I keep hearing this over and over as the one thing people can claim Bush's legacy should be praised over.

But a serious question, if Bush's policy in response to 9/11 and terrorism results in over 4,000 Americans killed (much more when you include contractors) and perhaps a trillion dollars spent...

...and considering that the successes we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan probably aren't going to do much to improve domestic security here at home.

Is this really reasonable?

-spence

dont make the sheep angry. :devil2:

I know this is one of those "oh, there you go again" kind of comments...but I'm still hearing this over and over and I'm just not getting it.

-spence

68 percent of people questioned in poll say George W. Bush presidency was a failure
31 percent call Bush presidency a success, CNN/Opinion Research poll shows
44 percent say Bush faults led to failure; 22 percent blame outside circumstances
Half of those polled say U.S. would be better off if Al Gore had won in 2000

I think that only the future will dictate how this presidents actions should be judged. I know Spence is well read politically, just as I am sure he has zero understanding of the unpublished factors that have influenced W's decisions in the office. One thing I do know is that he tried his best to do what is right for our country. I hope everyone understands that the deaths of our troops was not in vain , but to secure the safety of Americans for generations to come. Our forefathers made similar sacrifices all in the name of freedom and democracy. Anyone can sit on their couch surrounded with luxuries and judge or throw stones but the reality is most have no concept of the real dangers that lurk within and beyond our borders. W has lead with his chin for quite some time and even loyalists have grown tired of defending his decisions but I can't imagine many would have the courage to have walked in those shoes for the term. Again, let history be the judge and support your country for better or worse.

I don't think our troops have died in vain, they sign up for a job and are put into harms way by civilian leadership. Even if the bigger mission is not successful there are smaller victories along the way that can be beneficial in many ways. Nor is this about supporting your country, no lack of support here.

And while I'm sure there's more going on behind the scene than we realize, I also think there's a lot we do know. I don't believe there has been a credible large attack thwarted in the US, and most of the success touted by the Administration has been seriously puffed up.

The issue here is about claiming to have kept Americans safe.

Bush has claimed that we've "taken the fight to the enemy" and justificed the invastion of Iraq (in hindsight) on these terms. That because al Qaeda is engaged with us in the Middle East it has protected Americans at home.

Our troops (most of them at least) are Americans as well, just because they die overseas why don't they count?

-spence

More importantly, LOST season debut is on Wednesday. Bush is old news.

This isn't even really about Bush.

It's more of a philosophical question.

-spence

I guess we will never know how many lives would have been lost if we hadn't responded the way we did. We only know the cost of our actions. I firmly believe inaction would have empowered those that attacked us. There is history behind my opinion

I guess we will never know how many lives would have been lost if we hadn't responded the way we did. We only know the cost of our actions. I firmly believe inaction would have empowered those that attacked us. There is history behind my opinion
I think that's the problem, we don't know what could have happened, yet still, people assume there's been a net benefit. On paper there appears to be a net loss.

Seems like a strange leap of faith to me.

-spence

More importantly, LOST season debut is on Wednesday. Bush is old news.

here here :cheers2:

I think that only the future will dictate how this presidents actions should be judged. I know Spence is well read politically, just as I am sure he has zero understanding of the unpublished factors that have influenced W's decisions in the office. One thing I do know is that he tried his best to do what is right for our country. I hope everyone understands that the deaths of our troops was not in vain , but to secure the safety of Americans for generations to come. Our forefathers made similar sacrifices all in the name of freedom and democracy. Anyone can sit on their couch surrounded with luxuries and judge or throw stones but the reality is most have no concept of the real dangers that lurk within and beyond our borders. W has lead with his chin for quite some time and even loyalists have grown tired of defending his decisions but I can't imagine many would have the courage to have walked in those shoes for the term. Again, let history be the judge and support your country for better or worse.

You said it Chris. I heard that the first CIA intelligence briefing the incoming president attends will make him throw up into his mouth. President Bush alluded to it the other day. A former Clinton advisor once said when Clinton left his first security briefing he was "ashen" and appeared stunned. The amount of terrorist threats both home grown and abroad is astounding. The CIA, FBI and NSA cull through all of the threats and intelligence they receive in a 23 hour period and present the president on a daily basis. Obama now has a clear view of exactly what we face and it will be interesting how he reacts now, armed with this knowledge as opposed to what he said to the "sheep" to get their vote.

There is history behind my opinion

You mean the history where Bush Sr. blew it in Afghanistan?
Yeah, they both completely fumbled handling the Middle East.

Spence,don't take this personally but you have the rationale and clarity of a woman. It seems these points of view may be better suited for the "view". Stop with the pot shots and cherry picking and look for the meat and potatoes. Please post a pick of your tears of joy tuesday night so I can get a visual on your thoughts.

comment withheld

Spence,don't take this personally but you have the rationale and clarity of a woman. It seems these points of view may be better suited for the "view". Stop with the pot shots and cherry picking and look for the meat and potatoes. Please post a pick of your tears of joy tuesday night so I can get a visual on your thoughts.

Wow, that was awfully pig headed. "The View" nice...you must be a closet junkie :hihi:

And I'm not sure what you mean by a pot shot. I posed a philosophical question that might help us measure the actions of future leaders, but your own bias doesn't seems to have impeeded your own ability for retrospection.

As they say...plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!

-spence

bush should be looked at as a good pres.....I didn't vote for him or agree with the war....but after 8 years were a strong nation, everything else will bounce back

bush should be looked at as a good pres.....I didn't vote for him or agree with the war....but after 8 years were a strong nation, everything else will bounce back

:rotfl: Ed, your killin me. :buds:

You mean the history where Bush Sr. blew it in Afghanistan?
Yeah, they both completely fumbled handling the Middle East.


And Clinton in between did a boffo job of it. Or did you forget about him lobbing missiles into Iraq.

This isn't even really about Bush.

It's more of a philosophical question.

-spence

I think your question is a good one,,, and not sure can easily be answered,,,, Set aside politics... it is a mess no matter how you look at it,,,

No matter what president was in office on Sept 11th , they would have had to make some VERY difficult choices....

The middle east is a not a place where normal diplomacy, and rational thinking work,,,, Deceit is a huge problem the U.S. faces even with countries who claim to be our allies... Of course The U.S. has its own share as well,,,

Anyone here can claim they could have made other choices that would have clearly solved all the worlds problems but we don't know all the details,,,,, No really knows... Unless someone here has been in those top secret presidential briefings they would only be speculating..

Strategically,,,I think Iraq was a thought that was only complicated by the unexpected occurrence of Sept 11th,,, And if I recall almost every American wanted to bomb Afghanistan after Sept 11th...and rightfully so....

Without a doubt Obama's eyes have been opened to the middle east and who knows maybe by the end of his 4 years we will be defending Isreal after they bomb Iran....:err:

Never the less Ahmadinejad does not translate into "I'm-a-nut-job" without good reason.

We will never know how many, when or how significant the attempts were that we stopped.

The fact that nothing major happened until 9-11 and nothing of significance has happened since is a testament to our intelligence and law enforcement capabilites. It is critical that we protect our sources and methods to prevent any future attempts hence the silence.

The financial situation we are in is a direct result of 16 years of loaning money to people who had no way of paying it back and an exodus of good manufacturing jobs as a result of NAFTA and constant renewal of China's "Most Favored Nation" status in spite of full knowledge of thier human rights record.

The fact that nothing major happened until 9-11 and nothing of significance has happened since is a testament to our intelligence and law enforcement capabilites. It is critical that we protect our sources and methods to prevent any future attempts hence the silence.
Don't forget the WTC bombings in 1993!

Also many bombings around the world followed 9/11. Yes, they weren't on US soil but they were attacks on American interests abroad. Bin Laden's aim is to hurt the US economy and our economy is a global one.

While I don't place sole blame on Bush for the current economic mess (he does get some credit) it's pretty clear that in terms of economic security we're in a tough spot for the next few years at least.

-spence

I think your question is a good one,,, and not sure can easily be answered,,,, Set aside politics... it is a mess no matter how you look at it,,,
The reason why I focus on the "net benefit" is how else can we judge if our leadership is being successful? Everything else seems to require oversimplified assumptions to a very complex situation.

It's precisely that it is a difficult question to answer that I find it interesting how people are so willing to do just that.

Obama might face similar challenges in the next 4 years, and the cost to Americans in terms of debt and lives could be steep. Are we willing to write such sacrifice off the books because it's too easy for most people to just flip channels?

It smells like someone is cooking the books, leaving just another bubble to burst.

-spence

Well... how many of them have died since 9-11??? War's success is based on ratios.

It is impossible for me to accept that any domestic, terrorist threat has been thwarted due to us dropping bombs in Iraq.

Wow, that was awfully pig headed. "The View" nice...you must be a closet junkie :hihi:

And I'm not sure what you mean by a pot shot. I posed a philosophical question that might help us measure the actions of future leaders, but your own bias doesn't seems to have impeeded your own ability for retrospection.

As they say...plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!

-spence

Obviously Spence you have missed my point. You seem to have already established your opinion and have already managed to somehow evaluate W's term. For those that disagree with your thoughts have chosen not to listen , but force feed your brand of rhetoric. It seems to me an easy route to bang away on your keys and criticize the leader of the free world because he has not met your expectations. I classify this as a pot shot. Your shortsighted comment regarding taking the fight over seas where Americans have died protecting your interests is also revealing. I suppose if we had hidden in the cellar the Taliban would have simply vanished into thin air. To conclude your rebuttal with a faggy French quote only cements your identity as a coward.

Obviously Spence you have missed my point. You seem to have already established your opinion and have already managed to somehow evaluate W's term. For those that disagree with your thoughts have chosen not to listen , but force feed your brand of rhetoric. It seems to me an easy route to bang away on your keys and criticize the leader of the free world because he has not met your expectations. I classify this as a pot shot. Your shortsighted comment regarding taking the fight over seas where Americans have died protecting your interests is also revealing. I suppose if we had hidden in the cellar the Taliban would have simply vanished into thin air. To conclude your rebuttal with a faggy French quote only cements your identity as a coward.
I stated my question and position clearly in the initial post. My hope of course was to provoke a meaningful dialogue to better understand the issue, which I think is a defining theme of how people will perceive Bush's legacy and judge Obama's along with other future US Presidents. As voters it's our job to assess the judgement of our leaders.

There have been several good and honest comments that present a view into how people regard the situation.

Unfortunately, you clearly see introspection as threatening, which is quite ironic, considering how much of your true character you've been more than willing to reveal in this thread.

-spence

It is impossible for me to accept that any domestic, terrorist threat has been thwarted due to us dropping bombs in Iraq.
I think the reasoning would be that al Qeada was so consumed with the front in the Middle East they'd not have the resources to attack us at home.

Contrary to this you have the argument that the bulk of the violence has been local insurgents, militants and recruits from nearby countries. In effect that we've just called more to the fight rather than distract those that were already there.

There's evidence to support both arguments, and clearly Bin Laden has seen a US failure in Iraq to be a strategic objective.

This is key to the bigger picture...

-spence

and clearly Bin Laden has seen a US failure in Iraq to be a strategic objective.

This is key to the bigger picture...

-spence

Where do you come up with this stuff? Did Bin Laden tell you this or did you just read the footnote version of his latest audio message from the folks over at Dailykos? This is a genocidal maniac who has been wearing the same clothes for 7 years. His strategic objective is to kill every non-islamic human being on earth...period. He puts an emphasis on Jews and Westerners because their deaths get him more bang for the buck. He knows a busload of British or American tourists reap greater rewards than a discotech full of Sri Lankans. Listen to the terror experts, they'll tell you Bin Laden has been stymied since 9/11. He wants the big stage, but our military/special forces/clandestine ops/homeland security will not give it to him.

So instead he is playing a forced hand running around the mountains of Afganistan taking credit for car bombs in Bagdad.

To gauge Bush's legacy on the absence of a post 9/11 terrorist attack seems, in my most humblest of opinions, to be a shaky premise. For one, are we forgetting about the Anthrax attacks the following month. Thats what really had #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney hiding under his desk.

Assuming the analogy equates, Should I really praise the Department of Public Works for a job well done this winter because I have yet to drive my car up onto someone elses lawn because of a poorly salted road.

I think we all can agree that things are more complicated than that.

To gauge Bush's legacy on the absence of a post 9/11 terrorist attack seems, in my most humblest of opinions, to be a shaky premise. For one, are we forgetting about the Anthrax attacks the following month. Thats what really had #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney hiding under his desk.

Assuming the analogy equates, Should I really praise the Department of Public Works for a job well done this winter because I have yet to drive my car up onto someone elses lawn because of a poorly salted road.

I think we all can agree that things are more complicated than that.

The anthrax attacks were the product of a crazy domestic scientist.Your point? Cheney hiding under his desk? What?

Thats the best analogy akin to the war on terror I have ever seen in print.:rotf2::rotf2:

The anthrax attacks were the product of a crazy domestic scientist.Your point? Cheney hiding under his desk? What?

Thats the best analogy akin to the war on terror I have ever seen in print.:rotf2::rotf2:

Well let me try and break down the reasoning for you.

Conclusion: George Bush should be praised
Premise: Because no terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11

Conclusion: The Dept of public works salting efforts this winter should be praised
Premise: I have yet to loose control of my car in a snow storm and slide onto someones front lawn.

What I want you to take away from this is simply, could there not be alternate reasons why I did not loose control of my automobile that have nothing to do with the Department of Works. Perhaps maybe the fact I drive an audi and have 4WD.

...And could the same parrelel be drawn between Bush as the reason there has not been a terrorist attack since 9/11. There are a host of correlating variables that come into play when delegating credit for why there has not been a terrorist attack since 9/11 and to append this in its entirety to Bush's legacy seems a bit premature, if not sophomorish. Kind of like your post I'm responding too.

Like I said before, the %$%$%$%$ is a weak premise.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Did Bin Laden tell you this or did you just read the footnote version of his latest audio message from the folks over at Dailykos?
Well, actually I heard President Bush state it quoting Bin Laden's own words.

This is a genocidal maniac who has been wearing the same clothes for 7 years. His strategic objective is to kill every non-islamic human being on earth...period.
Nah, if they killed all the super consumers there'd be no market for the Saudi oil that Bin Laden wants to control.

I've never bought into the Bin Laden as "doomsday cult leader anyway". 9/11 was an attack on our economy in the hope that we would pull back from our assertive positions in Islamic lands. If their real goal was genocide, there would be far more effective methods than highly dramatic and selective attacks.

He puts an emphasis on Jews and Westerners because their deaths get him more bang for the buck. He knows a busload of British or American tourists reap greater rewards than a discotech full of Sri Lankans.
And yet, aside from 9/11 it's been mostly Muslims killed in global terror attacks.

Listen to the terror experts, they'll tell you Bin Laden has been stymied since 9/11. He wants the big stage, but our military/special forces/clandestine ops/homeland security will not give it to him.

We certainly appear to have kept a lid on the pot, but this has been a global multi-national effort with many facets. If you're listening to the terror experts you'll know that Bin Laden is but a player in the bigger production...the global insurgency that follows no clear leadership and is empowered by mainstream Islamic issues.

Ultimately though, this is all just side discussion. I'm not trying to argue that the war on terrorism hasn't been without success.

-spence

Well let me try and break down the reasoning for you.

Conclusion: George Bush should be praised
Premise: Because no terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11
I think it's fair to give Bush credit for the lack of attacks on US soil. Regardless if there were threats or not it was on his watch, and for instance people credit Clinton with the booming economy in the 1990's when it's not like his policies started the high-tech boom.

My question has more to do with the notion that this line of thinking is out dated.

-spence

And Clinton in between did a boffo job of it. Or did you forget about him lobbing missiles into Iraq.

Good attempt at d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g.
Need we forget that we had an opportunity to assist with the rebuild of Afghanistan the first time around but instead let the Taliban have free reign?

That was BEFORE Clinton was in office.
Good job!
Great family!

I think BI Jeff would blow Barack Hussein Obama if nobody saw him do it.





He would then save the evidence on his corset to use as bribery for a future cabinet position.

I think BI Jeff would blow Barack Hussein Obama if nobody saw him do it.





He would then save the evidence on his corset to use as bribery for a future cabinet position.
What's funny is that for you to write this...

...you had to imagine it first :hihi:

-spence

Well let me try and break down the reasoning for you.

Conclusion: George Bush should be praised
Premise: Because no terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11

Conclusion: The Dept of public works salting efforts this winter should be praised
Premise: I have yet to loose control of my car in a snow storm and slide onto someones front lawn.

Third time in three days that I have to say it...

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.

It amazes me that people can participate in a political discussion an don't get this.

I cannot believe that the TSA was put into place so quickly, sure there are 1000 criticisms and like everyone else I hate standing in lines, but we established new processes and put them in place quickly, something I have never seen the government do.

Spence, as far as "philisophical" questions, what did Clinton do for the economy? So many people give him credit for that. And even more philispoically, was Bush "really" that bad? Take out the Michael Moores of the world and the lib media and I think you'd have a different perception. Before you lash out at me for that, why does NO ONE, not a single person blame Kennedy for Vietnam? Over 60,000 US dead, for what? He was one the started sending troups there, LYING to the American public, yet he gets a clean record, while possibly being one of the most corrupt presidents of all time. Media,.........

So I did some reading, Seeing I was only 6 months old when Kennedy was assassinated and not able to form my own opinion, and it was actually Eisenhower that got us involved in Vietnam....In 1956 The US took over responsibilty for training South Vietnamese Forces from the French....Eisenhowers Watch

The 1st American Combat Troops, the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Arrived in 1965...2 years after Kennedy was dead. Johnson was the Man then.

But If it makes you feel better to blame Kennedy and the Media....have a Ball

So I did some reading, Seeing I was only 6 months old when Kennedy was assassinated and not able to form my own opinion, and it was actually Eisenhower that got us involved in Vietnam....In 1956 The US took over responsibilty for training South Vietnamese Forces from the French....Eisenhowers Watch

The 1st American Combat Troops, the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Arrived in 1965...2 years after Kennedy was dead. Johnson was the Man then.

But If it makes you feel better to blame Kennedy and the Media....have a Ball


Dad, I attended an extremely liberal private high school. We studied the Vietnam war for months. We watched recordings of Vice Pres Johnson annouce one thing to the press, and then show what was really happening. Kennedy was sending COMBAT troops into Vietnam unknown to the American public and lying to them. The fact that you can't google anything on that only shows the continued bias all these years later.

This is a long read, but if you read it, you can't make the argument that Bush was more corrupt than Kennedy. Why is it that ther were no "Michael Moore" movies about all this?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10494

The fact that you can't google anything on that only shows the continued bias all these years later.

You can say whatever you want about the internet...but it being Biased one way or another i don't see.....you can Find ANYTHING out there to back up ANY claim (no matter how outrageous) you are trying to make.

And I'm not saying your claim is outrageous...i'm just making a blanket statement.

I wouldn't doubt we were sending forces over there either during Kennedy's watch....we started sending troops over there in 1956 to train their forces and we were still sending them later, and probably more, as tensions got high.(and I'm sure they got involved)

But it was under Eisenhowers watch that we entered Vietnam and it was under Johnson's watch that Vietnam Escalated the way it did, and under his and Nixon's watch where the majority of those 60,000 casualties took place.

read the article

One way to understand the President's motives is to recall the decisions he made and try to discover what light they shed on decisions that he did not make. We do know, for example, that Kennedy sent troops to Vietnam, referring to them as support troops, though their combat role was extensive. Therefore, we can conclude that Kennedy saw the need to disguise their combat function. We also know that the number sent during his administration ultimately doubled the initial figure of 8,000 recommended by Taylor and Rostow. Therefore, Kennedy saw the need to introduce them into Vietnam gradually instead of at one stroke. Finally, we know that Kennedy began a campaign of covert activities against North Vietnam—a campaign that marked the switch to direct offensive actions but was disguised so that Washington could publicly disavow its own role.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kennedy's policy toward Vietnam, then, was to accelerate the war while denying that he was doing it. His policy was to prosecute a private war. He was willing to go it alone in Asia, but not to admit it. He disregarded the counsel of his advisers only to the extent that they preferred a public war.

I'm Reading it......My last post I posted before i saw your post. ...give me time, its a friggin novel

"Why is it that there were no "Michael Moore" movies about all this?"

Jim - I find myself "somewhat" agreeing with you on this one but I also think that it was a VERY different country back then. I believe it was the governments deceipt during the Vietnam war that gave rise to todays willingness to challenge some of what we are fed by the government and take a more active role in "our" government.

PS - Sitting here watching Obama take the oath of office right now...it is a moving experience to see the support of the American people for "our" new president. Time for us all to get on board to work for our great country to get back on track.

"Why is it that there were no "Michael Moore" movies about all this?"

Jim - I find myself "somewhat" agreeing with you on this one but I also think that it was a VERY different country back then. I believe it was the governments deceipt during the Vietnam war that gave rise to todays willingness to challenge some of what we are fed by the government and take a more active role in "our" government.

PS - Sitting here watching Obama take the oath of office right now...it is a moving experience to see the support of the American people for "our" new president. Time for us all to get on board to work for our great country to get back on track.


Why is it time now? I have been on board for as long as I can remember. Welcome aboard, we can use the help.

Why is it time now? I have been on board for as long as I can remember. Welcome aboard, we can use the help.

EXACTLY, I have been on board and got bitch slapped every day for supporting Bush. :deadhorse:

but this will be the new mantra, if you dont support Obama, you're not onboard with change......

EXACTLY, I have been on board and got bitch slapped every day for supporting Bush. :deadhorse:

but this will be the new mantra, if you dont support Obama, you're not onboard with change......

Impossible. That means they'd have to destroy all those "Dissent Is Patriotic" bumper stickers they had printed up and have been putting on their hybrids and on their bicycle helmets over the last few years.

Well Buck - Since a majority of Americans feel that we have been on the wrong track under the Bush administration and the election of Obama is a direct result of dissatisfaction with his admin's policies, I would say the time is now. Most of us have been "on board" for as long as we can remember too; maybe it's about time we all tried to steer the ship in the right direction "together". Colin Powell made some interesting comments today about how partisian politics are necessary for a proper national dialogue. Argue your points and come to a consensus that suits all interests. Might be worth a try.

Well Buck - Since a majority of Americans feel that we have been on the wrong track under the Bush administration and the election of Obama is a direct result of dissatisfaction with his admin's policies, I would say the time is now. Most of us have been "on board" for as long as we can remember too; maybe it's about time we all tried to steer the ship in the right direction "together". Colin Powell made some interesting comments today about how partisian politics are necessary for a proper national dialogue. Argue your points and come to a consensus that suits all interests. Might be worth a try.

I agree the majority of Americans think Obama will bring change, I'm not sure they know what that change will be.
What's the right direction? I have not heard more partisian BS then I hear coming from the Dems. It's as pathetic and nasty as the BS the Republicans pulled on Clinton.
Once again, I'm amazed how with a political speach, everyones jumping aboard to save the country.

The fact that you can't google anything on that only shows the continued bias all these years later.

http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=kennedy+troops+vietnam

Anal Cranial Insertion Disease is real.

I keep hearing this over and over as the one thing people can claim Bush's legacy should be praised over.

But a serious question, if Bush's policy in response to 9/11 and terrorism results in over 4,000 Americans killed (much more when you include contractors) and perhaps a trillion dollars spent...

...and considering that the successes we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan probably aren't going to do much to improve domestic security here at home.

Is this really reasonable?

-spence


Well, you asked so here's the argument the way I see it.

During the reign of Bill Clinton, Islamic terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, and we responded by launching about 250 cruise missles against tents in the desert. As it turns out, tents are fairly easy to replace and little was done to disrupt the terrorist information and financial networks that were later used to execute attacks against the US in Africa, against the Cole, and of course on 9/11/01. It has been said that the major reason we weren't able to capture Bin Laden immediately after 9/11 was that Clinton had reduced the number of agents in the field, and we had no "eyes on target".

George Bush took the terrorist attack on 9/11 personally. Those tears in the interview later that day were not of sadness as much as they were of shame. America had been attacked on his watch. In an interview the following day, Bush outlined his action plan and plainly stated that long after everyone else forgot (he actually said that), he would continue to battle the terrorists. His approval rating at the time was somewhere around 70%. Since then, the primary focus of the Bush administration was to keep America safe. It has been reported, if you're willing to look toward the back of the paper, that the Patriot Act has helped to stop numerous attacks on the US, including plans to cut the cables on the Brooklyn Bridge. Part of Bush's doctrine was to shift the defense strategy of the US from being counterpunch experts, as had worked during the cold war, to a policy of attack first. The reson for this is simple. Fear of retribution works against established governments but not against terrorists who don't care if they die.

Good men and women have died in Iraq, Afganistan, and God knows where else in the war on terror. It has been reported that fewer soldiers have died during Bush than during Clinton. One argument for soldiers being in Iraq after WMD was that it is better for terrorists around the world to travel to Iraq to fight the Marines than for them to travel to New York to attach civillians. The good new is it seems that the surge in Iraq has worked, and people are returning to somewhat normal lives. Again, you'd need to be willing to flip a few pages in the newspaper to find this information, but it exists.

So, is Bush culpable for continuing the policies of Clinton that encouraged banks to write riskier loans in order to encourage more home ownership? Yes, you can blame him for that if you want. He could have fired Greenspan and restructured the US economy away from consumer spending that was being fuled by the housing bubble. But I don't think anyone in congress would have supported it. Certainly not as many as voted for the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act.

So, it's fair to criticize Bush for the economy, and for pissing off other nations, and for keeping Islamic terrorists in Cuba, but you also have to acknowledge that in what democrats called and increasingly dangerous world, his policies prevented any further attacks on the US.

As a final note. I firmly believe that future generations are going to view the disrepect that was shown to President George Bush in the same way that we now view that disrespect that was shown to returning Vietnam veterans. Even if it takes 20 years.

As a final note. I firmly believe that future generations are going to view the disrepect that was shown to President George Bush in the same way that we now view that disrespect that was shown to returning Vietnam veterans. Even if it takes 20 years.

You may be right, because Bush was probably just following orders just like those vets did for 8 years.. :rollem: