Micky Rourke on a roll

Micky Rourke is on a roll.  His newest film is critically acclaimed and in a recent interview states,

“I don’t give a f**k who’s in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem… I’m not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This s**t between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, doesn’t it.

“It’s too easy to blame everything on one guy. These are unpredictable, dangerous times, and I don’t think that anyone really knows quite what to do.”

He’s gone up a couple notches in my book.


7 thoughts on “Micky Rourke on a roll

  1. Rourke needs to wake up. 9-11was an inside job used to justify the Iraqi war. “Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time” he said. He sympathizes with Bush!
    My Lord wake up! Bush new 9-11 was going to happen. He sat there for seven minutes after he was told that our country was under attack. Had he not known, he would have appeared alerted and excused his self from that class immediately but he just sat there hoping that everything went as plan and that the American people will think it to be an act of terror.
    Action speaks louder than words and for seven minuets, Bush did nothing and Bush said nothing! If you were the president of the united states and was officially told “Our country is under attack”, I am sure that your reaction would have been immediate.

  2. Lora, to believe 9-11 was an inside job is to throw away all the evidence to the contrary. Bush did the responsible thing and not panic when he was engaged with children. There is absolutely nothing he could have done in those seven minutes that would have changed anything.

    You really need to get away from these doomsday sites and these conspiracy ideas. Looks there are bad people out there. Are there some bad people in our government? I believe so but to blame Bush for all the worlds ills it’s childish.

    We really need to clean up the state department and liberal progressives in the governmental bureaucracies. These are the entrenched people that have for decade torn down our ability to run an efficient government.

    We didn’t need 9-11 to go to Iraq. Over 14 UN resolutions were ignored but Saddam. The ceasefire agreed upon by Saddam had be violated repeatedly. I know this from personal time spent in that area in the 90s.

    But thanks for the input. lol I’m sure others who read will enjoy.

  3. I’m switching from scotch to whatever Lora is drinking. In fact if you could give us the recipe, I could quit my thankless job and make millions.

  4. In fact if you could give us the recipe, I could quit my thankless job and make millions.

    I don’t think you can drink what Lora is drinking. Apart from the fact that it is ideological and thus abstract, I don’t think your constitution can handle it, Chuck.

  5. He sat there for seven minutes after he was told that our country was under attack.

    No general is going to just go up to the front lines cause a report came in that there was a surprise attack on the logistical depot in the rear.

    The general gets paid the big bucks to think in terms of strategy and not just knee jerk tactics. It is unavoidable. Strategy doesn’t require instant decisions. In fact, instant decisions in strategy, which can take days to be instituted and enforced, is actually a bad thing. Look, since whatever decision makes is going to take like hours and hours to rumble down through the chain of command and get finally implemented, taking the time to wait until all the details are in so that he can make a decision is a Good Idea.

    The one decision that was made, the authorization for air force pilots to shoot down the planes, was done. Apart from that, there were no necessary decisions the President “had to make” concerning the attack.

    The most important decisions made on that day to defend America came from the passengers of Flight 93. And they weren’t thinking it was an inside job when they tried to retake the cockpit, either.

    We didn’t need 9-11 to go to Iraq. Over 14 UN resolutions were ignored but Saddam. The ceasefire agreed upon by Saddam had be violated repeatedly.

    The fact that Saddam tortured and abused our POWs from the First Gulf War was the only reason I needed to separate his head from his body. As for the need to occupy Iraq, the grand strategy to fight terrorism took care of that justification.

    I can only imagine how much I would have to hate someone else for me to not sign Saddam’s execution writ. I try to imagine a scenario or a person that I hated so much that I would even support and defend someone like Saddam. I can’t conceive of any. Although I do know that there were ones in place for Sadr, at least for the British and Iraqis.

  6. Btw, Bush was told the same thing we were told. “plane has flown into the World Trade Center building”. And he was probably thinking the same thing we were thinking. “What a tragic accident. The pilot must have been incapacitated in some fashion”.

    What decision should the President of the United States have made in order to appear “alerted and excused his self from that class immediately”? What possible epiphany should Bush have had that would have led him to know what was really going on?

    If Bush had acted the way you wanted him to, Lora, it would have proved that Bush did know what was happening. And that would imply he knew in advance of the attack and manner of the attack.

    Now, you may be thinking that Bush was diabolically smart enough that he pretended not to know what the message meant, but that would destroy your own original argument, Lora. If Bush was diabolical enough to plan 9/11 as an inside job, he would have been smart enough to sit in a class full of children and pretend he didn’t know that the plane crash was no accident. He would have given no signs that he did know “what was up”. He would not do as you said and act alerted, because that would be a dead giveaway, given the amount of data available at the time, that Bush knew something more that the rest of us didn’t.

    Even by your own logic, Lora, you are wrong. Even if I assume your assumptions are correct, your reasoning still isn’t. And if this basic reasoning of yours about Bush is wrong, and it is, what else is wrong, Lora? Did you ever ask yourself that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s