. 2001

Kinda like the gas prices..., eh?

I think that if you look at Bush's statements from a syntax perspective, George has a lot of grammar problems putting words together to express coherent thoughts.

Let's put it this way: If an English teacher let it slide, I'd want to see that teacher reprimanded or fired. So would you. You're just defending Bush because you're required to.

Perhaps. But, "success is not no violence," is not an example thereof.

F*ck you.

I am not required to do anything.

Success is not no violence.

Left is not no right. Wrong is not no right. Winning is not not losing.

Not as egregious as some of his attempts at eloquence, but certainly a contender.

Yes you are. If you saw a videotape of Bush sodomizing kindergarten kids, you'd find a way to turn it into a positive.

Once again, f*ck you.

It pains me to resort to gutter lauguage, but alas that is all you seem to understand.