... has been bouncing around the internet for some time, William, though in somewhat different form than your presentation. It apparently originated with a letter written to the Durham, NC, newspaper. Some of the "facts" are just plain wrong. Others were deceptively selected and/or stated to embellish the obviously pro-republican, anti-democrat partisan point of the piece.

>> Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start war on terror. Terrorists started it before 9/11.

True enough that terrorism pre-dates 9/11 (actually, by several millenia). But while we're at it, let's clear up a couple of other points (briefly first and in detail below):

We (FDR) didn't start WWII. It was started by Germany & Italy in Europe and Japan in Asia years before December 7, 1941.

We (Harry Truman) didn't start the Korean War. It was started by North Korea when it invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950, and declared war the same day.

We (JFK) didn't start the Vietnam War. It was started by the Vietnamese in 1946, years before America became involved.

We (Bill Clinton) didn't start the war in Bosnia. It was started when Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 and the Yugoslavian army attacked Slovenia, years before American troops were sent there.

In greater detail:

>> President Franklin Roosevelt (democrat) led us into World War II.

Technically true. FDR was our commander-in-chief and therefore "led us" when we entered World War II. He did so in immediate response to an attack which was, at the time, every bit as devastating to the country as the terrorist attacks of 9-11-2001. I doubt, however, that the fact that he was a democrat had much to do with his decision to ask for a declaration of war (passed with virtual unanimity by congressional democrats and republicans alike).

>> Germany never attacked us ...

Also technically true, though Germany did declare war on us as a result of our declaration of war on Japan. On the other hand, is there any doubt that joining with our allies in the European theater was the correct decision -- politically, militarily, philosophically and morally?

>> ... Japan did.

Yes. And if the 9/11 attacks justify a "war" on terrorism, doesn't the attack on Pearl Harbor justify a war with Japan?

>> (450,000 lives lost)

Presumably, this is an attempt to refer to American casualties, as estimates for the total WWII deaths (military and cvilian) range as high as 45 million. Even for us, however, the total is inaccurate. U.S. combat deaths totalled 292,000 and non-combat deaths were 115,000, for a total of 407,000 deaths out of more than 16 million who served. As horrific at this total sounds, it pales to virtual insignificance compared to the death totals for other countries.

More important, however: is there one among us who doubts the appropriateness -- nay, the necessity -- of our participation in this war? A war which, BTW, "liberated" a host of European and Asian countries, including France (for the second time in 30 years).

>> President Truman (democrat) finished that war ...

And this is bad for what reason?

>> ... and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us.

Of course, Truman did not "start" the war in Korea. And, while the statement that North Korea never "attacked us" is technically true, it is also deceptive. North Korea did attack South Korea. Two days later, the United Nations (not the United States) passed a resolution authorizing military aid for South Korea. Eventually, American troops were committed to the defense of South Korea, but they were committed as part of a United Nations effort to defend an ally, not a unilateral attack by the United States. Ultimately, of course, Communist China joined in the war by attacking UN forces along the Chinese border in late 1950.

>> (55,000 lives lost).

It's not at all clear to what this number is intended to refer. American combat deaths totalled 33,600 and non-combat deaths just 3200, for a total of just under 37,000 American military deaths. The numbers of North and South Koreans killed are much higher.

>> Vietnam never attacked us.

True enough. But, if that is sufficient reason to conclude that we should never have joined in the Vietnam War (a war which, IMO, we should not have entered), I'm not sure how that contributes to the conclusion that democrats were somehow responsible for our participation.

>> President Kennedy (democrat) started that conflict in 1962 ...

Incorrect. The war in Indochina started in 1946, shortly after the end of WWII. Initially, of course, it was between the Vietnamese and the French. In 1954, after the defeat of the French, President Eisenhower (republican, though I don't think that matters much either) pledged American support for the Diem government in Vietnam. We began training South Vietnamese troops in 1956 and the first American combat death occurred on July 8, 1959.

>> ... President Johnson (democrat) turned it into a quagmire.

Johnson did substantially increase the commitment of American troops in Vietnam. What turned it into a "quagmire", however, warrants a whole separate discussion on which many books could be and have been written.

Nevertheless, the war in Vietnam dragged on for more than five years after Richard Nixon (republican) became president.

>> (58,000 lives lost).

Fully one-third of them during the Nixon administration.

>> President Clinton (democrat) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.

That one's good for a real ! French "consent"?? The truth is, President Clinton authorized the commitment of US troops in 1995 (more than four years after the war started) as part of the NATO peace-keeping force, with at least tacit UN approval. BTW, President Bush (republican) went to war in Iraq without French "consent", too.

>> Bosnia never attacked us.

Actually, I don't think Bosnia ever attacked anybody. The conflict in Bosnia was a civil war among Croats, Serbs and Muslims, which was eventually brought to a more or less peaceful conclusion under UN auspices. The subsequent spread of this war into Kosovo brought further American involvement as part of the NATO peace-keeping effort. Peace negotiations (led by Gen. Wesley Clark democrat), ultimately brought this part of the Balkan upheavel to an uneasy conclusion.

Notice, BTW, that there is no reference to American casualties in this war. For the record, there were zero American combat deaths in Bosnia-Kosovo.

>> Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by
>> Sudan and he did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

This is, at best, an overstatement. There is reason to believe that Sudanese intelligence had information ("files") on Osama bin Laden that the government of Sudan wanted to share with the US. The Clinton administration, however, was suspicious of Sudan (thought at that time to be a terrorist sponsoring country). In part, these suspicions were based on what the Drudge report has called "wildly inaccurate" CIA intelligence reports. Sound familiar??

>> In nearly three years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries ...

While this much is arguably true ...

>> ... crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida ...

... these remain to be seen. In fact, al-Qaida is now probably as strong or stronger than it was three years ago. If it was "crippled", why are we still so afraid of them? And why haven't we been able to capture Osama?

>> ... put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea ...

The nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea are/were actually UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors and they were not "put" into those countries by GWB. In fact, the inspectors in North Korea, who had been monitoring a 1994 (Clinton, democrat) agreement freezing the North Korean nuclear weapons development program, were expelled in December 2002.

>> ... and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

True, though I am of the opinion that this could have been accomplished without a general invasion and at a cost in lives much less than:

>> We lost 900 soldiers.

900 too many, IMO.

Funny he (& you) didn't mention Grenada (Reagan, republican), or Panama and the Persian Gulf War (both Bush I, republican).

>> Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

In doing so, he also surrendered the last of the international moral high ground to which we ascended in defending freedom around the world during WWI and, in particular, WWII. Fifty years ago, the United States was the greatest international protector of the weak and the oppressed in the history of the world. Now, we are one of the biggest international bullies ever. In this process, Bush also squandered the vast international goodwill for America engendered by the 9-11 attack.

If you're going to repeat this kind of stuff, you should at least make sure the supposed "facts" are accurate before you do so.

----- jim o\-S