Bush = Superhero

[MikeNaked]

"[President Bush] vowed to make history and pursue the goal of democracy worldwide...

"I firmly planted the flag of liberty for all to see that the United States of America hears their concerns and believes in their aspirations. And I am excited by the challenge and am honored to be able to lead our nation in the quest of this noble goal, which is freeing people in the name of peace."

CNN - Jan 26, 2004

[Cyrus]

Anyone ever saw the Jerry Lewis movie "The Nuttty POrofessor"? You know, it's the one where Jerry is a complete dork of a college professor, always hapless with things -and girls-, and when he drinks a potion he becomes an instant lounge lizard lover smoothie.

George W. Bush looks to me as if he drinks a similar potion to Jerry's every time before he steps out of the White House.

I mean, normally, Bush is someone who can't string together two phrases and follows insanely destructive policies (trying to out-spend the worst liberal spenders, going after al Qaeda by going after Saddam, insulting the whole of Europe as if the words 'bilateral trade' were dirty words, etc etc).

But hey, woo hoo! When he drinks the Buddy Love potion, he can string together two phrases.

[CORed]

Bush does a pretty good job of delivering a prepared speech. If it's written down (and I don't know how much he writes himself and how much is done by speechwriters), and he has rehearsed it, he sounds pretty good. When he is speaking off the cuff, he comes up with gems like "put food on your family".

[tek]

Dan Quayle is loving it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[moodifier]

[ QUOTE ]
"[President Bush] vowed to make history and pursue the goal of democracy worldwide...

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly gives us this right? Sure it sounds wonderful to "make history" and pursue A form of government which can be fair in some situations but this will require nothing but violence and bloodshed. It's practically factual that our country is the most hated in the world so why don't we leave people the hell alone.

No I don't think it's our duty either even if we have the right to invade foreign countries. We have a duty to the poor and suffering in our own land before anyone else. Where is our obligation to them?

[lastchance]

Remember the last time America decided to leave other countries alone?

20 years later, the third Reich decided to implement the "Final Solution."

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember the last time America decided to leave other countries alone?

20 years later, the third Reich decided to implement the "Final Solution."

[/ QUOTE ]

Great analogy... not.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]

Remember the last time America decided to leave other countries alone?

20 years later, the third Reich decided to implement the "Final Solution."

[/ QUOTE ]
You are aware that the harsh repayment plan the US forced on the allied countries has a fair bit to do with that, right?

It's a silly silly analogy.

[MtSmalls]

Bush is just like his hero Saint Ronnie, but without the communication skills. That is, give him a prepared speech, let him rehearse it several times, give him the exact words on a telepromter or other device and he does fine. Ask him to express a coherent thought that hasn't been prepared for him by someone else, and he's at a complete loss.

And for all those who are gung-ho about bringing democracy to foreign lands, LastChance brings up a prime example. At the end of WW I, the U.S and her allies tore down the monarchy in Germany and replaced it with the Weimar Republic, a democratic form of goverment. That less than 20 years later, democratically elected Adolf Hitler....

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
That less than 20 years later, democratically elected Adolf Hitler....

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is valid but not quite historically correct. Hitler acutally ran and lost, and then was appointed chancellor. The govenment believed that they could use him and get rid of him later. Big mistake. However, I think it is a valid point that putting a democratic government in place is no quarantee that a leader hostile to our interests won't be elected. In the Middle East, I think it's more likely than not that elected leaders will be less friendly to the U.S. than a lot of the dictators and kings that are in power now.