Is Bush more dangerous than saddam to the US?

Yes!

Geroge Dubya Bush is more dangerous than Saddam to the US!

Hope that helped.

Re: Is Bush more dangerous than saddam to the US?


Double loaded question:

a) Bush is not evil.

b) Judgement on the validity of a president's actions fortunately does not hinge on the number of muders the president has called for. Without such obvious malice it's possible to cause more deaths.

For example, Bush's decisions have led to several thousands of times the number of deaths as Saddam's have in the same period.

Caveat: responsibility for decisions will always be argued.



Again, one criteria is not one size fits all.



I'm starting to think this is a biased quiz.



Saddam did indeed have weapons that violated his obligations.

The US currently does as well and this is no secret.



This is a very loaded question. Simply put I don't think he fired weapons he did not have.



Nonsensical wordplay.



Within 3 months (from the date the war started) there would have been
a war.

But indefinite inspections would have worked just as well to nullify the threat of WMDs (which seems to be a phantom more each day).



America does not own Iraq.



They did not use these guesses to wage an unprovoked war.

I don't mind that there have been Christian presidents, if a future Christian president starts to have atheists deported there would be a different reaction.



It would be folly to do so. This question is silly on many levels.

"If Bush is bad how come he doesn't eat babies? Well then he must be perfect huh?"




Nice setup. Planting WMDs is easy. Doing so while never letting this fact be discovered is not the same.

It's not an issue of finding five free minutes.



Yes. Box cutters are not weapons of mass destruction and the 9/11 attacks do not qualify as mass destruction.

13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane?



I believe they were hiding military infrastructure, both legal and illegal. All nations have secrets, what do you suppose they are "hiding" in area 51?



Because in the past the inspecting teams had US spies who used garnered intel to attack Iraqi positions. The US was threatening war.

It was a good time for him to be watchful.



What Saddam feels the need for is beyond me, but if he bent over he'd lose face. If only for matters inherent to his ego he was difficult.



The US was trying to wage war with UN cover (whcih I support). For this resolutions tend to be needed.




I do not think Iraq ever abandoned it's WMD program. I think it's folly for any nation to not have a WMD program.



Neither. And nobody posited those explanations.



Of course not.



Probably, but only a month afterward.



She would not be blaming the president immediately after the attacks, the immediate aftermath is not the time to waste political capital.



Ah, that was so dumb it was funny. Probably intentionally so.



I believe OJ was guilty.

I believe I am now speechless!

Ahhh a questioner with an agenda. I'll play by your rules, fast and with a straight face.

1. Never thought he was evil as Saddam. Think he's self serving and beholding to people who are not the mainstream of America. His party's policy of squelching dissent is unamerican.

2. Don't think he killed any Americans and buried them in mass graves. Neither do I believe Bill Clinton killed hundreds of people after the Vince Foster suicide mess. Difference, few on the left would be caught suggesting Bush a mass murderer, many on the right still push their silly Clinton lies.

3. Bush family afairs are opaque to me. All I know for hisorical certainty is his Granddad loved Hitler. This can't be hidden by any rhetoric. But then again, so apparently did Joe Kennedy.

4. The famous scuds? The ones the US initially claimed to be knocking out of the air on a daily basis, then later admitted to never actually finding or hitting a one? Matter of public record. Sure he had lots of weapons. Some we gave him.

5. Meaningless question.

6. Ditto. Are papers buried for ten years in a rose garden a weapon plan or mulch?

7. Three months more. Maybe less, maybe more... depends on what an open reading of the inspectors' reports revealed.

8. I'd be forgiving according to circumstances. An old person edging on poverty and homelessness might get consideration. A drunken college student no leniency. Non related question really.

9. Was willing to believe Bush until he lied repeatedly on public record. Credibility is an issue. If his case was solid, why all the peripheral innuendos and misrepresentations?

10. Time will tell on this. They may find real weapons... but once again, the administration has tainted its own credibility on this, so doubts would be understandable. Certainly if they claim to find something but then they let no one immediately verify, I will not readily accept.

11. Who knows? Iraq is a big place, it has porous borders. Shave a man's mustache and head hair and few will recognize him.

12. Stupid concept. The weapons of mass detsruction on 9/11 were fuel laden jetplanes, American complacency, mysteriously unscrambled jets and horrifyingly commited bad guys. Seems it's really the dumb media that keeps making the box cutters into the weapons...

13. Never heard about that. Got a link? I'm sure these guys practiced their nastiness any way they could. I bet we have sumulators like that, but much more high tech at the University of the Americas, or whatever that nasty place down south is where we train terrorists.

14. I know little of spy satelites. I'm sure they dug tunnels with that equipment for good reasons and bad. (Wonder how big Mr. Cheney's new bunker under the Bethesda home is...) Lot's of folks like to have hidey holes. Part of what makes them rats.

15. If the UN came to the US to check our compliance on international weapons infractions, I'm sure there would be a devious little agency set up to keep them out of the facilities in question. All nations major and minor have the war sickness and part of that is secrecy and not abiding by pacts and treaties.

16. See above answer.

17. See above answer. Where is all the US anthrax hidden? Remember, we weren't supposed to have any, then it turned out we did. Not saying we'd use it like Saddam... but funny, when Saddam used it against the Kurds, that was when Rummy & Co. loved him for being against Iran, and no eyebrow was raised. Could such hypocrisy be a driving force in the distrust many feel for government?

18. Who knows? Maybe they abandoned the parts that, because of their lack of funds and expertise, were getting leaky and dangerous on them. Maybe they realized that there were other methods to wage war that didn't have a tendency to backfire.

19. Answer a question with a question then: If they were mobile chemical weapons labs, why has the administration backed off them as proof of anything?

20. If a terrorist group attacked specifically with anthrax, I would recall the previous anthrax attack and have to wonder if the attackers were actually foreign. I wouldn't blame Bush, but I'm sure I'd watch in the usual sickened awe as he used it as an excuse for more tax breaks for his friends.

21. Would Hilary blame Bush? I don't know, don't care. Hilary doesn't think or speak for me.

22. I think she'd be a little more tasteful than the rabid righties ever are. While your busy villifying her by innuendo, you should be made to recall that without hilary's intervention, New York cops and firefighters would never have gotten the funds for terrorist response equipment Bush promised then neglected to deliver. Matter of uncontrovertible public record, y'know.

23. Huh?

Bonus: never gave a shite about celebrity crime stories.

Now, that was work, and you gotta answer one, just one:

1. If the Department of Homeland Security spent half a year dwelling on dirty bombs and scaring the bejeezis out of everyone with it, declaring that the coming war was to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on the materials to make them, why did the US occupying force, though it new the exact location of three nuke waste sites, and a half dozen hospitals with X-ray machines, busily send troops to guard oil wells and none to the locations where Cesiums bars and the like were certainly stored?

Don't break your brains on that one. Others far waiser than either of us, including many in the military once beholding to Bush, have come up dry on it.

My Bonus Question: Do you think it's possible that the Bush Government has used 9/11 for self serving ends?

Not going to bother to spell check that, though I did it as fast as you asked.

Ya think?

I didn't really expect anyone to answer the questions, as even I though they were rather silly, but thank you very much for taking the time to do so. I think you have provided a little insight into the thinking.

I think the quiz's point can be summed up in one sentence.

Personalizing politics makes people demonize Bush.

You will not find me calling him dumb, unelected etc. I simply do not care. I just care about policy.

I do not believe Bush has acted maliciously. I simply believe that some of this administration's decisions were foolhardy. Namely Iraq, Saddam doesn't have to be a better person than Bush for the war to have been a bad decision.

I had a single qualm with the war. When pre-emption is based on such flimsy criteria the security of all nations is reduced. If we had managed to convice the world that this was necessary I'd have not minded that I thought the "threat" to be sheer hyperbole and would have welcome the regime change.

Sadly, I think that the war and its misdirected 'reasons' from the Bush Administration have not served any purpose but mere divisive domestic politics. Let us not forget that, monster though he unquestionably is, Saddam was not a religious fanatic style dictator, and not the well spring of Islamic terrorism. Women had rights in his Iraq.
Not a small issue actually. Under whatever coalition arises now, its doubtful they will be as free, and that's a huge slippage in the middle east.

That list of questions reminds me of many a conversation I've had since the war... what's always lost in the fractiousness is the real politics... it always ends up being about Bush, it never ends up being about the people that matter... the people of that region. That's the problem with Bush, he's just two steps short of Napolean, in his own regard, it seems.

I never cared for Bush, but then I didn't vote for Gore.

At this point, as far as US governance, it's anything but Bush, as far as I'm concerned. As far as international terrorism and the war against it, good luck to us all. It'll never get solved given all the deadend mindsets in the mix.

When we have the guts to confront Wahibiism and Saudi Arabia, and the parts of the Israeli & Palestinian Governments that are dead wrong, then I'll sign on the campaign.

----take it easy on those poor hamsters Craven. They too have dreams and aspirations. I suggest catnip in the trail mix.

LOL, gave the cats catnip last night. One of life's small pleasures.

BTW... the site continues to amaze in tone, design and general civility. Hope they build a statue for you real soon bro. Let's flip over to PM for a moment...

I think Mr. Dekere has done us a service. He has reiterated that the discussions should center on whether or not policy decisions made by the president were correct.

I do agree but I am compelled to point out two things.

1. Policies are viewed as "correct"or "incorrect" by many according to their beliefs which may rest on unprovable assumptions.

2. The bottom line on the validity of the policy decisions will not come until Nov. 2, 2004.

Any discussion with regard to the policies until then is probably fated to end up in

Is, aint, is, aint, is, aint

since, As I pointed out, unproven and unprovable assumptions probably underlie most of the public's
judgment as to whether the President's policies are good policy.

Mr. DeKere indicates that he thinks some of Bush's positions were foolhardy.

He may be correct.;

On the other hand, he may not be.

Or neither. It's a matter of perspective and goals.

Mr. De Kere:

JS Mill - On Liberty

"The beliefs which we have most warrant for have no safeguard to rest on but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails. we are far enough from certainty still, but we have done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of, we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us...This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being and this the sole way of reaching it."


Again, I must say.
Mr. DeKere may be correct

And, on the other hand, he may not be.

Re: Is Bush more dangerous than saddam to the US?


He didnt. (Fire Scuds into Kuwait). That was just another bit of smoke - lots of assertions that 'there is news Scud-type missiles might have been fired' et cetera - made all the headlines - retraction followed, more low-key, soon after. I'll be lazy and refer to Dys' post:



Nice job you did on those, Craven, by the way ;-).

Ah - read on to Beedle's post - I see that even my short addition was redundant - after Craven & Beedle I guess I dont have much to add anymore!