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

[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?

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.

In fairness, you're a partisan hack... your judgment is not exactly rational with regard to any post containing the name 'Bush'.

 

[California Girl]

The Saddam "get" was a farce.

Trophy pistol and all.

Iraq was never ever a threat to the United States.

Saddam was an unstable whackjob - and a threat to the region, and thus to the world.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

OBL

Saddam didn't try to kill any Americans, so it was a waste of time to go back, unless you consider it finishing what we started.

 

[Katzndogz]

The big difference is, Bush never said he "got" Saddam but priased the men who did. To listen to obama, he went in there on his own.

Osama Bin Laden is gone, thanks to Admiral William McRaven and the men under his command.

 

[rdean]

What did Saddam ever do to us?

 

[konradv]

The big difference is, Bush never said he "got" Saddam but priased the men who did. To listen to obama, he went in there on his own.

Osama Bin Laden is gone, thanks to Admiral William McRaven and the men under his command.

That's right, Bush just pretended he flew in from the Gulf!!!

 

[naturegirl]

It's not "what was the better get", it's how the "get" was gotten. Saddam was tried and executed for war crimes, Bin Laden was executed and with him a wealth of information gone.

One President won the peace prize the other didn't. Now which was a more humane get??

 

[Sallow]

It's not "what was the better get", it's how the "get" was gotten. Saddam was tried and executed for war crimes, Bin Laden was executed and with him a wealth of information gone.

One President won the peace prize the other didn't. Now which was a more humane get??

Amazing.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Ah well. What does one expect from the wingnuts.

If we were serious about getting the people funding terrorism around the world, we would take out a bunch of Suadis.

One might notice that the Al Queda leadership has been decimated since President Obama took office. In whatever country they have were operating, many have been taken out by Marines and drones, as well as Special Forces.

Saddam was an evil man, one that we supported for far too long. But he had no WMD, and was not involved in 9-11. Bush's invasion of Iraq was illegal and unwise. Cost us far too much, and the nation that is Iraq now is less free than it was under Saddam, when you consider the laws concerning women.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Saddam "get" was a farce.

Trophy pistol and all.

Iraq was never ever a threat to the United States.

Saddam was an unstable whackjob - and a threat to the region, and thus to the world.

A threat to the world with what? No WMD, no air force, and his own people no longer cared that much for him.

The threat of Saddam was something that the Bush administration manufactured to support the ambitions of empire from the PNAC.

 

[naturegirl]

The Saddam "get" was a farce.

Trophy pistol and all.

Iraq was never ever a threat to the United States.

Saddam was an unstable whackjob - and a threat to the region, and thus to the world.

A threat to the world with what? No WMD, no air force, and his own people no longer cared that much for him.

The threat of Saddam was something that the Bush administration manufactured to support the ambitions of empire from the PNAC.

Sort of like Gaddafi??

 

[clevergirl]

Seal Team 6 who were able to act due to the Bush policy ground work and Obama giving the go-ahead when the right time presented itself~

 

[Number_58]

Obama didn't "get" anybody...same way Bush didn't "get" anybody. Remember, the only President that had the chance to take Osama bin Laden out and didn't was William Jefferson Clinton.

 

[Number_58]

And...Bush could have had bin Laden if the NYTimes hadn't have ran a story regarding the type of phone that bin Laden was using...you know the phone that had led our military intelligence to know his whereabouts...he quickly discarded that phone and relocated causing those same people to lose track of him again.

 

[Old Rocks]

Saddam was an unstable whackjob - and a threat to the region, and thus to the world.

A threat to the world with what? No WMD, no air force, and his own people no longer cared that much for him.

The threat of Saddam was something that the Bush administration manufactured to support the ambitions of empire from the PNAC.

Sort of like Gaddafi??

We aided the Libyans in removing Gaddafi. No American lives lost. No American military presence there now. What the Libyan's do with their new found freedom is up to them. So there is no parrallel. Plus, Gaddafi had American blood on his hands.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All Americans can remember.

Victory Lapse - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 05/01/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 killed over 4000 Americans getting Saddam Hussein, who didn't need to be 'gotten'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All Americans can remember.

Victory Lapse - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 05/01/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Priceless.

 

[Number_58]

Bush killed over 4000 Americans

How many Americans has Obama killed then? Do you find that acceptable?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Bush, 2004 SOTU, gloating over the capture of Saddam:

The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole and now sits in a prison cell.

and politicizing it:

Some in this chamber and in our country did not support the liberation of Iraq.