was Bush just a patsy?

Pepe Silvia

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!'

jlew24asu

I believe the correct derogatory name is panzy. right?

Pepe Silvia

jlew24asu wrote:

I believe the correct derogatory name is panzy. right?

no

polaris_x

yes ... he was a patsy for sure ...

Pepe Silvia

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

jlew24asu

oops. my mistake.

blondieblue227

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.

tybird

Good theory......very plausible

Byrnzie

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.

Pepe Silvia

blondieblue227 wrote:

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

ledvedderman

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.

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

Byrnzie

ledvedderman wrote:

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.

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

:ugeek:

blondieblue227

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

blondieblue227 wrote:

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.

decides2dream

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

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:

blondieblue227

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.

ledvedderman

First term, and very early of the second term...yes. I think Bush went off on his own after the Dems won Congress.

slightofjeff

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.

slightofjeff

ledvedderman wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

slightofjeff wrote:

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..'

VINNY GOOMBA

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_x

VINNY GOOMBA 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?

that's what i was thinking and tony blair is nowhere near as demonized as bush ...