was Bush just a patsy?

Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
edited September 2009 in A Moving Train
i've been thinking lately and it is common knowledge he's not that bright. his business record shows he can't run a successful business and probably scoots by because of his wealth and daddy's connections. he said plainly that he didn't read reports or look into things, he relied on his advisers and people around him. and i can't help but think of his confusion during his '04 campaign during a town hall type meeting when a young girl asked about him making cuts to educational programs like student loans, which happened < a week prior to this meeting. Bush had no clue what she was talking about and even asked if she was sure she was right and his this confused look on his face then said he'd look into it.

so, what if he really believed the crap he was talking before the invasion of Iraq? it could be possible, he had hawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby (who spent decades in washinton and administrations)....telling him things, showing cooked intel, what if he fell for it?

he's the perfect useful idiot. if any type of collusion or crime is brought up you just point to him and say 'but he's far too stupid to pull that off!'
don't compete; coexist

what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I believe the correct derogatory name is panzy. right?
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    I believe the correct derogatory name is panzy. right?


    no
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    yes ... he was a patsy for sure ...
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    I believe the correct derogatory name is panzy. right?


    according to merriam webster a pansy is either a garden plant or:
    2 a weak or effeminate man or boy, usually disparaging : a male homosexual

    it says a patsy is:
    a person who is easily manipulated or victimized : pushover

    so, i would say i used the correct word for the point i was trying to make
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    oops. my mistake.
  • blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    Well doesn’t any pres rely on info from their advisors? Bush had some skanky advisors that’s all. Lol.
    Scott you’re a couple years too late on this one.
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    Good theory......very plausible
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    I think patsy is the wrong word to describe George W Bush, if we're using the word in the context that he was someone who was used & swindled, as opposed to someone who 'is easily swindled, deceived, coerced, persuaded, etc.; sucker.'

    Of course George W Bush was an idiot. He was a fool who probably sat in his bedroom playing Mario Bros. on his Playstation when all the big decisions were being made. Was he someone who was used & swindled though? Not really. Normally you use someone if they have something to offer you. Bush had nothing to offer. He was just a face, and a name. Beyond that he was just an embarrassment to most Americans and a laughing stock or an object of contempt for the rest of the world.
  • Well doesn’t any pres rely on info from their advisors? Bush had some skanky advisors that’s all. Lol.
    Scott you’re a couple years too late on this one.

    while i have no way of being certain i would like to think any other president would read reports and think about them. i think he was just used to being lazy and thought these guys know what they're talking about
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    He was a fool who probably sat in his bedroom playing Mario Bros. on his Playstation when all the big decisions were being made.

    nerd200.jpg

    Mario Brothers is only available on Nintendo platforms. Playstation is a Sony product.

    :D
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Byrnzie wrote:
    He was a fool who probably sat in his bedroom playing Mario Bros. on his Playstation when all the big decisions were being made.

    nerd200.jpg

    Mario Brothers is only available on Nintendo platforms. Playstation is a Sony product.

    :D

    :ugeek:
  • blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    Well doesn’t any pres rely on info from their advisors? Bush had some skanky advisors that’s all. Lol.
    Scott you’re a couple years too late on this one.

    while i have no way of being certain i would like to think any other president would read reports and think about them. i think he was just used to being lazy and thought these guys know what they're talking about


    i understand and i agree.
    kind of like not blaming my stepmom for what my dad does, he's his own man.
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • i've been thinking lately and it is common knowledge he's not that bright. his business record shows he can't run a successful business and probably scoots by because of his wealth and daddy's connections. he said plainly that he didn't read reports or look into things, he relied on his advisers and people around him. and i can't help but think of his confusion during his '04 campaign during a town hall type meeting when a young girl asked about him making cuts to educational programs like student loans, which happened < a week prior to this meeting. Bush had no clue what she was talking about and even asked if she was sure she was right and his this confused look on his face then said he'd look into it.

    so, what if he really believed the crap he was talking before the invasion of Iraq? it could be possible, he had hawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby (who spent decades in washinton and administrations)....telling him things, showing cooked intel, what if he fell for it?

    he's the perfect useful idiot. if any type of collusion or crime is brought up you just point to him and say 'but he's far too stupid to pull that off!'


    sums him up quite nicely. ;)
    i think he was used in a a sense for his family name and his good ole boy persona. i remember after he shockingly got elected the first time that the press had said many americans thought he was the kind of man you could sit down and have a beer with and i remember thinking....wtf? THAT is your main criteria for your president? no wonder we got in the mess we did....shit. i want someone who wows me with his/her intellect, experience and commitment. bush was none of those things. so sure, i truly believe that the repubs pick him to use him, trade on his daddy's name, and knew he was dumb enough to do as they wished. what bothers me most is that apparently most of my fellow citizens bought into the BS and elected him. twice. :shock: :evil: :|
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    But sometimes I feel he got advice and chose not to listen. But maybe that was from the media and not from his own cabinet.
    Maybe he did get good advice every now and again and said fuck it, I’m doing what I want.
    He did what he wanted, just what he did was stupid.
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • First term, and very early of the second term...yes. I think Bush went off on his own after the Dems won Congress.
  • I don't know if he was a patsy or not.

    I do believe that he believed every word that came out of his mouth leading up to the Iraq War. I think he was as stunned as anybody that there were no WMDs.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • First term, and very early of the second term...yes. I think Bush went off on his own after the Dems won Congress.

    Dick Cheney agrees with you.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited September 2009
    I don't know if he was a patsy or not.

    I do believe that he believed every word that came out of his mouth leading up to the Iraq War. I think he was as stunned as anybody that there were no WMDs.

    I wasn't stunned, and neither was anybody I know.

    The reason that 2 million people took to the streets of London before the invasion in order to protest the invasion was that most people in Britain knew the government were lying to us about WMD's. The decision to invade Iraq had already been made. And in fact documents uncovered later prove that the decision to invade Iraq had already been made about 3 years before. It had nothing to do with WMD's as those in power knew that Iraq had no WMD's.

    Read on:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 387374.ece

    The secret Downing Street memo - Date: 23 July 2002

    This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

    ...Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action...

    No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

    The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran...

    The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case..'
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • 2 million in the streets of London? Yet they STILL proceeded to go to war only to find out a few years later that the protestors were right?

    If 2 million people in the streets can't change the minds of elected officials what can?
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    2 million in the streets of London? Yet they STILL proceeded to go to war only to find out a few years later that the protestors were right?

    If 2 million people in the streets can't change the minds of elected officials what can?

    that's what i was thinking and tony blair is nowhere near as demonized as bush ...
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    2 million in the streets of London? Yet they STILL proceeded to go to war only to find out a few years later that the protestors were right?

    If 2 million people in the streets can't change the minds of elected officials what can?

    Yeah, 2 million people marched that day and I was one of them. The people of Britain knew that the invasion was inevitable. The desperation of Blair to try and sell the war to us was telling. They wouldn't let the weapons inspectors do their job. And the excuses for the war kept on changing.

    Everyone knew we were being stitched up. I don't know what you were told in the U.S but the people of Britain knew the whole thing was a scam from before the outset.

    Did you read the memo I posted above? I think it says pretty much all that we need to know about the issue.
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    2 million in the streets of London? Yet they STILL proceeded to go to war only to find out a few years later that the protestors were right?

    If 2 million people in the streets can't change the minds of elected officials what can?

    Yeah, 2 million people marched that day and I was one of them. The people of Britain knew that the invasion was inevitable. The desperation of Blair to try and sell the war to us was telling. They wouldn't let the weapons inspectors do their job. And the excuses for the war kept on changing.

    Everyone knew we were being stitched up. I don't know what you were told in the U.S but the people of Britain knew the whole thing was a scam from before the outset.

    Did you read the memo I posted above? I think it says pretty much all that we need to know about the issue.

    I just did... I believe I saw that before. Here in the U.S., war was pushed from all angles, and both sides of the political spectrum. There was definitely some skepticism, but any vocalization of that resulted in people being treated much the same way that conspiracy theorists get treated. Suddenly pre-emptive war was more than just "OK," it was necessary.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118

    I just did... I believe I saw that before. Here in the U.S., war was pushed from all angles, and both sides of the political spectrum. There was definitely some skepticism, but any vocalization of that resulted in people being treated much the same way that conspiracy theorists get treated. Suddenly pre-emptive war was more than just "OK," it was necessary.

    I was always skeptical of going to war in Iraq..but I agree with you here. hell, even the dems were on board. I was surprised that no WMDs were found mostly because Saddam used them in the past and did have them at one point.

    the bigger surprise for me however was the brutal fighting the ensued between the Iraqis themselves. car bomb after car bomb.

    since we can monday morning quarterback, I shouldn't have been so surprised. 30+ years of one side torturing and killing the other side is going to leave some very pissed off people around.
  • blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    There was definitely some skepticism, but any vocalization of that resulted in people being treated much the same way that conspiracy theorists get treated.

    Yeah or you were accused of being unpatriotic if you spoke out against the war.
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • CJMST3KCJMST3K Posts: 9,722
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I believe the correct derogatory name is panzy. right?


    no


    :lol:
    ADD 5,200 to the post count you see, thank you. :)
    *NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
    *MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
    *Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
    *Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
    *Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
    *VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
    *EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
    *Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    well i just think they all are figureheads- puppets -
    they looks like they run things and some "look" better than others
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Some people here pretend to be surprised at the sectarian violence that ensued after the break-up of Iraq. I find that hard to believe though since it was predicted by the top advisers of both the U.S and British Governments prior to the invasion.

    What doesn't surprise me is that certain people choose to believe that the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths have been caused by sectarian violence. They haven't. The majority of civilian deaths in Iraq have been the result of aerial bombardments by the coalition.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Some people here pretend to be surprised at the sectarian violence that ensued after the break-up of Iraq. I find that hard to believe though since it was predicted by the top advisers of both the U.S and British Governments prior to the invasion.

    thats true. I've seen Cheney's interview predicting it. I just want to punch him in the face for not listening to his own advice.
    Byrnzie wrote:
    What doesn't surprise me is that certain people choose to believe that the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths have been caused by sectarian violence. They haven't. The majority of civilian deaths in Iraq have been the result of aerial bombardments by the coalition.

    thats an outright lie

    fact is that the death toll was at its highest during the "civil war" period of 2006-07.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... civcas.png
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... civcas.png

    What's the source of this graph? What survey is the report based on?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Iraqcivcas.png

    What's the source of this graph? What survey is the report based on?

    are you denying there was a civil war in Iraq during 06/07?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Iraq
Sign In or Register to comment.