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.

Well, actually I heard President Bush state it quoting Bin Laden's own words.

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.

And yet, aside from 9/11 it's been mostly Muslims killed in global terror attacks.

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

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

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.

What's funny is that for you to write this...

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

-spence

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

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

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 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......

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.

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.

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

Anal Cranial Insertion Disease is real.

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.

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