I think the beret suits him. It's very French...er, "Freedomy".

Dictatorial powers would solve George's problems would it. Would that best be accomplised by signing statement or Enabling Act?

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071001110054110054&source=srch&page=1

"It would be easier if I were a dictator"— George W. Bush

It turns out our son of a bitch president was wrong about that too.

Good article, Norm.

I like the headline in the top right: 15 bitchy women take a hike. LOL!

Tim,

I agree, that was a good article. Your link didn't work though. Here's the article, and a few excerpts:

It seems that Petraeus and Bush have come to the same conclusion as Saddam: the main enemy is Iran, and you can’t govern Iraq without the Sunni Arab tribes, even as you encourage anti-Iranian nationalism among the Shia. This is what Saddam did during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and what Washington is trying to do now. One of the main problems with this strategy is that both the Sunni tribes and Shia nationalists are profoundly anti-American and don’t trust each other—a potential recipe for further disaster.

The great irony of Maliki is that under other circumstances a government like his—one that is: a) accused by the U.S. of close relations with an American enemy (Iran); b) running a strategically important country (like Iraq); c) involved in the oppression and murder of one of its minorities (the Sunnis), which is closely linked to an important U.S. ally (the Saudis)—is an administration that many Americans would want to eliminate. There is a good chance that if the U.S. Army wasn’t there already, Washington would have invaded to get rid of Maliki. But having toppled Saddam, lost thousands of soldiers, and so far spent some US$500 billion on combat operations alone, the U.S. is now in too weak of a position to do much.

When the insurgency started in the summer of 2003, it was made up primarily of the same class of alienated Sunnis who are now part of the tribal Anbar Awakening. The insurgents I spent time with in 2003 and 2004 were, in essence, nationalists who didn’t like the U.S. Army driving around their villages, kicking down their doors and shooting their cousins at checkpoints. They were also deeply suspicious of American plans for democracy, because they feared it would lead to Iran taking over the government. Some hated Saddam, some liked him, but Saddam wasn’t the issue. For want of a better term, they are the equivalent of rednecks who believe in God, their country, and the right to bear arms.

that cant be legal can it? there is still freedom of speech in some places?

This is ridiculous. As much as I think President Bush's policies are horribly flawed, it's important in times like these to keep perspective. Saddam Hussein practiced genocide on a group because of their ethnicity. I, for one, won't let the fact that I dispise the president's policies cause me to put him in the same league as leaders practicing genocide. Don't let your emotions cloud your reason on this one.

Please, what "genocide" did Saddam practice? He killed political enemies just as criminal Bush does, but around the world and not usually at home.

One could argue that the WTO is a genocidal group. It seeks to make everyone a slave of the fascist multi-national oligarchy. If farmers in India or Iraq don't pay for GM seeds, they can die. If they pay for them, they commit suicide because of their debt.

I, for one, won't let the fact that I dispise the president's policies cause me to put him in the same league as leaders practicing genocide.

Good article.

I saw a documentary on Iraq, that made a strange point of how ingrained violence is in Iraqi society... This surprisingly old soldier (in his 40s it seemed -- yet still just a private) was whittling away on a piece of wood, while the younger ones laughed at him. Turns out the older guy was smart, though: He was whittling away to create a wooden pistol that he intended to paint black...

The reason was that the population was so used to AK-47s and M-16s that they just weren't intimidated by them -- in spite of those weapons being far more dangerous than a pistol. But they were by the sight of a pistol, because that is what Saddam's goons used.

That's a pretty fucked up society.

There's genocide committed throughout this world, and we're doing jack shit about it. This is a complete strawman argument.

Actually, no it's not. But ironically yours is.

It's a tired strawman that your type throw out to your right and then duck to the left, hoping everyone will 'ooh' and 'ahh' long enough to not see it's really not an argument at all, just a rather childish type of gainsaying.

Allow me to illustrate with an analogy.

Let's say you're part of a fire fighting crew (can't say firemen!). You receive a call that there is a fire. While getting ready, you get another call. Then another. And another. And so on - there are ten fires in the city simultaneously!

Someone like me would say, "Okay, let's evaluate the situation: we have ten fires. We need to rank them in order of priority, how likely we are to contain them, how destructive they will be, etc." This process would be quickly done, a fire selected as the first target, and we would be on our way.

A person like you would be running around in circles, screaming, pissing on yourself. "We can't fight one fire! That would send a mixed message about our stance regarding fire! We either fight all fires simultaneously, or we're hypocrites! If we don't fight every fire at once we can never claim moral superiority to the destructive power of fire! Oh my stars and garters!" Blinded by panic, you'd eventually run headlong into a ladder and knock yourself unconscious.

The bottom line? The 'many problems' argument is bullshit. Yes, there are many dictatorships and Islamic fundamentalist states and so forth in the world. Yes, all could probably use some attention (given that you believe attention from the US would help solve such problems, which is a whole other discussion). But that doesn't invalidate picking one ... in theory. In practice, the entire idea of taking an army overseas to try to change someone's ideology is generally pretty flawed. See, that's a real argument. Yours is a strawman.

You can now commence looking for superficial issues with my analogy ("Iraq wasn't on fire! Bush isn't a fireman!") and missing the point entirely. I'm used to it by now.

Okay, I'll use your fireman analogy -- but use it right this time.

There are 10 houses on fire. Most of the families living in the houses are really dysfunctional. And most of them dislike the fire department -- some a lot more than others. Most of the families are dirt poor, but there's one that is immensely rich...

Incidentally, that family happens to hate the fire department more than anyone else. The head of the household is a violent psychopath -- and when the department was called out 10 years ago to put out a fire that he set to his neighbor's house, he attacked the men -- and got his ass beat. So he really, really hates firemen. And most of the family really hates them too, because they got beat up also...

So here comes the chief, and he prioritizes the fires, and oddly enough, he places the crazy guy's house at the top. Some of the men wonders why the hell they should risk their lives for that asshole? Of all the fires they could fight, this would be the worst one! But well -- off they go.

They fight the fire, and the family -- it's a terrible mess...

And then they notice the chief sneaking out the back door, with all the family's money, jewelry, paintings -- the lot.

And then it dawns on them, exactly why they had to go put out that particular fire...

Get it? Yet?

Actually, no, Tinkerbell. Did anyone get that? That was the most lame, off-target argument I've ever heard. That was once again a straw man argument.

TeaForTheTillerman is right. I know your views and I'm not totally against them, but you can't seem to present a decent argument.

You could just write, "no, you're wrong" and say pretty much the same thing, with as much substance, i.e. none.

...meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Tinkerbell? I'm so sorry for trying to be constructive, but your argument consists of "that's a strawman argument -- and you're wrong!" Not too much substance there, is there?

Sorry, I admit, it wasn't very constructive. And the name-calling was also not too cool either. (I thought Dzwonka was Polish for Tinkerbell). I was just angry after having read that whole long thread for nothing.

I just get tired of these long convoluted analogies and anecdotes that seem to go nowhere.

Maybe I should've read the anger management thread first...

Why is Bush being portrayed as the new Saddam? That's the question. How does your analogy about firemen relate to this question? It doesn't really.

Saddam did not choose to kill the Kurds, because they were the richest house on fire in Iraq, but rather the most dangerous house on fire.

One could argue that Bush did the same (as TeafortheTillerman did).

But I think Bernarda's argument fits best this time: Saddam tried to squash a rogue "nation" that was interfering with his rule and so did Bush (the Bush Government).

That's why your argument was a "straw man". It did not answer the question of how Bush and Saddam are alike or not.

Your other "straw man" argument, about why Kevin C.'s argument was flawed:

He said he didn't think you could compare Bush's War to Saddam's Genocide and you answered that genocide is being committed throughout the world and we're doing jack shit about it.

I'm sorry, but your answer doesn't address the argument, therefore it's a straw man argument.

Get it?

Sorry again about the Tinkerbell. That was uncalled for.