If I'm honest, I'd probably be less angry with Bush for Iraq if he hadn't roped us into it. Given that these "experts" are from the UK, I wonder if the relatively closer-to-home nature of that might have affected their opinion.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffThe problem I have with saying that is that it felt, at least to me, that it wasn't just us saying that WM Ds were in Iraq.
Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.Also there's something to the argument that Blair trapped himself into this position with earlier foreign policy of being an idealist/realist who used military means to create democracy through the world (Balkans and the like) and owing the US a solid for one of the involvements so that when Bush called on him he was compelled to it. Though every interview I've heard he felt that they made the best decision possible with the information at hand.
For the record I don't really think Bush was a great president or even a good one, I do think he had a rough period to be president and did an average job with it. I originally just meant to comment on how we tend to debate the ethics of what bush did and a lot of people over react to his moves for security, but then turn around and take another president who did similar or worse feeling comfortable in the justification that said president ruled in harsher times, but not giving it to their opponent. Due to my personal views I'm not a huge fan of compromises of integrity and liberty, but I do think it's interesting how that bias plays out.
edited 24th Jan '11 8:04:46 PM by MEPT72
Obligatory self promotion: http://unemployedacademic.tumblr.com/

It comes down to what your political views are and which guys you like, really.
Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.