While Obama supporters point out that Gaddafi apparently is kaput without costing American lives, would any of them know what Obama has to show for the 1,369 troops who died in recent years? According to www.Icasualties.Org, 1,369 US troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the start of 2009, the month Obama became president.

Under former President George W. Bush, 4,600 troops died between those two wars, which stretched through seven years.  The US toppled strong-man Saddam and expelled the Taliban from its control over Afghanistan.  We can have a debate if it was worth the American lives or not.  At least we have something to debate. But what exactly does Obama have to show for the 1,369 US troops that were killed in the mere thirty one months he has been in office?

Bush said many years ago that changing Iraq -- with American lives -- will change the Middle East and the world for the better. How?  Saddam was considered the strongest of them all, and once he falls, others will fall via a domino effect and democracy will shape up.  Bush was proven right, despite the fact that the process is prolonged and delayed by Obama being busy taking credit from behind, instead of forcefully embracing the new winds and making sure that democracies take place at rapid speed.

Bush has that to show for the lost American Lives. But Obama, what does he have to show for it: Gaddafi? Osama Bin Laden? Those took place with no American soldiers dying. So again I ask: for what reason did we lose 1,369 since the start of 2009?