| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1848
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:37 am: | 
|
Here's an article citing that Saddam's people were afraid to give him bad news, and actively lied to him about the state and status of the country. Sound familiar? The only difference I see is that Saddam killed the bearer of bad news while Bush only kills their reputation. It's the same willful ignorance. Ask yourself if Bush isn't hopelessly hobbled by his fervent belief in religious superstition over science and facts?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/409733p-346769c.html
"An article in Foreign Affairs magazine, based on an analysis by the United States Joint Forces Command of interrogations of top Iraqi officials, paints a picture of a despot hopelessly hobbled by his own manias and cruelties.
"Saddam's top military commanders were so afraid of his savage whims that they lied to him about everything from their military capabilities to their successes in the field.
"They were afraid for good reason."
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1979
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:08 am: |
|
RL:
This is genuinely over the top.
1. Don't compare a despot to an ineffective leader.
2. Bush's blind faith in religion over science has been demonstrated, but that blind faith has only 3 more years to run. Then somebody else gets the chance to acknowledge science. Saddam Hussein was installed for life.
3. In this country, we have free exchange of views, even if those in power don't like it (e.g., the retired generals who are embarrassing Rumsfeld and Bush and forcing Bush into a corner where he can't take action on Rumsfeld because that would be admitting mistakes).
4. See number 1.
5. See number 1. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1851
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Bush is beyond an "ineffective leader." That is putting it quite mildly. He is a borderline dangerous madman. If you don't think so, maybe you will when he nukes Iran. That seed is being firmly planted right now. The comparison is that both are megalomanic lunatics who adamently refuse to listen to dissent or sincerely acknowledge the reality of facts and the situation of their own making. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1269
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 12:43 pm: |
|
RL-
And your assertion that Bush will "nuke Iran" shows you are sane? OK dude...
-SLK |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4758
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 4:05 pm: |
|
if that's the case, why isn't the administration disavowing it as an option? |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1852
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Reuters
By Edmund Blair
TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-04-18T1 51223Z_01_L17370115_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml&rpc=22
So, SliCK, I take it you disagree with the notion that Bush, despite his leaving it open as a viable option, should nuke Iran. Clearly you believe only insane people would consider that thought, as Bush has. Therefore, you must think Bush insane.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4761
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 4:22 pm: |
|
game, set, match. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page