Home / What Would Bush Do, If He Was Truly Evil?

What Would Bush Do, If He Was Truly Evil?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Many on the Left claim Bush is an unspeakably evil man. While this is clearly not the reality, what if it was? The following are some ideas of how an Evil Bush would act:

– He would do everything in his power to prevent Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik from getting on the ballot in key swing states

– He would have planted WMDs in Iraq after it became obvious that stockpiles of the real deal were not forthcoming

– He would coordinate with FOX News to have forged documents that claim horrible things about Kerry aired on television as fact

– He would have had Cheney fake a severe illness just before the GOP convention and place Powell or McCain on the ticket in his place

– He would have seized the oil fields in Iraq, claimed victory, and let the rest of the country rot

– He would stage a terrorist attack just before the election, and “temporarily” cancel the election until the “threat” passed

Any other ideas on how the Left’s hallucination of “Evil Bush” would act?

Powered by

About RJ

  • Perhaps Evil Bush would see the coming train wreck of unfunded entitlement programs coming up in just a few short years, and then purposely exacerbate the problem by adding a whole new entitlement program, such as free prescription drugs for Medicare or some such preposterous idea.

  • Ouch, Al.

    That wouldn’t be evil, that would be liberal. Ok, I see your point. But even more evil would be doing away with the entitlements.

    Or how about drafting everyone on welfare and sending them to Iraq?

  • Eric Olsen

    very interesting concept RJ, you come up with a lot of them

    Another is, his minions would be taking full advantage of every possible interpretation of the Patriot Act to suppress dissent, intimidate with baseless investigations, etc. While the most paranoid among us have alleged all these things and more, clearly they aren’t happening.

    Bush is a politician and often behaves as such, and I disagree with his blurring the line between his personal religious beliefs and the law of the land, but I see no evidence of malevolence.

  • Perhaps if Bush were truly evil, he’d push through an Orwellian-ly named “Patriot Act” with broad new authorities for law enforcement, and then have his AG absolutely BRAGGING in front of senators about using it to get drug dealers and mere pornographers. Dirty bombs, dirty movies – what’s the dif?

  • bhw

    I don’t know about you, but I feel a LOT safer with less pornography around.

  • Vern Halen

    I’ve ben reading the politcal content here at blogcritics for the past few weeks, and have been keeping my nose out of this – there’s so many people who argue their points very intelligently & passionately. Personally, I’ve voted on both the political left and right, so I don’t feel overly bound by any ideology. But so much of what I’ve read simply makes the case for why one candidate is better than the other. I would be interested to hear why Bush & Kerry supporters think their own man would be a good president at all. Furthermore, are/were there any potential candidates in either the Rep. or Dem. camps that would have been better than the current candidates?

  • Vern,

    No one ran against Bush, so no on that front.

    Being an observer on the right side of the aisle, it seemed to me that Howard Dean was more in touch with the liberal mind than Kerry is. People seemed excited about Dean, whereas polls (yeah I know) show that a large percentage of people who say they are going to vote for Kerry quantify their vote as “against Bush” rather than “for Kerry”. But Dean sort of imploded…

  • I don’t think Dean really screwed up. It was more that the party regular took a second look, and figured (probably rightly) that Dean was not a viable candidate in the general election against Bush.

    They’d have probably been better off sticking with their real love. Dean at least did have a pretty clear position on the war. Plus he would have no equivalent to the infamous anti-war activities of Kerry. Nor would critics be able to paint him as a flip-flopper.

  • Eric Olsen

    I can see the ads now: “Do you want this man with his finger on the trigger?” (shot of unhinged Dean, face puffed and red, neck bulging, showing signs of possible tensile failure, finger poised ominously)

  • Vern,

    Joe Biden for the Dems and John McCain for the Republicans.

    McCain is only helf-better, though, as he sided with the neocons on invading Iraq so that mess might still be here. Or maybe not, because he was more likely to listen Shinseki.

    Biden would be far, far better than Bush or McCain on foreign policy (and would handle questions better than Kerry), but I don’t know where he stands on domestic issues.

  • boomcrashbaby

    I wanted Dean to win (because of his domestic record, he made Vermont a very financially successful and tolerant state) and then I wanted him to give Wes Clark, Rumsfeld’s job to handle terrorism.

    As for which Republican besides Bush? I can’t think of one that wouldn’t be strapped down by neo-con/fundamentalist ties/agenda. So I guess it would have to be any Republican from this new Republican party breakaway. Of course I don’t know their success in politics but their platform sounds like one that many people in the middle that I know of, would gravitate to.

  • JR

    I can see the ads now: “Do you want this man with his finger on the trigger?” (shot of unhinged Dean, face puffed and red, neck bulging, showing signs of possible tensile failure, finger poised ominously)

    Oddly enough, I find that far more reassuring than the image of the current guy with his finger on the trigger. You just can’t trust the aim of a cross-eyed moron.