Tiger Moth Posted December 19, 2005 Report Share Posted December 19, 2005 Not sure if this is the proper place to post this. From the Associated Press and W's address to the American public: "No more rosy scenarios. After watching his credibility and approval ratings crumble over the course of 2005, President Bush completed a rhetorical shift Sunday night by abandoning his everything-is-OK pitch to Americans and coming clean: He was wrong about the rationale for going to war in Iraq; he underestimated the dangers; the country has suffered "terrible loss"; and the bad news isn't over.". In reading comments here and elsewhere, it has seemed obvious that citizens of other countries and informed US citizens have known for a long time what W seems to have just come to grips with (or decided to be truthful about). What went unmentioned is that his decisons have caused a great deal of animosity towards the US and created a haven for terrorists. So, how could a US President have been more incompetent than W? How could he have been re-elected President having performed so arrogantly and incompetently? Is his admission supposed to result in an improved "approval of performance" by the American people and a belief that he is competent to lead the United States of America? And, why have the people who led him down this path (Rumsfeld, Cheney) continued to receive his votes of confidence and in fact been praised for their work? Comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted December 19, 2005 Report Share Posted December 19, 2005 "...So, how could a US President have been more incompetent than W? How could he have been re-elected President having performed so arrogantly and incompetently?..." He was never elected in the first place...don't get me started... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigma Posted December 19, 2005 Report Share Posted December 19, 2005 "...don't get me started..." Worst. President. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayjann Posted December 19, 2005 Report Share Posted December 19, 2005 when Bush's Term is over we in the UK will gladly let you have Tony Blair to replace him......... then me,Lusty,STH,Bangkokbutcher,LazyPhil and SLH can get around to running the UK in our own unique way........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlton68 Posted December 19, 2005 Report Share Posted December 19, 2005 sayjann, let me guess. You'd give residency to every good looking thai girl that served one year of 'free public service' (that is servicing every guy and doing it in public if he likes it that way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Moth Posted December 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2005 Please feel free to enlighten me about Tony Blair, following my impressions as follows: I had read that after Bill Clinton became President, Tony Blair visited Washington and was tutored by Clinton's political strategists. He found success using these strategies and became fast friends with Clinton who was subsequently something of a mentor. Clinton in my view is apparently a brilliant man with substantial insight into appropriate courses of action but his main interest was always his own advancement and popularity. I am not sure to the degree Blair and Clinton are the same in this respect. With Bush succeeding Clinton, Blair apparently decided it was in his interest to continue the close ties with the US and to adopt positions where necessary to retain these close ties. Apparently your method of government is quite different in that Bush is not at all accountable and only need to have the occasionally press conference but, Blair must appear before other elected officials and explain and argue for positions he is taking. I have seen on TV a number of occasions when Blair has had to do so. And, I have been impressed with is intellect and "debating" skills. So, I am much more impressed with Blair than I am with Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_66_UK Posted December 19, 2005 Report Share Posted December 19, 2005 Please feel free to enlighten me about Tony Blair The man's a CUNT. (end of indepth political anaylsis ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted December 20, 2005 Report Share Posted December 20, 2005 << He was never elected in the first place...don't get me started... >> Neither was JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted December 20, 2005 Report Share Posted December 20, 2005 I agree! Those/these are the 2 in our time that we know of, how many more? But hey, if you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention...oh well...maybe if it gets bad enough, someone will do something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted December 20, 2005 Report Share Posted December 20, 2005 Watch as GWB gets his honourary knighthood when he leaves office -- same same Bill Clinton and I think GHW Bush. Seems to be the practice these days to knight American presidents. Strikes me as a bit ridiculous, considering that little spat back between 1775-1783. Then again, if Mick Jagger can become a knight and Elton John a dame, I suppose it makes as much sense as anything these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.