http://www.fff.org/comment/com0610c.asp
2007-04-22 03:32:04 · 11 answers · asked by WORD UP G 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Not the biggest....the most stupid.
2007-04-22 03:35:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
i think of historians would be kinder to him than the media in this usa. He has made blunders, yet he has finished some issues o.k.. The tax cuts inspired the financial gadget after 9-11 and he did incredibly lots to enhance secure practices and counter terrorism and we've not had an attack on US soil back on his watch. The media has no longer been trouble-free to him as they only factor out the undesirable and not the reliable, while the violence decreased in Iraq, the U. S. information media left there. anybody who's relentlessly attacked via his enemies is doing something astonishing. So might human beings are unaware of his accomplishments because of the fact they are so narrow minded.
2016-10-28 16:42:32 · answer #2 · answered by boden 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush never was nor will ever be a Dictator!! He is not smart enough to have a job like that! Dictator's have to watch out because people who are to be friends will kill them if they act too stupid. Bush was elected by the People, so he will stay until his time is done!! DARN!!
2007-04-22 03:48:54 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To the people above who state that Bush was elected (and thus in their minds not a dictator) i remind them this: both Hitler and Stalin were also elected. So what?
As to whether he's the greatest dictator? If he's part of a dictatorship he simply doesn't know it.
2007-04-22 07:37:23 · answer #4 · answered by V 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good heavens no. I mean, look at the competition: Hitler, Stalin, Moa Zedong.
These lunatics were responsible for the death of millions of innocent victims.
Compared to them, Bush is a piker - he's only into the tens of thousands - or maybe the hundreds of thousands.
But give him a break - it's not all that easy to be a dictator when you're running a country that's still, theoretically at least, a democratic republic (and now that the Democrats are in charge of Congress, it's going to be even harder)
2007-04-22 03:42:47 · answer #5 · answered by johnslat 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. He's just a little fish in a big pond. The problem is that the rest of the world has to realise (realize) this.
2007-04-22 04:12:54 · answer #6 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
US President Bush was ELECTED and RE-ELECTED, and is Commander-in-Chief of an all-volunteer military.
Not only did Congress approve War on Terror, if you paid attention you know that President Clinton is who signed on for regime change in Iraq 31 October 1998. If you forgot, see the link below.
2007-04-22 04:03:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think if you left off the "tator" from your question, you would get a resounding YES!!!
2007-04-22 11:27:44 · answer #8 · answered by andromedasview@sbcglobal.net 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A. This isn't a historical question. Please put it into the correct section
B. Of course not! He's just a little...well....coco-loco (if you know what I mean)
2007-04-22 05:18:40 · answer #9 · answered by ncfan51 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, that was hitler. im thinking of bush as more of the dumbfounded than the dictatorship
2007-04-22 03:38:43 · answer #10 · answered by Joyous 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, that would be Bill Clinton
2007-04-22 04:22:11 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋