What do you think?
Rate this book
The Wars of the Bushes: A Father and Son as Military Leaders
It is a remarkable twist in history that over a period of 30 years the only full-fledged military campaigns waged by the United States have been initiated by a father and son—the two presidents Bush. Yet rather than representing a continuity in American policy, the wars launched by the Bushes have revealed a vast chasm between those who believe the New World should stand as a beacon for global freedom, and those who think that America should be its unilateral enforcer.
In The Wars of the A Father and Son as Military Leaders, military historian Stephen Tanner describes the four major military conflicts launched by the presidents Bush. After a brief description of America’s military experience from Vietnam to the end of the Cold War, he begins his in-depth examinations with the invasion of Panama and the Gulf War, which were launched by Bush the elder. Both were characterized by decisive, overwhelming force, matching military capability to geopolitical goals with decisive results. Having positioned America as the moral, as well as military, leader of the world, Bush the elder also cushioned the collapse of the Soviet Union with diplomacy rather than warfare, an achievement that may have been his greatest triumph.
In Bush the son, Tanner has found it difficult to recognize the father, though acknowledging that while the former was greeted by the fall of the Berlin Wall in the first autumn of his presidency, the latter was greeted by the fall of New York’s Twin Towers, an altogether more frightening event. But while the father built upon his opportunities to position America at the head of a global alliance, the son has adopted novel doctrines such as pre-emption and pre-eminence, which have left the United States shorn of world support.
Standing apart from other analysts, Tanner criticizes the American war in Afghanistan as a timid failure, in which Bush the younger claimed a hollow victory while allowing the leadership of the Taliban, and most importantly, Al Qaeda to escape.
He then examines the long build-up to the invasion of Iraq, during which the younger Bush divested himself of the worldwide respect earned by his father in order to prosecute a war that had nothing to do with 9/11. The great WMD scare of 2002 is described in all its propagandistic intensity, as well as Americ’as ensuing invasion and occupation. In Iraq, according to Tanner, the United States has undertaken its first war in which it creates more enemies than it can destroy.
The Wars of the Bushes provides a juxtaposition between the father’s vision of America’s role in the world and the son’s. On the one hand stood the world’s sole remaining superpower as an admired nation on the cusp of a Pax Americana, and on the other, now in the 21st century, we stand as the mistrusted head of a disparate Coalition of the Willing. Between the two Bush presidencies, the Clinton years are also examined in these pages, for all their fascination.
As the American armed forces currently fight their longest, bloodiest war since Vietnam—unwisely, as then, attempting to subdue an older, foreign culture—this book provides a valuable perspective by comparing the presidencies of two men related by blood but not by experience and character, or in a shared view of America’s unique qualities.
In The Wars of the Bushes, Tanner posits that the United States has recently taken a detour along its path to true greatness. But the solution is clear, he believes, and to solve the problem Bush the son need only look back slightly in history—to the surehanded grasp of American policies and principles that were once held by his father.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. BUSH 41
2. THE INVASION OF PANAMA
3. SADDAM HUSSEIN
4. THE GULF WAR
5. THE FALL OF BUSH
6. THE CLINTON INTERREGNUM
7. BUSH 43
8. THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
9. THE AXIS OF EVIL
10. DRUMS ALONG THE POTOMAC
11. THE IRAQ WAR
Conclusion
Acknowledgments and Sources
Index
In The Wars of the A Father and Son as Military Leaders, military historian Stephen Tanner describes the four major military conflicts launched by the presidents Bush. After a brief description of America’s military experience from Vietnam to the end of the Cold War, he begins his in-depth examinations with the invasion of Panama and the Gulf War, which were launched by Bush the elder. Both were characterized by decisive, overwhelming force, matching military capability to geopolitical goals with decisive results. Having positioned America as the moral, as well as military, leader of the world, Bush the elder also cushioned the collapse of the Soviet Union with diplomacy rather than warfare, an achievement that may have been his greatest triumph.
In Bush the son, Tanner has found it difficult to recognize the father, though acknowledging that while the former was greeted by the fall of the Berlin Wall in the first autumn of his presidency, the latter was greeted by the fall of New York’s Twin Towers, an altogether more frightening event. But while the father built upon his opportunities to position America at the head of a global alliance, the son has adopted novel doctrines such as pre-emption and pre-eminence, which have left the United States shorn of world support.
Standing apart from other analysts, Tanner criticizes the American war in Afghanistan as a timid failure, in which Bush the younger claimed a hollow victory while allowing the leadership of the Taliban, and most importantly, Al Qaeda to escape.
He then examines the long build-up to the invasion of Iraq, during which the younger Bush divested himself of the worldwide respect earned by his father in order to prosecute a war that had nothing to do with 9/11. The great WMD scare of 2002 is described in all its propagandistic intensity, as well as Americ’as ensuing invasion and occupation. In Iraq, according to Tanner, the United States has undertaken its first war in which it creates more enemies than it can destroy.
The Wars of the Bushes provides a juxtaposition between the father’s vision of America’s role in the world and the son’s. On the one hand stood the world’s sole remaining superpower as an admired nation on the cusp of a Pax Americana, and on the other, now in the 21st century, we stand as the mistrusted head of a disparate Coalition of the Willing. Between the two Bush presidencies, the Clinton years are also examined in these pages, for all their fascination.
As the American armed forces currently fight their longest, bloodiest war since Vietnam—unwisely, as then, attempting to subdue an older, foreign culture—this book provides a valuable perspective by comparing the presidencies of two men related by blood but not by experience and character, or in a shared view of America’s unique qualities.
In The Wars of the Bushes, Tanner posits that the United States has recently taken a detour along its path to true greatness. But the solution is clear, he believes, and to solve the problem Bush the son need only look back slightly in history—to the surehanded grasp of American policies and principles that were once held by his father.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. BUSH 41
2. THE INVASION OF PANAMA
3. SADDAM HUSSEIN
4. THE GULF WAR
5. THE FALL OF BUSH
6. THE CLINTON INTERREGNUM
7. BUSH 43
8. THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
9. THE AXIS OF EVIL
10. DRUMS ALONG THE POTOMAC
11. THE IRAQ WAR
Conclusion
Acknowledgments and Sources
Index
- GenresNonfictionHistory
304 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
4 people are currently reading
26 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 7, 2021
Book reviewed for an official course
Overview of the Book
Stephen Tanner, an American author, had previously served with the US Special Forces during the Second World War. Owing to his rich experience in Italy, Stephen Tanner became a military historian who has penned a number of books on wars in which USA has participated actively in the past. His seminal book "Afghanistan - A Military History from Alexander the Great to the War Against the Taliban" has received an academic status and is now taught in a multitude of courses around the world.
With eleven chapters, preceded by a detailed comparative introduction and succeeded by a brief yet acute conclusion, Tanner's "The Wars of the Bushes" largely deals with military leadership of the two US Presidents during US military interventions in Panama and Gulf War (during the presidency of George Bush Sr.) and in Afghanistan and Iraq (during the presidential tenure of Bush Jr.). The book sheds light on how the two presidents have not only “dominated the military history of the post-Cold War era” but also on how they diverged in wielding American military power.
However, it must be noted that this particular book was published back in 2006 – well before the capture of Osama bin Laden (during Obama’s presidential term) and the age of Trump. Hence, in hindsight, the book is remiss on developments that unraveled after 2006 such as USA’s troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Afghan Peace Process and USA’s diminishing military prowess.
Central Theme
The book analyzes military operations during the presidential tenure of the two Bushes from a technical and militaristic point of view. However, a true element of poignancy to this tale is brought on by the father-son relationship and an admixture of complicated personal traits (either inherited or adapted) that require a thorough examination and tend to determine why both individuals undertook certain actions. The author however does make it apparent that the militaristic approaches adopted by both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. differed considerably, largely dependent on the degree to which both embraced traditional American values and ideals and how they perceived foreign policy objectives.
“Among American presidents who have held office since 1975, only the two Bushes have waged full-scale wars against foreign nations.”
Both the Bushes were greeted with collapses of tangible structures soon after taking office. For Bush Sr., the collapse of Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall ushered a new era of post-Cold War liberties and for his son, the disaster of 9/11 in conjunction with military-technological leaps shepherded a new world order. Despite this similarity, both Bushes operated under somewhat different guiding philosophies regarding how and when to project American might and how to manifest USA’s leadership.
George Bush Sr. had a firm belief in broad-based alliances, and for him true projection of American ideals was only possible through USA’s moral and military leadership. On the contrary, the author assesses Bush Sr.’s son as having occasionally misjudged tasks assigned to combat troops leading to short-shifting of certain foreign policy objectives which resulted in alienation of allies, vilification of United Nations, and ultimatums which in the author’s own words “placed demolition charges beneath the Pax Americana.”
Critical Analysis
Tanner starts his account of both Bushes with an in depth review of their election campaigns leading up to the assumption of office. Prior to his presidential win, Bush Sr. was an Ambassador to the UN, an envoy to China and head of CIA. He considered loyalty a high virtue and had forged personal relationships based on intelligence and trust. With an election motto of a “kinder, gentler America”, Bush Sr. was able to easily defeat Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis and immediately form a powerhouse foreign policy team comprising of individuals like Brent Scowcraft, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. The first task for the administration was to “draw the Cold War to a close” through pragmatic cooperation with Soviet Union which it was able to do so through a number of economic, political and diplomatic measures.
During Bush Sr.’s presidential tenure it became clear that military campaigns were only as good as its highest leadership and that armed forces of a democracy were as effective as the “honorable clarity of goals that were placed before them.” For Bush Sr., moral imperatives merged with geostrategic ones whether in the case of American intervention in Panama Canal or during the Gulf War. Unlike his son, Bush Sr. always sought support and clear backing of the US Congress.
Bush Sr.’s military leadership is marked by a clairvoyance and foresight which enabled him to exercise a ‘policy of restraint’ throughout various conflicts. With clear-cut wins during the Gulf War and the Panama conflict, Bush. Sr was able to reinstate USA’s military respect which had been waning since the Vietnam Syndrome. An excerpt from the President’s diary entry shows his dedication to being a team player – which was one of the mean virtues of the office.
“Everyone seems to be giving me great credit, and yet, I don’t look at it that way. I think our team has been absolutely superb.”
Stephen Tanner sums up Bush Sr.’s military leadership as being conclusive to the woes that had for long periled America. His courage, imagination and steady hand steered US into assuming the sole military leadership of global peace and security. Tanner attributes two factors to this.
Firstly, Bush. Sr brought moral courage when it came to confronting enemies on foreign soil. His assessment of his own forces, enemy’s strength and the pursuit of just cause enabled George Bush to wield success in campaigns. Secondly, the inner foreign policy circle of Bush Sr. together comprised of a brain-trust who complemented that careful and expert judgments and tactical skills of a hands-on president. This helped US keep confidence of its allies and retain the status quo of power.
Compared to Bush the father, the author dedicates much less time to his son. Bush Jr.’s campaign against Al Gore revolved around citing “leadership” as his best quality, amongst other values such as moral clarity, decisiveness and self-confidence. His administration, much like that of his father’s, comprised of heavyweights such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, with the first order of business being promotion of USA’s military and technological prowess through boosting defense production.
Over a course of a few months, public perception about Bush Jr. began to diminish owing to his tedious devotion to tax cuts and his own leadership principle. All this changed on 9th September, 2001 – a tragic day on which USA was under attack by Al-Qaeda. In his address to joint session in Congress George W. Bush instilled a remarkable courage and confidence in the public.
“It was one of the great moments in American history. And it was also the apex of his presidency.”
Since Osama bin Laden’s organization had taken advantage of a post-Vietnam era loophole that restricted jurisdictions of US Intelligence Agencies, Bush Jr. was quick to respond to the institutional lacunae by creating the pivotal Department of Homeland Security to coordinate inter-agency intelligence in the future. However, this decision came after USA had suffered from more than 3000 casualties.
Where Bush Sr. deliberated upon decisions requiring a combination of force and diplomacy, and pursued optimal restraint until American interests aligned with objective principles of justice requiring action, Bush Jr. occasionally made headstrong declarations such as claiming early victory following USA’s invasion of Afghanistan and subsequently of Iraq, without having really defeated the foe.
“While in Afghanistan George Bush failed to fight a war, in Iraq he has fought an entirely wrong one, placing American troops in a situation that has stripped them of all their advantages.”
Whilst the chapters concerning Bush Sr. delve into background details and references such as the emergence of Panama Crisis and the rise of Manuel Noreiga - both instances setting the stage for Bush Sr.’s entrance as a military leader, the chapters related to Bush Jr. are somewhat underwhelming in comparison. This is clearly reflective of the Author’s personal bias in favor of the father and against the son. Stephen Tanner consistently paints Bush Sr. with adulating tones, occasionally divulging in mild critique as someone who no longer had a stomach for “domestic minutiae”.
Compared to Tanner’s assessment of Bush Jr.’s leadership in conflicts, the author highlights presidential frustration and inability to understand how his administration equated democracy in Arab world with pro-American sentiment.
“Bush the son’s rationales for the Iraq War resembled a three-dollar bill from the start.”
Stephen Tanner employs comparative methodology in most if not all of the aspects of his analysis. He masterfully draws parallels between Germany’s invasion of Soviet Union to that or Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980 and of Afghanistan’s invasion in 2001 to that of the Vietnam crisis of the 1960’s. He also dabbles in drawing comparisons between past US presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Nixon, Carter and Reagan, which makes for a much more enriching experience.
Stephen Tanner’s true craft lies in penning thrilling accounts of military showdowns and operations such as Operation Just Cause during Panama crisis. With electrifying details and nuanced unraveling of different stages of military operations, Tanner makes seemingly technical aspects of an armed conflict quite interesting to read. However, maps and other pictorial evidence would have complemented military accounts and made reading much more immersive.
The author deconstructs facts pertaining to various myths that have erupted over years owing to historical omissions and misinterpretations. He underscores Saddam’s flimsy excuse for Kuwait’s invasion also known as his motto “blood for oil” and correctly identifies the core reason for the animosity felt by bin Laden and his organization towards USA owing to overwhelming American military colonialism.
The book also suffers from occasional exaggerated affectations and misgivings which are common-place in military historical accounts, especially in justifying American use of force on foreign soil. At another instance, the author makes light of the Clarence Thomas affair and the tasteless humor is directed at the victim Anita Hill. Modern day sensibilities do not allow such crass references which border on imprudence on part of the author.
Conclusion
All in all, Stephen Tanner does a remarkable job in tracing the military leadership skills of both the Bushes. While he does not directly address the father-son dynamic, much can be construed and understood between the lines. Where the father stood adroit, Bush Jr. the son often flailed which is also reflective in the very abstract and deeply unsuccessful military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Hearts and minds cannot be won by Apache helicopters hovering over the population centers of Islam, while the progression of flag-draped coffins returning across the Atlantic to the USA are becoming increasingly difficult to justify.”
The book ends on this erudite yet tragically lyrical note, leaving the reader with food for thought. Perhaps the course of future military adventurism (or retreat) can be charted keeping the above quotation in mind
Overview of the Book
Stephen Tanner, an American author, had previously served with the US Special Forces during the Second World War. Owing to his rich experience in Italy, Stephen Tanner became a military historian who has penned a number of books on wars in which USA has participated actively in the past. His seminal book "Afghanistan - A Military History from Alexander the Great to the War Against the Taliban" has received an academic status and is now taught in a multitude of courses around the world.
With eleven chapters, preceded by a detailed comparative introduction and succeeded by a brief yet acute conclusion, Tanner's "The Wars of the Bushes" largely deals with military leadership of the two US Presidents during US military interventions in Panama and Gulf War (during the presidency of George Bush Sr.) and in Afghanistan and Iraq (during the presidential tenure of Bush Jr.). The book sheds light on how the two presidents have not only “dominated the military history of the post-Cold War era” but also on how they diverged in wielding American military power.
However, it must be noted that this particular book was published back in 2006 – well before the capture of Osama bin Laden (during Obama’s presidential term) and the age of Trump. Hence, in hindsight, the book is remiss on developments that unraveled after 2006 such as USA’s troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Afghan Peace Process and USA’s diminishing military prowess.
Central Theme
The book analyzes military operations during the presidential tenure of the two Bushes from a technical and militaristic point of view. However, a true element of poignancy to this tale is brought on by the father-son relationship and an admixture of complicated personal traits (either inherited or adapted) that require a thorough examination and tend to determine why both individuals undertook certain actions. The author however does make it apparent that the militaristic approaches adopted by both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. differed considerably, largely dependent on the degree to which both embraced traditional American values and ideals and how they perceived foreign policy objectives.
“Among American presidents who have held office since 1975, only the two Bushes have waged full-scale wars against foreign nations.”
Both the Bushes were greeted with collapses of tangible structures soon after taking office. For Bush Sr., the collapse of Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall ushered a new era of post-Cold War liberties and for his son, the disaster of 9/11 in conjunction with military-technological leaps shepherded a new world order. Despite this similarity, both Bushes operated under somewhat different guiding philosophies regarding how and when to project American might and how to manifest USA’s leadership.
George Bush Sr. had a firm belief in broad-based alliances, and for him true projection of American ideals was only possible through USA’s moral and military leadership. On the contrary, the author assesses Bush Sr.’s son as having occasionally misjudged tasks assigned to combat troops leading to short-shifting of certain foreign policy objectives which resulted in alienation of allies, vilification of United Nations, and ultimatums which in the author’s own words “placed demolition charges beneath the Pax Americana.”
Critical Analysis
Tanner starts his account of both Bushes with an in depth review of their election campaigns leading up to the assumption of office. Prior to his presidential win, Bush Sr. was an Ambassador to the UN, an envoy to China and head of CIA. He considered loyalty a high virtue and had forged personal relationships based on intelligence and trust. With an election motto of a “kinder, gentler America”, Bush Sr. was able to easily defeat Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis and immediately form a powerhouse foreign policy team comprising of individuals like Brent Scowcraft, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. The first task for the administration was to “draw the Cold War to a close” through pragmatic cooperation with Soviet Union which it was able to do so through a number of economic, political and diplomatic measures.
During Bush Sr.’s presidential tenure it became clear that military campaigns were only as good as its highest leadership and that armed forces of a democracy were as effective as the “honorable clarity of goals that were placed before them.” For Bush Sr., moral imperatives merged with geostrategic ones whether in the case of American intervention in Panama Canal or during the Gulf War. Unlike his son, Bush Sr. always sought support and clear backing of the US Congress.
Bush Sr.’s military leadership is marked by a clairvoyance and foresight which enabled him to exercise a ‘policy of restraint’ throughout various conflicts. With clear-cut wins during the Gulf War and the Panama conflict, Bush. Sr was able to reinstate USA’s military respect which had been waning since the Vietnam Syndrome. An excerpt from the President’s diary entry shows his dedication to being a team player – which was one of the mean virtues of the office.
“Everyone seems to be giving me great credit, and yet, I don’t look at it that way. I think our team has been absolutely superb.”
Stephen Tanner sums up Bush Sr.’s military leadership as being conclusive to the woes that had for long periled America. His courage, imagination and steady hand steered US into assuming the sole military leadership of global peace and security. Tanner attributes two factors to this.
Firstly, Bush. Sr brought moral courage when it came to confronting enemies on foreign soil. His assessment of his own forces, enemy’s strength and the pursuit of just cause enabled George Bush to wield success in campaigns. Secondly, the inner foreign policy circle of Bush Sr. together comprised of a brain-trust who complemented that careful and expert judgments and tactical skills of a hands-on president. This helped US keep confidence of its allies and retain the status quo of power.
Compared to Bush the father, the author dedicates much less time to his son. Bush Jr.’s campaign against Al Gore revolved around citing “leadership” as his best quality, amongst other values such as moral clarity, decisiveness and self-confidence. His administration, much like that of his father’s, comprised of heavyweights such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, with the first order of business being promotion of USA’s military and technological prowess through boosting defense production.
Over a course of a few months, public perception about Bush Jr. began to diminish owing to his tedious devotion to tax cuts and his own leadership principle. All this changed on 9th September, 2001 – a tragic day on which USA was under attack by Al-Qaeda. In his address to joint session in Congress George W. Bush instilled a remarkable courage and confidence in the public.
“It was one of the great moments in American history. And it was also the apex of his presidency.”
Since Osama bin Laden’s organization had taken advantage of a post-Vietnam era loophole that restricted jurisdictions of US Intelligence Agencies, Bush Jr. was quick to respond to the institutional lacunae by creating the pivotal Department of Homeland Security to coordinate inter-agency intelligence in the future. However, this decision came after USA had suffered from more than 3000 casualties.
Where Bush Sr. deliberated upon decisions requiring a combination of force and diplomacy, and pursued optimal restraint until American interests aligned with objective principles of justice requiring action, Bush Jr. occasionally made headstrong declarations such as claiming early victory following USA’s invasion of Afghanistan and subsequently of Iraq, without having really defeated the foe.
“While in Afghanistan George Bush failed to fight a war, in Iraq he has fought an entirely wrong one, placing American troops in a situation that has stripped them of all their advantages.”
Whilst the chapters concerning Bush Sr. delve into background details and references such as the emergence of Panama Crisis and the rise of Manuel Noreiga - both instances setting the stage for Bush Sr.’s entrance as a military leader, the chapters related to Bush Jr. are somewhat underwhelming in comparison. This is clearly reflective of the Author’s personal bias in favor of the father and against the son. Stephen Tanner consistently paints Bush Sr. with adulating tones, occasionally divulging in mild critique as someone who no longer had a stomach for “domestic minutiae”.
Compared to Tanner’s assessment of Bush Jr.’s leadership in conflicts, the author highlights presidential frustration and inability to understand how his administration equated democracy in Arab world with pro-American sentiment.
“Bush the son’s rationales for the Iraq War resembled a three-dollar bill from the start.”
Stephen Tanner employs comparative methodology in most if not all of the aspects of his analysis. He masterfully draws parallels between Germany’s invasion of Soviet Union to that or Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980 and of Afghanistan’s invasion in 2001 to that of the Vietnam crisis of the 1960’s. He also dabbles in drawing comparisons between past US presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Nixon, Carter and Reagan, which makes for a much more enriching experience.
Stephen Tanner’s true craft lies in penning thrilling accounts of military showdowns and operations such as Operation Just Cause during Panama crisis. With electrifying details and nuanced unraveling of different stages of military operations, Tanner makes seemingly technical aspects of an armed conflict quite interesting to read. However, maps and other pictorial evidence would have complemented military accounts and made reading much more immersive.
The author deconstructs facts pertaining to various myths that have erupted over years owing to historical omissions and misinterpretations. He underscores Saddam’s flimsy excuse for Kuwait’s invasion also known as his motto “blood for oil” and correctly identifies the core reason for the animosity felt by bin Laden and his organization towards USA owing to overwhelming American military colonialism.
The book also suffers from occasional exaggerated affectations and misgivings which are common-place in military historical accounts, especially in justifying American use of force on foreign soil. At another instance, the author makes light of the Clarence Thomas affair and the tasteless humor is directed at the victim Anita Hill. Modern day sensibilities do not allow such crass references which border on imprudence on part of the author.
Conclusion
All in all, Stephen Tanner does a remarkable job in tracing the military leadership skills of both the Bushes. While he does not directly address the father-son dynamic, much can be construed and understood between the lines. Where the father stood adroit, Bush Jr. the son often flailed which is also reflective in the very abstract and deeply unsuccessful military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Hearts and minds cannot be won by Apache helicopters hovering over the population centers of Islam, while the progression of flag-draped coffins returning across the Atlantic to the USA are becoming increasingly difficult to justify.”
The book ends on this erudite yet tragically lyrical note, leaving the reader with food for thought. Perhaps the course of future military adventurism (or retreat) can be charted keeping the above quotation in mind
October 20, 2009
Gets a lot of minute details incorrect such as Clinton play saxophone not tuba, Putin is black belt in Judo not karate. some of the broader view points may have some merit however. Bush the elder was able to execute action much more efficiently than jr.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews