26 years of body count amongst the U.S. Active Military, by year and presidency. By all accounts, Dubya is doing better than Reagan(though not accomplishing as much), and only slightly worse than Clinton(though accomplishing much more). /braces for the spin.

1980 Jimmy Carter 2,392
Total: N/A

1981 Ronald Reagan 2,380
1982 Ronald Reagan 2,319
1983 Ronald Reagan 2,465
1984 Ronald Reagan 1,999
1985 Ronald Reagan 2,252
1986 Ronald Reagan 1,984
1987 Ronald Reagan 1,983
1988 Ronald Reagan 1,819
Total: 17,201

1989 George H.W. Bush 1,636
1990 George H.W. Bush 1,507
1991 George H.W. Bush 1,787
1992 George H.W. Bush 1,293
Total: 6,223

1993 Bill Clinton 1,213
1994 Bill Clinton 1,075
1995 Bill Clinton 1,040
1996 Bill Clinton 974
1997 Bill Clinton 817
1998 Bill Clinton 827
1999 Bill Clinton 796
2000 Bill Clinton 758
Total: 7,500

2001 George W. Bush 891
2002 George W. Bush 999
2003 George W. Bush 1,228
2004 George W. Bush 1,874
2005 George W. Bush 1,942
2006 George W. Bush 1,858
Total: 8,792

Since these OBVIOUSLY not all lost in military conflict or foreign policy missions, do you have a real point?

I will have to add ALL you have is spin. In every thread you post. Where do you and the other people on the right get all your ideas to post from? Some right-wing blogs? Or do you do Google searches for all types of stuff just trying to find something you can twist into "Republican good, Democrat bad" (sounding just like Cro Magnon is depicted)
.

That list is "all" military deaths from "all" causes.. Not sure how that can be spin..

BTW, my wife just finished year #19 in the USAF and Reserves.. Lt. Colonel and counting.. People seem to forget that being in the service is a dangerous lifestyle combat or not.. My wife watched a woman get crippled on a practice jump while training for a parachute qualifying jump..

The difference is that now every single death is reported where in the past it wasn't..

Originally Posted by cbwm

By all accounts, Dubya is doing better than Reagan(though not accomplishing as much), and only slightly worse than Clinton(though accomplishing much more). /braces for the spin.

You've already delivered the spin ... what's this about bracing for it?

What are you suggesting W has accomplished, militarily? Devastation in Iraq and Afghanistan, a resurgence of the Taliban, Iraq has become a humanitarian catastrophe as well as a hotbed of terrorism. Our army is stretched too thin and demoralized; we've spent a king's random, and our money is becoming worthless.

What has Bush accomplished again?

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

What has Bush accomplished again?

Well he is the most hated president among liberals in a long while, so he must be doing something right.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

That list is "all" military deaths from "all" causes.. Not sure how that can be spin..

So there is a point to deaths by all causes? Did the president have anything to do with such causes as heart attacks or auto accidents among the military?

Phil, the person who loves any repooblican politician.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

What has Bush accomplished again?

Militarily speaking....
Capitulation:
Lybia
Pakistan
Regime change:
Iraq
Afghanistan

Any one of those would be an accomplishment in and of itself.

The Taliban regime has regained control over large parts of Afghanistan. Pakistan really didn't capitulate; they've been our close ally since the cold war. Libya had almost everything to do with putting Pan Am flight 103 in the past and reestablishing the pro-western financial ties the country had in the 1950s.

That leaves Iraq. Though the country had nothing at all to do with September 11th, we've lost almost twice as many Americans there, and started a war that cost more Iraqi lives than Saddam ever got the chance to. I really don't think that counts as an accomplishment of Bush's, at least if we mean positive ones.

Now THAT is quite a bit of spin. The Taliban are regrouping , but Afghanistan is for the most part a great success story. Pakistan has big issues but has come a long way, and the work done by Musahraaf in Pakistan and the U.S. in Afghanistan has driven the vermin into a very small, difficult to control section of the planet on the border of the two countries. Pointing a military force at Lybia had much more to do with them putting things in the past than any desire on the part of Mr. Kadafi. Net effect in Iraq remains to be seen, regardless of reasons for going and body count(Iraqi or U.S.). I noticed I left out N.Korea, which built Nukes under Clinton's watch, but at least promised to disarm under Dubya's.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Now THAT is quite a bit of spin. The Taliban are regrouping , but Afghanistan is for the most part a great success story.

How can you tell who is a Republican pundit? They close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears while saying la la la. That way no facts can get through.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Now THAT is quite a bit of spin. The Taliban are regrouping , but Afghanistan is for the most part a great success story.

Thanks for that ... if my kayak dumps me in the shipping channel today, I'll still have had a great laugh. I'll humor you, though; tell me the success part of the Afghan story? See if it can be done without borrowing plot-lines from Gulliver's Travels.

As for spin, we seem to have two choices what that is, from examples in this thread:

1. Out-of-context numbers used to justify two failed invasions by a president dubbed "miserable failure."
2. Reality that doesn't fit into the mental model of a dwindling number of Republicans who still accept blindly anything broadcast over Fox.

Now ... if you think that trying to remove cause-and-effect from your statistics is anything but spin, the word has obviously lost all meaning for you.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

Well he is the most hated president among liberals in a long while, so he must be doing something right.

He's the most strongly disapproved president among two other groups: Americans, and humans. These are a little more transcendent than liberals...

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

I'll humor you, though; tell me the success part of the Afghan story? See if it can be done without borrowing plot-lines from Gulliver's Travels.

I'd ask for a simple comparison between U.S. vs Afghanistan and U.S.S.R vs Afghanistan. There are many other measures which would also indicate success, but thats an easy one.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

As for spin, we seem to have two choices what that is, from examples in this thread:

1. Out-of-context numbers used to justify two failed invasions by a president dubbed "miserable failure."
2. Reality that doesn't fit into the mental model of a dwindling number of Republicans who still accept blindly anything broadcast over Fox.

Now ... if you think that trying to remove cause-and-effect from your statistics is anything but spin, the word has obviously lost all meaning for you.

I can admit the numbers contain they're own spin for lack of cause and effect if.... you can admit Lybia wasn't in the midst of repudiating terrorism prior to 9-11 and just did it out loud coincidentally when Bush invaded Afghanistan.... or.... if you can admit the omission of any positive points from your post by default make it biased anti-bush if not leftist post. Otherwise, I'll have to stand on those numbers which show Bush's operation of the military doesn't stack up the body count when compared to other presidencies just like some who try and stand on the idea that McCain is a traitor to his country.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

He's the most strongly disapproved president among two other groups: Americans, and humans. These are a little more transcendent than liberals...

Since you mention the most strongly disapproved of President among Americans, in my opinion, Abe Lincoln was a force for good in the long run.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

He's the most strongly disapproved president among two other groups: Americans, and humans. These are a little more transcendent than liberals...

I will disagree with you. If you look at polls, the majority of republicans still approve of Bush.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

I will disagree with you. If you look at polls, the majority of republicans still approve of Bush.

He did include "and humans" so that rules Republicans out.

How could you look at Dick Cheney and not think he was human?

I'm still freaked out over Ann Coulter's adams apple

Its not an Adam apple its an Ann apple.

Ann is Hot!

Originally Posted by cbwm

Ann is Hot!

Have you read her new book "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans"