The editors of Time probably wanted to be provocative in leaving President Bush off the magazine’s 2007 list of “Most Influential People in the World.” But to exclude the leader of the free world, however unpopular, yet include lightweights such as Tyra Banks, Justin Timberlake and Leonardo DiCaprio — that’s just dumb. Even in a coma, an American president would have more influence than most of the people on Time’s list.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
58 Comments
Bush has a 28% approval rating, how influential is he? I’m sure Bush could have been listed amongst Timberlake, DiCaprio and Banks if was an entertainer and placed in the entertainer category but he still likes to call himself “The Commander Guy”.
I would have to say that President Bush is influential, I mean half the known world thinks he is the devil and the other half let out a nervous laugh in the hope he does not invade them! How much more influence should anyone person have?
I fully agree. As horrible, stupid and evil as Bush is the list is not supposed to be political. But what do you expect from Time? In 2001 they failed to name Osama Ben Laden as “Man of the Year” (which is supposed to go to the individual that changed the course of news the most).
Was Anna Nicole Smith or Larry Brickhead on the list?
They left off Bill Gates and Vladimir Putin too. I’d say those two guys are just a little bit more influential than Kate Moss. Time Magazine obviously isn’t meant to be taken seriously. I wonder if it is still one of the 100 most influential magazines in the world?
So, that’s it! Bush is in a coma. Ok, now it all makes sense.
So presidents should be listed as a matter of course?
Rhonda feels the rub, they’ve snubbed her shrub!
Maybe the problem is that Bush is paying more attention to his standing at Time than he is to affairs of state. Actually, he’s probably more concerned with that wart on his big toe than either!
Two words. Lame duck. ‘Nuff said.
Time Magazine. Stupidity on the newsstand.
Of course the US President is always one of, if not the, most influential people in the world.It’s just the Time editors’ chance to do a little snide political demonstration. And really, who believes what they think is important?
I’d purposely leave him off.
He’s influential in the way Stalin and Hitler were influential.
Is Time Magazine fair and balanced? It is if you have a left leaning agenda.
Ah, but if Hillary gets in as president, she will eat little children and use the money that would have been spent on the children to fund human cloning experiments. She will clone Bill and unleash him on the unsuspecting female population. Then she will clone Rosie O’Donnell and put the clone in charge of sexual role reversal. It’s all part of her mad scheme.
All of which is intelligent as saying Bush “is influential in the way Stalin and Hitler were influential”.
The question about why George isn’t on the list answers itself. But where’s Dick?
CF2K – That would be my question as well, where’s Dick?!?
Considering the thousands of comments just on this blog about GW, I would think that would be one indication of level of influence being greater than some actor somewhere.
Influence on our lives, influence in the world, and influence on the economy. Not saying good or bad, but he most certainly has more influence/impact than say, Leonardo.
Time mag is using this stunt to sell magazines. Period. They are entitled to print what they want.. doesn’t make it true or false, just adds controversy that someone figured out can increase sales.
Hey, Dick. Take George hunting . . .
Thanks Capn, that made me laugh out loud!!
To truly know the motive behind Time Magazine, one must look at the corporation that owns this magazine.
In today’s business world, of which George W. Bush has had much influence in shaping, corporations are running everything in this country. If you doubt that, just follow the money and it is generally tracked back to very few large corporations.
What is truly independent in the US anymore? George W. Bush has endorsed the corporate greed motto so why is are we surprised when Time Magazine snubs the shrub?
The Magazine TIME is being political?
Please tell me No!
Who would ever have thought that?
Why all the the hullabaloo about Time Magazine’s decision to not include George W. Bush?
Isn’t this America where we have the right to do and say what we feel with the confines of the law? What law did Time Magazine break by not including the Shrub?
America is about freedom.
Yet from the comments from the Republicans on this blog, who say they value freedom and democracy, I am hard pressed to see where they are giving Time Magazine any slack to do exactly what is their right to do.
If you don’t like what Time Magazine has done, then it is your right to not buy their magazine.
I am a Republican. I think it was a deliberate snub, but I don;t care. You are right, they can do whatever they want. Makes no differnce to me, I don;t buy their magazine. Didn;t before,won;t now.
OT Why in the heck every time I go to use an apostrophe, the semicolon shows up? My fingers just need to type better.
I don’t see that is any dumber then the statements by the bush basher on this blog.
It is wrong of Time to leave out our President from this list. If it weren’t for him, we would not have been in a hopeless war, in billions of dollars of debt, and under one of the most corrupt administrations of all times.
From the stupid comments made by a majority of anti-Bush people, it is no wonder our country is in so much disarray. What ever happened to civiity? Of course, George Bush is more influential and to compare him to Hitler or Stalin is lunacy. Apparently, these people don’t understand how our country became the greatest in the world. Stop griping and start looking for the good. It is all around you.
Donna,You must be in the 28% that view Bush favorably.Being anti-Bush does not make one less appreciative of our country. It is, in fact, the people who love this country and do not want to see it decline (like it has in the last few years) who are anti-Bush. People like you love Bush more than you love your country.
Our country is in disarray because of this administration. Since Hitler and Stalin also killed innocent people and invaded other countries, it is not unfair to compare Bush to them.
Hitler killed how many millions, and invaded how many countries?
Stalin killed how many millions of his own countrymen? Hopw many countries did he subjugate?
Please get some perspective
So Bush has to kill so many million people, or invade so many countries before he can be considered a war criminal?
Please get your head out of your ass.
Donna,This country became great without the help of Bush. With his help, we may may end up another banana republic, and I don’t mean the store! Please don’t equate love of country with love of Bush.
SS-
I would, but your head is so far up my ass I can;t move
SS-And just how is President Bush a War criminal?
SS-
You were the one that compared him to people who killed millions and subjgated multiple countries, not me.
War criminal:-”a crime (as genocide or maltreatment of prisoners) committed during or in connection with war”.
Based on this definition from Merriam-Webster, do you not see how Bush is a war criminal for invading Iraq based on lies, and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis? If you don’t, may be you need to get your head out of his ass.
LJ,Well, let’s see. Starting a war based on lies (I believe Hitler did that), Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib, secret torture prisons (again Hitler),and war profiteering (funnelling lucrative no-bid contracts to friends and contributors). And that’s just for starters!
-Secret wiretapping of civilians-Using terror as a propaganda (remember the color-coded alerts?)-Accusing anyone questioning the administration’s policies as unpatriotic-Outing Valerie Plame because her husband did not agree with Bush’s assertion that Niger was selling uranium to Iraq
And this list goes on. There are others which do not make him a war criminal, just an asshole.-Hurricane Katrina-Financing the wars by increasing the national debt-Tax cuts for the upper middle class-Disregard of global warming-Walter Reed
Oh here we go again. Let me save everyone a little time.
=========
Bush is a war criminal.
No he’s not. Why would you say that?
Because he lied to get us into the war.
No he didn’t. Name a lie.
He lied about there being WMDs.
No he didn’t. The intelligence was there. To lie, he would have had to have known the intelligence was faulty. Prove that he lied.
I can’t, but we know that he did. He is a Republican and Republicans are greedy. This war was all about oil.
=========
OK, you can take it from there.
Okay, let’s see the list
“invading Iraq based on lies”So you say. Prove it. Can;t ,
Well, let’s see. Starting a war based on lies
Once again, prove it. Can;t. that),
Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib, secret torture prisons
Hmm. War crime? What specific charge and prove it. T
war profiteering (how has he personally profiteered?) Not, and you damn well know it
(funnelling lucrative no-bid contracts to friends and contributors). That’s a war crime? Please give me a break.
-Secret wiretapping of civilians
Believe no fault found by SCOTUS?
Using terror as a propaganda(remember the color-coded alerts?)That’s a awar crime?
-Accusing anyone questioning the administration’s policies as unpatriotic
Not a war crime, but I do not know that Bush did that. Maybe he did. Makes him an asshole-Outing Valerie Plame because her husband did not agree with Bush’s assertion that Niger was selling uranium to Iraq
Didn’t, and you damn well know it.
The problem is you throw such bullshit and takling pointsaround, If the Dems inoffice could prosecute him for war crimes (at the very least impeach him–they would). I have heard calls for impeachment by them, by War crimes? Not on your ass. Get off the moveon.or and Dailykos fix,. You simply are full of shit
SSMy final comment: Your comments proved my point about your not understanding the history of this country including love of country.
You are so narrow minded that you will never be able to learn. I wish you well!
Another prospective could be this: If by influence they go by populist interest, some one that the people of America are paying attention as to what they do and say. Perhaps that is why President Bush did not make the list?
Actually PMom made a valid point in that both Hitler and Stalin made the list in the past. Both shape the world at large and had an impact on the thought process. Yet few would deny that both made that list and had the influence because of a negative impact. Be it because of a positive or negative influence world leaders are influential.
“Bush is a war criminal.No he’s not. Why would you say that?”
Though this question will be answer at a future date, through his policy on interrogation, his action in invading another sovereign country who had a lawful (yet not fairly elected) leader and in that opens any and all actions committed during and afterwards to the rule of international law. In that the deaths of innocent non-combatants as a result of that action could be considered a crime against humanity. A.G. Gonzales then White house council address the concern of future charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.Stating that in fact the Administration could face such charges. Advising them that by referring to combatants as unlawful and other terms might give a shield and defense from such charges. That they would face in the future, gives reason to believe they were in fact aware that they action opened them to such charges.
“Because he lied to get us into the war.No he didn’t. Name a lie.”Now at first I too felt that there were open and blatant lies told. I have since came to the conclusion that it really does come down to you definition of “lie”. The Administration is guilty of willfully ignoring the truth. They did in their hearts believe in what they said, though in a blind believe. At first they asked for information from the CIA and NSA that was specific about Saddam, WMDs and a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. The information that was given came with a warning that it was “Raw data” otherwise saying that it had not or could not be verified. The CIA and other intelligence agencies had advised Cheney and Rumsfield that “Curve ball” whom a good deal of the information that the Administration showed interest in. Was considered unreliable and has been found to be a liar in the past.
When the established Intelligence agencies failed to give or follow up on what the Administration considered important information. The Administration formed their own intelligence group within the DOD that was not limited by the requirement to verify or have collaboration of the data. They also depended on outside “experts” that were not experts on the Middle East for advise. In a real sense, they felt they already had the answers so they only paid attention to those that had the same answers.
But in short, they did not lie in the sense of willfully telling something that they knew to be a falsehood.
“He lied about there being WMDs.No he didn’t. The intelligence was there. To lie, he would have had to have known the intelligence was faulty. Prove that he lied“
What happen is similar to this: Ten years ago, I found a rifle in the closet of my enemy.Now I myself have not went back to my enemies house. Others have and said that they have not been able to find any other rifles. But I have noted that my enemy has gone to a mall that once inside there was a gun store. I could not see within the mall, but since ten years ago I know he had a rifle. I assumed he was going to buy more firearms and bullets.Though I actually did not know what he was going to the mall for. So today I sent in the Police to arrest him for having a rifle. But as it turns out my enemy did not have any.Now there were those that had pointed out that there was no proof that Saddam still had WMDs or that he was making attempts to gain them. But they were lower level and it came to a point where they were ignored because they were saying things that were counter to the leading believe of the Administration.
“I can’t, but we know that he did. He is a Republican and Republicans are greedy. This war was all about oil.”
No it is not that simple, oil did play a part in it but it was not the main drive. It was simply seen as a side benefit. It has been established that many came into the Administration with the intent to invade Iraq as early as 2002. But 9-11 threw a change in plans, rather simply putting off what they meant to do. In a real sense, even if Iraq had no oil, it still would have been invaded. G.W Bush had different reasons that did Cheney or Rumsfield but it happen that they all have the same intent.
“war profiteering (how has he personally profiteered?) Not, and you damn well know it(funneling lucrative no-bid contracts to friends and contributors). That’s a war crime? Please give me a break.”
As a matter of fact, YES that is under the definition of a war crime. Bush, himself had no linkable ties to a profit from the war. But others whom had a hand in it have and can be link to profits from the Iraq war. But a point of order, it would not be the Congress or the American Government that would charge those in the Administration with war crimes and crimes against humanity. It would be the world court whom would be the primary body to bring such charges. As to impeachment, unless Bush&Co. went off the deep end such as invading or taking action against another country with out cause. He and his administration will be allowed to ride out the remaining time. Though some may take a fall from other causes. Now the question remains as to what will happen after the term has ended… It may be “Lucy you have a lot of explaining to do!”.
Donna, it is a point of best interest in that normally when our country is at war it is Our country right or wrong. But in this case, it has become foolish to continue to support an action that is blatantly un-American and was not done in the best interest of this nation by those that put their own interests above that of this nation. I am not at this point comparing Bush to a Hitler, but if you would like an example of being against something that is plain against a nation’s best interest. Would it have been wrong for Germans to have been against the aspirations of Hitler back in the thirties and once he acted on those aspirations in the forties?
I can’t believe that you people who say that Bush isn’t in the same category as Hitler and Stalin? Yes, yes he is.
So many lies, so much crap. If this man were honest and legit, his approval rating would not be so low- you reap what you sow, right? Love for this country is based on the PRINCIPLES of this country that Bush’s administration has tried so hard to undo. That should be unacceptable to ANY American!If you refuse to see that, it’s not my problem. We’ll just put you in the group with Hitler’s supporters. They all weren’t bad people, they just chose to believe him. They just loved their country too, and they believed that they were under this huge threat. Me, I chose to learn from history and I want to preserve my country before Bush got his hands on the power.
Religion and propaganda, the two things that make normally sane and rational people not.
Nice post WD.But my question to you would be, since you sent the police to arrest your pseudo suspect, would it have been a lie when you told them “I know he has rifles”? See, I think it would.
I say this with all due respect Mom. Your hate blinds you. You have gone off the edge.
I think what you all have to say is interesting, but unfair and ridiculous accusations are being made. We vote people into office to make decisions based on information and facts they are given, classified information usually, and that is what was done. Congress, not Bush alone got us into this war, and as citizens of this country we chose those congressmn and women. Let me ask you one thing, have you been against this war from the beginning or are you part of the 60% of people who used to support Bush and no longer do because you have been swayed by the negativity and hate of the media? This war is about helping people enjoy the freedoms and rights that come with democracy. Bush can not be compared to Hitler or Stalin, read your history books, has Bush caused a Holocaust? No, he sure hasn’t. One of you used the word narrow-minded, but I believe that we are all being narrow-minded and unrealistic in what we expected this to be like. How long did it take us to achieve freedom from England, how long was our civil war? Did other countries help us to be the country we are today? Yes, they did. How can we sit by and let people be oppressed and enjoy our martinis and sit by our pools? So what if Bush wasn’t listed in Time magazine, who gave them the final say? No one, it is a matter of opinion, not fact. The fact is, whether you like him or hate him, he is one of the most influential people in the world, it is unfortunate that you are so narrow-minded as to not see the possibilities and opportunities that he has created for people to enjoy what we enjoy.
“So presidents should be listed as a matter of course?”
Yes. Even if they are dumb idiots. They still influence the course of events for better or for worse in the case of the idiot demon in there now. The President of the USA, China and Russia should always be on that list.
Political Mom-
First, I have stated more than once that I was against this war from the onset. Two, I have stated more than once my desire to find a sane and not self defeating way out. THird, While I will defend Bush from some of the most egregious remarks, I am not particularly a Bush supporter. I support him as the Potus, I give him some measure of respect for not changing his mind whichever the wind blows (but I think he needs to take a fresh look at what he’s doing, stay the course is not an idea). He is not a fiscal conservative he spends money like few other people claiming to be conservatives or Republicans , his illegal immigration program is atrocious, his 9 oclock bedtime is annoying at the least, etc etc etc. His management of the situation in Iraq has been terrible. I voted for the man twice. In my mind, the Democratic candidate gave me no choice. Maybe I was wrong, maybe not. That’s how I saw it at the time. So, since I don;t believe BUsh is in the same category as Hitler, I am in the same group as a Hitler Lover?Well, it must suck to be you if you hate anyone that much.
All you Bush haters suck! No wonder we can’t finish the job in Iraq.
Might do well to remember a bit of history here. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush and his partner George Herbert Walker were part of a conspiracy to overthrow the government and install a Nazi regime in the US, and were busy bankrolling the third reich up until they were caught at it in 1942. I’ve always wondered how much of that legacy rubbed off on his son and grandson.
LJ this post is NOT for you.
Ah this is the problem. We trust our elected leaders to make policy based on what they know.
Did you forget, we ARE the government? Or at least we’re supposed to be. And we depend on the classified stuff to be kept from us ONLY when it has to be, and not for political gain.
That is not what has happened. You CANNOT allow corruption to continue in the government unchecked. If you trust the government leaders without question, you really should move to China. They’d like you a lot there.
And yes, I was against this war in the beginning, and then I changed my mind when Colin Powell went before the UN. WITH the warning….you’d better be right.
It is NOT our job to go around the world forcing freedom upon those who have not asked for us to do so. THEY are the people who have to live with it..isn’t that the fiscal conservative mantra?…That those who have stuff given to them won’t appreciate it, they have to earn it on their own?Just as we rose up as a whole people and earned our freedom, they must too. We can help out when asked to do so.
Just curious, how do you think the new free Christians in Iraq feel right now? Considering they’re being slaughtered now…I bet they don’t feel as free as they were. And freedom, ha, we installed a more hardline Islamic rule than before!
And now, those who formerly supported the newly elected Iraqi leader say they cannot go on with him in power. So not only are they getting ready to go on an Iraq congress break and let us fight for them…they’re talking about overthrowing their leader.
Yeah, I thought it was one of the dumbest moves ever. Sure, forever looking forward Time mag. will always get the nod for doing what they have done. It is a political statement which means they sold out their own standards.Bush is the boss…he has massive influence.
Political Mom-
While it may not have been for me,I agree with most of your 9:58 post. Just thought I would let you know
Thank you LJ, I appreciate that.
And Political MomIf you are “on” tonight, be safe
I’m shot. My brain is fried.Night all
“Let me ask you one thing, have you been against this war from the beginning or are you part of the 60% of people who used to support Bush and no longer do because you have been swayed by the negativity and hate of the media?”
Fair question, my story is that I was 99 % supportive even when the call was to invade Iraq. But I just could not shake the feeling that there was something wrong with this picture. At first like the majority of those that were supportive yet questioning at first. I assumed that there was just something I was not privy to. But the more information that was coming out the more it just seem supposition. I certainly knew that it was possible that Saddam still had WMDs. He had them before and had used them, but there was far to much riding on it. Too much at stake with taking an action that flight in the face of everything this country has stood for. That the action should being riding on a guess, on my own I started looking for information. A reason that would show that the call to invade was truly justified.
There were far too many other countries that were state sponsors of terrorism. That it was a hard fact they actions were actively against the U.S. While Saddam did not like us and had in the distant pasted wish to do something to harm us. There was just nothing that was a current threat to this country.
By the 2004 elections I was convinced that Not only was the invasion a real diversion from the fight against terrorism. But that the focus had been so shifted from the terrorists to Saddam who posed little if any threat.
As I said in the above post, by 2004 I had came to the conclusion that the Bush Administration was willfully lying. But since have found enough direction that they were not lying as much as delusional. They were so convinced that what little intelligence that was currently available. And it did not support their thinking made no different to them.
As to the Congress, the intelligence that was available to them was just as old as that which was available to the President. The list of 948 sites that were said to contain WMDs. Was made at the end of the first Gulf war and was never updated. So when the President or Congress asked for proof that is what was given to them.
Farther more the intelligence that the Administration talked about, the tubes, ties to Al-Qaeda and the yellow cake. Were a mixture of guessing and unfounded and reliable information. But had been picked up by the White House Iraq study group.
Nice post WD.But my question to you would be, since you sent the police to arrest your pseudo suspect, would it have been a lie when you told them “I know he has rifles”? See, I think it would.
That is the problem, if I say it and feel that it is the truth then I am not lying. Now it is my failing in that I have not taken the time to actually find out for myself instead of depending on what I knew was true 10 years ago. Now if I ask the next door neighbor and they tell me that to the best of their knowledge my enemy has not gotten rid of his rifle. But they add that they also do not know for sure he still has his rifle.If I already believe my enemy has his rifle, I may only pay attention to the first part of what the neighbor said.
Now to give some credit, lets say that my enemy does not want anyone to know he no longer has his rifle. For fear that if others knew he was no longer armed they may try to kill him. Now he is denying having his rifle but acts as if he is really hiding it. So when his house is searched and no rifle is found, I still do not believe it as there are signs he maybe just lying. So I will say, “Just because you do not find anything does not mean he does not still have it!”.
Now I hope in a sense I have explained why I no longer feel it was a lie, though it turns out that in fact Saddam had gotten rid of the WMDs shortly after the first Gulf war. Thinking they would be too easy to find, he wanted the Kurds, Shiites and Iran to still believe he had them. Else they might try to overthrow him. He actually did not believe that the U.S. would invade, sadly he said it would be against everything that the U.S. has stood for. Violating the very principals that we have lived by for centuries. His words not mine… Fooled him huh?
Time, in its own way, is trying to rebuild America by keeping its number one enemy off its cover page.
The enemies of America are squealing the loudest about that bold act. That is to be expected.
They expect us to just roll over and take it, but that’s also not the American way.
Donna,You calling me narrow minded is funny, given that you fail to admit that Bush is the most incompetent President ever.