The results of a recent poll show that the British think that Bush is the second most dangerous man in the world, just behind bin Laden. But I think the Brits are wrong; Bush is more dangerous than bin Laden because bin Laden is sitting in a dank cave somewhere in the Middle East, surrounded by a ragtag handful of poorly educated misfits and losers, whereas Bush is an incompetent bible-thumping elitist with anger management issues who is currently sitting on top of the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the entire world, surrounded by a ragtag group of professional crooks, pedophiles and brown-nosers. Who do you think we should fear more?
President Bush's image was dealt another blow this weekend as a poll conducted in Britain found that the American president is the second most dangerous man in the world.
British respondents who were asked who in their opinion is the man that most endangers world peace placed Bush as the second most dangerous man, only second to al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
An international poll published in The Guardian found that Bush is perceived to be more dangerous than dictators like North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Cited story.
- Log in to post comments
sad but true.
I'll agree with the characterization of the Bush administration, but IIRC, Bin Laden is supported by a bunch of middle class, college educated guys (pissed because the oil aristocracy won't give them jobs and wives) who incidentially use some poor, tribal rubes by tricking them with theology.
The difference between them and the Bush administration is that Bush et al are oil rich aristocrats who incidentially use poor, rural rubes by tricking them with theology.
So I'd say the problem is that Bin Laden wants to be Bush.
Okay, not sleeping well tonight. This was not as amusing on inspection as it was at first glance, all things considered.