Wrong again. I’m not a Republican, and I did not vote for Bush.
Wrong again??? Whatever you are, it isn’t gracious under pressure. So maybe I am a sadist:
President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:
"He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint."
Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).
President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:
"It’s a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He’s a threat."
Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:
"This [Saddam Hussein] is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/28/2002).
Thats all facinating I’m sure, annaplurabelle, but whats it got to do with who the worlds worst leader is? Did I miss your vote on, well, you know, that actually subject of the OP? Most likely there was no connection between AQ and Iraq (say, 95% probability at least)…but whats this got to do with who the worst leader is?? Bush lied, right? And? Does this make him the worlds worst leader then?
-XT
Sorry we got off topic. Just wanted to clear up Engineer Dude’s and Walloon’s ignorance of the facts.
Amazing how you leap to conclusions without evidence, Xtime. Please don’t try to put words in my mouth. I was replying specifically to Walloon’s claim, nothing more.
As for my “vote”, put me down as “undecided”. Since they are all still in power, only time will tell…
(belated apologies to all non-lazy Republicans - please take your party back!)
Who’s jumping to conclusions? If you want to hijack, more power too you (I realize btw you were just responding to another posters 1 liner btw…but it was still a lot of stuff that was totally off topic as far as I can see). I was simply trying to figure out if you were going to ALSO answer the OP.
One thing you might want to take into account though. A lot of folks on this board who might have supported the war, or be conservative (to your mind) are actually NOT Republicans. Being conservative is not equal to being Republican. Myself, I’m an Independant. I haven’t voted Republican since Bush I’s first election, and I switched party affiliation to Independant when Clinton was elected. Just something to think about.
-XT
<hijack>Sorry for the hijack. I just happened to be playing with my new toy (the Waxman site) and couldn’t resist correcting Walloon’s completely unfactual claim. Wrong of me to assume “Republican” (I’ve been spending too much time in Kerry threads); I should have just said lazy (and then rude).
Sorry, Walloon. :rolleyes:
Xtime, FWIW I’ve always been Independent (and I know how to spell it) 
</hijack>
Now that I’m here again, I’ll respond further to the OP. Are we saying that total # of attributable deaths is the main criteria? I think that’s too narrow. What about long term effects and international repercussions? I realise that would have to be speculative at this point, but that is why I’m undecided. Can we speculate, or would that be subjected to tinfoil hat accusations?
/hijack Well, generally I know how to spell Independent too…my problem is, I can’t type worth a damn. 
(there is also that attempt to translate my thoughts which are in spanish to english that people can understand…getting better at that IMO)
/hijack
Knock yourself out. If it gets too tin foil hat like, I’m sure someone will call you on it. But you can’t get more, er, intersting than say akrako1 did in this thread, unless you are going to suggest that space aliens are actually behind it all and that the lead alien is the worst leader. 
-XT
I don’t see why not. It has worked so far, and I believe that it will continue to. There has not been a major Al Qaeda attack on American soil since 9-11. And it took Al Qaeda 2-1/2 years to mount another major attack anywhere else in the world (Spain). The two major obstacles to proving that this war on terror is working are 1) the fact that there is still some terror (although not as much as there would be had we chosen not to send their leaders on the run), and 2) the fact that you can’t prove, for instance, that the Sears Tower would have been taken down had we not done anything.
Perhaps it will rile some support against us. However, because of the successes of the war on terror (such as the ones I stated in this post and the last one), coupled with the fact that 2-1/2 years of fighting and taking terrorists prisoners has not yet produced “multitudes of terrorists to take their place”, leads me to believe that we have been even stronger in instilling fear into these criminals, sending their leaders on the run, and teaching them that there are serious repercussions for killing us and our innocent allies.
And why is ‘terrorist’ in quotes?
I don’t think I have a bias against Islam. I have a Lebanese friend who says that most Muslims are peaceful and well meaning, and I believe her. As for the Crusades, if they were happening today, I would also stand by our Government in punishing Fundamentalist Christians who commit heinous crimes.
I think annaplurabelle did a good job of rebutting this.
Well, I would like to thank you for clearing up my ignorance of how we treat terrorist prisoners of war, and I do believe that that’s something that needs to be addressed to the U.S. Government and the governments of its allies. However, terrorists should be dealt with in the same manner as criminals, since they are no different. The wreckages of their attacks, such as the World Trade Center site and the Madrid train wreck site, should be treated as crime scenes. The casualties should be treated as murder victims. And the terrorists should be brought to justice in the same manner that a murderer on trial is.
Anyway, as for the topic of the thread, put me down as a vote for Adolf Hitler.
I vote kim Jong Il. Millions starve due to corruption, economic mismanagement, abuse of humanitarian aid and a military that takes up 25% of the GDP. Plus about 5% of the N. Korean population lives in slave labor camps. To top it off, information is so controlled that many of the people there believe they live in paradise. Very sad.
I don’t think Bush is anywhere near that level of evil. As far as the Iraq war benefiting the US economy, the US economy is in a recession with a roughly $650 billion deficit (if you include the money taken from social security), a $200+ billion war doesn’t seem like it’ll help any when we are so deep in the red.
Uh, al Qaeda has performed major terrorist attacks between 9/11/01 and 3/11/04. Or have you forgotten the bombing of the nightclub in Bali (October 2002, 200+ dead)? Or the Marriot Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia (August 2003, 12 dead, 150+ wounded)? Or the others listed here?
I suspect you’ve been whooshed – I believe annaplurabelle was proving that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam, and offering proof that the Bush Administration lied about this.
Here’s a list summarizing the Administration’s claims, and the (lack of) evidence to support them.
Because ‘Terrorism’ is a subjective term. Whoever has more power gets to label the opposition ‘Terrorists’. Most terrorists are folks from groups fighting for independance. Ask the group that they are seeking independance from, and they’ll tell you that they’re terrorists. With the current global tendency to shun anything related to ‘terror’, these groups are more easily oppressed. Don’t want to get labeled a ‘sponsor of terror’ and get invaded like Iraq, right? Ask a Palestinian who they think the terrorists are. George Washington et al.? Terrorists. They used some violent means to gain independance from England. They’re ‘Freedom Fighters’ to us, and terrorists to England. Hence the quotes.
Huh? annaplurabelle was correcting Walloon & your misunderstandings…
That could be true if George Washington had led his army across the Atlantic and ordered them to fire upon women and children in the streets of London. But he didn’t. He fought the British army usually in open battlefields.
Your equivocation of the targeting of civilians and of genuine military targets is just plain evil – and as long as you continue to make those claims you can never be part of civilised humanity.
By the way I don’t consider all Al-Qaeda attacks as terrorist. The attacks on the US military barracks in Saudi Arabia were in my opinion a valid military operation.
And whom does Al-Qaeda wish to free? and from whom?
I never made the claim the Al-Queda was one of the groups that is fighting for freedom, more the Chechans or Palestinians. I was responding to the question of why I put Terrorist in quotes. I did not condone attacks on civilians. And yes, attacks on military or occupying targets are not technically considered terrorism. In fact, as much as the admin. would like to repeat, by definition a head-of-state cannot be a terrorist, nor the guerilla army defending their territory. Going back to the G. Washington and the revolutionary army, I never equated them with Al-Queda. They did do some property damage, and according to the current administration, even property damage (ie. economic terrorism, ie. dumping a bunch of tea) is considered Terrorism. What would have happened if George Washington and all had started loosing the revolutionart war? Would they have started bombing English non-military targets? Or burned the Capitol? I don’t know. I was just hoping you all would take pause when someone is automatically considered a terrorist.
Lazy, but not stupid.
Abu Abbas dies in Iraq. Former head of the PLO. PLO was officially designated as terrorist organization. In other news, Abu Nidal remains seriously dead today.
[U.S. forces in Iraq captured a leader of the insurgency who is believed to be a close associate of Abu Musab Zarqawi, described by some as a key link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, a senior American official said in Washington on Friday.
U.S. troops captured Husam al-Yemeni Thursday, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He is described by U.S. officials as a top member of the al-Qaida linked Ansar al-Islam group and the leader of an insurgency cell in Fallujah, west of Baghdad](http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/009809.html) Some info on Zarqawi.
[OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda–perhaps even for Mohamed Atta–according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America’s most determined and dangerous enemies.](http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)
Not sure why you posted that one. If you are going to claim that it says that Iraq was involved in 9/11, no, it does not.
Or perhaps we could discuss why, since al-Queda has no links to or interest in Iraq, the consensus is so strong that they bombed Madrid in order to punish Spain for membership in the coalition that overthrew Saddam. It seems like a lot of trouble to go to if they are as indifferent to the fate of terrorist states as you claim.
Regards,
Shodan
Al-Queda does not like people killing Muslims. Yes, they had an ‘infedel’ as a leader, but the people are still Muslims, and Al-Queda will defend their interests.
(1) The argument for Bush having done the right thing is in contradiction with this assertion since, if the Islamic fundamentalists believe that sacrificing themselves in battle against the infidel will gain them a place in Paradise (which suicide bombers, at least, must believe) then no amount of mutilating or destroying will ‘instill fear into these criminals’. They believe, under this scenario, that they are in the right and will be rewarded for their actions. We have to find a way of proving them wrong and this can only be done by counter propoganda, not more violence that will only strengthen their resolve.
(2) I agree with you on this point: terrorists should be brought to justice like all criminals. The fact is, the worst serial killer has the right to due process: a trial, witnesses, jury etc. The “enemy combatants” (a dodgy term cooked up to try and avoid both a fair trial and prisoner of war treatment under the Geneva Convention) held at Guantanamo Bay are denied this. They are held without trial in appalling conditions, subject to torture, denied visits by family members. In other words they are treated as badly as prisoners of despotic regimes. Hardly good for the propoganda war that the US has forgotten to wage.
I, for one, find it deeply offensive that Australian nationals can be held by a foreign power - regardless of who that foreign power is - without all the diplomatic recourse that would normally be afforded. I am further offended by Bush’s constant references to these people as criminals of the worst kind. What happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’? Some of the illegally held captives could have been dupes who never fought in active combat against the allies, they could have sided with the Taliban without being aware of the full extent of their perfidy. We won’t know until they are given a fair trial in their own country or in an international court.
This is a key reason, along with the preemptive attack, as to why I feel that Bush is an exception for American presidents. I believe that he is actively anti-democratic and poses a real threat to our freedoms and way of life.
(3) I don’t think Hitler counts as I believe the thread refers to ‘who IS the worst world leader (currently)’ Otherwise I would cast a vote for Joseph Stalin. Hitler treated his own (non-Jewish, non-gay, non-transvestite, etc) people alright whereas Stalin treated all the Soviet people harshly and had no regard for anyone but himself.
Because the first post did not specify, I interpreted it to mean living or dead, in power or not in power. I suppose then, that I’d have to also cast my vote for Kim-Jong. Perhaps I’ll start a thread someday (if there hasn’t been one already, I haven’t checked) for casting votes for the worst leader in history. And I agree that Joseph Stalin was also pretty high up there.
I’m not sure how you plan on doing that. The terrorists are Muslim fundamentalists who use their twisted view of the Koran, not us, to determine what is right and wrong.
I’m not sure why you assert that the terrorists are being illegally detained. American law subjects non-citizens involved with war acts to military tribunals. The non-citizens are not subject to the laws of the Constitution that are followed in civilian courts. Military tribunals have also been used in previous wars and international conflicts, which is why it is unfair to single out President Bush from previous presidents as an immoral and anti-democratic leader.
Not on the SDMB. There seem to be an abundance of Democrats here, so debating Democrats is on its way to becoming a full-time job for posters such as Walloon and me.
Sorry, my fault. I only read the quotes from politicians, and skipped the part about them being misleading statements.
A terrorist, by definition of the Random House Dictionary, is “a person that uses violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purpose.” Because of the violence (9-11, Bali, train bombing) that has been used to intimidate and disrupt the lives of Americans and their allies, I believe that it is beyond debate that Al-Qaeda are terrorists.
OK, Bali was a pretty major attack. That makes two major Al-Qaeda attacks in the world since 9-11. I think it would be stretching it to call the Indonesia and other attacks “major”, since casualties were less than a few dozen. But I shudder to think how much longer the list in the above link would be had we not captured many of the leaders in the top 52 most wanted “House of Cards.”