Anonymous wrote:Ellen wants it both ways...to be considered a Hollywood liberal and to act all country w/ Pres. Bush at football game...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2019/10/08/ellen-degeneres-george-bush-times-shes-addressed-critics/3906283002/

Good lord, you’re a petty little imbecile aren’t you?

Here is Michelle Obama hugging GWBush outside a political event.

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a39528/on-the-unlikely-friendship-between-michelle-obama-and-president-bush/

I was not a Bush supporter. I was not an Obama supporter. However, both are more appealing than OP.

Anonymous wrote:People throw around the "100,000 dead" number like it's a fact.

Correct. 100,000 is likely a gross underestimate.

Anonymous wrote:Ellen wants it both ways...to be considered a Hollywood liberal and to act all country w/ Pres. Bush at football game...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2019/10/08/ellen-degeneres-george-bush-times-shes-addressed-critics/3906283002/

Ellen is a classy professional

I liked GWB and I like Trump. I also find Ellen funny at times. I appreciate her message but find it amusing that she chose GWB as her conservative friend. As a previous poster mentioned, he’s experienced an image resurgence because he kept his mouth closed during the 8 years of the Obama presidency. Look at McCain and Romney... two loathed Conservatives who are now admired by the left bc they’ve spoken up about Trump.

Again, I like her message but I’d like to see her apply it to a more polarizing figure. Let’s see her sit down with Trump or Ted Cruise or Lindsay Graham.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People throw around the "100,000 dead" number like it's a fact.

It IS a fact. He destroyed an entire country FOR NO REASON.

No, for no reason you find acceptable. There's a significant difference.

What was the reason? Kind of telling you don’t mention it. We’ve sort of settled on this passive “misbegotten” war language but someone needs to be held responsible.

If it were 100,000 Americans, or 100,000 Canadians even, you would want reasons everyone finds “acceptable.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People throw around the "100,000 dead" number like it's a fact.

It IS a fact. He destroyed an entire country FOR NO REASON.

Yes. All by himself. OK.

So as long as a person does not get in a tank and go to war “all by himself,” he does not need to be held responsible?

He is ultimately responsible.

I don’t give a free pass to the others who were involved in the approval of the war but there are degrees of culpability.

Anonymous wrote:Bush is globalist scum.

I think you mean Obama.

Bush may be scum, but he seems to spend most of his time home in Texas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People throw around the "100,000 dead" number like it's a fact.

It IS a fact. He destroyed an entire country FOR NO REASON.

No, for no reason you find acceptable. There's a significant difference.

Anonymous wrote:Ellen famously said she wouldn't have Trump on her show because "He’s against everything that I stand for."

Well, W tried to pass the Defense of Marriage Act.

Ellen is full of $hit.

She didn't have him on her show. FFS people, she sat in a seat and was courteous.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people here still butthurt over the 2000 election, I see.

Someone who only votes by the color on the ticket and ignores anything that might tell them they’re wrong, I see.

A lot of people here still butthurt over the 2000 election, I see.

Bush is globalist scum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People throw around the "100,000 dead" number like it's a fact.

It IS a fact. He destroyed an entire country FOR NO REASON.

Yes. All by himself. OK.

100,000 is actually an overly conservative estimate for deaths in the Iraq war:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Tables

The estimates range all the way to 1 million.

War has a cost, even though most Americans don’t care and cannot see it.