A Change In How We View War Casualties?

I'm surprised that this dawned on me now, as the Iraq was seems to be winding down. As much as many of us hate to do so, think back a few years to the heyday of Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, et al and their blustering during Memorial Day. A recent disagreement on another blog caused me to do some thinking.

Why is it that during a Republican presidency war fatalities and injuries are the fault of the president and not the enemy? But during a Democrat presidency, it is the fault of the enemy? Have you noticed that? Mind you, Democrats and war presidencies are about as common as award-winning MPS schools. But think back to the Clinton presidency and deployment of our troops to Kosovo where they were forced to fight under the UN banner. Casualties there were not Clinton's fault. They were the fault of the myriad of enemies that we faced there. But the war casualties in both of the Bush presidencies were considered "blood on the hands" of the respective president. Why is that?

Indeed, why aren't the fatalities of the war in Iraq the fault of the islamofascist terrorists? It wasn't George W. Bush that hid that roadside bomb or that strapped ten pounds of Semtex to himself and fired the detonator. It wasn't George W. Bush who wildly sprayed machine gun fire at a US convoy. It wasn't George W. Bush who fired mortar rounds in to the Green Zone. Yet, he is ascribed the blame as if he personally committed those acts? Why?

If Barack Obama, arguably our next president, gets us involved in a war due to his phenomenal lack of expertise in foreign policy, will he be given the blame for all US casualties? Will Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, all of the Hollywood glitterati and self-ascribed experts on everything, claim that he has "blood on his hands"? I seriously doubt it. Apparently only Republican presidents get that appellation.