Bush has done an OK job, but to say he is a danger would be a gross overstatement. He still works for the good of most American citizens.

Last time i checked there hasnt been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. I'd say we're more safe and a lot of the credit has to go towards Bush

Bush has been dangerous to America because:

1) His reaction to Islamist terrorism has encouraged radical Islamists and put the whole world in great jeopardy.

2) He's nullified much of the US Constitution and moved the USA closer to absolute fascism.

3) In order to enrich a few of his friends, he's wasted trillions of dollars that we desperately need for education and repair of our crumbling infrastructure.

4) He's put the USA in debt to fascist (formerly Red) China.

5) He's failed to kill the Gay Agender. (just kidding)

BTW, though he may have won the election of 2004 (based on the misperception that he struck back at the perpetrators of 9/11 by invading and occupying Iraq), Bush definitely did not win in 2000; he took power in a bloodless coup.

I might disagree with the President, I might hate him for what he did or said, but he is the one that was legally elected, and did not take the power by military strike. And considering him a biggest evil, bigger than terrorists is definite mistake. Think, it is impossible to be likeable by everybody, as opinion are split in the society.

His time as president is just about over. I do not agree with a lot he has done but to have him rated as the most dangerous to America is just wrong when you compare him to murders like OBL.

Should have war crimes trial. Include many in administration.

need more like him in america.

He won a highly controversial election in 2000 with a lot of help from "Chad and Brother Jeb" in FL. The rest has been all downhill. Look at what he has done to undermine all that we HAD. Dangerous because he is still in office and it will continue to get WORSE as long as he is there. Hopefully we can recover as a nation after this fiasco because we are in deep trouble whether you believe it or choose to ignore the facts.

Why didn't he simply ask Congress for permission to use wiretaps? Because he didn't think he had to. Why didn't he go the court (the one that never, ever, refuses a gov't request) to get permission? Because he didn't think he had to. Don't you get tired of defending a man who looks at your laws as an irritant, a distraction, and an annoyance? "War on Terror"? All civilizations are at a war on terror. When has there ever been "Peace on Terror"? This is euphemistic language meant to strip civil liberties because he is either (1) dangerous or (2) too stupid to know the difference. Where is the conservative philosophy of less government? I'd love to vote with you if only you could stand by what you believe. Smell the sh#t? That's dubya wiping his ass with the Constitution. . .

You know, I'm always searching for liberals who can put aside the shrill, knee-jerk comments that every wing-nut spews. You know the ones, they're everywhere on this string. Just page down and read 5 or 6, you'll quickly get the idea. It takes courage to be a "thoughtful" liberal, one who thinks independently and dares to be unemotional and accurate. He/she would sound something like: "I didn't vote for this guy . . . either election, and I personally don't like him, his policies or most of the people in his administration. But to call him dangerous, without calling every politician, and every person in whom any level of trust is placed regarding national security matters, is really wrong. I'm surprised that we haven't had another terrorist attack, but success is only success and different styles work in different circumstances. He has really screwed up a few things and really done exceedingly well in a few others, but for the most part it's fair to say that Americans are safer today against terrorism due to two factors. The first is GWB's handling of the war on terror, is spite of mistakes, miscues and flubs. The second reason is that, like him or hate him, he did not and will not brush the threat of terrorism under the rug the way his predecessors tried to do. We are often reminded about the threat of another attack and, like it or not, that is one unpleasant truth which the American people don't like but cannot ignore. " It seems to me that most of the representative libs on this site would rather walk across a bed of hot coals than write something like that. Do I think he's dangerous? When he leaves office, Americans will be in greater danger, regardless of who succeeds him. No politician will have the single minded focus on terrorism that he has shown, and I'm sure that truth is not lost on the terrorists.

Dangerous, not because he's evil - but because of his power and the consequences of his abuses thereof. He may have made us MORE vulnerable to terrorism with the Iraq war, and he has ruined all of the international goodwill we had built up over the past 30 years. Foreign leaders might not have agreed with Reagan, but they respected him. They don't respect President Bush.

Only insofar as believing he can preemptively defeat abstract menaces through the historic failures of foreign policy. Curious George is an idealist who thinks x-amount of armed calm is going to produce a bumper crop of democracy in a field of theocratic thistles. That's never proven to be the case for that region, as the roots of religion run too deep within denizens who view anyone other than themselves as occupiers bent on bringing about infidelity. Like an Alzheimer's cotillion, regimes twirl hand-in-sweaty-hand, and the band keeps playing the same song. It would appear that Bush doesn't realize this, even though all the signs keep pointing to it. Now that we're wearing the promise ring and the letterman's sweater, "going all the way" would seem a likely wind-up to the prom, but Georgie continues to stumble out of the DeSoto, flaccid and frustrated (I'm not putting ALL the blame in his pockets; his predecessors have had the same non-success using various tactics over the years). It's a bitter pill to swallow, but the United States (and the rest of the world) will eventually have to accept it: if you're gonna do something of a certain magnitude, do it right and maintain it; otherwise, bide your time and plow REAL resources into national safety measures.

Bush is somewhat like contracting VD...it won't kill you, but, boy, your life is gonna suck until the incrustations go away.

It's not normally my style to be this blunt, but anyone who thinks that Pres. Bush is dangerous is to America is ignorant. You have the right to disagree with him politically, but to think that the President is more dangerous to America than terrorists or the possible looming threats from N. Korea and Iran, that's just plain ridiculous. Regardless of whether I agree with a politician's political viewpoint or not, I would not be biased enough to go so far as to believe that politician is more of a threat to his own country than those outside of our country who hold true hatred towards us for being who we are-Americans. Don't forget 9/11 and why 3,000 Americans were senselessly killed.

His personal motto must be Misery Loves Company. He spreads misery wherever he goes. UPDATE: LOL! I'm posting one for the wingnuts. That's the TRUE danger to America, because they are so maniacally confident that what is right for them is right for everybody else.

I am definitely liberal, but do not fall into the category of blindly hating Bush. Is there a way that you can consider Bush and only Bush a danger to America? For all of the 5-star rating, please tell me how so? Is there a way that he may be relieved of all responsibility of many bad things that have happened since he has been in office, of course not. He was handed a ticking bomb his first 4-year term and any Democratic President would likely have had similar difficulties not to mention 9/11. So, it is hard to categorize Bush as a danger to America, but not so hard to categorize him as a 2nd-term mistake. I can't rate this item 5 or even 2. He is not a danger, just unhealthy...in my opinion. The creator of this list should really get a handle on it. Selections like Bush, the Republican Party, Karl Rove just enter you into the same fallacious reasoning that Bush practices when he decides that X is a danger to America and must be removed/destroyed without question or explanation. You can't just generalize everything and expect to have a broad base of support. "Bush is a Danger to America" attracts blind support from hardcore liberals, thus a five-star rating. As do many unjustified arguments from the President attract blind support from hardcore conservatives.

He is dangerous to all the whining approaching socialist liberal whimps out there like Cindy Sheehan and seemingly quite a few here yes. To America..Not at all.

No, President Bush is dangerous to the Taliban, Al-Queda, Saddam Hussein, and liberals.

This man has probably done more damage to America than any other.

Yeah, and Clinton didn't inhale.

Whoever agrees with this President deserves what they get. Itll be 15 years before its clear to everyone just how much he has damaged this country. If you dont have a Plan B youll be here to experience it first hand. Its really hard to believe that so many people can be fooled by so many distractions while he and his ilk plunder America.

Here we go again. Satan incarnate, right?

Saddam never scared me more than old george does, he is nothing more than an incompetant screw up who is in over his head.

Let your eyes be your judge.

A lot less dangerous than the next 20 people in line to take his place. Think what would happen if he wasn't reigning in some of PNAC's grand plans.

Dangerous only in the sense that some of his policies have not borne the fruit he expected. If this question implies that somehow or other Bush is a subversive or has singlehandedly screwed up the country, it's off base.

how could our president be dangerous to us?

USA is spiralling into debt and the rest of the world hates him 'cos he is playing world police, one day he will do something that other western countries won't have a bar of.