was Bush just a patsy?

polaris_x

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

I don't know, I think the far left put just as much fear about Bush then Bush about Terrorist. I don't think hes any worse then any of the other Presidents we've had or currently have. Just different ways about doing things.

All the Presidents have been made sinners and saints over the years, its just a matter of what side you want to look at it.

i dunno ... they are all shits for one thing or another but this dude purposefully lied to send your country into war which in turn has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands (won't argue about the numbers here) of innocent lives ... that's about as bad as it gets ...

Byrnzie

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

I don't know, I think the far left put just as much fear about Bush then Bush about Terrorist. I don't think hes any worse then any of the other Presidents we've had or currently have. Just different ways about doing things.

All the Presidents have been made sinners and saints over the years, its just a matter of what side you want to look at it.

In terms merely of crimes committed, I think you may have a point. Reagan was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Central Americans throughout the 1980's - although Bush is responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqi's.
On the other hand, even though Reagan was an idiot, Bush was off the scale on that front. He resembled a backwards 10 year old. It must have felt weird for Americans knowing that they had a child as President.

I'd say that overall, when taking all factors into account, from greed, corruption, lies, death toll, fucking the economy, e.t.c, Bush was by far the worst President in U.S history.

Pepe Silvia

musicismylife78 wrote:

his actions for other deeds and crimes show he knew everything he was doing. The whole CIA leak thing, was proven to go up as high as Cheney. You really think Cheney did ANYTHING without the expressed written or oral consent of Bush? The point is, if Bush is capable of exposing a CIA agent because her husband criticized Bush, and Bush is also capable of the coverup, then who the hell knows what else he can do?

Bush had one of the most important people in modern politics on his team, in Rove. Rove is incredibly smart. His genius, and his diabolical nature are well documented.

For Bush to be a patsy, in the Oswald sense, you have to come to the conclusion that Bush was only doing the bidding of everyone else, that he doesnt really believe the whole "terrorists need to be smoked out" idea he perpetrated post 9/11. That he was only a pawn in a larger scheme. I dont really think thats true. He is one of the people doing the manipulating.

The whole "bush is evil" thing is sort of muddied for me. I hate Bush, and think he is evil, but I also think the war wouldnt have happened if the congress and house wasnt made up of Democrats who cow towed to every thing the president did post 9/11 because they were wewilly wewilly scared about being branded antiamerican and unpatriotic.

I think Bush has been honest about his beliefs. I think he really truely does believe that God talks to him, that God told him to invade, that this is a us versus them thing, and that terrorism can be stopped using military force.

that's not the only way for Bush to be a patsy and yes, i think Cheney did a lot without the approval of Bush. I think Bush was rich and lazy and had no problem letting people 'who knew about these things' handle everything and call the shots. read the official timeline of 9/11, Cheney was calling shots without consulting with Bush, he told the military to send jets up without consulting with Bush.

i'm not trying to argue Bush is innocent for his role, i just think he is a fool and easily manipulated (which is the definition of a patsy). i think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz played the threat up, showed cooked intel and he fell for it. or maybe he knew and just didn't care, i'm just saying given his personality and past i think he's used to not doing much and relying on others