Do you think G.W. Bush will get credit

[DosEquis]

Both sides of the argument are based on speculation. We can't be for certain the actions that the administration has taken has made us any safer just like we can't be certain that the actions they have taken have not made us any safer.

I do know that fundamentally Al Qaeda is stronger than they were pre-9/11. There is a good possibility that Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose despite the "dead or alive I guarentee we'll find him" from the president...a promise he was later referring to said he didn't care where OBL was.

Is is coincidental that there has not been an attack, or has the policy been affective? I am not sure. But i do know there has been more sacrifice in the way of liberties and otherwise that do not justify the presidents action. I do know that invading Iraq was one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in the history of our country due to its lack of planning and exit strategies.

Overall i would grade this president a D+ in "keeping us safe" from terrorism. He is used to D+'s anyway from Yale.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

he failed to see what a danger OBL was, so no.

Did he recieve a memo "Bin Laden determined to attack US" like this president did?

[6SpeedTA95]

He wont but he should unless we're attacked within 12 or so months of him leaving office, in which case you can almost bet it was festering on his watch

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by lew

I'm sure he will be credited for that. Much like Lincoln was credited with "saving the Union", Wilson was credited with winning WWI and making the world safe for democracy, FDR was credited with winning WWII and opposing Nazism and saving us from the Great Depression, Reagan is credited with winning against Russian Communism, etc, etc.


History is written by winners.

fixed.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I do know that fundamentally Al Qaeda is stronger than they were pre-9/11.

how do you know this?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Did he recieve a memo "Bin Laden determined to attack US" like this president did?

he knew that he already had but preferred to treat the problem as a law enforcement issue.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

he knew that he already had but preferred to treat the problem as a law enforcement issue.

Which is how you stop terrorists.


Throwing the military at them isn't working.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Which is how you stop terrorists.


Throwing the military at them isn't working.

it obviously didn't work, and since the military went after Al Qeada:
1. They have not attacked the homeland or even an embassy
2. They are much weaker

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Which is how you stop terrorists.


Throwing the military at them isn't working.

Terrorists are 'romantics'. They want to be able to see themselves in a certain light; a freedom fighter, martyred for their cause on the field of battle. To treat them any different from any other common criminal just reinforces that, it gives them a sense of legitimacy.

I've been saying this for years now, but everyone is just like hurr hurr fuck that, let's kill us some terrists, we don't need to understand them to kill them, terrist sympathizer

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it obviously didn't work, and since the military went after Al Qeada:
1. They have not attacked the homeland or even an embassy
2. They are much weaker

Some times attacks happen. They are sneaky bastards. Robbing a convenient store is a law enforcement problem but people still do it so i guess law enforcement isn't working for that either.

They are not weaker. Their enrollments and members are higher than pre-9/11 and they have expanded the land they occupy to include Iraq. In the forgotten afghanistan conflict we have heard very little news in regards to progress other than poppy crops are doing really well. It can be argued that no news is bad news.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

He wont but he should unless we're attacked within 12 or so months of him leaving office, in which case you can almost bet it was festering on his watch

It was 2+ years after Clinton was gone and people still pin it on clinton (at least in this thread), so could it be fair to give the next administration the equal amount of time?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Terrorists are 'romantics'. They want to be able to see themselves in a certain light; a freedom fighter, martyred for their cause on the field of battle. To treat them any different from any other common criminal just reinforces that, it gives them a sense of legitimacy.

I've been saying this for years now, but everyone is just like hurr hurr fuck that, let's kill us some terrists, we don't need to understand them to kill them, terrist sympathizer

So much truth in one post.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

1. They have not attacked the homeland or even an embassy

Wrong.

DC sniper and Greek Embassy.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Wrong.

DC sniper and Greek Embassy.

Al Qaeda was behind the beltway shootings?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Al Qaeda was behind the beltway shootings?

Didn't realize Al Qaeda were the only muslim terrorists out there.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Didn't realize Al Qaeda were the only muslim terrorists out there.

then you must be misinformed.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

This is assuming President Bush leaves office in 6 months without an attack.

Do you think that he will be credited with keeping this country safe after 9/11? I believe that he will, while he has made a plethora of mistakes he has kept this country safe from terrorist attacks.

No.
besides which i find your logic odd

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

2001-2008 has been safer for the American's homeland than it 1992-2001

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

you might disagree with his methods but they have worked so far

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

which goes to show how large the threat is and how we have done things right so far

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

there hasn't been an attack on American soil since 9/11, even our adversaries have declared the fight to be outside of our borders.

So, you're saying that by taking the fight to them this has resulted in less/no attacks in the 'homeland', ..., which is basically fair enough & may very well be true

But what is also the case is that instead of terrorist attacks in the US theres been loads & loads & loads of such attacks in Iraq & A'stan, that have killed US troops that in some sense 'dont count' & even more Iraqis who seemingly 'definately dont count'

The perception that Iraqi lives count for less than American ones is not one I share & the perception that this is how 'America' thinks almost certainly helps fuel terrorism anyway

Originally Posted by Scrum

Oh and a question for people who buy into this nonsense....


if Obama were to take office and we are attacked 9 months later, will you place the blame on Bush or Obama?

Neither, the terrorists
& it'll be two weeks if not two days after Obama/McCain start their term

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

It was 2+ years after Clinton was gone and people still pin it on clinton (at least in this thread), so could it be fair to give the next administration the equal amount of time?

Umm dude it was 8 mos after clinton was gone. Bush was sworn in Jan of 01.

[David Octavius]

Yea keep the homeland safe, fuck the rest of the world right? Spain, London, Indonesia - terrorist activities and bombings that increased since his declared war on terror. Yea none of that will come to our shores right?

2001-2008 has been safer for the American's homeland than it 1992-2001

Your too smart to make silly statements like this. It almost sounds like he is justified in his hubris so long as we don't get attacked during his administration, after that fuck us , he has no responsibility to think beyond his time in office.

Sorry but I don't believe that a President's job is to make sure the boat doesn't sink on his watch and to use any means necessary. I believe a President must be forward looking and understand what the actions of today mean 5-10-20 years from now. If we get attacked within the next 20 years as a result of going to Iraq then as far as I am concerned, he shares in the blame along with that future administration that did no do enough to prevent it.