Bush = Evil! Yes, I've been reading The Guardian
The Guardian runs a magnificently anti-American lead article today. Apparently George W. Bush is evil – and much worse that any other person in the whole wide world except for Osama bin Laden. As much as I dislike Bush, this is bollocks of the highest order.
“Both countries (Iran and North Korea) were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.”
Well, if people think that then they are colossal wankers. Bush may be aggressive, he may be a major threat to world peace, but next to Iran and North Korea he is a peacemaker to rival Mother Teresa. Both of those nations are looking to develop nuclear weapons, both of those nations would have no issue with selling said nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. They are brutally oppressive regimes - extremist regimes that broach no criticism of their leaders. And if there is one striking thing about Bush’s second term, it is the level of virulent criticism levelled at him.
Plus, there is one burning question that springs to my mind – who precisely was asked in this survey?
“The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.”
Oh, right. Well, thanks for this meaningless clarification. Let’s ask the question again - who have you asked? Not who has done polling, who did you ask?
“ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)”
1,010 adults? Hmmm, that will representative of world opinion. Also, I would love to know what question was asked. Polling can be easily manipulated. Not least if you are ringing the likes of Guardian readers and asking how much they hate Bush Junior, the chances are they will hate him more than Kim Jong-Il. Because The Guardian does not shut the fuck up about how bad Bush is, and often ignores the hideous reality of life in North Korea and Iran.
“Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.”
I would imagine Israel is grateful for the support America offers. Must concentrate the mind wonderfully when your neighbours want to wipe you off the face of the earth, mustn’t it? I wonder how the good people of Britian, Canada and Mexico would answer this question if their neighbours were highly aggressive regimes, looking to acquire nuclear weapons. I wonder how they would feel if those nations were sending people with bombs strapped to their chest to blow up buses and discos on a monthly, and sometimes more frequent, basis? I think the people in survey would be grateful for any support from the most powerful nation in the world.
My take on this is simple – Bush is aggressive, he is a tosser and he has done a great deal to undermine world peace in his years in office. He has been a terrible President and I will breathe a sigh of relief when he leaves office. But to say he is a greater threat to world peace than Kim Jong-Il is staggeringly naïve.
This poll is indicative of the current, fashionable trend for anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism cultivated by the likes of The Guardian. This story says nothing other than The Guardian has managed to whip up animosity towards the US. Newspapers should be looking to inform their readers of reality, but The Guardian has completely failed to do that. This poll shows that – because had The Guardian been furnishing their readers with the unbiased truth, then Bush would be seen still be seen as a threat to World Peace – but as a deeply unpopular President skulking his way towards the end of a second term and the end of his presidency, he would be seen as substantially less of a threat than the unstable, unpredictable and omnipotent (in North Korea) Kim Jong-Il.
“Both countries (Iran and North Korea) were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.”
Well, if people think that then they are colossal wankers. Bush may be aggressive, he may be a major threat to world peace, but next to Iran and North Korea he is a peacemaker to rival Mother Teresa. Both of those nations are looking to develop nuclear weapons, both of those nations would have no issue with selling said nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. They are brutally oppressive regimes - extremist regimes that broach no criticism of their leaders. And if there is one striking thing about Bush’s second term, it is the level of virulent criticism levelled at him.
Plus, there is one burning question that springs to my mind – who precisely was asked in this survey?
“The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.”
Oh, right. Well, thanks for this meaningless clarification. Let’s ask the question again - who have you asked? Not who has done polling, who did you ask?
“ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)”
1,010 adults? Hmmm, that will representative of world opinion. Also, I would love to know what question was asked. Polling can be easily manipulated. Not least if you are ringing the likes of Guardian readers and asking how much they hate Bush Junior, the chances are they will hate him more than Kim Jong-Il. Because The Guardian does not shut the fuck up about how bad Bush is, and often ignores the hideous reality of life in North Korea and Iran.
“Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.”
I would imagine Israel is grateful for the support America offers. Must concentrate the mind wonderfully when your neighbours want to wipe you off the face of the earth, mustn’t it? I wonder how the good people of Britian, Canada and Mexico would answer this question if their neighbours were highly aggressive regimes, looking to acquire nuclear weapons. I wonder how they would feel if those nations were sending people with bombs strapped to their chest to blow up buses and discos on a monthly, and sometimes more frequent, basis? I think the people in survey would be grateful for any support from the most powerful nation in the world.
My take on this is simple – Bush is aggressive, he is a tosser and he has done a great deal to undermine world peace in his years in office. He has been a terrible President and I will breathe a sigh of relief when he leaves office. But to say he is a greater threat to world peace than Kim Jong-Il is staggeringly naïve.
This poll is indicative of the current, fashionable trend for anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism cultivated by the likes of The Guardian. This story says nothing other than The Guardian has managed to whip up animosity towards the US. Newspapers should be looking to inform their readers of reality, but The Guardian has completely failed to do that. This poll shows that – because had The Guardian been furnishing their readers with the unbiased truth, then Bush would be seen still be seen as a threat to World Peace – but as a deeply unpopular President skulking his way towards the end of a second term and the end of his presidency, he would be seen as substantially less of a threat than the unstable, unpredictable and omnipotent (in North Korea) Kim Jong-Il.
posted by The Nameless Libertarian at 2:24 AM
1 Comments:
This is off-topic, so forgive me; but I felt it would remiss of me not to draw the Moai's attention to this.
Post a Comment
<< Home