The British had no difficulty distinguising Hitler's projection of power from America's in 1942.

I believe the poll conflates "power" (or military might) with the illegitimate use of military power: the ability to project power is distinct from the moral justifications for doing so. The U.S. military was deployed in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power and to prevent Iraq from supplanting the recently sanitized Afghanistan as a base of operations for AQ. The WMD justification was highlighted merely because it was politically expedient to do so. That said, they did expect to find more WMDs. North Korea's pursuit of military power, while her citizens are literally starving to death, poses an entirely distinct moral question. If you assume that Bush and Jong Il are morally equivalent, you must at least recognize the relative freedom the citizens of each country had in choosing their leader. When is the next North Korean presidential election?

The implicit moral equivalency between the North Korean Dictator and the President of the United States reduces the poll question to an absurdity. One need only observe the freedoms enjoyed by Americans (not to mention their standard of living) and contrast that with the totalitarian militarism and forced starvation of the North Koreans, to understand the vast moral canyon which separates Bush from Kim Jong Il.

The U.S. military was deployed in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power and to prevent Iraq from supplanting the recently sanitized Afghanistan as a base of operations for AQ.

Ummm, anyone who knows anything about Saddam and Iraq knows that AQ and Islamic raduicals were a threat to Saddam's power. Remaining in power was Saddam's only goal. Saddam was a bullwork against Islamic fanaticism, that's why we supported him for 30 years.

Saddam was a thug. He was our thug. Removing Saddam and his thugs cleared the way for terrorists to gain a foothold in that country.

You've named yourself well, Jack. "Cause you know Jack Squat about the Middle East, or very much else, I imagine.

Ease off on the Kool-Aid my friend.

Sigh I see the trolls are up early this morning.

Looks like I'll have to make another donation in opposition to No on 43 to help beat those reproductive freedom hating right-wingers. And since I'm in the spirit of giving I might as well make one more donation to Brading so we can send that Big Polluter-loving Rep. Minnis back to the Pizza-Making business.

But since I'm feeling so generous, let me offer some help to the troll so that they might better understand "the vast moral canyon which separates Bush and Kim Jong Ill." Lets look at a few numbers:

21,419 = Number of US soldiers wounded in combat because of George Bush's foreign policy.

3,061 = Number of US and coalition forces killed in Iraq because of George Bush.

54,162 = Number of Iraqis killed by George Bush's policy.

30 = Too many days for the month of February.

In sum, I'd say that in trying to determining who is most evil of the two, Kim Jong Ill vs. George W. Bush, that race is too close to call.

PS: Thank you troll! You got me all fired up this morning! See you at the election night parties!

Pat:

Ever heard "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

What AQ shared with Saddam was animosity towards the U.S. and a willingness to use mass homicide to achieve their objectives. There are plenty of documents that demonstrate Iraqi agents had contact with AQ: a wider partnership was only a matter of time.

Liberals seem to think that Saddam wasn't a threat to the region because he hadn't invaded anybody lately. I would bet $100- that the Kuwaitis and the Iranians felt Saddam was a very real threat to peace in the middle east (pre-spider cave).

Ironically, I expect 90% of BlueOregon readers would say George Bush is a greater threat to peace than Kim Jong Il? Ruminate on that for a while.

And direct any donations in my name to Paul Evans: at least he knows he's working for the good guys.