Originally posted by UhihaJax
True enough the "proof" is non-existant, it turns out the anecdotal was a hoax by a Demopublican.
But still, I find it strange that you critcize alans spelling and ability to communicate when George Bush is clearly not adept at that same skill. Would you give him the same treatment? Because that is exactly how media sources in the U.K see it.
The most charitable view is from the BBC radio 4 where they merely say that George Bush has "a little trouble" in communicating when reporting, obviously opinions expressed on this radio station are a little more descriptive and critical.
Do you not think that is important for your statesman to able to communicate in a clear and concise manner? Clearly it is not an ability he can claim to possess.
LAst time i checked Bush is our president so yes i would extend that courtesy to him out of freaking respect. I dont even like Bill clinton, but if i were to have met him when he was presidnet, i would have shown him sincere respect for being the president. And personally, i think he does well to project himself. But like any person there is room for improvement.
In regards to Bush's results from his Ivy league school term, can anyone prove what his results actually were (I am happy to stand corrected)? Clearly any examination requires excellent communication skills through verbal and written work, I find it hard to believe that Georgie would be able to complete such work with any degree of excellence or even mediocraty.
Why do we have to prove wrong a unsubstaniated lie that you have made? You should be the one proving to us that he was a C student as you have blatantly accused him of being.
One thing I will agree with is the liberation of Iraq. While you may think I am 100% anti-war, I do think that liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussain was a good thing, my queries and criticisms arise from the fashion in which it was set about, the speed and lack of unilateral support, and of course the lack of any immenent threat by Saddam to any other nation.
Are you a freaking moron or do you just hold your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut when evidence is presened to you?
Lack of unilateral support is not what you were trying to say but is by a blunder unto you and accurate statement. The US did NOT go in unilaterally. They had 32 other countries supporting the effort in some way shape or form.
LAck of imminent threat by Sadaam? France, Germany, the UN, Brittain, Denmark, most of the EU in fact, Clinton, KErry, Teddy Kennedy all had said that they had eveidence that Sadaam not only had WMD's and the capacity to make more, but that he was close to having the ability to make nuclear weapons. So how is that not an imminent threat to every country in the world?
Lacking these things one would be fair to assume that the war was not based solely on these reasons (for example if Halliburton is to be taken into account or the oil or the.... well you get the idea).
Now you just sound like a hackneyed Democrat that just read a some one-liners from 2 years ago. Haliburton is the only company in the world powerful enough to handle the building of a nation. They are a multinational Corporation that is and has been run by both Democrats and Republicans on its Board. But no, it has to be ole Cheney who hasnt been the CEO of Haliburton for over 8 years controlling them. Nevermind the fact that Haliburton has had several other CEO's since then. Nevermind the fact that they have had CEO's that were democrats and liberals running the show before. Haliburton, whose been around for 85 years and has been through over 20 presidents, is secretly controlled by Cheney and Bush.
If we are truely a collallition of peace and freedom surely we should turn our attentions to other countries such as Zimbabwe which is under the tyrannical grip of Mugabe, but one would think that the lack of oil might be a reason not pursue that "liberation".
Wheres the precious UN on these peace keeping missions? Why is it always the US saving the world? Besides we have done "PEace keeping" Missions before. Somalia, Yugoslavia come to mind. The difference now is that this is to protect ourselves from a danger to our Country. No thats not allowed? We're not allowed to protect ourselves? We have to help protect 3rd world African nations run by warlords who starve and murder their people in the name of war before we protect our own interests according to idiots like you.
We should also take into account that we are to completely to blame for Iraq. It was of course us who put Saddam into power in the first place.
Read some history sometime. Iraq was not an ally by choice. They were by default. We never put Sadaam into power. He was already there. We simply allied with him against Iran. You know why? Because the Shah, who was our ally at the time in the late 70's was left out to dry by Jimmy Carter. The Aaytollah took over and Established a firm hatred of America in the Middle East that is a major part of the reason why we have to go over there today.
So you can blame your peace loving peanut farmer, Carter for alot of the mess we're in, not Bush. Bush just has the clarity to see that we need to deal with this now, before the US turns into Israel in terms of terrorism.
) his I.Q also stands at a magnificent 83. Which I think is actually average for the states, so at least he's representative, which is probably why you guys can't figure out why he's so stupid ("well he's smarter than me! duh").
