American Politics during the Bush Presidency

As Bush gets ready to leave office, I think it's important we consider his many accomplishments:

1) Creating the stupidest war since the Spanish-American War.
2) Running the economy into the toilet.
3) Increasing unemployment to mid-term record levels.
4) Eroding basic civil and privacy rights.
5) Running the dollar into the toilet.
6) Lying, weaseling, evading responsibility, and also did I mention weaseling?

I forget what else. Oh yeah, having his drunken slutty daughters come to Buenos Aires.

But that's just the bad stuff. On the positive side he, umm, he umm,

Help me out here.

"Vote Obama: Half Honky, All Donkey"

[QUOTE=Jackson]I understand that this news will be somewhat of a disappointment to some members, but here it is:

[size=4][color=red][b]George Bush is not running for President.[/b][/color][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]With all due respect, Jackson, my post suggests nothing about Bush running for president. It does, however, suggest what an awful mess he has made of our country. And, yes, I do squarely place the blame for this on his shoulders and the shoulders of the cabal he brought to the executive branch of our government. It goes way beyond Republican indifference for those who can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". It goes to the core of what it means to be American. You know what I'm talking about - those little things like the US Constitution, small ideas like personal freedom, and the notion that we the people in order to form a perfect union are the ones who govern our country. So keep waving the Stars and Stripes in Buenos Aires, Jackson, while we who actually live in the United States of America have to deal with the subtle fascism that has crept into the landscape on a daily basis, thanks in a very large way to GW Bush and eight years of the WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY.

[QUOTE=Dickhead]Oh yeah, having his drunken slutty daughters come to Buenos Aires.[/QUOTE]And she got her purse stolen in San Telmo under Secret Service protection while she was having lunch.

Karma is a female dog.

[QUOTE=HairBalderman]With all due respect, Jackson, my post suggests nothing about Bush running for president. It does, however, suggest what an awful mess he has made of our country. And, yes, I do squarely place the blame for this on his shoulders and the shoulders of the cabal he brought to the executive branch of our government. It goes way beyond Republican indifference for those who can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". It goes to the core of what it means to be American. You know what I'm talking about - those little things like the US Constitution, small ideas like personal freedom, and the notion that we the people in order to form a perfect union are the ones who govern our country. So keep waving the Stars and Stripes in Buenos Aires, Jackson, while we who actually live in the United States of America have to deal with the subtle fascism that has crept into the landscape on a daily basis, thanks in a very large way to GW Bush and eight years of the WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY.[/QUOTE]Hi HairBalderman,

I disagree completely, and I believe that history will show that George Bush did what had to be done without regard to it's immediate popularity. For example, Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.

Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, luring them into fighting [u]our[/u] [u]army[/u] [u]on[/u] [u]foreign[/u] [u]soil[/u], thus keeping them occupied and deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.

Bush knew that the invasion that was needed to cover the real strategy would prove to be politically unpopular, but he did it because it need to be done. Of course, there's nothing to be ashamed about having liberated 36 million people from the subjugation of a homicidal maniac, and for having brought democracy to a country and a region, but it will take 10 to 20 years before people understand that it was the correct thing to do.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi HairBalderman,

I disagree completely, and I believe that history will show that George Bush did what had to be done without regard to it's immediate popularity. For example, Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.

Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, seducing them into fighting [u]our[/u] [u]army[/u] on foreign soil, thus deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.

Bush knew that the invasion that was needed to cover the strategy would prove to be politically unpopular, but he did it because it need to be done.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Jackson,

By making people believe that terrorism could be fought by conventional military means, neocons succeed into approving huge military budgets for defense sector companies, which in turn contribute to political campaigns and pay salaries of retired politicians who become defense sector lobbyists.

Meanwhile, the "we live in a dangerous World" hysteria, along with strong support from mainstream media, help approve laws that limit civil rights and privacy and neutralize opposition to current military policies.

Both things help to convince people that you can destroy Al Qaeda by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, but anyone who takes 1 or 2 hours to honestly research about this issue from different sources learns quickly that terrorism can only be fought using intelligence and police forces, not by military means.

9-11 could have been prevented simply by setting International security standards to American airports. I remember having greeted 2 friends at Logan airport a few months before 9-11 right at the plane's gate (he same airport where 2 of the involved 4 planes took off on 9-11) Too easy to get to the plane without strict checking, something I had never seen before at Ezeiza or Barajas, for instance.

10 years from now, when all the dust from the Iraq ad Afghan wars be settled, it will be painfully clear that the US wouldn't be neither safer or unsafer from a terrorist point of view than at 2001. What will be certain is that Boeing, General Dynamics and the such, and above all the financial groups that own many of them (such as the Carlyle Group) will have amassed huge profits thanks to that perfectly planned hysteria, profits comming from public expenditures that will not have been invested in education and health, two areas in which the US has a lot of room for improvement (and the baby boomer retirement wave is just around the corner, something that will severely impact health costs)

All of the above assuming that the US will at least succeed into controlling Iraq and Afghanistan, something I'm very doubtful it will happen taking into account the state of things and how they evolved (stall in Iraq and degrading situation in Afg, not to mention the incapability of facing Russia against Georgia, another clear example of how amateurish is the Bush admin into playing the International geopolitics chess even after 8 year experience in power)

Finally, I'm afraid that the 8-year Bush tenure in power has become such a financial failure for public accounts (commercial and budgetary) that only by chance the US will return to the January 2000 figures.

Time will say what will be the Bush Jr contribution to US advancement. I believe that history will be very harsh with him and the neocons.

Thanks,

Andres

[QUOTE=Sidney]In many ways, these Liberal Dreamers are so similar----oratorical skills, youth, attractive wife, the best schools, ''great'' new ideas, etc. And most importantly, incredible BULLSHIT! I / we, the youth of the time, were totally ''enraptured'' with JFK. But with much with study and listening to many older wiser, experienced men of the day, I began to realize my earlier, youthful foolishness. And I voted against JFK. But JFK was elected. He became one of the worst Presidents of our lifetimes. How short are our memories? Now, comes Obomba (sic) with many, many, many more deficiencies than JFK, and the people are so excited with his oratorical skills and BULLSHIT! God, help us if he is elected! ---------Depressed Sid[/QUOTE]Don't fret "Depressed Sid"! My guess is that Obama is pretty much part of the "machine" as anybody else. It is impossible to get elected if one is not. While he won't be as beholding to to some of the same special interests as the Bushies, he will still have to answer to others. Changes will be moderate in nature and not earth shattering. For all the talk about how "liberal" he is, his background is one of pragmatism and compromise. I would be satisfied if he got rid of the designated hitter rule, loosened up the travel restrictions to Cuba and had Scalia quarrentined. Anything else would be gravy.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]"Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge."

Except of course when it comes to voting yes on a bill that would allow them to build a better life after their service to our country. I will show my gratitude by making it harder for them to get an education thereby limiting their options and continuing to serve?

Oh yes and don't forget extending enlistments. I am so grateful to them for their service that we will extend their term of service beyond what they contracted for, can't you see we love these fine young men and women and their hillbilly armor.[/QUOTE]McCain's reason for originally supporting a competing bill was simple, and based on the idea of an all-volunteer military: If you make it very lucrative for a soldier to leave the service, he will. The military needs to keep some of its enlistees to form the basis for a permanent standing force. A proper balance has to be struck between appropriate educational benefits and a professional army. Reasonable men can disagree on this, as Senators Webb and McCain did, and without partisan rancor much to the credit of those two men. I find it unfortunate that the Obama campaign needed to turn this into a ludicrous personal attack on the only man in the race who has ever truly fought for me.

And as for that contract business, every contract I ever signed (along with all my peers) has language in it that means I am in it for the duration if the needs of the service demand it. Enlisting in the military is not the same thing as signing on to be an independent contractor for a business.

[QUOTE=Andres]"10 years from now, when all the dust from the Iraq ad Afghan wars be settled, it will be painfully clear that the US wouldn't be neither safer or unsafer from a terrorist point of view than at 2001."[/QUOTE]As somebody whose hometown was actually attacked on that day, I remember not only the black smoke rising over everything, but also that [b]everyone [/b]agreed that it was only a matter of days/weeks/months until the enemy would make similar spectacular attacks.

It has been no coincidence that there have been no further attacks in the US. It is only because the US government, led by the man the left hates so much, has worked tirelessly to destroy terrorists where ever they are. Harry S Truman was also hated by many small-minded people when he left office in 1953; his "popularity ratings" were similar to the current President. How has history treated HST?

[quote=Andres] blah blah blah "will have amassed huge profits thanks to that perfectly planned hysteria"[/QUOTE]When somebody tries to kill me and my countrymen or make us convert to Fundamentalist Islam as part of a Worldwide Caliphate under the control of Muslim imams, it's not "perfectly planned hysteria." It's called war.

[quote=Andres]Finally, I'm afraid that the 8-year Bush tenure in power has become such a financial failure for public accounts (commercial and budgetary) that only by chance the US will return to the January 2000 figures.[/QUOTE]Somebody from Argentina, of all places, should think twice before writing about how bad America's economy is. 60 years ago Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. How does it compare now? Perhaps yet another multi-billion dollar handout/rescue plan from the United States coming soon? Maybe that will get Argentina back into the Top 50! (Don't worry, Argentina is still ahead of Paraguay. A little. ;) )

[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi HairBalderman,

I disagree completely, and I believe that history will show that George Bush did what had to be done without regard to it's immediate popularity. For example, Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.

Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, luring them into fighting [u]our[/u] [u]army[/u] [u]on[/u] [u]foreign[/u] [u]soil[/u], thus keeping them occupied and deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.

Bush knew that the invasion that was needed to cover the real strategy would prove to be politically unpopular, but he did it because it need to be done. Of course, there's nothing to be ashamed about having liberated 36 million people from the subjugation of a homicidal maniac, and for having brought democracy to a country and a region, but it will take 10 to 20 years before people understand that it was the correct thing to do.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I'm sure there is or will be shortly a 7 Step Program for recovering Republicans. One of the steps has to be Overcoming Denial. This ranks right up there with Elvis sightings, believing in Santa Claus and accounts of Martian Invasion sightings on page 8 of the New York Post. George Bush, Secret Man of Vision. ROTFL if it wasn't so tragic. The 650,000 plus Iraqi who died since the US invasion would be clapping their hands too if they weren't dead from being "liberated".

[QUOTE=Sidney] From personal experience and observing other young Black men in GA, I must suspect that Obomba (sic) was ''given'' much of the same treatment and privileges and treatment all through his schooling!---Not impressed, Sid[/QUOTE]Sydney, old sport, Good to see you posting your own thoughts instead of someone else's. So all this venom about Obama comes through your own personal experience with black people in Georgia of all places and your suspicion that Obama might of been given special privileges because he was black. Not knowledge mind you but "suspect". I think you've got a dog in this hunt and it's called racism. What do you think Syd?

[QUOTE=Bacchus9]I think you've got a dog in this hunt and it's called racism. What do you think Syd?[/QUOTE]If you actually knew Sidney as well as I do, you would be laughing at your own stupidity in making that comment, B9.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]As somebody whose hometown was actually attacked on that day, I remember not only the black smoke rising over everything.

When somebody tries to kill me and my countrymen or make us convert to Fundamentalist Islam as part of a Worldwide Caliphate under the control of Muslim imams, it's not "perfectly planned hysteria." It's called war.

Somebody from Argentina, of all places, should think twice before writing about how bad America's economy is. 60 years ago Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. How does it compare now? Perhaps yet another multi-billion dollar handout / rescue plan from the United States coming soon? Maybe that will get Argentina back into the Top 50! (Don't worry, Argentina is still ahead of Paraguay. A little.;))[/QUOTE]Hunt, the smoke looked more grey to me that day. Maybe it was just where I was standing.

I think Andres meant the "perfectly planned hysteria" that came after you'd been killed and converted to Fundamentalist Islam as part of a Worldwide Caliphate under the control of Muslim Imams. You know after Bush declared victory on that ship the Navy floated off the California beaches for him so he'd look good.

How very Republican of you to try to belittle Andres for speaking about the obvious state of the US economy. Nothing to say about his mother or sister? Come on man, don't hold back, you're a Republican.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]If you actually knew Sidney as well as I do, you would be laughing at your own stupidity in making that comment, B9.[/QUOTE]When you're too close to something Hunt you can't see the forest for the trees.

[QUOTE=Dickhead]As Bush gets ready to leave office, I think it's important we consider his many accomplishments:

1) Creating the stupidest war since the Spanish-American War.

2) Running the economy into the toilet.

3) Increasing unemployment to mid-term record levels.

4) Eroding basic civil and privacy rights.

5) Running the dollar into the toilet.

6) Lying, weaseling, evading responsibility, and also did I mention weaseling?

I forget what else. Oh yeah, having his drunken slutty daughters come to Buenos Aires.

But that's just the bad stuff. On the positive side he, umm, he umm,

Help me out here.

"Vote Obama: Half Honky, All Donkey"[/QUOTE]Like the 'half honky, all donkey quote.

#8 - Throwing the constitution in the toilet by violating any and all civil liberties he could.

Suerte.

Stowe

[QUOTE=Doggboy]Don't fret "Depressed Sid"! My guess is that Obama is pretty much part of the "machine" as anybody else. It is impossible to get elected if one is not. While he won't be as beholding to to some of the same special interests as the Bushies, he will still have to answer to others. Changes will be moderate in nature and not earth shattering. For all the talk about how "liberal" he is, his background is one of pragmatism and compromise. I would be satisfied if he got rid of the designated hitter rule, loosened up the travel restrictions to Cuba and had Scalia quarrentined. Anything else would be gravy.[/QUOTE]Doggboy,

Very, very sad but unfortunately, probably very true. Neither party has the balls to discuss AND fix the real problems in this country. The nation debt, social security (keep it but increase taxes AND a gradual reduction of benefits) medicare, global warming, the energy problem.

If we were still a "can-do" country we could solve the energy problem within 15 years. If we devoted the talent and money to it as we did the Manhattan and Apollo projects. Solar, wind and fuel cell technology could be prefected within 15 years if the amount of money and research spent on the other 2 projects were done to solve this issue.

T Boone Picken's plan would be a step in that direction until we could perfect the other options.

But we are no longer a 'can-do' country. All politicians talk about, when they are not making lying promises to us, are the issues that inflame.

IMHO.

Suerte.

Stowe

FYI - suicides of military personal is at an all time high with no end in sight-even higher (per capita) than all other wars.

Another Bush success.

Suerte.

Stowe

I agree, and T Boone Pickens even makes that point, that his idea is only a temporary solution but it will give us time. We have enough natural gas to supply all transportation (trucks, cars, trains, etc) for at least 50 years.

Over the next 10 years the US economy will send $7 trillion dollars to the oil countries-($700 million a year based on last year's number)

Extremely frightning! All our wealth is leaving us and going there and we are funding the terrorists. Without that money their ability to wage war would be massively impacted.

Suerte.

Stowe.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Picken's claims that 30% of the gasoline and diesel is used by trucks. He says the entire fleet could be converted to natural gas in 3 years! Obviously, a very helpful partial solution to our foreign dependence![/QUOTE]

Have a look at Sarah (apallin') Palin, past and present. God help her if the McCain handlers ever allow her to speak to the press, not even Fox News could protect her on this history. Gentlemen, don your protective cups while you still own a pair.

[url]http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/#more-954[/url]

[url]http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/03/about-sarah-palin/[/url]

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Sidney]Utter stupidity! I picked, helped, and assisted a young Black man, at a large Midwestern University, 1961, into University office when you were a child![/QUOTE]Hate to upset another suspicion but I'd been off the tit a few years at that point.

So you learned your lesson about helping "Black" men and now you're evening the score on Barack Obama?

Mongers,

I know Sidney personally and I can give him a full pass on the race card- he is definitely NOT a racist, in fact he is totally obsessed and addicted to women of color. He gets a huge hard on when anybody even talks about a chica from the DR, Haiti, or Cuba. I have a sneaking suspicion that Sidney's diehard opposition to all things Obama has much more to do with the inevitable tax increase that gentlemen of Sidney's tax bracket will get hit with than anything else. Sidney and others are afraid of the unknown, they have prospered under the current system and they know that McCain will continue on with the current system.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Hunt99]As somebody whose hometown was actually attacked on that day, I remember not only the black smoke rising over everything, but also that [b]everyone [/b]agreed that it was only a matter of days / weeks / months until the enemy would make similar spectacular attacks.

It has been no coincidence that there have been no further attacks in the US. It is only because the US government, led by the man the left hates so much, has worked tirelessly to destroy terrorists where ever they are. Harry S Truman was also hated by many small-minded people when he left office in 1953; his "popularity ratings" were similar to the current President. How has history treated HST?[/QUOTE]There weren't no attacks BEFORE, neither. Also, as I mentioned, you only need to strengthen airport security, not to spend billions of Dollars in military equipment.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]When somebody tries to kill me and my countrymen or make us convert to Fundamentalist Islam as part of a Worldwide Caliphate under the control of Muslim imams, it's not "perfectly planned hysteria." It's called war.[/QUOTE]Worldwide caliphate? Where this idea comes from?

Hysteria helped Bush tremendously. These days, the dot-com crash was taking its toll and the administration didn't have any clue of how to get out of it. 9-11 was blessing for the administration. Kind of "Wag the dog".

[QUOTE=Hunt99]Somebody from Argentina, of all places, should think twice before writing about how bad America's economy is. 60 years ago Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. How does it compare now? Perhaps yet another multi-billion dollar handout / rescue plan from the United States coming soon? Maybe that will get Argentina back into the Top 50! (Don't worry, Argentina is still ahead of Paraguay. A little.;))[/QUOTE]How well or bad Argentina is doing has nothing to do with the US economy. You are bringing it to divert from the discussion, because it's undisputable that the US economy today (specially regarding USD value, trade deficit and such, not mentioning its financial system health) leave a lot to be desired.

Anyway, if you want to praise Bush, it's your call.

Thanks,

Andres

[QUOTE=Stowe]FYI - suicides of military personal is at an all time high with no end in sight-even higher (per capita) than all other wars.

Another Bush success.

Suerte.

Stowe[/QUOTE]Hi Stowe,

1. The rate is still lower than the rate for the general public.

2. What exactly is it that you believe the President failed to do that caused this increase?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Sidney]This true for most all people. The exception--don't lend money to your friends! I see that you didn't deny being an Eastern Elitist like my friend Rock Harders![/QUOTE]I acknowledge your candor on your twisted thinking but it doesn't exonerate your diatribes against a smart, capable, young politician with actual ideas about how to lead the way forward for the US. He's achieved a lot, run a hell of an organization and beat out the most powerful elements in the Democratic party.

I don't know what an Eastern Elitist is and I doubt you do either. Just another cheap shot that serves no purpose other than to obscure the real issues by attacking and trying to make the issue the individual. A good thing to say if you're trolling for votes from people with low education and working class mentality.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]It has been no coincidence that there have been no further attacks in the US.[/QUOTE]No, probably not a coincidence. If you were to read what Osama bin Laden said before 9/11, or watched some of his early videos, you'd find that he more than achieved his goal with the 9/11 attacks. The idea was to provoke the U. S. into doing exactly what we did: to over react.

And over react we did. Big time.

With only 19 men and about $50,000, he provoked us into starting a war that by some estimates will cost over a trillion dollars...that to date has cost more U. S. lives than 9/11 did (not to mention the lifelong injuries)..and that has drastically reduced our military and diplomatic clout.

No, it's probably no coincidence at all that there have been no further attacks. From OBL's point of view, why spend any more than you have to when you're getting such sterling results as it is?

[QUOTE=StrayLight]No, probably not a coincidence. If you were to read what Osama bin Laden said before 9/11, or watched some of his early videos, you'd find that he more than achieved his goal with the 9/11 attacks. The idea was to provoke the U. S. Into doing exactly what we did: to overreact.[/QUOTE]Overreact - did you say overreact? I'm quite sure you don't want us to buy the notion that 8 years of killing and maiming is just a price to be paid. It is obvious that you and the other left-wing contributors to this thread did not have a loved one killed or injured in any of the events listed below. But recall, the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam events killed mostly black people - and they "don't count" when it is not convenient for the left. Continue to wave the banner of Iraq war deaths - as you use them, remember they volunteered their service and lives to the country. The people listed below did not have that choice (except the Marines in Khobar)

1993- Clinton - World Trade Center 1st bombing.

1994- Clinton - BsAs bombing #2

1996- Clinton - Khobar towers.

1998- Clinton - Nairobi US Embassy.

1998- Clinton - Dar es Salaam US Embassy.

2000- Clinton - USS Cole attacked.

2001- Bush"2"- Asleep at the switch - WTC 2nd attack.

I'm so happy to see that when the USA enjoyed the eight years of America's first "Black President" - the world was a much kinder and gentler place. You folks may believe that Clinton and Madeleine Albright were the answer to global terrorism and the Balkans - I do not.

Jackson,

"The rate is still lower then the general public". I guess that is a good way to justify it.

Having said that I am not sure where you got that info as I have just googled that info and the suicide rate for the US is 1.3% and the suicide rate for the military (as of 5/29/2008) is 1.9%. I think that means your claim is incorrect.

Regarding question #2

It is not what he failed to do, it is what he did. The cause is obvious but you and I have a definite difference of opinion on this. If we had not invaded another sovereign nation, one that did not attack us (Iraq) this might be a moot discussion. You have posted that we invaded Iraq to thwart terrorism but that was not the first or even the second reason Bush claimed we needed to invade.

His first was that they had nukes.

When none were found, he then stated we invaded because they did not adhere to the United Nations agreement. I find that hypocritical since Bush does not believe in the UN so he only uses the UN when it benefits him. Now before you challenge me on that claim, let me point out one, of perhaps many examples that Bush does not believe in the UN. The UN voted against his invasion of Iraq and he ignored them.

Can't have it both ways.

Having said all that I do believe we were justified in going into Afghanistan but we left too soon (to invade Iraq) and didn't finish the job-now we have a mess there as we lost control.

My ultimate belief is that no matter what we do or how long we stay it will never end. The Israelis and muslims have been fighting for 2000 years. I prefer to get out before the economy of this country collapses.

I say get out, stop trying to control and / or manipulate other countries, get our military out of the 80 or so countries we have them in and they (oil countries primarily) can all go fuck themselves.

I truly believe that part of the hatred for the US is because we have done all those things-the world is afraid of empires and want them to fail. The American attempt at empire (militarily and economically) is no exception.

Just my opinion. That's all folks! For now, that is. This is a damned interesting series of postings, though. I love it!!

Ciao why Suerte.

Stowe.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi Stowe,

1. The rate is still lower than the rate for the general public.

2. What exactly is it that you believe the President failed to do that caused this increase?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=StrayLight]No, probably not a coincidence. If you were to read what Osama bin Laden said before 9/11, or watched some of his early videos, you'd find that he more than achieved his goal with the 9/11 attacks. The idea was to provoke the U. S. Into doing exactly what we did: to overreact.

And we did. Big time.

With only 19 men and about $50,000, he provoked us into starting a war that by some estimates will cost over a trillion dollars. That to date has cost more U. S. Lives than 9/11 did (not to mention the lifelong injuries) and that has drastically reduced our military and diplomatic clout.

No, it's probably no coincidence at all that there have been no further attacks. From OBL's point of view, why spend any more than you have to when you're getting such sterling results as it is?[/QUOTE]There is truth to this as Al Queda (sp? Bragged about bankrupting the Soviet Union with their war in Afghanistan and stated after 911 that that was one of their goals for the US. Which is not implausible.

Suerte.

Stowe

[QUOTE=Alan23]It is obvious that you and the other left-wing contributors to this thread did not have a loved one killed or injured in any of the events listed below.[/QUOTE]"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." -Wittgenstein, Proposition 7, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

Dude, that's a polite way of saying that when you don't know what you're talking about, you should really keep you mouth shut.

The fact is, I was assigned to and working at the Pentagon the day of the 9/11 attacks. I just happened to be home from work that day. (Not that I would have necessarily gotten killed, but my two-star boss would have gotten killed had he not been on travel that week. And of course I knew people who died there.)

When the Cole was bombed, I almost went back to Yemen to help with the investigation and such because of certain expertise I had. I say "back" to Yemen because...

...when the east African embassies were bombed, I was stationed in the Persian Gulf as a Commanding Officer and had OPCON of some of the forces involved in the aftermath.

In April, 1983 when the U. S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed, I was on the scene in minutes. I knew several people who died, and I helped pick body parts out of the rubble over the next two weeks. Six months later, when the Marine barracks was bombed, I again knew several people who died.

So please don't yap about my supposed lack of knowledge or whatever regarding America's suicide bombings. I seriously doubt you could catch up to me in first-hand knowledge of terrorism and suicide bombings, even if you spent the rest of your life trying.

And yes, dude, we over reacted to 9/11. Invading Iraq was a huge, huge mistake. It had nothing to do with the task at hand, which was strangling Al Qaeda and killing off the roots that support it. Luckily that task falls in large part on the Special Operations community, and those guys were able to use Iraq as an advanced training ground for what they do and then apply the lessons elsewhere, where they matter. But make no mistake: we took our eye off the ball and squandered huge amounts of our national treasure and blood for a misconceived adventure...just like bin Laden said he wanted to provoke us into doing.

[QUOTE=Alan23]It is obvious that you and the other left-wing contributors to this thread did not have a loved one killed or injured in any of the events listed below.[/QUOTE]Alan,

In the past you have maintained a certain level of courteous discourse with those who's point of view did not match your own. This BS comment from you was so ignorant that I am really surprised.

This comment just substantiates the right wing mentality that conservatives like yourself think liberals are traitors just because they have a different POV. That is BS. I am more liberal than not and I DID have a close family member SERIOUSLY injured in the Iraq war-he was in the Marines and was ambushed! Did you? If you didn't than you are a hypocrite and should just pass up commenting!

If liberals had that type of mentality they / we would think all conservatives are nothing but Nazi loving skinheads-who want to live in a dictatorship. We don't--at least I do not. I respect the opinion of the other side without slanderously MIS-labeling them.

Suerte.

Stowe

[QUOTE=Alan23]1993- Clinton - World Trade Center 1st bombing.

1994- Clinton - BsAs bombing #2

1996- Clinton - Khobar towers.

1998- Clinton - Nairobi US Embassy.

1998- Clinton - Dar es Salaam US Embassy.

2000- Clinton - USS Cole attacked.[/QUOTE]I don't know but do all of these add up to the 4155 US Servicemen confirmed dead in Iraq? (DOD figure)

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]I don't know but do all of these add up to the 4155 US Servicemen confirmed dead in Iraq? (DOD figure)[/QUOTE]Come on DR with that kind of thinking we would have surrendered to the Japanese on December the 8th 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

The loss of any life is unfortunate but how does 4155 compare with other wars, here's just an example;

[Quote]In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men.[/quote]The point is how many times do you let someone hit you in the nose before you hit them back?

[QUOTE=Punter 127]Come on DR with that kind of thinking we would have surrendered to the Japanese on December the 8th 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

The loss of any life is unfortunate but how does 4155 compare with other wars, here's just an example; The point is how many times do you let someone hit you in the nose before you hit them back?[/QUOTE]Hey Punter. I don't think you would find many of the left leaning mongers advocating a hands off approach with Al Qaeda. Certainly not me. My beef, and I think the beef of many, has been with the monumentally flawed strategy employed by the Bush administration. Lest we forget, there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion, and there was an historical enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Tracking down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is one thing (another effort botched by the way) but the decision to invade Iraq led to much head scratching by many in the USA, and as we know, by many countries who heretofore been our staunch allies. So, there began much discussion as to what the REAL agenda of the USA was-oil, establishing a permanent base, or just what exactly? And, a definitive answer has yet to come forth. Remember, the Bush administration's reasons have changed considerably since they initially floated the WMD rationale, and there is much compelling evidence that alot of the WMD "evidence" was contrived.

No sense here in going into the myriad negative and damaging repercussions of the ill fated decision to invade Iraq. It is a long and ugly list, from clearly flaunting the Geneva Convention, creating more, not less, turmoil in the Middle East (including a huge boost to Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts) damaging our economy dramatically, creating confusion and concern amongst our allies, and too many others for me to dredge up on this Sunday morning. Suffice to say, to my way of thinking, a comprehensive screwing of the pooch, perpetrated by people who have still not come clean as to what the actual misguided agenda might have been.