Shouldn't that be murderer of the year?

marc


Pall Thayer wrote:

> Time magazine names George W. Bush man of the year.
>

Stranger still is that this is the second time they've made him man of the year. Even stranger still, perhaps, is that their criteria for choosing is someone who's affected global events noticeably for good or for bad, and in 2001 they passed up Osama bin Laden, arguably the most suited to the (dis)honour, and picked instead, George Bush, who in 2001 did very little in comparison.




marc garrett wrote:

> Shouldn't that be murderer of the year?
>
> marc
>
>
> Pall Thayer wrote:
>
> > Time magazine names George W. Bush man of the year.
> >
>