Is W stupid or evil?
 

I've been wondering about it for a while. I can't really decide though.

Now that's a loaded question if I've ever heard one.

I've been a big supporter of Bush, and have defended him many times. He is not an idiout or evil, and I think his heart is in the right place, but I also think that he's taken some bad positions and is making several mistakes lately. Even I am growing tired of it.

Neither. He is an ideologue.

I think he believes sincerely that what he is doing is right. He simply believes uncompromisingly in his own vision, which is dangerous when your vision is informed by half-baked born-again End Times nonsense, a silver-spoon upbringing, and a startling lack of knowledge and information. He sees things as black and white and has no feeling for nuance, and I don't think he has the patience to try to understand complicated systems. He needs to have situations broken into familiar, easily understood narratives, which leads to poor understanding of the larger situation and therefore poor decisions and poor outcomes.

However, in my more cynical moments I wouldn't put it past him to just be engineering a massive wealth-grab for him and his buds. Evil.

Stupid, evil and power hungry. Also convinced he is right and God is on his side. He scares the crap out of me, he is person most likely to start world war 3.

I don't see this as an either/or proposition. He could be both or neither. The comment reveals only truth about the idealogical position of the person who asked the question and is biased towards a viewpoint held by same.

Neither.

Worse: he is a fanatic.

At least a fanatic stands for something, unlike the wishy-washy do-nothing opponents that he will likely have in the coming election.

Too stupid to realize he is doing evil.

Your sig reminds me of his memorial service, MuadDib.

"Hitler may be exaggerating a bit, but at least he does something,unlike the wishy-washy do-nothing opponents that he will likely have in the coming election."

Bush isn't a fanatic, you god-hating liberals assume because someone has faith that they are some fanatic. Bush addressed the question last night, he doesn't let God influence his decisions, is it so wrong to pray for guidance and strength??? He isn't stupid or evil, he is human, every politician has their faults, just so happens that Bush is president in a very shaky part of time.

"Gott mit uns"
:P haha, the Hitler-references may never end.

will 'he's a fucking idiot' suffice?

and yes he is evil.

HUME: Now, your faith is an integral part of your life. How often do you pray? Where you do you pray? Talk to me about that.

BUSH: Well, I pray daily, and I pray in all kinds of places. I mean, I pray in bed, I pray in the Oval Office. I pray a lot. And just different -- as the spirit moves me. And faith is an integral part of my life. I -- I...

HUME: How do you hold the situation in Iraq in juxtaposition to your faith?

BUSH: Well, I -- first of all, I would never justify -- I would never use God to promote foreign policy decisions. I recognize that in the eyes of an almighty, I am a lowly sinner, and I ask for strength and wisdom and I pray for calmness when the seas are storming, and I pray for others. I pray for -- I pray a lot for families who have lost a life. I went to Walter Reed, was struck by the braveness -- bravery of our soldiers, and kind of got a quiet moment afterwards and prayed for them and their families.

Cut from the interview with Hume...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98006,00.html

Yeah those sound like the words of a fanatic to me...

lurkette, you took the words right out of my mouth. It's very frightening to see him doing what he's doing, and he just cannot grasp what the consequences might be. If anyone is 'Evil', it might be those behind him, but him, he's just frighteningly stupid.

The one thing that I might add to lurkette's insightful observation is that I believe Bush to be a puppet, manipulated by special interests and his so called advisors. The President is only as good as those that he surrounds himself with. If you're looking for evil...I'd start there.

Ouch, kind of a low blow there. Its no secret that Bush is not a progressive and that Sen. Wellstone did not support a great number of his policies. I'll be the first to admit that the way the funeral went was tragic and unintended by the family. It was most certainly not the time to host a partisan roast. I guess I really don't know what your getting at, but I assume you are implying that it is wrong to use Wellstone's name and words in a post where I say that Bush is stupid. The only thing I can really say is that my comment isn't a partisan swipe so much as it is my observation that Bush is doing some things I consider evil, but I don't think he is doing them because he is evil as much as because he isn't aware of the wrong he is doing. I support the late senator's view of taking politics back to the people of this country and maintaining his compassionate agenda. Bush is in more pockets than the Sacagawea dollar and his compassion is readily seen in his cutting children's health care money to pay for his tax cuts. I see no qualm asking people to vote with their hearts and in the same breath speaking against a president who listens to his heart as often as America listens to AM radio.

One observation about Wellstone and other "progressive" Liberal politicians... its easy to be compassionate with other people's money, and I think to some extent they abuse that to get votes. Me being from Minnesota I admire Wellstone, he was sincere and did a hell of a job sticking to his word and sticking to his convictions. At the same time I think some of his policy's were "evil", doesn't mean that I didn't respect him even though politically I couldn't stand him.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, he just got dealt a bad hand as president. Please. If you can't stand the fire, get out of the kitchen.

And faith does not equal fanaticism, you are right. But he walks the knife's edge. He's just enough of a politician to refuse to kowtow to the religious right because he knows that, at least for now, they have no alternative, and he doesn't want to piss off the moderates who may help elect him next time around. But any politician who believes the Bible is the literal truth will be regarded with a good deal of suspicion by this voter.

True - now Karl Rove, that's evil. *shudders* And Uncle Rummy *shudders again*. Add Wolfowitz and Cheney and you've got the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. If you believe in all that End Times nonsense ;)

/thread hijacking senses tingling

Mojo:

Fair enough. I do want to point out that being progressive does not necessitate being liberal. Though most (including myself) are, I do know quite a few conservative progressives as well. About other peoples money, I suppose it really comes down to whether or not you have a sense of responsibility towards your fellow man. It isn't just other peoples money, it is as much my money as yours that pays for these initatives, it is about fairness, equality, and accountability. The current American political engine is set up such that politics (and the ability to enact change) rests within a dynastic elite. If you aren't a member of the this elite when you enter politics then you almost certainly will be shortly following. The system is messed up. There is no reason a rich man should get better medical treatment than a poor man, his life is not more valuable. There is no reason a black man should be more likely to get the death sentence than a white man, his crimes are no more heinous. There is no reason those who make the most money should be able to act above the law, they are still citizens. There is no reason that heterosexuals should be able to have families and enjoy tax and insurance benefits while homosexual families are not sanctioned and get no benefits, a family is still a family. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Power in this country no longer rest with the people and the money that pays for programs of equality come disproportionately from those who can least afford them but need them the most. Unfortunately, the way things are in this counrty requires money to solve problems because money runs politics and media and those are the tools of democracy. It isn't evil to have taxes or to use tax money to forward society and equality, it is evil that the taxes and programs won't be enough because only the poor pay for them. Part of being a citizen is having a duty to your country, state, city, and most of all your neighbor. Raising taxes isn't the best answer, but when we can't touch the military spending (past and present accounts for almost 50% of the current budget) then what choice to we have? I'm all for cutting military spending when not making one stealth jet could fully fund benefits for 3 million teachers. But seeing as the current congress doesn't see that as viable then it does come down to a citizens responsibility to the society he lives in to pay taxes and have those taxes go to relieving the poor, the hungry, the young, and the old who need it.
Anyway, no I realize I'm preaching so I'll stop. All I really have to say is that nothing that comes from compassion can be evil. My disrespect for President Bush doesn't come merely from a disagreement over his policies. It comes from my belief that he is an owned politician who serves a tight group of special interests which makes him often act outside the good of the people towards the good of the interest group. This is no exclusive to him but I do feel that it is these interests that are destroying democracy and do unjustice to the American people.

Addendum: If the progressive/liberal/conservative debate is going to go on much past this let's create a seperate thread for it.

From a non American point of view I think that Bush and his "we are American and and will do as we please" attitude is more of a threat to America and the security of its people than Saddam ever was.

Actually, the comment was simply about your sig, not relating to this thread in the slightest. I probably should have just PM'd it to you. I didn't know Wellstone personally, so honestly I can't say whether he was a good man or not, but his policies made no sense to me at all. The service was, simply put, disgusting, and for me it tarnishes any image that I had of Wellstone.

I would much rather that someone vote with the organ that deals with logic and sense, than impulsive emotional response.*

*Yes, I am aware that the heart is merely a pump, but it is commonly referred to in a way that suggests it is a center of emotion, as it is in the quote in question.

Take a look at Germany pre-Hitler, and Germany post-Hitler. I think he did a pretty good job, if you disregard the genocide and attempt at world domination. :rolleyes:

So....whatever it takes then?

That seems to be your mantra, since for some reason you're comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

...Answer to the question posed. Neither

Heh, flamebait. I was rather comparing your posts with the probable mantra in Hitler-Germany. The problem comes when you seek a strong leader to hail without questioning his motives.

Regardless of the quality of someone's leadership, if they seek the office of President, rest assured that I will be questioning their motives. In our political system you cannot get to that position without making some deals with the devil, sotospeak.

Like I said, I completely agree with you that the memorial turned out horribily. I can assure you that that was not the intent of the family or staff that organized the event. Out of curiosity what policies were so nonsensical to you?

Good for you. We all need critic voters. I just found your "at least he does something" comment quite a historically loaded one.

double post, why can't I delete?

I feel that under GWB the world has become a very dark place.

After watching about as much of him last night on fox as i could possibly stomach i would have to vote for stupid.

The chicken hawks behind him are evil.

W is just plain stoopid.

It is painful to watch the man speak. Supposedly he has an IQ of 91. I would have to agree with that.

Please vote his ass out in the next election.

I think this post is way off base, Bush takes nearly as much scrutiny as Clinton did is his Monica days.

Neither,
although he is a willing ally of the military-industrial complex and the oil consortiums.

Extremely stupid.

I couldn't agree more. Read what his dad and that admin has to say about the neocons but first.....

This is a little 'lefty' but check out this link from a psychotherapist.

http://counterpunch.org/norris09202003.html

I'll quote a little of the article so you get the general flavor if you don't want to read the whole thing....

"I'm a psychotherapist. And, having never seen George in therapy, despite my open invitation, it would be unethical for me to make an official diagnosis of him. So, I won't. But, I can kick some thoughts around.

Remember Tom Hanks' movie, "Big," when the kid, by an accident of fate, finds himself turned into an adult, playing grown-up roles he is not developmentally ready for? This is George. I don't mean this maliciously or satirically; I really mean it. I think developmentally speaking George is a big kid. Lots of people are. The difference is they don't have the means to bomb human beings into "pink mist," obliterate the infrastructures of countries, and poison the world with coal and pesticides and carbon dioxide and depleted uranium and napalm, as they play grown up.

Nowhere was George playing grown-up more conspicuous than his staged re-election photo op on the USS Lincoln. When I saw him all dressed up pretending to be a naval aviator, I kept waiting for him to pull out his GI Joe doll with karate action, sit down and start playing: "Bring 'em on. We can take 'em. Huh, Joe? Take that--heeeyah," while making Joe do a big karate chop as the real soldiers look on, saluting their Commander in Chief."



Now to address those around him:

“The Crazies Are Back”: Bush Sr.’s CIA Briefer Discusses How Wolfowitz & Allies Falsely Led the U.S. To War

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../09/17/1543215


A little sample of that link:


RAY MCGOVERN: Well, you know it’s really interesting. When we saw these people coming back in town, all of us said who were around in those days said, oh my god, ‘the crazies’ are back – ‘the crazies’ – that’s how we referred to these people.

AMY GOODMAN: Did George Bush refer to them that way?

RAY MCGOVERN: That’s the way everyone referred to them.

AMY GOODMAN: Including George Bush?

RAY MCGOVERN: Well, when Wolfowitz prepared that defense posture statement in 1991, where he elucidated the strategic vision that has now been implemented, Jim Baker, Secretary of State, Brent Scowcroft, security advisor to George Bush, and George Bush said hey, that thing goes right into the circular file. Suppress that thing, get rid of it. Somebody had the presence of mind to leak it and so that was suppressed. But now to see that arise out of the ashes and be implemented. while we start a war against Iraq, I wonder what Bush the first is really thinking. Because these were the same guys that all of us referred to as ‘the crazies’.

quick answer...

W is stupid enough to let evil men like Cheney, Rumsfield, etc run this country.

Business as usual eh? I don't think Bush is either of those things myself, you can disagree with him all you want but calling names is childish nonsense.

While all Clinton did was fucking his secretary and cheating on his wife, Bush is threatening world peace and destroying the enviroment.

Bush is threatening world peace?

I think the way he is handling foreign affairs is adversely affecting our chances of global stability.

Perhaps in the short term, but if he succeeds things will work out way better in the long run. Iraq is not a threat to GLOBAL stability. It was meant to shake things up in the Mideast and struck terror into all of those assfuck leaders.

I am willing to concede that I can not definatively negate your proposition.

I would point out, however, that Bush's actions are no closer to succeeding now than they were six months ago. I do not know your exact definition of success but my take on what would constitute success is that the UN gets involved and that various nations supply troops and money.

I think this is Bush's goal, as well, since he gave them a speech to that effect. The problem I saw was that his speech was no different than the last ones his administration gave to the UN before the shit was hitting the fan--and those speeches didn't garner support either.

I don't agree with your assessment here. I also doubt that the Bush administration agrees with your assessment, either.

Regardless, I stated that our country's policies--not Iraq--were threatening global stability; I didn't limit my assertion to the Iraq fiasco.

It's all political bullshit, I doubt anyone else will jump in because they want to see us sweat.

I agree that they want to see us sweat but not that it's political bullshit.

Our country's administration and mainstream media have spent the past half year attacking the UN and various powerful nations as irrelevant in world affairs--there isn't much incentive to risk lives or money in those circumstances.

Regardless if the administration agrees with anyone with half a brain should realize that Iraq was not a threat to our National Security or stability. Plus I don't any major implications of instability from our actions except for all of the political bullshit that it has generated.

But for the shake of discussion, could you please list some of these policies you feel are threatening stability?

I am concerned that we have undermined our society's notion of the rule of law.

We are advocating a policy of pre-emption (which also violates our core notion of due process as well as sets a dangerous precendent for others to follow).

We are undermining the authority and legitimacy of multi-national organizations, such as, the United Nations which, despite our disdain for it, is actually taken very seriously in many nations.

-Wars on concepts rather than nations (ie: war on terror, war on drugs)

-First strike policies

-Ignoring international consensus

-Dropping of global treaties such as Kyoto or ABM Treaties

Essentially, these and other actions have shown the US to be a loose cannon of sorts. Even though we have had the power to go it our own way for decades we have always tried to respect the international communities general will and policies for the sake of stability which came from their security that they had some control over us and the mutual benefits that naturally come from any group of entities tying themselves together. Now we have spat in the face of all of that many times over since 9/11. There is something to be said for being independent, but their is also something to be said for confederacy. We have placed the rest of the planet in a very awkward position by our audacity and now they have to decide what if anything to do about it because their sovereignty and futures could easily hang in the balance.

Iraq might not have been a good example for pre-emption, but the principle in of itself is both righteous and necessary. THe country has a duty to protect its citizens and I agree with Bush when he said waiting to get hit first is suicide.

The U.N. showed through this whole fiasco that it has no authority or legitimacy. Iraq had disobeyed 17 resolutions over the course of 10 years.

Also I think your parallel of pre-emption to violating due process is completely off base and doesn't factor in to matters of National Security.

I'm not going to bicker with you.

I'm not arguing over the legality of our actions. The notion of due process is that we follow a set process.

The crime occurs-->the suspect is apprehended-->the suspect is tried and either acquitted or convicted

Your concern that waiting until someone strikes first being suicidal notwithstanding, our core legal and democratic principles mandate that we wait until a crime occurs before we apprehend or attack.

The U.N. is showing that it has both immense political power and is extremely relevant. I find it odd that one would argue for aid from the U.N. but then argue for its irrelevancy once it refuses to grant such aid. The members are exhibiting exactly what it is in place to do--to constrain unilateral/pre-emptive action that potentially creates a destabalizing effect.

If the various nations don't step in soon our economy will continue to crumble. Economists from both sides of the ideological spectrum have been arguing that our long-term economic prospects are dire, despite what may occur in the short-term.

Our own actions are creating the circumstances of our own global decline--the U.N. merely has to wait us out until we self-destruct and we are plodding along true to historical trends.

If we are in decline then chances are the rest of the world is too. If we go under the U.N. is coming with us, hell it wasn't but a couple years ago we had to bail them out financially. The U.N. showed what it really stands for. It's not Nations coming together to work for something... It regimes coming to a place to serve their own selfish needs and ambitions.

I'm not an apologist for the U.N. and I doubt that you are going to rethink your stance. Good night.

Thank you for that. For whatever reason we have become the self-appointed "babysitter" for the rest of the world. Why? Even more important...why do we insist on involving ourselves in matters and situations that we cannot hope to completely understand?

I think that sometimes we need to hear that we have bad breath from a "friend"...before we'll really listen.

I think Bush is as human as the rest of us. As an intelligent person, I won't bother making a judgement on Bush's intellect. I don't care if people think he's stupid. Stupid is quite a relative term. I think that Bush believes that he is doing the right thing for America. I don't buy into the Bush as Hitler scenario. I'm sure some Auschwitz survivors would probably tell you that living under Bush, is much better. I think as a human, he has made many mistakes, and I'm certainly not an apologist for him. Its a job I would never want. I can't imagine the pressure that a US President goes through. It amazes me that any president has survived a term let alone two. I have some degree of faith over the current administration, but I watch with an eagle eye. I still haven't made up my mind about 2004. Bush has a very brash approach to things, which is sometimes very necessary, and other times it can damage us. I think that many of his actions were necessary to begin with, but it may take somebody new to see them through. I believe that the middle eastern region will be better because of Iraq, but maybe not until somebody else takes over the helm. Which is unfortunate because the president that takes it over will get credited for it, even though they could not have set things in motion without Bush busting up the place first.

IMO, the President is neither stupid nor evil.
He is a good and decent man, smarter than most, and a great Chief Executive in very difficult times.

Is Bush stupid or evil?

He is sometimes stupid and sometimes evil. He is definitely corrupt.

Let's be honest, he is neither stupid nor evil. The question is loaded and unfair. Mr. Bush is an intelligent man, with stong convictions and is a better than average politician. He also has surrounded himself with intelligent, savvy people who assist him and indeed guide him down the dangerous path that is the Presidency. All this being said, it appears (to me) that his assumptions and beliefs, as well as many of his top advisors, are misguided and in fact are doing damage to our nation and the international community. Many people who are smart make bad decisions and this President has had some great challenges thrown at him, he just hasn't made too many great decisions.

I have to disagree.

The man is a first class moron. I can think of no other american president in my life time that i would apply this label to.

He can read a teleprompter, but that's about it.

He shuns press conferences because he knows that he will have to think on the spot and he is unable to do that. If it isn't scripted, he can not handle it.

On the odd occasion where he does speak, i find myself pulling the blanket over my head because i can not bear to watch anyone struggle so much.

Saturday night live had it right 3 and half years ago when they paradied (spelling) him getting all freaked out at the thought of actually being president. He's in way over his head.

JMHO

It's lucky for him that in the last election, Gore wasn't a hell of a lot better.

You had two doofusses to choose from.

Ignorance plays out as evil in one with such power.

I'm writing in Lurkette in 2004! All hail lurkette!

In America, most corruption is made legal anyway.

I dont think he is exceptionally bright, nor a good politician. Yes, i do think his decisions are seriously effecting global security and im glad so many people are of this same opinion.

He might not be as stupid as some, but he's certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It amazes me how many US citizens think he's doing a good job. Can't they see how he's ruining what's left of your international reputation?
When I watch him during a speech, I don't see a good leader with good sound ideas, I see an idiot that shouldn't be where he is.

w00t!!! I got a vote!!!

My first official act would be to appoint JadziaDax as secretary of education, Halx as secretary of health and human development, ART as my offical spokesperson, and sixate as Secretary of State. Diplomacy be damned ;)

I'd make a terrible president :D
But thanks for the vote :)

From Cecil Adams
 

In 1999 the NewYorker obtained a copy of the future president's Yale transcript and revealed that he'd had a C average in college and, more interestingly, scored 1206 on his Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)--566 on the verbal and 640 on the math.

To find out how this score stacked up, I called Educational Testing Service, publisher of the SAT, and learned that in 1994, SAT scores had been "re-centered." To offset the steady downward drift of test scores over the years, the scoring scale was adjusted upward so that the mean score for both math and verbal was again 500 (the midpoint on a scale of 200 to 800). Those who took the test before 1994 are now entitled to add a prescribed amount to their scores to see how they compare to students today. Having made the necessary adjustment, Little Ed announced, "I got 800 on my verbal! I'm a direct beneficiary of the stupidity of the American public!" Doing the same for Bush gives him 640 on both verbal and math, good enough for 88th percentile on the verbal and 86th in math were he entering college now. Those scores may not be as high as mine, of course, or even Al Gore's (625 verbal, 730 math unadjusted), but they ain't bad.

Then again, I recall having seen a college guide circa 1970 that listed the average SAT for Yale freshmen as about 670 in verbal, 705 in math. So Bush was well below average for his class. He must have written a great essay.

(2) Is Bush the stupidest president? Doubtful, but here the data is lacking. You can get a book called The Intelligence of Dogs but not The Intelligence of Presidents. I refrain from the obvious jokes. The best I could come up with was a 1926 list in which intelligence researcher Catharine M. Cox estimated the IQs of 300 famous people based on their achievements in childhood and early adulthood. Presidents ran the gamut from John Quincy Adams (165) to Thomas Jefferson (150) to Ulysses Grant (125). She didn't single out stupid presidents, but near the top of everyone's list you're sure to find Warren G. Harding, probably the nation's least competent chief executive, who described himself as "a man of limited talents from a small town. . . . I don't seem to grasp that I am president." Among presidents since FDR, political scientist Fred I. Greenstein (Presidential Difference: Leadership Style From FDR to Clinton) cites Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan as being "marked by cognitive limitations," although even detractors would concede they had their gifts.

Smarts aren't easy to judge. Greenstein gives John F. Kennedy high marks for brains, but according to biographer Thomas C. Reeves (author of the infamous A Question of Character), Kennedy as a kid scored a less-than-brilliant 119 on the Otis Intelligence Test and graduated 65th out of 110 at Choate. And remember Bill Bradley, who everybody considered brainy but boring? His verbal SAT score, according to Slate: just 485

Phaenx, it's not that Bush is stupid per se, in terms of IQ etc., it's that he's "intellectually incurious" (can't remember who said that but it's a good phrase and I'm stealing it) and has no willingness - let's leave capacity out of it for now - to grasp complexities. He might be a good manager, and even a good leader in some situations, but as chief executive of the single superpower in the world right now, he just doesn't have what it takes, IMHO, to comprehend the long-term consequences of his actions. He's left that to a bunch of neo-con fanatics who have basically thrown down the gauntlet by alienating an emerging global coalition and made a bid for American hegemony, handed over the reins of the government, the environment, etc., to corporate interests, and ensured a series of deficits that will make government spending on social programs an impossibility. Having left my crystal ball in my other pants, I have no idea what's going to come of this but I fear it's going to be disastrous even if he's not "elected" to a second term. Again: stupid? No. Evil? mmmmm.....no. An ideologue with no respect for facts? Yup.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
[B] Iraq might not have been a good example for pre-emption, but the principle in of itself is both righteous and necessary. THe country has a duty to protect its citizens and I agree with Bush when he said waiting to get hit first is suicide.[QUOTE]
Do you have so little faith in our country? Do you really think 1 attack, even biological, could wipe out AMERICA ?
Remember Churchill and the brave people of England during WWII. I have talked many times to a great woman who was in London during the bombings, and she's much like you and I. I have to say we would not only survive, but come out swinging righteously and win.
Attacking Iraq using an unrelated event (9/11) as an excuse is simply chicken-shit. I believe in peace. If we have to choose between taking the first blow or pre-emtion, I'll take the first blow like a man, thank you very much. Acting from a place of fear is not patriotic. It's neurotic.
And if we were to attack Iraq, then at least we could be honest in our reasons, not waffling like the administration did. First it was yellowcake, then terrorists, and finally to liberate the Iraqi people..Oh please! We should just hand out a multiple-choice sheet so other countries can pick their favorite answer!
Bush and his chicken-hawks are scared little boys with real weapons, not patriots!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by skinbag
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Iraq might not have been a good example for pre-emption, but the principle in of itself is both righteous and necessary. THe country has a duty to protect its citizens and I agree with Bush when he said waiting to get hit first is suicide.

Quote:

Do you have so little faith in our country? Do you really think 1 attack, even biological, could wipe out AMERICA ? Remember Churchill and the brave people of England during WWII. I have talked many times to a great woman who was in London during the bombings, and she's much like you and I. I have to say we would not only survive, but come out swinging righteously and win. Attacking Iraq using an unrelated event (9/11) as an excuse is simply chicken-shit. I believe in peace. If we have to choose between taking the first blow or pre-emtion, I'll take the first blow like a man, thank you very much. Acting from a place of fear is not patriotic. It's neurotic. And if we were to attack Iraq, then at least we could be honest in our reasons, not waffling like the administration did. First it was yellowcake, then terrorists, and finally to liberate the Iraqi people..Oh please! We should just hand out a multiple-choice sheet so other countries can pick their favorite answer! Bush and his chicken-hawks are scared little boys with real weapons, not patriots!

I have plenty of faith in America, and obviously one terrorist attack won't wipe out AMerica, I never said it would. And I agree somewhat with what you said, did we not come out swinging after 9/11 ???
But please spare me of your "I'll take a blow first then act, acting out of fear is neurotic" thats pure stupidity, and that mentality is wrong and evil if you are in the position to stop it (i.e. the gov't). The government's duty is to protect its citizens, should we let North Korea nuke us or give nukes to a rogue nation or terrorist group first before acting??? Get serious...


P.S. I never bought the Iraq terrorist connection, but I was still for the war. I would've supported Bush without the pre-emption case, which I'll be the first to admit is bogus, however Saddam did have weapons (don't be naive), but the weapons and Saddam were not a threat to national security.

Again Pre-emption is a necessary doctrine because it obvious that the world at large is not looking out for The U.S. We are well within our rights to protect our own BY ANY AND ALL MEANS NECESSARY!!!

Effective Criticism Made Easy

Step 1 : Dismiss the opposing argument as stupid. This is key. Of course they are unintelligent, if they had half a mind, they would see things your way. This does two things, it builds your self-esteem by reminding yourself, that you are the smartest person you know. It also gives you a fantastic reason not to listen to them. What is the point, if they are stupid? They obviously couldn't grasp your point of view, so there is no need to argue it.

Step 2 : Dismiss their actions or motives as evil. The second part of the punch/kick combo. This places you on a moral highground of which you can never be dethroned from. There is no reason to attempt to understand the opposition because to do so would put your mind in an evil place.

Follow these rules to remain forever Intelligent and forever Pure. Criticism is easy. Remember, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.

...

Actually, quite the misunderstanding. Its a response to the original question of the thread. Is W stupid or evil? The simplest answer is to believe he is both.

Can I get fries with that? :D

My bad sir, I should've seen that.

Listen, I can't stand Bush but calling him a moron or evil is too simplistic and frankly easy. Is he a good public speaker? No, in fact he makes me want to pull my ears off when I listen to him but that does not make him a moron. I know that people are using the term "moron" to mean someone who makes poor decisions or fails to grasp large ideas, but that is not a moron. He has often been accused of having no intellectual curiosity and staunch almost bull-headed beliefs, which I feel is more accurate and certainly more irritating. People can't help it if they are dumb, but someone who is intelligent and refuses to consider alternatives is much more annoying (and in this case dangerous).

As far as evil, I truly do not believe that the President is evil, only misguided. Now Karl Rove is a whole other story, that guy is scary.


F.Y.I. - Technically you have to have an I.Q. in the range of 50-65 to qualify as moron.

I really don't think anyone should *ever* bring in SAT scores or whatever into a conversation on this.

Having a score above average of americans (say 1300 to 1000 range) is not a sign of being smart but rather IMO a sign of how stupid most americans are. I hate to say it, but theres a large number of people above 1400 that should do better and get a beter chance, but can't.

Society is as society is.

shouldn't this post have been locked like the one about liberals???? isn't this thread to cause problems??????

just a question

Nah this was an opinion, not a direct attack.

I agree, this thread is without merit.

/shrug

It's always a judgement call.

And my experience is, no matter which way you judge, someone will always complain.

read some of his quotes......he's stupid AND evil.

What are these aforementioned quotes???

imho, the mere subject of this thread makes it a mindless troll.

Both. He's one of those guys that talks with his mouth and listens with his mouth, because hey hes right no matter what the facts are. Even when no WMD were found he still insists Saddam was a danger. Ermmm how, exactly? We're talking about your average despot running his people like his unpaid personal flunkeys, but theres lots of more extreme examples of that in, say, Africa.

I just pity your poor troops (Im not American) stuck in Iraq for evermore trying to do the impossible after the war in extremely dangerous situation. If I was them or their family I'd be pretty pissed at the lack of foresight - and even hindsight - displayed by the so called 'intelligence'

I am pretty impressed with the fact that 80% of IRaq has democratically elected local leaders, power, electrcity, and paid police and paid a paid army. Too bad that the resistance in two cities, by former baath party members that are fighting against their elite status going bye bye, is all that makes the American papers.