I can understand not liking Bush, I can even understand deep anger at his policy positions, but this? Livingstone says Bush is ‘greatest threat to life on planet’
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the “greatest threat to life on this planet that we’ve most probably ever seen”.Sphere: Related Content
Well, there’s immediate threats and there’s longer term threats. I don’t condone his characterization, but it seems that the RWAP only sees the immediate and completely misunderstands the strategic. Or should I say, intentionally misunderstands so they can play up the insanity?
Hey, here’s a good example. What if we pull out, Saddam or one of his puppets gets back into Iraq, or they set up the 1984 equivalent of Iran.
Wouldn’t that be a very serious threat?
And only time will tell…
Comment by JC — Tuesday, November 18, 2003 @ 3:16 pm
JC you are confusing “has the most responsibility” with “most dangerous.”
Plenty of knuckleheads on the left are saying the mayor is right because Bush has nukes and the most powerful country on the planet. (DUH!)
By that definition, the most dangerous people in history were in chronological order:
Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush 41
and Bill Clinton.
What a moronic way to defend an indefensible statement.
But from you I would expect no less.
Paul
Comment by Paul — Wednesday, November 19, 2003 @ 8:42 am