Bush bashes Tory leader!

[Berzerker]

The wrath of the President was transmitted to Mr Howard’s office in a furious phone call from White House political chief Karl Rove in February.

I believe there is quite a vindictive streak in this White House and I don't value that behavior, but the guy did embarass Bush.

What in the hell is Karl Rove doing anyway? Did he get elected to something? I thought he was just Bush's campaign guy and he's chewing out foreign leaders? I guess they wanted the message to have a personal touch to it.

Good analysis, Imran (but maybe I shouldn't comment on another subject I know little about).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Drake:



Yes, heaven forbid a party leader has a different view on foriegn policy, especially when that leader can become Prime Minister of his country. That would be grand, wouldn't it? What if the British public revolts against Blair, votes Howard as PM and Rove (if he's still around in his position) stands by his decision that Howard will never meet Bush? Or does he not care if the most loyal ally to the US decides to say "**** off" to us because of how we treated their PM?

[Berzerker]

Pissing off party leaders simply because Rove's pettiness is idiotic any way you look at it.

Umm...he wouldn't have made the call if Bush didn't support it, Bush was probably too steamed to even talk to the guy himself.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Umm...he wouldn't have made the call if Bush didn't support it, Bush was probably too steamed to even talk to the guy himself.

Administration's pettiness then. And I'm not sure Rove wouldn't. I think Rove fulfills the role of 'handler'.

And if Bush was steamed by this to say he'd never meet Howard, than Bush is dumber than I thought. Wow... not everyone agrees with you, you dumbass monkey Texas ass****er!

You gotta admit, Berz, this adminstration more than most is intolerant of the contrary opinion.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Howard is impressing me more every day

I like the tories, as long as they stick to intellectualised libertarianism and not populist social conservatism, I'm happy.

Expect to become unhappy should they win. You might be too young to remember what Howard is like in a position of power, but I'm not. He has the soul and compassion of the dead.

Remember Poll Tax? Section 28? They've got Howard's grubby little fingerprints all over them.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You gotta admit, Berz, this adminstration more than most is intolerant of the contrary opinion.

Michael Howard served in Thatcher's cabinet- he's used to intolerance of his opinions.

[Drake Tungsten]

This isn't pettiness. It's sending a message to leaders all over the globe, ie. that the War On Terror is the most important thing to the Bush Adminstration and that if you **** with them on this issue, you will pay the consequences, whether you're a conservative like Howard and Chirac or a liberal like Schroeder. They're playing hardball, which is exactly what you should be doing when engaged in a global war against an ideological enemy. You think this kind of **** from Howard would've flown during the Cold War? Hell no, and this is a similar situation.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


He has the soul and compassion of the dead.

That's a bit harsh.





What have the dead ever done to you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

This isn't pettiness. It's sending a message to leaders all over the globe, ie. that the War On Terror is the most important thing to the Bush Adminstration and that if you **** with them on this issue, you will pay the consequences, whether you're a conservative like Howard and Chirac or a liberal like Schroeder.

So it isn't pettiness, it's saying that if you don't agree with us on this one issue we won't talk to you, nyah, nyah. So it's isn't pettiness... it's pettiness.



Besides, just because Howard is right that Iraq really doesn't have jack to do with a 'War on Terror' (especially now that we know that the WMDs really aren't there) doesn't mean Bush has to get all steamed over being called on it. Some people don't like going to war for humanitarian purposes; that's reason to ban them from the WH?

You think this kind of **** from Howard would've flown during the Cold War? Hell no, and this is a similar situation.

One, it isn't similar (at least not with Iraq) and second, we still talked to and were friendly with the French, even though they consistently disagreed with numerous positions we took (remember when they partially pulled out of NATO?).

[Drake Tungsten]

So it isn't pettiness, it's saying that if you don't agree with us on this one issue we won't talk to you, nyah, nyah.

"This one issue" is the most important issue to the Bush Administration and to many Americans. Your labeling of this as "pettiness" just shows that you really don't understand the priorities of the Bush Adminstration or how far they're willing to go to safeguard those priorities.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"This one issue" is the most important issue to the Bush Administration and to many Americans. Your labeling of this as "pettiness" just shows that you really don't understand the priorities of the Bush Adminstration or how far they're willing to go to achieve those priorities.

Oh, I understand the 'priorities' of this sad excuse of an administration. But this is just pettiness of the highest kind. Just because someone disagrees with your 'priorities' doesn't mean you say "We aren't going to talk to you anymore". It's high-school, bush-league ****. If you can't take opposite viewpoints without covering your ears and going "I can't hear you" then it's pettiness, pure and simple. I don't care how much they CARE about the issue. It's irrelevant. You can care about your priorities without being *******s and petty about it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Nice analysis, Imran. Why bother understanding motivations and how this action attempts to accomplish Bush Adminstration goals when you can just express your opposition to it and call it irrelevant?

[Nubclear]

Drake I hope Ming bans you. I don't want to see you here ever again

[Kuciwalker]

WTF? This is retarded.

[Bosh]

How the hell does childishly banning an important politician "safeguard those priorities"?