President Bush

[bassbooger]

Rumsfeld briefed the President this morning. He told Bush that three Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq.

To everyone's amazement, all of the colour ran from Bush's face, then he collapsed onto his desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost whimpering.

Finally, he composed himself and asked Rumsfeld,

"Just exactly how many is a brazillion?"

[ILfishinman]

is this fer real or you just tuggin on my chain?

[bassintxlady]

good one bassbooger......good one indeed......

[adamgambill]

Sad thing is thats about the truth.

[WTL]

Bush isnt stupid at all. I mean he was smart enough to get elected at least. He just isn't incredibly smart. The big thing is that he took some bad advice and has little in the way of political skills.

And the big irony about this post is that it was the neo-cons who influenced Bush to invade Iraq. The neo-cons are the definition of ivory tower intellectuals, and whats more weird is that most in the neo-conservative movement can be linked to trotskyites. Why are republicans listening to former followers of leon trotsky? WTF?

[ILfishinman]

we should bill cliniton back up in this peice!!! i did not have sexual relations with that woman

[Rebbasser]

Actually President Bush is quite smart. However, unlike President Reagan, public speaking is not his forte'. I used to have a National Sales Manager like that. Super guy, very intelligent, but he would leave a 10 minute voicemail and nobody had a clue as to what he was talking about when it was over.

[keithdog]

The thing about the Bush bashers that bothers me is that they seem to forget key issues about this Iraq war. First, Bush is accused of lying to the American people about the WMD's. However, the intelligence from all our major allies, like Gremany, Russia, Britain, and so on confirmed the same info as our own CIA. With that being the case, along with Suddams refusal to allow UN inspectors to verify one way or the other, what choice did Bush have? Also, it is largely ignored that Saddam refused to follow any of the terms of surrender from the first Iraq war. He instead thumbed his nose at the UN and America. So really, this was is a continuation of the first war. Do we let our enimies who have been defeated call the shots? I just wish we had not gone it alone. We should have had the backing of the UN. But the other truth of this whole thing is that the UN is run by seperate self interests. The food for oil scam being one example. As far as I am concerned, while I would prefer the US to be highly involved in world affairs along with the UN, I can't see what good it is doing. The UN has not the unified determination to do the right thing. They are big on threats, but when it comes down to actually acting on international threats, the UN is just a bunch of crybabies who stomp their feet but do little else. Thats why we end up going it alone or hand in hand with the British.There are times when someone has to do something. The UN tends to do nothing but make idol threats. Meanwhile evil goverments continue unabated. I know it has been mentioned before but I bring it up again. What happens when good men do nothing? Look at Hitler and WW2. Hitler was a small man high on ego. Nations stood by and did nothing as he built his war machine and became a threat to the whole of Europe. We can't let this scenario happen again. I just wish the UN was able to see it this way and had the resolve of steel to follow through with why the UN was formed to begin with.

[bassbooger]

Ok, I didn't post this to start a political discussion. I just posted it because I found it rather amusing. Maybe I should have replaced the name with some one else.

[keithdog]

It's ok bassbooger, now that I have that off my chest I can go fishin!!! LOL

[WTL]

Keithdog, that was an outstanding post.

I have only 1 "issue" with it, and its not really an issue.

While we need to remember what a disaster German appeasement was, especially allowing the annexation of the Sudentenland, every situation is different. There are some situations out there in the world today where it may be better to let sleeping tyrants lay.

[Recon8541]

or to remove them more silently.....

[WTL]

Can you remove Ahmadinejad? Silently? Ha.

I love our military, and I think special ops is cool; but it aint happening. Not silently at least. Couldn't get Castro, and he is 90 miles from Miami.

[Recon8541]

Personally I believe yes, anyone can be removed silently, noone is completely impervious to this. However, in most cases, it just isnt logical to do things in that manner. It is far better to remove the network, than just one component. Monsters have a way of growing a new head.

As for Fidel lol, well it was far better to handle him the way they did. I mean look at what a rich and prosperous country cuba has become! Pretty sad state of affairs when your existence relies on handouts from the likes of the economically broken countrys like the former Soviet Union.

[WTL]

If Ahmadinejad catches a bullet or dies from the flu, it doesn't matter; at this point the US would be suspected and blamed by most arabs. It would not be silent at all. There would be huge consequences.

I do think we could eventually successfully assasinate him, but the cost would be greater than its worth. Ahmadinejad is hugely unpopular in Iran right now, his approval rating is almost as low as Bush's is over here. His party just lost a ton of elections a little over a month ago. Sometimes people volunteer to hang themselves politically, and its better to just let them do it.