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

[GentlemanJim]

At least this thread will permit all you US haters to get your rocks off at Bush.

All of you folks claiming he is stupid does not speak well for a couple of highly regarded Ivy League Universities. Bush obtained a Bachelor's Degree from Yale University and graduated with an MBA from Harvard Business School.

A couple of other items you folks might not realize. Bush could not have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without the support of the Democratic party. They (Clinton, Kerry et al) voted FOR the wars.

This little comment can easily be applied to the current resident of the White House:

"To vote for an idiot once is unfortunate. To vote for him twice is carelessness."

You may think some people are US bashers, but I absolutely assure you it is nothing in comparison to the venom and hatred fellow Americans throw at each other. To stand back and watch a Republican and a Democrat have a go at each other is quite a thing, it makes US bashers look like members of the Salvation Army.

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.

Nope, you don't get away with that. I reckon it's safe to assume that if you asked the UK population if Tony Bliar should be in jail for Iraq, 80% would say yes. We hold him completely responsible and he is as culpable as Bush. The two of them concocted an event that has cost over a million lives. Let those religious chaps that they both are take that to the pearly gates with them, as it's likely that is the only place they will face justice.

[F430murci]

GJ: so dang true. So much ugliness thrown around be people in US that have it so good. Shameful.

Edited June 2, 2013 by F430murci

[Exsexyman]

I'll always struggle to be critical.

Unless you were sitting in that chair, getting the same information and advice that he did, then you are never going to be fully aware of the forces leading to him making a call on Iraq. People elect people into these positions to make the tough calls that can't be made by some junior flunky farther down the decision tree. And by tough decisions, I mean the ones that no matter what decision they make, there will still be huge losers. In this case, the question was, "how to I best ensure that there is not another attack on US soil on my watch"?

You elect them, you place your trust in them, for the most part you have to believe the decision they've made is the best one, on balance, for the country.

Okay, so who really believed that we could go in and take out Sadam Hussien in a few months, the people of Iraq would cheer and put us on their Christmas list, we could then immediately leave and Iraq would be a better and more stable place.

Either Bush administration believed that in which case they were stupid or they had another more surreptitious agenda.

My guess has always been that they felt if they could establish a real Western-friendly democracy run by Arabs that the other countries in the region would want to emulate them - kind of what the Arab spring was supposed to be. It seems to me that they gave the people in the region way too much credit for the possibility of acting sensibly. The first George Bush had it right.

Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome- George Bush (Senior)

A western friendly democracy? Do you really believe that is what it was all about? Look at the state of Iraq now, suicide bombings on a daily basis, something that was unheard of before G W unleashed 'operation freedom'. Laughable. It is a fact that Al Qaeda did not exist in iraq before this. Of course it goes without saying that Hussain was a tyrant like the Saqudi and Bahrain regimes. But Al Qaeda were his sworn enemy's, they had no foothold in Iraq. Now, thanks to the stupidity of G W Bush they are running amok, detonating car bombs on a daily basis, resulting in the deaths of literally hundreds of innocentt people. Well done Mr Bush! Likewise in Libya where there is complete anarchy after NATOs misguided intervention, although there appears to be a news blackout in the Western MSN, although to be fair Bush cannot be blamed for that. Now we have the situation in Syria where we have American special forces training Al Qaeda Islamic jihadist fighters in Turkey and Jordan, financing them, arming them through their proxy's in Saudi and Qatar. There is no moral compass here. There were reports over the weekend that six Al Qaeda operatives were arrested in Turkey with 2 KGs of sarin nerve gas with which they entended to make a bomb. All over the Turkish and Spanish press, but again nothing in the Western MSN. Why is this? Because these Al Qaeda terrorists are doing the West's dirty work for them? Overthrowing the legitimate government of Syria because it suits their geopolitical agenda, ie, next stop Iran? The government of Syria have as much right to fight Islamic terrorists Jihadists as do the US, UK and Israel. This hypocrisy started with the regime, ( because that is what it is). of G W Bush and his neo con backers. Like it or not! Shame on the American people for sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending black is white.

[Genericnic]

One of the very few truly insightful remarks ever made by the man.

Makes you wonder who wrote it for him.

David

[GentlemanJim]

Well when everyone considers giving Bush laudatory remarks for being nice and telling the truth The real truth is that both Bush and Blair should already have been sat in a special chair with 110 Volts and a 1000 amps going through it. Justice has no expiry date!

[SunSeek01]

I'm a little confused as to whether Syria/Assad is Sunni or Shia, I guess I'll have to look it up. Saddam had contracts out of both Sr. and W for real. If you want to get an idea of how the intel world works, read Le Carre, any or all of them, and also Graham Green's The Quiet American about VN. Neither of these 2 have any love lost for the "Cousins" (that's what they call us! lol). But they tell it like it is, or was. Le Carre's latest book has a few choice passages about Blair and Bush. Right or wrong, I believe these guys write from true stories even though they are novels.

And yes, I do think Bush is a good guy, bright enough for me. I don't know why all the name calling? Maybe the haters have never been to Texas and heard how people used to talk. From what I've read the biggest mistake were the forged documents from Nigeria. I have to admit, I did not know the David Kelley story, just Wiki'ed it. Bad bad.

[Publicus]

GentlemanJim

Posted Yesterday, 23:54

chuckd, on 01 Jun 2013 - 11:46, said:

At least this thread will permit all you US haters to get your rocks off at Bush.

All of you folks claiming he is stupid does not speak well for a couple of highly regarded Ivy League Universities. Bush obtained a Bachelor's Degree from Yale University and graduated with an MBA from Harvard Business School.

A couple of other items you folks might not realize. Bush could not have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without the support of the Democratic party. They (Clinton, Kerry et al) voted FOR the wars.

This little comment can easily be applied to the current resident of the White House:

"To vote for an idiot once is unfortunate. To vote for him twice is carelessness."

You may think some people are US bashers, but I absolutely assure you it is nothing in comparison to the venom and hatred fellow Americans throw at each other. To stand back and watch a Republican and a Democrat have a go at each other is quite a thing, it makes US bashers look like members of the Salvation Army.

_____________________________________________________________________________My reply is as follows___________________

Yeah, it's been contentious from the outset - from the turn of the 19th century in the earliest days of the Republic. The civil war is testimony to the depth of our differences. The civil war continues today by more peaceful domestic means in respect to many new issues that set each side at the other's throat.

The contemporary political knife fights stem from the fact that, while the D party has ticked a few mm more left of the American political center than is had been since the LBJ presidency, the Republican party has slammed the needle suddenly and sharply to the red zone at the right of the dial.

The demographics are a vital factor. Annually more than 100,000 (predominantly conservative) white people die while 18,000 Hispanics alone turn 18, the legal voting age. Then there are the ever increasing number of Asian-Americans - likewise in respect to African-Americans. Young white folk support gay marriage and the like, all of which are the scourge of the gradually vanishing WASP population than had dominated the country from it first settlers .Romney last year won all but two states of the Old Confederacy, so that divide continues to be real.

My god, we have a black man (of mixed race of course) as president. All the present polling of potential matchups for prez in 2016 show the likelihood of a woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, being elected prez are very great. The R party response is to race further to the right to immobilize the country so the D party agenda cannot be realized. We D's have come to realize the R party would prefer to destroy the institutions of the federal government than to see the D's dominate them.

Yet national health insurance will come online next year, Prez Obama's signature achievement, and a D party priority since the beginning of the post war era. The R's continue to fight a rear guard battle against the march of history and do it with increasing bitterness.

Of course this is the perspective of a D.

[SunSeek01]

The thing is, on the left, at the end of the day in nearly every case, is the objective of obtaining money, usually through taxes but there are other strategies also. Who does this money go to? In nearly every case, it goes to people who have not earned it and don't have it. And since roughly 30% of people and businesses pay 80% of taxes, it's the non-earner have nots that benefit from more taxes. Add in the estimated Govt. waste of more than 50% (my estimate is about 70%), and you have an unsustainable system that is likely to collapse at some point.

The right is not perfect, I don't want them in my bedroom or anywhere else. I'm for less of all forms of Govt. Heck, I just found out this week about a $ 400 an hour secretary. I mean administrative secretary, you know, word docs, a spreadsheet or 2 ? Yep $ 16,000 a week billing rate to the Govt. She makes $ 65,000 (a year).

Edited June 2, 2013 by SunSeek01

[Ulysses G.]

I'll always struggle to be critical.

Unless you were sitting in that chair, getting the same information and advice that he did, then you are never going to be fully aware of the forces leading to him making a call on Iraq. People elect people into these positions to make the tough calls that can't be made by some junior flunky farther down the decision tree. And by tough decisions, I mean the ones that no matter what decision they make, there will still be huge losers. In this case, the question was, "how to I best ensure that there is not another attack on US soil on my watch"?

You elect them, you place your trust in them, for the most part you have to believe the decision they've made is the best one, on balance, for the country.

Okay, so who really believed that we could go in and take out Sadam Hussien in a few months, the people of Iraq would cheer and put us on their Christmas list, we could then immediately leave and Iraq would be a better and more stable place.

Either Bush administration believed that in which case they were stupid or they had another more surreptitious agenda.

My guess has always been that they felt if they could establish a real Western-friendly democracy run by Arabs that the other countries in the region would want to emulate them - kind of what the Arab spring was supposed to be. It seems to me that they gave the people in the region way too much credit for the possibility of acting sensibly. The first George Bush had it right.

Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome- George Bush (Senior)

A western friendly democracy? Do you really believe that is what it was all about?

Yes I do and I did not think it would work. I agreed with his father, who said that an invasion would be a mistake. As to your other points, everyone knoiws that hindsight is 20/20.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[samran]

I'll always struggle to be critical.

Unless you were sitting in that chair, getting the same information and advice that he did, then you are never going to be fully aware of the forces leading to him making a call on Iraq. People elect people into these positions to make the tough calls that can't be made by some junior flunky farther down the decision tree. And by tough decisions, I mean the ones that no matter what decision they make, there will still be huge losers. In this case, the question was, "how to I best ensure that there is not another attack on US soil on my watch"?

You elect them, you place your trust in them, for the most part you have to believe the decision they've made is the best one, on balance, for the country.

Okay, so who really believed that we could go in and take out Sadam Hussien in a few months, the people of Iraq would cheer and put us on their Christmas list, we could then immediately leave and Iraq would be a better and more stable place.

Either Bush administration believed that in which case they were stupid or they had another more surreptitious agenda.

For me, context is important. His country was attacked in a fairly major way by a new nebulous form of enemy nine months into his presidency. His resolve was that it never happen on US soil again. That is what he was elected for, and like it or not (and I am not a US citizen) that is his job, just the same as it was for every president who comes before and after him. To that extent he was successful, it would appear. And that appears to continue. Don't mess with us, otherwise we will mess with you and all your mates. And by god we will put on a show in the process.

We will only be able to fully judge the consequence of his decisions in 100 years. I've also read plent of books highly critical of the decision making process both pre and post invasion. I had friends who were working in Iraq as part of the transitional government who were there a month after the invasion, and they had their criticisms of how that was handled.

More recently, we've got what is called the Arab spring happening. Countries like Syria are going to hell in a hand basket, all by themselves. I'm starting to wonder if the Iraq invasion, while not a catalyst, was simply an early version of this, albeit initially egged on by the US. So as I said, only a good amount of time will allow us to judge Iraq in a fuller context.

Trust me, there is an overwhelming urge in me to sit down and sing kumbaya, hold hands and play the hindsight game. There really is. I just don't think it is fair to do that yet, and won't be for a long time on stuff like this.

Edited June 3, 2013 by samran

[Mosha]

At least this thread will permit all you US haters to get your rocks off at Bush.

All of you folks claiming he is stupid does not speak well for a couple of highly regarded Ivy League Universities. Bush obtained a Bachelor's Degree from Yale University and graduated with an MBA from Harvard Business School.

A couple of other items you folks might not realize. Bush could not have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without the support of the Democratic party. They (Clinton, Kerry et al) voted FOR the wars.

This little comment can easily be applied to the current resident of the White House:

"To vote for an idiot once is unfortunate. To vote for him twice is carelessness."

You may think some people are US bashers, but I absolutely assure you it is nothing in comparison to the venom and hatred fellow Americans throw at each other. To stand back and watch a Republican and a Democrat have a go at each other is quite a thing, it makes US bashers look like members of the Salvation Army.

>

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.

Nope, you don't get away with that. I reckon it's safe to assume that if you asked the UK population if Tony Bliar should be in jail for Iraq, 80% would say yes. We hold him completely responsible and he is as culpable as Bush. The two of them concocted an event that has cost over a million lives. Let those religious chaps that they both are take that to the pearly gates with them, as it's likely that is the only place they will face justice.

If I were a believer, I'd say they were going the other way, not to the pearly gates.

[simple1]

The thing is, on the left, at the end of the day in nearly every case, is the objective of obtaining money, usually through taxes but there are other strategies also. Who does this money go to? In nearly every case, it goes to people who have not earned it and don't have it. And since roughly 30% of people and businesses pay 80% of taxes, it's the non-earner have nots that benefit from more taxes. Add in the estimated Govt. waste of more than 50% (my estimate is about 70%), and you have an unsustainable system that is likely to collapse at some point.

The right is not perfect, I don't want them in my bedroom or anywhere else. I'm for less of all forms of Govt. Heck, I just found out this week about a $ 400 an hour secretary. I mean administrative secretary, you know, word docs, a spreadsheet or 2 ? Yep $ 16,000 a week billing rate to the Govt. She makes $ 65,000 (a year).

(who are the CEOs of the suppliers who are profiting from these contracts). I have just been reading a book analying the situation in Afganistan. In one section, it is saying that a US contractor takes the profit at source in the US for a contract for services. e.g. trucking supplies from Pakistan to Afghanistan. The US corporate will then subcontract to local companies. The local company in turn pays around US$1500 per truck to the Taliban so that the trucks are not attacked. This is known to the US contractors . So in effect you have US companies knowingly paying extortion, via their contractors to the Taliban. Can apply the exact same process for efforts such as road building & so on. After completion destroy sections of a road & repeat the money supply for the Taliban. Probably no other effective way for provisioning US/NATO forces, but just demonstrates the enormous challenges facing the coalition

[Scott]

This is getting off topic, but paying for protection is well known in war zones.

The World Food Program has often had to give food supplies to the military in order to reach civilian groups in need of assistance. In some cases this is set at a % of all supplies delivered.

[Keesters]

For most politicians, political leadership is not for service but for power.

[simple1]

This is getting off topic, but paying for protection is well known in war zones.

The World Food Program has often had to give food supplies to the military in order to reach civilian groups in need of assistance. In some cases this is set at a % of all supplies delivered.

I know, just underlining the complexities.

[GentlemanJim]

I'm a little confused as to whether Syria/Assad is Sunni or Shia, I guess I'll have to look it up. Saddam had contracts out of both Sr. and W for real. If you want to get an idea of how the intel world works, read Le Carre, any or all of them, and also Graham Green's The Quiet American about VN. Neither of these 2 have any love lost for the "Cousins" (that's what they call us! lol). But they tell it like it is, or was. Le Carre's latest book has a few choice passages about Blair and Bush. Right or wrong, I believe these guys write from true stories even though they are novels.

And yes, I do think Bush is a good guy, bright enough for me. I don't know why all the name calling? Maybe the haters have never been to Texas and heard how people used to talk. From what I've read the biggest mistake were the forged documents from Nigeria. I have to admit, I did not know the David Kelley story, just Wiki'ed it. Bad bad.

Le Carre is fiction whom you appear to be well read on. Dr Kelly was real and his murder one of the biggest intel scandals of the war blamed on WMD's and a man you have not heard of. Bush is not a good guy, he sent thousands of loyal dedicated US servicemen who placed their trust in their Commander in Chief to their death...all for green backs. He also persuaded a similar maggot of the human species, Blair to play the same game.

I'll always struggle to be critical.

Unless you were sitting in that chair, getting the same information and advice that he did, then you are never going to be fully aware of the forces leading to him making a call on Iraq. People elect people into these positions to make the tough calls that can't be made by some junior flunky farther down the decision tree. And by tough decisions, I mean the ones that no matter what decision they make, there will still be huge losers. In this case, the question was, "how to I best ensure that there is not another attack on US soil on my watch"?

You elect them, you place your trust in them, for the most part you have to believe the decision they've made is the best one, on balance, for the country.

Okay, so who really believed that we could go in and take out Sadam Hussien in a few months, the people of Iraq would cheer and put us on their Christmas list, we could then immediately leave and Iraq would be a better and more stable place.

Either Bush administration believed that in which case they were stupid or they had another more surreptitious agenda.

For me, context is important. His country was attacked in a fairly major way by a new nebulous form of enemy nine months into his presidency. His resolve was that it never happen on US soil again. That is what he was elected for, and like it or not (and I am not a US citizen) that is his job, just the same as it was for every president who comes before and after him. To that extent he was successful, it would appear. And that appears to continue. Don't mess with us, otherwise we will mess with you and all your mates. And by god we will put on a show in the process.

We will only be able to fully judge the consequence of his decisions in 100 years. I've also read plent of books highly critical of the decision making process both pre and post invasion. I had friends who were working in Iraq as part of the transitional government who were there a month after the invasion, and they had their criticisms of how that was handled.

More recently, we've got what is called the Arab spring happening. Countries like Syria are going to hell in a hand basket, all by themselves. I'm starting to wonder if the Iraq invasion, while not a catalyst, was simply an early version of this, albeit initially egged on by the US. So as I said, only a good amount of time will allow us to judge Iraq in a fuller context.

Trust me, there is an overwhelming urge in me to sit down and sing kumbaya, hold hands and play the hindsight game. There really is. I just don't think it is fair to do that yet, and won't be for a long time on stuff like this.

For me context is very important also! The 'nebulous form of enemy' that attacked nine months into his presidency were not from Iraq, they were not from Afghanistan, with the exception of two from Egypt, they were ALL from Saudi Arabia. They were not nebulous, every single one was identified in days. Iraq's leadership hated the Saudi's and hated Al Quaida, a Saudi terrorist group with exclusively Saudi leadership. So, with all that known, who do we attack? Answer, completely the wrong people.

Bush was not 'successful' as you say, in fact his message was 'don't mess with us, or (if you are tactically useful to us) we will ignore you and use you as an excuse to attack anyone we want, including your enemies.

Syria is not going to hell in a hand basket all by 'themselves'. The CIA are orchestrating a war to get rid of the regime. Have we learned nothing yet. The CIA are using bully boys (mercenary mass murderers) from that well known enemy group ......Al Quaida. The same group that were used in Libya.

It really is not that difficult to learn the truth, "it really is all out there Scully'! Please please wake up. Someone said earlier "I only know what I read". well read more, and when you read anything the Government has told you, do not believe it until that information is ratified by many other independent sources. It's easy. Our biggest enemy are our own Governments, if we fail to wake up to that fact soon your grand children will have a fairly miserable existence.

[Ulysses G.]

Syria is not going to hell in a hand basket all by 'themselves'. The CIA are orchestrating a war to get rid of the regime.

Please provide evidence from a credible source.

[chuckd]

Syria is not going to hell in a hand basket all by 'themselves'. The CIA are orchestrating a war to get rid of the regime.

Please provide evidence from a credible source.

It's Looney Tunes time again, UG.

They won't answer your question, just as they won't answer mine about the Democrats voting for the war.

[GentlemanJim]

Syria is not going to hell in a hand basket all by 'themselves'. The CIA are orchestrating a war to get rid of the regime.

Please provide evidence from a credible source.

I wish I had a thousand baht for every time you have said that on TV. Unless the source is from the US Government you don't deem it credible.

Is the New York Times a wearer of tin foil hats? Or perhaps it doesn't agree with your political persuasions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

or maybe "CIA remains at forefront in war against Syria:"

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/03/26/295289/us-deeply-involved-in-syrian-war/

But hey you too can google, it just helps if you take the blind fold off while you use it.

Please provide evidence from a credible source.

It's Looney Tunes time again, UG.

They won't answer your question, just as they won't answer mine about the Democrats voting for the war.

The looney tunes quip shames you.

Many opposition MP's in the UK voted for the war also. War is not a time for bipartisan politics, however, when those MP's who voted for the war learned that Blair and Bush had lied, they were more than slightly pissed off. I don't know why you put so much weight on what the politicians did. If we can have a President and Prime minister send young men and women to their deaths for nothing other than personal political gain, what do you think run of the mill politicians will do when faced with a decision, the outcome of which will determine their future success at the next elections. They will go along with the fervour being whipped up by the administration. It was all based on lies chukd. Bush and Blair lied to us and they lied to fellow politicians, of that there is now little doubt.

Edited June 3, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[NeverSure]

Syria is not going to hell in a hand basket all by 'themselves'. The CIA are orchestrating a war to get rid of the regime.

Please provide evidence from a credible source.

I wish I had a thousand baht for every time you have said that on TV. Unless the source is from the US Government you don't deem it credible.

>

It's Looney Tunes time again, UG.

They won't answer your question, just as they won't answer mine about the Democrats voting for the war.

The looney tunes quip shames you.

Many opposition MP's in the UK voted for the war also. War is not a time for bipartisan politics, however, when those MP's who voted for the war learned that Blair and Bush had lied, they were more than slightly pissed off. I don't know why you put so much weight on what the politicians did. If we can have a President and Prime minister send young men and women to their deaths for nothing other than personal political gain, what do you think run of the mill politicians will do when faced with a decision, the outcome of which will determine their future success at the next elections. They will go along with the fervour being whipped up by the administration. It was all based on lies chukd. Bush and Blair lied to us and they lied to fellow politicians, of that there is now little doubt.

You guys need to get your stories straight. "Political gain?" I've been told it was about war machine money, that it was about oil, and now it's political gain?

If there was any proof that Bush lied rather than that he and many others were either mistaken or misled, he would have been impeached. But no, he got elected for another term and has never been officially accused of lying. Even when the Democrats got control of the Senate and Obama was in the White House, no one made official charges of lying.

Obama continued that war in Iraq for some time after he was elected, ending it on a date that had previously been negotiated by Bush. Link

Again, I don't like Bush or that war, and I don't have an opinion of Blair, but internet conspiracy theorists who can say only that they lied don't impress me. I haven't seen one allegation in this thread that would be admissible in court, much less that I see as proof.

I was against the war and didn't like Bush, but he won't be tried by the court of TV and convicted of anything.

[Scott]

I will now start deleting nonsense posts that are off-topic.

I believe that there have been numerous threads about Syria.

[GentlemanJim]

You guys need to get your stories straight. "Political gain?" I've been told it was about war machine money, that it was about oil, and now it's political gain?

<snip>

Of course it was war machine, oil and green backs, and large corp inc did very very well out of it all. What is in it for the politician? It cannot be any of those things, the only thing in it for politicians is political gain. Is that so hard to grasp?

[ABCer]

One of the very few truly insightful remarks ever made by the man.

Long before him it was said: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

G.W. Bush was never a thinker, a philosopher or just a clever man. No credit from me for these words to GWB.

He emptied a Pandora's box into a cooking pot and American people still eat the sh*t he cooked. Sorry for the undeserving.

The most insightful, candid and clever book by an American politician I find to be "The Real War" by R. Nixon.

God and American Democracy work in mysterious ways. Given a choice, American people seem to almost always pick the wrong Candidate.

On those rare occasions when their choice (by mistake) is good - they assassinate or impeach him. Look back at the 200 years of their history.

Edited June 4, 2013 by ABCer

[geriatrickid]

Syria is not going to hell in a hand basket all by 'themselves'. The CIA are orchestrating a war to get rid of the regime.

Please provide evidence from a credible source.

Mihght be hard as the credible sources refute the allegation.

[Scott]

One of the very few truly insightful remarks ever made by the man.

Long before him it was said: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

G.W. Bush was never a thinker, a philosopher or just a clever man. No credit from me for these words to GWB.

He emptied a Pandora's box into a cooking pot and American people still eat the sh*t he cooked. Sorry for the undeserving.

The most insightful, candid and clever book by an American politician I find to be "The Real War" by R. Nixon.

God and American Democracy work in mysterious ways. Given a choice, American people seem to almost always pick the wrong Candidate.

On those rare occasions when their choice (by mistake) is good - they assassinate or impeach him. Look back at the 200 years of their history.

It is probably noteworthy that Bush use the word Corrosive rather than corrupt. I am not sure what the difference is but it's rather interesting that he choose that word.

[bobl]

It is probably noteworthy that Bush use the word Corrosive rather than corrupt. I am not sure what the difference is but it's rather interesting that he choose that word.

It's actually far more appropriate than the original cliche, when you think about it, given that abuse of power is likely to escalate gradually.

[F430murci]

One of the very few truly insightful remarks ever made by the man.

Long before him it was said: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

G.W. Bush was never a thinker, a philosopher or just a clever man. No credit from me for these words to GWB.

He emptied a Pandora's box into a cooking pot and American people still eat the sh*t he cooked. Sorry for the undeserving.

The most insightful, candid and clever book by an American politician I find to be "The Real War" by R. Nixon.

God and American Democracy work in mysterious ways. Given a choice, American people seem to almost always pick the wrong Candidate.

On those rare occasions when their choice (by mistake) is good - they assassinate or impeach him. Look back at the 200 years of their history.

It is probably noteworthy that Bush use the word Corrosive rather than corrupt. I am not sure what the difference is but it's rather interesting that he choose that word.

Haha, that is funny. I didn't even think about it, but even in his philosophical moments of great epiphanies, he . . . butchers the English language. Love it. That 126 IQ at work.

[F430murci]

It is probably noteworthy that Bush use the word Corrosive rather than corrupt. I am not sure what the difference is but it's rather interesting that he choose that word.

It's actually far more appropriate than the original cliche, when you think about it, given that abuse of power is likely to escalate gradually.

Only if he was trying to say being president slowly melted his 3 brain cells. Are there any clips of this. I wonder if he stammered around looking for a word because he screwed up the lead in.

[F430murci]

Here is some of the quote. Masterful!

"Fame can become very addictive. And Ive had all the fame a man could want, he said.

Ive come to realize that power can be corrosive if youve had it for too long, Bush said. It can dim your vision. And so I came to the conclusion that, you know, I dont long for fame. And really, gonna shy away from it. Not shy away from it. Avoid it. Im not very shy. Avoid it."

Edited June 4, 2013 by F430murci

[watcharacters]

One of the very few truly insightful remarks ever made by the man.

.

And more...