Are President George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden really all that different?

Both George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden consider annihilation a perfectly justifiable means to effect changes they would like to see. Osama Bin Laden has long wanted to annihilate the United States and Western civilization as a whole because of the role the West played in the partitioning of Palestine -- an act that made refugees out of hundreds of thousands of Arabs. As far as Bin Laden is concerned, it was an unjustifiable and heinous act and a major indication that there is so much wrong with Western civilization that the best thing to do would be to destroy it.

Now consider President George W. Bush: George Bush annihilated Iraq in order to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Until that time, world leaders had left Saddam in power in Iraq because it was the lesser of two evils to do so: No one had a plan for what would come after Saddam and it was common knowledge that deposing him, from without, would destabilize the country. No one in the Bush administration had a plan either, and there is no way that he wasn't advised about what would happen. But Bush's resentment over Saddam's having once plotted to assassinate Bush Sr. and his fear that Saddam might still harbor some desire to assassinate Bushes prevailed. Dumbya apparently figured, "I want Saddam dead, I have the power to make it happen -- and that's all that matters to me."

In closing, Osama Bin Laden is a deceitful, scheming, irrational individual devoid of any conscience, and George W. Bush is a vain, spoiled, sniveling, histrionic coward and quite a schemer in his own right. Both are responsible for the deaths of thousands of American citizens. It seems to me that, after all is said and done, both of them will burn in hell, alongside Saddam Hussein as well as every Conservative who has ever drawn breath. What say you?

----------------------------

"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."--G. W. Bush

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war...

Update:

u_bin_called, that's not an answer. Were you not aware that to treat this format as something other than a question-and-answer one is to risk being reported for violating community guidelines? Please answer the question.

Update 2:

<sigh> It's a very simple question. Do you think they are or are not all that very different, as far as human beings go, and if you care to elaborate, then by all means, do so.

14 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It seems pretty true to me. In fact, didn't W give OBL everything he wanted? Took the troops out of Saudi Arabia, took resources out of Afghanistan that could have been hunting Osama and sent them to Iraq, and of course the occupations and torture are the best recruiting inducements al Qaeda could hope for.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I'd be careful about saying who's going to be in hell if such a place exists some conservatives {Ron Paul etc} are actually hesitant to use the military unless absolutely necessary and voted against the Iraq War Resolution. The rest of it I'd agree with. George W. Bush was one of worst of the worst presidents we've ever had and we all know that Osama Bin Laden deserves to be hung from a sour apple tree. I long for the relative calm of the 1990's when Bill Clinton was president. The biggest story then was the president soiling a blue dress. lol

    • Login to reply the answers
  • ?
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Saddam Hussein

    President of Iraq since 1979 (Vice President from 1968-79), Saddam Hussein [Husayn] was a dictator who stopped at nothing to preserve personal power and regime survival. After the 1968 Ba'athist Coup, he began his career as Chief of Iraq's security services, and he executed opponents and suspected potential rivals, including scores of high-level government officials and thousands of political prisoners. Since the 1970s, he escalated and made routine the systematic torture and execution of political prisoners. Saddam Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, and against Iraq's Kurdish population in 1988. The 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead. Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion and destruction of Kuwait in 1990-91 with 1,000 Kuwaitis killed. Directed the 1991 bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a insurgencies in northern and southern Iraq with at least 30,000 to 60,000 killed. he later ordered the destruction of southern marshes to extinguish the Shi'a insurgency.

    A little reminder of who Saddam was.

    I don't understand why the assault in 1991 was halted. It could have been resolved then.

    Then GW as you said wanted to avenge his dad's failure.

    I call it a failure because I am thinking what would be said about Obama had he done the same thing.

    No denying, Saddam was a sadistic animal but we missed our chance to remove him from power the first time. We blew it.

    That doesn't give us the right to make false accusations and resume the attack 12 years later.

    Stealth and a well placed bomb would have ended it pronto. The country wouldn't have been in shambles and much more likely to have had free elections.

    I have to wonder why we stopped bombing Tora-Bora too.

    It's like the war machine wanted to play some more.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    i think your car is too small and your tofu is too bland cause you cant be any more wrong. Bin Laden is a terrorist, Bush was a president of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. even your messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama, will agree with that

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • I am pretty certain that George W. and Osama Bin Laden are golf buddies.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Alan S
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Yes. OBL openly admits that he is the leader of an international terror organization. GWB hid everything he could behind "executive privilege". I wish there was more to say than our worst enemy was more honest than a former president but I didn't write his legacy, he did.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Just goes to show you that the old saying is true: if you need a "wall of text" to make your "point" then either it's not very valid, or you just like to hear your own voice ..... or both.

    I say your "point" is invalid, and no high-school level debate-class rhetorical ploys will allow it to take flight in the grown-up world.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The similarities are more telling than their differences.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They have different religions, they are a different color, one hides in a cave while the other sat with emmit smith at the cowboy game in the jerry jones sweet, so they are very different.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I am sure glad I can tell the difference.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.