Or perhaps President Bush does not think that the Iraqi cause is important enough to personally fight for.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/ap_on_re_eu/prince_harry_iraq
2007-04-30 06:49:44 · 24 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
In the sense that the boy king spend his time in the Texas Air National, after jumping to the head of the line because of Pappy, drunk in Alabama during the Vietnam War, and at least the Spare wants to face his countries fight on the front lines. That's not to say I have don't have qualms about putting his mates in harms way because of his status as a Prince
2007-04-30 06:51:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
You would be closer to having a point if you compared Harry to a younger Bush. The fact is that he is currently serving and fighting the war. Every soldier out there has to know their chain of command which tops out at GWB.
Besides, Bush's Great Britain equivalent is Tony Blair. The monarchy few remaining roles is an obligatory service in the military.
Even if you couldn't figure that out, then you would have to ask, "who is more brave, the Queen or Bush." Your logic just falls apart on so many levels.
2007-04-30 07:04:34 · answer #2 · answered by Whootziedude 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
When Bush had the chance to serve, he instead blagged his way into the nice and safe (and non-combat) Texas Air National Guard THEN went AWOL from it.
When Prince Harry had the chance to serve, he took it and volunteered to go with his men to an active conflict area (whether that is a good idea is another matter).
Harry is definately a hell of a lot braver than old chickenhawk Bush.
2007-04-30 06:56:21 · answer #3 · answered by Cardinal Fang 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
considering whilst replaced into Prince Harry a frontrunner? Ask lower back whilst he turns into one. President Bush, even in spite of the indisputable fact that a frontrunner, does not spend his days sitting on a "comfortable sofa" via any potential.
2016-10-04 03:33:37 · answer #4 · answered by puzo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is sixty! Not much use as a fighter except maybe in the geriatric Olympics. Stupedo question.
2007-05-01 02:58:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure! He is WAY braver. At least he had the balls to really express what a fascist little **** he is when he wore a Nazi uniform--Bush only WISHES he could.
2007-04-30 07:50:14 · answer #6 · answered by cheryl m 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not a valid comparision. Frankly, I'm not sure that sending Harry over there is such a good idea. They'd target him just because he's a royal and placing higher risk on the troops around him.
Look, Bush would never go there. How can you expect the president to personally go fight? That's not his job.
2007-04-30 06:52:18 · answer #7 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 7⤊ 4⤋
Certainly not, our fearless leader bravely defended the barflys of Texas while in the Air National Gaurd.
2007-04-30 06:59:55 · answer #8 · answered by Vida 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It's certainly a valid comparison, Bush has children that are old enough to serve in the military, if he feels so strongly about this issue that he is willing to send the military there, why aren't his kids doing their part?
Would bush have been so gung ho about invading iraq if he knew his kids were going to be getting shot at also?
2007-04-30 07:02:44 · answer #9 · answered by Nick F 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
No he is not. Only in Independence Day will you see a President personally participate in a war, and for good reason.
2007-04-30 06:58:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋