He kept us safe after 9/11

[spence]

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

[Nebe]

dont make the sheep angry.

[spence]

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

[striperman36]

• 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

[Sea Dangles]

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 I know Spence is well read politically, just as I am sure he has zero understanding of the unpublished factors that have influenced W's decisions in the office.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

[spence]

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

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.

[buckmanjr]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckmanjr

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

[likwid]

Originally Posted by buckmanjr

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

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

[stripercrazy]

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

[Fishpart]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

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

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

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!

[Sea Dangles]

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.

[Raven]

comment withheld

[JohnnyD]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Bronko

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

[EarnedStripes44]

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

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.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

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.

[RIJIMMY]

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,.........