He kept us safe after 9/11
 

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

CNN Poll
 

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 I know Spence is well read politically, just as I am sure he has zero understanding of the unpublished factors that have influenced W's decisions in the office.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 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

here here :cheers2:

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.

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

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

in the end
 

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.