You Are Blinded By Hate

[cali]

if you think/believe that bush is the worst/most criminal leader in the history of the world. Using as a standard, the leader who has caused the most suffering/death, I'm sorry to inform you that bush doesn't even rate in the top 5. Hell, he doesn't rate in the top ten. Hitler plunged the world into a war that caused 48 million deaths and untold suffering. Stalin is the proximate cause of 30 million deaths and more untold suffering. More recently, Pol Pot caused the deaths of a couple of million of Cambodians. And I've only touched on the 20th century. Heck, Saddam beats bush in this sad competition; hundreds of thousands died in his disasterous war with Iran and because of his invasion of Kuwait and through the persecution of Iraqis.

bush may be a loathsome criminal. He may have the potential to equal the deeds of some of the above, but as of today, he's a piker compared to the worst.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. while this may be true....

we have more than enough reason to hate bush!

[LaurenG]

2. Lets keep it in perspective and about America

He's the WORST. It has nothing to do with hate. Look at what he's done, he's the worst American President in history.

[cali]

14. He's arguably the worst

President in history. I'd argue it. Historians, by and large, wouldn't. History requires a "slush period" before such judgements are made.

In any case, that wasn't what I was addressing in my OP. There's this frequent comparison of bush to tyrants past and present with bush being labeled as worse than Hitler or Stalin or whoever, and it's so historically inaccurate that it drove me to write this post.

[Orangepeel]

51. hmmm... didn't a recent poll of historians say that 80% thought he was

the worst president? (somebody will have a link, I'm sure. I saw it discussed on Countdown with Keith)

I don't know if they'd *argue* it, at least in public, but it seems most of them think so privately.

I'm not a historian, and it surprises me that most historians would think that he was worse than, say, Hoover. I guess most past presidents fucked up either domestically or internationally. Most didn't do both at the same time.

[da_chimperor]

58. It was in Rolling Stone, here's the link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145468541266&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024

[Zynx]

164. 80% said he was a failure. Around 20% said he was the worst.

However, the closer you are to a president's term the more extreme the ratings tend to get.

[tabasco]

74. I have a degree in history and I've never heard of a "slush period."

It is quite acceptable to judge Bush on his actions in the office thus far. In fact, this is the best time to actually judge his performance. We are here now as witnesses. Time only allows for spin and revisionism.

Bush is probably the most unqualified President the country has endured. He seems to have learned nothing during his legacy education, and he has little or no leadership ability. His actual performance in office is definitely near the bottom, and IMO, he is the worst President since James Buchanan.

on edit: There seem to be two discussions going on. One is whether he is the worst President. The other is whether he is the worst leader ever. Of course, he is not worse than Stalin or Hitler. Yet. If nukes fly by the end of his term, Bush could place himself in that select company.

[0007]

101. Buchanan was just a tad better than junior.

James Buchanan was the only President who never married. He was a gifted debater and learned in the law. (junior is a poor debater and ignorant of the law)

Presiding over a rapidly dividing Nation, Buchanan grasped inadequately the political realities of the time. Relying on constitutional doctrines to close the widening rift over slavery, he failed to understand that the North would not accept constitutional arguments which favored the South. Nor could he realize how sectionalism had realigned political parties: the Democrats split; the Whigs were destroyed, giving rise to the Republicans.

Born into a well-to-do Pennsylvania family in 1791. (Much like junior)

[Zynx]

166. He did worse than doing nothing.

It is now known that Buchanan was actively involved in talking with the Supreme Court about the Dredd Scott decision and he consulted Taney about the decision trying to "settle" the issue in the court.

[Skinner]

3. I seriously doubt anyone here honestly believes he is the worst ever.

If someone says that, they are most likely engaging in heat-of-the-moment discussion forum hyperbole. But they don't actually believe it. Such comments should not be taken seriously.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. I think this is an extension of this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1011390&mesg_id=1011390

In which several people do make the argument that Bush is in fact the worst leader in history.

[Skinner]

23. I'm not surprised that some people here do say that.

Perhaps I am deluding myself, but I still think they don't actually believe it. Those posts strike me as another form of that ever-popular discussion forum game: "Who's the most extreme?" Sadly, on discussion forums you don't get attention by being reasonable. You get attention by being absurd.

But whether or not they really mean it, I still think that such opinions should not be taken seriously. Because they are fundamentally unserious.

[cali]

29. Sadly, I think you are deluding yourself in regards

to this topic. I think I got it right: some people have been driven around the bend by their hate of bush. Maybe you're correct to state that such opinions shouldn't be taken seriously, but there are enough of them on that other thread that I felt it worth addressing head on. I could be wrong.

[Bandit]

56. So what is your point?

Are you trying to defend Bush*? Also Hitler did not launch WW II by himself, or do you not consider the Japanese to be people? Bush* may not be as bad as Genghis Khan but he is most certainly the worst American Leader I have knowledge about. I don't consider myself filled with hatred. I just despise what has happened to the USA. It no longer resembles the country I grew up in and I hold the Republicans responsible even if they never accept responsibility for anything...

[cali]

59. My point is perfectly clear.

It's absurd to state that bush is worse than Stalin or Hitler etc. Yes, I consider the Japanese to be people. Way to go with an ad hominem! I wasn't talking about bush being the worst President. I was talking about people who compare him to Stalin, for example, and rate bush as a worse leader.
I wasn't specifically addressing you in my OP title. Perhaps you ought not take it so personally. I don't know when you grew up, but the US has never been some rosy utopia.

[Quantess]

94. Please consider your audience of readers.

"I wasn't specifically addressing you in my OP title."

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?
How about "Too often I read a comparison to Hitler on DU", or something. Although, I have a feeling you would not choose to write your message that way, because it isn't flamebait enough.

[lumpy]

142. Hey, It isn't over yet.

Bushco has a couple of more years to continue to muck things up. Dumb thread.

[ScreamingMeemie]

93. There are 3 people out of 37....Three. Out of a possible 60,000 give

or take. I think you are getting a little hyped up. There are at least 3 people in my neighborhood (one who lives next door) who hold sometimes wild opinions on things.

[sheelz]

141. I'm an angry liberal.

I have a real hatred for Bush. I have no problem admitting that, at times, I have been driven around the bend by my hatred. Tolerance is not an option for me. Perhaps, others feel the same.

[serryjw]

159. THEY hated Clinton for his BJ

We hate Bush for WHAT he is and isn't doing to this country. I think it's a little different. To compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin is silly. Bush was supposedly elected President BY THE PEOPLE.He has a responsibility to serve the people not his or his buddies best interests.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. Absurd?

Kinda like this?

[Skinner]

32. Kinda like that.

Except not funny.

[Horse with no Name]

67. Actually was looking more for a historical perspective

and for the conversation to lead to more information.
If you will notice, I did not *just* ask who the worst was--that would be absurd.
However, I really wanted it to be a thinking exercise of who was worse in the short term and who was worse in the long term--hoping to spark some intelligent conversation.
Even though, for the record, I never gave my answers...Hitler for short-term and Diaz for long-term.
I justify this because once Hitler was gone, the killing stopped. However, Diaz has been gone for a long time and the Mexican people are still suffering from the effects of his dictatorship.
Bush isn't the worst *yet*, but the potential is definitely there.
But nice to know you think my post was *absurd* because I asked people to think.

[Malikshah]

92. Wow-- then folks oughta see this!

Gotta love this form of argument... so flammable.

"Now...Dor-o-thyy....":)

[LoZoccolo]

109. Maybe they believe it, but...

...it may be due to lack of knowledge of history.

Your observations about message board behavior are often too true though! :thumbsup:

[Rex]

165. Some people can see the potential of others.

Call it a talent. OTOH, polls like this are absurd. Is Bush the worst American president in history? No doubt. Is he the worst in history? Bush? A pimple on Genghis Khan's butt is more like it.

[cali]

20. Perhaps you missed this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1011390&mesg_id=1011390

[Tsiyu]

114. Perhaps you're not supposed to start threads

to continue a fight from another thread?

Perhaps you realize that you are repeating Rush, Hannity and others who spew Rove's talking point: namely that Dems are "full of hate."

Perhaps you are doing so on purpose?

[cali]

123. Uh, no.

And I most certainly am not repeating people I don't listen to, and don't have any intention of listening to. You essentially just called me a freeper, not partiularly good form, but you do have one point; this thread is devolving into a truly stupid flamefest. That was NOT my intent. Had the moderators thought my OP inappropriate they would have locked it long ago. I'm now going to ask them to do so because its just gotten silly.

[Lolivia]

128. So you start a thread passing judgment on people

for their opinions, don't like the responses, proclaim the thread "silly," and think it should be locked? Locked because YOU find it "silly?" Wow.

Again, if it wasn't your intent to start a "flame fest," you should seriously think about trying to leave all of your condescending judgments out of your posts. It is entirely possible to start discussions without telling people to "shut up," or using many of the other put-downs you are so fond of.

[cali]

135. Wrong.

I started this thread because I found it somewhat disturbing that people could think that bush has done more damage than certain other historical figures. I wanted to make a point. I used facts to do so. Yes, I make judgements. That's what people do here on a regular basis. I try to make reasoned judgements about things.

You're criticizing me for things you are indulging in yourself. You're responding to my post to someone who stated that I was repeating right wing radio hate mongers and suggested I was doing it on purpose. And I'm judgemental? Please.

[Lolivia]

139. I'm not judging

How was my response judging? What did I put in the post that was "judgmental?" What have I criticized you for that I've done myself? I never criticized you for stating facts. I've stated a few facts of my own: You asked for a thread to be locked because you found it "silly." That's a fact, not a judgment. You use a lot of put-downs when you post. THat's a fact. How is using put-downs "reasoned judgments?"

Tell me where I judged - other than the one intentionally ironic post to point out (but not judge you on) your hubris.

[Yollam]

188. But look at it this way...

...in an absolute sense, Hitler was a much more sinister figure than Bush. But Bush has done far more devastation to the United States than Hitler ever did, and he killed tens of thousands of us in combat. Bush has absolutely undermined the very foundations of our government, to the point that I personally doubt that it is even salvageable.


Can you not understand the rage that people feel toward a person who is supposed to be one of our own, but who has committed absolutely treasonous acts against our country, and murderous acts against others?

[stepnw1f]

22. Worst President Ever? Yes....

as far as I know. What's wrong with thinking he's the worst President we ever had?

[BurtWorm]

71. There's little doubt about that.

The question was does he compare to the worst tyrants of history. I think it's too much of a compliment to such a mediocrity to put him in that league, myself.

[stepnw1f]

73. Yeah...

I should have followed up with my last post. I kinda did further down in the thread. I can think of others, but he sure as hell has more global influence than ANY tyrant out there, which puts his crimes close to the top.

[mdmc]

4. He is the second worst president of the USA

right behind raygun

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. I'm not so sure about that.

On the domestic front he's far worse than Reagan.

[mdmc]

24. I guess that we can respectfully disagree

:toast:

[silverojo]

48. He's worse than Reagan on all counts

But Reagan comes in a close second. At least he wasn't insane enough to seriously consider nuking Iran.

[Flying Dream Blues]

79. I agree. And at least he could form a coherent sentence and not

walk around G8 summit meetings with his zipper down. I have to give points for that.

[stevietheman]

90. Naaah...

Reagan was somewhat intelligent, knew how to speak eloquently, and (I know it's hard for progressives to acknowledge this fact, but...) he properly dealt with the Soviet Union... he adroitly nudged it toward ruin and collapse. Now on almost all other policies, he was wrong, but let's give the man his due. Also, I think Reagan actually loved his country and its people, whereas I think Bush secretly despises it.

King George is far, far worse than Reagan.

[Yollam]

158. I would love to have Reagan over Bush anyday.

Reagan was an idiot whose policies still bedevil us today, but he was nowhere near the wanton warmonger Bush is. And Reagan actually believed in the anti-commie rhetoric he spewed - he thought he was saving the world. Bush is lying through his teeth every time he pretends to be fighting terra. He's a cynical fake and it shows through every one of his by-rote "speeches".

[lectrobyte]

5. What straw man says Bush is the worst/most criminal leader?

Worst president of the US in my lifetime, no doubt about that. When you are telling me I'm blinded by hate, then you should have some evidence to support that accusation.

[NYCGirl]

21. Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1011390

[lectrobyte]

69. Seems like "Hitler" won that thread as worst ever.

[Cassandra]

6. He's ruining the greatest country in the world...

which isn't measured only by suffering or death.

[wake.up.america]

8. I don't do "rating the tyrants." You are right, there were worse...

but there is no diminishing the idiocy and pain caused by Bush.

For those directly affected by Bush's policies, there is no one worse.

I guess compared to Stalin, Khruschev was a nice guy.

[acmavm]

9. I doubt that any one seriously thinks bush** is the worst

criminal leader in the history of the world. That's funny. But I would hazard a guess, and I'm damn sure I'm pretty safe in this one, that he's the worst one WE'VE (meaning the United States) has ever had. And I seriously doubt he's anything more that the front man for this cabal.

[Carni]

41. If he starts WW3 he'll be right up there with the greats of infamy

It looks to me like he's well on his way and it could be argued that we really don't know how many people have died because of his policies here and abroad(health insurance etc here--his denial of contraceptive funding abroad etc)

But I agree for now he cannot be compared to Hitler et al

[sweetheart]

133. hitler wasn't hitler in 1940

He was the Chancellor of germany, a man who presided over
an economic miracle, the transformation of the weimar republic
inflational basket case. He had only begun the programs of
civil strife that were later to be so infamous.

And had the war not been so devastating on germany
during that final year, would the prison camps have
been like they were. Surely any nation that is brought
to its knees in war, is not doing the best prison care,
given the priorities of such times.

So if we move to look at parallels, we need to be able to
mark a divisive bad guy before he does it.

The standard i use to say he's been the worst president ever,
given that the United states is a property state, not a nation
of the people. Then the rating of the president is wealth
created, and bush has destroyed more value than any president
in history, for that matter, any leader in history.

He has murdered tens of thousands of people predictably as
many on this board have forseen, which makes him a rote murderer,
the basesst of creatures no matter whether you wish to rank them
on a scale of the millions destroyed in great leaps forward off cliffs.

[cali]

140. Please read some history

Of course Hitler was Hitler by 1940. It's utterly absurd to assert he wasn't. He'd already launched many of the internal policies that led to so much death and suffering, and he'd started a disasterous war.

And WTF?

And had the war not been so devastating on germany
during that final year, would the prison camps have
been like they were. Surely any nation that is brought
to its knees in war, is not doing the best prison care,
given the priorities of such times.


Are you serious? "the best in prison care". What about the death camps where millions of Jews, Gypsies and others perished? Was it just because a nation brought to its knees by war can't do the best prison care?

Had you read the last sentence of my OP, you would have noted that I specifically brought up bush's potential to cause greater harm than he already has.

[sweetheart]

146. Clearly you were not there

The german people i've spoken with who were alive at that time
inform me, that hitler was percieved not so dissimilar to how
bush is, expecially back like 1940 when the media was covering
up how bad the wars were going.

The deaths across europe were horrendous, and i don't defend
any of it, nor question it. Just it is a fact that the war
did not exactly make the deaths less... and the thing that
america has yet to experience, and time will surely deliver it
if things keep up... to be destroyed in war.

My grandfather-in-law swore to his death that hitler was a great
man.... and surely some bush-freaker can similarly never be
convinced otherwise.

The policies of strife were in place by 1940, but the public
knowledge of just what was going down, was not there, and
that similar public naivate could be said to be at play today.

Bush is an indefensible degenerate, and i want him out pronto,
so the whole "lesser" evil argument is really moot moot...

He has destroyed more value than any other president in history,
that makes him worst, fairly by the law of The MBA CEO.

You have no cause to take an abusive tone, so learn
some history yourself and dump the bile on your cat.

[ptolle]

63. yabut

And I seriously doubt he's anything more that the front man for this cabal.
-
I suspect you're correct in this assumption, but my objection arises from my belief that anyone as "moral" and with as much honesty and integrity as we were told the chimperor has would voluntarily participate in the systematic dismantling of the values that have made this such a great country.The fact that, to the best of my knowledge, he's participated and enthusiastically at that deepens the almost limitless disrespect I have for the chimperor.I will admit to hating what he and his loyal supporters have done to this country and the world, and to hating being accused of hating him. Beyond that I find him totally unworthy of the stress and damage inflicted by holding hate.

[Connie_Corleone]

10. I haven't read any post that said he is the worst in the world.

Worst president ever in the U.S., yes. The world? not yet.

On edit: O.K. someone posted a link above. There are only a handful who say that. I think most of us here are not saying bush is the worst in the world, not yet.

[NYCGirl]

19. Here's the post to which the OP refers (from yesterday):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1011390

[babylonsister]

12. He's the worst in my lifetime and yes,

I am blinded by hate. I hate his condescension, his ineptness, his pandering to corporations at the expense of anyone who's not a millionaire, his lying us into war, the list goes on.

[TheCowsCameHome]

30. He is not for the American people as a whole. He plays favorites

He has not represented the best interests of all the people, among other things.

[PerceptionManagement]

13. Chimpy The Idiot may be the worst/most criminal leader RIGHT NOW.

Before you change your underwear in preperation for the Rapture, we need to get that chump GONE. Dear Leader may well be the biggest threat to the world, RIGHT NOW.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. Let me get this straight.

You'd rather Kim was president? Mugabe?

[novalib]

33. Here's My Point

Kim is the leader of North Korea. Mugabe is the President of Zimbabwe.

B*sh is the unelected leader of the United States of America.

The USA has a far greater impact on the lives of more people in the world than does either North Korea or Zimbabwe, imho.

So, the question of "who is the worst leader right now" has to be B*sh.

I suppose if someone were to ask "Who might be the worst leader if he or she were President of the United States", I might say that Mugabe or Kim just might be worse than B*sh (although I think I would have to give it some serious thought because B*sh is truly so fucked up).

But I think the question is "Who is the worst leader now." And that has to be B*sh, because what he screws up affects many, many more people than anyone else.

imho.

[flobee1]

15. Worst US pres-yes

overall-no

But he still has 2 years to go.....
Should he drop a nuke on Iran, he goes to the front of the line

[saltpoint]

16. But he presides over our government, and we are the government.

I am embarrassed that this guy occupies the people's office and is the face of my country to the rest of the world.

And I have an inherent distrust of men and women who are incurious. To me, that is a disastrous trait in a world leader.

Can't remember the author right at the moment, but the adage is something like, "It is a dangerous man who does not know what he does not know."

I think 'Bush' when I hear that.

[madame defarge]

18. Reading "Mao"...

another one for the list of worst/most criminal leaders. It's interesting to see what lengths some people will go to in the quest for ultimate power.

Agreed that Bush may not be among the worst in terms of directly causing high numbers of deaths; however, his policies that we may end up having to live for a long time with certainly rank up there as disasterous for many Americans and potentially the world (environmental).

[stepnw1f]

25. Right Now at This Moment He's Up There

speaking of current leaders.

[TahitiNut]

26. How about among those with nuclear weapons

... and the ability to deliver them to any spot on the globe? :eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

37. People don't like thinking about that too much

Isn't Bush dreamy?

Don

[Sugar Smack]

50. Thank you for that.

:thumbsup: Spot on as usual!

[lpbk2713]

66. The scary part is

that he's never more than a few steps away from the nuclear football and the asshole can't even pronounce it correctly.

[bigtree]

27. potential is the key

why should we give him any room to commit a monumental catastrophe of aggression to brand him a fascist? So he's a junior fascist, a wanna-be fascist; he's still a danger that has to be agressively confronted.

There's no point in holding back the venom until to some future date when the members of the Bush regime manage to become historically infamous.

We can't ignore the massive infrastructure of destruction he has at his disposal, and he has demonstrated a willingness and an ability to exploit that for his imperialistic agenda in the face of a compliant Congress. That's the danger which is the incubator for imperious infamy.

[TheCowsCameHome]

28. In the history of the world, no. But certainly the worst America has had.

[Lerkfish]

34. Whether its Al capone or two bit hood that shoots you, you're still dead.

not sure why you need to say he's not the worst when he's damaging enough as he is.

are we only supposed to oppose those in the top 5 dangers to our country?

[HughBeaumont]

35. He IS the worst president ever.

That's not even an argument. His administration is causing economic, international, infrastructural, political and environmental damage that future generations will feel for years to come, much like his hero Reagan. But UNlike his hero Reagan, a complicit media allows Bewsh and his fellow cronies to get away with it all, using tactics like fluff stories, propaganda and belittling the opposition instead of giving them an equal voice. Reagan never had his own channel like Lancelot Link does (not that Reagan doesn't get worshipped on Fox).

Worst and most tyrannical world LEADER, uh, no. Who's saying that? I wouldn't even rank him in the top 25 as far as dictators/despots go.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

36. Thanks for that.

I was looking for a reson to somehow like *.

[bryant69]

38. Personally I'm blinded by Hot sauce

Damn Taco Bell Enchiritos

Can't speak for anybody else, though.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Dora]

39. NO, We simply RECOGNIZE HIS POTENTIAL TO BE #1!

Bush needs to be on the receiving end of a pre-emptive intervention of our own.

[lonestarnot]

40. Sounds like you may be blinded by minimization.

[mandyky]

42. The point is that those people WERE dictators!

Small d democratic countries are not supposed to have leaders that behave this way.
To me it is even more despicable for someone like GWB to tout spreading democracy and stopping fundamentalist religions while limiting democracy and promoting fundamentalism at home.

This country is my home and I take GWB's ruination of it personally, not because I hate Bush, but because his actions and policies are polarizing our country, creating more poor, and destroying the middle class.

[Neil Lisst]

43. I don't think anyone seriously believes Bush compares to Hitler, Stalin

Mao, Polpot, and others.

But in this century, as world leaders go, he's truly one of the worst.

[IChing]

46. Agreed "in this century" truly one of the worst so far

"world leader" for this planet.



Can I compare Bush to Hitler or Mussolini?
You bet!

When I'm comparing tactics and political systems
informing the reader of fascism and the comparisons with this cabal.

Blinded by ignorance I am not, justice is blind.

[Neil Lisst]

108. I don't have a problem comparing Bush to them, but he's a piker by their

standards, a villain wannabe

[kestrel91316]

44. Will you still think he's minor-league after he has nuked Iran and

started WWIII as China and Russia come to Iran's defense???

[cali]

45. Of course not. Go back to my OP and read

the last sentence. I make it clear that he may have the potential to lead the world into an era of enormous suffering. That, however, was not the point of my post.

[DemExpat]

100. I'm not so sure he hasn't already....

with his economic policies with effects going much further than in the US, his war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan - all adding fuel to violences taking place all over the world at this time....

:-(

DemEx

[Protagoras]

47. He's the worst President.

As for worst criminal in history, hardly. But he may be the person with the most potential for harm because he does control the lynchpin of the worlds economy AND the most powerful military in history.

SO how about one of the if not the biggest THREAT in history...since most leaders historically really never had a chance to destabilize the whole world or destroy whole continents.

[NoPasaran]

131. The most powerful military in history?

Maybe the most expensive, but powerful? It looks to me like we're mired in Iraq, losing a war to people who don't even have an army.

[Protagoras]

183. The ability to kill people does not guarantee

the ability to control them. We can do more damage than anyone else (and we've been demonstrating that). Don't confuse power with strategy or competency.

If Shrub decides to pave Iran he can. The consequences would be unimaginable but he can. That's power...power in the hands of a spoiled, idiot, arrogant, man-child.

[warrens]

49. You are blinded by straw-man arguments

There is no way that a sizeable number of people ever said Bush was worse than Hitler or Pol Pot or Stalin. You made it up. To make a stupid point.

[cali]

52. Oh for pete's sake. check the link in post #20

and the shut up about my making it up.

[American Tragedy]

53. On balance, I have concluded he's the worst American president in history

But even if we can agree upon that, everybody needs to keep it in historical perspective. He is obviously not the most destructive head of government in the world. Bush is more distressing because of his immediate and continuing effects upon us, and due to the fact that we (rightfully, I think) tend to hold much higher expectations of contemporary developed nations.

As somebody who has extensively studied the Third Reich, I do cringe when I hear that comparison thrown around indiscriminately, despite Bush's frightful political opportunism and fanaticism.

[Radio_Guy]

54. You post too soon

Bush's term is not over yet. Should he be led away in handcuffs as he should, he will not reach those levels. But if he continues on his current course, he will surpass even Hitler.

Oh, and Bush already surpassed Saddam Husein in number of Iraqi deaths caused.

[Junkdrawer]

55. What Radio_Guy said...

:thumbsup:

[cali]

68. Facts are a pesky thing.

bush has only surpassed the number of Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam if you don't include deaths from the Iran Iraq war and deaths of Iraqis in the first gulf war. If you want to count deaths from sanctions, you have to include Clinton and bush 1 as well as other nations.

[Xenotime]

57. You are entitled to your opinion...

no matter how wrong it may be.

[brentspeak]

106. Can you elaborate on what your opinion is?

[The Stranger]

60. Body counts may be one criteria, but there are others, more subtle,

and possibly more sinister. You have to consider what the leader of the "free world" has done to law, justice, and the free world. And Bush isn't done.

As part of his now eternal war, there are new government agencies, spying and wiretapping of once free citizens, extrajudicial kangaroo courts, paramilitary organizations and vigilante groups, and more and more secret prisons throughout the world. New "initiatives" come from his maladministration nearly every day. The repercussions for this kind of attack on liberty will be felt for generations, or more.

And there is also the planet. Virtually every other leader on the planet agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, except this one, and the result has been the most massive, catastrophic environmental disaster in history, and this is not reversible. Yet it all happened on Bush's watch. And it is continuing -- where it will lead, not only for human life but for all life as we know it -- is also still unknown.

Your post misses these and other very critical issues and is too narrowly focused on simple body counts of past leaders who also had the "benefit" of a totalitarian, as opposed to starting off with an egalitarian, nation and history.

[cali]

65. I didn't just use body counts

I specifically referred to suffering. And I hate to dash any illusions but the US has a very checkered history both domestically and externally. We've practiced plenty of ugly imperialism going back almost two centuries. We held on to slavery until the mid 19th century and implemented cruel Jim Crow laws. We've overthrown at least a dozen democratically elected governments. It was hardly some pure egalitarian paradise when bush came to office.

Yes, bushco has taken measures that are a severe blow to the lives of people both in this nation and others. I didn't deny that, or deny his potential to cause even greater harm.

As for the Kyoto agreement, I'm sure you're aware that even climatologists aren't of a uniform opinion re its efficacy. In fact, quite a few believe we've already passed the time when effective action can be taken. That's not to excuse bushco for not signing on, simply to point out that things aren't as simple as you make out. Nor was Clinton a real environmental champion.

But yes, in the end I think suffering and death mean something, and the death of 48 million people and the unspeakable suffering of millions upon millions more, are more devastating than what bush has done to date.

[The Stranger]

81. 48 million may pale in comparison to what the Earth will do.

No real climatolgist would debate the catastrophic changes in just the past 6 years, and yet, in the past 6 years was the key to slowing what could be the next 6 decades -- and all of this falls squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush.

None of the other leaders had this kind of global power, nor this kind of unprecedented power beyond people, but over the planet. I don't think it is easy to begin to embrace this kind of power. Yet, due to the fact that he controls the executive of the greatest power ever on Earth, and nearly every single policy has been destructive of the Earth.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[izzybeans]

61. I know you can't call out people on this forum, but there

has to be some middle ground. Even inside the thread in question this is an overgeneralization.

I do agree that if someone honestly believes that, then they are ignoring a whole lot of history.

[FlaGranny]

62. He is the first president

in history who has the POTENTIAL of outdoing them all. He wouldn't bat an eyelash over it. He'd puff out his chest, swagger, and talk about following God's will, while his end-time followers would rejoice. He scares the living daylights out of me.

He and his kind would be safe. The rest of us have no place to hide. I doubt he even cares enough to give us (meaning other humans) a thought. The rest of his crew are a bunch of creepy, self-serving weasels (VIPs and wanna-be VIPs).

[NoPasaran]

132. Well JFK came pretty damn close to starting WW3 in 1962

And Reagan kept me pretty scared with his massive rearmament program and joking about bombing the Soviet. So I really don't think Bush is the first with the POTENTIAL for blowing up the planet. I will concede that he'd probably the first one who might enjoy doing it.

[FlaGranny]

145. That's true -

okay, he's not the only one who had the potential, but I can't imagine JFK would have been pleased with himself. I'm not sure Reagan would have been either. Bush would strut his self importance like a rooster with a new harem of hens.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

64. Strawman.

Nobody here actually believes "bush is the worst/most criminal leader in the history of the world."

I'm confused as to why you'd feel the need to come here and point out that Bush isn't the most evil villain in history, as if its some sort of regular conversation topic here. (Newsflash: it isn't.)

Is there any specific comment, post or thread that this educational clarification attempt of yours is in response to?

[cali]

72. Yes and the link

has been posted repeatedly on this thread. You are wrong. People here do think it, and yes it is posted on a regular basis.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

76. Such people are insane.

Sorry, didn't see the link/thread.

Although there's no need to start a thread to tell people that Bush isn't the most evil leader ever, because any rational person will realize that. Of course, some DU'ers mimic Freepers in their one-dimensionalism and need to have some sense slapped into them once in a while.

[frankenforpres]

70. he isnt the worst president either

unless he has genocided a population yet

[Norquist Nemesis]

75. Well, he's the worst in my lifetime

Give him to the end of his term for 'history of the world'.

[leeroysphitz]

77. Your right, I guess we should just wait until he actually does

"equal the deeds of some of the above" before we rally against him. :sarcasm:

[Joe Fields]

78. I'm afraid Bush isn't through, yet, Cali.

God forbid. He may yet plunge us into a world war. He sure is trying. I think then, he would probably crack the top five, for those who keep score.

[mtnsnake]

80. He belongs in the top 5. As US Pres, he's the most powerful man on earth

and that alone sets him apart from some of the other criminals you've listed. When it comes to what Bush has done, is doing, and could do to this world, he ranks right up there with the worst.

[flashdebadge]

82. Thanks for refocusing us on the facts.

I have spoken with people who are on the fence between our party and the repugs. I often hear as one of the reasons for not aligning with us is the ridiculous claims by some on our side that shrub is Hitler. That is if I say so myself, way over the top. It lowers in the minds of those not familiar with world history the unbelievable cruelty exacted on the Jews by hitler and those like him (Stalin, Pol Pot and the like). Thanks for your sanity on this.

[mmonk]

83. At what time were they good or OK?

At some point, their death toll wasn't as high as where it ended up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. So why is Saddam worse than Bush?

You said it's because he killed hundreds of thousands during the Iran-Iraq war (while he was a U.S. puppet dictator, btw).

Well, Bush has killed hundreds of thousands during this Iraq war. Plus he has people tortured and raped, and he's dropped WMDs on civilians.

So I don't see why one is worse that the other. And while Saddam did kill hundreds of thousands, I don't remember him shredding the U.S. Constitution while doing it.

[sheelz]

130. Bush also shredded the Iraqi Constitution--

and that's illegal too.

[porphyrian]

85. Hitler and Stalin are dead. Saddam is and was contained.

The pieces of shit in the White House are our problem right now, and they aren't done yet. I think the hate and urgency are deserved. Who cares how he compares to other assholes?

[Quantess]

86. who is "you"?

From my observation, yes, an occasional DUer may sometimes make the comparison to Hitler or Stalin. I have personally never seen * compared to Pol Pot. Maybe you saw a Pol Pot comparison, maybe you didn't. I'm fairly sure most people here don't use those comparisons. We don't need to, because * is a loathsome class of his own!

Sweeping generalizations and blanket statements are against DU rules.
If this isn't a sweeping generalization of DUers, what is??!

[stevietheman]

87. He's not the worst leader ever... just the worst U.S. President ever...

And since we have to contend with that, we certainly are not going to stop working to ensure he is politically disappeared, for the sake of the republic.

[texastoast]

88. How is that relevant to the present?

I always thought smart people learned from observing the mistakes of others.

Or, as Will Rogers put it so sweetly.

There are three kinds of men:
*The ones that learn by reading.
*The few who learn by observation.
*The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence (for themselves).

Sad that our "leader" is going to pee on the fence while the rest of us have a hand on the wire.

It has nothing to do with hatred. It has everything to do with what works for the world.

While he might not be the worst, he is certainly the worst in power RIGHT NOW, which is really the only time that matters much.

[ScreamingMeemie]

89. There are a lot of "you's" here cali...I think you mean "some".

There are "some" that are irrational in their anger, but that does not make up an entire group of people. As of today, I have yet to see anyone ask for a "Worst Leader Ever" group. Now, Worst President Ever? He's in the running. I think your post, while I understand your anger, is a bit too generalized.

And Yes, I have seen the link...but that is a small faction of squeaky wheels (most of whom like to draw attention to themselves) that voted for GW.

[Avalux]

91. Who are you talking to?

I can't recall "Bush is hte worst criminal leader in the history of the world" being a common sentiment on DU. Not sure your point.

Yes, Bush does have the potential to be the worst, considering his supposed willingness to use nukes combined with his messianic complex.

[ScreamingMeemie]

95. The 3...yes three, people who chose him in another thread.

:hi:

[Avalux]

98. Ahhh.......thanks.

;-)

[jokerman93]

96. "Never forget."

What are these two words meant to say?

That we should, in the abstract, understand that genocide happens, and rememebr that it's a bad thing? Or should we watch for the signs next time - and nip it in the bud?

You are correct, of course. Compared to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, G.W.Bush is a bush league weed-wacker.

He represents however, the same incipient banal evil that always starts small, mutates, and eventually spreads out over the land like a virulent plague. Shall we stop it before it gets real traction by reminding ourselves of lessons from the past, and acting with urgency? Or shall we sit idly by and allow unchecked power to continue unchecked because it's "not as bad" as what came before?

That's the real issue here for me. And that's why I have no problem drawing parallels with lessons from the twentieth century.

J

[Sugar Smack]

99. WOW. You are GOOD!

That was possibly the most perfect reply I've ever seen. :wow: :applause:

[Lolivia]

104. Truly wonderful reply

You are absolutely correct. The outrage doesn't lie in who thinks which leader is the worst - as if that can even be quantified. Or as if something must reach the absolute extreme of how bad it can be before people can name it.

People should spend less time scolding others for their opinions and more time recognizing and combating that "incipient banal evil" - that truly is the real issue.

[ComerPerro]

97. Well, keep in mind that it took a lot of the really bad ones several years

to get to their level of infamy.

Bush has only had six years so far, and he has more barriers in his way due to widespread communication.

Hes not the worst yet, true


But give him time

[Lolivia]

102. You are awash in hubris

if you think anyone cares about your self-righteous outrage over other people's opinions.

"You" in the general sense, of course.

[cali]

111. heh. oh the irony

of your post. Guess my OP was of enough interest to garner over 100 responses and begin a rather lively conversation.

[Lolivia]

117. And yet

the interest shown in the replies is not really over your self-righteous outrage. So if your intent is to spark discussion, you could certainly do it while bypassing the condescension and hubris. You could get right to the issue without couching it in terms of what you "loathe" or find disgust in. In other words, you could "shut up" with the scolding, as you are so fond of telling people.

So what is your main goal: announcing your self-righteous outrage, or sparking real discussion?

[subutane]

103. i think the term is

worst president ever

not worst human ever

[brentspeak]

105. Worst president of all time? Without a doubt. As bad as Hitler/Stalin?

I fully agree that anybody who uses that kind of hyperbole is just a plain fool.

[DS1]

110. You're right

He's the worst leader in the history of the UNIVERSE! :D

[Beacho]

112. The OP is blinded by lame ass strawmen

I've been hearing this lame ass argument for years for the Rightie McTighties. It sucked then and it sucks now

[cali]

119. Facts are facts. Don't like them?

Too bad. Labeling my OP as a right wing argument is particularly ludicrous given Skinner's remarks on this thread. Of course, he's only the founder of DU, what does he know?

[Tsiyu]

113. Well, I guess you know all of us then?

Is this one of those Frist-style diagnoses by proxy?

What is the point of this thread? To attack DUers? Why don't you get the beam out of your own eye and then you can work on the toothpicks in everyone else's.....?

[cali]

120. Take offense easily or what?

I clearly wasn't referencing all DUers, and I'm perfectly aware that we all view things through our own imperfect lenses comprised of our individual sensibilities and experiences. No diagnosis here, simply an observation.

[TheFarseer]

115. So I should like him because he's better than Hitler?

I am a fair minded person. If bush was doing a good job, I would support him. If he proposed something I agreed with AND he backed it up with some action, I would give him credit. I gain nothing by having democrats in office per see. That is, they're not going to give my company special tax breaks and no one's giving me an ambassadorship to Luxembourg. I don't know why republicans keep saying, "well, you just want power back" No, I just want a good government.

[cali]

125. I called him a loathsome criminal in my OP

Does that sound like i'm trying to tell you to like him more than Hitler? That's just silly. I can't stand bush to a point that I've never experienced with any human being. That wasn't what my OP was about.

[ScreamingMeemie]

156. What was it about? The opinion of 3 people???

You painted with a very broad brush, if not a roller. You posted something you could have posted in reply to those very few people (3 in a 37 post thread) who said Bush. :shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

116. You shouldn't take this board so seriously.

There may be some that say that but so what? It's their opinion.

[SmokingJacket]

118. I've never heard anyone say that.

Worst president of the US, indubitably.

Shares qualities of some of the world's worst leaders: yes.

The constitution and the democratic system in general has so far kept our country from experiencing the worst kind of dictator -- so far, anyway --

[WI_DEM]

121. I do think he's the worst modern US President and perhaps the

worst of all-time. At least as bad as Buchanan.

[sheelz]

122. We need to look at what the US is responsible for...

IMO, The United States has caused more death, destruction and suffering than any other country. Bush is part of that and there is more to come--his term isn't over yet. Bush is directly responsible crimes against humanity and/or genocide and needs to held accountable!

[Marr]

124. Enjoying your strawman?

I've never heard anyone- anywhere (not just DU) say that GW Bush "worst/most criminal leader in the history of the world". People often say he's the worst US President ever, and on that point, I'd agree.

[NYCGirl]

126. Check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1011390&mesg_id=1011390

[cali]

129. I don't know why I'm bothering

there's a link in post 20. Also if you read some of the posts on this thread you'll see that people do say that.

[Marr]

137. I don't know why you're bothering either.

Looks like Hitler won out by a pretty wide margin in that relatively short thread.

I could direct you to a lone poster asking just about anything. It wouldn't be indicative of any widespread, common mindset.

[Terran1212]

127. He has potential to be world's worst, certainly

If he does instigate nuclear war, which many including Robert McNamara and Noam Chomsky have suggested he could, then he will definitely go down as the most dangerous, radical leader ever.

[Zorra]

134. Over 34,000 innocent Iraqis have died because Bu*h lied us into

a completely unnecessary and unjustifiable war and occupation. Tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands have been injured, some horribly maimed for life.

Certainly, other despots have been responsible for the deaths of many, many, more people.

But on the "historical mass murder of innocent civilians scale", Bu*h actually does rank pretty high.

He's a deluded, dangerous tyrant, and by far, without question, the worst pResident in American history, basing my opinion solely on the number of innocent people that have been killed and maimed because of his malicious actions.

What better guideline is there for judging the worst President in American history? A bad economy?

I don't think so.

Is he worse than Hitler or Stalin?

I sincerely hope not.

[Ksec]

136. Bush controls more money and power than all those others combined

Which would put him on top imo. You have to give weight to the amount of capital he controls and the damage that capital can do as opposed to say..a thrd world dictator.

[sweetheart]

138. the messenger of decline

Bush has just been the herald of a decline we've all seen
going on around us our whole lives, and it was just a matter of
time until a selfish television-fed brat was elevated by a
system of brazen self promotion.

So he's the latest in a line of nixon's children, and
bugger the lot of them, all the way back in time, bush is
not special, but the current imperial agent of the evil empire
of mammon. Bush has become mammon, and for the degeneration that
half a century of degnenerate republican erosion of public good
and trust, we're all right damn pissed off, not knowing who
to blame, and bush looks like a fall guy, along with all the
others.

Really, the hangman's noose they needs contstruct on the
whitehouse lawn should have room for 200 of the top causitors
of the criminal aggressive war and mass murder. There is no
comparison, the relative misery in sheer numbers terms, given
the expanded population of the earth, is more oppressed, more
enslaved, more in misery in absolute numbers, so the former
states of oppressive life were less than half of today's
population, for all the oppression. Half the human race are
women who are systemically repressed in pretty much every
nation on earth. People don't seem so pissed about that...

Bush is dry and too easy to catch fire... and maybe god wanted him
to burn.

[JackDragna]

143. In his own way, Bush is just as bad as Hitler or Stalin.

Hitler and Stalin were products of a different era, when the citizens of great, industrialized powers could be galvanized through political ideology. Now, instead, people are galvanized mostly through self-interest, greed and the desire for a trouble-free, almost dream-like life, at least in the West. People are educated enough to not tolerate overt totalitarianism, but will accept a constant stream of abuses, both minor and major, if they believe the government is acting to protect them. In other words, if the United States were to have a thoughtless, heartless autocrat, we'd have someone like Bush. We wouldn't tolerate a Hitler who stoked the fires of national pride and racial prejudice: we just want the good ol' boy who amplifies our own sense of power and gives us easy answers to complex problems. Bush is as terrible and corrupt a leader as one can find in a democracy such as this.

[lumpy]

144. Stupid vanity thread.

I am not blinded.

[huskerlaw]

147. I think the key to your argument

rests in the last sentence. "...but as of today..."

I'll agree with you there. He's no Hitler or Stalin...yet. However, I do think he shares many characteristics with them and if allowed to use nukes in Iran, will in fact be right on par with them.

[Faux pas]

148. Whether or not he's the worst in history is irrelevant. He's

the worst thing to happen to this country since raygun. He needs to be stopped and he needs to be impeached-indicted-imprisoned.

[HeeBGBz]

149. So? He sucks. Worst president ever.

What's with the "blinded by hate" bullshit?

[Catrina]

150. I'm sure there were people in Germany, before Hitler reached his full

potential, who bristled at those who expressed the opinion that he just might become one of the world's worst leaders.

Killers aren't killers until they actually kill. Bush has already killed for no reason, and from what we hear, he is threatening to use nukes on Iran.

Hitler had plans, they were outlined in his own writings which SOME people most likely took seriously, but not nearly enough ~

I have read Michael Ledeen's writings, and they are quite terrifying. Ledeen was a top policy maker in this administration. Regarding the ME, he said in response to Scowcroft, who actually objected to the occupation of Iraq because, he said 'it could turn the entire ME into a cauldron'.

Did that dissuade Michael Ledeen? No, it thrilled him. 'I can think of no other place more deserving of being turned into a cauldron. Let's get it on' ..... or words to that effect.

These are the men Bush gathered around him. He had to deal with a democracy here before he could begin the PNAC plan of 're-structuring' the ME. He may have miscalculated the American people's longterm reaction to 9/11 and the Iraq war. But I have no doubt that he is as committed to the philosophy of Michael Ledeen and the neocons, avowed admirers of Fascism, as they are.

Hitler was no Pol Pot and Pol Pot was not Stalin. Bush is none of these people. But he has traits that should bring these people to mind when when we wonder what he might be capable of doing, along with the cabal he is a part of.

I think when people mention Hitler, it is more as a warning. If those who saw Hitler's potential while there was still time to stop him had been listened to, many, many lives would have been saved.

I don't hate Bush ~ hatred is a wasted emotion, since those who earn it, are rarely worth the effort it takes. I do hate what he has done to this country, to Iraq and Afghanistan, his torture policies, his destruction of the Constitution, his blindness and unwillingness to see, even now, that his policies are and always were destructive and will only bring disaster to the US and to those countries he believes his God wants him to 'lead to democracy'.

No, he's not Hitler, but he has the potential, if he drops nukes on Iran, to be in his very own category of worst world leader ~ If we've learned anything from the past, it should be to recognize dangerous leaders when they surface and not wait to find out the extent of the harm they may cause. With Bush, imo, we've seen enough. He needs to go.

[Horse with no Name]

152. Excellent post.

Thank you.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

151. The number of Iraqi dead has to be well over 100,000....

...and the number of Afghan dead has to be well over 40,000. That's 140,000 dead that we know about. How many people have been adversely impacted by his decision not to ratify the Kyoto Treaty?

A point that you've either overlooked or refused to consider is that Hitler didn't hit his full stride until 1941, seven years after he came to power. Herr Busch has just completed his fifth year in power, and has demonstrated all of the facets of fascism. This includes consolidation of power by the passage of the Patriot Act following the attacks of 911, an attack that was both "another Pearl Harbor" and a "Reichstag Fire".

Herr Busch has rewarded his rightwing corporate backers with massive tax cuts that have resulted in obscene profits. He has also presided over the activation of concentration camps outside the U. S. (Gitmo Bay, Poland, etc.), a paramilitary police force at state/local levels, and a military that has been ordered to conduct two illegal/immoral invasions of sovereign Middle Eastern nations.

Additionally, Herr Busch has control of a vast concentration camp system INSIDE the United States originally known as REX-84. I'll let you read about the camps and make your own decision about why they were built:

FEMA Concentration Camps:
Locations and Executive Orders
<http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm>

...and here's something else of interest, and much more current:

ENDGAME
Office of Detention and
Removal Strategic Plan,
2003 - 2012
Detention and Removal Strategy
for a Secure Homeland
<http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/dro/endgame.pdf>

My bottom line is that you're welcome to believe whatever you want about Herr Busch and what I believe to be very good comparisons to Hitler. But, you have NO right to ridicule the opinions of others on this subject...NO right at all. Herr Busch may not yet have killed the millions of people attributed to Hitler, Stalin and others, but he is certainly headed in that direction whether you want to know that or not.

[Clark2008]

153. He's in the top five of the worst in my lifetime, so I guess

I'll just have to go with that.

I'm only in my 30s.

Sure, there are some evil dictators who, if given the US's arsenal, could have been worse, but, considering all the money, weaponry and cow-towed media Bush has access to, ehhhh... I think he's pretty awful.

But, I'm not blinded by hate - I don't hate him. I feel sorry for him. He's not worthy of my spit.

[Mr_Spock]

154. You forgot about the Armenian massacre

1 million dead.

:mad:

Bush is an evil man-chimp hybrid...

[Zynx]

163. Here's a good list of 20th century villains:

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

155. I Agree With You Comnpletely. BUT, I Think He's The Most Incompetent Boob

to ever cause such mayhem.

Those other leaders at least had a presence about them. The level of criminality and suffering that shrubby has inflicted is astounding, much like if elmer fudd actually actually pulled off global domination ya know? * should've never made it past squashin bugs in his backyard.

[Zynx]

167. Idi Amin killed 350,000 of his own people and an unkown number of others

through idiocy. With a nation as small as Uganda that's impressive.

[cali]

172. LOL, OMB

Exactly right. shrubby's hapless stupidity has indeed inflicted enormous damage, but where I will go as far as comparing shrub to Hitler, for example, is that sentimentality and brutality often seem to go hand in hand.

[Yollam]

157. You are blinded by statistics.

The others you name were leaders of foreign countries. Bush is the president of the United States. True, it is a nation founded on genocide and slavery, but it is a nation that has long purported to be the greatest single force for freedom and human rights in the world, and despite Hiroshima and Vietnam, there have been moments in the last century when it looked as though we might actually start living up to some of our lofty ideals.

George Bush, the mass murderer is a grave betrayal to every child, and grown child, who was raised learning that the President was leading the world to freedom and peace, and that America was different, because we don''t attack and invade other countries.

The fact the Bush's body count is smaller than Hitler's and Pol Pot's does not make him any less of a mass murderer. Actually, the fact that he has committed his atrocities from such a great distance, and with so little real connection to the agony he has caused makes him that much more of a sniveling coward than they were.


You need to get one thing in perspective. The President of the United States is supposed to be a fighter for peace and justice, not a mass murderer - even a relatively small-time one.

[JeffR]

161. Well said

[Zynx]

162. He isn't even the worst offender we've had in that job.

Nixon, Reagan, and Johnson all beat him there.

[Yollam]

168. Johnson, maybe.

Nixon plodded in ending a war he didn't start, but he was a far better president in many respects than Bush. Reagan (or rather his puppeteer Bush Sr.) funded covert wars in Central America, but he didn't send US troops out to conquer other countries (unless you include that weekend jaunt to Grenada). It's a bit of a stretch to compare Reagan to Bush.

[Zynx]

170. Reagan was more insidious and sneaky about it, but did at least as

much harm. El Salvador and Guatemala alone are disgusting.

Nixon, between the Vietnam War, the Cambodian intervention, the Chilean Coup, and several other actions is more murderous than Bush by far. Not to mention that never before or since has the presidency fallen to such a low level of esteem and that he presided over not one, but two recessions and the beginning of the economic nightmare that was the 1970s.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

174. "The fact the Bush's body count is smaller than Hitler's and Pol Pot's"

"does not make him any less of a mass murderer."

Um, yes it does. By that very statement alone.


But I will agree completely that he is far more cowardly than either.

[Yollam]

176. No, it doesn't.

It's not about numbers. That kind of calculator thinking is what got us into the war - acceptable losses, collateral damage, etc. etc.


Just one child killed by a bomb that was dropped for no reason other than greed and lust for power represents the death of a universe, a world of possibilities, the hopes and dreams of her parents - all that is innocent and kind and good.

One child is a huge atrocity. Multiply it by 35,000 and hopefully the atrocity will get some attention, but it's just as bad. It's not about numbers. As I said before - blinded by statistics.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

179. I'm Not Saying It's Not Attrocious And Devastating. But Numbers Do Matter

They absolutely do to me. Millions upon millions slaughtered vs thousands is far more of a travesty, period. Now that doesn't undermine the horrors and pain of the thousands, not by a long shot. I agree completely that every single individual life of any race, creed, age or location is a huge loss and atrocity within itself. But that level of atrocity absolutely does compound exponentially with each additional loss. I don't see how that is something that is arguable, but to each their own perception right?

[Yollam]

181. My point is that making it about numbers and stats...

...somehow diminishes the individual losses, like somehow one of Bush's Iraqi victims was better off than one of Hitler's victims. A corpse is a corpse. I understand what you're saying, and there is a certain horror to what Hitler and Pol Pot did that Bush has not managed to approach. Perhaps its the smoothness and orderliness of the way millions of jews, dissidents and communists were rounded up, loaded into rail cars and exterminated that's the most horrifying to me. That it was carried out in such a way that none of the neighbors were ever really disturbed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

182. Thanks For The Clarity. But In That Case I Think That Was Unfair To The OP

Cause I don't think the OP was in any way being blinded by statistics and in doing so minimized each individual loss. I think it is a huge stretch to take the OP's words and imply they were inferring in any shape or form that *'s victims are better off than hitlers. In fact, I find that twisting of intent disturbing as it is an incredibly cold hearted concept that if true would make the OP extremely cold hearted, but since it isn't was an extremely unfair characterization. So in essence you and I agree, that the numbers do matter, but it was the twisted perception of the OP's words that I 100% do not agree with you on.

[Yollam]

184. But that's exactly what it does.

By arguing that somehow Bush's senseless slaughter of 35 thousand Iraqis is a lesser atrocity than Hitler's slaughter of this group of 35 thousand, or that group of 35 thousand DOES diminish the horror of what he has done.

Hell, Truman slaughtered a lot more people than that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but at least there was some sort of twisted, pathetic justification for that, and coming at the end of a war where millions upon millions had died, it was easy to convince people that putting an end to it was worth it.

But Bush invaded a nation that had done nothing to anyone in 12 years, that had lost tens of thousands to starvation due to Bush Sr's & Clinton's sanctions, that had NEVER committed any act of aggression against the US, EVER. He murdered all those people for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

And I don't think the numbers really matter at all, except in the sense that sometimes higher numbers can help bring more attention to the problem, but even that doesn't always work. Indonesia killed over 100,000 E. Timorese over 25 years with tacit US approval, and the US media were silent about it.

I'm not sure what the cutoff number that defines "mass murderer" is, but it seems to me that anyone who kills over 100 for no justifiable reason should qualify. And beyond that point, a mass murderer is a mass murderer is a mass murderer. Saying that one is not "in the other's league" simply because his body count is too low is disgraceful.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

185. I Think You Must've Been Reading A Completely Different OP Than This One

Cause your multiple replies show a complete disconnect from the OP's point in my opinion.

That's all I'm gonna say. The rest's already been said.

[Yollam]

186. The OP is saying that Bush is not "The Worst in the History of the World"

And okay, that's probably true, if there was such a thing as a "top ten list of war criminals and mass murderers" he would not occupy the top spot. But I don't thing anyone has made the argument that Bush is the worst leader/killer/whatever that the world has ever known, so the argument is specious from the getgo. So the only other possible objective I can find in the OP is to minimize Bush's status as a world-class war criminal and killer.

It's impossible to overstate the gravity of what Bush is done.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

187. So You Agree With The OP Then. Good. We're Done Then LOL

"The OP is saying that Bush is not "The Worst in the History of the World and okay, that's probably true, if there was such a thing as a "top ten list of war criminals and mass murderers" he would not occupy the top spot."

Exactly. That's the OP's entire point. You see eye to eye then. Not sure why the need for the additional twisting then. But that phrase you posted above, is exactly the point the OP was making.

Goodnight.

[Yollam]

189. Good night, but I do not agree.

I do not agree that Bush's detractors are "blinded by hate", not do I agree that hyperbole in describing Bush's crimes is by any means out of hand. If anything, I think his crimes have been minimized too much by the mainstream press, and by elected democrats who describe him in terms of someone with whom they merely disagree with, rather than an international war criminal and thug of the highest order.

The twisting is being done by the OP.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

190. Twisting The OP's Words Again. Can You Show Me, Please, Where The OP

stated that *'s detractors are blinded by hate? Cause I don't see that friggin anywhere. No. Instead, the OP states that if you truly believe he is the worst ever, above Hitler, Pol Pot, etc..., that then there is a blindness of hate. There is a huge fucking difference there, do you not see why I consider that an extreme twisting of the OP's intent?

[Yollam]

191. (sigh)

The number of people seriously claiming that Bush is actually worse than Hitler are so few as to be insignificant. Some may use that kind of language in a fit of exaggeration, but it's simply not a real issue. If the poster's "real intent" is to put a stop to such comparisons, then he is jutting at windmills, because it just ain't happening.

[Zynx]

160. He doesn't even rank in the top 100 villains in world history.

Maybe not even in the top 500. He doesn't even rank in the top 50 of the last 100 years. When I compare him to people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Tojo, Franco, Suharto, King Leopold II, Idi Amin, Ante Pavelic, and on and on he doesn't even hold a candle. He is a tin pot tyrant, but not a supremely evil villain.

[RagAss]

169. and if he uses nukes on Iran ? then would you agree that he

is in the Stalin class of criminal? And if that happens by the Fall????... maybe some of the folks are just anticipating what he is capable of doing....I shouted out "Iraq is a Lie".. before our troops went in. That got me labeled as a kook by my co-workers....was I a kook for believing this??

Remember how Michael Moore was booed at the Academy Awards a few years back for using the term "Fictitious War" at the podium ?

Trust me, he will be mentioned along with the other despots in you OP once history is written.

And that's not hate speaking.

Impeach Now.

[VOX]

171. * and his buddies have the capacity to destroy the world in mere minutes.

Which puts him in a unique position on the short list of the World's Worst.

While he's certainly not in the same league as some of history's most vile dictators, nevertheless he is **here and now**, and he's already done major harm to this country and to the world in the past 5 1/2 years.

I still don't get how 1/3 of the country will not open its eyes to all the extreme bullshit that's going on around them in plain sight. :crazy:

[Jim Warren]

173. No

by the light

[Thtwudbeme]

175. So what. The fact of the matter is that Bush is not only horrible, he is

shoving this country on the path to being third world.

I don't give a flying rats behind if everyone here flunked history, and couldn't tell you where Stalin was even from: they SHOULD be blinded by hatred for Bush.

Stephanie

[tlsmith1963]

177. Bush is On His Way...

...to being as bad as leaders like Hitler. The man is cold. People who have met him (including Cindy Sheehan) say so. A cold person who lacks compassion can do pretty bad things. And if those historians in Rolling Stone are saying that he is the worst American President ever, I would take it very seriously.

Tammy

[OnionPatch]

178. Sure he's not that bad

I mean, not as bad as those you mentioned, but as a president of the United States, I think he's been the worst.

Also, I just expect more from the United States. We're supposed to be the leaders of democracy, equality, opportunity, justice.....you know....all the good stuff in the world. I mean to see that the US at least tries to live up to that. I'm not going to wait until Bush starts turning into Pol Pot before I start complaining.

[Yollam]

193. Well said.

nt

[countingbluecars]

180. My tyrant can beat up your tyrant.

Silly argument IMO.

[linazelle]

192. Change your name perhaps...to controversial cali?

Drama. Always.

[seabeyond]

194. whoever said bush was the very worst ever in the history of world?

link please. pushing it a bit on a rant on something i doubt seriously anyone seriously said

i have heard worst in u.s. history.

[gulliver]

195. Well, I'll bet that's what they said to people who hated Hitler ...

... before his cracked schemes got out of control.

Bush is no Hitler. But only time will tell who did more damage. The Iran situation could spiral out of control into nuclear war. International terrorists could get a bomb. Korea could do something stupid. Pakistan could turn out to be the worst friend anyone ever had. Then Hitler would be the piker in terms of body count. Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons at his disposal. Bush does, and so do a growing number of our enemies -- thanks to Bush. And we have a lot more enemies thanks to Bush, and they are a particularly bad kind of enemy thanks to Bush.

It makes little difference to the dead whether they were killed by a maniac leading a pack of murderers or by a world historic catastrophe brought on by blind, imbecilic leadership. We have a drunk driver at the wheel, literally and figuratively.

In terms of damage to America, Bush has already done more to our country than Hitler ever did. Hitler killed our soldiers. Bush killed our good name. We rose to superpower status in defeating Hitler. We are declining under Bush.

Just for the sake of argument.

[Bucky]

196. Can we agree that he's the "naughtiest" leader in history then?

I think that's a fair compromise.

[zulchzulu]

197. Last I checked, it's not over yet...

Before Bush is either led away in handcuffs, a casket or a helicopter waving like Nixon and the keys get changed at the White House, all bets are off whether he's as bad as Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Attilla The Hun or the Devil himself.

Bush is certainly capable of anything and has much more firepower within his mitts than any of those mentioned. He is indeed a madman...and he has a couple more years to prove it...