Bush bashes Tory leader!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It would be funny if Bush started following Blair's example.

http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,14546,-4457718,00.html

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'd choose the one which hasn't had the chance to prove its monumental incompetence yet (the worst since before WWII in my opinion).

You forget Carter.

Bush is the second-worst in that timeframe.

[Imran Siddiqui]

At the very least, Carter didn't alienate most of our friends.

[Kuciwalker]

Touche.

[Berzerker]

Whaleboy -

Indeed, agree with us or suffer

Yes, agree that the greatest current threat to the west (specifically the US) is Islamic terrorism.

I hardly think the two are comparable, namely because the survival of a nation was at stake which seemed to necessitate putting democracy on hold for the duration, whereas no such need is apparent here, due to the nature of the threat (again, relative to other threats, it barely scratches the surface) and the fact that there is an election in November .

Obviously Bush et al don't take this threat so lightly... These people get a nuke or 2 and they can do more damage to us than the Nazis and Japanese combined.

Furthermore, during the war there was an agreed political consensus, a manner if you will not to attack the war office because technically Britain was not a democracy at the time. There is no such situation here. It is a democracy, and frankly, a free speech free for all with regards to Blair.

And Bush can tell this Howard guy he's no longer welcome at the White House - that's free speech too.

[Kuciwalker]

The very concept of declaring someone persona non grata is somewhat opposed to libertarianism, AFAICT.

[Berzerker]

Why? Libertarianism is about, among other things, freedom of association - and that includes the freedom to dis-associate. Somebody makes you mad, you're not obliged to talk with them. Besides, Bush ain't a libertarian and I'm not making a judgement about the right and wrong of this, just pointing out the rationale...

[Kuciwalker]

It's slightly different if you're an elected official.

Oh, and oops, I thought they'd declared him persona non grata, not just banned him from the WH. That's still stupid, but less so.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not making a judgement about the right and wrong of this, just pointing out the rationale...

I hear you, but good luck getting the plebes on this board to understand...

[Berzerker]

It's slightly different if you're an elected official.

Why?

Oh, and oops, I thought they'd declared him persona non grata, not just banned him from the WH. That's still stupid, but less so.

Perhaps, but I can see reasons for this action nonetheless and they aren't stupid. Much of Europe still doesn't seem to understand what's at stake and Bush wants them to understand. This is a war and must be viewed as such even if the enemy is not as terrible appearing as the Axis powers of WWII.

[Whaleboy]

Yes, agree that the greatest current threat to the west (specifically the US) is Islamic terrorism.

Hardly, considering that Howard did not question it. Perhaps he should have though, considering that terrorism represents very little threat to the West, the survival of civilisation and per head of population than climate change or HIV/AIDS. Howard was questioning Blairs implimentation of the WoT, not even the WoT itself!! I think the penny is dropping that Gulf War II had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Obviously Bush et al don't take this threat so lightly... These people get a nuke or 2 and they can do more damage to us than the Nazis and Japanese combined.

That goes for any civilian though. The procurement of weaponry is a matter for the intelligence services, if anything the fog of war makes it easier to acquire those weapons as the intelligence services are stretched in trying to fight a needless altercation. As for creating a nuke, the danger is vastly overstated considering how chronically difficult it is to do so.

And Bush can tell this Howard guy he's no longer welcome at the White House - that's free speech too.

Just as me saying "I don't think you have the right to say certain things" is free speech, but used to attack the notion of free speech. No-one has said that Bush tried to take affirmative action against Howard, for example, detainment, the danger is self-evident however when someone in power says that.

Why? Libertarianism is about, among other things, freedom of association - and that includes the freedom to dis-associate. Somebody makes you mad, you're not obliged to talk with them. Besides, Bush ain't a libertarian and I'm not making a judgement about the right and wrong of this, just pointing out the rationale...

That's fine, but I don't think that you have the whole rationale covered IMHO. Bush has the right, in his personal life, to the same freedom of association as the rest of us, but freedom of association does not lead to effective government. If, for example, an governmental institution like a school was to arbitrarily expell students on the basis of pro or anti-war on Bush's whim, that would not be an efficient or valid course of action, I think we can all agree there. With another party, he, as a man in a position of political power (and that is the key thing) has introduced punitive consequences for one particular opinion over another (compounded by the fact that Howard is an opposition MP in another country), to effectively say "we don't want you saying that, and we'll take measures against you if you do". Sorry for getting contractual. Because of their position in power, it is unacceptable to take those measures, though they are fine to disagree. What I would have done is attempt to refute Howards points instead of getting arsey about it.

I hear you, but good luck getting the plebes on this board to understand...

Yay! An idiot!

Why?

See above. He is in a position of power, representative of his office. In a society where free-speech is valued, his office is supposed to have a degree of separation, a degree of objectivity. Though it is entitled to its opinion and to act upon it (i.e. making laws etc) it must tolerate equally the opinions of all others including those that disagree with it, and not take measures against them.

Of course, my argument is defunct if you concede that because of the WoT, America is no longer a society where free-speech is held dear and Bush is not a president that respects that concept.

[Ned]

If Howard the shortsighted is to be replaced by the conservatives, who might that be?

[Straybow]

I think Bush is crazy like a fox. If you really want to slam somebody you act condescending, like it doesn't matter: "Well, that's politics for you. Who would think the Tories would swing that way?"

Then when the guy is actually here you tell him, "The President is too busy to see you today." You immediately schedule a press conference on something trivial, perhaps the latest changes made to the Rose Garden.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ned
If Howard the shortsighted is to be replaced by the conservatives, who might that be?

Malcolm Rifkind is in the running, I believe. He used to be Defence Minister, and lost his Edinburgh Pentland seat when Blair came to power. The Tories have given him a safe London seat (Kensington, IIRC).

He's not much in favour of the Iraq war either. Don't expect him to be much different from 'traitor' Howard.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

There's also Liam Fox (who is appallingly smarmy) and Oliver Letwin (who's an idiot).