Approximately a year ago, he was in the US. He called in to a radio show because he wanted to tell Americans that George W. Bush is the best man we have in our government today. He said Bush is the only one who understands the threat we face, just as his grandfather was the only one, for years, who understood what a threat Hitler was. It took the bombing of London to wake his countrymen, he said. He said the American press is "atrocious" in the way it reports events in Iraq.
What do you think of this statement?
2007-08-25 08:09:43 · 18 answers · asked by ciamalo 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yeah, the entire Western World as well as the all of the United States better wake up and accept reality, the Muslin movement's idea of a Islamic paradise does not involve peaceful co-existence with the West. They are going to covert or destroy the West....
In 1939 the majority of Brits saw [Lord] Winston Churchill as a war hawk, it took the fall of France to change their minds.
2007-08-25 08:26:26 · answer #1 · answered by oscarsix5 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Many folks do not hate Bush, however he additionally wasn't a first-rate president both. There have been unhealthy financial choices made on his behalf akin to TARP and the 750 billion greenback bailouts, which Obama is simplest carrying on with correct now. He additionally allow himself, as he admits, lose the battle towards unlawful immigration as good. Personally, I love him and present the excellent recognize I can, however Bush wasn't first-rate, and plenty of what Obama is doing is an extension of what Bush was once doing. As a long way as terrorism Obama could also be effortlessly fitting extra like Bush related to this, and accepting his historical practices as a neccessary evil, no much less. He will most likely make it difficult for terrorists as good via doing so. So I will agree that Bush is reasonably adored, however alternatively, he is not agreed with or respected as first-rate both.
2016-09-05 13:44:29 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think what he said about Bush was just an opinion...
HOWEVER, what he says about the press is dead-on. The difference between watching the news in the UK and watching the news in the US is crazy!
BBC - news just goes from one story to the next just reporting what happened.
CNN - every news story is made to sound like the apocolypse is upon us, everything causes cancer, every politician is corrupt, that some rich brat did something stupid, and then switches to a human interest story about a cat that is breast feeding abandoned baby gophers or something. THEN comes the 'special reports' shows. Which are really just some model-wanna-be talking heads that know nothing about what they are talking about acting like experts. THEN come the flat-out slanted shows - full of 'personalities' that do nothing but try to bash the other political side.
The way the war in Iraq is reported is just a refection of how the news in the U.S. is reported in total. It's all about entertainment and shock.
2007-08-25 08:36:47 · answer #3 · answered by Patriotic Libertarian 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
he is absolutley right.
Churchill was treated much like bush until everone woke up.
you can see what appeasment got spain. They voted out their goverment that was making a stand becuase ETA bombed their trains and said more unless you pull out.
Well the new goverment did what they wanted now ETA is back again killing more of their people.
Give an inch they say.
When are people going to realise you cant reason with unreasonable people.
If only time outs where in use when hitler was marching on the world all that death could have been avioded. or maybe the UN could have resolutioned him into submision
2007-08-25 08:44:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Largely true regarding the American press.
As for Bush, he may understand the threats we face, but he is an ineloquent leader, as opposed to Winston Churchill, perhaps one of the most eloquent leaders in the 20th Century.
George is also open to much criticism for the addition around 2 trillion to the National debt, one of the largest expansions of Government in history, energy crisis apathy, among other things.
2007-08-25 08:25:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't think anyone questions whether or not we face a threat - it's how we deal with this threat that is so controversial.
This war is against 'terror' which is not the name of another country but an invisible state of mind and way of life - not the type of war that can be fought using conventional warfare. We need to bomb minds not cities.
And before anyone accuses me of being a Liberal, I'm from the UK, I vote Labour and willingly welcome a bit of 'boom-banga-bang when it's relevant, I just don't believe it's the right way to go with this war on terror.
Ps. I think Winston Churchill's decisions bear no relevance whatsoever on today's issues.
2007-08-25 09:19:41 · answer #6 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
When you want the job done right, call on a Republican!
"President Bush is the Sir Winston Churchill of our times."
2007-08-25 09:11:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I kind of agree because lets say that this war in the near future is defined as just cause. The first ones to change their tune would be the media (like the Hippocrates they are.
2007-08-25 08:34:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that's pretty accurate and that President Bush is the "Churchill" of our times.
Sad that it'll probably take a nuke for folks to wake up to that.
2007-08-25 09:08:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
"Spot on!" as the British would say. And there is a great deal of similarity between today's American press and the members of the "Ostrich Society" who inhabited and controlled Fleet Street in the 1930s.
2007-08-25 08:23:29 · answer #10 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋