Interesting view on Lord of the Rings

[Occhidiangela]

Yeah, I've tried that line a few times with fundamentalists... makes for interesting debate for about two minutes if that  :(

As to leadership being a (the?) key indicator, I'd definately argue against that.  Perhaps if all sides reported the leadership in the same way then it would have more weight, but as you know even GWB actions in Iraq can be painted as the dictatorial actions of the third atichrist (ignoring the democratic process of the U.N., motivated by oil etc.etc.), or as the only person with the balls to do the dirty work to clean up the world and save us from terrorists, or any other tangent that fits (e.g. puppet of XYZ, servant of the American people, victim of poor advice, well meaning but misguided etc).

(Sorry to pick GWB as the example, but I figured if I picked Mr H. then the thread is defacto finished  :P  )
[right][snapback]90808[/snapback][/right]

GWB is indeed a suitable subject for a study in leadership, and such criticism as he warrants comes with the badge. The only problem with so much of the criticism is that is starts on a level of personal vitriol, rather than on the merits of his administration's successes and failures in policy. That he has a constancy of purpose is admirable, to some, though he is probably the poster child for a well worn phrase often used ironically in military circles:

"Frequently wrong, never in doubt." ;)

Before critiquing the Iraq mess, one would do well to read Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly" (circa 1984 publishing date) to get a good look at the propensity for governments/powers that be, to undertake counter productive policies with a will. She gave Mr H a pass, due to her criterion for "folly." Also, the ox she wished to gore was the American Government, for her own reasons.

Occhi