I’m not so sure that there is evidence that Musharraf sold the technology (I may be wildly incorrect). I had thought that Abdul Qadeer Khan was respnsible for the proliferation. The traficking, I thought, went back to the 1980’s, when Musharraf was not in power. It seems that this is yet another problem he inherited.
Actually, there is.
The rightfully elected and now imprisoned leaders of the nation still refer to it as “Burma.” “Myanmar” was cooked up by assholes who siezed power.
The US does not recognize the new name; the UN does.
also no Dana, only Zuul.
My criteria would be the leader I’d least like to have in charge of my own country if he were somehow transferred into power as my head of state – and assuming for the moment that he wouldn’t go genocidal just for the sake of being in a different country.
In that respect, my vote goes to Mugabe. Just a great big nutty nutbar - and he probably would end up goin Pol Pot on the place.
I think Bush is a terrible leader but he’s not even remotely close on this scale.
The proliferation goes back a long way, true. But it was also going on at the time Musharraf was Army Chief. He did inherit this problem, but he was aware of it long before he became Big Chief of Pakistan.
Having said that though, I don’t think Musharraf deserves to be in the worst leader category. He is arguably the best leader (military or not) Pakistan has had for quite some time. Which may not be saying much, but he is not a serious candidate for WWL.
When the Khan stuff was coming out, it seemed to me there was reason to doubt Musharraf didn’t know about it, and apparently some experts do. One reason commonly cited was that fairly recently, the government raided a plane thought to be carrying nuclear technology to another country (although that plane turned out to be empty). You can see a lot of that stuff if you’re willing to search the NY Times archive.
Oh sure, in the “Beyond the Pale Category,” KJI gets it. But in the “Semi-Real Leader” category, GWB is the winner!
Why? He’s a complete moron desperately trying to wipe this country on the arse of the rich. Nuff sed.
I think I’ll nominate Vicente Fox.
Good evening, and thanks very much for inviting me back! A funny thing happened to me on the way to this ceremony… no, stop me. Take my wife… please! Anyway, getting on with the show, the nominees for Worst World Leader were judged on the following categories:
Economic mismanagement.
Impoverishment of population.
Oppression of population.
Danger to world peace.
The field is very tight, and there was no overall winner in every category - it’s a tough field, and there are some great nominees here tonight, including the SLORC and Robert Mugabe (hi Bob!). I’ve also got a note here from Saddam Hussein, who regrets that he can’t be here tonight due to his recent disquaification. “Keep up the good work, guys, sorry I can’t be with you this evening, but I got otherwise held up. Ow! Ow!”.
So without further ado I am pleased to say… ::Rustling of envelope:: the award goes to… The Dear Leader himself, Kim Jong Il of North Korea! A thoroughly deserving win! And may I say on a personal note how impressed I was with the whole allowing-your-people-to-starve-to-death while building up a nuclear stockpile schtick. Well done!
[Note to OtakuLoki: a friend of mine met Aung San Suu Kyi, and he asked her what to call the country. She said “Burma”, unequivocally.]
Spin spin spin. There is no doubt that Bush has not been one of the top US presidents. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say he’s probably listed among the worst. I’d dispute the fact he was THE worst of course, as I can think of several that would fill that bill. To claim Bush is even in the same league with the guys mentioned in this thread shows how grossly biased you are IMO. To try and switch ‘category’ types is just too funny…it was a poorly done back pedel.
However, what exactly IS a ‘semi-real leader’ catagory? Bush IS the leader of the US, in case you failed to notice. He’s the duly authorized, homaganized, pasturized, sworn in and by god President of the US…gods help us all. So, he’s not a ‘semi-real leader’. If you want to say his the 'Worst of the Best", i.e. of leaders in the western world or in industrialized nations he’s the worst, then you MIGHT be able to make a case. Might. I personally think you are overestimating Bush’s evil and underestimating how bad other nations rulers are (have you taken a close look at Jacques Chirac for instance?). But I’d go along with “Worst of the Best” more easily than trying to say he’s out and out the worst national leader out there.
As to Bush being a ‘moron’ its nice to say. Makes you feel good saying it I’m sure. But it just doesn’t work out in reality. I think Bush is crafty like a fox, putting on a homey air of a good ole boy and yucking it up…and laughing all the way to the presidency (hopefully not a second time). Its folks underestimating the man that has put us in our current mess. And people thinking he’s a ‘moron’ are playing right into his hands IMO.
-XT
[unabashed hijack]
If you care to, I would very much like to hear the story.
I did say it was a snarky objection, right? As in, not one I expected to have taken so seriously. I’m sorry!!! (The cream-pie-in-the-face booth for punishments will be set up over there - get your tickets while you can. 
)
Kim indeed seems to be the best candidate for the title, clinching it from Mugabe with the aloof craziness and sheer scale of consequences fro his population.
If it was democratically elected leaders it would be more interesting though. As much as I don’t like Putins authorative style and his foreign policy, I have to say that he might be exactly what Russia needs, and he is very popular at home. Sharon and Bush stand out as the two prime candidates, but but Italys clown, Berlusconi shouldn’t be forgotten.
The consensus seems to be Lil Kim.
To add a little spice to the debate, l think we should also include ruling councils. For example, China and Burma don’t have a single leader per se, but are ruled by councils with dictatorial powers.
If we include these “leaders” as well, is Lil Kim still the worst?
JJIMM, I would also like to hear the story.
I think Kim is the worst no matter how you parse it…as long as you say ‘current and living’. He kind of pales in comparison to say Mao or Stalin. Not through want of trying, mind you, but I just don’t think he has the imagination or power to achieve all he could be.
I think Stoneburg’s thoughts are interesting. Maybe we should shift the debate to who is the worst “democratically elected leaders” currently running nations? I’d say that Bush would definitely make that list, though I’m not convinced he’d necessarily bubble up to the very top. He has a lot of competition even in this subset IMO.
-XT
Why?
The Burmese junta (nasty thugs!)
Are dissing Aung Suu Kyi!
We’ll help her out, although it drags
Us into World War III!
BURMA SAVE!
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
Well, if Musharraf inherited the problem (I thought it was all his) then that lessens his personal responsibility greatly. And although I’m still all for sanctioning the living hell out of Pakistan for their little nuclear “oops!” I will withdraw Musharraf’s name from this tourney.
Anybody wanna take odds that that former death squad leader who looks likely to take power in Haiti now that Aristide is out is a contender Real Soon Now?
If only Bush WERE as obviously insane as Mugabe and some of the other nominees – it would be such fun to watch all the Repubs and conservatives scrambling to find reasons to justify not impeaching him.
A very nice summation of GWB’s many many faults, akrako1. I can understand **xtisme’s ** objections in saying that Kim is far worse. But, as other posters have pointed out, it depends on what basis you make your judgement.
For example, a military dictator who came to power in some South American coup might be killing people Left, Right and Centre but this would hardly be exceptional. Terrible yes but not unusual. Similarly a Middle East strongman is just about what you would expect so, while they may be callous power-crazy tyrants, there is nothing that one in a long line is going to do that sets them apart. They do present a danger if they get hold of weapons of mass destruction (real ones, not the pretend ones of recent times) or fund terrorist activity. But it has ever been thus.
What really scares me, and a lot of other folk, is the idea that someone with fascist inclinations could gain power in one of the world’s cherished democracies. Now the US has had its share of less-than-democratic moments - McCarthyism, Hoover’s secret files, black rights pre-Martin Luther King and Sister Rosa Parkes and so forth - but because of its level of power and the way it has set itself up as the very bastion of freedom and democratic rights, it has to be above reproach. Or at least be seen to be. Bush’s crude nepotism worthy of a Marcos or Suharto, his insidious Patriot Act that is a direct attack on individual rights in America
and the list goes on.
Now this is not only bad in and of itself but it leaves us with nowhere to go. Let us say you are sitting a tinpot dictator down on your knee to explain to him why what he is doing is wrong: it is harmful to his people and destabilising to the world at large. “What is it I am doing wrong?” he innocently enquires and you try to explain that he needs to hold elections untainted by bias or corruption. He’s never heard of New Zealand so you point to the USA and he just laughs in your face.
Bravely you move on to the world scene and point out how wrong it is to invade sovereign nations without justification and without global assent, killing innocents in the process. “But I had my bullshit excuse ready” he scoffs. You wonder momentarily what he means and then the penny drops. Oh yeah, weapons of mass destruction. It’ll take a long time to live that one down.
So you see GWB is a very real candidate. He cheated his way into office (which is what is meant by a ‘semi-real leader’) and he is a war criminal, having attacked a country when there was no justification, under the agreed UN charter, for doing so. He is worse than Kim in the respect that nobody expects shonky Asian communists to be any good. But if the President of the United States of America offers no useful moral guidance then to whom do we look? The Pope :rolleyes:
I’m not going to bet against that one.