George Bush is a Brave Man

[The Flying Dutchman]

So is Bill Clinton and any other president of the United States or presidential contenders like John Kerry.

I've considered the criticism of presidents like Clinton and Bush who've sent young people into harms way while having a history that would suggest a personalavoidance of war, but did you know that it is way more dangerous to be an American president than an American soldier in war?

Of the 43 American presidents, four have been assasinated. Lincoln in 1865, Garfield in 1881, McKinley in 1901 and Kennedy in 1963. Lets ignore the near assasination of Reagan. That comes to 9.3 % of American presidents who die violently.

There were 8.2 million (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002827.html) American vietnam veterans. Of those , 58,229 soldiers were killed. That comes to 0.7% of american soldiers who died in Vietnam.

That means that being an American president can be 13 times more dangerous than being sent off to a major American war.

Being an American president is a very dangerous job indeed. Why is the bravery of those who seek this office not generally recognized ?

[Neurotik]

Is this satire or a parody post? I don't see a link.

Seriously.

[Sam Stone]

I agree with the OP 100%. It IS very dangerous. And Bush's decision to take on Islamic fundamentalists made it infinitely more dangerous.

For the rest of his life, he's going to have to look over his shoulder. Unlike other presidents, who generally stop being targets once they're out of office, Bush is going to be hunted by fanatics the rest of his life. And not only that, he's put his family in serious danger. Some relatives of Allawi have been kidnapped in Iraq - don't you think that someone might think about kidnapping on of Bush's daughters, or a cousin, or a brother?

He should get some credit for that.

[Orbifold]

An interesting idea, but I have one quibble: I don't think that 43 data points is really enough to draw meaningful statistical conclusions about the odds of a president being assassinated. If pressed to estimate the danger faced by George Bush in the Oval Office, I would base my estimate on the other factors involved, like the competency of the people assigned to protect him (very high) and the amount of access the general public has to him (very little, except in heavily screened situations).

Plus, bravery isn't just determined by how likely you are to die, it's also determined by what you have to live through. Even the soldiers who don't get wounded in Iraq are still surrounded by gunfire, snipers, and car bombs. Bush is surrounded by advisors and tough decisions. Let's not cheapen the soldier's experiences by comparison.

[Zagadka]

I agree with the OP 100%. It IS very dangerous. And Bush's decision to take on Islamic fundamentalists made it infinitely more dangerous.

For the rest of his life, he's going to have to look over his shoulder. Unlike other presidents, who generally stop being targets once they're out of office, Bush is going to be hunted by fanatics the rest of his life. And not only that, he's put his family in serious danger. Some relatives of Allawi have been kidnapped in Iraq - don't you think that someone might think about kidnapping on of Bush's daughters, or a cousin, or a brother?

He should get some credit for that.
lol. He gets what he deserves.

[Orbifold]

lol. He gets what he deserves.

I don't like George Bush very much, but I still have to call you on this: are you seriously trying to imply that George Bush would "deserve" being shot?

I don't agree Sam Stone either...for example, I wouldn't call someone who walks into traffic "brave" just because it puts them in danger...but being bloodthirsty is not appropriate.

[Revtim]

Whether they are actually brave or not depends on what they know and believe.

It's only bravery if they actually know the odds and believe them, and also if they didn't simply think that they have better security than the ones that were killed and weren't really at risk (true or not).

[Sam Stone]

Remember that flap about the thing on Bush's back during the first debate, and all the wild speculation from the nutbars that it was a microphone/receiver so he could get fed answers from the evil Karl Rove?

Turns out, what you saw was Bush's bulletproof vest. Someone who has to strap one on every day they go out in public knows EXACTLY what risks they are facing.

[Johnny Bravo]

And not only that, he's put his family in serious danger.

...

He should get some credit for that.

I can't think of any circumstances where credit is due for putting your family in serious danger. Bush is brave because his cousins are now possible targets for terrorists? Not hardly.

[The Flying Dutchman]

If pressed to estimate the danger faced by George Bush in the Oval Office, I would base my estimate on the other factors involved, like the competency of the people assigned to protect him (very high) and the amount of access the general public has to him (very little, except in heavily screened situations)

You have a point. Assasination frequency has dropped off since the early part of the last century yet we have three failed attempts on Bush 41, Ford and Reagan more recently suggesting an increased level of protection for the president.

But why did you ignore Sam Stone's point which I did not even consider in my OP. Having taken on the treacherous Islamist terrorists, there is no doubt in my mind that Bush 43 has seriously increased the probability of meeting a violent death, not to mention putting family members in jeopardy.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

43 presidents serving in the same conditions (political climate, distance from the public, level of protection, etc.) might be large enough a sample.

But it's not valid to use the fact that Millard Fillmore wasn't assassinated to postulate on a current president's risk of being assassinated.

Heck, more recently than that: IIRC, the two guys who tried to shoot Truman basically walked in through an unlocked door and they were in Blair House (normally the VP's home, Truman was staying there while the White House was being repaired).

Point being: there was much less security in the past. The security level really racheted up after the attempt on Reagan.

That said, I still agree that when you count up all the terrorists and lone nuts in the world, POTUS is a very dangerous job.

It's also worth noting that at least two presidents (T. Roosevelt and Reagan) were shot and survived (TR after leaving office).

[Menocchio]

What president hasn't "taken on Islamic Terrorism" since, say, Carter?

That's a non-starter. They hate us, they hate our government. This is because of our interventions in the middle east, specifically our support of Israel, which no mainstream politician would ever substantially change. Yes, Bush has been more agressive than others, because they got the drop on us, but if they could've taken out Clinton or Reagan, they would have.

Yeah, being the president makes you a high-profile target for assasination. So's being a movie star. I'm not going to suggest that Tom Cruise is brave for putting his life on the line. Soldiers, cops, et al all face much more immediate dangers, and often aren't backed up by highly trained security experts who are pledged to take a bullet for their charge.

[Revtim]

Turns out, what you saw was Bush's bulletproof vest.
I agree it was likely a vest, but you state it like it's a fact. Did they ever admit it was a vest?

[Orbifold]

But why did you ignore Sam Stone's point which I did not even consider in my OP. Having taken on the treacherous Islamist terrorists, there is no doubt in my mind that Bush 43 has seriously increased the probability of meeting a violent death, not to mention putting family members in jeopardy.

I didn't ignore it, I addressed it (admittedly briefly) in my respose to Zagadka. To expand on my reply a bit, if a man does something which puts him (and/or his family) in danger he doesn't automatically get credit for "bravery" for doing so.

A man who pulls his family into traffic isn't "brave", but a man who rushes into traffic to save a child is. The difference is the necessity of the action. I disagree quite a bit with George Bush as to the necessity of invading Iraq, consequently I disagree about how "brave" such an act was. I don't dispute that George Bush has done things despite the potential personal danger to himself or his family. But I disagree as to whether some of those things were the right thing to do.

Now to turn things around, why did you ignore my other point? Why is the probability of death the only thing you're using to compare George Bush to the soldiers in Iraq, when there's also a difference in the things they have to live through every day?

[Lissa]

It is sort of interesting that some posters have hypothesized that Bush taking on Islam around the world results in more danger to him (thereby equaling more courage), yet there has not been a single assasination attempt. However, none of these individuals are highlighting the bravery of Bill Clinton who had AK-47's fired at his home, planes crashed into his lawn and thousands of death threats FROM AMERICANS. If this is the measure of courage, then Bill Clinton is the bravest president of the modern era. It seems you have to admit this first before you give any kudos to George Bush.

[RedFury]

Remember that flap about the thing on Bush's back during the first debate, and all the wild speculation from the nutbars that it was a microphone/receiver so he could get fed answers from the evil Karl Rove?

Turns out, what you saw was Bush's bulletproof vest. Someone who has to strap one on every day they go out in public knows EXACTLY what risks they are facing.

Hmmm...it's The Hill's word against Rove's against Dubya's against... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34020-2004Nov8.html)

Bulge Watch

Elisabeth Bumiller writes in the New York Times: "Now that the election is over, there remains a piece of unfinished business: Whatever was that strange bulge in the back of President Bush's suit jacket that was visible during the three debates?"

She visited the unhappy presidential tailor, Georges de Paris, who some have said is to blame.

"Mr. de Paris, 70, had been visited a few weeks earlier by The Hill, a weekly newspaper that covers Congress, and had told the reporter seeking to solve the bulge mystery that the protuberance was nothing more than a natural pucker that occurs when a man's jacket is pulled taut against his back. The Internet quickly deemed Mr. de Paris's assertion nonsense, and by last Thursday, so had The Hill. Citing sources in the Secret Service, The Hill reported that the bulge was the outline of a bulletproof vest.

"The White House had earlier denied that it was, and stuck to that statement on Friday. A spokesman for the Secret Service, Tom Mazur, shed no further light. 'I can't comment on our protective measures,' he said. But Mr. de Paris, for one, now believes the bulge was a bulletproof vest. At the least, a bulletproof vest would get him and his supposedly bad work off the hook."

But Bush himself is on the record as saying it was his shirt.

And Karl Rove -- remember him? -- just put the onus back on the unfortunate tailor. Here's the exchange on Fox News:

"WALLACE: All right. Truth to tell, the campaign's over. What was under the president's jacket at the first debate?

"ROVE: You know, the poor -- I'm not going to mention his name, because I know him and he's a wonderful fellow, but the poor tailor has just got to be horrified. Nothing was under his jacket.

"WALLACE: Well, I've had a lot of jackets, you've had a lot of jackets. You've never had something like that under your jacket.

"ROVE: Well, the poor -- again, he's an awfully nice fellow, he's a rather flamboyant dude. And I'm not going to use his name, but he's just -- he's horrified. And, you know, it's -- there was nothing there.

"But it certainly got a lot of commentary on the Internet."

So unless you've got something better, Sam, I'll stick with my own pet theory: a remote control device, with Rove pushing the buttons.

[RedFury]

PS-Color me unimpressed about Bush's alleged "bravery." Nothing brave about sending others to die and kill under false pretenses and outright lies.

And yet, when he had his chance to prove his mettle -- in a war he supported -- what, exactly, did he do?

They're are called Chickenhawks (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhawk%20Headquarters) for a reason. And a very good one at that.

[Malodorous]

I agree. I don't like a lot of our presidents or presidential candidates, but I don't think they get enough respect for the danger, responsibility, etc. they get put under. That said, people who volunteered to go to Vietnam went to go take their risks in extremely inhospitable conditions and for little reward, why Bush and Clinton got 400K a year, power, respect, a free house, etc. etc. as rewards for his increased risk.

But why did you ignore Sam Stone's point which I did not even consider in my OP. Having taken on the treacherous Islamist terrorists, there is no doubt in my mind that Bush 43 has seriously increased the probability of meeting a violent death, not to mention putting family members in jeopardy.

Just so Bush doesn't hog all the glory, he's hardly the only one who has taken on a dangerous group. Clinton, to cite the most recent example, took on the various right wing militias after Oklahoma city, people that owned weapons, were already in the country and hated his guts. There were numerous attempts on his life, granted that most of them were pretty insane efforts, like the guy who sprayed the WH with bullets.

And oddly I remeber reading somewhere Ford was the president with the most serious assasination attempts on his life, guess maybe he caught some of the hatred directed at Nixon or something.

Remember that flap about the thing on Bush's back during the first debate, and all the wild speculation from the nutbars that it was a microphone/receiver so he could get fed answers from the evil Karl Rove?

Admittedly a lot of this debate came from the fact that the WH denied it was a bulletproof vest , and there was some attempt (I'm not sure if it was by the WH or not) to pass it off as a crease in his jacket, which it obviously wasn't. I understand and agree with the WH trying to hide the presidents' security measuers, but you can't really blame people for being tempted to speculate on what's in front of thier eyes when the WH denies the most obvious and innocuous explanation.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The OP's statistical comparison is not valid. The sample size for those who have been POTUS is not large enough to derive a statistically significant mortality rate. A sample size of 43 cannot be compared to a sample size of thousands.

There is no safer and more well-protected person in the world than GWB. Nothing he has done has required the slightest bit of physical courage. We have seen over and over that the man is a physical and intellectual coward. Even on 9/11, the first thing he did when he got done reading about the goat was to go and cower in a bunker until it was clear that there would be no more attacks. He doesn't even have the spine to face dissenters at his own speeches or answer questions from anyone who hasn't been vetted as a mindless, robotic supporter.

George W. Bush is, and always has been, a slack-jawed pussy who hides behind others, avoids personal responsibility and expects other people to take bullets (both figuratively and literally) for him.

I'd like to ask Sam Stone why Fundamentalist Muslims needed to be attacked, what gave GWB the authority to attack them, and what the hell Iraq had to do with Islam.

[Neurotik]

I'd like to ask Sam Stone why Fundamentalist Muslims needed to be attacked, what gave GWB the authority to attack them, and what the hell Iraq had to do with Islam.
Clearly, it's because the Iraqis hate America and planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. Why else would they resist America installing their own handpicked leaders with the public having no say, along with America firing thousands of Iraqi government workers and bringing in their own corporations to rebuild Iraq. It's not like these people have had bad experiences with American and British imperialism in the past. Sheesh. They must simply hate freedom and democracy.

Frankly, Dio, I think this is just the early salvo in the attempt at the hagiography of Bush ala Reagan.

Look at how brave he is! He stood up to these filthy savages like no president ever had! Worship him!

[Aeschines]

Point being: there was much less security in the past. The security level really racheted up after the attempt on Reagan.

After the McKinley assassination, the Secret Service began to protect the president. So I would say that was "rachet #1."

I don't know when #2 would have taken place. After the attempt on Truman? Kennedy getting killed?

Wouldn't the attempt on Reagan have been several rachets along?
-----

As for the OP, I agree with Orbifold's analysis.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Frankly, Dio, I think this is just the early salvo in the attempt at the hagiography of Bush ala Reagan.
I'm waiting for the inevitable Mt. Rushmore push.

[Aeschines]

They're gonna put Alfred E. Newman on Mt. Rushmore?

BTW, well put, Dio.

[rjung]

To quote Super Chicken, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."

Saying the POTUS is brave because he knows he's going to be a target for the assorted crackpots out there is trivializing the word, IMO. After all, the POTUS has a Secret Service detail, goes out in public escorted by some sort of local police detail, and knows that anywhere he goes gets cleared for his personal safety. Contrast that to (say) police officers or firefighters, who don't have any of these luxuries, risk getting killed in unexpected situations (is that guy you just pulled over for speeding going to try to ambush you?), and are fully expected to throw themselves in harm's way for any civilian who's endangered.

This is not to say that the job of POTUS is trivial -- it can be damn hard, especially when you're working 16-hour days trying to make the world a better place while a hostile Republican Congress is nipping at your heels -- but "brave" is not exactly the foremost word to describe the job.

[SPOOFE]

I'd like to ask Sam Stone why Fundamentalist Muslims needed to be attacked
Was it wrong when Clinton did it? Why or why not?

(I don't know why I ask... it's just gonna result in more "Leave poor widdle Saint Clinton alone, you meanie!")

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Clinton didn't do it.

[Rashak Mani]

How about being wounded or pshycollogically crippled ? How many presidents were crippled by their "service" ?

Would anyone here think its more dangerous to sleep in the White House than serving in Iraq ?

[coffeecat]

Courage isn't just about objective danger. Lying in a foxhole while bombs explode around you has a certain immediacy, and it takes some Big Brass Ones to face the threat. I don't think the president feels that sitting in his office, regardless of how objectively dangerous it may be. Driving without your seat belt while smoking is dangerous too, but it doesn't make you brave to do it.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Now to turn things around, why did you ignore my other point? Why is the probability of death the only thing you're using to compare George Bush to the soldiers in Iraq, when there's also a difference in the things they have to live through every day?

Because your point is so obvious, and there just is no comparison.


For another perspective I give you the The 10 most dangerous jobs in America (http://money.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp)




The 10 most dangerous jobs
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25


American presidents 9302 per 100,000

[wolf_meister]

Folks, for the record, there have only been 42 persons that have held the office of President of the United States. Grover Cleveland gets counted twice. So, adjust your statistics accordingly. (I guess this would make being President even more "dangerous"). :rolleyes:

As far as being President? Even though it may be "risky", the risk to reward ratio is fantastic !!! If nothing else, think of going to your high school reunion !!!! Say 'hello' to every girl that refused to go out with you, go out of your way to meet every teacher who thought you'd be a failure, confront every bully who taunted you !!! AND if they give you any trouble ?? The Secret Service will bash their brains in.
Also, once you've been President (at least in modern times) you are set for life !!! How much is Bill Clinton getting for book deals? Speaking engagements??

George W Bush has endangered himself and others by confronting terrorists? Well what did the people in the WTC, the Pentagon, or those 4 planes do to bring that on themselves? Nothing.

As others have said, I believe it is the folks in our military that did the brave thing. They joined, knowing full well that they might be put in harm's way. And for what ? To get money for college? To help finance a house? To learn a job skill? Think about the risk to reward ratio for that job and President seems a LOT more appealing.

Perhaps we should open a thread aout how "tough" it is being a rock star, a movie star, etc.

[RickJay]

I agree with the OP 100%. It IS very dangerous. And Bush's decision to take on Islamic fundamentalists made it infinitely more dangerous.
Which does not precisely explain the dearth of assassination attempts. Though like the imaginary plot to Kill the first Bush, I imagine they might just make one up at some point.

[Zagadka]

Know who else is brave, by those standards?

The f*ing terrorists. I mean, come on, it takes cajones to kill 3,000 Americans while living in a cave. That Osama is one brave mother f*er. So was Che Guevara, so is Fidel Castro. Arafat, too. Those guys are pretty damn Brave.

I mean, Bush has like a few million people protecting him, not to mention a crack squad of security experts. He can't take a piss without someone making sure it is safe.

Those guys I mentioned, all that stood between them and instant, horrible torture and death is a few friends and an AK-47.

I wouldn't call them "heroes" though. And they didn't trade in risking their life daily and living in muddy squalor for being the most powerful person on the planet having cushy state dinners with foreign dignitaries.

[Ryan_Liam]

lol. He gets what he deserves.

No, actually, he doesn't.

[Zagadka]

No, actually, he doesn't.
With any luck, anyway.

Actually, I don't want Bush assassinated. That would suck, it'd mean we'd have Cheney leading, and I don't even want to consider how much that would suck.

[Ryan_Liam]

With any luck, anyway.

Actually, I don't want Bush assassinated. That would suck, it'd mean we'd have Cheney leading, and I don't even want to consider how much that would suck.

:rolleyes: lets just hope you don't get to office, that way, we're both happy.

[Zagadka]

:rolleyes: lets just hope you don't get to office, that way, we're both happy.
I wasn't really planning on it, but if you think I have a shot, I could start a campaign for '08....?

[Ryan_Liam]

I wasn't really planning on it, but if you think I have a shot, I could start a campaign for '08....?

are you a troll?

[SteveG1]

I have to side with RedFury and Diogenes. I have a "problem", or "issues" with Chickenhawks.

[Zagadka]

are you a troll?
:smack: We're in GD, genius.

Anyway, I could ask the same of you. I make a statement that I consider Cheney unfit for the Presidency, and you say that you're glad I'm not a candidate? WTF?

[Ryan_Liam]

Because you say GWB is better in his position 'fucking everything up' because thats what he's best at, and thats what you insinuate as well as saying the Reublican party cannot rule and is full of retards.

[Zagadka]

Because you say GWB is better in his position 'fucking everything up' because thats what he's best at, and thats what you insinuate as well as saying the Reublican party cannot rule and is full of retards.
... what?

Are you on any hallucinogenic drugs?

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Ryan_Liam, don't call people trolls, period.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Gaudere]

And guys, if you just want to swipe at each other, take it to the Pit.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Because your point is so obvious, and there just is no comparison.


For another perspective I give you the The 10 most dangerous jobs in America (http://money.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp)




American presidents 9302 per 100,000
This is a meaningless, bullshit statistic. You do not have a large enough sample to extropolate a significant mortality rate. Anyone who has ever taken a stat class knows that no statistically meaningful conclusion can be drawn from your sample size. You don't have enough data to know what your normal distribution is. You have a huge margin of error and no confidence level. This is the second time I've explained this to you? Is it sinking in yet?

[Zagadka]

And guys, if you just want to swipe at each other, take it to the Pit.
I'm not swiping, I'm trying to figure out what the hell he's saying. He keeps putting words in my mouth, like saying I want to be President or that I think Republicans are retards. I have no idea where he is getting this information, since I haven't said anything remotely resembling either of those remarks, at least in this thread.

All I see is someone trying to pick a fight with name-calling, which is more suited to a playground than a debate forum.

[wolf_meister]

Well before this thread "dies out", we may have differing opinions but let's agree on one thing - only forty-two persons have been President.
(See posting #30)

[F. U. Shakespeare]

Dio, while I'm in agreement with you that the 43 presidents (actually 42 individuals as wolf_meister points out) do not constitute a statistically valid sample set, it is not always true that 42 samples is insufficient. Sample sizes as small as 25 can be valid for experiments involving a sufficiently normal distribution (or even less for very uniform conditions).

E.g., suppose you were trying to test whether or not some trait was hereditary. 42 pairs of identical twins raised apart would likely be a very valid sample set.

[KidCharlemagne]

I think Bush is politically brave. Regardless of the wisdom of his policies, I don't think
he would alter them to pander to the electorate. Invading Iraq was politically brave, in that he risked little by not going in. He's probably one of the more politically brave presidents we've had in a long time.

[zuma]

Which does not precisely explain the dearth of assassination attempts. Though like the imaginary plot to Kill the first Bush, I imagine they might just make one up at some point.

Hold on... are you implying the Clinton administration made that whole thing up? Why on earth would they do that? If they wanted to lob a few missiles at saddam, he provided plenty of opportunity to do so without Clinton MAKING UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH a bogus assasination story. And for all the endless attacks and investigations of Clinton, this would have been a doozy, yet they never brought it up.

[Revtim]

Regardless of the wisdom of his policies, I don't think he would alter them to pander to the electorate.Yeah, I hate those politicians who actually represent the will of the people....

[KidCharlemagne]

Yeah, I hate those politicians who actually represent the will of the people....

pander<>represent. Apparently 60 million people thinks he represents the will of the people.

[Revtim]

pander<>represent. Apparently 60 million people thinks he represents the will of the people.And they'd be pretty pissed if he stopped pandering to and/or representing them.

[Zagadka]

I think Bush is politically brave. Regardless of the wisdom of his policies, I don't think
he would alter them to pander to the electorate. Invading Iraq was politically brave, in that he risked little by not going in. He's probably one of the more politically brave presidents we've had in a long time.
He's not politically brave, he's politically self-righteous and ignorant. He doesn't do his political mechanisations out of bravery, he does them because he thinks that is how it should be. He views the opposition (in the US) as treacherous fiends.

There's a difference between bravery and stupidity, and Bush stands a bit to the stupid side.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Dio, while I'm in agreement with you that the 43 presidents (actually 42 individuals as wolf_meister points out) do not constitute a statistically valid sample set, it is not always true that 42 samples is insufficient. Sample sizes as small as 25 can be valid for experiments involving a sufficiently normal distribution (or even less for very uniform conditions).

E.g., suppose you were trying to test whether or not some trait was hereditary. 42 pairs of identical twins raised apart would likely be a very valid sample set.
I understand that but the OP is trying to make a comparison to mortality rates drawn from samples of hundreds of thousands. The confidence level in a sample of 42, as compared to 100,000, is practically non-existent. It simply does not follow that 4/42 can be extropolated as the normal distribution for a sample of 100,000.

[Zagadka]

I understand that but the OP is trying to make a comparison to mortality rates drawn from samples of hundreds of thousands. The confidence level in a sample of 42, as compared to 100,000, is practically non-existent. It simply does not follow that 4/42 can be extropolated as the normal distribution for a sample of 100,000.
While I agree with you on the technical statistics, I think the point is moot; we can agree that serving as head of state brings with it a great deal of threat (and Bush put even greater threat on himself).

Unfortunately, the logic of calling Bush "brave" because of this means that you have to call every other head of state on the planet and all of the revolutionaries/terrorists "brave". It is abusing the word "brave".

[clairobscur]

I understand that but the OP is trying to make a comparison to mortality rates drawn from samples of hundreds of thousands. The confidence level in a sample of 42, as compared to 100,000, is practically non-existent. It simply does not follow that 4/42 can be extropolated as the normal distribution for a sample of 100,000.


Then , you could add into the mix head of states of other democratic countries, if you want a larger sample.

It's quite obvious that a head of state has a way greater risk of being assassinated than the average Joe. Arguing about the size of the sample seems to me to be nitpicking

[Orbifold]

It's quite obvious that a head of state has a way greater risk of being assassinated than the average Joe. Arguing about the size of the sample seems to me to be nitpicking

The OP wasn't talking about "average Joes", the OP was talking about soldiers in a major war. It is not at all "obvious" to me that a head of state as well-protected as current American presidents is at a greater risk of being killed than, say, a typical soldier in Vietnam. And I hardly think it's "nitpicking" to question the statistical methods used when a statistical argument is being made to reach that conclusion.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Then , you could add into the mix head of states of other democratic countries, if you want a larger sample.

It's quite obvious that a head of state has a way greater risk of being assassinated than the average Joe. Arguing about the size of the sample seems to me to be nitpicking
I don't think that's been demonstrated since no one has provided any statistics for the sudden mortality rate of the "average joe."

I also don't think you can compare the relative security of different heads of state. Political situations and levels of personal security are too variable. The POTUS is arguably the single most protected human being on earth. I think it's absurd to say that Bush is in more danger than a Marine in Fallujah right now. or even that he's in more danger than me when I'm driving on the freeway.

[Neurotik]

Hold on... are you implying the Clinton administration made that whole thing up? Why on earth would they do that? If they wanted to lob a few missiles at saddam, he provided plenty of opportunity to do so without Clinton MAKING UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH a bogus assasination story. And for all the endless attacks and investigations of Clinton, this would have been a doozy, yet they never brought it up.
No, they didn't make it up. They did the same thing they did with the aspirin factory in Sudan, WMDs in Iraq and a host of other things. Take extremely iffy evidence, present it as irrefutable fact and act on it. When it becomes more and more apparent that your evidence has lots of holes in it, repeat original assertion more often until the heat blows off and nobody cares anymore.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I don't think that's been demonstrated since no one has provided any statistics for the sudden mortality rate of the "average joe."

I also don't think you can compare the relative security of different heads of state. Political situations and levels of personal security are too variable. The POTUS is arguably the single most protected human being on earth.


I have to agree. I can't remember hearing or reading of one assasination or attempt on the leaders of Canada, Britain ,France or Russia. (could that be due to liberal gun laws in America :D)





I think it's absurd to say that Bush is in more danger than a Marine in Fallujah right now.

At the moment no. Bush hasn't exposed his noggin to the general public since the campaign. But for the sake of "statistical" comparison I'd be very interested to find out when this operation is over , if the dead and wounded exceed 952. (based on the reported 10,000 US troops involved in the operation)



or even that he's in more danger than me when I'm driving on the freeway.

I tried to get figures on highway fatalities but failed. But given that most Americans use the nations highways, and assuming the American population currently at 300,000,000 we would expect well over 28 million fatalities over a four year period or 7 million highway deaths per year . I don't think that is happening.

Look Dio, I'm not writing a science paper here. And after watching the opening scenes of the "Private Ryan" movie I certainly have no illusions about the immediate horror and stress that a combat soldier can face. I just don't feel that the general public appreciates the sacrifices that American presidents and presidential contenders make and are prepared to make in order to serve their country.

[Sam Stone]

Look, this isn't rocket science. We don't have to get into the nitpicking details of statistics to realize that being president is a damned dangerous job. Aside from the ones who have been assassinated, consider all the ones that have had assassination attempts made on them. There is absolutely no doubt that being a President is damned dangerous.

But the difference between Bush and other presidents is that Bush has made lifetime enemies of a lot of fanatics. I don't think there are a lot of maniacs out there gunning for Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford. But as long as Bush lives, there will be people thinking about ways to kill him. Perhaps in organized fashion. He'll be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life.

[wolf_meister]

Wow, the way some of you folks are talking about Dubya's bravery, let's see if we can nominate him for sainthood for the tremendous "sacrifice" he is making for our nation's citizens so that we may sleep peacefully under our blanket of freedom.

If you look at my posting (#30 I think it was), the advatages to being President far outweigh the disadvantages.

President Bush will always have to look over his shoulder, etc? I would really be surprised if this country just lets Dubya Bush fend for himself after his Presidency is over. Granted, I know he will get Secret Service protection but considering how things have changed since Sept 11, 2001, I wouldn't mind if extra tax dollars went toward his safety. (And I think you know my politics are not very favorable toward Bush).

I don't think anyone has mentioned Gerald Ford yet. He had two assassination attempts on his life within one week. He liked to "move among the people" so to speak and the first attempt did not deter him from "meeting the people". Maybe 2 attempts in one week finally convinced him to be much more cautious. (One attempt would be more than enough to convince me !!!)

[Orbifold]

But the difference between Bush and other presidents is that Bush has made lifetime enemies of a lot of fanatics. I don't think there are a lot of maniacs out there gunning for Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford. But as long as Bush lives, there will be people thinking about ways to kill him. Perhaps in organized fashion. He'll be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life.

Sam, if I chose to do so I could fly back to Canada, find the nearest bar catering to the Hell's Angels, walk in, and shout "Hell's Angels are <expletive referring to female genetalia deleted>!" at the top of my lungs. If I were to do so, then quite possibly there would be people thinking about ways to kill me right then and there. Would that be brave?

Or to pick a more extreme example, I could get a gun, stop shaving for a week, get drunk and then run into a police station shooting the gun wildly into the air. Then there would be a number of very serious armed people thinking about ways to kill me before I kill someone else. Would that be brave of me?

Or does the word "brave" imply more than merely doing something with the knowledge that the act will endanger oneself? Does it imply a judgement about the worth and necessity of the action, a judgement which might not be shared by everyone?

[F. U. Shakespeare]

One of the things I find most objectionable about Bush is the way he changes his stance on issues without even acknowledging doing so. And I disagree that he didn't pander to the electorate, at least the portion thereof needed for re-election.

He opposed a 9/11 commission. Then he changed his mind.

He opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. Then he changed his mind.

He ran as a supporter of free trade. Then he supported steel tariffs (after lobbying by domestic steel interests). Then he opposed steel tariffs (after lobbying by domestic auto and construction interests).

Good thing he's not a liberal, or he'd be guilty of flip-flopping.

I think Bush is politically brave. Regardless of the wisdom of his policies, I don't think he would alter them to pander to the electorate. Invading Iraq was politically brave, in that he risked little by not going in. He's probably one of the more politically brave presidents we've had in a long time.

[Zagadka]

I don't know who the OP is, and I'm too lazy to look, but f* you for saying George Bush is brave. You want to know what bravery is? Ask Nelson Mandela. That mother f*er is the bravest brave you can get. I wouldn't hesitate in ranking him as the bravest person on the planet. George Bush doesn't deserve to grovel in Nelson Mandela's footsteps.

Maybe Bush can lick the floor he walked on.

After Mandela left the room.

He'd probably have to do it wearing a bullet proof vest, too. With 8 SS agents around him.

[TonyF]

I think it's pretty obvious the numbers and situations are too unique to make comparisons. For example, not all soldiers are on the front line so comparing their mortality rates in general to the mortality rates of presidents doesn't work.

Presidents have security details. They are well protected. And - so I hear - they are pretty much the most powerful men on Earth. So, though they are bigger targets it tends to even out with their defenses.

Also, soldiers are compelled to do dangerous things. Presidents current and past have some leeway in choosing where they tread.

[Orbifold]

I don't know who the OP is, and I'm too lazy to look, but f* you for saying George Bush is brave.

Should I just not bother making a reasonable point, Zagadka? Do you think it would help our side of the case if your shouted ramblings didn't have to compete for attention with a reasoned, civilized discussion?

[RickJay]

Hold on... are you implying the Clinton administration made that whole thing up? Why on earth would they do that? If they wanted to lob a few missiles at saddam, he provided plenty of opportunity to do so without Clinton MAKING UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH a bogus assasination story. And for all the endless attacks and investigations of Clinton, this would have been a doozy, yet they never brought it up.
Made up out of whole cloth? Not quite. Surmised from obviously bogus crap foisted upon them by Kuwaiti intelligence? That's more like it.

Having said that, I implied the Clinton administration was entirely responsible for making the whole thing up. In fact, the media is also responsible for never really investigating the matter and the average Joe is repsonsible for repeating the story over and over as if it was proven fact, when it's actually fiction.

[Zagadka]

Should I just not bother making a reasonable point, Zagadka? Do you think it would help our side of the case if your shouted ramblings didn't have to compete for attention with a reasoned, civilized discussion?
...

A reasoned, civilized discussion on how a draft dodging man who happens to be the most well protected person on the planet is brave and noble.

Right.

You aren't allowed to lick Mandela's footsteps, either.

[Zagadka]

I mean, the mere premise of this thread is a rape of the word "brave"

[TonyF]

Look, I disagree too, but if you're not careful you'll end up banned and Bush supporters will just sit smug and comfortable with the implication that our case is argued ad hominem.

The best argument against an irrational assertion is rational. If the other side can't parse it out - too bad for them; walk away knowing you are correct.

[Zagadka]

Look, I disagree too, but if you're not careful you'll end up banned and Bush supporters will just sit smug and comfortable with the implication that our case is argued ad hominem.

The best argument against an irrational assertion is rational. If the other side can't parse it out - too bad for them; walk away knowing you are correct.
So I'm passionate about the cause of not idolizing Bush. *shrugs* I've almost been banned before, and I know when I'm pushing it. I wasn't pushing it there.

So my tone of discourse is more suited for the bar on Friday night than the debate floor Tuesday afternoon. *shrugs*

[Orbifold]

A reasoned, civilized discussion on how a draft dodging man who happens to be the most well protected person on the planet is brave and noble.


YES. At least, civilized enough to not say "f* off" to the OP.

I'm not objecting to you being passionate about your beliefs. But right now, your "passion" is reminding me less of Nelson Mandela and more of a drunk man screaming at passers-by on a street corner. What do you think you're accomplishing with drive-by insults? What the hell do you think you're contributing?


You aren't allowed to lick Mandela's footsteps, either.


Remind me to cancel that appointment.

[Zagadka]

YES. At least, civilized enough to not say "f* off" to the OP.

I'm not objecting to you being passionate about your beliefs. But right now, your "passion" is reminding me less of Nelson Mandela and more of a drunk man screaming at passers-by on a street corner. What do you think you're accomplishing with drive-by insults? What the hell do you think you're contributing?
A shred of amusement and respect, something you're certainly lacking.

Very well.

Bush is not a brave man. He is a coward who has hidden from danger to anything except his liver his entire life. He should not have threads started with vicious lies and absurd claims that he is brave.

Nelson Mandela is a brave man. He should have threads made stating that he is a brave man.

[Abe]

Well it seems there is the same persistent and misguided confusion regarding the concept of bravery as there is regarding the related concept of heroism.

I was dismayed with the october 11, 2004 special issue of TIME (Asian edition). It announced on the cover in large-point lettering "Asia's Heroes". The cover graphic was a photograph of a ballerina in pose.

Heroic? Hardly, unless one considers the sacrifice her toes had to make for her career. I flipped to the feature piece and was informed that the 20 "heroes" profiled for the piece were selected on the basis of having done "something brave, bold or remarkable". Well.

To me, a hero is someone who attempts to accomplish through brave actions a remarkable and worthy result. Out of 20 "heroes" were Liu Xiang (Olympic 110 m hurdles), Ichiro Suzuki (baseball player), Nigo ("Japan's king of cool"), Shah Rukh Khan (Bollywood actor), Yuan Yuan Tan (ballerina), Anoushka Shankar (musician and daughter of Ravi), Song Aree (golfer), Muttiah Muralitharan (cricket player), and Yuuya Yagira (teen actor).

So, some athletes, a fashion leader, and a few performing artists make up roughly half the roster of Time's "heroes" (note that I did not include in this laughable list Hong Suk Chun, the actor who was the first public figure in South Korea to admit -- and pay for -- his homosexuality). These farcical heroes were presented alongside people who actually did something that involved bravery and/or sacrifice, including John Wood (formerly China's second in command at Microsoft China, who quit to bring literacy, education, schools, libraries, and scholarships to rural India, Nepal, Cambodia, and Vietnam), Pham Thi Hue (she contracted AIDS, and refused to accept the traditional shame and submission mandated in Vietnam, instead going public to educate about the disease; her business tanked and she attracted a lot of ire for it), Mukhtar Mai (Pakistani woman who was officially gang-raped, beaten, and paraded naked on the basis of "honour" because her brother had been seen walking with a girl; instead of submitting as the patriarchal swine wanted, Mai stated that she would sooner die than give up her right to justice; in spite of further threats and a culture generally hostile to women, Mai pursued her case and eventually secured punishment for six of the men responsible for her "judgement"), and so forth.

To compare the heroism, courage, and harrowing experiences of someone like Mai to those of a privileged athlete competing in branded commercial events is to me not only ridiculous, but also deeply insulting and a hideous reminder of the relentless march of stupidity.

How shall we define bravery? I submit "readiness and ability to face and endure danger, hardship, and/or pain for a cause", barring of course masochism and similar abnormalities. Yes, the 9/11 hijackers and all the rebel fighters being massacred in Falluja deserve the label brave, as objectionable as their cause may be.

And Bush? He is, and no doubt will be until the day he dies, among the most heavily protected individuals on the planet. He doesn't take risks, he has large reserves of people to do that for him. He even dodged his generation's war, managing by dint of contacts and influence (not even by conscientious objection) to win a domestic post defending Texas from Alabama while worthier countrymen were shipped off to risk life and limb.

Leaders who are brave include those who actually do live with enormous risks -- Arafat in Palestine, Mandela in S. Africa, Karzai in Afghanistan to name a few -- not those who are kept snug and secure at the heart of the undisputed superpower, whose security operations capital expenditure is enough to run several smaller countries.

For Bush to do something brave I would expect him (as an example) to tell his various business cronies and interests "the buck stops here; I may have been elected partly thanks to you, but there's a limit to everything". I'd expect him to admit he --and his administration-- was wrong on (insert issue here -- far too many to enumerate) and apologize, thereby risking the wrath of the democracy. That would be bravery. Being power-hungry, fanatic, ignorant, and stubborn is not bravery by any definition.

[TastesLikeBurning]

I don't like George Bush very much, but I still have to call you on this: are you seriously trying to imply that George Bush would "deserve" being shot?



Deserve being shot?

No, it's much too quick.

I think a documented decline & subsequent demise due to rabies would be much more satisfying.

[bup]

Presidents are brave for reasons given in the OP.

However, I think Bush is less brave than most of the other 42, because he runs such a secretive White House. He is much less publicly accessible than all the rest, so far as I know. On 9/11, didn't his staff make up the claim that he was a target?

[Zagadka]

On 9/11, didn't his staff make up the claim that he was a target?
No, on 9/11 he pissed away a few hours while some minions actually did something (and it wasn't much) until a speech writer pounded out a script for him, magically uniting America.

[Who_me?]

Well it seems there is the same persistent and misguided confusion regarding the concept of bravery as there is regarding the related concept of heroism...

(rest snipped for brevity)




Whoa... nice post!