Bush is a moron. He's just a figurehead who was put into power by his handlers in the RNC. He's pathetic.
2007-04-05 14:46:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
8⤋
Maybe so. But don't expect the Iranian president to bring peace to the middle-east. He just wants to make himself look like a caring diplomat in the eyes of the world.
2007-04-05 15:06:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Perplexed Bob 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
The time is easily late that the american human beings come to the top that our u . s . a . has been with no president because of the fact the inauguration of the present occupant of the White dwelling house. Now the question dealing with the country is, will adequate human beings have come to this understanding on November 6, election day?
2016-10-21 03:48:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Almost EVERYone of international stature or on the international platform appears, and actually IS, more diplomatic, more thoughtful, more of a critical thinker than "shrub".
I've been embarrased of him--and for him since he doesn't have sense enough to be embarrased for himself--from day #1.
Dear, dear Chyder11--Iran kidnapped some sailors, put them on TV, and then let them go with bad suits...this shows that "shrub" is the more diplomatic one???
Tell that to the folks at Guantanamo and see if they're biting.
Tell that to the folks exploited at Abu Ghraib and see if they're falling for it. At least the British sailors got suits out of the deal.
Try to convince the:
--Thousands of dead Iraqi women and children killed by American bombs,
--Raped and/or killed by American/coalition forces on the ground after the bombing,
--Those dying of hunger, lack of medical care, clean water,
--Those terrified to leave their homes considering the sectarian violence "shrub's" war of "liberation" has brought them and cost them--and us.
"shrub" the greater diplomat?
NOT.
2007-04-05 18:16:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah....he's more diplomatic when both Britain and the US backed him into a corner and "politely" insisted that he do so. Interestingly, the President of Iran didn't get his "admission" that they were in Iraqi waters and he didn't get his apology, either. He was just suddenly more diplomatic. OK, believe that if it makes you feel superior.
2007-04-05 14:47:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
He isn't the one responsible for letting the hostages go. On any other issue, look at who it is that always tries to handle situations in a peaceful manner before going further. He is a bully waiting on the oportunity to show his small amount of strength. No matter how much hurt and pain it causes his people. Kinda reminds you of some other tyrant leaders that reigned in the middle east in past years.
2007-04-05 14:49:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
No, it's a sad day when people are not able to discern the character and nature of the Iranian government.
2007-04-05 15:33:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by vegaswoman 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Its good Iran surrendered the captives. Appearances are everything. Honestly, its all for the best the release was peaceful and no one was harmed. God bless the service personnel that stand on the wall.
2007-04-05 14:47:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
It was a very well planned PR stunt to embarrass Bush. As if Bush needed help in that area! People will see pictures of his smiling face while pardoning the crew, but they will always remember Bush by the photos of a hooded prisoners in Abu Ghraib.
2007-04-05 14:48:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Not that I like Bush but you have to admit, he did not have the British Navy, Royal Air force etc staring him down. Pragmatic would be more likely. The Brits will not play nice nice. Remember they told the Argentine banana eating bean farters they were coming down to kick their butts and did so. Most countries know our President is on his own agenda and that congressmen and senators are so indecisive they would fill their pants if more then one toilet was available. So they know they can screw us all they want.
2007-04-05 14:56:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jim R 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
Conservatives still think the war on terror is WW2 & that because the West appeased Hitler that any kind of diplomacy/appeasement is wrong. But the war on terror is nothing like WW2, shouldn't be fought like WW2, & diplomacy can work & has worked if it's done the right way, just not the way Britian did it in just before WW2 started.
2007-04-05 14:46:50
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋