Hating Bush Is Like Hating Paris Hilton

[ah2388 0]

From the foreign point of view...i think you need to understand something about american society post 9/11I am a firm believer that the war in Iraq is a military, political, and economic disaster, let me be clear on that.Post 9/11, the American public placed its thoughts, its feelings, and its hopes on the word of President Bush. The facts outlined, clearly seen by the rest of the world, werent recognized by the American people, and even some of the more prominent members of American Government.Call us uneducated, we still live better than you, and will for quite some time.I guess I'm not being clear in my opinions.Imagine a conversation going something like this.GWB: IRAQ supported terrorism, lets go to war!Average American: **** Terrorism, lets go!The facts, ideas, and rational opinions were formed later on down the road.I am not entirely anti war, I simply feel that our military and economic resources could've been used better in other spots in a situation which wouldn't have alienated us from our allies.

[ah2388 0]

p.s. i am retarded.Also, as for liberals basing thoughts and opinions on "feel"how do you explain the conservative stance that the war in iraq is justified because it will provide a democratic nation on either side of iran which we HOPE will keep anti american sentiment to a minimum in the middle east?

[ah2388 0]

I'm a college student at Augustana College in Rock Island, IL.I'm also a conservative. Now for those of you that are college-aged... you probably know that it's easier to be young and gay than it is to be young and conservative these days. I have been subjected to numerous discriminations based on my political views, because I'm vocal about them. I'm even a social liberal... but my support for the war in Iraq is enough to get yelled at. But that's for another topic.Here's my question: Why is the President so hated? Why is he regarded as one of the worst Presidents of our time?The facts:- No terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11.- One of the best economies of the past 100 years keep in mind that we are at war- Ridiculously low unemployment- Technology is growing at an incredible pace- One of the most bipartisan Presidents of our time... (not a good thing in my opinion, but why would liberals oppose this?) read: No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Benefit, economic stimulus packages targeting the poor/middle class... etc.I guess I just don't get it. So maybe some liberals could enlighten me, with ... facts. Oh, and do your best to explain yourselves without mentioning Iraq, because we've all heard that debate enough. Good luck... because you're not going to find a whole lot.I just think that with the aid of people like Jon Stewart and Michael Moore, the young culture has come to HATE a man for no real good reason. It's just like Paris Hilton. And it's really not fair.

[SlapStick 0]

Sigh...LONDON, England -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says he would not be surprised if coalition forces found chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. Blix also says the coalition had "other motivations" for invading Iraq besides Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs. Clinton News Network LinkNext: Who wanted to Invade Iaraq?Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Clinton News Network LinkEither rewrite history better, or stop pretending you remember what happened.

Are you seriously suggesting that that resolution gives consent of the whole of the UN to invade Iraq?If this was the case, why all the fuss speeches and arguements in the first place. Stop reading your emails.Mission AccomplishedAnd the bolded part. lol. In your last post you just lied about WMDs being found. You're intelligence can only carry you so far, rewrite history....last post you lied about WMD being found.A few posts before, either you lied or you believed an email about Clintons deaths being 14,000. Obviously not sure which is worse.Obviously I'll listen to any opposition but thats twice you've flagrantly posted absolute bullshit, bye byeEdit:Does anyone else smile when they pronounce "flagrantly"

[Loismustdie 0]

Yeah, those were some really substantial facts. Liberals act based on "feelings." Ooohh, you got us there. I can't possibly counter that level of sophisticated analysis of policies and ideas, so I'm going to go run scared to Canada with my hybrid car and my gay lover. So, seriously though, you certainly should celebrate this massive blow to liberalism. I'm not sure how we're going to recover from this loose analysis of, uh, Al Gore...or something. You really nailed us. I see this moment as the beginning of the end of the Democratic party. As the news spreads of this damning new evidence, certainly as a party and as an ideology as a whole, we will collapse and disband. I mean, my god, how could we ever recover. We partied only a little less than Bush? We're absolutely done for.

For starters you could....counter his thoughts. Instead of sarcastically sidestepping. That is what I do when I defend christianity. That's my tactic. Yours is well thought out rebuffs to others thought procceses. I submit that you can't because there is definite truth to BG's post.

[Balloon guy 158]

First Im not American, and I want to say this without a condescending tone. Seriously, if you watched from the very start, everything about the war, you would not think this.To everyone else, the Iraq war was the most blatanly illegal war ever. As I have mentioned before, an Australian minister admitted one of the reasons Australia supported America was for the oil. He actually admitted it. Balloon Guy even acknowledged it. You can find it one of the 2 previous threads.Basically to me, its a simple plain fact that the Iraq war was illegal. Can you not remember how much the term WMD was used?I'm just shocked years later people still think it was a fair enough reason to engage war.You were duped by your President and a lot of your media, and to the idiot OP who I have been trying to avoid speaking to, this is why Bush is hatedBut with people like BG still actually saying WMDs were found, I understand that I will be attacked and contradicted about this and the truth wont be accepted.But honestly this is how I view and most of the world views the Iraq War. Its not some attack on your flag. This is the truth.If you refuse to even ponder the notion for a moment that you may be wrong, well then, I suppose we will have some more fun repetitive arguements

You know what is funny. you guys are so convinced the world hates America. you are so convinced that Bush broke some law, and yet there has not been any talk of actually having a trial. The UN isn't holding hearings on what to do to stop America. they are actually talking about becoming involved in Iraq.And as far as WMDs that were never found:

U.S. soldiers found a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent in Baghdad, the military said Monday. The device, which partially detonated, was apparently a leftover from Saddam Hussein's arsenals. It was unclear whether more such weapons were in the hands of insurgents.

Clinton Broadcasting Station LinkNukes???

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States didn't have authorization from the U.N. nuclear watchdog when it secretly shipped from Iraq uranium and highly radioactive material that could be used in so-called "dirty bombs," U.N. officials said Wednesday. The nearly 2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items transferred from Iraq to the United States last month had been placed under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency at the sprawling Tuwaitha nuclear complex, 12 miles south of Baghdad, the officials said.

USA Today Link ( couldn't think of clever USA annogram demeaning Clinton)Don't you love that the UN now says the US didn't have their authority to protect radioactive uraniam. Like we need the Un's premision to do anything.

United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, The Telegraph can reveal. The discovery was made following spot checks last week on the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists in Baghdad.

The UK Telegraph, hates America, but they lied to their people too

BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

Probably just using these chemicals for making "We love peace" Tye die shirtsIn the end we mostly found old shells, I think I remember 500 being the number. Yea, they were old, the brand new chemical trailers were never used, the brand new chem suits were for show, and we now know Saddam himself was the one spreading the WMD lies because he wanted to appear strong to his neighbors. He fooled us all, the ones they had were not going to kill more than a couple thousand people at a time.If this was the only reason to have gone in then we were wrong, just like the UN was wrong, just like the rest of Europe was wrong, just like all of Russia, Asia, the Middle East, and 90% of Africa reported there were WMDs, they were all wrong.So we're here now, want to cut and run?Personally I want to leave the entire thing to the wonderful caring intelligent people of the great country of France Russia, and Germany, or the UN. I think it's time they stepped up and showed us how to do things right instead of sitting on the sidelines of history and whining like little girls.Little girls

[Balloon guy 158]

Are you seriously suggesting that that resolution gives consent of the whole of the UN to invade Iraq?If this was the case, why all the fuss speeches and arguements in the first place. Stop reading your emails.Mission AccomplishedAnd the bolded part. lol. In your last post you just lied about WMDs being found. You're intelligence can only carry you so far, rewrite history....last post you lied about WMD being found.A few posts before, either you lied or you believed an email about Clintons deaths being 14,000. Obviously not sure which is worse.Obviously I'll listen to any opposition but thats twice you've flagrantly posted absolute bullshit, bye byeEdit:Does anyone else smile when they pronounce "flagrantly"

I guess your opinion of what a resolution is and mine are different. It must be nice to get to look back on all the facts then make your decisions. I'm sure you have absolutely no clue what to do in Iarq now, but in 10 years you'll tell us why we didn't do it right.I'll assume you are drinking tonight and this is all only the booze talking.Because you are boring me to sleepboring

[Balloon guy 158]

My biggest beef against Bush is that he's dumb. Like, dumb as hell. Okay, he's probably not really stupid. I'm sure in some ways he's mildly intelligent. But he's the president of the United States. We only get one of those, so he is held to a higher standard. Though Bush may barely pass as a mediocre mind compared to the rest of the world, in terms of the leader of the free world, he's really really quite stupid.But I guess I could deal with that if he had good advisers to guide his presidency. Indeed, he did find several smart people to surround himself with, but instead of guiding his presidency, they turned out to be driven by their own personal agendas and preconceived policies than by anything else. So, instead of being quick to react to facts and to change policies based on new evidence, they turned out to be stagnant and unrelenting.The economy is by no means strong, but that's not Bush's fault necessarily, so I won't hold that against him. Certainly, however, it's not a point for him.

You know you lose credibility here by stating your opinion and treating it as fact.You have no data to determine this, in fact the best data you could get, the reports of those that have actually met and talked with Bush shows the opposite of your opinion.It's like you base your opinion on how you feel about him... As a pilot who has flown a P-51, and a Russian trainer jet I know what it takes to fly fighter planes. Dumb people need not apply. Bush has 100+ hours flying one of the hardest planes to fly.He ran a baseball team, turned the Texas economy around after being destroyed by Ma Barker.Kicked Algore's butt in an election. And Kerry. would kick Obama's if given the chance.If that interweb thing hadn't been invented I bet he would have invented that too.

[uahphysics 0]

you probably know that it's easier to be young and gay than it is to be young and conservative these days.

There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks this, they obviously have some sort of mental handicap.

[ahosang 0]

....The UK Telegraph, hates America, but they lied to their people too....

Now wait pal, I read this paper every day, and I don't think think you should say that the Telegraph is anti-American. Not true - the Telegraph is no POS like the Grundiag, Mirror, or even the bandwagon-hopping Sun.The Telegraph will criticise any organisation, nation, or individual as it sees fit, and is probably one of the most reputable papers around. Yes, it's slightly right-wing, but it's no extremist paper, and it's certainly not anti-American...

[LongLiveYorke 38]

You know you lose credibility here by stating your opinion and treating it as fact.You have no data to determine this, in fact the best data you could get, the reports of those that have actually met and talked with Bush shows the opposite of your opinion.It's like you base your opinion on how you feel about him...

I will never lose credibility, and you know it!!!!!Saying that Bush isn't smart is always going to be somewhat of an opinion since intelligence is very subjective to begin with. But from what I have gathered, he does not demonstrate the type of intelligence that I respect the most. Certainly, a lot of it has to do with how he presents himself, which he pretty objectively does not do well. I'd like to think that I'm generally clever enough to look past a person's grammatical deficiencies to weigh their intelligence. I've had some time to come to my conclusion. In my mind, he's stubborn and very narrowly focused. He's quick to jump to conclusion and action and seems to detest nuanced contemplations and decisions. His view of the world, as presented to the public, is narrow minded and ignorant in the extent to which it is black and white and ignores the many details of complex issues. I want a President whose decisions I can trust. I want a president who thinks deeply, consults widely, doesn't fear from nuance, contemplates deeply about difficult issues, and isn't afraid to change his mind. Bush is not this president. That's a big reason why I don't like him. Is it an opinion? Sure. That was the original question, though, right?

[Berak 0]

It has been documented that Saddam Hussein WANTED the world to think he had WMDs. That was his goal. He miscalculated that this would protect him from invasion when in fact it led to it. How can you fault the U.S. intelligence community for that? And I find it amusing when some bonehead decides he knows Bush is stupid. Why is that exactly? His accent? His actions which don't agree with your liberal agenda? He may not be the sharpest guy around but calling him stupid is truly laughable.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

He may not be the sharpest guy around but calling him stupid is truly laughable.

But, uh, given the choice, wouldn't you want a president who "was the sharpest guy around." I guess Bush is probably mildly intelligent (heck, he was able to pull off a whopping C average at Yale...), but is it really so much to ask to want a President who, when he enters a room, is the vast majority of the time the smartest person in the room (except on the occasions when he meets with his closest advisers whom have been hand picked to be the best in their respective fields).

[Loismustdie 0]

But, uh, given the choice, wouldn't you want a president who "was the sharpest guy around." I guess Bush is probably mildly intelligent (heck, he was able to pull off a whopping C average at Yale...), but is it really so much to ask to want a President who, when he enters a room, is the vast majority of the time the smartest person in the room (except on the occasions when he meets with his closest advisers whom have been hand picked to be the best in their respective fields).

Sure. Let me know when the last one come around that didn't have a shit load of baggage and wasn't so far out of the norm he was unelectable and I will show you a guy I would vote for. The fact is these people don't get where they are from book smarts.

[Balloon guy 158]

But, uh, given the choice, wouldn't you want a president who "was the sharpest guy around." I guess Bush is probably mildly intelligent (heck, he was able to pull off a whopping C average at Yale...), but is it really so much to ask to want a President who, when he enters a room, is the vast majority of the time the smartest person in the room (except on the occasions when he meets with his closest advisers whom have been hand picked to be the best in their respective fields).

Reagan was an actor...not the brightest knives in the drawersCarter raised peanuts from birthBush 1 played Baseball in college, Come on...baseball?Clinton said:"The other thing we have to do is to take seriously the role in this problem of...older men who prey on underage women... There are consequences to decisions and...one way or the other, people always wind up being held accountable" -- Bill Clinton on teen pregnancy in 1996 Bush 2 got a C in Yale, and graduated Harvard Business schoolObama wrote a book talking about his cocaine use, then ran for presidentHillary dodged sniper fire"Who ARE these people?" -- Al Gore while looking at busts of the Founding Fathers at Monticello John McCain isn't courting Rush Limbaugh's supportSo far I would say Bush 2 is pretty much status quo with the last 3 decades. Kind of unfair to demand hi to be better, and give a pass to the rest of them.

[El Guapo 8]

I will never lose credibility, and you know it!!!!!Saying that Bush isn't smart is always going to be somewhat of an opinion since intelligence is very subjective to begin with. But from what I have gathered, he does not demonstrate the type of intelligence that I respect the most. Certainly, a lot of it has to do with how he presents himself, which he pretty objectively does not do well. I'd like to think that I'm generally clever enough to look past a person's grammatical deficiencies to weigh their intelligence. I've had some time to come to my conclusion. In my mind, he's stubborn and very narrowly focused. He's quick to jump to conclusion and action and seems to detest nuanced contemplations and decisions. His view of the world, as presented to the public, is narrow minded and ignorant in the extent to which it is black and white and ignores the many details of complex issues. I want a President whose decisions I can trust. I want a president who thinks deeply, consults widely, doesn't fear from nuance, contemplates deeply about difficult issues, and isn't afraid to change his mind. Bush is not this president. That's a big reason why I don't like him. Is it an opinion? Sure. That was the original question, though, right?

He could probably use one of these.The guy who sold them made a million dollars.

[TrulyRaNd0m 0]

In response to the dude who said I'm an idiot because I think it's easier to be gay than conservative...You obviously don't attend a liberal arts college in modern day America. Homosexuality may not be cool with the older folk, but it's quite normal and tolerated among my peers. As it should be, in my opinion.The few flames I've received in this thread just validate my point lol.Yeah, it's not hard to be conservative surrounded by a sea of liberals. It's not hard to hear how terrible your country is day in and day out. You're right. It's not hard to have my opinions shut down by a professor in the middle of class because I'm "ignorant and thickheaded"... even though my argument was as simple as supporting my country. You're right. Good point. I'm obviously mentally handicapped. It's not hard at all to have your beliefs and ideas degraded day after day.Good point, buddy.

[uahphysics 0]

In response to the dude who said I'm an idiot because I think it's easier to be gay than conservative...You obviously don't attend a liberal arts college in modern day America. Homosexuality may not be cool with the older folk, but it's quite normal and tolerated among my peers. As it should be, in my opinion.The few flames I've received in this thread just validate my point lol.Yeah, it's not hard to be conservative surrounded by a sea of liberals. It's not hard to hear how terrible your country is day in and day out. You're right. It's not hard to have my opinions shut down by a professor in the middle of class because I'm "ignorant and thickheaded"... even though my argument was as simple as supporting my country. You're right. Good point. I'm obviously mentally handicapped. It's not hard at all to have your beliefs and ideas degraded day after day.Good point, buddy.

You're right, I don't attend a liberal arts college, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything. You didn't say "its easier to be gay than conservative in a liberal arts college full of crazy liberals." As far as I can remember, I can't think of any news about somebody being killed or tortured or bullied day in and day out for being conservative. I can't remember conservatives being bumped to second-class citizens by not having the same rights as everyone else like marriage and stuff. In fact, its conservatives(for the most part, I acknowledge that there are democrats who are on the same side as republicans) that are trying to make sure same-sex marriage is illegal because they think they know what's best for everybody. Trust me, I know how you feel. Its not exactly easy being a liberal atheist in the deep south. I don't know a single person that shares my views on politics and other things...but I don't go around make stupid claims that demeans the plight of people who have actually suffered.

[hblask 1]

My biggest beef against Bush is that he's dumb. Like, dumb as hell. Okay, he's probably not really stupid. I'm sure in some ways he's mildly intelligent. But he's the president of the United States. We only get one of those, so he is held to a higher standard. Though Bush may barely pass as a mediocre mind compared to the rest of the world, in terms of the leader of the free world, he's really really quite stupid.But I guess I could deal with that if he had good advisers to guide his presidency. Indeed, he did find several smart people to surround himself with, but instead of guiding his presidency, they turned out to be driven by their own personal agendas and preconceived policies than by anything else. So, instead of being quick to react to facts and to change policies based on new evidence, they turned out to be stagnant and unrelenting.The economy is by no means strong, but that's not Bush's fault necessarily, so I won't hold that against him. Certainly, however, it's not a point for him.

I really don't like Bush. OK, I despise him. He's the third worst president ever. But I think the criticism of him being dumb is extremely unfair. Much of his history shows otherwise. I think the reason he appears dumb is because he doesn't have a good command of The English. I don't think that's brains, I think that's something else. As Steve Martin said, "Some people have a way with words, other people just.... not have way."As for LMD's contention that Hussein was so stupid that he had WMDs but didn't use them when he knew he was about to lose everything, and just because continuous ongoing inspections by the UN for the years between War I and War II showed NO evidence, and nationwide sweeps after the invasion showed NO evidence that they had ever existed or that there was any capability to store or produce them, and that there is no evidence of them being moved or trades, yet we should, for some reason, believe the administration with a history of lying about the situation.... well, some people have a way with logic, other people just..... not have way. (Kidding LMD, I respect your reasoning power, but the "oops they moved them" theory is pretty crazy without even a hint of evidence, considering how closely Iraq has been watched for a decade or more.)

[hblask 1]

But, uh, given the choice, wouldn't you want a president who "was the sharpest guy around." I guess Bush is probably mildly intelligent (heck, he was able to pull off a whopping C average at Yale...), but is it really so much to ask to want a President who, when he enters a room, is the vast majority of the time the smartest person in the room (except on the occasions when he meets with his closest advisers whom have been hand picked to be the best in their respective fields).

The smartest people around don't run for politics, they accomplish something with their life. Smart people don't have the desire to f*** up other people's lives, they don't crave power. The current batch continues that trend.

[SlapStick 0]

First ,good call,I was drunk, waiting for my gf to get off work, now my head is pounding and I can barely open my eyes.

Sigh...LONDON, England -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says he would not be surprised if coalition forces found chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. Blix also says the coalition had "other motivations" for invading Iraq besides Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs. em.......thanks?Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Quoting an 18 year old resolution that was meant for the gulf war..are you realy that desperate?

You know what is funny. you guys are so convinced the world hates America. you are so convinced that Bush broke some law, and yet there has not been any talk of actually having a trial. The UN isn't holding hearings on what to do to stop America. they are actually talking about becoming involved in Iraq.Obviously, when the strongest nation in the world does what they want, you can either try to talk them out of it or minimise their mess. The talking went wellAnd as far as WMDs that were never found:Clinton Broadcasting Station Link"Deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said "the jury is still out" on whether chemical or other weapons of mass destruction remained in Iraq." This is from the same article you postedNukes???USA Today Link ( couldn't think of clever USA annogram demeaning Clinton)

Bolded parts aboveAbout the "Nukes"...."A U.N. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was some concern about the legality of the U.S. transfer because the nuclear material belonged to Iraq and was under the control and supervision of the IAEA. The U.S. Energy Department statement said "the U.S., consistent with its authorities and relevant United Nations resolutions, took possession of and removed the materials to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people." Iraqi officials "were briefed about the removal and sources prior to evacuation," the statement said. In 1992, after the first Gulf War, all highly enriched uranium — which could be used to make nuclear weapons — was shipped from Iraq to Russia, the IAEA's Zlauvinen said. After 1992, roughly 2 tons of natural uranium, or yellow cake, some low enriched uranium and some depleted uranium was left at Tuwaitha under IAEA seal and control, he said."The "nukes" were known about the whole time. Under seal of the IAEA.Your a joker BG, a joker. Start reading the links you are posting seriously, you don't get embarrassed?and lol at the gay/conservative arguement

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So far I would say Bush 2 is pretty much status quo with the last 3 decades. Kind of unfair to demand hi to be better, and give a pass to the rest of them.

Really? You think Bush II is as intelligent as Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and Bush I? I think they're all worlds beyond Bush II, even Reagan, and especially Clinton.

[Mercury69 3]

I'm a college student at Augustana College in Rock Island, IL.I'm also a conservative. Now for those of you that are college-aged... you probably know that it's easier to be young and gay than it is to be young and conservative these days. I have been subjected to numerous discriminations based on my political views, because I'm vocal about them. I'm even a social liberal... but my support for the war in Iraq is enough to get yelled at. But that's for another topic.Here's my question: Why is the President so hated? Why is he regarded as one of the worst Presidents of our time?The facts:- No terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11.- One of the best economies of the past 100 years- Ridiculously low unemployment- Technology is growing at an incredible pace- One of the most bipartisan Presidents of our time... (not a good thing in my opinion, but why would liberals oppose this?) read: No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Benefit, economic stimulus packages targeting the poor/middle class... etc.I guess I just don't get it. So maybe some liberals could enlighten me, with ... facts. Oh, and do your best to explain yourselves without mentioning Iraq, because we've all heard that debate enough. Good luck... because you're not going to find a whole lot.I just think that with the aid of people like Jon Stewart and Michael Moore, the young culture has come to HATE a man for no real good reason. It's just like Paris Hilton. And it's really not fair.

You're kidding, right? You know you guys don't count unemployed people who aren't looking for work as unemployed, right? Have you seen the stock market recently? No Child Left Behind, my ass.Go ahead and be Conservative, Republican, whatever, just don't be so ****ing blind to the problems your country is having. Jeez.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I really don't like Bush. OK, I despise him. He's the third worst president ever. But I think the criticism of him being dumb is extremely unfair. Much of his history shows otherwise. I think the reason he appears dumb is because he doesn't have a good command of The English. I don't think that's brains, I think that's something else. As Steve Martin said, "Some people have a way with words, other people just.... not have way."

But it's not his way with words that I'm afraid. It's how he views the world from a very narrow and ignorant perspective. I'm not saying saying, "OMG, he said is our children learning, what an idiot." I mean, that is pretty stupid, but we're ignoring that for now. Things like going our of your way to create something called an "Axis of Evil" is just plain old stupid. It demonstrates such an ignorant mindset and such little grasp of the complex details of the world. His arguments and justifications for things as serious as war seem to come from the mind of a third grader watching a cartoon. Not knowing the difference between a Sunni and a Shia is really, really shockingly stupid for someone who has taken it upon himself to reconstruct the middle east. Something like that, a mistake of that magnitude, says to me that he's not simply bad in public, or dumbs down his secretly complex arguments in order to earn public support. It says he's just careless about complexity.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The smartest people around don't run for politics, they accomplish something with their life. Smart people don't have the desire to f*** up other people's lives, they don't crave power. The current batch continues that trend.

This is certainly true. But I would at least want somebody who is somewhat respected in a certain field. Someone who has at least one sort of intellectual strength, be it with economics, the law, political science, running a successful business, or something that demonstrates that they have the capacity to excel at their chosen field. I mean, it's a big country, am I really asking for all that much?And no, being able to fly a plane doesn't count. Unless, BG, you're suggesting that we send Bush over to Iraq to clean things up personally and to fly air missions. Because, personally, I'm 100% fine with that. I'm sure he's a fantastic pilot.