George W. Bush is ...

Those guys didn't pull the local plumber out of his life and that of his family in order to go over there and nation build, which is something I thought your boy Bush was vehemently against.

 

Which is completely irrelevant to the original point. Every president in the last 60 years has failed to fix the Middle East. GWB is just the next name to be added to the list. Followed in 2012 or 2016 by whoever succeeds him.

 

And my prediction from Page 1 comes true.

 

I don't drink it. I am assaulted by it.

 

First off, it's not our job to fix the Middle East, but whatever.

So, under your argument, we should not compare the balance of the actions taken by "presidents of the past 60 years" against those of the current clown? Are you actually implying that the diplomacy (or whatever) attempts by Clinton, Bush I, et al. are of equal weight to the current president pulling the local geometry teacher out of his/her class in order to build a nation?

So, Clinton's failed diplomacy was just as damaging as Bush committing us to a war that will take years to win, assuming it is, indeed, winnable? Well shit ... I feel a lot better now. Here I just thought my brother and all the other guys over there were risking their lives because the guy running our country made a colossal strategic boner, buttressed by a ham-handed and deceptive PR campaign. Now I get it ... it's just the next logical step in the great saga that is the Middle East  and all the dead merely speed bumps toward some eventual outcome of questionable merit.

 

Lester - couple of points

1. most Presidents in the last 60 years did not have to call up Reservists because they could just increase the number of draftees. How many local plumbers served in Korea or Viet Nam? Many more American soldiers died in those wars than have died in Iraq. Does that place truman, JFK and LBJ automatically below GWB?

2. The difference between the number of miltary deaths between Clinton's first term and Bush's is roughly 850 yet Bush was freeing the people of Afghanistan and Iraq from awful dictorships. Who was a better caretaker of the lives of the miltary - Bush or Clinton?

3. Did your neighbor or brother not volunteer?

Every American soldier who dies is a tragedy - I think history will rightly judge Bush for his accomplishments.

 

I agree with Lou here.

 

No beef with any of this.

And yes, my brother volunteered. He's a career soldier and vehemently anti-Bush, but he'll never complain. Done two tours and says the whole thing is pointless, but he has a job to do and he does it without complaint. Now, as for the guy down the street who signed up for the National Guard, I guess we can debate the ethics of what he signed up for and what he's actually doing ... but I really don't have any interest in delving that deeply into this circular Middle East debate or into GWB's legacy, heaven help his soul. (I really try to avoid political threads)

My ONLY point -- just so I am clear -- was to point out the silliness of anybody who suggests that Bush and his presidential predecessors are on equal footing because all have failed to solve the riddle of the Middle East. Can we agree that that is total nonsense?

 

I can agree with that.

 

Funny, but an awful lot of people around the world seem to think it is. Otherwise they wouldn't keep asking us to do something about it.

Several pages back somebody pointed out that Bush's presidency should be judged more on his efforts in the Middle East than on anything else he may or may not accomplish.

My point is that if we held every president from Truman to Bush Part II to that standard then they would all be considered failures because none of them have been able to create lasting peace in that part of the world.

What about that point is so hard to understand? If creating peace in the Middle East is now the litmus test that determines the success of a presidency then our last 11 presidents were failures. And our next 11 will be too, regardless fo what else they accomplish.

 

I believe the person who made that statement was quoting Bush. I'm not sure I agree with it. No, I am sure I do not agree with it. Perhaps POTUS is the most misguided of all if he does believe it as his domestic agenda is tough to pin down ... hell, it's tough to locate.

 

Yes, Lancet has been criticized. It is still a published estimate by a respected journal. You said the high estimate was 37,000, when there are numerous higher ones out there. Lancet is the highest, but even Iraq Body Count, which is well respected, is saying between 39 and 42K.

As for the child deaths, there's a mistake in an article somewhere. One article says the pre-war mortality rate was about 125 per 1,000 births, which caused 5,000 deaths per month. A second one says the rate went up slightly, resulting in 575 deaths per month.

So it either went from 60,000 to 68,000 or 6,000 to 6,800 ... but it certainly didn't go down 90 percent.