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 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 ?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!