ROFL: Random Outbursts From Lar! LarryNocella.com

28Apr/08Off

Bush responsible for more American deaths than Bin Laden

Everyone knows you can quote statistics how you like to make your point. So it was with a very skeptical mind that I examined the following thought when it occurred to me:

Osama Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans needlessly on 9/11. George W. Bush killed over 4,050 Americans needlessly in Iraq. Therefore, Bush is more dangerous to Americans.

Living in the USA my whole life, I've been taught from a young age that the president is someone to be respected, admired, nearly worshipped. As an adult, I'm not so swayed by the trappings of royalty, the bluster of the wealthy class, or the traditions of admiring the emperor's clothes. Even so, some remnant part of my grade school mind recoiled at the fact.

Is it possible? Is it so that Bin Laden, the sworn enemy of the USA, is actually LESS deadly for Americans than The President? Though President Bush certainly doesn't deserve the mental acrobatics, I tried to punch a hole in what was implied by the cold data.

* * *

Bush just wanted to make the world a better place.
This argument vaporizes. So did Bin Laden. So did Hitler. So did The Crusaders. Wherever there are lots of people dying, the one who caused it is safe far away, claiming it's all to make the world a better place.

Bush did not intend to kill Americans.
This has some merit. Bin Laden intended to kill Americans. Bush would have been fine (one hopes) if, as his goon squad predicted, American troops were greeted in Iraq as liberators, but do intentions mean anything? Actions and results are what matter. Believe if you choose that Bush doesn't want to kill Americans, but Americans end up dead when he's in charge, more than when someone is specifically trying to kill them.

What about financial damage?
Numbers on the internet are all over the place (sites can't even agree on how many zeroes constitute a billion.) Regardless, Bush's War in Iraq is always listed higher, as much as five times higher. 9/11 was terribly damaging financially, but it was a one-day event. Compare that to a five year-plus war. Like the death count, the financial cost of Bush's War in Iraq keeps growing.

What if you could live next door to Bush or Bin Laden?
What is this thought doing here? Anyway, I would choose neither. I distrust anyone who manipulates others for their goals. I conjured up several other what-if questions like this one. For example: Would you rather have Bin Laden as president instead of Bush? Who cares? This is all theoretical; it doesn't change the actual body count.

Civilians versus Armed Forces
Bin Laden killed primarily American civilians, Bush has killed primarily American military personnel. True, but I'm personally reluctant to imply that military lives mean less. Their families grieve just the same. Their families still wish that an influential man had not put them in harm's way for his own ambitions.

Bush's War in Iraq was necessary
If that is what you believe, then the comparison between Bush and Bin Laden means little, unless maybe you're the family of one of those 4,050-plus, then maybe (but not necessarily) you might have hard feelings toward Bush. What convinces me that Bush's War in Iraq was desired and not needed was all the deception. The Bush Administration went to great lengths to make the war in Iraq happen. They committed treason by exposing a CIA agent when her husband went against their plans, they used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to attack Iraq, they lied about weapons in Iraq. The list goes on and on. If the war was so necessary, the case for it could have been made without such antics.

What about other presidents who led the nation to war that resulted in millions of casualties? Could they be said to be as dangerous as Bin Laden? Isn't being dangerous a side-effect of being powerful?
Not a bad point, but we can't do anything about the past. War should be avoided as much as possible, but that's rarely the case (not matter what words deny it.) Regardless of what happened then, I can only speak out about now. Bush's War in Iraq was started ostensibly as a result of the actions of an evil man named Bin Laden. I think they were more the result of an evil man named Bush. I would agree lots of wars were unnecessary, though. World War I and Vietnam come immediately to mind.

* * *

This all brings us to the common pro-war justification: "It's better to fight them there than here." No. Actually, it's not. The really dangerous enemy is the one that is close to you, that knows you and your home. Seeing the confrontation the US military has endured from the locals in Iraq and Afghanistan, a better offense against terrorism would be a strong defense. In short, it would be better to fight "them" here with more secure infrastructure, better airport security, relevant surveillance and a civilian population supportive of such efforts. Plus, the military wouldn't be fulfilling Bin Laden's dreams of uniting the Arab world against the USA.

Stroll through the graveyard or check the bills and it's shockingly clear: George W. Bush is more dangerous to Americans than Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden's actions began and climaxed with 9/11. Bush probably grew more dangerous (was responsible for more American deaths) as you read this.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Filed under: Uncategorized No Comments