George W. Bush is ...

Of course, if I were to read Chris' stuff and assume it as fact, I'd have to shoot myself in the face just to eliminate my threat to humankind.

 

At least I try to give reasons for my beliefs. Most of you spout off with "everyone knows" or some such group think.

You want to disagree with my positions - have the intellectual honesty to disprove my assertions or numbers using facts - not personal attacks (it just makes you look immature and foolish).

 

Can you go back to talking like a pirate?

 

Is a minimum of 40,000 civilian Iraqis killed since the invasion began enough of a fact for you?

You know, the oens who weren't around to "enjoy(ed) similar electrical service to residents of NYC and St. Louis this year."

 

....Hooked on a feeling

....Looking for a H-h-h-heartbeat

 

Only good as the anti-Bush Kool-Aid you drink by the gallon.

 

Right, because car bombs killing dozens of people go off in Detroit on a daily basis.

Detroit averages one murder a day. Baghdad averages 100.

By the way, the "high estimate" of civilian deaths is nowhere near 37,000. The Lancet study in 2004 said it was over 100,000.

Also, the child-mortality problem is getting worse, not better, because of the chaos in the cities:

 

Zeke - obviously you are not a math major.

You say 40,000 civilians were killed since the war began (3-years).

UNICEF was saying that 60,000 children under the age of 5 were dying every year because of Saddam Hussein and his policies. That's 180,000 children in 3-years (not to mention the adults who were being killed under Saddam).

You act like this has not been a vast improvement. I don't get it.

 

Simply using your post and the post right before you by Knighthawk...

60K children under 5 children were dying under Saddam
68.8K children under 5 children are dying now.

That is an increase in death, not an increase in positive news.

 

Did I say Bush has been successful? No.

How is it a false comparison? Every president in roughly the last 60 years has tried to 'fix' the Middle East. None of those attempts have been successful over the long term. Chances are no president in the future will be successful either.

This is not a problem that can be fixed. Both sides have hated each other for hundreds of years and they aren't going to stop hating each other any time soon. The only way this gets solved is by one side destroying the other. People don't like to believe that though.

 

One source says 60,000 children under 5 were dying in Iraq before Saddam. Another says 6,880 died per year after Saddam.

Am I reading this wrong, or is this almost a 90-percent decrease?

 

The Lancet Study has been highly criticized for its methodology and its politicization (it was rushed into print just days before the US presidential election). They would have you believe that just 5 families out of the 988 asked refused to be interviewed. Never mind the small sample size - people were terrified of talking to strangers in Iraq after years of abuse by Saddam Hussein yet the Lancet would have you believe that just 5 out 988 decided not to go "on the record" and make themselves targets for possible reprisals. As far as being biased - take this paragraph from the Lancet study and tell me the conclusion wasn't draw before the numbers were crunched (emphasis added):

And I'm assuming you weren't a math major either - 6,800 is a great improvement over 60,000