Thank for injecting some data into your commentary, along with your sources for that data. Now lets get down to the facts. I noticed you switched sources for data when it came down to including Iraqi body count. Perhaps it was because icasualties.org was not giving you a number that represented your argument well? Since you omitted it, let me provide the Iraqi body count listed on icasualties.org at http://www.icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx. 8470. I know it doesn't have the same dramatic impact that 733,158 does from your opinion site, but at least it keeps the data consistent. Granted, icasualties also indicates there are problems with the iraqi body count because nobody was specifically keeping track, but it seems they tried to gather their numbers from some hard sources rather than the spin and politicization offered from your other source. Of even more interest is the fact that, of the 8470 Iraqi dead, many if not most were killed by Al Queda in Iraq and sectarian violence.

Regardless, arguing about coalition and Iraqi deaths in this conflict has very little to do with the veracity of your statement:

Originally Posted by Jeremy Miller

Truly sad thing is that The 43rd is guilty of a comparable number of cold-blooded murders as was Saddam.

We aren't busy calling JFK a cold blooded murderer, even though the body counts arising from the errant conflict he started were much higher on both sides. Why? Because war casualties aren't considered murder. If they were, the term "cold-blooded" would be much more applicable to Kennedy than Bush, as one can hardly say many of us had cool blood in our veins on September 12th, 2001.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

RealClearPolitics: Electoral College: Obama 255, McCain 163, 120 Toss Ups. Facts. You chose to look at overall voter preferences -- perhaps because that's less relevant?

Not if you ask the Democrats about the 2000 election. Although though you are correct in your statement that it is the electoral votes that count, the problem in using the electoral vote polling data is that it has a 22.3% undecided factor which makes any real projection impossible. The popular vote polling data has a 12.7% undecided factor on registered voters and an 8% undecided factor on likely voters. The overall average for polling information on popular vote gives Obama only a 4.3% lead, and the daily tracking on likely voters is at a statistical dead heat. Of more importance is the overall trending which shows the margin between Obama and McCain has been closing since Obama's nomination. I suppose I'll have to go on the stump for Obama. In either event, the term "slaughtering" is completely inapplicable.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Miller

I saw an interesting video on MoveOn (sure, impeach the speaker)

Credibilty of the witness is everything. Hitler put out some pretty interesting news and information in his time too (Gah.. Godwins law strikes again). Obviously that is going about four thousand steps too far, but you get the point. Sources that at least claim to be unbiased make a much better foundation for facts, especially when asserting your claim that "Obama will be remembered as one of our greatest presidents" isn't based on hoping and wishing, even though he is a virtual unknown and has yet to even be elected to office.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

America does not negotiate from a position of weakness. Negotiation is not equal to capitulation. Negotiation isn't appeasement. Negotiation is both sides trying to come to an agreement that both sides can live with.

I suppose stunning success of the break from standard Bush policy, where they sent an official to talk with Iran last week about stopping enrichment demonstrates your point very well here.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Regarding the argument ad absurdum (i.e. police negotiating): In fact, we do negotiate. Our goal there is to save lives (namely hostages and that of the offender so that they can be properly prosecuted). Object?

I suppose the case of hostage negotiation does demonstrate a situation where negotiation is the first priority, but always with the threat of force sitting behind it(surrounded by police officers, guns in hand). My analogy was in answer to the idea of throwing "Force" at a problem, and the police are a perfect example of where we do throw "Force" at a problem because it is necessary for peace and security. I'll agree with you insofar as to say I think it is sad the U.S. has become the world's police force. France has one of the most well trained and best equipped militaries on the planet. Problem in Bosnia? Send France. Problem in Rwanda? Send France. Problem in Somalia? Send France.

Finally, regarding how history will view Bush, I find it difficult to see how any of us can make that prediction with a great degree of accuracy, so hoping and wishing will obviously play a part. The President who "Murdered" more Americans on the battlefield than any other was president Lincoln. I'm sure it would have come as a huge surprise to most from his time that he is so revered today.

Let's get this straight: The 43rd is a cold-blooded killer not because of the body count, but because of the cold, calculating way he deceived this country into war, violated our constitution repeatedly during the war, and persisted in its continuance despite being overwhelming proven to be wrong and a liar. He has been reported to have wanted to go after Iraq from day 1 -- that's evidence of premeditated murder.

I do not do relativistic arguments as an argument should be able to stand without analogy to any other, so you can go after JFK all you want.

Regarding your analysis of the electoral vote. Your prediction has been implicitly made. Now we'll watch the election.

Credibility of the witness is not everything. The evidence presented by the witness is everything. If it can stand on its own then the witness is irrelevant.

Regarding Lincoln -- read a bit more about him. He was called at that time, "the most perfect ruler of men that the world has ever seen". Doesn't mean everyone liked him, of course. But the parallel to the civil war and The 43rd's is mind bogglingly horrid.

Nope - I'm in a great mood, and thanks for asking. Great attempt at distraction, tho, it's very republican of you. For whatever reason, I feel some type of duty to the general public not to let your lies and horse manure go unanswered.

It's not that where GWB fits into Star Wars has any bearing on real life - but since you've brought it up, the similarity between King George and the emperor who destroys the republic are uncanny. They've also been discussed at length, so I suggest you read something that didn't come out of Sean Hannity. Might help you gain some much needed perspective.

For example, you wrote

I've always felt that George W. Bush will be remembered as one of the great peacemakers of our time, along side Mandela, King, or Ghandi. Maybe the greatest.

Which is true. George W Bush will be remembered however you choose to remember one of American history's greatest failures. The other 6.7 billion people on planet Earth will of course let reality be their guide. You should try it some day.

I personally see Cheney as more of an emperor figure. He'd look better in the black robe and obscured face I think, rubbing his hands together in a scheming gesture. "Yess.. yes.. let the hate consume youuu!"

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Let's get this straight: The 43rd is a cold-blooded killer not because of the body count, but because of the cold, calculating way he deceived this country into war, violated our constitution repeatedly during the war, and persisted in its continuance despite being overwhelming proven to be wrong and a liar.

And you have some proof of this. If you wont share it with congress, will you share it with us? He did all this alone? Was Congress complicit, or just his administration?

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

He has been reported to have wanted to go after Iraq from day 1 -- that's evidence of premeditated murder.

Day 1 being January 15th, 2001? I'd like to see that evidence. Iraq needed going after anyway, they just shouldn't have been second on the priority list after Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

I do not do relativistic arguments as an argument should be able to stand without analogy to any other, so you can go after JFK all you want.

Well thats convenient. I don't imagine that would play out too well in court. Our legal system built on existing case law will always look at a precedent to determine guilt or innocence in similar circumstances. It is certainly your right to ignore the past and play favorites (or unfavorites in this case).

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Regarding your analysis of the electoral vote. Your prediction has been implicitly made. Now we'll watch the election.

I predict nothing. I simply called attention to your misrepresentation of the current reality of our voting public.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Credibility of the witness is not everything. The evidence presented by the witness is everything. If it can stand on its own then the witness is irrelevant.

Well thats a big if. In this case, its MoveOn.org's marketing presentation of how Obama will be viewed as one of our greatest presidents ever. I find it hard to call that evidence that stands on its own, regardless of the fact it comes from the organization that was screaming at the top of its lungs to deny the reality of any progress in Iraq(General Betrayus).

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Regarding Lincoln -- read a bit more about him. He was called at that time, "the most perfect ruler of men that the world has ever seen". Doesn't mean everyone liked him, of course. But the parallel to the civil war and The 43rd's is mind bogglingly horrid.

To be fair, I didn't compare him to Lincoln in this thread, though I have in others. In this thread I compared him to Ghandi, Mandela, and King. I used Lincoln as an example to illustrate my point that all those who claim to know how history will view anyone are likely to be wrong, and if they are right, it will likely be from pure luck.

Let me lay out a plausible scenario for you. The planet earth has shifted to a global economy, and instability is bad for the economy, not just ours, but the world economy. It won't be the U.N. to do it, but one day, a credible organization will likely come into existence to deal with common threats, and resolving disputes between nations. Terrorism is a common threat. I'd say there is a good chance that that organization, like any good and functional police organization, will adopt the Bush doctrine of preemption in dealing with state sponsors of terror(Afghanistan), rogue states that invade their neighbors(Iraq), and other international infractions.

Given that it wont just be the U.S. implementing this policy, but rather the "World Police" recognized by most if not all nations of the civilized world, this type of military action would be accepted rather than reviled. Bush could be hailed as the father of the doctrine which brought world peace and created a new world order.

/drools as one eyeball drifts lightly to the middle

Topic 'A':

Originally Posted by http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

EDIT: And, I totally agree that Bin Laden should have been priority #1. Bastard should have died a long time ago.

Great Article! I got to get the book. I was expecting some half wit loon with the usual rant about the evil of Dubya. After reading the resume, I figured sour grapes, but I have to say, the guy is credible (And you say the witness is unimportant). Given that he is credible, his criticisms gain merit as well, though not credibility on their own.

Regarding topic "A", the Iraq issue in particular, one has to remember that Saddam was his dads screw up, a blight on his legacy if you will. Going back to 1991 mentality, we were so timid of foreign engagements in a post Vietnam era, Bush Sr. didn't want to be labeled Kennedy V2 for tying America up in a prolonged engagement so he scadadled out of the middle east practically the minute Kuwait had been liberated. He completely failed to:
1) Hold Saddam accountable for his actions (Regime Change)
2) Guarantee our interests in the zone, at least to pay reparations to the U.S. for the costs associated with the war
3) Create a ceasefire agreement that later presidents would enforce.

It was at once an amazing success and the biggest screw up ever. Had Bush Sr. used the moral authority and massive worldwide coalition he had at his fingertips to remove Saddam from power, the whole cat and mouse game of the next 10 years could have been avoided. I was looking at those body count numbers I gave you from the second Iraq war, and I found it amazing that they were so low. The reason they were so low is that the shock and awe of the first Iraq engagement was anticipated this time, so the soldiers just basically packed up and went home. Why fight openly when death is guaranteed. Unfortunately they emerged a year or two later as insurgents. Had Bush Sr. completed his push for Bagdad, a good portion of that resistance would be dead, or have joined the new regime.

I digress, but the point is, I can see where Bush Jr. would get into office and have a desire to fix Dads legacy, and enforce the cease fire Clinton wouldn't. It doesn't make it illegal, it simply wasn't the best strategy. An immediate invasion of Iran would have made a lot more sense. 1) They got oil. 2)They sponsor terror. I think the problem there is that Iran is a semi-democratic state with a fairly free populous, and I dont think they were enriching Uranium at the time. Unfortunately attacking either one would have made the other a bigger problem than it already was. Makes me glad I don't have to make those decisions.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

EDIT: And, I totally agree that Bin Laden should have been priority #1. Bastard should have died a long time ago.

If that ever happens, it will have to wait until George W Bush leaves the white house.