George W Bush: I Have Come To Realise Power Can Be Corrosive

[samran]

I am nohh a smarrrt man.

I don't agree with his politics, but the man managed to learn to fly fighter jets, graduate from a top school and get elected president twice on top of being governor of one of the larger US states.

I'd call him many things, but stupid isn't one of them.

Edited June 1, 2013 by samran

[F430murci]

The guy could barely speak coherently. I actually use to cringe and feel sorry for him.

"He is smarter than you think" type statements are rarely said in reference to someone that is actually smart. If your really smart, neither you nor anyone else will need to tell the world The world will notice.

Bush's 1200 SATs and IQ of 126 is an indicator of about a 155 on the LSAT (120 -180) with 155 being about the 65th percentile. Most seem to say he was in 119 range, but even at 126 is very far behind curve.

He would have zero chance at Harvard or a top tier law school. He may even have difficulty getting into bottom tier schools based on those scores.

Harvard LS average LSAT is a 173 so average IQ of HLS students is perhaps in the 145. LSAT 163=IQ 130 and average LSAT at HLS is 173, then the average HLS student has an IQ of 145 or 146, since on the LSAT 10 points is one SD.

We may then presume you are not a Harvard Law graduate?

Chuck, you shouldn't be so down on yourself. I am sure there are other guys that also got their GED at 55.

[chuckd]

The guy could barely speak coherently. I actually use to cringe and feel sorry for him.

"He is smarter than you think" type statements are rarely said in reference to someone that is actually smart. If your really smart, neither you nor anyone else will need to tell the world The world will notice.

Bush's 1200 SATs and IQ of 126 is an indicator of about a 155 on the LSAT (120 -180) with 155 being about the 65th percentile. Most seem to say he was in 119 range, but even at 126 is very far behind curve.

He would have zero chance at Harvard or a top tier law school. He may even have difficulty getting into bottom tier schools based on those scores.

Harvard LS average LSAT is a 173 so average IQ of HLS students is perhaps in the 145. LSAT 163=IQ 130 and average LSAT at HLS is 173, then the average HLS student has an IQ of 145 or 146, since on the LSAT 10 points is one SD.

We may then presume you are not a Harvard Law graduate?

Chuck, you shouldn't be so down on yourself. I am sure there are other guys that also got their GED at 55.

So you are not a Harvard Law graduate. Thanks for clearing that up.

[bangon04]

I am nohh a smarrrt man.

His IQ is reportedly 126. He is far from stupid.

But was it measured before the alcoholism?

[bangon04]

He's right of course, and there are other members of his family waiting for their turn soon.....

[Morden]

The guy was a terrible public speaker, which usually is the kind of emotional/psychological issue referenced by a previous poster. I don't know how Bush may have communicated in private, as in one to one or in small groups. It's likely he was better in the latter settings.

As to Bush's Ivy League credentials, he was what's called a 'Legacy" acceptance at Yale and Harvard, respectively. As a legacy applicant, you don't need brains. All you need is your family history and background, to include having a pulse and being able to pay tuition.

Curiously, his father was a fool which I think goes beyond intelligence into the realm of personality. Jeb Bush seems to be the only normal person with Bush family genes, although a lot of people like Barbara Bush (first ladies however are judged separately from their husband presidents).

Nixon was an intelligent guy who'd been accepted at Harvard with no legacy status, but couldn't pay tuition and was unable to secure a scholarship. Nixon's issues were entirely personality, socioeconomic status, an ingrown exclusionary nature.

Bush overall is nonetheless a scatterbrain.

Bush didn't win the presidency in 2000. He was appointed president by the Republican party majority on the nine-member Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote of the "justices." It's appalling that nine citizens who, because they sit on the Supreme Court, get to vote twice in a presidential election. That's a setback from which the U.S. constitutional system has yet to recover.

What's unusual about folks voting twice in a Presidential election get to vote twice? Democrats in Illinois have been doing it for years.

About the Supreme Court stealing the election, the following article is from your vaunted NY Times. The jury has been dismissed on this issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER

Published: November 12, 2001

Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

The Constitution requires the equal protection of the laws, which in this instance means everyone who voted properly gets their votes counted.

The Constitution requires that any disputed election of the president be settled in the House of Representatives. In 2000 the Supreme Court contravened the Constitution, to take it upon itself to decide the outcome of the national election. The Supreme Court itself acted unconstitutionally.

I recall that not all votes were counted during Bush's re-election. Wasn't it the case that the count was going against him and the expats'. votes were ignored?

[F430murci]

I am nohh a smarrrt man.

I don't agree with his politics, but the man managed to learn to fly fighter jets, graduate from a top school and get elected president twice on top of being governor of one of the larger US states.

I'd call him many things, but stupid isn't one of them.

That bad attempt at a Forest Gump quote was meant to be light hearted. Bush is a fun guy to rip because he just made it so easy.

Facts are facts. 119 or 126 IQ and 1200 SATs are average at best and only seem good to sone of you guys thanks to a whole lot of underachievers.

Edited June 1, 2013 by F430murci

[Frank James]

It will take many years to overcome the damage done by this man's contemptible mal-administration. Unfortunately, his successor, for whom so many held so much hope, has been a disaster as well.

"Everybody knows the War is Over, Everybody knows the Good Guys Lost." ---Leonard Cohen

[Morden]

I love the quotations from George Senior's idiot son. Here are some more:

"And so, General, I want to thank you for your service. And I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who are trying to defeat us in Iraq." --George W. Bush, to Army Gen. Ray Odierno, Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008

"Let me start off by saying that in 2000 I said, 'Vote for me. I'm an agent of change.' In 2004, I said, 'I'm not interested in change --I want to continue as president.' Every candidate has got to say 'change.' That's what the American people expect." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 5, 2008

"A lot of times in politics you have people look you in the eye and tell you what's not on their mind." --George W. Bush, Sochi, Russia, April 6, 2008

[NeverSure]

Sorry, he comes off as pretty darned stupid.

If he really has a high IQ, that doesn't mean he used it.

Clearly his bizarre fundamentalism (God talks to him when making big decisions, yeah right) was a crutch.

His Iraq war invasion was the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.

England provided one-third of the troops for the Iraq invasion. There were more than 20 countries in that invasion, including Thailand.

Tony Blair stood before his country and stated that there were weapons of mass destruction which had to be taken out.

Now of course it's all Bush's fault. Certainly it's all the US fault. Never mind that Britain has high quality intelligence who themselves said there were WMDs,

Both the US Congress and the British Parliament voted to go to war. That's a lot of people. Even liberal Democrats in the US congress voted to declare war on Iraq.

So how do you explain Britain providing 1/3 of the troops with approval from Parliament, along with 20 other countries, and then blame Bush?

Your revisionist history makes you look like what you are, speaking of IQ.

I blame it all on Tony Blair and the Brits.

Edited June 1, 2013 by NeverSure

[Publicus]

Sorry, he comes off as pretty darned stupid.

If he really has a high IQ, that doesn't mean he used it.

Clearly his bizarre fundamentalism (God talks to him when making big decisions, yeah right) was a crutch.

His Iraq war invasion was the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.

England provided one-third of the troops for the Iraq invasion. There were more than 20 countries in that invasion, including Thailand.

Tony Blair stood before his country and stated that there were weapons of mass destruction which had to be taken out.

Now of course it's all Bush's fault. Certainly it's all the US fault. Never mind that Britain has high quality intelligence who themselves said there were WMDs,

Both the US Congress and the British Parliament voted to go to war. That's a lot of people. Even liberal Democrats in the US congress voted to declare war on Iraq.

So how do you explain Britain providing 1/3 of the troops with approval from Parliament, along with 20 other countries, and then blame Bush?

Your revisionist history makes you look like what you are, speaking of IQ.

I blame it all on Tony Blair and the Brits.

That's another post full of George Bush quotes, right?!

[Morden]

Sorry, he comes off as pretty darned stupid.

If he really has a high IQ, that doesn't mean he used it.

Clearly his bizarre fundamentalism (God talks to him when making big decisions, yeah right) was a crutch.

His Iraq war invasion was the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.

England provided one-third of the troops for the Iraq invasion. There were more than 20 countries in that invasion, including Thailand.

Tony Blair stood before his country and stated that there were weapons of mass destruction which had to be taken out.

Now of course it's all Bush's fault. Certainly it's all the US fault. Never mind that Britain has high quality intelligence who themselves said there were WMDs,

Both the US Congress and the British Parliament voted to go to war. That's a lot of people. Even liberal Democrats in the US congress voted to declare war on Iraq.

So how do you explain Britain providing 1/3 of the troops with approval from Parliament, along with 20 other countries, and then blame Bush?

Your revisionist history makes you look like what you are, speaking of IQ.

I blame it all on Tony Blair and the Brits.

As I recall, it was Bush who first mentioned weapons of mass destruction but he an Bliar were obviously plotting together. Bliar was looking for lucrative work after he left politics so he may have been on a promise on condition he did as Bush told him. Bliar went to war without even consulting his Cabinet and against the wishes of many British people. He is as culpable for what happened as is Bush. They should both be on war crimes charges.

[Mosha]

Sorry, he comes off as pretty darned stupid.

If he really has a high IQ, that doesn't mean he used it.

Clearly his bizarre fundamentalism (God talks to him when making big decisions, yeah right) was a crutch.

His Iraq war invasion was the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.

England provided one-third of the troops for the Iraq invasion. There were more than 20 countries in that invasion, including Thailand.

Tony Blair stood before his country and stated that there were weapons of mass destruction which had to be taken out.

Now of course it's all Bush's fault. Certainly it's all the US fault. Never mind that Britain has high quality intelligence who themselves said there were WMDs,

Both the US Congress and the British Parliament voted to go to war. That's a lot of people. Even liberal Democrats in the US congress voted to declare war on Iraq.

So how do you explain Britain providing 1/3 of the troops with approval from Parliament, along with 20 other countries, and then blame Bush?

Your revisionist history makes you look like what you are, speaking of IQ.

I blame it all on Tony Blair and the Brits.

As I recall, it was Bush who first mentioned weapons of mass destruction but he an Bliar were obviously plotting together. Bliar was looking for lucrative work after he left politics so he may have been on a promise on condition he did as Bush told him. Bliar went to war without even consulting his Cabinet and against the wishes of many British people. He is as culpable for what happened as is Bush. They should both be on war crimes charges.

Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu agrees.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19454562

[bobl]

Harvard LS average LSAT is 173ish so average IQ of HLS students is perhaps 145ish. LSAT 163=IQ 130 and average LSAT at HLS is 173, then the average HLS student has an IQ of 145 or 146, since on the LSAT 10 points is one SD.

That's all very well but the BS of the TLA's suggests if you combined CED and OLV results to get an AIL of 98 you would find your SED dropped to only 155ish and you were SOL.

[chuckd]

Talking about quotes, here are some more:

"No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something."

"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances."

"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." –

"What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..."

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"The Cambridge police acted stupidly."

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

"One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard."

"I've now been in 57 states — I think one left to go."

[marell]

I chalk him up as a man of integrity and principles who was led to that position by power hungry (and evil) men who then used him to pursue their agenda(s).

Had it not been for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, I think he would have done okay. Not the best, but certainly not the tragedy his time in office proved to be.

Sadly, it will take the USA 100 years to live down that legacy. And I don't know if we have 100 years.

He appointed all those guys and is responsible for allowing them to pursue their agendas. You can delegate authority but you can't delegate responsibility.

[samran]

I'd love to find this on the internet - but never have been able to, but post Iraq invasion Bill Clinton (who's gone on to establish an excellent relationship with both 41 and 43) gave an impassioned speech at the Labour Party conference, defending Blair and the decisions of Bush.

It was a stirring speech which gave alot of opponents of the war alot pause for thought. One of the best speeches I've seen in my life.

[HerbalEd]

Power corrupts. If he didn't realise that before he took office he wasn't fit for the job.

I wonder who really had the power. He's too dim to run a hairdryer let alone an aggressive military power. It must have been those shadowy figures who always stood by his shoulder.

Whoever wrote his little speech should be sacked. How on earth could he be prompted to say words to the effect that 'he doesn't 'feel sorry for them' and that they were 'volunteers' in war'? He never did have much in the way of speaking skills, I suppose.

Regarding "Power corrupts. If he didn't realise that before he took office he wasn't fit for the job."

One can realize something is wrong and yet still do it.

[HerbalEd]

marell, on 01 Jun 2013 - 16:19, said:

impulse, on 01 Jun 2013 - 08:27, said:

I chalk him up as a man of integrity and principles who was led to that position by power hungry (and evil) men who then used him to pursue their agenda(s).

Had it not been for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, I think he would have done okay. Not the best, but certainly not the tragedy his time in office proved to be.

Sadly, it will take the USA 100 years to live down that legacy. And I don't know if we have 100 years.

He appointed all those guys and is responsible for allowing them to pursue their agendas. You can delegate authority but you can't delegate responsibility.

If he were truly a "man of integrity and principles" then he would never have let himself be used the way he was. No, he willingly and freely went along with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, which makes him as guilty and evil as they are.

Let's face it: Bush is a bit stupid. And the much smarter Cheney and others played on his intoxication with fame and power, and manipulated him like a puppet on a string.

Edited June 1, 2013 by HerbalEd

[Morden]

Power corrupts. If he didn't realise that before he took office he wasn't fit for the job.

I wonder who really had the power. He's too dim to run a hairdryer let alone an aggressive military power. It must have been those shadowy figures who always stood by his shoulder.

Whoever wrote his little speech should be sacked. How on earth could he be prompted to say words to the effect that 'he doesn't 'feel sorry for them' and that they were 'volunteers' in war'? He never did have much in the way of speaking skills, I suppose.

Regarding "Power corrupts. If he didn't realise that before he took office he wasn't fit for the job."

One can realize something is wrong and yet still do it.

Quite so.

[impulse]

I chalk him up as a man of integrity and principles who was led to that position by power hungry (and evil) men who then used him to pursue their agenda(s).

Had it not been for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, I think he would have done okay. Not the best, but certainly not the tragedy his time in office proved to be.

Sadly, it will take the USA 100 years to live down that legacy. And I don't know if we have 100 years.

He appointed all those guys and is responsible for allowing them to pursue their agendas. You can delegate authority but you can't delegate responsibility.

Sadly, I think you have it backwards. He did not appoint them as much as he was selected by them.

A bunch of un-electable neocons needed a conduit to pursue their agenda. For various reasons, none of them could possibly ever be elected president. They chose him and then put their power and money machines into motion to get him elected. (And, in fairness, name one politician that wouldn't have taken that ride, with the fare to be paid after the election)

They counted on his integrity and his loyalty to "the folks that brung him to the dance". In that respect, his loyalty and trust in them was what torpedoed his legacy- along with America's reputation and international standing.

I think the only one that was worth a bucket of spit was Colin Powell and he was brought down because he wouldn't play ball the way the hard core warmongers needed him to play ball. (If Powell ran in 2016, I'd vote for him)

I'm not defending W or the legacy he left behind. He was a disaster unprecedented in 20th century US history. But it's not as simple as most people like to think it is.

On a related topic, I'd like to see all of them stand for War Crimes charges, if only to show the world that NOBODY is above the law. Whether I'd like to see them actually convicted would depend on the evidence that would surface that won't be unsealed in my lifetime without such a trial.

Edited June 1, 2013 by impulse

[Publicus]

I chalk him up as a man of integrity and principles who was led to that position by power hungry (and evil) men who then used him to pursue their agenda(s).

Had it not been for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, I think he would have done okay. Not the best, but certainly not the tragedy his time in office proved to be.

Sadly, it will take the USA 100 years to live down that legacy. And I don't know if we have 100 years.

He appointed all those guys and is responsible for allowing them to pursue their agendas. You can delegate authority but you can't delegate responsibility.

Sadly, I think you have it backwards. He did not appoint them as much as he was selected by them.

A bunch of un-electable neocons needed a conduit to pursue their agenda. For various reasons, none of them could possibly ever be elected president. They chose him and then put their power and money machines into motion to get him elected. (And, in fairness, name one politician that wouldn't have taken that ride, with the fare to be paid after the election)

They counted on his integrity and his loyalty to "the folks that brung him to the dance". In that respect, his loyalty and trust in them was what torpedoed his legacy- along with America's reputation and international standing.

I think the only one that was worth a bucket of spit was Colin Powell and he was brought down because he wouldn't play ball the way the hard core warmongers needed him to play ball. (If Powell ran in 2016, I'd vote for him)

I'm not defending W or the legacy he left behind. He was a disaster unprecedented in 20th century US history. But it's not as simple as most people like to think it is.

On a related topic, I'd like to see all of them stand for War Crimes charges, if only to show the world that NOBODY is above the law. Whether I'd like to see them actually convicted would depend on the evidence that would surface that won't be unsealed in my lifetime without such a trial.

Powell should have resigned rather than knowingly lie to the UN Security Council about WMD supposedly in Iraq. Powell knew he was lying. The French intelligence services and government knew Powell was lying. So did the Germans, the Russians, the PRC etc etc.

I remember before the 2000 election some boneheaded commentators said we'd be safe and secure with Powell in the Bush administration because all Powell (supposedly) would need to do is walk into the Oval Office and say, "You do that and I quit."

It turned out to be the other way around. Bush & Co called Powell into the Oval Office and said, "If you don't go along with us, you're fired." Powell kissed their ars, er, rings and lied, lied. lied.

Powell is not a neocon. It's straightforwardly a case of the man having no nads and no integrity. Powell was no general's general either. He was a political general.

Smoooootch!

[impulse]

That's one of the things that I hope would come out of a War Crimes trial.

I don't think Powell knew he was lying. He did have conflicting intelligence from various sources, true. But that happens daily.

I think he was set up.

They knew he was the one guy on staff that could sway the President (Like he did Bush Sr. to stay out of Baghdad) So they went out of their way to make sure he was in it up to his neck. They fed him the "cooked" intelligence, then he was the one to stand up in front of the UN and present the White House official position, perhaps his own, perhaps with some doubts that he wasn't in any position to voice.

Two birds with one stone. The most credible guy in the White House giving out the false info, so everyone believes it. Then he's not in any position to make waves when the truth did come out. Had he not been the one to present the bad intel, I think things would have gone very differently, and he would have been the voice of reason...again.

Class act, though. He kept his mouth shut, and fell on his sword. Lesser men would have thrown a lot of others under the bus on their way out the door.

Edited June 1, 2013 by impulse

[sunshine51]

I can understand the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 and why it happened.

I still cannot understand why Iraq was invaded. I know the WMD story was BS,

so do most of the people on this planet. Being ex-military I have never criticised

any president; serving or ex...until Dubya invaded Iraq. The original moniker for

the invasion was supposed to be Operation Iraqi Liberation..or OIL for short.

That was hastily changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom when the acronym OIL

didn't quite fit the bill with WH staffers. Whether hornswaggled into the invasion

by his advisors or whatever...George W. Bush, in my opinion is responsible for

the deaths of untold numbers of people, military (perhaps known) & civilian alike

(unknown numbers...just a best guess estimate) and should be held accountable

for his actions regardless of what part "God" played in his thinking processess.

For the rest of the story on this threads topic look here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/george-w-bush-bike_n_3359824.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

...and make up your own mind.

[BradinAsia]

I chalk him up as a man of integrity and principles who was led to that position by power hungry (and evil) men who then used him to pursue their agenda(s).

Had it not been for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, I think he would have done okay. Not the best, but certainly not the tragedy his time in office proved to be.

Sadly, it will take the USA 100 years to live down that legacy. And I don't know if we have 100 years.

He appointed all those guys and is responsible for allowing them to pursue their agendas. You can delegate authority but you can't delegate responsibility.

Sadly, I think you have it backwards. He did not appoint them as much as he was selected by them.

A bunch of un-electable neocons needed a conduit to pursue their agenda. For various reasons, none of them could possibly ever be elected president. They chose him and then put their power and money machines into motion to get him elected. (And, in fairness, name one politician that wouldn't have taken that ride, with the fare to be paid after the election)

They counted on his integrity and his loyalty to "the folks that brung him to the dance". In that respect, his loyalty and trust in them was what torpedoed his legacy- along with America's reputation and international standing.

I think the only one that was worth a bucket of spit was Colin Powell and he was brought down because he wouldn't play ball the way the hard core warmongers needed him to play ball. (If Powell ran in 2016, I'd vote for him)

I'm not defending W or the legacy he left behind. He was a disaster unprecedented in 20th century US history. But it's not as simple as most people like to think it is.

On a related topic, I'd like to see all of them stand for War Crimes charges, if only to show the world that NOBODY is above the law. Whether I'd like to see them actually convicted would depend on the evidence that would surface that won't be unsealed in my lifetime without such a trial.

Powell should have resigned rather than knowingly lie to the UN Security Council about WMD supposedly in Iraq. Powell knew he was lying. The French intelligence services and government knew Powell was lying. So did the Germans, the Russians, the PRC etc etc.

I remember before the 2000 election some boneheaded commentators said we'd be safe and secure with Powell in the Bush administration because all Powell (supposedly) would need to do is walk into the Oval Office and say, "You do that and I quit."

It turned out to be the other way around. Bush & Co called Powell into the Oval Office and said, "If you don't go along with us, you're fired." Powell kissed their ars, er, rings and lied, lied. lied.

Powell is not a neocon. It's straightforwardly a case of the man having no nads and no integrity. Powell was no general's general either. He was a political general.

Smoooootch!

Powell did not knowingly lie.

He repeatedly quizzed the heads of the intel organizations to be very sure

they stood behind the intelligence reports that he would be citing at the U.N.

He received those assurances and went with it. He was duped.

When he found out later that he had been duped he was deeply chagrined.

Powell was a man of integrity, working for an imbecile.

[F430murci]

marell, on 01 Jun 2013 - 16:19, said:

impulse, on 01 Jun 2013 - 08:27, said:

I chalk him up as a man of integrity and principles who was led to that position by power hungry (and evil) men who then used him to pursue their agenda(s).

Had it not been for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, I think he would have done okay. Not the best, but certainly not the tragedy his time in office proved to be.

Sadly, it will take the USA 100 years to live down that legacy. And I don't know if we have 100 years.

He appointed all those guys and is responsible for allowing them to pursue their agendas. You can delegate authority but you can't delegate responsibility.

If he were truly a "man of integrity and principles" then he would never have let himself be used the way he was. No, he willingly and freely went along with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, which makes him as guilty and evil as they are.

Let's face it: Bush is a bit stupid. And the much smarter Cheney and others played on his intoxication with fame and power, and manipulated him like a puppet on a string.

Yep, unfortunately this is very true. Amazing period for USA that dang near bankrupted the entire country in many ways. Few understood or care to appreciate how bad it really was and at what future costs it took to shore up our financial system.

[JulesMad]

Even with a so-called high IQ (determined by who?!?), Bush is the living proof that it is still very possible to be very stupid

Maybe USA's worst president, and IMO definitely the most stupid and most unfit for that job... Can USA be a real democracy if father as well as son are 'elected'???

I challenge anyone who knows a TRUE democracy where the father as well as the son are elected in a real election!!!

Good Luck

PS I do NOT include 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea', better known as North Korea

[FDog]

Sorry, he comes off as pretty darned stupid.

If he really has a high IQ, that doesn't mean he used it.

Clearly his bizarre fundamentalism (God talks to him when making big decisions, yeah right) was a crutch.

His Iraq war invasion was the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.

England provided one-third of the troops for the Iraq invasion. There were more than 20 countries in that invasion, including Thailand.

Tony Blair stood before his country and stated that there were weapons of mass destruction which had to be taken out.

Now of course it's all Bush's fault. Certainly it's all the US fault. Never mind that Britain has high quality intelligence who themselves said there were WMDs,

Both the US Congress and the British Parliament voted to go to war. That's a lot of people. Even liberal Democrats in the US congress voted to declare war on Iraq.

So how do you explain Britain providing 1/3 of the troops with approval from Parliament, along with 20 other countries, and then blame Bush?

Your revisionist history makes you look like what you are, speaking of IQ.

I blame it all on Tony Blair and the Brits.

Why other countries joined in is easy to explain.

'You are either with us or against us'.

So with the US being an economic power the smaller countries just joined in to not be offside with the good old US of A.

Also many countries had very little intelligence on WMD as most of that intelligence came from the USA. So most of the world believed Bush when he lied about the WMD's and just hoped they would be found.

Now that the majority of the world knows the US govt will lie to them to get their own way they may not be so quick to back them next time.

[Joe Mamma]

I liked his old man much more. History and hindsight go together. Mr. Bush can't change a damn thing now.

[F430murci]

Sorry, he comes off as pretty darned stupid.

If he really has a high IQ, that doesn't mean he used it.

Clearly his bizarre fundamentalism (God talks to him when making big decisions, yeah right) was a crutch.

His Iraq war invasion was the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.

England provided one-third of the troops for the Iraq invasion. There were more than 20 countries in that invasion, including Thailand.

Tony Blair stood before his country and stated that there were weapons of mass destruction which had to be taken out.

Now of course it's all Bush's fault. Certainly it's all the US fault. Never mind that Britain has high quality intelligence who themselves said there were WMDs,

Both the US Congress and the British Parliament voted to go to war. That's a lot of people. Even liberal Democrats in the US congress voted to declare war on Iraq.

So how do you explain Britain providing 1/3 of the troops with approval from Parliament, along with 20 other countries, and then blame Bush?

Your revisionist history makes you look like what you are, speaking of IQ.

I blame it all on Tony Blair and the Brits.

Why other countries joined in is easy to explain.

'You are either with us or against us'.

So with the US being an economic power the smaller countries just joined in to not be offside with the good old US of A.

Also many countries had very little intelligence on WMD as most of that intelligence came from the USA. So most of the world believed Bush when he lied about the WMD's and just hoped they would be found.

Now that the majority of the world knows the US govt will lie to them to get their own way they may not be so quick to back them next time.

For us or against was taken to the extreme. That administration ruined so many lives of anyone that was against them. CIA and military personnel whistle blowers, federal prosecutors and even people that were once part of his team.

How many times did we hear the for us or against us, thugs, axis of evil and etc. and all the impressionable sheep party base followed and bought it hook line and sinker. Even the airport security levels were artificial kept at Orange to just keep the followers scared enough to follow. I used to watch this stuff with amasement that anyone would actually buy into or believe it. Still amazes me today how impressionable people can be or how many have a complete inability to be free thinkers.