NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush Expresses Regret Over War Words (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bush-expresses-regret-over-war-words/20080611072209990002?icid=1616058736x1203971740x1200410538)

And it took him over 7 years, a shithole of an occupation and a sinking economy to realize this?

He acknowledged that phrases like "bring them on" and "dead or alive" had given the impression he was "not a man of peace".


BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!

Oh boy... I mean .... GWB not a man of peace...

I will now express my regret for his election...

People have always made fun of Bush's supposed inability to communicate, but I believe he communicates quite well. There is not a person on the planet who has any doubt where he stood on the issue of Iraq and invasion. The article states:

He acknowledged that phrases like "bring them on" and "dead or alive" had given the impression he was "not a man of peace".

To me Bush communicated very clearly in the run up to the war that he is not a man of peace. I don't know why he is attempting to make otherwise now.

People have always made fun of Bush's supposed inability to communicate, but I believe he communicates quite well. There is not a person on the planet who has any doubt where he stood on the issue of Iraq and invasion. The article states:

He acknowledged that phrases like "bring them on" and "dead or alive" had given the impression he was "not a man of peace".

To me Bush communicated very clearly in the run up to the war that he is not a man of peace. I don't know why he is attempting to make otherwise now.

Because as a man of war, he was a failure. Casting himself as a man of peace is his best hope. :p

People have always made fun of Bush's supposed inability to communicate, but I believe he communicates quite well. There is not a person on the planet who has any doubt where he stood on the issue of Iraq and invasion. The article states:

He acknowledged that phrases like "bring them on" and "dead or alive" had given the impression he was "not a man of peace".

To me Bush communicated very clearly in the run up to the war that he is not a man of peace. I don't know why he is attempting to make otherwise now.

exactly.

he is not a man of peace. so what is he apologizing for?

exactly.

he is not a man of peace. so what is he apologizing for?

He SHOULD apologize for EXISTING.

At any rate, didn't he use words like those, like, a hundred times? He's now trying to claim THEY aren't his usual? Heck, he STARTED A WAR! What ELSE do we need to qualify him as "not a man of peace"? Baby sacrifice?

He SHOULD apologize for EXISTING.

At any rate, didn't he use words like those, like, a hundred times? He's now trying to claim THEY aren't his usual? Heck, he STARTED A WAR! What ELSE do we need to qualify him as "not a man of peace"? Baby sacrifice?

baby sacrifice? I don't understand...

And I'll be glad when Bush is no longer President, cuz I'm sick of Bush-bashing debates. "why post in this thread then?" say you. good question...I really don't know

What a wanker........

Bush staked his entire presidency on the American-Iraq War and it is how history will judge him. Too late to for the leopard to change his spots at this point.

If he had been successful then history might have overlooked his deception in leading America (and its poodle Great Britain) into war. However, he did the unforgivable in bumbling the war and he bumbled it badly.

History will not be kind, Dubya. Get used to your place at the top of the list that includes James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, Herbert Hoover, and Richard Nixon.

However, he did the unforgivable in bumbling the war and he bumbled it badly.

No, the unforgivable was starting it.

Bush staked his entire presidency on the American-Iraq War and it is how history will judge him. Too late to for the leopard to change his spots at this point.

If he had been successful then history might have overlooked his deception in leading America (and its poodle Great Britain) into war. However, he did the unforgivable in that he bumbled the war and bumbled it badly.

History will not be kind, Dubya. Get used to your place at the top of the list that includes James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, Herbert Hoover, and Richard Nixon.

Feel very sorry for the Secret Service agents assigned to guard him and his family after the term of office expires.

People have always made fun of Bush's supposed inability to communicate, but I believe he communicates quite well. There is not a person on the planet who has any doubt where he stood on the issue of Iraq and invasion. The article states:

He acknowledged that phrases like "bring them on" and "dead or alive" had given the impression he was "not a man of peace".

To me Bush communicated very clearly in the run up to the war that he is not a man of peace. I don't know why he is attempting to make otherwise now.

Because it's bad to appear to be a warmonger. If you're going to be Churchill, you can't half-ass it by being really all about killing Nazis, I mean, trrrists. You have to be the reluctant warrior who fights only because the other guy gives you no choice.

He's depressed at the thought people will look at him on the basis of the image he actually crafted rather than the image he wanted to craft. Unfortunately, I don't think he realizes that we're more concerned about what actually happened than what his image, real or intended, was.

No, the unforgivable was starting it.

Maybe, but history has a way of forgiving winners. Even Genghis Khan (Temujin, for you purists) has his own movie.

Maybe, but history has a way of forgiving winners. Even Genghis Khan (Temujin, for you purists) has his own movie.

A movie about Bush? Here's the lead actor... (http://www.lovesanimals.com/images/animals/monkey/funny_monkey.jpg)

Maybe, but history has a way of forgiving winners. Even Genghis Khan (Temujin, for you purists) has his own movie.

Forgiving? Maybe not. After all, serial killers and psychotic dictators get their own movies too.

Forgiving? Maybe not. After all, serial killers and psychotic dictators get their own movies too.

Caligula FTW! :D

A movie about Bush? Here's the lead actor... (http://www.lovesanimals.com/images/animals/monkey/funny_monkey.jpg)

Josh Brolin? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_%282008_film%29)

Let's not forget, that amongst his other "yippie-ki-yea, cowboy diplomacy" words, he chose to add North Korea to the Axis of Evil in the year 2001. Did they have anything to do with 9/11? No! It is are a nation run by a madman but declaring them as part of the Axis of Evil in the year 2001 is about as reckless as you can get! North Korea was just a watch & wait nation. WAS!!!

hmmm well he has apologized better change the constitution and give him 4 more years.

Josh Brolin? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_%282008_film%29)

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3227/joshwgu7.jpg

Jesus, that's worse than Anthony Hopkins in Nixon.

A tad late, I think.

hmmm well he has apologized better change the constitution and give him 4 more years.
Why bother changing it? Bush has disregarded the Constitution enough during his presidency without significant objection from the American people that one more time won't be noticed.

Why bother changing it? Bush has disregarded the Constitution enough during his presidency without significant objection from the American people that one more time won't be noticed.

yeah and if the American public does notice he can apologize and make it 8 more years.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3227/joshwgu7.jpg

Jesus, that's worse than Anthony Hopkins in Nixon.

Well, Nixon did eat some human livers with Chianti...

yeah and if the American public does notice he can apologize and make it 8 more years.

In a maximum security prison cell? *hopes*