Bush has done 'tremendous damage', says Nobel peace prize winner

[maddezmom]

MADRID (AFP) - US President George W. Bush is a terrible leader who has done tremendous damage worldwide, Bangladeshi Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus has said in an interview.

"Bush is a terrible leader, not only for the United States but for the entire world," Yunus, a 66-year-old micro-credit pioneer and "banker to the poor", told El Mundo newspaper Saturday.

"He has led the world on a dangerous path and it will take a lot of time to take it back on the right one," he was quoted as saying.

"Bush has caused tremendous damage. The cold war was over and with it all this wasted energy and mistrust of so many years. We were speaking about the dividends of peace," he added.

"And then the war on terror started and the vengeance and again all this money was invested in war technology."

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070120/wl_afp/nobelpeaceusbush_070120120222

[DesertRat]

1. "What I'm saying is that the military response to terrorism is not a solution."

Too bad W didn't have wise people like Yunus advising him back in 2001.

[w4rma]

2. Like that little psychopath would have listened. (nt)

[Briar]

3. What a pity political leaders

are not saying that military responses will not solve terrorism, or any other problem. Instead men like Bliar and Brown in my country are swaggering like warriors while spouting rhetoric about "hard power" (Brown apparently thinks this makes him like Gandhi). Every politician who supports war is complicit in this: by taking peaceful and rational methods of resolving problems off the table, by undermining international law, the Geneva Conventions and the UN thereby, they have all done tremendous damage to the world.

[pberq]

4. Kick & Nominated

[cyberpj]

5. He doesn't care. He and his family friends all made billions. nt

[Jack Rabbit]

6. K/R

!!

[Olney Blue]

7. Tony Snow would say that Nobel prizes don't mean anything.

[nicknameless]

8. That's what happens when 5 supreme scoundrels are allowed to pick a president.

That appointment was an act of treason.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

[reprobate]

9. Yes, treason. That's why Scalia and Thomas should be impeached.

There can be no excuse for what they did. They should be impeached, then tried for treason.

[nicknameless]

10. And Kennedy.

And the "retired" Sandra Day O'Connor, who just served on the "Iraq Study Group".

Here's a great slam of O'Connor, who is now telling the media that it's up to them to clean up the mess she helped to create:

"... It really is out of our hands, having done what we did. It’s up to you, frankly. You are the people who speak to the American people. You’re there interpreting this and talking to the American people. And I hope that that the American people will feel that if they are behind something in broad terms, that we’ll be better off.”

“Its up to you”?

What gall. What unmitigated gall!

In the 2000 election, 60 million votes were tossed on the burn-pile and only ONE FU**ING VOTE WAS COUNTED....Sandra Day O’ Connor’s. That was the vote which overturned the 225 years of democratic rule and put George Bush in the White House. O’Connor cast that vote by rescinding the constitutionally-guaranteed right of the states to conduct their own elections and by invoking the “equal protection” clause which had never been used except in cases of blatant racial discrimination.

...

She sold out her country and paved the way for the disaster we all face now. O’ Connor’s bloody fingerprints are all over the Iraqi tragedy, as are Lee Hamilton’s, who whitewashed the 9-11 report to spare his fellow-traveler and plutocrat, George Bush; and , James Baker, who defended Bush in 2000 before the Supreme Court with perhaps the most cynical defense in American history: If the votes are counted my client will suffer “irreparable harm”.

“Irreparable harm” if the votes are counted!?!

Of course, he would have lost; what could be more harmful than that?

...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3802

[liberalla]

11. what could be more harmful than that?

What could be more harmful than W losing?

Him winning! That is way more harmful than him losing, just as the Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus has said.
(not that he actually won)

"...James Baker, who defended Bush in 2000 before the Supreme Court with perhaps the most cynical defense in American history: If the votes are counted my client will suffer “irreparable harm”.

“Irreparable harm” if the votes are counted!?!

Of course, he would have lost; what could be more harmful than that?"

That's a great link you posted. I like Mike Whitney. Thanks!

[nicknameless]

12. You're very welcome

Isn't that a great article!
I should make it a point to look for Whitney's writings.