George W Bush...Hero or villian.
Discussion
Prompted by another thread i am interested to know what the general feeling is about a man at the helm of western power,my own take is ,if he had grounds for the invasion of Iraq then i would be behind him,but i feel he didnt,and has mislead us into a one of the most controversial conflicts of all time.
Villian.
Villian.
He's a liability, but if it wasn't him it would be someone else.
This is the real danger in America at the moment. It's a bit of a read, but check out the under-signed.
www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
This is the real danger in America at the moment. It's a bit of a read, but check out the under-signed.
www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
t and a puppet
t and a puppet
scorp said:
It's hard to judge a man in politics being that their primary skill is making rhetorical speeches. I do think Bush has good intentions though, but somewhat inept at executing them.
Indeed
And his domestic record is quite good. For example a policy of big tax cuts, wouldn't we love to see that here.
ZR1cliff said:
Prompted by another thread i am interested to know what the general feeling is about a man at the helm of western power,my own take is ,if he had grounds for the invasion of Iraq then i would be behind him,but i feel he didnt,and has mislead us into a one of the most controversial conflicts of all time.
Villian.
Hero actually.
Back in 2002 i think (other things on my mind so cant remember the exact date) things were hotting up and Bush published a document called "100 Best Reasons To Invade Iraq" or something like that. Essentially it was a list of all the reasons why it was in Americas interest to finish off Saddam. WMDs were included, oil was number 7 or 8, and a whole bunch of other reasons not least the fact that Saddam is a murdering dictator.
The problem was that Tony Blur didn't argue his point on a wide set of issues. He started with "Saddams a bad guy", and moved onto "WMDs and 45 minutes" as that was where they calculated that the most amount of capital for spin would be. The trouble was that he got stuck in the WMDs argument when they couldn't find them, whilst Bush still had his "100 Best Reasons To Invade Iraq" document.
Thats why Tony Blur is the fall guy for Iraq and not Bush - its because he mis-sold the issue with incorrect information.
I'm still trying to find the document he released in 2002 as I've mentioned it before on PH.
dmitsi said:
their primary skill is making rhetorical speeches.
I think we must have been listening to different a George Bush, the one I hear would have trouble pronouncing rhetoric let alone understand what it means.
>> Edited by dmitsi on Tuesday 24th January 17:00
Like i said, his execution is rubbish
Dick Cheney comes across as being 
scorp said:
their primary skill is making rhetorical speeches.
I think we must have been listening to different a George Bush, the one I hear would have trouble pronouncing rhetoric let alone understand what it means.
>> Edited by dmitsi on Tuesday 24th January 17:00
Like i said, his execution is rubbish
I like the way you managed to correct the quotation I was using, I'm no better than Bush am I!!!
tinman0 said:
Prompted by another thread i am interested to know what the general feeling is about a man at the helm of western power,my own take is ,if he had grounds for the invasion of Iraq then i would be behind him,but i feel he didnt,and has mislead us into a one of the most controversial conflicts of all time.
Villian.
Hero actually.
Back in 2002 i think (other things on my mind so cant remember the exact date) things were hotting up and Bush published a document called "100 Best Reasons To Invade Iraq" or something like that. Essentially it was a list of all the reasons why it was in Americas interest to finish off Saddam. WMDs were included, oil was number 7 or 8, and a whole bunch of other reasons not least the fact that Saddam is a murdering dictator.
The problem was that Tony Blur didn't argue his point on a wide set of issues. He started with "Saddams a bad guy", and moved onto "WMDs and 45 minutes" as that was where they calculated that the most amount of capital for spin would be. The trouble was that he got stuck in the WMDs argument when they couldn't find them, whilst Bush still had his "100 Best Reasons To Invade Iraq" document.
Thats why Tony Blur is the fall guy for Iraq and not Bush - its because he mis-sold the issue with incorrect information.
I'm still trying to find the document he released in 2002 as I've mentioned it before on PH.
But doesnt that make him all the more stupid,WMD would of been a valid reason,fair enough but surely all the others were just excuses ,except for the oil issue,which would of just been through greed?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff