What's with the Chicken George Bush thing?

I wasn't here as much because of college has started, but what is with this sudden "chicken Bush" thing? I thought it would be "Crazy Bush" or Ignorant Bush" or Ignorant Bigot Bush", but how is Bush a chicken?

Currently, there is a document whose validity is being investigated that orders Bush to report to X place on X time for a physical. CBS's 60 Minutes originally aired the documents, and is now being called out by a slew of conservative outlets across the media spectrum, as well as two networks: ABC and NBC.

It seems as if the people on these forums were very quick to believe the as-of-yet-unproved documents, or a mod renamed all the titles with 'Bush' in it (which one it is, I do not know).

If it is the former, then it would surprise me to see so many liberals on these boards, especially considering that some of the more prominent liberal politicians *coughLiebermancough* hate videogames.

Oh it's from that dumb thing.

Bush wimped out, and Kerry went unwinningly and became a freak afterwards.

Can't we just talk about the present and lie about what they both are going to do in the future, instead of lieing about the past?

[quote name='David85']Oh it's from that dumb thing.

Bush wimped out, and Kerry went unwinningly and became a freak afterwards.

Can't we just talk about the present and lie about what they both are going to do in the future, instead of lieing about the past?[/quote]

No because after the last 3.5 years of Bush being President, Kerry can't challenge him on his record so he needs to so based on events over 30 years ago.

And don't tell me I am wrong. Look at the Kerry campaign - what is their focus? Vietnam.

CTL

[quote name='CTLesq']And don't tell me I am wrong. Look at the Kerry campaign - what is their focus? Vietnam.

CTL[/quote]

www.johnkerry.com

"vietnam" not mentioned once on the front page.

SEARCH RESULTS 1356 total results for economy
SEARCH RESULTS 364 total results for iraq
SEARCH RESULTS 197 total results for vietnam

And what is Bush's? Making shit sound better than it is.

[quote name='David85']And what is Bush's? Making shit sound better than it is.[/quote]Bush is campaigning on his post-9/11 policies, as well as his religious support.

He's also going to garner mad support in Florida from the 500,000+ Jewish community there.

[quote name='David85']I wasn't here as much because of college has started, but what is with this sudden "chicken Bush" thing? I thought it would be "Crazy Bush" or Ignorant Bush" or Ignorant Bigot Bush", but how is Bush a chicken?[/quote]

Evidently some 7-year-old thought it was funny or something. I think most of us are adults here and we should be talking about issues, not doing the lame name-calling thing.

[quote name='CheapyD']

www.johnkerry.com

"vietnam" not mentioned once on the front page.

[/quote]

Nope not mentioned, just a link to a very long commentary by Jim Rassman telling you all about his heroism in Vietnam. Besides, I'd say he's talked about it enough, that it you need to go to his website to figure out he was in Vietnam you haven't been following the election very much. IMO Kerry needed to do the opposite, put all his Vietnam info on his website and take some of the policies he has outlined on there and actually talk about them more.

I call him "Chicken George" because he:

(1) Is a war-dodging chickenhawk. Never mind the CBS documents -- there is plenty of other evidence that shows that Bush got preferential treatment to get into the National Guard, did as little as possible while he was there, and deserted his post to work for a campaign in Alabama of one of Daddy's friends.

(2) Is afraid to face the public. He's held 12 formal press conferences in four years -- a new record low -- and holds most campaign stops in crowds consisting only of supporters. These are not the actions of a confident person. He's terrified that someone's going to ask him a question that's not on the list handed him before he's trotted out on stage.

(3) Through his personal insecurity, has adopted bully-boy tactics that have put America in peril. From Iraq to North Korea, Bush has a habit of talking tough and throwing us in harm's way even when it's not necessary. No one has yet been able to convince me that invading Iraq or pissing off North Korea has made the world safer.

And then there's just the simple reason that Kerry gets called names all the time -- Lurch, Flip-flopper, etc. -- and I figure what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Repubs love to talk nasty and call names, but are the first to whine when the name-calling is turned on them.

[quote name='dennis_t']No one has yet been able to convince me that invading Iraq or pissing off North Korea has made the world safer.
[/quote]

I keep forgetting how open you are to being pursuaded this was the correct course of action.

CTL

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='dennis_t']No one has yet been able to convince me that invading Iraq or pissing off North Korea has made the world safer.
[/quote]

I keep forgetting how open you are to being pursuaded this was the correct course of action.

CTL[/quote]

Because all those persuasive arguments have fallen flat - WMD's, Saddam & al Qaeda link, etc.

The only reason we should ever attack another country first is if we have proof that they pose an imminent threat to us. Saddam did not and everything else is spin.

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='dennis_t']No one has yet been able to convince me that invading Iraq or pissing off North Korea has made the world safer.
[/quote]

I keep forgetting how open you are to being pursuaded this was the correct course of action.

CTL[/quote]

Because all those persuasive arguments have fallen flat - WMD's, Saddam & al Qaeda link, etc.

The only reason we should ever attack another country first is if we have proof that they pose an imminent threat to us. Saddam did not and everything else is spin.[/quote]

How is September 10, 2001? You enjoy living in the groundhog day world?

I take it you have never visited the WTC site? I hope it never happens were you live and work.

CTL

Once more for the slow people: Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Even Bush has admitted that much (although he's much happier if you think otherwise).

[quote name='MrBadExample']Once more for the slow people: Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Even Bush has admitted that much (although he's much happier if you think otherwise).[/quote]

RIF - Reading is fundamental.

I did not state that he did have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

And I challenge to find statement where I made that connection.

I have always stated and maintained that we needed no more justification to invade Iraq than to serve as an object lesson to the Islamofacists that the US would no longer be pushed around.

CTL

It has been proven that there is no link btw 9/11 (Al Qaeda) and Iraq so why do people keep bring it up? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/

Yes, I have been to the WTC site many times.
Yes, I could smell the jet fuel burning days after 9/11.
No, this does not change the facts one bit.

[quote name='CheapyD']It has been proven that there is no link btw 9/11 (Al Qaeda) and Iraq so why do people keep bring it up? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/[/quote]

I don't know why do people who oppose the war continue to bring it up?

[quote name='CheapyD']Yes, I have been to the WTC site many times.
Yes, I could smell the jet fuel burning days after 9/11.
No, this does not change the facts one bit.[/quote]

Your position is materially more tempered than other members of this board. That argument wouldn't be used with you.

CTL

[quote name='CTLesq']I have always stated and maintained that we needed no more justification to invade Iraq than to serve as an object lesson to the Islamofacists that the US would no longer be pushed around.
CTL[/quote]

Thats a great policy.
Maybe next time we should focus on where the terrorists are!!!!!!
Of course, now that we have destabilized Iraq, terrorists ahoy!

Edit: Remember Afghanistan? Whatever happened to that war? That one I agreed with. We had proved that the Taliban were harboring and training terrorists. We asked them to turn over Bin Laden and they refused. We were justified there...Iraq is whole other ball of wax.
Middle Eastern countries are NOT interchangeable with one another.

[quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='CTLesq']I have always stated and maintained that we needed no more justification to invade Iraq than to serve as an object lesson to the Islamofacists that the US would no longer be pushed around.
CTL[/quote]

Thats a great policy.
Maybe next time we should focus on where the terrorists are!!!!!!
Of course, now that we have destabilized Iraq, terrorists ahoy!

Edit: Remember Afghanistan? Whatever happened to that war? That one I agreed with. We had proved that the Taliban were harboring and training terrorists. We asked them to turn over Bin Laden and they refused. We were justified there...Iraq is whole other ball of wax.
Middle Eastern countries are NOT interchangeable with one another.[/quote]

Terrorism is at best state ignored at worst state sponsored. You want to go around killing a few terrorists here or there, hey I am A-OK with that.

Alternatively target a large middle eastern nation. Let that serve as an exmple to other governments: Syria, Iran, Libya et al.

Let those leaders understand their very survival is at stake.

While I don't disagree that there was a clear link between Afghanistan and the Taliban with Al-Queda I don't think you can hold intelligence to a "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard.

You must consider:

The behavior of Iraq over 12 years;

Iraq did use chemical weapons against Iran and their own citizens;

17 UN Resolutions against Iraq, which got us no-where;

The intelligence (US/British and apparently Russian) we did have did seem to indicate Hussein had WMD;

Tommy Franks was told by countless Arab leaders they expected Hussein would used WMD on advancing US troops;

The point is when looking at the totality of the events preceeding the war, given the never ending criticisms that Bush failed to "connect the dots before 9/11" wouldn't you hold him as negligent had he failed to act against Iraq and they did provide WMD to terrorists?

And lets not forget Afhanistan...Where did Richard Clarke state Bin Laden would run if we attacked Afghanistan?

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20041130/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec4.pdf

See page 134 of the report:

In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage.Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke,his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service,and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge,old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”135Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad,Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.136

[quote name='CTLesq']

You must consider:

The behavior of Iraq over 12 years;

Iraq did use chemical weapons against Iran and their own citizens;

17 UN Resolutions against Iraq, which got us no-where;

The intelligence (US/British and apparently Russian) we did have did seem to indicate Hussein had WMD;

Tommy Franks was told by countless Arab leaders they expected Hussein would used WMD on advancing US troops;

The point is when looking at the totality of the events preceeding the war, given the never ending criticisms that Bush failed to "connect the dots before 9/11" wouldn't you hold him as negligent had he failed to act against Iraq and they did provide WMD to terrorists?
[/quote]

CTLesq,

We had weapons inspectors in Iraq who were combing the country looking for WMDs. These weren't people relying on rumor or the word of other countries. They were looking for facts on the ground.

And Bush pulled them out so he could invade Iraq.

Bush didn't want good information. He wanted just enough information to justify his war. If he had left the weapons inspectors in place, he would have learned what we know now -- that there were no WMDs. Iraq would still be a contained threat, and not a wide-open terrorist breeding ground. And we'd have more troops in Afghanistan, rooting out al Qaeda and searching for the man who really did attack us, the man you never hear mentioned by the Bush Administration -- Osama bin Laden.

[quote name='dennis_t']CTLesq,

We had weapons inspectors in Iraq who were combing the country looking for WMDs. These weren't people relying on rumor or the word of other countries. They were looking for facts on the ground.

And Bush pulled them out so he could invade Iraq.

Bush didn't want good information. He wanted just enough information to justify his war. If he had left the weapons inspectors in place, he would have learned what we know now -- that there were no WMDs. Iraq would still be a contained threat, and not a wide-open terrorist breeding ground. And we'd have more troops in Afghanistan, rooting out al Qaeda and searching for the man who really did attack us, the man you never hear mentioned by the Bush Administration -- Osama bin Laden.[/quote]

And at what point has enough time gone by with Iraq complicating the search for WMD before you pull the plug and clean them out?

The inspections were not perfect and not continous for 12 years but how long are you willing to play games?

I would suggest that the stakes have reach such enormity we can no longer wait.

You really want to claim containment of Iraq? You think thats a good policy? You think you can contain terrorists?

More troops in Afghanistan - yup, do you want 19 year old PFC Smith looking for Osama? Because thats not what he is trained for.

If we get Bin Laden, assuming we haven't already, it is going to be because we get lucky with a bomb, not becuase we have more troops on the ground.

CTL

[quote name='CTLesq']
If we get Bin Laden, assuming we haven't already, it is going to be because we get lucky with a bomb, not becuase we have more troops on the ground.

CTL[/quote]

Yeah, screw the war in Afghanistan, Iraq is easier pickings. Luckily, we got Saddam with a bomb after he went into hiding, no troops needed.

Reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons:

Homer: Hey, how come you never play your guitar any more?

Bart: I'll tell ya the truth, Dad. I wasn't good at it right away, so
I quit. I hope you're not mad.

Homer: [sweetly] Son, come here! Heh heh heh...
[Bart sits on Homer's knee]
Of course I'm not mad. If something's hard to do, then it's not
worth doing! You just stick that guitar in the closet next to your
short-wave radio, your karate outfit and your unicycle, and we'll
go inside and watch TV.

[quote name='CTLesq']
And at what point has enough time gone by with Iraq complicating the search for WMD before you pull the plug and clean them out?

The inspections were not perfect and not continous for 12 years but how long are you willing to play games?

I would suggest that the stakes have reach such enormity we can no longer wait.

You really want to claim containment of Iraq? You think thats a good policy? You think you can contain terrorists?

CTL[/quote]

CTLesq,

What high stakes? It has been proven, over and over again, that Iraq had no ties to terrorism and was not an active threat. Containment was working -- hence, the absence of WMDs. And Iraq never attacked us or threatened to attack us. So where is this urgency you're talking about?

The invasion of Iraq did nothing to further the War on Terrorism, and actually hurt the effort against terrorism by making the country into a terrorist breeding ground.

Although the war in Iraq may not have been justified on the basis of WMDs, how can you say that the war is completely unjustified?

Saddam was a tyrannical leader who would kill or fatally injure his own people just to prove a point. Hell, his son would torture the soccer team if they didn't win. He killed 50,000 men, women and children, and is guilty of far too many human rights violations.

How could you say that removing Saddam from power was not in the world's best interest? Not only did he openly admit to having WMDs, he had them in the past during the Gulf War when we were defending Kuwait. Clearly, such a man should not remain in power of his own country. Women were entitled to almost nothing, and he was an extremely oppressive dictator. The man also supported Palestine - big time - and who is Palestine a threat to? Possibly our greatest middle-eastern interest - Israel. Failing to protect and aid Israel would be a big mistake on any president's part. So - indirectly - we are helping out Israel.

And also, when a man is given intelligence that says that there are WMDs, and he says so, then how is he lying? (all you who have not should read the 9/11 Commission Report, btw - it will make you stfu about a few things)

And I challenge your diction that Bush is the one who pissed off N. Korea - wrong. N. Korea was already pissed off and I doubt Gore, Clinton or Bush could have done anything to dissuade them from developing nuclear weapons. What happens with N. Korea, we will have to see.

And I will tell you that until it is proven - beyond a doubt - that George "went AWOL" before 'Nam, you cannot make accusations about that; it's exactly like what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are doing to Kerry. And guess who else ditched the draft? Clinton. Although he publicly has admitted to this, it baffles me that the media did not slam him more on this, and yet is slamming Bush to no end.

[quote name='Empyrical']
If it is the former, then it would surprise me to see so many liberals on these boards, especially considering that some of the more prominent liberal politicians *coughLiebermancough* hate videogames.[/quote]

Lieberman wants to ban violent games.

Ashcroft wants to ban everything that conflicts with the beliefs of the religious right. The Religious Right wants to ban everything from Pokemon to Doom.

[quote name='Empyrical']And also, when a man is given intelligence that says that there are WMDs, and he says so, then how is he lying?[/quote]

He's lying because he also had evidence that there were no WMDs which he chose to ignore.

[quote name='Empyrical']Although the war in Iraq may not have been justified on the basis of WMDs, how can you say that the war is completely unjustified?
[/quote]

Not completely unjustified, IMO, but not NEARLY worth the cost (in lives, dollars, and geopolitcal stability/goodwill toward the US).

I don't see how either Bush OR Kerry could possibly say that they think invading was a good idea even without the "imminent threat" of WMD. (Yes both have said that now....why?)

Yes Saddam was "evil" and things in Iraq weren't the way they are here. But how can you say we should invade just because they aren't doing things the way we do? In Saudi Arabia women's rights are oppressed. Let's invade there as well. Hell, in all the Islamic oountries women don't have equal rights. Let's get em all!

Obviously I am being extreme and not serious, but it's just to illustrate why I disagree with some of your points.

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Empyrical']And also, when a man is given intelligence that says that there are WMDs, and he says so, then how is he lying?[/quote]

He's lying because he also had evidence that there were no WMDs which he chose to ignore.[/quote]

And what evidence would that be MrStandardofBeyondReasonableDoubt?

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Empyrical']And also, when a man is given intelligence that says that there are WMDs, and he says so, then how is he lying?[/quote]

He's lying because he also had evidence that there were no WMDs which he chose to ignore.[/quote]

And what evidence would that be MrStandardofBeyondReasonableDoubt?[/quote]

The evidence from Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke for starters.

[quote name='Empyrical']Saddam was a tyrannical leader who would kill or fatally injure his own people just to prove a point. Hell, his son would torture the soccer team if they didn't win. He killed 50,000 men, women and children, and is guilty of far too many human rights violations.[/quote]

There are many other countries with similarly poor human rights records. Why haven't we invaded any of them? Aren't the Repubs the folks who don't want America to become the world's policeman?

How could you say that removing Saddam from power was not in the world's best interest? Not only did he openly admit to having WMDs, he had them in the past during the Gulf War when we were defending Kuwait.

Click to expand...

I repeat: We had weapons inspectors in-country that could have verified the absence of WMDs. Bush pulled them out so he could invade.

Women were entitled to almost nothing, and he was an extremely oppressive dictator.

Click to expand...

Actually, Iraqi women had many more rights than women in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. Are we invading them next?

The man also supported Palestine - big time - and who is Palestine a threat to? Possibly our greatest middle-eastern interest - Israel. Failing to protect and aid Israel would be a big mistake on any president's part. So - indirectly - we are helping out Israel.

Click to expand...

If you think the new Iraqi government is pro-Israel, think again:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress has fired one of its most senior members for visiting Israel, a spokesman for the group said Monday.
      During an emergency meeting, the leadership of the former exile group decided to ``fire Mithal al-Alusi from the Iraqi National Conference,'' spokesman Haidar al-Mousawi told The Associated Press.
      Al-Alusi's visit to a terrorism conference angered his colleagues, who said they learned about the trip from the media. A part of Chalabi's inner circle, al-Alusi headed the de-Baathification Committee, which fired thousands of members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from their jobs.
      Israel's daily Haaretz quoted al-Alusi as saying that many elements in Iraq are interested in diplomatic ties with Israel.
      ``His statements, which were carried by the media, do not represent the Iraqi National Congress' point of view,'' an INC statement said.
      Iraq had been one of Israel's harshest enemies in the Arab world until the collapse of Saddam's regime. Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has said Iraq will not make any move to normalize relations with Israel before other Arab nations do so.

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=44035

And I challenge your diction that Bush is the one who pissed off N. Korea - wrong. N. Korea was already pissed off and I doubt Gore, Clinton or Bush could have done anything to dissuade them from developing nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

Do some reading. North and South Korea were engaging in talks to normalize relations, something that could have brought down the DMZ and brought peace to that region, when Bush clod-hopped all over the diplomatic process.

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Empyrical']And also, when a man is given intelligence that says that there are WMDs, and he says so, then how is he lying?[/quote]

He's lying because he also had evidence that there were no WMDs which he chose to ignore.[/quote]

And what evidence would that be MrStandardofBeyondReasonableDoubt?[/quote]

The evidence from Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke for starters.[/quote]

So you have none then.

Perhaps if you are in college you could take a class on having evidence while trying to make a point.

CTL

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Empyrical']And also, when a man is given intelligence that says that there are WMDs, and he says so, then how is he lying?[/quote]

He's lying because he also had evidence that there were no WMDs which he chose to ignore.[/quote]

And what evidence would that be MrStandardofBeyondReasonableDoubt?[/quote]

The evidence from Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke for starters.[/quote]

So you have none then.

Perhaps if you are in college you could take a class on having evidence while trying to make a point.

CTL[/quote]

Did you take that before or after Ignoring Evidence You Don't Want To Hear 101?

[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Empyrical']And also, when a man is given intelligence that says that there are WMDs, and he says so, then how is he lying?[/quote]

He's lying because he also had evidence that there were no WMDs which he chose to ignore.[/quote]

And what evidence would that be MrStandardofBeyondReasonableDoubt?[/quote]

The evidence from Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke for starters.[/quote]

So you have none then.

Perhaps if you are in college you could take a class on having evidence while trying to make a point.

CTL[/quote]

That evidence would be from the weapons inspectors. They found nothing.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also stated that while intelligence was faulty, "the evidence also seems overwhelming that the Bush administration pushed existing evidence well beyond its breaking point, exaggerating threats and claiming specific knowledge of Iraqi WMD where in reality no such knowledge existed." The paper also came down hard on the administration for linking Saddam Hussein directly to al Qaeda -- which was in opposition to intelligence reports.

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='David85']I wasn't here as much because of college has started, but what is with this sudden "chicken Bush" thing? I thought it would be "Crazy Bush" or Ignorant Bush" or Ignorant Bigot Bush", but how is Bush a chicken?[/quote]

Evidently some 7-year-old thought it was funny or something. I think most of us are adults here and we should be talking about issues, not doing the lame name-calling thing.[/quote]


Maybe you should tell the people running for president that....

[quote name='Empyrical']Saddam was a tyrannical leader who would kill or fatally injure his own people just to prove a point. Hell, his son would torture the soccer team if they didn't win. He killed 50,000 men, women and children, and is guilty of far too many human rights violations.[/quote]

Actually, he killed a lot more than that, hundreds of thousands over his years in power.

[quote name='David85'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='David85']I wasn't here as much because of college has started, but what is with this sudden "chicken Bush" thing? I thought it would be "Crazy Bush" or Ignorant Bush" or Ignorant Bigot Bush", but how is Bush a chicken?[/quote]

Evidently some 7-year-old thought it was funny or something. I think most of us are adults here and we should be talking about issues, not doing the lame name-calling thing.[/quote]


Maybe you should tell the people running for president that....[/quote]

Haha, amen!

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Empyrical']Saddam was a tyrannical leader who would kill or fatally injure his own people just to prove a point. Hell, his son would torture the soccer team if they didn't win. He killed 50,000 men, women and children, and is guilty of far too many human rights violations.[/quote]

Actually, he killed a lot more than that, hundreds of thousands over his years in power.[/quote]


He started a war with Iran which I think killed 1.2 million people. Someone check my numbers through.

[quote name='David85'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Empyrical']Saddam was a tyrannical leader who would kill or fatally injure his own people just to prove a point. Hell, his son would torture the soccer team if they didn't win. He killed 50,000 men, women and children, and is guilty of far too many human rights violations.[/quote]

Actually, he killed a lot more than that, hundreds of thousands over his years in power.[/quote]


He started a war with Iran which I think killed 1.2 million people. Someone check my numbers through.[/quote]

I have no doubt it is in the millions if you count his wars. I was only referring to his crimes against his own people, like hundreds of thousands executed, having their hands cut off, Kurds gassed, etc etc.