That's my Bush

By Chuck Soder
210 west Writer [send email]

To anyone who calls President Bush a liar, a thief, a murderer or, dare I say, a dictator, hear these words from someone who knows one when he sees one — Iraqi President Saddam Hussein:

“Bush has a long way to go before he can match me,” Saddam said. “My hands are red with the blood of the innocent. His are merely a light pink.”

Okay, well, maybe Saddam didn’t say that, exactly. Being a parody paper, The Onion probably isn’t a great source. But, though the quote may be fake, it sure does make a good point.

Real dictators are a thousand times worse than George W. Bush. Still, some folks say Bush is out to destroy all that’s good in the name of oil, politics and other things evil.

Admittedly, the anti-Bush crowd isn’t always so extreme. Most critics clock in, mock his English and clock out. But the attacks get more vicious with each day that fails to uncover weapons in Iraq. Yeah, once in a while Bush needs a good slap — for instance, he said on July 30 that he’s trying to pass a law to make sure gay marriage never becomes legal. If you want to call him a homophobe, that’s your cue.

But he’s no liar, no thief, no murderer and certainly no dictator.

Liberals have recently fallen in love with ripping on the following statement from Bush’s State of the Union Address:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

The CIA didn’t even believe the statement — they discredited it months before Bush delivered his annual address. Yet, he said it. And he was wrong.
Such a slip is a goldmine for Bush haters.

False words from his mouth — a lie! Liar! He used his lies to further his war mongering!

First, to be a real liar requires actually trying to lie. Bush had no such intention.
Just before an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati, the CIA told Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to pull those 16 words from Bush’s speech. And Hadley did just that.

Later, he didn’t. Hadley said he forgot, so he took the blame.

Well, being the leader of the free world and all, Bush is technically responsible for what finally gets into his speech. But he’s “technically” responsible for a mountain of things. Being president is a demanding job, and it’s easy to fall short once in a while.

Former President Bill Clinton knows this from experience. In an interview with Larry King, Clinton surprisingly sympathized with his ideological opposite: “You know, everybody makes mistakes when they’re president. I mean, you can’t make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while.”

Not only was the statement unintentional, Bush didn’t try to hide it, either.

The error wasn’t unearthed by the New York Times. No one grabbed a scoop, except for maybe the Bush Administration, who admitted the mistake the minute it went public.

Bush didn’t have to be honest about it. There was an easier way out — Tony Blair’s way. The British Prime Minister still stands by the idea that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. And in America, siding with Blair is a wise political move. A study by the Pew Research Center shows that 83 percent of Americans said they respect Blair, according to a New York Times column by Nicholas Kristof. In the minds of Americans, that makes him the most trusted leader in the world, more so than Bush himself.

But to side with Blair would’ve been the easy way out. Honest men don’t always take the easy way.

Liberals can’t prove that Bush lied on purpose, but they’re certain of one thing: He and his family have lots of ties to the oil industry.

Aha! Iraq has oil, and Bush was in the oil biz! What are the odds that he’s not in Iraq just to siphon off some Texas tea?

Not only is trimming the income tax a mortal sin, being in the oil industry is, too. “No blood for oil” has become more than an anti-war, anti-Bush slogan — it’s almost a catch phrase. Right up there with any line from “Forrest Gump.” That phrase — and every other comment about Bush’s oil lust — is based on the one, tiny fact that he was a Texas oilman.

Beyond this, there’s zero evidence that Dubya’s been depositing personal checks with “Iraqi oil cash” written in the memo. Oil does, however, play a role in the war’s aftermath: a positive one.

Bush said in the State of the Union Address that he plans to earn Iraqi oil in exchange for services — necessary ones, like fixing Iraqi infrastructure. It’s not wrong to want something in return for all the money we’ve been spending on them.

They get a rebuilt country and America (not Bush) gets oil. That’s what economists everywhere call “trade,” not “theft.”

So, he’s honest in word and action. No liar, no thief. He has, however, let people die by invading Iraq.

He started a war against a country that poses no immediate threat! He’s responsible for the killing of a few thousand Iraqis and more than 200 Americans!
Doesn’t that make him a murderer?

Yes, on Bush’s command, people have died. More will die before this conflict ends. But the only other option was to let Saddam do whatever he wants.

That’s a scary thought. First, Saddam did have weapons, and boy, was he dangerous. Just because the military hasn’t found weapons in Iraq doesn’t mean Bush was wrong about their existence. Heck, he wouldn’t be the only one to misjudge the Iraqi arsenal. Tons of people were once certain Saddam was packing heat, including most of the Democrats planning to run for president in 2004.

Clinton sided with Bush, too. He still does, according to his interview with King: “[It was] incontestable that on the day I left office there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq.” He went on to say regime change was justified.

Clinton siding with Bush? Twice? Uday and Qusay, grab your parkas, ‘cause hell must be getting mighty cold. But I guess even the strongest political barriers fall in the face of hard facts: a) Saddam had WMD in the 1990s. b) He was ordered by the United Nations to destroy them and provide proof. c) The proof was nowhere. d) When we went looking for it, he sent us home.

Why would he not provide proof to the United Nations when they (at the time) authorized the use of force? Why would he kick out inspectors?

The man had something to hide.

He’s been known to hide stuff, too. If not weapons, weapons paraphernalia: one Iraqi scientist told Americans he was forced to bury pieces of a centrifuge in his rose garden to hide them from inspectors.

So, where are the weapons now? Who knows. Iraq is a big country full of possible “rose gardens.” They might not even be in Iraq anymore. Like a coke dealer in a drug raid, Saddam could’ve easily flushed his stash.

Even if Saddam destroyed his weapons years ago and simply forgot to tell the world, the war was justified on humanitarian reasons alone.

Saddam has killed hundreds of thousands in his own country and a few in his own family. He’s killed Americans and would kill more if given the chance. He publicly praised the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, even if he didn’t play a role. He loved the sight of thousands of innocents dying.

Saddam is the mother of all serial killers. His sons were ready to follow his lead.

Now, he’s gone. His sons are dead.

For some reason, this is no consolation for the anti-war crowd. The craziest of them want the U.S. military to get out of Iraq now.

Combat is never going to end. We’re fighting an endless war, and nothing we’ve accomplished so far is worth another Vietnam!

Yeah, it’s going to be a long time before we’re out of Iraq, but it will absolutely never compare to Vietnam. Some critics fail to mention that said “police action” killed about a bazillion more people.

• American casualties in Iraq: +200

• American casualties in Vietnam: +57,000

• Total casualties in Iraq: a few thousand

• Total casualties in Vietnam: a few million

Even small death tolls are tragic, but not tragic enough to justify leaving Iraq. Saddam and his cronies could just waltz right back in. Critics too easily forget that the first 30 years under Hussein rule killed hundreds of thousands. A second 30 years would likely double the total.

Bush doesn’t want that to happen. In the end, his plan saves lives.

So if Bush doesn’t lie, steal or needlessly murder, how can he be a dictator?

Saddam, on the other hand — there’s a guy who deserves the title. But I’ll let him speak for himself, as recorded by The Onion:

“I recently heard a critic of President Bush say he is a dictator,” Saddam said. “That made me laugh. George Bush, a dictator! My sons Uday and Qusay showed more viciousness at 10 years of age.”

Let’s be glad their reign of terror ended before it began. For that, Dubya deserves a big high-five.