Thursday, February 28, 2008

Geldof on Bush on Africa.

We came across this great article about the President by Bob Geldof. Remember, Geldof is a liberal critic of conservatism.

After reading
this article, and reflecting on George W. Bush’s direct and personal salvation of millions of Africans, and the epic progression of American policy in Africa that President Bush has set in motion, one might be prompted to question the reasonableness of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the producer of a movie about a hotly disputed scientific environmental theory.

The only question for we have for the Boomtown Rat is this-if W is that right on about Africa might you at least allow for the possibility that Dub’s Iraq and Middle Eastern policy might be equally well informed, just a lot harder to implement?


RF said...

Well, you could turn this around a couple of ways. First of all, if W has been willing & able to do this in Africa, why on earth did he screw up so badly in the rest of the world and Middle East in particular? Or, this disproves your oft-cited claim that liberals won’t give W credit for anything, no matter what he does. All D prez contenders, Geldof and most other libs always praise W for this stuff. And he clearly deserves credit on this.

RF said...


BTW, I answered your coal plant question on Grant's blog.

KenRichards said...

Geldof has done some good work in both Africa and for the cause of fathers unable to see their children post divorce in England. I suspect his struggles in both endeavors enlightened him to those who cause problems and those who solve problems and President Bush is worthy of such praise.

KenRichards said...

In addition,

he was great in "The Wall."

Anonymous said...

Spotlight wondering---

Just which "scientific environmental theory" do you think is "hotly disputed" ??

Disputed by who? Rush? Exxon?

The Real Sporer said...

No, but around 17,000 other scientists. At least that is what the reliably conservative Boston Globe reported.

But what the hell Spotlight, I guess if you disagree with Al Gore then you cannot really subscribe to the scientific method.

Much fraud and coercion, clearly a part of the scientific method we learned at the UoIowa, was applied in the advocacy of a "scientific consensus" by the global warming racket.


Amazon Bookstore