At what point DOES Bush get credit for making our country safer?

[Engineer]

Answer: Never

 

[Smaug]

Look at NOLA, tell me then we are safer. Our national guard and equipment is in Iraq. Budgets for first responders, important research, pretty much everything is getting slashed to support the Iraq war. NOLA proved we are not safer, and if anything we are in greater danger.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: conjur

I know the people in Bali, Madrid, and London feel so much safer now.

And London has all those cameras "protecting" them. They're good at finding out what happened after the fact, but i bet the terrorists find away around that before long.

The cameras in London (and much of the rest of Britain) are NOT designed to stop AQ. Many of them were originally put in place to prevent common street crime, due to a shortage of patrolling police. They have also played an important role in deterring IRA bombings for a while...the IRA bombers are not suicidal, and do care very much about getting caught.

The fact that the cameras have helped at all with AQ investigations is merely a side-effect.

FS

 

[Jhhnn]

You engage in false attribution when you presume that we are, in fact, "safer", when that may or may not be true at all. If anything, more people hate us and have reason to do us harm than ever before, thanks to the Bush Admin. Our troops certainly aren't safer, nor are our finances.

Iraq vs Afghanistan? Puh-leeze. Afghanistan was a geopolitical necessity, Iraq was optional extra credit aggression in search of justification. If anything, Iraq has diminished our ability to pacify and rebuild Afghanistan, not to mention what it's done to our image and effectiveness in dealing with the rest of the muslim world...

 

[Pabster]

Let the history books be the judge.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have never understood the "I am for Afghanistan but against Iraq" mentality. It is a war on terrorism, either you are going full out or not at all. Invading Afghanistan while letting a terrorist sit at the head table in Iraq.

That would probably be because Iraq was a non-religious, secular state that was not under the control of any fundamentalist Muslim religious leaders. Saddam WAS a meglomanical leader, but he was stricktly a local threat, and was a fantastic bulwark against Iran - he hated THOSE religious fanatics so much he fought a 10 year war with them and killed millions on both sides.

Saddam was all about tweaking the tail of the West, and he DID want as much local power as he could get (including the ability to threaten Israel), but he was more concerned with his palaces and shows of wealth and power than in waging jihad. After all, he needed someone to buy his oil and keep him wealthy. Whereas OBL was content to stash away his personal $100MM accounts for jihad funding and live in a cave for 15 years, sleeping on the ground with his AK next to him. One is a terrorist - the other is simply a horrendous government head.

Did Saddam mistreat his own people - rape, torture, gas, etc. minorities and Kurds? Absolutely. But frankly - THAT WAS NOT THE US's PROBLEM!!! And certainly not worth 2000 US servicemen & the lives of 20,000 Iraqi citizens. And gassing his OWN people doesn't make him a terrorist - because that's not terrorism, that's genocide. And if we want to start waging war on THAT, well then let's start with Africa...not Iraq pre-invasion. Robert Mugawbe anyone?

Future Shock

 

[BBond]

The ONLY way George W. Bush could make America safer would be to build a time machine, return to November, 2000, and concede.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Smaug
Look at NOLA, tell me then we are safer. Our national guard and equipment is in Iraq. Budgets for first responders, important research, pretty much everything is getting slashed to support the Iraq war. NOLA proved we are not safer, and if anything we are in greater danger.

BFT

 

[dannybin1742]

You conviently forgot AQ attacks against US interests through the 1990s. Two embassies, Kholbar Towers, USS Cole.

Those are operations against United States assets and property that cost US lives.

you fogot to mention that bush doesn't care about OBL anymore, therefore he doesn't care about our security anymore.............

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
Your argument is so full of holes I don't know where to begin.


You keep forgetting there *WAS* another terror attack after 9/11: Anthrax.

Also, Al Qaeda doesn't attack yearly. It was 8 1/2 years after the last attack on US soil when 9/11 happened. We're supposed to be some sort of Bush-approved timeline for terror attacks now?

And, btw, the Propagandist's comment was that America *and* the world are safer. Well, tell that to Madrid. Tell it to London. And didn't we just have another threat on L.A.? Boy, I'm so glad we invaded Iraq and left bin Laden to his own devices. We are SO safe now. Nothing could penetrate the massive defenses put up around this country since 9/11.



Oh wait....

Anthrax? LOL. How many people were injured or killed by that? None, the govt did a good job in that situation.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
He will get credit when there is a nuclear bomb ticking in a crowded football stadium in a major US city and George W. Bush rushes in at the last second with guns blazing shooting terruhists down from the stands and personally defuses the bomb with .01 seconds to spare before it blows.

(Then a terruhist we thought was dead will twitch and reach for his gun but GW will grab a nearby American flag and hurl it like a javelin impaling the guy through the chest and pinning him to a wall where he will hang dead like a limp ragdoll with a US flag sticking out of him. Then he will say something like, "I'm just doin my job" or something like that.)

LOL. That was great.

 

[dannybin1742]

So Bush is required on one hand to make worldwide terrorist attacks go down, but on the other cannot invade other countries. How exactly is he supposed to accomplish that impossible task? Ask the terrorists nicely to stop flying planes into our buildings? What if they dont stop? Then what? Ask again?

how about sink 200+B into inproving security here at home instead of a needless war, sink 100B into the intelligence community, train operatives that speak arabic..etc... there have been so many other things that money could have been spent on, but instead we improve the bottom line of the defense industry......

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
I keep seeing a repeated argument from the "Anti-Bush" crowd in this forum that Bush has made our country 'less safe' because of Iraq. By that I can only assume that you mean we are more likely to be attacked by terrorists, since we clearly HAVEN'T been attack by terrorists since 9/11 on our own soil. And that to me is the only issue that really matters. I won't even argue that their COULD be another terrorist attack, because clearly there always could be.. But I am wondering at what point does the left have to admit they were wrong? And the country is MORE SAFE under Bush's policies?

Would it be enough if Bush went his entire 2nd term without another attack? How about his entire term +2 years? Wouldn't that be about all that would be reasonable to expect before the influence of another President would come into play? What if by 2010 we have not had another terrorist attack in the United States? Would the left then give Bush credit for making our country safer? That would nearly 10 years without an attack.

Like I am said, I don't know if another attack WILL happen, but if it doesn't, will Bush ever get credit? The reason I ask is because it seems like the left is quick to blame Bush with making us less safe because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite having no real 'proof' that he has.. If after an extended period there have been no attacks would you be honest enough to give him credit?

Personally I think his term +2 years is about all that can honestly be expected before factors outside of his Presidency become too great. But what does the left expect? NEVER another attack? 20 years? 50? 100? I don't think there is a number with the left.. as soon as another one happens, even if its 2015.. You will all go "SEE! WE TOLD YOU!"..

How about when we get in to a war with China after wearing our resources thin for oil that we really didn't need?

I'll agree that Bush's policies worked if (which does not preclude a false outcome, as 'when' does!) those Muslims on the Jihad start considering the U.S. a friendly ally, or they are actually destroyed.

Aside: NIN is good troll-reading music.

 

[dannybin1742]

Iraqi campaigns have helped curb terrorism in general

do you have a tv? do you read the paper, or get new off the internet? seriously, pull you head out of the sand

 

[Azndude2190]

Bush is a puppet of coperate America...that said i'll give him credit for improving our homeland security...but what I don't understand is why we went to war with a country that never threatened us physically or verbally...and dont say WMD cuz the bottom line is there werent any

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
Your argument is so full of holes I don't know where to begin.


You keep forgetting there *WAS* another terror attack after 9/11: Anthrax.

Also, Al Qaeda doesn't attack yearly. It was 8 1/2 years after the last attack on US soil when 9/11 happened. We're supposed to be some sort of Bush-approved timeline for terror attacks now?

And, btw, the Propagandist's comment was that America *and* the world are safer. Well, tell that to Madrid. Tell it to London. And didn't we just have another threat on L.A.? Boy, I'm so glad we invaded Iraq and left bin Laden to his own devices. We are SO safe now. Nothing could penetrate the massive defenses put up around this country since 9/11.



Oh wait....

Anthrax? LOL. How many people were injured or killed by that? None, the govt did a good job in that situation.

WTF! where do you get that no one died.
null
There were at least 4 deaths attributed to the anthrax letters. Two post office workers, a man in Florida, and a woman in Conn. As of today, no one has been charged and we don't have no clue if it will happen again. There were a lot of people affected and it did cause some panic and closed the Congressional mailing room for a while. NO ONE HAS BEEN CAUGHT in this case. It has been forgotten.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
Your argument is so full of holes I don't know where to begin.


You keep forgetting there *WAS* another terror attack after 9/11: Anthrax.

Also, Al Qaeda doesn't attack yearly. It was 8 1/2 years after the last attack on US soil when 9/11 happened. We're supposed to be some sort of Bush-approved timeline for terror attacks now?

And, btw, the Propagandist's comment was that America *and* the world are safer. Well, tell that to Madrid. Tell it to London. And didn't we just have another threat on L.A.? Boy, I'm so glad we invaded Iraq and left bin Laden to his own devices. We are SO safe now. Nothing could penetrate the massive defenses put up around this country since 9/11.



Oh wait....

Anthrax? LOL. How many people were injured or killed by that? None, the govt did a good job in that situation.

Five deaths not none as you so blithely put it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
Then you need to include any Al Qaeda attack on Americans in Iraq, too. Been quite a few of those.


Yeah...we're soooo safe.


I know the people in Bali, Madrid, and London feel so much safer now.

Since when does the president take an oath to defend Bali, Madrid, and London?

I'm just taking him at his word, "American and the world are safer".

Are you saying I shouldn't take him at his word?

I think you're right, for once.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: BBond
The ONLY way George W. Bush could make America safer would be to build a time machine, return to November, 2000, and concede.

hahaha, that ruled. I will devote my life to building a time machine if you can get him to agree to the rest.

 

[irwincur]

Would it be enough if Bush went his entire 2nd term without another attack? How about his entire term +2 years?

Odds are this will not happen. I would expect an attack with every changing of the guard - a way to 'feel out' the new administration.

Happened when Clinton came in and his weak response led to numerous attacks and probes over the eight years of his administration. Furthermore, it setup the atmosphere for the eventual attack on 911.

Likewise the Chinese did the same with Bush by taking our spy plane weeks into his administration. Terror wise, 911 was technically not a test on Bush but rather a sign of the failed terror strategy that Clinton had.

Our enemies always see the changing of the guard as an ideal time to attack. Either the new person will not be prepared and maximum damage can be created or the new administration will utterly fail at its task of retribution and alleys will open for further attacks.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: conjur
Your argument is so full of holes I don't know where to begin.


You keep forgetting there *WAS* another terror attack after 9/11: Anthrax.

Also, Al Qaeda doesn't attack yearly. It was 8 1/2 years after the last attack on US soil when 9/11 happened. We're supposed to be some sort of Bush-approved timeline for terror attacks now?

And, btw, the Propagandist's comment was that America *and* the world are safer. Well, tell that to Madrid. Tell it to London. And didn't we just have another threat on L.A.? Boy, I'm so glad we invaded Iraq and left bin Laden to his own devices. We are SO safe now. Nothing could penetrate the massive defenses put up around this country since 9/11.



Oh wait....

Madrid was attacked to forcde the coward out in them. London was attacked because Madrid worked. London didn't work.

Your stuff is getting weak, weak!

 

[conjur]

Oh good grief.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh good grief.

And bad logic.

 

[rikadik]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
I keep seeing a repeated argument from the "Anti-Bush" crowd in this forum that Bush has made our country 'less safe' because of Iraq. By that I can only assume that you mean we are more likely to be attacked by terrorists, since we clearly HAVEN'T been attack by terrorists since 9/11 on our own soil. And that to me is the only issue that really matters.

Well I suppose the fact the there have been no (well, few) attacks on US soil is all that matters. The fact that 1,649 American troops have been killed in Iraq (as of July 12th '05) is no big deal?

In fact that those are only the official figures, it is believed by some that the real figure is more like 4,000 (link to article

I think your suggestion that maybe we should give Bush some credit for scuppering the best chance of catching Osama Bin Laden and causing the death of 1,649 US uniformed troops, 88 soldiers from Great Britain, 92 from other coalition member countries, 238 civilians reported by private contractors, and at least 2,000 members of the Iraqi Army is well, insane.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: rikadik

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
I keep seeing a repeated argument from the "Anti-Bush" crowd in this forum that Bush has made our country 'less safe' because of Iraq. By that I can only assume that you mean we are more likely to be attacked by terrorists, since we clearly HAVEN'T been attack by terrorists since 9/11 on our own soil. And that to me is the only issue that really matters.

Well I suppose the fact the there have been no (well, few) attacks on US soil is all that matters. The fact that 1,649 American troops have been killed in Iraq (as of July 12th '05) is no big deal?

In fact that those are only the official figures, it is believed by some that the real figure is more like 4,000 (link to article

I think your suggestion that maybe we should give Bush some credit for scuppering the best chance of catching Osama Bin Laden and causing the death of 1,649 US uniformed troops, 88 soldiers from Great Britain, 92 from other coalition member countries, 238 civilians reported by private contractors, and at least 2,000 members of the Iraqi Army is well, insane.

So by your rationale, FDR and Truman made America more unsafe by entering in the WWII? We were attacked at Pearl Harbor, ~3,000 troops killed. Enter WWII, 405,400 American soldiers killed...

we should have stayed out of WWII then, right?