Better "get": Bush getting Saddam; Obama getting Bin Laden?

[bucs90]

So which is the bigger "get":

Bush "getting" Saddam Hussein?
Obama "getting" Bin Laden?

The simple way to figure this would be: Which evil man was worse for the world, and which man was responsible for more evil while here? And finally, which man, if left alone, would have caused more death, destruction and chaos in the future? Hussein or Bin Laden?

Yeah, you guys forgot about Bush "getting" Saddam, huh? Maybe because he didn't gloat about it the rest of his term.

 

[Clementine]

Another question is if Bush hadn't started the search for bin Laden, would Obama have even concerned himself with it?

I think over the years Saddam did plenty of damage, killed countless people and who knows what more he had planned. Osama bin Laden was the brains behind many terrorist attacks, though he is not unique. He does not rule his own country and there are other terrorists in line to fill the slot when the top guy is taken out. The war on terror isn't over. Killing bin Laden did not end a single terrorist organization and likely got them plotting revenge. Saddam was an evil dictator and had way more power than bin Laden. Both were evil, but Saddam had the power to do more harm and to do it a lot faster than bin Laden. The terrorists can succeed when people are caught off guard. Our security supposedly improved, but since most of our measures are reactionary rather than proactive, there is always a chance they'll strike again. Saddam pretty much did what he wanted for years. He was just as cruel to his own people as he was to sworn enemies.

 

[tinydancer]

Well according to the libs on the board and in the media Obama is definitely "the man".

 

[bucs90]

If Bush hadn't started the wars, then no, I doubt Obama would have pursued him. But who knows what world we'd be in after 9-11 if Bush had not gone to war. No way to know.

Both Saddam and Bin Laden were great "gets". I agree though, that Saddam had maybe killed more innocent people, in fact, almost certainly did by far.

And, Saddam had an actual military. Tanks, soldiers, planes, chemical and bio weapons which he used on his own people.

Osama would love to have had those things, but didn't.

In the long run, killing Osama probably will save far fewer lives than killing Saddam did, but the world is better off with both dead!

 

[bucs90]

Well according to the libs on the board and in the media Obama is definitely "the man".

Love it

 

[Lakhota]

So which is the bigger "get":

Bush "getting" Saddam Hussein?
Obama "getting" Bin Laden?

The simple way to figure this would be: Which evil man was worse for the world, and which man was responsible for more evil while here? And finally, which man, if left alone, would have caused more death, destruction and chaos in the future? Hussein or Bin Laden?

Yeah, you guys forgot about Bush "getting" Saddam, huh? Maybe because he didn't gloat about it the rest of his term.

Bush didn't do shit. Saddam was found by accident - not on purpose. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and then Bush fabricated false evidence to invade Iraq. Saddam hated Iran, but now Iran will continue to gain greater influence in Iraq. America has paid a heavy price to topple Saddam. Was it worth it? I say HELL NO.

In short, there is no comparison between Saddam and bin Laden. Bin Laden was the target after 9/11.

 

[J.E.D]

So which is the bigger "get":

Bush "getting" Saddam Hussein?
Obama "getting" Bin Laden?

The simple way to figure this would be: Which evil man was worse for the world, and which man was responsible for more evil while here? And finally, which man, if left alone, would have caused more death, destruction and chaos in the future? Hussein or Bin Laden?

Yeah, you guys forgot about Bush "getting" Saddam, huh? Maybe because he didn't gloat about it the rest of his term.

How many "Let's downplay the death of Osama" threads does this make? Thanks, wingnuts, for once again showing us how patriotic you are.

I have a better question. Why did Bush let Osama go to invade Iraq -- a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Hack of the week.

 

[California Girl]

Both needed dyin', and both Bush and Obama did the job we pay them to do. How's that for a non-partisan approach?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Both needed dyin', and both Bush and Obama did the job we pay them to do. How's that for a non-partisan approach?

I've got one too:

Both of these "gets" were nothing more than publicity operations, and nearly meaningless on any sort of real scale.

 

[Douger]

Neither. Both were engaged in illegal activities.
Clinton got the best "get". He got a blowjob.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you asked the Iraqis, they'd say Bush getting Saddam. If you asked the Pakistanis they'd say Bush getting Saddam.

From an American perspective, I'd say getting UBL was more important. But I don't vote based on Obama getting Saddam. He never gets him w/o Bush's work. And I haven't seen anything yet that shows me Obama did a damn thing was extraordinary.

 

[California Girl]

Both needed dyin', and both Bush and Obama did the job we pay them to do. How's that for a non-partisan approach?

I've got one too:

Both of these "gets" were nothing more than publicity operations, and nearly meaningless on any sort of real scale.

You're welcome to hold that opinion. The people of Iraq think differently. They think getting Saddam was a 'Biden'.

Out of the two.... from a purely US perspective.... getting Saddam was important... just to ensure he didn't come back and grab power again.... because that guy was not just a risk to his own people, he was happily funding terrorism around the world. So, him being dead is a really good thing.

With OBL, he was just a figurehead of AQ... no real threat to anyone anymore. But, from a PR perspective, yea... it was a good thing. But AQ itself is the threat - not OBL. That was kind of Bush's point when he said getting OBL wasn't his priority. He was right. But instead of applying logic to the statement, and understanding it honestly, the left prefer to make into something it wasn't.

 

[Lakhota]

I've never seen any credible proof that Saddam was funding terrorism.

 

[Luissa]

If Bush hadn't started the wars, then no, I doubt Obama would have pursued him. But who knows what world we'd be in after 9-11 if Bush had not gone to war. No way to know.

Both Saddam and Bin Laden were great "gets". I agree though, that Saddam had maybe killed more innocent people, in fact, almost certainly did by far.

And, Saddam had an actual military. Tanks, soldiers, planes, chemical and bio weapons which he used on his own people.

Osama would love to have had those things, but didn't.

In the long run, killing Osama probably will save far fewer lives than killing Saddam did, but the world is better off with both dead!

Sadam might have killed more of his own people but with his military he did nothing. It was the terrorists and unorganized men who did more damage. Saddam had more power per se when we fought the first Gulf war and look how well they did?
Osama inspired more deaths.

Just compare Iraq before and after Saddam's death. Look at how long we were there this time. Osama inspired that. One man's word did more damage than one man's joke of an Army.

 

[Douger]

I've never seen any credible proof that Saddam was funding terrorism.

It wasn't Saddam doing the funding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The world is better off with both men dead and gone. Osama, in the end, was the far more dangerous man. One moved a nation, the other inspired a world wide hatred of the West and the USA.

 

[Sallow]

The Saddam "get" was a farce.

Trophy pistol and all.

Iraq was never ever a threat to the United States.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Both needed dyin', and both Bush and Obama did the job we pay them to do. How's that for a non-partisan approach?

It is terrible if one is truly seeking a non-partisan approach. Saying that Bush did the job we paid him to do regarding ANYTHING having to do with Iraq is partisan hackery......wrapping that pile of shit with a bow don't make it apple pie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LoneLaugher is engaged in partisan hackery. Get over it, LL.

 

[Sallow]

LoneLaugher is engaged in partisan hackery. Get over it, LL.

What "hackery"?

Saddam was helped into power by the US. The problem with Saddam was that he didn't tow the line and played both ends of the stick when he cozied up to the Soviets. But he's been a useful tool for decades..the Iran/Iraq war being a prime example. The PNAC neo cons wanted a lock on the regional oil and decided Iraq was to much of a loose cannon and wanted Saddam out. They tried to get Clinton to do the job..but he wouldn't bite. Fast forward to Bush and the "Pearl Harbor" moment and you have a winner.

Saddam wasn't about 9/11..it was about cold war politics.