Bushbasher,
I indicated six facts supporting my assertion.

You agree the fact he introduced a war on AIDS in Africa but try dismissing it by attacking part of his stratagy.

Creating the conditions for creating most wealth and it's distribution occured during his administration, a fact, you say he shouldn't be given the credit. Who do you credit and why?

You agree the fact he appointed more Afro-Americans and Hispanics but try dismissing this by calling them flunkies and disasters.

You think the war in Iraq isn't on a winning footing but you don't show us why the US isn't winning.

You agree the fact he's kept the US safe and secure from terrorist attack but try dismissing it by attacking what you alledge are debatable methods.

You didn't address the fact of the exit from poverty.

You haven't debunked the facts. You agree most occurred. You've only addressed political related issues in an attempt to discredit Bush.

If you could show Bush wasn't responsible for all or most of my six facts then maybe I'll be presuaded my assertion isn't likely.

I'd say you probably claim Kennedy as a successful President and you'd claim he was successful because he defended the US from the threat of attack by missiles launched from Cuba.

But history shows if he had earlier stared down the Russians over the physical division of Berlin 'the building of the wall', they would not have thought he wouldn't have objected to them placing missles in Cuba. ie That he caused the Cuban missile crisis through his earlier appeasment and perceived weakness.
There is another view also that he failled miserably because while the missile sites were demolished the missiles stayed in Cuba and the threat remained. Those missiles are still there.

Forty years later history is still debating Kennedy's successfulness. It isn't debating the politics of the time nor his very very narrow electrol wins.
History will record he enunciated the US quest to put a man on the moon.
History will record the fact he was the first Catholic President of the US.

keep digging, keith: there's gotta be a pony in there somewhere.

So we find another chapter in Daggest latest attempts to recast villains as misunderstood/misrepresented and the allied gov’ts of the democratic west, as evil conspirators in wanton death and destruction.

Dagget says >> “ if Hussein was personally responsible for umpteen squillion deaths, then why was he charged only with "the murder of 148 people…"

I see. He was responsible for only those deaths he was charged with, is that your contention? He must be one of the most restrained dictators ever in the Middle East. Buffoon.

To have Saddam convicted and executed they only needed to show a pattern of murder, torture and depravity in general. Why would they charge him with everything, thus ending up with a trial which might last 20 years.

Dagget says >> “If well over 100,000 or over 1 million Iraqis have died … “

I see you don’t have a problem with being wrong by a factor of 10.

Dagget says >> “Also, it is questionable that Hussein should be personally held responsible for ... the occupation of Kuwait ”

This is typical Dagget, You can’t blame Saddam for the deaths of 1000’s of Kuwaitis, merely because he ordered his forces to invade. That’s not HIS fault.

This is the typical blame shifting by Dagget. He quotes 100,000 or 1 million dead and blames the Allies for it. He then acknowledges that the VAST majority of these deaths have been caused by the warring Sunni-Shia-Kurds but blames undercover SAS soldiers for all this death and destruction.

It’s clear in Daggets world, taking responsibility for your own actions in an anaethema. A mantle to be avoided at all costs and preferably, to be passed on to some great conspiratorial power that is always behind it all anyway.

I see you have not dropped your slavish devotion to the Conspiracy Queen Klein, nor have you managed to generate any interest for your 9/11 conspiracy theories, although you continue spruiking for them.

Keith,

Someone said to me on another site, arguing with people with strong opinions but limited understanding is like sword fighting an amoeba.

Bushbred,

You say >> “Yet the one about the Surge, as I’ve mentioned more than once before, when I also told you to get onto the Washington Post and learn the real truth about the Surge”

So what is the real “truth” about the surge?

You say >> “when lo and behold in swoops a US gunship and rather than arresting the Sunnis, the marines poked their guns at the Shias.”

You still seem to be under the misapprehension that the allies went to Iraq to fight the Sunnis. That is NOT the case.

The rapprochement with Sunni Tribal leaders led to the decapitation of AlQaeda in Iraq and forced those remaining to flee to Afghanistan. Iraq has become a country which is governable because of the combined efforts of negotiation and force of arms.

It may not be the result the Americans were hoping for, but it is one which is far more likely to stand the test of time. It is no longer a country in which people fear to speak out on pain of death. Under Saddams police state no-one knew who was an informer and arbitrary arrest, torture and murder were every day occurrences.

Paying homage to a statue or painting of the leader is a thing of the past, people are free to criticise their rulers and do so. Freedom, albeit with a middle eastern flavour, has broken out in Iraq. Hopefully they will be able to hold onto it when the Americans leave.

Paul has dishonestly implied that because I question the number of deaths that have been blamed on Saddam Hussein that, therefore I am excusing those crimes.

To restate my original point:

"Paul has done a masterful job of excusing the bloody and destructive Iraq war, costing at least 100,000 Iraqi lives, and, by some credible estimates over 1 million and which may eventually cost US$3 trillion (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2199248.htm).

"Of course part of the trick is to massively inflate the scale of the abuses of human rights under Hussein (how come he was sentenced to death for the deaths of at most several hundred, when he is supposed to have murdered umpteen squillion?), ignore the deaths caused by the sanctions prior to the 2003 invasion or the war against Iran and understate the harm caused by the invasion and occupation."

Paul and others apologists for the invasion want us to forget the culpability of other countries for many of the deaths that occurred under Hussein's rule in order to be able to attribute all deaths in the region which occurred during that time to Hussein personally.

They do this in order to be able to morally bludgeon opponents of the invasion into silence over the crimes committed by the occupying forces.

Crimes committed by Hussein, whatever the actual numbers for which he is personally responsible turn out to be, which mostly occurred many years prior to 2003, should not have been turned into a blank cheque to launch the invasion, wreck the country, ransack its wealth, kill many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, arrest and torture opponents of the invasion, and displace and impoverish millions more.

Paul'l, per usual you don't answer the question clearly, only call myself and others against you, left-wingers.

Therefore I must ask you again, where would the most spin come from?

From right-wingers like yourself and Bush et al, or from the Murdoch School of Humanities which supports the Washington Post and any other portion of the media with a truthful record?

Finally, just be careful about your evasiveness and abusiveness, Paul', because surely you must know by now, that the global leaders you back have pretty well had their day.

Have Fun, BB, WA