The Bush Legacy: Would we have been safe even without him?

[Unspeaked]

It seems the real "gold star" that the Bush administration is pointing to that defines his "legacy," at least for very short-sighted view we currently have - is the fact that we had no follow-up attack on US soil following 9/11. I suppose one could argue that the economic meltdown of the past several months is an important part of his legacy, but because terrorism and that one attack took up so much of both terms in office, I'll put the focus on that.

So do you think we were safe all these years because of Bush, or despite him?

How would things have been different with McCain in office, or Gore, or Kerry for the second term? Would they have been different, at all?

[iObama]

It seems the real "gold star" that the Bush administration is pointing to that defines his "legacy," at least for very short-sighted view we currently have - is the fact that we had no follow-up attack on US soil following 9/11. I suppose one could argue that the economic meltdown of the past several months is an important part of his legacy, but because terrorism and that one attack took up so much of both terms in office, I'll put the focus on that.

So do you think we were safe all these years because of Bush, or despite him?

How would things have been different with McCain in office, or Gore, or Kerry for the second term? Would they have been different, at all?

Gore wouldve been too busy complaining about Global Warming to care.

[NT1440]

is the fact that we had no follow-up attack on US soil following 9/11.

I also own a rock that keeps tigers away, do you see any tigers? Good, it works great.....

[pooky]

I also own a rock that keeps tigers away, do you see any tigers? Good, it works great.....

Hmmm, I would like to buy your rock...

[NT1440]

Hmmm, I would like to buy your rock...

;)

[.Andy]

It seems the real "gold star" that the Bush administration is pointing to that defines his "legacy," at least for very short-sighted view we currently have - is the fact that we had no follow-up attack on US soil following 9/11.
What about the anthrax attacks?

[Unspeaked]

I also own a rock that keeps tigers away, do you see any tigers? Good, it works great.....

Well, I'm not great fan of Bush, but even I'll admit he was more effective than a rock...

Clearly there were plans foiled at some point. How serious and/or advanced those plans were we'll never know (or at least not know for some time). But what we do know is there were attacks elsewhere in the world, some directly tied to American interests, and there has yet to be another on our own soil.

I've got to grudgingly give him a few points for that.


What about the anthrax attacks?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was just an anthrax "scare?"

[EricNau]

Let's remember, 9/11 occurred over 7 months after George Bush took office. He certainly didn't do much to prevent that attack, did he?

[NT1440]

Well, I'm not great fan of Bush, but even I'll admit he was more effective than a rock...

Clearly there were plans foiled at some point. How serious and/or advanced those plans were we'll never know (or at least not know for some time). But what we do know is there were attacks elsewhere in the world, some directly tied to American interests, and there has yet to be another on our own soil.

I've got to grudgingly give him a few points for that.

Well you can, but I wont. Mainly because there have been other terrorist attacks on our soil. Unless you mean from the middle east, which would just make you picky. Then again, alot of this country still has the mindset that "real" terrorism only comes from the middle east.

[Unspeaked]

Let's remember, 9/11 occurred over 7 months after George Bush took office. He certainly didn't do much to prevent that attack, did he?

No, but regardless of how little or how much his administration had to go one, I'm sure if you were to ask Mr. Bush he'd say that was his single greatest regret.

And really, 7 months is not a lot of time when you're talking about a presidential term...

[NT1440]

Bush apologists? On my MacRumors?!:eek:

[Unspeaked]

Well you can, but I wont. Mainly because there have been other terrorist attacks on our soil. Unless you mean from the middle east, which would just make you picky. Then again, alot of this country still has the mindset that "real" terrorism only comes from the middle east.

Again, I'm not really trying to make a point about how effective Bush and his administration were in preventing or allowing attacks while in office. If you look at my first post, I'm asking how different it would have been with someone else in the same position.

[Unspeaked]

Bush apologists? On my MacRumors?!:eek:

If I were really a Bush apologist, I wouldn't waste my time on the MacRumors PRSI forum, if only to keep my blood pressure down...

[EricNau]

And really, 7 months is not a lot of time when you're talking about a presidential term...
7 months is 15% of a 4-year term. I consider that significant.

. . .I'm asking how different it would have been with someone else in the same position.
That's a question with no answer; none of us will ever know.

[NT1440]

If I were really a Bush apologist, I wouldn't waste my time on the MacRumors PRSI forum, if only to keep my blood pressure down...

;) Just trying to prove a point about something. Apply my baseless post to apple and you have the rationality of alot of members here.

[TK B$K]

You know ive always wondered that same question.

Ive never liked Bush (or the president:D) but its just hard to see through all the poverty, unemployment, economic meltdown to actually try to look back to see what Kerry or someone else could do. I think we got jipped, the candidates were all d-bags (dont flame :() in the past and we really didnt have a choice. We were stuck in a bad situation and were giving stupid canidates... i rember voting day and hearing this middle aged wealthy man chuckle and state "wow its like voting to get AIDS or Cancer". And damn was he right..

[.Andy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was just an anthrax "scare?"
It was so scary 5 people died. It was a terrorist attack no matter how you look at it.

[Luftwaffles]

I also own a rock that keeps tigers away, do you see any tigers? Good, it works great.....
You wouldn't be saying that if a dozen tigers were trying to claw their way through your front door.

Especially considering that your father was killed by such a tiger eight years ago.

Granted, you were trying to be funny, but jokes don't bring back a few thousand people, do they?

[.Andy]

jokes don't bring back a few thousand people, do they?
Neither does arbitrarily invading middle eastern countries. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Managed to start a war with Iraq that cost us a trillion dollars, 4,000 dead Americans and 100,000 dead iraqi's. Yeah he kept us safe allright:rolleyes: Destroyed any goodwill the U.S. had and now is spinning his rear off. Thats just a tidbit of things he did. There is so much more he can be proud of.

Bin Laden.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Gore wouldve been too busy complaining about Global Warming to care.

I'm sure he would have found time to invite Osama over to the White House for some tea and cookies, give him a hug, and talk about his feelings.

[Peace]

Who is this Bush person you speak of ?

[.Andy]

I'm sure he would have found time to invite Osama over to the White House for some tea and cookies, give him a hug, and talk about his feelings.
So he would have found him?

[TK B$K]

Who is this Bush person you speak of ?

BUSH :) (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bush)

[Luftwaffles]

Neither does arbitrarily invading middle eastern countries. Quite the opposite in fact.

Arbitrarily? Arbitrary as in invading Taliban-controlled Afghanistan? Arbitrary as in searching for Osama bin Laden in Iraq, another very prominent Taliban hiding place, and having to depose a dictator convicted of war crimes by the UN?

Does Resolution 1441 ring a bell?

[Agathon]

It seems the real "gold star" that the Bush administration is pointing to that defines his "legacy," at least for very short-sighted view we currently have - is the fact that we had no follow-up attack on US soil following 9/11. I suppose one could argue that the economic meltdown of the past several months is an important part of his legacy, but because terrorism and that one attack took up so much of both terms in office, I'll put the focus on that.

So do you think we were safe all these years because of Bush, or despite him?

How would things have been different with McCain in office, or Gore, or Kerry for the second term? Would they have been different, at all?

I don't think you can blame Bush. Most of the terrible things he did, he did with the approval of voters. Hurricane Katrina was a tipping point, and now everyone doesn't like him and is complaining about policies that were supported by a majority of Americans at the time (we must remember that he was re-elected).

Again, most people weren't complaining when their home values were skyrocketing and they were using their homes as ATMs.

The people who voted for him are to blame, especially those who voted for him in 2004. If that's you, then you have no cause for complaint, since his agenda was pretty transparent.

[Peace]

**** BUSH. And good riddance.

[.Andy]

Arbitrary as in searching for Osama bin Laden in Iraq
This wasn't the reason Bush sent troops to die in Iraq.

having to depose a dictator convicted of war crimes by the UN?
This wasn't the reason Bush sent troops to die in Iraq.

[Luftwaffles]

Again, most people weren't complaining when their home values were skyrocketing and they were using their homes as ATMs.

Agreed. The horrible economic situation, the fall of the Auto industry and the banks hemorrhaging money has been almost entirely the fault of people who think their houses double as money trees, and people who think that a small plastic card is an excuse for financial irresponsibility.

Bush has nothing to do with the economy. The Congress makes the decisions and you all damn well know that.

I failed a math class in college because I didn't understand the material. I guess that means I can blame the dean.

[Luftwaffles]

This wasn't the reason Bush sent troops to die in Iraq.


This wasn't the reason Bush sent troops to die in Iraq.

To quote 4chan...

inb4 "OIL BAWWWWWWWW"!

Okay wise one, why DID Bush send troops to fight in Iraq? I'm sure you know him personally and can explain 100% truthfully and in a non-biased way. Go ahead.

[mactastic]

Does Clinton get the same level of credit for keeping us safe from foreign terrorist attacks post-1994 when the first WTC attack occurred that Bush is claiming for his post-9/11 lack of attacks?

[TK B$K]

To quote 4chan...

inb4 "OIL BAWWWWWWWW"!

Okay wise one, why DID Bush send troops to fight in Iraq? I'm sure you know him personally and can explain 100% truthfully and in a non-biased way. Go ahead.

Oil.

[Luftwaffles]

Does Clinton get the same level of credit for keeping us safe from foreign terrorist attacks post-1994 when the first WTC attack occurred that Bush is claiming for his post-9/11 lack of attacks?

The US military and CIA have been uncovering terrorist plots all over the place for the last 7 years. Did that happen under Clinton's administration? Al Queda struck not too long after Bush took office, so I'm pretty sure they were planning it before he was elected. The real test of that will be whether another attack occurs within the next year.

Of course I hope 100% that it doesn't happen, and I'm sure Obama will take appropriate action to ensure it doesn't. He's a smart guy and hasn't been giving into either party, so I think his security plans will be effective.

To expand on that point, the US military and CIA have been uncovering terrorist plots all over the place for the last 7 years. Did that happen under Clinton's administration?

[Unspeaked]

7 months is 15% of a 4-year term. I consider that significant.

I thought it was generally accepted that the first year of office, a new president acclimates to the office, and the forth year they plan for reelection, basically leaving them two years to actually be president?


To expand on that point, the US military and CIA have been uncovering terrorist plots all over the place for the last 7 years. Did that happen under Clinton's administration?

In Clinton's defense, "terrorism" was viewed very differently in this country after 9/11/2001. I don't think you can fault him for the level of scrutiny that was placed on defending the nation during his time in office, just as it wasn't the same priority it was to the Bush administration the first 7 months of office.

[NT1440]

You wouldn't be saying that if a dozen tigers were trying to claw their way through your front door.

Especially considering that your father was killed by such a tiger eight years ago.

Granted, you were trying to be funny, but jokes don't bring back a few thousand people, do they?

No one was joking about 9/11.

I was simply stating that just because there hasn't been any "major" terrorist attacks since then doesn't mean Bush or his policies prevented them. I believe the current threat of terrorism is vastly overstated for political gains.

[.Andy]

Okay wise one, why DID Bush send troops to fight in Iraq? I'm sure you know him personally and can explain 100% truthfully and in a non-biased way. Go ahead.
I recall the case for war being made on Saddam having in his possession a large number of "weapons of mass destruction" that were an imminent threat to America and her allies. I don't recall the reasons for war in Iraq being founded on catching Bin Laden and to disposing Saddam.

[Luftwaffles]

No one was joking about 9/11.

I was simply stating that just because there hasn't been any "major" terrorist attacks since then doesn't mean Bush or his policies prevented them. I believe the current threat of terrorism is vastly overstated for political gains.

The fact that there hasn't been an attack says nothing about how many ATTEMPTS there are.

The CIA has been uncovering numerous plots within the last few years, so obviously they are taking measures to prevent them. To them almost every threat is credible and is acted upon. That's why there haven't been any attacks actually carried out.

[NT1440]

I recall the case for war being made on Saddam having in his possession a large number of "weapons of mass destruction" that were an imminent threat to America and her allies. I don't recall the reasons for war in Iraq being founded on catching Bin Laden and to disposing Saddam.
Well that was what the TOLD us, and recently Cheney said it wasn't that at all, they were going to invade no matter what.

[NT1440]

The fact that there hasn't been an attack says nothing about how many ATTEMPTS there are.

The CIA has been uncovering numerous plots within the last few years, so obviously they are taking measures to prevent them. To them almost every threat is credible and is acted upon. That's why there haven't been any attacks actually carried out.
From what theyve told us. It's no secret that this administration has been caught lying to the public on several occasions (emphasis on caught, it happens in every administration).

[Luftwaffles]

I recall the case for war being made on Saddam having in his possession a large number of "weapons of mass destruction" that were an imminent threat to America and her allies. I don't recall the reasons for war in Iraq being founded on catching Bin Laden and to disposing Saddam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441#Passage_of_resolution

WMD suspicious/violations made up only about 20% of that actual resolution. While that did prove to be false for the most part, no intelligence is 100% accurate, and all they could do was rely on the intelligence information they had. Hussein sure as hell wasn't going to let them take a look for themselves.

EDIT: From the actual resolution voted on by the entire United Nations Security Council:

[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. . .If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.

[Agathon]

Does Clinton get the same level of credit for keeping us safe from foreign terrorist attacks post-1994 when the first WTC attack occurred that Bush is claiming for his post-9/11 lack of attacks?

How dare you suggest such a thing, Mactastic.

Bill Clinton had no time to do anything about terrorism, since he spent his entire presidency exposing himself to good Christian women, hiring out the Lincoln bedroom for homosexual orgies, and impregnating interns so that he could force them to get abortions and slake his liberal lust for fetal blood!!!!

Do you know nothing?!?!

[.Andy]

WMD suspicious/violations made up only about 20% of that actual resolution.
I had a quick read through - what percentage does it apply to deposing saddam or catching bin laden?

edit:
"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations.
Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.
Doesn't seem to be any of these to me :confused:

[Luftwaffles]

I had a quick read through - what percentage does it apply to deposing saddam or catching bin laden?

There are five points on the page that you don't even have to scroll down to see. I trust you read them.

Deposing Saddam was a priority due to:

What the UN deemed "grave" human rights violations
Non-compliance with weapons manufacturing policies that Iraq had previously agreed to
Using the money provided by the Oil For Food program to build weapons instead of providing food to Iraqi citizens
Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.

While the UN didn't explicitly state that he should be arrested or executed, they still stated that a member nation could take action to respond to any threats posed by Iraq.

Finding OBL/UBL goes hand in hand with the first point which is:
"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush use to say Bin laden and Saddam together whenever he got a chance. Saddam was a evil you know what but Bin Laden is the guy who attacked us, Saddam was the guy that got Wmds from Bush's dad.

Bush's legacy will be a man surrounded with fellow draft dodgers, a liar and spinmaster. Lets look at a few of his closest men. Cheney =Draft dodger Karl Rove= draft dodger Newt Gingrich =Draft Dodger Trent Lott,Tom Delay & big mouths Orielly & Limbaugh > all were going to keep us safe.All have this in common. Not a one had the balls to put it on the line. All shouting at the top of their lungs for the Iraq war.....as long as it wasnt them doing the fighting. Bush will be remembered all right for this, not using his Veto the first 4 years, his Katrina response or lack of and leaving a huge economic mess for Obama.

Real Hero's here all of them.

[Luftwaffles]

Bush use to say Bin laden and Saddam together whenever he got a chance. Saddam was a evil you know what but Bin Laden is the guy who attacked us, Saddam was the guy that got Wmds from Bush's dad.

Bush's legacy will be a man surrounded with fellow draft dodgers, a liar and spinmaster. Lets look at a few of his closest men. Cheney =Draft dodger Karl Rove= draft dodger Newt Gingrich =Draft Dodger Trent Lott,Tom Delay & big mouths Orielly & Limbaugh > all were going to keep us safe.All have this in common. Not a one had the balls to put it on the line. All shouting at the top of their lungs for the Iraq war.....as long as it wasnt them doing the fighting. Bush will be remembered all right for this, not using his Veto the first 4 years, his Katrina response or lack of and leaving a huge economic mess for Obama.

Real Hero's here all of them.
Wow, that's funny... I don't see any mention of the overwhelming number of Democrats who voted yes on the Iraq war. Or, for that matter, the $750 billion bailouts (more Republicans voted against than Democrats).

From the sound of things, you don't understand that the Democrats have been running the Congress (and therefore the country) for the last 3-4 years. The Congress (practically speaking) has more power than the President.

Oh, and I'd LOVE to see your sources on the accusations of draft dodging.

Tell me, how's the scenic view of your rectum?

[.Andy]

While the UN didn't explicitly state that he should be arrested or executed, they still stated that a member nation could take action to respond to any threats posed by Iraq.
And the threats were to disarm Saddam of WMDs. Which didn't exist. To the surprise of only a select few. The deposition of saddam only came out as politically palatable device after the embarrassment that the case for war was completely fraudulent. To paraphrase you from earlier; whoops bad intelligence doesn't bring back over 100 000 lives. The reasons given for going to Iraq were not initially to dispose a dictator. You are revising history if you think they were.

Finding OBL/UBL goes hand in hand with the first point which is:
It doesn't go hand in hand at all. Where is the evidence that Saddam was harbouring OBL or a in Iraq? There wasn't any. There was a desperate attempt to try and link Saddam with 9/11 which only fools fell for. Again if you think that Iraq was invaded to find OBL you're revising history.

edit:
Tell me, how's the scenic view of your rectum?
This is unnecessary Luftwaffles and is just going to reduce the debate to a slanging match. Let's try and stay civil.

[NT1440]

It doesn't go hand in hand at all. Where is the evidence that Saddam was harbouring OBL or a in Iraq? There wasn't any. There was a desperate attempt to try and link Saddam with 9/11 which only fools fell for. Again if you think that Iraq was invaded to find OBL you're revising history.

Unfortunatly most of those fools were the American public, which tends to believe in their government since they aren't privy to intelligence reports.

To cut things short, we were lied to, repeatedly, thats why the war was approved.

[Luftwaffles]

And the threats were to disarm Saddam of WMDs. Which didn't exist. To the surprise of only a select few. The deposition of saddam only came out as politically palatable device after the embarrassment that the case for war was completely fraudulent. To paraphrase you from earlier; whoops bad intelligence doesn't bring back over 100 000 lives. The reasons given for going to Iraq were not initially to dispose a dictator. You are revising history if you think they were.


It doesn't go hand in hand at all. Where is the evidence that Saddam was harbouring OBL or a in Iraq? There wasn't any. There was a desperate attempt to try and link Saddam with 9/11 which only fools fell for. Again if you think that Iraq was invaded to find OBL you're revising history.
How am I trying to revise history? All I said was that one of the goals of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is to find OBL. It wasn't a goal from the outset but it was later realized.

Besides, I'd rather have a democratic government in Iraq than Hussein. I am in no way claiming that the end justifies the means, but the many Iraqis who endured the bombings and death threats to cast their first free vote in years probably feel a little better that they can now openly criticize their government without fear of torture or execution.

[Luftwaffles]

Unfortunatly most of those fools were the American public, which tends to believe in their government since they aren't privy to intelligence reports.

To cut things short, we were lied to, repeatedly, thats why the war was approved.
You can throw the L word around all you want, it won't gain you any more credibility than the government. Try giving me some sources and maybe I would actually believe some of the things you say.

[NT1440]

How am I trying to revise history? All I said was that one of the goals of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is to find OBL. It wasn't a goal from the outset but it was later realized.

Besides, I'd rather have a democratic government in Iraq than Hussein. I am in no way claiming that the end justifies the means, but the many Iraqis who endured the bombings and death threats to cast their first free vote in years probably feel a little better that they can openly criticize their government now without fear of torture or execution.

Women, homosexuals, and many others are actually far worse off than they were before. I'm not saying Hussein wasn't terrible, by all means he was, but this peachy keen free society crap is an outright lie.

Hundreds of thousands are now dead because of lies. There is no excuse for that.

[NT1440]

You can throw the L word around all you want, it won't gain you any more credibility than the government. Try giving me some sources and maybe I would actually believe some of the things you say.

Have you not watched the news recently?

Heres just a little tidbit:

Bush, talking to ABC's Martha Raddatz, does a Cheney on the lies leading up to the Iraq invasion and the messy misadventure of the occupation:

BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–

RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

[Luftwaffles]

Women, homosexuals, and many others are actually far worse off than they were before. I'm not saying Hussein wasn't terrible, by all means he was, but this peachy keen free society crap is an outright lie.

Hundreds of thousands are now dead because of lies. There is no excuse for that.

How the hell are they worse off? How about you consider the fact that a woman can now walk alone on the street without fear of being executed on the spot?

And homosexuality is a societal issue and that will take a while to sort itself out, like it or not. I'm in no way implying that their country is as free as the US but it's a damn good start when you consider how things were originally.

[Luftwaffles]

Have you not watched the news recently?

Heres just a little tidbit:

Bush, talking to ABC's Martha Raddatz, does a Cheney on the lies leading up to the Iraq invasion and the messy misadventure of the occupation:

BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–

RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.
Okay, and you're still not accounting for the many other reasons we went into Iraq in the first place. Maybe if you dull down your incredible hate for Bush you could actually approach things from a neutral standpoint. It would benefit both of us.

[NT1440]

How the hell are they worse off? How about you consider the fact that a woman can now walk alone on the street without fear of being executed on the spot?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7282064.stm

Read, just read.

I don't know if you live under a rock or if I just watch alot more news than you.

[NT1440]

Okay, and you're still not accounting for the many other reasons we went into Iraq in the first place. Maybe if you dull down your incredible hate for Bush you could actually approach things from a neutral standpoint. It would benefit both of us.

OOOH here we go, because I criticize him I hate him.:rolleyes:

I HATE what he has done, I cannot hate a man that has never done anything to me personally.

Try to remember back to what we were told for going to war, just try.

[.Andy]

How am I trying to revise history? All I said was that one of the goals of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is to find OBL. It wasn't a goal from the outset but it was later realized.
Perhaps we're on the same page then. I think we're arguing the same thing :)!

Besides, I'd rather have a democratic government in Iraq than Hussein. I am in no way claiming that the end justifies the means, but the many Iraqis who endured the bombings and death threats to cast their first free vote in years probably feel a little better that they can now openly criticize their government without fear of torture or execution.
I do however think this is debatable. The means could have definitely been far more measured. With such a large death toll and much of the country's infrastructure in ruins it's going to take a long time to achieve any sort of social stability. Anyway history has been written and the sooner the Iraqi people have reason to look forward the better.

How the hell are they worse off?
100 000+ innocent civillian Iraqis have been killed. Their basic infrastructure and work prospects are in ruins. They have only ruidmentary access to any medical care. They're still at war. Just to mention a few.

[Luftwaffles]

OOOH here we go, because I criticize him I hate him.:rolleyes:

I HATE what he has done, I cannot hate a man that has never done anything to me personally.

Try to remember back to what we were told for going to war, just try.
Sorry, I jumped to that conclusion, I've just come to expect it from PRSI lately.

Frankly it makes me think that half the people here have wet dreams of Obama playing Claudio and Bush taking on the role of Wilhelm Ryan or maybe Admiral Crom...

[.Andy]

Frankly it makes me think that half the people here have wet dreams of Obama playing Claudio and Bush taking on the role of Wilhelm Ryan or maybe Admiral Crom...
Stick around. You'll find that Obama will get a hard time as well. There's already plenty of threads criticising decisions he's made and he's not even president yet.

[Eluzion]

Unfortunatly most of those fools were the American public, which tends to believe in their government since they aren't privy to intelligence reports.

To cut things short, we were lied to, repeatedly, thats why the war was approved.

Of course, Bush lied to the American public so we could go to war with Iraq for oil, or whatever crazy reason you believe we went into Iraq for. Let me guess, you must be one to believe that Al Queda was never in Iraq until we (the U.S.) got there? If yes, 'nuff said. If no, still, 'nuff said.

There was very strong evidence from our intelligence agencies, Russian intelligence, and other allied intelligence that led to our invasion in Iraq. Anyway, Obama is going to fix all of our problems. ;)

[NT1440]

Sorry, I jumped to that conclusion, I've just come to expect it from PRSI lately.

Frankly it makes me think that half the people here have wet dreams of Obama playing Claudio and Bush taking on the role of Wilhelm Ryan or maybe Admiral Crom...

MOST of the people in PRSI are capable of a little thing we like to call rational and logical thinking, and are usually against lies/corruption/lame ducks/deception. Bush is hated because he provides excellently for almost every category.

Obama on the other hand, we are optimistic that we will actually get change, and if you actually read, many are critical of his picks and skeptical of his plans, but are willing to give him a change, you know, once hes IN office. If he turns out to be crap, he will be treated as such.

I find your massive over generalizations and assumptions of the members of PRSI insulting. I've found most of them to be the best of the members here because they follow rules by backing up their claims.

[.Andy]

There was very strong evidence from our intelligence agencies, Russian intelligence, and other allied intelligence that led to our invasion in Iraq.
Strong evidence for what?

[NT1440]

Anyway, Obama is going to fix all of our problems. ;)
Read my above post.


I wouldnt be nearly as critical of the war (im still very anti-war) if they were honest of their reasons outright. I'd still oppose it, but at least I'd have much more trust in my government.

[Eluzion]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7282064.stm

Read, just read.

I don't know if you live under a rock or if I just watch alot more news than you.

Well, if it's on the news then it must be true or unbiased...

(don't even get me started on the media)

[hulugu]

I'd argue that the Bush administration could easily be replaced by the Gore or Kerry administrations and we would be better off. While 9/11 would have happened—the FBI still would have failed to move vital information from Florida and Arizona up the chain and the CIA would still have forgotten to tell the FBI who they were tracking—and I'm certain that any president in office on 9/12 would have started preparations for the invasion of Afghanistan. However, after the initial conflict I believe the tactical structure of the military there would have been different without Rummy's insistence on his own doctrine. This may not have changed the strategic situation: we still would have relied on relatively porous Afghani positions and our massive airpower, but we might have had enough troops on the ground to encircle the Taliban positions during Operation Anaconda, and quite possibly have caught or killed Osama Bin Laden. Or not.

Of course, this wouldn't have finished off Al Qaeda, but without their leader and without the invasion of Afghanistan to create Al Qaeda in Iraq, the group's ability would have been blunted.

One of the things that's most notable about all the possible terrorist plots in the US since 9/11 is how they're almost completely homegrown. This, I think, tells us more about discontent in the US than Al Qaeda's ability to project power or control sleeper agents.

I don't think Bush made us safer after 9/11, in fact I think the administration did more to damage our cause than anything else. We're safe because of our troops, our intelligence agents abroad, and because we've been lucky.

[Luftwaffles]

Perhaps we're on the same page then. I think we're arguing the same thing :)!


I think we are, we're just using different verbiage. ;)


I do however think this is debatable. The means could have definitely been far more measured. With such a large death toll and much of the country's infrastructure in ruins it's going to take a long time to achieve any sort of social stability. Anyway history has been written and the sooner the Iraqi people have reason to look forward the better.

It's heavily debatable and I think it depends mostly on your personal definition of a good life. Some people put more value on things like an infrastructure, while others put more value on actual personal liberties. This debate will never end, methinks.

100 000+ innocent civillian Iraqis have been killed. Their basic infrastructure and work prospects are in ruins. They have only ruidmentary access to any medical care. They're still at war. Just to mention a few.
I haven't lived in Iraq, never even been there (might change when I join the ANG) but from what I've heard it was not a very free place. Olympians were tortured for doing poorly, critics of Saddam or anyone who voted against him were punished or flat-out executed, the list goes on. But again, yes, the infrastructure was still there and in one piece, but the quality of it is what I'm unsure of. Obviously being a freer nation would allow them to develop their own infrastructure and join the other nations in technological advances.

[Eluzion]

Strong evidence for what?

Woops, forgot to put that in there. WMD.

[NT1440]

Well, if it's on the news then it must be true or unbiased...

(don't even get me started on the media)

Similar stories have been run by almost EVERY news source, leaning every which way. Tell me, where do you get your sources if you cannot trust any news sources?

The BBC is as close to no bias as you can get in THIS country (i realize their reporting is slightly biased on local news).

Edit:

Seeing as we are on the subject of Bush's legacy here, if you can somehow put aside the deaths of hundreds of thousands, is the wost thing and possibly the most dangerous: His administration has single handedly tarnished Americas standing in the world. We are arguably more hated then ever, especially by the regions we consider "unfriendly" to us. THAT is a HUGE national security issue, arguably one of the biggest.

[.Andy]

Woops, forgot to put that in there. WMD.
Not really the strong evidence was it :o?

Well, if it's on the news then it must be true or unbiased...

(don't even get me started on the media)
Here you go (http://www.womenforwomen.org/global-initiatives-helping-women/help-women-iraq.php). Bypass the media and read the report for yourself. I'm reading it now and it's quite different to what I suspected.

[NT1440]

Not really the strong evidence was it :o?


Here you go (http://www.womenforwomen.org/global-initiatives-helping-women/help-women-iraq.php). Bypass the media and read the report for yourself. I'm reading it now and it's quite different to what I suspected.

Unfortuneatly its not only women that are worse of. Children are suffering greatly too, which could be a MASSIVE problem if an entire generation grows up with ill will to america.

[hulugu]

...."In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."

It's weird. I'm looking at the text of 1441 from the State Department (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm) and your quoted section is not in the document.

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq....

[Eluzion]

Similar stories have been run by almost EVERY news source, leaning every which way. Tell me, where do you get your sources if you cannot trust any news sources?

The BBC is as close to no bias as you can get in THIS country (i realize their reporting is slightly biased on local news).

Mostly people that have been there and trust me, I hear both sides from even them. I just saying a lot of what the media focuses on is the negative and often very skewed.

Here you go. Bypass the media and read the report for yourself.

I wasn't really referring to that particular article (to be honest, I didn't even read it) but I'm just not a huge fan of the news being the primary source of information. But, I will agree, BBC isn't as bad as some of the other news agencies.

[.Andy]

I wasn't really referring to that particular article (to be honest, I didn't even read it) but I'm just not a huge fan of the news being the primary source of information. But, I will agree, BBC isn't as bad as some of the other news agencies.
Still worth a read if you're interested. Always good to go back to primary references anyway. So far I've learnt something reading it so it's been worth it :)!

[NT1440]

I wasn't really referring to that particular article (to be honest, I didn't even read it) but I'm just not a huge fan of the news being the primary source of information. But, I will agree, BBC isn't as bad as some of the other news agencies.

Beleive me, I dont like it either (although I watch it almost all the time). I just don't see any other way to report on the goings on in the world.

[dukebound85]

all i know is this

1)airports have become such a pita
2) we have still yet to find OBL
3) there were no WMD which was the sole reason for us attacking Iraq
4) if it was for oil, i haven't seen the benefits of it
5)a lot of our civil rights have been chipped away in the name of safety
6)the US hasn't been attacked again largly because i feel that its because we are an ocean across and relatively isolated from the volatile spots in the world
7) the war has cost trillions and many lives lost with no apparent victory other than liberating Iraq by going there on false pretenses.
8) the war and the housing bubble lead to what some are saying will be the worst recession since the 30's
9) allowed for gas to reach record highs for millions of americans which resulted in higher prices felt now with food and other fuel surcharges

quite the legacy id say. infamous actually

[hulugu]

Mostly people that have been there and trust me, I hear both sides from even them. I just saying a lot of what the media focuses on is the negative and often very skewed.

The media is often accused of "if it bleeds, it leads" thinking, but if you spend your time reading in-depth articles you often get past this and can find very well-written articles describing what's happening.

I wasn't really referring to that particular article (to be honest, I didn't even read it) but I'm just not a huge fan of the news being the primary source of information. But, I will agree, BBC isn't as bad as some of the other news agencies.

No one should watch, read, or listen to a news agency as their sole source for news. It's a pain, but I think anyone should strive to watching television news for immediate knowledge and then read a newspaper, magazine, or listen to interviews and in-depth explorations, for depth.

As man cannot survive on bread alone, so no one should depend on television for their news. You have to take the time.


And so endeth Hulugu's sermon on the media.

[Eluzion]

Seeing as we are on the subject of Bush's legacy here, if you can somehow put aside the deaths of hundreds of thousands, is the wost thing and possibly the most dangerous: His administration has single handedly tarnished Americas standing in the world. We are arguably more hated then ever, especially by the regions we consider "unfriendly" to us. THAT is a HUGE national security issue, arguably one of the biggest.

Fair enough, and I will partially agree. I'll be the first to say the Bush administration and Congress could have handled certain situations better, but obviously that is easy for us to sit back here and say after the fact. I don't believe Bush himself is the sole blame for those mistakes though (read: last time I checked we weren't a communist nation). However, I do think he handled homeland security well and personally, I still feel just as safe as I did prior to 9/11, in or out of uniform. Regardless, the damage that has been done is done and I'm hoping the best for our future. So far, I'm not too optimistic with Obama, especially with some of his appointments. Why he replaced Hayden with Panetta is beyond me, and if any attacks do occur, good luck with a second term.

Either way, it should be an interesting next few years. Hopefully we can all make some positive change in this world at one point of our lives.

"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

[mgguy]

Perhaps it would be instructive here to quote former President Clinton. In a March 24, 1999, Oval Office broadcast, he explained his military action in Kosovo, which resulted in the death of over 6,000 people, most innocent civilians, and displaced hundreds of thousands of citizens:

"We act to prevent a wider war, to defuse a powder keg at the heart of Europe, that has exploded twice before in this century with catastrophic results ... By acting now, we are upholding our values, protecting our interests and advancing the cause of peace ... Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative. It is also important to America's national interests ... Do our interests in Kosovo justify the dangers to our armed forces? ...

I am convinced that the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting – dangerous to defenseless people and to our national interests ... I have a responsibility as president to deal with problems such as this before they do permanent harm to our national interests. America has a responsibility to stand with our allies when they are trying to save innocent lives and preserve peace, freedom and stability in Europe. That is what we are doing in Kosovo."

Bush had a much stronger case for invading Iraq than Clinton had for his bombing campaign on Kosovo. Clinton also bombed Iraq. And for what? -- To distract attention from his impeachment for lying under oath to cover up getting a blow job. At least Bush had the CIA telling him that there were nuclear weapons or materials, and the knowledge that Hussein had recently used WMD to commit genocide against his own people and probably would do so again.

God only knows what military conflicts Gore would have gotten us into continuing the Clinton war policies.

[Eluzion]

Let's not even get started with Clinton... ;)

[mgguy]

Let's not even get started with Clinton... ;)

Why not? It is very relevant to the OP's question as to how we would have fared under Gore. We might even see a replay of the Clinton bombing campaigns under Obama, considering the many former Clintonites who have been nominated by Obama to high-level positions (including sniper-fire-dodging Hillary as SOS).

[EricNau]

I thought it was generally accepted that the first year of office, a new president acclimates to the office, and the forth year they plan for reelection, basically leaving them two years to actually be president?
Exactly why presidents should be limited to one six-year term.

In any case, if we're attacked again this fall (heaven forbid), which president do you think will be blamed? Obama, for sure.

Party-politics aside, I think this is very demonstrative of how our mindset has changed over the past eight years. In 2001, 9/11 was unforeseen: no citizen would have predicted the events that unfolded, nor would they have any reason to contemplate such an issue, and it is for this reason that George Bush wasn't believed by the general public to be at fault. Today, just eight years later, the average citizen is frequently considering the possibility of a terrorist attack, and we've come to believe that attacks are always on the horizon unless our government intervenes. For these reasons, upon the next terrorist attack the incumbent president will be personally blamed for failing the American people.

[Unspeaked]

In any case, if we're attacked again this fall (heaven forbid), which president do you think will be blamed? Obama, for sure.

Just like with 9/11, I think that would depend a lot on who you were asking...

[NT1440]

Just like with 9/11, I think that would depend a lot on who you were asking...

I think anyone given information from several sources of an iminent attack that is specific enough to even give the means of attack (hijacked aircraft) and fails to act on it should get at least some of the blame.

If (more like when) another attack happens and Obama (or whoever it will be when it does) is in charge, if it comes to light he was given information beforehand and fails to act on it, i will blame him.

[EricNau]

Just like with 9/11, I think that would depend a lot on who you were asking...
I don't recall it being an issue, at least not at first.

[NT1440]

I don't recall it being an issue, at least not at first.

If I recall correctly bush's approval right after 9/11 was massively high, near 90%. And then well, you know.....

[EricNau]

If I recall correctly bush's approval right after 9/11 was massively high, near 90%. And then well, you know.....
Indeed, it actually increased immediately following 9/11. (graph) (http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm)

Regardless of the President or party in control upon the next terrorist attack, I expect we'll see the exact opposite because of the way people's notions of terrorism and homeland security have changed; if we're attacked, it will be viewed as the President's failure to protect the people and he will accordingly be blamed.

[Agathon]

all i know is this

1)airports have become such a pita

And yet journalists manage to sneak things through all the time. The whole airport security thing might as well be for show. In order to cover their backsides, you can now no longer take a drink on to the plane. People just accept it, even though it is moronic. In general, people now accept all sorts of stupid government regulations on the grounds of "security", when in fact they do not demonstrably provide much security at all.

2) we have still yet to find OBL

He's a hard guy to find. Some of his wives have trouble keeping track of him.

3) there were no WMD which was the sole reason for us attacking Iraq

It wasn't the real reason.

4) if it was for oil, i haven't seen the benefits of it

It wasn't. It was for the geostrategic fantasies of a bunch of armchair warriors.

5)a lot of our civil rights have been chipped away in the name of safety

Of course. This is always the path of least resistance when people are frightened.

6)the US hasn't been attacked again largly because i feel that its because we are an ocean across and relatively isolated from the volatile spots in the world

Yep. to the rest

But the real price has been the end of democracy. Democracy was supposed to be the political system that would prevent war, because the voters would reject pointless aggression from their leaders by getting rid of them at the ballot box.

We now know that this is not true. Democracy is next to useless at preventing such things, since most voters only care about bread and butter issues. Millions protested against the Iraq war, but nothing was done and the criminals were re-elected. Three of the world's most democratic countries are presently committing war crimes. Moreover, people voted themselves a free handout from the future by voting for irresponsible economic policies that now have us all in a terrible mess. Americans would rather vote to stop poofs getting married than to stop the illegal killing of thousands through aggressive war.

As usual, it is the last thing that we are willing to give up that is what is really causing the problems. For us, it is our peculiar forms of democracy that we have fetishized to the point that we are incapable of constructively criticizing it. It has got to the point of comedy when people can criticize the Chinese for not being democratic with a straight face, given what the so-called democracies have been up to lately.

What was it that carpenter said about splinters in eyes again?

[QuantumLo0p]

So do you think we were safe all these years because of Bush, or despite him?

I cannot make an accurate comment without commenting on Congress at the same time. Which, by the way, has the worst congressional approval ratings since we've been keeping track. It's been absolutely terrible and yet the landscape on the Hill did not change much last November. We must be gluttons for misery and punishment.
:eek:
IMO, safer because of Bush. Some of his policies were obviously unpopular but somebody has to do it. The President takes national security and safety of U.S. citizens very seriously. Bush's time is almost over; now Obama has to step up to the plate and give it his best shot. He will have some policies that may be unpopular. Comes with the job.

If he performs poorly there WILL be HOPE for CHANGE in 2012.

I would have to say safer. There has been over twenty major terrorist attacks against US targets between the Spring of 83 and the start of Bush's first term. Not so many lately.
:)

[QuantumLo0p]

...It has got to the point of comedy when people can criticize the Chinese for not being democratic with a straight face, given what the so-called democracies have been up to lately.

Perhaps you should visit China and attempt to speak what you just posted.

[Metatron]

If only the people really knew....;)

[.Andy]

I would have to say safer. There has been over twenty major terrorist attacks against US targets between the Spring of 83 and the start of Bush's first term. Not so many lately.
:)
Where did you get these statistics from?

[Agathon]

Perhaps you should visit China and attempt to speak what you just posted.

Hey look, you can't say that the rape I committed is wrong because the guy next door murdered his wife.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Wow, that's funny... I don't see any mention of the overwhelming number of Democrats who voted yes on the Iraq war. Or, for that matter, the $750 billion bailouts (more Republicans voted against than Democrats).

From the sound of things, you don't understand that the Democrats have been running the Congress (and therefore the country) for the last 3-4 years. The Congress (practically speaking) has more power than the President.

Oh, and I'd LOVE to see your sources on the accusations of draft dodging.

Tell me, how's the scenic view of your rectum?Here comes the Republican spin once again, divert and spin and twist. Fact is Bush & Congress was all Republican ran the first 4 years and 2 more afterwards. All Three branches were ran by the Republicans. Figure it out.
The Buck stops at the President. Bush = Disaster.

[Blue Velvet]

It seems the real "gold star" that the Bush administration is pointing to that defines his "legacy," at least for very short-sighted view we currently have - is the fact that we had no follow-up attack on US soil following 9/11.



You do realise that intelligence about 9/11 was cursorily dismissed by The Decider?


In the segment of the documentary focusing on the events in the months before 9-11, Amanpour reported: "On August 6 [2001], unbeknownst to the American public, President George Bush received this highly classified memo, 'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.' In it, this paragraph: 'FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.' "

But the documentary made no mention of Bush's response after being briefed on the memo, which Suskind reported in The One Percent Doctrine:

The alarming August 6, 2001, memo from the CIA to the President -- "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" -- has been widely noted in the past few years.

But, also in August, CIA analysts flew to Crawford to personally brief the President -- to intrude on his vacation with face-to-face alerts.

The analytical arm of CIA was in a kind of panic mode at this point. Other intelligence services, including those from the Arab world, were sounding an alarm. The arrows were all in the red. They didn't know the place or time of an attack, but something was coming. The President needed to know.

[...]

He's not much of a reader, this President, and never has been, despite White House efforts to trumpet which serious books he is reading at various times. ... But he's a very good listener and an extremely visual listener. He sizes people up swiftly and aptly, watches them carefully, and trusts his eyes.

[...]

The trap, of course, is that while these tactile, visceral markers can be crucial -- especially in terms of handling the posturing of top officials -- they sometimes are not. The thing to focus on, at certain moments, is what someone says, not who is saying it, or how they're saying it.

And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice.

He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer.

"All right," he said. "You've covered your ass, now."


http://mediamatters.org/items/200608240013

[freeny]

No, but regardless of how little or how much his administration had to go one, I'm sure if you were to ask Mr. Bush he'd say that was his single greatest regret.

And really, 7 months is not a lot of time when you're talking about a presidential term...

Obama has been pres for -4 days and hes already being blamed for a bunch of crap. Sorry, but this one is all in Bush's court.

[BoyBach]

The idea that the USA and the world is a safer place because of Bush II's presidency is an utter nonsense.

On the wider question of his legacy, that was sealed with his shameful handling of Hurricane Katrina. Worst. President. Ever.

[atszyman]

Does Clinton get the same level of credit for keeping us safe from foreign terrorist attacks post-1994 when the first WTC attack occurred that Bush is claiming for his post-9/11 lack of attacks?

Didn't the bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing) occur in 1993, only a little over a month after Clinton was sworn in?

I guess the U.S. doesn't count embassy's as U.S. soil anymore, or the Yemen bombings (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94768995) would throw a little wrinkle in the no attacks on U.S. soil since 2001 argument.

While there were many oversights that led to 9/11(or 11/9 depending on where you are) Bush could have learned a few lessons from Clinton (http://www.slate.com/id/2097681/).

What was the fly-swatting "law enforcement" approach the Bush team refused to repeat? In his 60 Minutes interview, Clarke cites the Cabinet meetings Clinton ordered in 1999 in response to intelligence chatter that suggested an imminent terrorist attack. Clarke explains how the meetings helped thwart a bombing plot against Los Angeles International Airport:

In December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI or the head of the CIA, the attorney general, had to go to the White House and sit in the meeting and report on all of the things that they personally had done to stop the al-Qaida attack. So they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally, finding out all of the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the attorney general might have found out that there were al-Qaida operatives in the United States. FBI at lower levels knew. Never told me. Never told the highest levels in the FBI.*

And let us not forget that the biggest terrorist presence in Iraq was al-Zarqawi, who Bush failed to attack twice (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/) before the invasion.

While I don't doubt that Bush did do somethings correctly to thwart further attempts to attack the U.S. mainland, I don't think he did a better job than any prior presidents or a job that was so spectacular that his example should be used as the bar.

[Unspeaked]

You do realise that intelligence about 9/11 was cursorily dismissed by The Decider?

I wasn't looking at his actions prior to the attack. I think no one will argue that mistakes weren't made, whether they point the finger at Bush, Clinton or a combination of the two...

(On a related note, I really hate when people put things in "pre" and "post" 9/11 terms like I'm doing now, but the one place where I think it's really applicable is national security. That's something that will never be viewed the same way in the United States after those attacks - at least not in our lifetimes - and Bush happens to have been the first man in office that had to deal with this new mindset.)

[EricNau]

(On a related note, I really hate when people put things in "pre" and "post" 9/11 terms like I'm doing now, but the one place where I think it's really applicable is national security. That's something that will never be viewed the same way in the United States after those attacks - at least not in our lifetimes - and Bush happens to have been the first man in office that had to deal with this new mindset.)
Or did he create it?

[Unspeaked]

Or did he create it?

Well, that just goes back to my original question: how differently would things have been handled if it were someone else in office?

I have to admit I find it hard to think anyone in that situation wouldn't have been forced to make national security their main concern, at least for the short to mid term following 9/11.

Not everyone might have made it their reason for waking up the the morning for 7 years as Bush seemed to do, but you don't just watch that happen and then move on.

[mactastic]

To expand on that point, the US military and CIA have been uncovering terrorist plots all over the place for the last 7 years. Did that happen under Clinton's administration?
Yes. And I'm citing exactly as many sources to make my claim as you did to make yours.


In Clinton's defense, "terrorism" was viewed very differently in this country after 9/11/2001. I don't think you can fault him for the level of scrutiny that was placed on defending the nation during his time in office, just as it wasn't the same priority it was to the Bush administration the first 7 months of office.
Hmm... You've got my name above a quote that I did not say. Not sure how to respond to your point.

From the sound of things, you don't understand that the Democrats have been running the Congress (and therefore the country) for the last 3-4 years. The Congress (practically speaking) has more power than the President.
Democrats have been running Congress for 3-4 years? Please provide a source for this.

I'm also curious if you feel that Bush/Cheney are failures in that they believe in, and pushed for, expansive executive authority? And yet you claim that Congress has more power than the POTUS?

It wasn't a goal from the outset but it was later realized.
And therein lies the problem.

Besides, I'd rather have a democratic government in Iraq than Hussein. I am in no way claiming that the end justifies the means, but the many Iraqis who endured the bombings and death threats to cast their first free vote in years probably feel a little better that they can now openly criticize their government without fear of torture or execution.
Um... yea. Not so much. The torture chambers were in quite abundant use post-Saddam, by both US forces, as well as our purported allies. Perhaps you have not read of the people who turn up with drill holes in their heads, or sans head?

Why he replaced Hayden with Panetta is beyond me, and if any attacks do occur, good luck with a second term.
Why would you say that? Democrats rallied to George W. Bush after 9/11. Are you suggesting that Republicans would not rally behind their leader during a time of national crisis? If so, what does that say about the loyal opposition?

Bush had a much stronger case for invading Iraq than Clinton had for his bombing campaign on Kosovo. Clinton also bombed Iraq. And for what? -- To distract attention from his impeachment for lying under oath to cover up getting a blow job. At least Bush had the CIA telling him that there were nuclear weapons or materials, and the knowledge that Hussein had recently used WMD to commit genocide against his own people and probably would do so again.
Define "recently".

Clinton kept the nation safe for 7 years after the WTC bombings. I routinely see conservatives citing Bush's record of no attacks on the US homeland after the first one as one of his greatest accomplishments, yet they somehow conveniently forget that Clinton did the same thing. Perhaps politics colors their vision?

And of course you accuse Clinton of using military strikes for political gain, but for some reason can't seem to make the same assessment of Bush.

The hypocrisy runs thick in you...

God only knows what military conflicts Gore would have gotten us into continuing the Clinton war policies.
You flog that strawman! Git 'im! Pound that straw bastard! Make him your straw b*tch! Damn you really proved that point...

[mgguy]

You flog that strawman! Git 'im! Pound that straw bastard! Make him your straw b*tch! Damn you really proved that point...

I'm not sure whether you are furthering your argument here, but I do appreciate your emotionalism given the seriousness of this topic and my charge that Clinton was no less hesitant than Bush in bombing other countries and then claiming he did so to save the world. You may want to read some of Clinton's justifications as to why he approved military intervention in Kosovo and Iraq. I've quoted one above and I'm sure you can find plenty more if you take the time to search for them.

[johnmartin78]

I also own a rock that keeps tigers away, do you see any tigers? Good, it works great.....

I need some kind of rock to keep cougars away....

[.Andy]

I need some kind of rock to keep cougars away....
These cougars? (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cougar) ;)

[mactastic]

I'm not sure whether you are furthering your argument here, but I do appreciate your emotionalism given the seriousness of this topic and my charge that Clinton was no less hesitant than Bush in bombing other countries and then claiming he did so to save the world. You may want to read some of Clinton's justifications as to why he approved military intervention in Kosovo and Iraq. I've quoted one above and I'm sure you can find plenty more if you take the time to search for them.
You charged that Gore would have gotten us into all kinds of trouble around the world. That's as stupid (and strawman) of an argument as me saying "thank god McCain wasn't elected because who knows what trouble he would have gotten us into following the policies of W.".

But I do appreciate your lack of ability to argue without logical fallacy on a topic of this gravity.

[mgguy]

You charged that Gore would have gotten us into all kinds of trouble around the world. That's as stupid (and strawman) of an argument as me saying "thank god McCain wasn't elected because who knows what trouble he would have gotten us into following the policies of W.".

But I do appreciate your lack of ability to argue without logical fallacy on a topic of this gravity.

Gore is a little different than McCain as he was the VP of the Clinton administration and in that sense has to take some ownership of Clinton's military intervention policies. It isn't too much of a stretch to suggest that he may have continued them. Of course, it is possible that if he were elected president he wouldn't have had the same propensity as Clinton to invade countries in an attempt to save them. Do you have any information to share regarding Gore's foreign policy positions that would have indicated that he would have changed course?

And if my memory serves me well, I think you and many others here (and the Obama campaign) were saying that McCain would have been a disaster because he would have continued Bush's policies. Are you now saying that was stupid?

[mactastic]

Gore is a little different than McCain as he was the VP of the Clinton administration and in that sense has to take some ownership of Clinton's military intervention policies. It isn't too much of a stretch to suggest that he may have continued them. Of course, it is possible that if he were elected president he wouldn't have had the same propensity as Clinton to invade countries in an attempt to save them. Do you have any information to share regarding Gore's foreign policy positions that would have indicated that he would have changed course?
More to the point, since you made the assertion, do YOU have any information to share regarding Gore's foreign policy positions that would have indicated what he would have done?

And if my memory serves me well, I think you and many others here (and the Obama campaign) were saying that McCain would have been a disaster because he would have continued Bush's policies. Are you now saying that was stupid?
McCain SAID he would continue Bush's policies. Are you suggesting that McCain is a liar?

[mgguy]

More to the point, since you made the assertion, do YOU have any information to share regarding Gore's foreign policy positions that would have indicated what he would have done?


McCain SAID he would continue Bush's policies. Are you suggesting that McCain is a liar?

I never said that Gore WOULD follow Clinton's policy, I merely stated it as a possibility. Since you reacted so emotionally to my suggestion of this possibility, I thought that you must have some information to refute it, otherwise why would you hold such a strong view about it and come to Gore's rescue with such force? If you don't know, or don't wish to add to the discussion by sharing it, that's fine.

McCain did not say he would follow all of Bush's policies, and disagreed with Bush even on use of military and torture. Many posts here were absolute in nature, I believe including yours.

[mactastic]

I never said that Gore WOULD follow Clinton's policy, I merely stated it as a possibility. Since you reacted so emotionally to my suggestion of this possibility, I thought that you must have some information to refute it, otherwise why would you hold such a strong view about it and come to Gore's rescue with such force? If you don't know, or don't wish to add to the discussion by sharing it, that's fine.

McCain did not say he would follow all of Bush's policies, and disagreed with Bush even on use of military and torture. Many posts here were absolute in nature, I believe including yours.
Hey, I merely stated that it was a possibility that McCain would follow Bush's policy.

And that wasn't an emotional response. You only characterize it as such in order to belittle it. You posted a strawman argument, and got called on it. Tough.

[QuantumLo0p]

Where did you get these statistics from?

I assumed it to be common knowledge of our recent history but apparently I was wrong. While it is true there have been a number of attacks against US targets outside our borders, there has not been many attacks inside our borders, despite many attempts.

There are a number of records describing the attacks but a fairly complete list is available on the U.S Department of State site: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

While this list seems to chronicle a large number of attacks against the US, on foreign soil, this represents a fraction of the total number of terrorist attacks on other countries world wide.

[.Andy]

.......
I was just interested in the stats on the 83 you quoted. Precisely the number of casualties (if any), the dates, and the perpetrators. What is being included? I could have googled for your link too but that in no way shows what you claimed. From what source did you get the 83 number?

[hulugu]

....I would have to say safer. There has been over twenty major terrorist attacks against US targets between the Spring of 83 and the start of Bush's first term. Not so many lately.
:)

I assumed it to be common knowledge of our recent history but apparently I was wrong. While it is true there have been a number of attacks against US targets outside our borders, there has not been many attacks inside our borders, despite many attempts.

There are a number of records describing the attacks but a fairly complete list is available on the U.S Department of State site: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

While this list seems to chronicle a large number of attacks against the US, on foreign soil, this represents a fraction of the total number of terrorist attacks on other countries world wide.

Yes, but you're still relying on a significant assumption which is simply that terrorists are trying and failing to get into the United States and have not, as many intelligence reports have suggested, simply refocused their efforts on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Of course, this would also suggest that the survivors of these conflicts will be very well trained and ready, once these conflicts have come to a close, to start attacking the United States and her allies again.

For the most part, many of the groups outside of the above regions have remained quiet. Kidnappings in Columbia have subsided, but however in 2007, members of 17 November fired a RPG at the US Embassy in Greece.
And, of course, we can't discount events such as those in Mumbai and decide we're safe because we haven't been hit in the United States since 2001.

I'm sure there are plots that have not been officially acknowledged, but at the same time, considering how much the administration has cowed about relatively small groups such as those in Michigan, I can't help but be a bit jaded that there's dozens of plots they've kept quiet. Unfortunately, the administration lost much of their credibility with me since 2002-2003.