Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind

Can't argue any of your points. Just wish the people who voted for him had known the truth before the election. Of course, most still don't recognize it now.

Of course, the Repugs are trying to make this out as a great honor. As Mark Evanier pointed out in his post on this, that ain't necessarily so. I agree with the choice, though I feel he made news for all the wrong reasons.

Well, I think Time magazine is the "Most Impactful" guy of the year, isn't it? Isn't that the logic when they almost slected Osama in 2001? I'm generally okay with that, you'd be hard to find someone who had more impact on the world this year than GWB, except maybe the SwiftVets, for keeping Bush in office...

I am having a hard time with this statement, though:

"Perhaps the greatest mass murderer since Pol Pot. He’s been 250% more effective than Saddam Hussain."

Er, what? Saddam has been creditied with about a million people killed directly, and another million killed indirectly, as a consquence of his actions.

Somewhere between 600,000 and 1 million Iraqis & Iranians have been killed in the protracted Iraq/Iran wars, another 200,000 Iraquis, Kuwaitis and Amerians killed in the Gulf War, 100,000 Kurds dead, 100,000 Shi'ites dead.

I think your statement must be considered a little bit of hyperbole?

Don't forget the wonders he's done for the Canadian economy. Our dollar hasn't been this strong in twelve years.

Julio Diaz wrote...
Er, what? Saddam has been creditied with about a million people killed directly, and another million killed indirectly, as a consquence of his actions.

I don't have any figures in front of me, but I'm guessing what Mike means is that Bush has had a mere five years to rack up his body count, while Saddam had a rather massive head start. I'm sure the 250% figure could be debated, but Bush is doing pretty well for himself so far.

Bush has had a mere five years to rack up his body count

Which, according to IraqBodyCount.com is no more than 18,000 in his 5 years. At this rate, Bush will catch Saddam in 55 years, or be 250% of him in 135 years.

I'm not praising Bush for killing 18k Iraqi civilians, but to say he's on the scale of Saddam is pretty specious.

The 250% figure is based upon the highest of the conflicting casualty numbers going around. But, yes, my comment was pro-rated for time and opportunity: 250% higher than Saddam based upon George's opportunity since he invaded Iraq.

When one nation invades another thereby provoking a civil war, it's hard to say who's killing whom. But under Saddam, Saddam monopolized the killing. By getting rid of Saddam George opened the floodgates and must take responsibility for the consequences, which, after all, could have been foreseen. Particularly since so many of those folks who were opposed to the invasion pointed out we were opening those very floodgates.

Franklin Pierce was a pretty gosh-darned incompetent Prez. Between his inaction and Buchanan's, the Civil War had to happen. It's just perfect that W is a descendent of Pierce thru his mom's family. Blood will tell.

Every once in a while, somebody writes a "most incompetent President" piece, and as I recall Pierce and Buchanan each usually get a bullet. Political history being what it is, though, I wonder if these poor guys got a fair shake.

Probably not, but I'm in a sympathetic mood.